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

[Michael]

Matt Holliday, while still wanting money, has said numerous times how much he wants a long term contract with a no trade clause so that he can actually give his family a "normal" life. It has nothing to do with faith or religion or what ever. He wants to stay somewhere for a long period of time. He doesn't care where it is, and that's where Boras comes in. If he can get him top dollar in New York or St. Louis or where ever, he wants him to pursue that with it in the back of his head that the deal must be long term and with a NTC to keep him there.

What player doesn't say this when they're a FA?

That cards have the best offer on the table. Everyone knows it.

[cards2468]

Matt Holliday, while still wanting money, has said numerous times how much he wants a long term contract with a no trade clause so that he can actually give his family a "normal" life. It has nothing to do with faith or religion or what ever. He wants to stay somewhere for a long period of time. He doesn't care where it is, and that's where Boras comes in. If he can get him top dollar in New York or St. Louis or where ever, he wants him to pursue that with it in the back of his head that the deal must be long term and with a NTC to keep him there.

What player doesn't say this when they're a FA?

plenty?

[Leroy]

How normal can your life be when your dad makes millions?

[Michael]

That's common player-speak. I put zero stock in that.

[Socnorb11]

This is it. The Cards don't absorb any more risk. But in negotiations, there is give and take. If the deal with no options or opt outs is 17 per year for 7 years (7/119) then an opt out clause on his end should trigger some type of benefit to the Cards. It's valuable to Holliday, so it should not be given away in negotiation.

I do agree with you, that it could work out well for the Cards. They may not need him for 7 years. The problem is that if he's not worth it, he's staying. If he's worth it, he's leaving. If he's worth it, he should still be an asset to use or trade, unless the Cards get a break on the deal.

I agree that there is give and take in these negotiations, but if that's what he wants to close the deal, then I'd close it, and be happy as all get-out that we may not be on the hook for him 6 or 7 years from now.

Even if he does appear to be worth that kind of money after year 5, there's no guarantee that his production won't drop in years 6 and 7. In fact, I think there's a better chance than not that his production WILL drop in years 6 and 7, so I think it would be to the benefit of the Cardinals if they weren't on the hook for him during those years.

If I am Boras, I am giving Mo this exact line.

"I tell you what, we all agree that 17 per year for 7 is the right deal. We'll do you a favor. Give us 20 per year for the first 5 years, with 9.5 in years 6 and 7. Then give us the opt out clause. If Matt is underperforming, he's cheap in years 6 and 7. If he's performing well but the Cards are going young, not competitive, or anything like that, then you can watch him walk."

From what I read of your view, you would find a shorter deal beneficial to the Cards. So then Boras should be asking for a premium (frontloading) for that.

And this would screw the Cards as the majority of the money paid would go in years 1-5.

If I am Mo, I am giving Boras a middle finger gesture while telling him:

"Sit and spin...good luck in Baltimore"

And for good measure, "Don't let the door hit you in the nutsack on your way out".

[Eephus Speed]

Nit-picking, but since Holliday's birthday is in January, he'd still be 36 at the end of year 7.

The problem is that if he's not worth it, he's staying. If he's worth it, he's leaving. If he's worth it, he should still be an asset to use or trade, unless the Cards get a break on the deal.

Of course, if he has a no-trade clause, trading him could be virtually impossible. Especially if he's declined.

For me, it really boils down to when the opt-out clause goes into effect. 1 or 2 years, no way. 3 years, I can live with that. 4 years, fine with me.

[TimeForGuinness]

Nit-picking, but since Holliday's birthday is in January, he'd still be 36 at the end of year 7.

The problem is that if he's not worth it, he's staying. If he's worth it, he's leaving. If he's worth it, he should still be an asset to use or trade, unless the Cards get a break on the deal.

Of course, if he has a no-trade clause, trading him could be virtually impossible. Especially if he's declined.

For me, it really boils down to when the opt-out clause goes into effect. 1 or 2 years, no way. 3 years, I can live with that. 4 years, fine with me.

Giving him a NTC and an opt-out clause seems to be very risky. Why not just give him the keys and tell him to show up when he feels like playing?

[skmsw]

Holliday hired Boras so that he can get top dollar and so that he can have his demands met.

There's a difference between JD Drew and Matt Holliday. Drew is in it for the money. Has been since college. It's clear he handed Boras the reigns and said "let's make some money".

Matt Holliday, while still wanting money, has said numerous times how much he wants a long term contract with a no trade clause so that he can actually give his family a "normal" life. It has nothing to do with faith or religion or what ever. He wants to stay somewhere for a long period of time. He doesn't care where it is, and that's where Boras comes in. If he can get him top dollar in New York or St. Louis or where ever, he wants him to pursue that with it in the back of his head that the deal must be long term and with a NTC to keep him there.

I'm calling BS. You may want to believe there is a difference, but unless you know both guys personally (I only know one), there is no basis whatsoever for the above set of assumptions.

[Faceman]

That's common player-speak. I put zero stock in that.

You didn't buy the fact that Hampton chose Colorado for the schools?

[Eephus Speed]

We're a formidable team with him in the lineup and a pile of [expletive] without him.

I wouldn't go that far. Last year, we got league average offensive production from LF and horrific offensive production from 3B. With below average defense from both positions. Improving at those positions doesn't necessarily require that we sign Holliday or make another major investment. Of course, there's no guarantee that we won't have more health issues this year than we had last year. And I certainly do want us to sign Holliday to a reasonable contract.