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

[Oquendo11]

given the lack of any other reports since then we can pretty much dismiss it as yet another in an ever lengthening line of bogus rumors.

It may very well be bogus. I don't know anything about the poster that posted it. But given the lack of any news, I thought it may be worth discussing if that would be a good contract and I wanted to discuss the possibility of the opt out.

[clevername]

yeah, not faulting you.

I just get frustrated with all the false starts.

[Swatcat27]

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.

++.
But my premise is
1. In 2-3 years, free agency will be back to its old order, in that crazy money will be thrown around with a recovering economy.
2. MH will have a few decent years in STL and be a desirable bat
3. There will be a small degree of disappointment in the Boras camp at not having gotten close to the 160 mil mark.
4. Something off the handle...(lets say, like the Yanks losing their high paid OFers (injury, under-performance etc)).

I know, a lot of things to happen but this is not out of realm of possibility. I agree though, that the contracts are heavily favored to the players. I'm happy to have Holliday for 4 years than none at all.

[RickStain]

Sure, if you know for a fact all those assumptions are true, then you are fine. But they might not be.

Player-options shift all of the risk to the team while giving the player all of the upside. Not saying we shouldn't do it if need be, but let's not pretend it's good for the team.

[Richie Allen]

I would think his opting out of the contract would probably only come into play if we're not a competitive team over the next number of years. And if we're not a competitive team, we probably don't want $17 million tied up in an aging OFer that has, most likely, contributed to our not being competitive. I wouldn't let this get in the way of signing him. We want him on the team, in particular, we want him during these upcoming prime years. If it takes signing him to multiple years to get him, with the chance that he leaves when he's 35 or 36, how is it much different than giving him a shorter contract, which a lot of folks would be more comfortable giving him in the first place? Aren't years 6, 7 and 8 (or whatever the numbers are) simply to give him what he wants in an effort to get him to sign, although we're probably tentative giving him that kind of money over the final years of the contract? I guess I'm having trouble seeing the downside of having Holliday for the next 4, 5 or 6 years and then potentially losing him to someone else, other than it possibly being indicative of something gone wrong in St. Louis. I've heard it argued that we need to sign Holliday if we hope to keep Albert but I think it's also vitally important to sign Holliday in case Albert does leave.

[haltz]

how is it much different than giving him a shorter contract, which a lot of folks would be more comfortable giving him in the first place?

people prefer a shorter deal because it lessens the risk. This deal would not lessen that risk at all. A long term deal also has more reward - he could continue to be an elite player into his mid to late-30s while salaries inflate and become a bargain at $16M. But if that's the case he will surely opt out.

So you get all the risk and no reward. The best case scenario is that he tears up the league for three years and then tests the market again.

[cards2468]

I would think his opting out of the contract would probably only come into play if we're not a competitive team over the next number of years. And if we're not a competitive team, we probably don't want $17 million tied up in an aging OFer that has, most likely, contributed to our not being competitive.

an opt-out clause simply gives the player the power to hit free agency should he remain valuable and the market inflates to the point he can get much more money than what he's currently making... and based on the market struggles of the past few years and the government's solutions to these struggles, I have to think the market will greatly inflate between now and 8 years from now.

[Richie Allen]

how is it much different than giving him a shorter contract, which a lot of folks would be more comfortable giving him in the first place?

people prefer a shorter deal because it lessens the risk. This deal would not lessen that risk at all. A long term deal also has more reward - he could continue to be an elite player into his mid to late-30s while salaries inflate and become a bargain at $16M. But if that's the case he will surely opt out.

So you get all the risk and no reward. The best case scenario is that he tears up the league for three years and then tests the market again.

Any way you look at it, there are assumptions that are being made. Too many to spell out. I could just as easily contend that if the Cardinals are wildly successful with Holliday in LF, it'll be difficult for him to leave, simply for a couple more million per year. Additionally, there is the assumption that if he does continue to play like an elite player (another assumption), there is going to be someone out there that thinks a 35 year old is worth more than 17 million a year. I understand the argument, but still am hesitant to accept it as being the only plausible outcome. There's also the chance we get him for the next four or five years and he plays like we expect...he goes elsewhere for more money...and then does the typical mid to late 30s decline.

[Richie Allen]

So you get all the risk and no reward.

Or, get all the reward (prime years of his career) and none of the risk (final couple years of his career...at least if the market and his numbers explode).

[RickStain]

So you get all the risk and no reward.

Or, get all the reward (prime years of his career) and none of the risk (final couple years of his career...at least if the market and his numbers explode).

No, that's incorrect.

The risk is that either the market or his numbers don't explode. That *is* the risk, so you can't say "we don't have the risk if X happens" when X is the risk.

It's like saying "betting your life savings on a spin of the wheel isn't a risk, as long as you don't lose."