Marlins To Offer JJ Multi-Year Deal

[wanks1212]

The Marlins plan to make a multiyear offer to Josh Johnson, who's eligible for free agency after 2011, and we hear he would be receptive to a four-year, $50 million deal. But it would be surprising if Florida offered that much over four years. In arbitration, Johnson could get $4 million-plus this winter and $10 million-plus next. If he doesn't sign an extension, ``our expectation is he will sign one of the two or three biggest free agent contracts ever for a pitcher,'' agent Matt Sosnick said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/co...246620-p2.html

[nny]

cool

[Party]

At the very least (i.e. if he doesn't sign) this is another sign the FO is partially abandoning the ridiculous Pay for Play policy.

The theory that ownership had the policy in place to make it easier to jettison the franchise if the stadium deal fell through is looking more and more likely. We'll see.

[lou]

Clearly this blurb is coming from Sosnick who is posturing already to try and get $50 million over 4. Which is not going to happen. Secondly, it looks like the low arbitration projection is going to be more realistic then the median/high projections I had. I think one explanation of this is, JJ's current 3.15 era ranks 17th in baseball. In 2008, this would have been 12th. In 2007 9th. In 2006 5th. In 2005 10th. In 2004 8th. Basically, this has been the most pitching intensive season of the decade. And in a comparison argument, yea Johnson is great. But a lot of great guys are out there now. I'm thinking this is going to make a significant difference with Johnson and Nolasco.

So if Johnson is going to make $4.50-4.75 in arbitration next year, let's say he is going to follow the Zambrano model and make $10-11 million in 2011, and then as a free agent pitcher be worth around $16-18 million per season. Adding all that up, adds to the $50 million Sosnick wants. That would not happen with a a 2 year arbitration buyout. I would imagine the Marlins offer something like this

2009 $4.5
2010 9
2011 13
2012 14.5
2013 14 (option, 1 buyout)

This is a 4/$42, 5/$55, deal.

This is above Greinke, the highest comparable (4/$38). This is slightly below by $1-2 million what I projected for a contract back in June. But I think this is a bit safer after seeing a blurb basically credited by his agent at $4 million + in 2010, rather than mid $5 million. I'm kind of shocked Johnson is 17th in era this year with a 3.15. But hey, I'll take any sort of comparison to try and keep him down so we can keep an extra arbitration player in 2010.
--------------------

At the very least (i.e. if he doesn't sign) this is another sign the FO is partially abandoning the ridiculous Pay for Play policy.

The theory that ownership had the policy in place to make it easier to jettison the franchise if the stadium deal fell through is looking more and more likely. We'll see.

They've also said that they don't feel an arbitration buyout is a smart idea if it does not include free agency years. Giving a Volstad, or Maybin, a 5 year pure buyout contract in 2010, would not be what the Marlins would want to do. I think they are satisfied with 'saving less money' from not buying out arbitration after year 1 and 2, if the side effect is you buy out arbitration in years 3-4 getting a few free agency years. It's still saving money compared to a year to year philosophy, but you're just tempering expectations with a larger sample size of player production to make sure this guy will still be awesome in 4 years. I think Hermida is a good lesson here. A lot of us would have signed him post 2007 for 5 years. I don't know if having a $6 and $8 million Hermida on the books for 2011 and 2012 would be good. Letting us evaluate him an extra two years at arbitration prices, even if they were larger and he was good, is still not effecting the bottom line THAT much compared to saving yourself from a potentially horrible contract. See Bobby Crosby and Angel Berroa. I think I like waiting 3-4 years to buy them out, versus the Longoria/Sizemore instant buyout contracts, as you have a better idea of what you're going to get in year 8. Because year 8, is where you need that player to produce. i.e., I love Coghlan, but I'd be scared if we bought him out for 5 right now. I think we need to wait for that repeat season before considering it.

[Swifty]

I think the thing underrated is that the players are people and they may respond differently to having/not having a contract.

If 2007 Hermida gets $30 million guaranteed or whatever he ends up getting, who's to say he's not an absolute force right now because he finally gets affirmation (since we all know Hermida's a headcase)? Conversely, who's to say that a bought out JJ, with the increasingly obnoxious (because he's so mind-numbingly detached) Matt Sosnik in his ear doesn't shit the bed under the weight of the $55 million he'll get.

