Update: HOLLIDAY A CARD 7yr/120 million, p178

[Richie Allen]

I meant the remaining years. Sure he could eventually play below expectations. What we're talking about his value if he opts out, which is presumably better than the remaining years on his contract with the Cards.

The risk isn't the value if he opts out. The risk is his value if he *doesn't*.

Well we seem to want to paint it black and white (what if he hits...what if he doesn't...what if the market explodes...etc). There's the chance he'll kind of hit...may have two or three great years...may have a bad year or two...the market may move up...and then back down again...we may have a couple OFers we like better by 2015...he may get hurt. There are just too many variables to have any idea of what's black and what white and all the gray area in between. Holliday may not be a good deal at $17 million in 2017 but he may far surpass that in 2012, 2013, 2014...

[Eephus Speed]

It seems a little ridiculous that a player could get a no-trade clause and an opt-out clause, but as long as we have Holliday for the next 3-4 years, I think I'll be fine with the contract.

I wonder if the Plan B that TLR referenced involves a trade.

[skmsw]

The Cardinals still had Holliday for 4 years, at a good price . . .

Assuming the option is not until after year four. It was after year two for the Dodgers and JD Drew . . .

So, for me, it only lowers the rate of return possible for the deal, rather than increasing the risk.

A fair point. But in addition to lowering (maybe even eliminating) the postential upside for the cards -- it also fundamentally changes the shared assumption of risk. The Cards retain the risk of paying an injured or unproductive player; the player no longer retains the risk of leaving money or more attractive destimations on the table.

For me, all of this is contingent on when the option is. If it comes after year four or later, I'm not sure I really care. Earlier than that might be a non-starter for me.

[cards2468]

I understand we'll to have to pay for Holiday. My only point is an opt-out is a significant concession that reduces the potential upside of the contract.

With Boras as his agent you better believe he'll exercise that option if he's playing well.

Again, you don't see the benefit to the Cardinals if he opts out, and his production declines after 4 years? It *could* play out quite favorably for the Cardinals.

that could happen... and actually I do expect him to be on a big decline during those years following the 4th year of the deal, but the potential bargain would be if the market plays out to where he's being paid far less than what the market would dictate and he's still a productive player

eitherway, the only reason Boras wants the opt-out clause is so that if the market inflates he can have Holliday opt-out so that he can get him more money... I don't see Holliday wanting to walk away from a long term deal midway through simply because how much he desires to stay in 1 place. Tell him if he opts out he's gone. Period. No negotiating a new contract; we'll take our $16-18 mil per year and invest in some younger players.

[Richie Allen]

I understand we'll to have to pay for Holiday. My only point is an opt-out is a significant concession that reduces the potential upside of the contract.

With Boras as his agent you better believe he'll exercise that option if he's playing well.

I see what you're saying and if Holliday was 25 I think I'd even more get what you're saying. But his age and the years seem to match up pretty well with a contract that pays him $17 million a year for the next five years (with opt out) and, potentially stuck with him at age 36 and 37 for $17 million per...or someone else taking their chances with a 36 year old for $20-$25 per (who knows?).

And I'm probably like a few others here. The contract upside in 2016 or 2017 takes a back seat to wanting to see Holliday in St. Louis this year! And the next 4 or 5, at least.

[Michael]

I understand we'll to have to pay for Holiday. My only point is an opt-out is a significant concession that reduces the potential upside of the contract.

With Boras as his agent you better believe he'll exercise that option if he's playing well.

Again, you don't see the benefit to the Cardinals if he opts out, and his production declines after 4 years? It *could* play out quite favorably for the Cardinals.

You can say that about any contract. Let's take an extreme example - if we could sign Beltre to a two year 2m contract with an opt-out after the first year and it *could* be favorable for the Cards if he opt-outs. That said, if he signed today, wouldn't you rather *not* have the opt-out?

I wonder if the Plan B that TLR referenced involves a trade.

Beltre?

[st.lewis11]

That risk is a given though, if you want to sign a player of Holliday's caliber. The same risk applies if you extend Albert Pujols. But you can't really reap the rewards if you're not willing to take a risk.

That's fine. No one's saying it's not a good risk (well, maybe someone did, but I didn't notice). We're saying that it's silly to imply that a player opt-out is a good thing for the team.

Well, it *could* be a good thing for the team. If he plays well for 4 years, opts out, and then stinks up the joint for the next 3 years, then you could conclude that it worked out well for the team.

This....even if Holliday gives us a highly-productive 4 years, I actually hope he does opt out afterward. Rather than paying 17 million to a mid to late 30 years guy, I'm sure it'd be better, at that point, to use it as investment for younger players.

[Michael]

I understand we'll to have to pay for Holiday. My only point is an opt-out is a significant concession that reduces the potential upside of the contract.

With Boras as his agent you better believe he'll exercise that option if he's playing well.

I see what you're saying and if Holliday was 25 I think I'd even more get what you're saying. But his age and the years seem to match up pretty well with a contract that pays him $17 million a year for the next five years (with opt out) and, potentially stuck with him at age 36 and 37 for $17 million per...or someone else taking their chances with a 36 year old for $20-$25 per (who knows?).

And I'm probably like a few others here. The contract upside in 2016 or 2017 takes a back seat to wanting to see Holliday in St. Louis this year! And the next 4 or 5, at least.

Fair enough... like Steve said, if the opt-out is in the 5 year, I'd hate it less. My point is it's a significant concession that impacts the value of the overall contract.

[cards2468]

plan B would have to involve something other than Beltre; he alone can't replace Holliday's production, could he?

Anybody want to work out what Craig in LF with Beltre at 3B would compare to Holliday in left with Freese at 3B? Taking defense into consideration I suppose it might not be too terribly off.

I could see Jaime Garcia as being a pretty big trade chip. Management doesn't want to use him as a starter next year anyway.

I'd think Smoltz would also be involved in plan B, but I think he could fit into plan A as well. I'm going to guess plan B is Craig in left, Beltre at 3b, Smoltz as the 5 starter, and then perhaps trading for a solid closer?

[greenback44]

I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but if the contract is backloaded, as the Cardinals typically prefer, then the value of the option is diminished.