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

[skmsw]

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

Or, it's Boras wanting to pull another JD Drew where he can opt out and get a more appealing deal someplace else.

Drew is a dedicated husband and father, devoted to his faith, active in his parrish and community -- and traveled the length of the hypotenuse when his opt-out meant he could reassess his worth, and the appeal of the team he played for and city he lived in.

Again, I take no position on an opt-out once he is 35 and we've gotten four years of him. But giving it and assuming it would not be used (after all, he'll love it here, and we'll compete! and the market can't change that much in just a few years, can it?) is a mistake made by the Rangers, paid for by the Yankees, and repeated by the Dodgers.

[Michael]

Not to mention the Cards tried to negotiate with Holiday before he was a FA, but they were rebuffed. Why?

Holliday wants to get paid.

[Socnorb11]

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.

Precisely where I'm at. I actually like the idea of an opt-out, from the Cardinals' perspective.

[phins]

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.

Yeah, my assumption was based on the reporting of after four years. If it's after two years, that's silly.

The shared risk isn't a consideration for the company (team) though. There is no debating it's a better deal on the side of the player to have the opt out clause, but that's not my point. It doesn't seem to increase the risk for the club, but rather reduces the potential return they receive from the investment. Instead of having a potentially underpaid (for the market) player, in the later years, they had to pay market value (for a few years) to the player, and then they can opt out to return to the market value deal (for them), or they stay at the deal they have, due to whatever variable they choose (the risk remains the same).

At least that's how it works in my small, little mind.

[st.lewis11]

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.

Precisely where I'm at. I actually like the idea of an opt-out, from the Cardinals' perspective.

Same here.

[Faceman]

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.

[Socnorb11]

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.

Well, that's an entirely different story. And in the current market, I'd tell Boras to tell Matt "thanks for you service last year, we'll enjoy the compensation picks".

[Richie Allen]

The bottom line for me (and maybe the last thing I say about it) is do I want Matt Holliday on the Cardinals for at least the next 5 years? The answer is, undoubtedly, yes. I don't really care if he doesn't have any risk or if we're giving [expletive] away in the negotiations. I want to sign Matt Holliday. We're a formidable team with him in the lineup and a pile of [expletive] without him. He's holding the cards. We need him a hell of a lot more than he needs us. Don't dick around and blow this because of stubbornness or refusing to give in somewhere. Show him how much we want him, pay him what he's worth and let's get on with it.

[cards2468]

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.

[TimeForGuinness]

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"