I think if you're a small payroll team, if the player you have is a player you want around for his arbitration schedule, you buy him out. If it's a guy you'll jettison a year or two before his schedule runs out, then no, don't buy him out, because in a worst case scenario you can DFA him (for example, post 2007 Uggla, some loved some were terrified). Not buying a guy out really kills his value in trade. If Uggla had a guaranteed number for next season, his list of suitors likely doubles. That said, I really think we're only looking at, excluding Hanley, 3 players worthy of being bought out: Coghlan, Johnson and Nolasco. Coghlan's out though because he's represented by Boras so there's no cheap deal waiting for him, it'll take a 10 year deal. Johnson should get his, but buying out Nolasco at the going rate for a 3/4 (I'd think 4/$20 gets him signed sealed and delivered) not only gives us payroll certainty before we head into the new stadium, but also boosts the hell out of his trade value as young affordable pitching with the upside Nolasco has is just worth taking a risk. Being so afraid of the buyout is just not good business, just look at this offseason and compare what we expect to get for the arby guys we trade and what we actually get.

[lou]

I think the thing underrated is that the players are people and they may respond differently to having/not having a contract.

If 2007 Hermida gets $30 million guaranteed or whatever he ends up getting, who's to say he's not an absolute force right now because he finally gets affirmation (since we all know Hermida's a headcase)? Conversely, who's to say that a bought out JJ, with the increasingly obnoxious (because he's so mind-numbingly detached) Matt Sosnik in his ear doesn't shit the bed under the weight of the $55 million he'll get.

I think if you're a small payroll team, if the player you have is a player you want around for his arbitration schedule, you buy him out. If it's a guy you'll jettison a year or two before his schedule runs out, then no, don't buy him out, because in a worst case scenario you can DFA him (for example, post 2007 Uggla, some loved some were terrified). Not buying a guy out really kills his value in trade. If Uggla had a guaranteed number for next season, his list of suitors likely doubles. That said, I really think we're only looking at, excluding Hanley, 3 players worthy of being bought out: Coghlan, Johnson and Nolasco. Coghlan's out though because he's represented by Boras so there's no cheap deal waiting for him, it'll take a 10 year deal. Johnson should get his, but buying out Nolasco at the going rate for a 3/4 (I'd think 4/$20 gets him signed sealed and delivered) not only gives us payroll certainty before we head into the new stadium, but also boosts the hell out of his trade value as young affordable pitching with the upside Nolasco has is just worth taking a risk. Being so afraid of the buyout is just not good business, just look at this offseason and compare what we expect to get for the arby guys we trade and what we actually get.

I pretty much agree with all of this, my thing was just the timing. It's just smarter to just make sure these guys replicate their performance 2 or 3 times before doing the buyout. I'm totally cool with 3-4 year contracts that save a little, even if it's not the intense savings found in Longoria/Shields/Haren/Sizemore type contracts

And I think Nolasco (who is pretty much guaranteed at least $4 in arb) would have to have a $4-$7-$9-$10 (4s, like Kyle Loshe, get $10 a year) path, or whatever, at minimum. It would be closer to 4/$30, or I'm sure Nolasco/Sosnick will gamble in arbitration and hope his arm doesn't fall off if the Marlins best offer would be that much of a lowballing. If the Marlins can get Nolasco for 4/$20 or anything less than $30, they need to RUN to do that because that would be a huge steal with even a 4.25 throwing Nolasco over those 4 seasons.

[Swifty]

I say 4/$20 for Nolasco because, let's be honest, he's going to end up with $4.5 this season and his 2011 number relies heavily upon how good and healthy he is next season, yes he could hit high and get $11, but he could also struggle and end up with $7. If he lays another egg, he's a new baseball economy $7.5 million free agent pitcher, maybe someone gets desperate and throws $10 million his way, but he's the pitcher that you really have to test how risk averse he is. He's not steam rolling towards a 6 year free agent deal. It's completely possible that a four year 20something million offer is too damn good for him to pass up. He'd only be costing himself two free agent seasons, and he'd still be allowing himself free agency at 29. I think he'd bite, he's the only player whose family religiously shows up, and wearing his jersey...there'd likely be too much pressure on him to accept that kind of financial certainty. I don't love Nolasco, but getting him locked up at an affordable rate this offseason makes all kinds of crazy sense for us.

[lou]

I say 4/$20 for Nolasco because, let's be honest, he's going to end up with $4.5 this season and his 2011 number relies heavily upon how good and healthy he is next season, yes he could hit high and get $11, but he could also struggle and end up with $7. If he lays another egg, he's a new baseball economy $7.5 million free agent pitcher, maybe someone gets desperate and throws $10 million his way, but he's the pitcher that you really have to test how risk averse he is. He's not steam rolling towards a 6 year free agent deal. It's completely possible that a four year 20something million offer is too damn good for him to pass up. He'd only be costing himself two free agent seasons, and he'd still be allowing himself free agency at 29. I think he'd bite, he's the only player whose family religiously shows up, and wearing his jersey...there'd likely be too much pressure on him to accept that kind of financial certainty. I don't love Nolasco, but getting him locked up at an affordable rate this offseason makes all kinds of crazy sense for us.

