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

[cards2468]

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 . . .

actually it was because Colorado wouldn't include a no trade clause

that's how much he desires to stay put for a while

[Michael]

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 . . .

Exactly. I'm not knocking him for it, but having Boras as his agent communicates his priorities.

[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 . . .

actually it was because Colorado wouldn't include a no trade clause

that's how much he desires to stay put for a while

That was a great spin on it, anyhow . . . what else could he say? "My agent is Scott Boras for a reason, I think I can get even more than the huge, long term offer you just gave me" just does not sound as media-friendly. And if he is so bent on staying in one place, why the opt-out at all???

[Socnorb11]

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 . . .

actually it was because Colorado wouldn't include a no trade clause

that's how much he desires to stay put for a while

That was a great spin on it, anyhow . . . what else could he say? "My agent is Scott Boras for a reason, I think I can get even more than the huge, long term offer you just gave me" just does not sound as media-friendly. And if he is so bent on staying in one place, why the opt-out at all???

Just for the record, we don't *know* if there is an opt-out on the table.

[cards2468]

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 . . .

actually it was because Colorado wouldn't include a no trade clause

that's how much he desires to stay put for a while

That was a great spin on it, anyhow . . . what else could he say? "My agent is Scott Boras for a reason, I think I can get even more than the huge, long term offer you just gave me" just does not sound as media-friendly. And if he is so bent on staying in one place, why the opt-out at all???

because it's Boras wanting to pull another A-Rod where he can opt-out and get more money from the same team

if that's what he wants, give it to him, and like I said, tell him if he opts-out he's gone, no questions asked... then we'll see how much Holliday cares about staying put

[Faceman]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

It depends on his production and where the market is. It's possible at that point it doesn't matter. Obviously the later the option, the less it impacts the contract value from the Cardinals perspective.

[Richie Allen]

because it's Boras wanting to pull another A-Rod where he can opt-out and get more money from the same team

if that's what he wants, give it to him, and like I said, tell him if he opts-out he's gone, no questions asked... then we'll see how much Holliday cares about staying put

I'm curious how many here would be interested in signing Holliday to a new contract in 5 years? I would think we'd want to pay significantly less than $17 million in today's salaries. I think that's why I'm not too discouraged about a potential opt out. If you're comfortable with 7/119, 7/119 with an opt out after 5 (85 mil) years shouldn't be a deal-breaker, IMO.

[Faceman]

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 . . .

actually it was because Colorado wouldn't include a no trade clause

that's how much he desires to stay put for a while

That was a great spin on it, anyhow . . . what else could he say? "My agent is Scott Boras for a reason, I think I can get even more than the huge, long term offer you just gave me" just does not sound as media-friendly. And if he is so bent on staying in one place, why the opt-out at all???

because it's Boras wanting to pull another A-Rod where he can opt-out and get more money from the same team

if that's what he wants, give it to him, and like I said, tell him if he opts-out he's gone, no questions asked... then we'll see how much Holliday cares about staying put

This is the point. Why do we assume that Holliday wants something different than Boras? If he doesn't want a A-rod situation, why did he hire Boras?

Holliday HIRED Boras for a reason. Not to stay with the same team forever. He could negotiate that himself.

[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.