And IMO its as much about $ as it is about the 4th year.

 

 

Even JJ's agent himself said it was about the 4th year and not dollar amount.

 

And you have to imagine that's true because of the Marlins offered a 4th year and he starts posturing on about how now he wants more money, it'd look extremely bad on him.

 

If it was both money and another year, he'd say so now.

I'm not that much upset about the fact of trading JJ after the contract breaking down. It's the thought of DA Yankees getting JJ which disgusts me.

 

 

 

If we can't agree to a deal, and the "DA Yankees" want to offer http://riveraveblues.com/2009/11/going-after-the-big-fish-20278/... then goodbye, JJ.

I'm not that much upset about the fact of trading JJ after the contract breaking down. It's the thought of DA Yankees getting JJ which disgusts me.

 

 

 

If we can't agree to a deal, and the "DA Yankees" want to offer http://riveraveblues.com/2009/11/going-after-the-big-fish-20278/... then goodbye, JJ.

 

Totally agree.

 

 

Especially for something like P.Hughes, J.Montero, Manny Banuelos, and Arodys Vizcaino/Zach McAllister for Johnson

Just said it on ESPNNews that the Yankees are interested in JJ. Sounds like hes already being shopped.

 

This is just embarrassing.

 

 

 

I heard that too. If JJ goes to the Yankees, I will resort to punching babies

 

If we'd be able to land Jesus Montero and one of Hughes/Joba, that'd likely be the best package we could obtain. Would give us two of the top three prospects in the entire game with Stanton and Montero, and our offense would be a juggernaut going into the stadium if everyone develops (rather big if).

 

However there's a big difference between "The Yankees are interested in JJ" and JJ actually being shopped. I personally doubt JJ will be moved this offseason, if he's moved at all.

 

I highly doubt this FO's ability to get a reasonably good haul for our good players anymore. So I highly doubt we'd be getting even half the package you are requesting.

 

I highly doubt we'd get anything as good as Montero aswell, but there the Yankees do give that possibility.

 

However, I don't really agree with your assertion. I can only think of two players that the Marlins traded that are on par with JJ's caliber: Beckett and Cabrera. I doubt I need to get into the Beckett trade (plus it's not a completely apt comparison since he was packaged with the salary dumping of Lowell), which leaves Cabrera. For Cabrera we got one of the best pitching specs and one of the best hitting specs in the game. Yes, Miller busted qq sh*t sucks, but at the time of the trade he was extremely well regarded.

 

Did you forget that we traded Dontrelle Willis in that deal as well? Willis was clearly wanted by Detroit since they signed him to an extension immediately afterwards, once which they are paying for dearly right now.

 

I know I have no proof of it at all, but I had legitimate questions about both prospects and have at least expressed my reservations since they've been Marlins. They both were rushed tremendously, yet they were both incredibly raw players who really desperately needed a lot more polish to be effective major leaguers. They were damaged goods from being rushed before we ever got them. Miller will never be near as good as he should have been (I honestly think scouts must have making up his 100 MPH fastball because I sure have never seen it) and who knows if Maybin will ever be decent.

 

They were highly rated for their supposed tools, but even a quick inquiry will show you that there were more questions about them than your average prospects.

 

But either way, these two are clearcut warnings as to the uncertainty in trading established players for prospects. While its obvious this team has to move talent for prospects in order to manage payroll, it comes to the point where if you are ever going to be a good team, there are still a couple of pieces that you absolutely must have. And it also comes to a point where you are highly unlikely to be getting in return what you will be sending out because very few prospects will develop into the guy you are trading. Jorge Cantu is a secondary player. He helps the team now but he isn't a centerpiece. You can afford to trade him for a reasonable package and be fine with it. Josh Johnson, on the other hand, is a frontline MLB player. You don't get better by trading these guys for question marks.

I agree with Sirspud. While it sounds exciting having prospects with so much potential, there has to come a time where you stop dealing your studs for them. JJ has to remain a Marlin.

There is no defense to this. There is no sugar coating it. The Marlins front office enormously fails if they do not sign Johnson to a 4/$40ish million contract this offseason.

 

 

Some memories are so short.

 

Between the '07 season and '08 season so many were saying the exact same things about another star on the Marlins. The "sugar coating" came in the middle of May in '08.

 

Evidently the Marlins FO "enormously failed".

 

Just something to think about.

You are always guilty of this fallacy.

 

If you are going to talk down to people based upon popular opinion on this board, you need to specify which people you are talking about. There are a some people here who truly don't know what they are talking about and their opinions don't hold as much weight.

 

There were many reputable posters here who supported the Cabrera/Willis deal because they knew that Cabrera couldn't be signed long term and that Willis was a time bomb. There were also some people here who were driven by emotional attachments to these players and failed to consider the financial repercussions of keeping them.

 

You need to stop assuming that there is only one collective opinion here. There are some people here who want Uggla traded (or at least don't mind it) and there are some people demanding that he stay because the offense needs him this badly. How are you going to misrepresent these opinions in two years?