You're talking about a relative non-raise from his expected 2010 arbitration for 2011, 2012, and 2013, with a 4/$20 deal. What's that, $ 4.5 - 5 - 5 -5.5 ? That is simply, not going to happen no matter what kind of family pressure there is. His agent will put his foot down at an offer like that. These guys need raises as they go along, especially if they are forsaking two FA years. I agree completely, I'm not in love with Nolasco but if they can get him cheap off this seasons performance, cool. But it's just not going to be $20 overall. I can't see anything less than like 4-6-7-9 (4/$26). That's awesome lowballing while scaling it up somewhat. Those FA years have to at least resemble Shields FA years (year 7 is for $7 mil, year 8 is for $9 mil).

[Swifty]

Well that's why I say 20something.

I don't think we need to go to 5 years with him, and I don't think we should give him anything over $7 million annually.

[lou]

Well that's why I say 20something.

I don't think we need to go to 5 years with him, and I don't think we should give him anything over $7 million annually.

Absolutely not on 5. I don't even want to give JJ 5 unless the last year is an option.

But for Nolasco, that's when you do the $4-6-7- Option 9, Buyout 2. 3/$19, 4/$26. I'm totally into a deal like that.

And starting a paragraph with 4/$20, and then saying 20something in the body, tends to cause confusion. But sure, over $25 is probably where that 'to good to pass up' stuff starts. It just ain't $20.

[Swifty]

I agree with everything, except I'd have no qualms going 5 with JJ if we're getting him for $11 mil or less. His motion is effortless, I don't think he's a ticking timb bomb for injury. Is it a possibility? Sure, but there's nothing intrinsic to Johnson that screams injury risk, even his past medical history...that was a fluke injury to begin with. Even if he's just a 3.5 ERA pitcher for the life of that contract he'd be worth it, if he's the April-July pitcher it's a downright steal.

[lou]

I agree with everything, except I'd have no qualms going 5 with JJ if we're getting him for $11 mil or less. His motion is effortless, I don't think he's a ticking timb bomb for injury. Is it a possibility? Sure, but there's nothing intrinsic to Johnson that screams injury risk, even his past medical history...that was a fluke injury to begin with. Even if he's just a 3.5 ERA pitcher for the life of that contract he'd be worth it, if he's the April-July pitcher it's a downright steal.

He'd be worth it at a 4.00. Easily.

I am just firmly against guaranteeing starters more than 4 years. We have no idea what's going to happen with them, despite his size/mechanics/etc.

Options? Tac them on, sure.

[Swifty]

Well let me pose it to you this way. Let's say he's amenable to our salary terms (whether it's $10 mil per, $11 mil per or $12 mil per, since I think that will ultimately be the range we're talking about) but he absolutely has to have that 5th year guaranteed. Do you walk away?

I wouldn't, not because I'm overly enamored with the idea of JJ pitching in the new stadium, but because it's a calculated risk. Bad things happen to players, but there are the fluke things and there are the foreseeable things. Any horrific injury to JJ really has to be considered a fluke. His mechanics are good, his body is good (I mean, he even came back from TJ ahead of schedule), the only thing he does that's troubling is bat left handed, thus exposing his throwing side while batting. Because I think it's such a safe investment, I think buying out that third arbitration year represents potentially a 100% savings, since, by 2013 (with inflation considered as well) he may very well be a $22 million pitcher.

[lou]

Well let me pose it to you this way. Let's say he's amenable to our salary terms (whether it's $10 mil per, $11 mil per or $12 mil per, since I think that will ultimately be the range we're talking about) but he absolutely has to have that 5th year guaranteed. Do you walk away?

I wouldn't, not because I'm overly enamored with the idea of JJ pitching in the new stadium, but because it's a calculated risk. Bad things happen to players, but there are the fluke things and there are the foreseeable things. Any horrific injury to JJ really has to be considered a fluke. His mechanics are good, his body is good (I mean, he even came back from TJ ahead of schedule), the only thing he does that's troubling is bat left handed, thus exposing his throwing side while batting. Because I think it's such a safe investment, I think buying out that third arbitration year represents potentially a 100% savings, since, by 2013 (with inflation considered as well) he may very well be a $22 million pitcher.

If it's 5/$55 or arbitration/walk in two years. I guarantee 5 and risk it because we need him that much. But I can't see it coming to that level of negotiations between the parties though.

In the inverse, if Nolasco were to need that 5 guaranteed. Sorry. I think we're on the same page with these two here.