haltz wrote: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."
That risk is a given though, if you want to sign a player of Holliday's caliber. The same risk applies if you extend Albert Pujols. But you can't really reap the rewards if you're not willing to take a risk.
The opt-out doesn't really hurt anything. The only reason he would opt-out would be because he's extremely productive for the first few years of the contract. If that's the case, then the Cardinals should be happy that they had him for a few years at a good price. If he opts out, then you spend the $17 mil per year on someone else.
Goold, on La Russa's tweet wrote:
Well, it didn’t specifically mean Matt Holliday’s signing was imminent, La Russa said when asked about the comment he made on Twitter. He wasn’t dropping any clues on a specific signing, rather he was promising a move was imminent for the Cardinals. He wasn’t teasing with a “tweet”. With the market pushing them together, the Cardinals remained in negotiations with Holliday’s agent on a long-term contract that is expected to be the largest ever finalized by the Cardinals. (The largest is the $100-million extension signed by Albert Pujols before the 2004 season.) As reported in The Post-Dispatch, the Cardinals have discussed a spectrum of offers with the All-Star left fielder, ranging from five to eight years, with the annual average salary less a the longer term deals. A source with knowledge of Holliday’s representatives’ preference said a five-year deal is unlikely. The six- or seven-year structure — both of which is believed to surpass that $100-million mark — may end up being most desirable.
The holiday offered a natural pause in discussions, though the weekend was an opportunity to restart them. A source on both sides described in the middle of last week how there could be resolution as early as this week.
La Russa confirmed at least the time table of the Cardinals’ planned action when contacted this weekend to discuss his “tweet”.
“We’re getting ready to move,” La Russa told The Post-Dispatch. “I know they’ve been talking a lot with Matt. I know we have a really smart Plan B. … (It) could be on Plan A, or it could be our Plan B. The point is, we’re not going to get stuck.”
I guess if this is to be believed, we'll maybe see how this is going to unfold in the not-too-distant-future.
haltz wrote: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."
That risk is a given though, if you want to sign a player of Holliday's caliber. The same risk applies if you extend Albert Pujols. But you can't really reap the rewards if you're not willing to take a risk.
The opt-out doesn't really hurt anything. The only reason he would opt-out would be because he's extremely productive for the first few years of the contract. If that's the case, then the Cardinals should be happy that they had him for a few years at a good price. If he opts out, then you spend the $17 mil per year on someone else.
Yeah, but you've lost the upside of a favorable contract. The only way you get 7/119 is if he disappoints. Opt-out clauses are a huge benefit to the player at the expense of the team.
haltz wrote: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."
That risk is a given though, if you want to sign a player of Holliday's caliber. The same risk applies if you extend Albert Pujols. But you can't really reap the rewards if you're not willing to take a risk.
The opt-out doesn't really hurt anything. The only reason he would opt-out would be because he's extremely productive for the first few years of the contract. If that's the case, then the Cardinals should be happy that they had him for a few years at a good price. If he opts out, then you spend the $17 mil per year on someone else.
Yeah, but you've lost the upside of a favorable contract. The only way you get 7/119 is if he disappoints. Opt-out clauses are a huge benefit to the player at the expense of the team.
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 meant the remaining years. Sure he could eventually play below expectations. What we're talking about his value if he opts out, which is presumably better than the remaining years on his contract with the Cards.
Socnorb11 wrote:
That risk is a given though, if you want to sign a player of Holliday's caliber. The same risk applies if you extend Albert Pujols. But you can't really reap the rewards if you're not willing to take a risk.
That's fine. No one's saying it's not a good risk (well, maybe someone did, but I didn't notice). We're saying that it's silly to imply that a player opt-out is a good thing for the team.
Michael wrote:I meant the remaining years. Sure he could eventually play below expectations. What we're talking about his value if he opts out, which is presumably better than the remaining years on his contract with the Cards.
The risk isn't the value if he opts out. The risk is his value if he *doesn't*.
Socnorb11 wrote: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.
Michael wrote:I meant the remaining years. Sure he could eventually play below expectations. What we're talking about his value if he opts out, which is presumably better than the remaining years on his contract with the Cards.
The risk isn't the value if he opts out. The risk is his value if he *doesn't*.
