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

[cpebbles]

this has been my thinking from day one...An opt-out clause for Holliday favors the Cards much more than Holliday himself... A 4 year deal at 17 mil is a great deal especially during the good years of his career...and doesn't tie the $$ in 8 years when we have to make a move on someone younger & enterprising.

Well, a player-controlled opt-out is never going to be an actual positive for the club unless the player and his agent overvalue it and allow bigger concessions elsewhere in the contract than the clause deserves (Eg, backloading it so much that the present-day value of the contract goes down markedly and the opt-out becomes a non-factor), which won't happen with Boras as his agent. It won't be much of a factor if everyone involved does their due diligence in constructing the rest of the contract, unless Holliday takes his play up another level or the free agent market rebounds in ways that can't be foretold.

[Michael]

Rumor on another site is Holliday has agreed to a 7 year $119 M offer with an opt out clause.

If (I know big if) that is true what do you think?

I don't like player opt out clauses, but it is better than having him opt out right now by not signing with the Cardinals.

I really, really dislike opt out clauses. Basically the contract is 7/119 if he disappoints. There's too much downside with an opt-out.

[a_smith]

nice point cpebbles

[lukethedrifter]

Rumor on another site is Holliday has agreed to a 7 year $119 M offer with an opt out clause.

If (I know big if) that is true what do you think?

I don't like player opt out clauses, but it is better than having him opt out right now by not signing with the Cardinals.

I really, really dislike opt out clauses. Basically the contract is 7/119 if he disappoints. There's too much downside with an opt-out.

Right. If he's bad or broken we get him for seven years at an elite player price. If he's what we hope for we don't get the benefit of holding on to him and really making the contract a good deal.

[jagtrader]

If contracts are guaranteed, opt-outs should be banned. If you want an opt-out, the contract should be allowed to be terminated by the team. Players get way too much in terms of security as it is. This only makes it worse.

[Oquendo11]

Well, a player-controlled opt-out is never going to be an actual positive for the club unless the player and his agent overvalue it and allow bigger concessions elsewhere in the contract than the clause deserves

I would prefer a player opt out to a guaranteed 8th year.

[Michael]

From BP's "MLB Rumors and Rumblings":

The sticking point with the Cardinals re-signing outfielder Matt Holliday is guaranteed money, as agent Scott Boras is trying to make sure the contract winds up reaching or surpassing the $100 million mark

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/artic ... cleid=9901

[cpebbles]

Wow, Prospectus continues to pretend that FRAA is valid? It's like they're in a race to obsolescence with the old media they were once formed to fight against.

[jim]

If contracts are guaranteed, opt-outs should be banned. If you want an opt-out, the contract should be allowed to be terminated by the team. Players get way too much in terms of security as it is. This only makes it worse.

There are team options. Although I've noticed when a player does well to the point where exercising that team option would seem to underpay the guy, they renegotiate. I think that is kind of weird .. take Longoria for example who signed a contract that sets him up for life but, if he plays like I think he will, will actually be underpaid. No way should a team feel obligated to reneg the contract imo, because he signed up for 100% guarantee of being set for life, the tradeoff being a little bigger pay day down the road.

[Michael]

There are team options. Although I've noticed when a player does well to the point where exercising that team option would seem to underpay the guy, they renegotiate. I think that is kind of weird .. take Longoria for example who signed a contract that sets him up for life but, if he plays like I think he will, will actually be underpaid. No way should a team feel obligated to reneg the contract imo, because he signed up for 100% guarantee of being set for life, the tradeoff being a little bigger pay day down the road.

Teams renegotiate because they can lock in players to long term contract for less than the player would receive in the FA market. The player on the other hand, gets the security of a long-term deal on case of bad performance/injury in the option year.