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

[Michael]

From that article it sounds like it's going to be 7 years for around 17m per year (119m total).

[clevername]

Olney was reporting 7 years earlier today.

So the $98.5 number from earlier today is completely bogus. Shocking, considering the rock solid source.

[phins]

I'd rather it be 5 years, but I can deal with that for sure. If it's 18 mil or less, I don't see how we could have possibly asked for better.

[Richie Allen]

Maybe not a dealbreaker, but it is a worse contract. If he sucks then, he's staying. If the market inflates and he hits like Manny has lately, he's leaving. Lose-lose.

I now completely understand the concept of what you're arguing and the idea that the opt-out puts us in a less likely position of maximizing the potential upside of the contract but I also know there are a number of intelligent people on here that have admitted that there's another real possibility that isn't typically brought into the argument...the idea that he could perform very well for us for 4 or 5 years (win for us), test the market and ultimately sign elsewhere and then see his production diminish as he hits the age 35 hurdle (if not a win for us, arguably not a loss).

I would be interested in signing him to a new contract after year five, if he's still a good player. This way we've ONLY signed him to a new contract if he's a bad player. Do you see the difference there? There is only downside after year five, and $34M is a large chunk of change to give to someone who is not worth it.

And the earlier the opt-out is, the worse it is.

I don't know if there has been miscommunication throughout this latter part of the thread or what but I have to believe some of the things I've said are not being interpreted correctly or else I'm just stupider than [expletive]. I thought it was understood that we're basically comfortable with 7/119. When the opt out was introduced, possibly after the 5th year, the discussions began. I understand the theory that the opt out gives the player the advantage and the team none but to commit to seven years, at $17 million per, also agrees to take that player on for years 6 and 7, regardless of his performance. What's worse, IMO, is there is less incentive for him to excel in the next 4 or 5 years. I just don't understand how committing to him for 7 years today, knowing he could be an undesirable player to have by the time the contract lapses, makes you feel more comfortable or as though we're taking on less risk.

[Hungary Jack]

This $100M figure that Boras insists upon seems so arbitrary (OK, it is sexy), but the shorter the contract the better, IMO. 6 years, $100M and we all go have a Fresca.

[Richie Allen]

Yadi's knees are going to give out if we keep putting him behind the plate, let's put him at SS and put Ryan behind the plate

Don't forget, Bryan Anderson is the best catcher in the organization. But I just read that Motte has inspired him to take the mound (soft throwing lefty).

[haltz]

the idea that he could perform very well for us for 4 or 5 years (win for us), test the market and ultimately sign elsewhere and then see his production diminish as he hits the age 35 hurdle (if not a win for us, arguably not a loss).

Typically players don't just fall off a cliff, but if he does there's no reason that it couldn't happen the year before his opt-out, leaving us stuck with a terrible player.

Let's say he puts up a 140 OPS+ for the next five years and the market inflates substantially. It's going to be very painful when he opts out. Maybe he puts up numbers, opts out, and then is terrible for two years (or three or whenever it is)? I guess that's possible. He could also get hit by a bus and we pay him $120M for nothing.

I just don't understand how committing to him for 7 years today, knowing he could be an undesirable player to have by the time the contract lapses, makes you feel more comfortable or as though we're taking on less risk.

I don't know how else to say it. We're committing to him either way, but the only way we see him in those years is if he sucks.

This is all speculation of course, but how do we go from the Red Sox offering him 5/82 ... [nothing happens] ... all of the sudden we're offering him 7/120 with an opt-out clause? The specifics are probably best discussed once this actually happens, but it's all very bidding-against-ourselves disconcerting to me.

[Michael]

This is all speculation of course, but how do we go from the Red Sox offering him 5/82 ... [nothing happens] ... all of the sudden we're offering him 7/120 with an opt-out clause? The specifics are probably best discussed once this actually happens, but it's all very bidding-against-ourselves disconcerting to me.

Don't forget the full NTC.

[planet planet]

As impatient as we (diehard fans) are, I'm impressed by Mo sticking to his guns. This is his managerial moment, soon to be followed by Pujols' negotiations.

[docellis]

flurry of face-to-face meetings among Cardinals Chairman Bill DeWitt Jr., general manager John Mozeliak and Holliday's agent, Scott Boras, in Austin, Texas. Holliday, who had not spoken directly with Cardinals officials during his free agency, also briefly attended.