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

[Richie Allen]

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.

Just to make sure I understand where you're coming from, would you rather have 7/119 or 5/85 with an opt out for the final two years.

[Socnorb11]

No trades, please.

The Cardinals depth is pretty much non-existent as it is. I'd rather not deplete the ranks any further.

[Faceman]

4/17 wouldn't be a favorable contract, if he's playing well? It may not be long-term, but I definitely think it's "favorable".

He may opt out after 4 years of superior play, and then stink it up for the next 3 years. You never know.

I think the point is that if he played really well and decided to opt out, it would undoubtedly be mutually beneficial.

If he plays poorly, though, the team is stuck with the contract.

The point is, Holliday wins no matter what. The Cardinals do not. It clearly favors the player.

How is that different from 7 years at $17 mil per year? If he plays poorly, the Cardinals lose. I don't see how throwing in the opt-out makes it any riskier for the Cardinals.

The point is that there is no risk for Holliday with an opt out clause.

There is risk (underperformance) for the Cardinals.

Generally, you get the high dollars for shorter years, or you lock in a long term guaranteed deal for the security. You don't usually get it both ways. The opt out gives Holliday his cake (the 7 year guaranteed security) and lets him eat too (opt out for the higher payday later).

[TheoSqua]

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.

Just to make sure I understand where you're coming from, would you rather have 7/119 or 5/85 with an opt out for the final two years.

5/85. It's much more likely that Holliday is no longer worth 2/34 at the end of that deal than it is that he's worth more than 2/34. With a 5/85 deal, the Cardinals can resign him to a deal that better reflects his current value. With a 7/119 deal with an opt out clause, in the rare case that he is better than market value, the Cardinals lose him. In the likely case that he's no longer worth that much money, the Cardinals are stuck with him anyway.

[Michael]

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.

Just to make sure I understand where you're coming from, would you rather have 7/119 or 5/85 with an opt out for the final two years.

Would the 5/85 have two more years, for a total of 7? If so, I'd rather have the 7/119.

[Eephus Speed]

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

Beltre?

He's the best remaining non-Holliday FA, but I doubt it. My hunch is a trade. Or maybe I'm just hoping it'd be a trade, as opposed to signing Tejada and Dye.

[Michael]

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

Beltre?

He's the best remaining non-Holliday FA, but I doubt it. My hunch is a trade. Or maybe I'm just hoping it'd be a trade, as opposed to signing Tejada and Dye.

Depending on the price Beltre fits our needs pretty well. Combine him with Damon, and that's a decent offseason.

[skmsw]

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.

This sounds nice, but I think it is wishful thinking on our part. If he thinks he can get more, I really think he will. Was there any reason for him to have turned down all that money from Colorado? Only one: because he thought he could get more . . .

[Socnorb11]

4/17 wouldn't be a favorable contract, if he's playing well? It may not be long-term, but I definitely think it's "favorable".

He may opt out after 4 years of superior play, and then stink it up for the next 3 years. You never know.

I think the point is that if he played really well and decided to opt out, it would undoubtedly be mutually beneficial.

If he plays poorly, though, the team is stuck with the contract.

The point is, Holliday wins no matter what. The Cardinals do not. It clearly favors the player.

How is that different from 7 years at $17 mil per year? If he plays poorly, the Cardinals lose. I don't see how throwing in the opt-out makes it any riskier for the Cardinals.

The point is that there is no risk for Holliday with an opt out clause.

There is risk (underperformance) for the Cardinals.

Generally, you get the high dollars for shorter years, or you lock in a long term guaranteed deal for the security. You don't usually get it both ways. The opt out gives Holliday his cake (the 7 year guaranteed security) and lets him eat too (opt out for the higher payday later).

More power to him. I still don't think the Cardinals absorb any more risk. So if Holliday aborbs less, I've got no problem with that. As others have said, the chances that he'll be worth that kind of money 6 or 7 years from now aren't that good. If he opts out, all the better, as far as I'm concerned. As long as we nail him down for the next 4 or 5 years, I'd be happy.

[Richie Allen]

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.

Just to make sure I understand where you're coming from, would you rather have 7/119 or 5/85 with an opt out for the final two years.

Would the 5/85 have two more years, for a total of 7? If so, I'd rather have the 7/119.

Yes, 5/85 with the same 7/119 but an opt out option after year 5. Is the primary "upside" you're hoping for is that Holliday for $17 million in years 6 and 7 will be a bargain vs. his market value? I'm just thinking his potential drop in production by the time he's 36 and 37 may counter any increase in the market by then.