The team seems bound and determined not to offer a pitcher a 4th year.

There is no defense to this. There is no sugar coating it. The Marlins front office enormously fails if they do not sign Johnson to a 4/$40ish million contract this offseason.

 

 

Some memories are so short.

 

Between the '07 season and '08 season so many were saying the exact same things about another star on the Marlins. The "sugar coating" came in the middle of May in '08.

 

Evidently the Marlins FO "enormously failed".

 

Just something to think about.

You are always guilty of this fallacy.

 

If you are going to talk down to people based upon popular opinion on this board, you need to specify which people you are talking about. There are a some people here who truly don't know what they are talking about and their opinions don't hold as much weight.

 

There were many reputable posters here who supported the Cabrera/Willis deal because they knew that Cabrera couldn't be signed long term and that Willis was a time bomb. There were also some people here who were driven by emotional attachments to these players and failed to consider the financial repercussions of keeping them.

 

You need to stop assuming that there is only one collective opinion here. There are some people here who want Uggla traded (or at least don't mind it) and there are some people demanding that he stay because the offense needs him this badly. How are you going to misrepresent these opinions in two years?

Yeah, there really were. I remember being one of them and many others as well.

Look Marlins just give me 500K and I'll take the ball come opening day. I'll sign for ten years at 50k per. Where do I sign?

The reality is that we are very lucky to sign a guy like Hanley for ONLY 70 million. That's a real steal in the market.

Said Loria: "You know our organization. We don't negotiate anywhere else except in the office (not in the press, in other words). I don't have any comments on any of the process. We're going to do what we have to do, and they're going to do what they have to do. We do love Josh. We'll see what happens."

 

Asked if the organization has an internal policy against awarding contracts to pitchers that are greater than three years in length, Loria replied: "We don't have any organizational situation about any of that. We just don't. But you have to look at numbers, and statistics, and innings, and injuries, and all the variables. That's a decision that Admin (Beinfest) is going to make with Michael (Hill) and the rest of our team. Everything is always case by case. Hanley was his own case. Now it's Josh's time to protect his family."

 

 

 

Miami Herald

 

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/fish_bytes/2009/11/talkin-turkey-with-jeffrey-loria.html

Having read the above comments by Loria, I'm starting to get the impression that Johnson's agent is bullshitting a LOT.

The line that's missin above from Loria is his comment right after saying "we love JJ...", he says they fully understand its time for JJ and his family.

 

"Everything is always case by case. Hanley was his own case. Now it's Josh's time to protect his family."

It still sounds like the Marlins aren't giving them something they want. They said they wanted Greinke money, which is appropriate. Obviously the Marlins are not offering that, or they won't do the 4th year.

Having read the above comments by Loria, I'm starting to get the impression that Johnson's agent is bullshitting a LOT.

 

 

Gee...ya think? Surpise. Surprise. An agent who lies :brigginbounce

 

I read Loria's comment (as I posted) as a common sense understanding of what the core issue is and it's not Sosnick's ego or the rep he's trying to build, it's JJ getting security for his family which I always said was, or should be, the motivating issue on that side.

It still sounds like the Marlins aren't giving them something they want. They said they wanted Greinke money, which is appropriate. Obviously the Marlins are not offering that, or they won't do the 4th year.

 

 

JJ's agent basically said it is about the fourth year: the Marlins are offering it as an option, JJ and/or his agent wants that guaranteed.

 

And I believe the agent has blown it way out of proportion. It seems like Loria understands the situation and the FO was probably posturing a little when they refused the 4th year guarantee. And then JJ's agent said they only talked for 30 minutes total in the past week about it. But before that, he was saying that negotiations are absolutely closed and oh well.

 

To me, I didn't think the FO expected JJ's agent to go ballistic like that in the press. They may have expected him to return to the negotiating table and eventually hammer out the deal. This is especially true if they only spoke for 30 minutes over the entire thing. Look, the FO knows how important JJ, they probably thought this round would be the intro to more negotiations, with both sides fanning their feathers, but one that would eventually lead to BS-free dealing. It is possible that the FO, in their minds were saying "Oh ho, we aren't budging (wink)," expecting the agent to say the same. Instead, the agent went to the press and said that's it, we are done.

 

From what it looks like, the only real sticking point between the two sides was the fourth year. And it wasn't even like the Marlins weren't offering one, they just weren't making it a guarantee. The sides aren't that far apart, and if they only spoke for that brief amount of time and already arrived at a deal that was 90% agreed upon, surely further negotiations were expected to take place. Both sides may have been playing hardball with each other, which is only natural and expected, but the agent went public with it in a really ugly way, initially.

• Josh Johnson's decision not to sign a multiyear contract went beyond the Marlins' refusal to offer a four-year deal, instead of three. The sides also were far apart on money. But the Marlins have no plans to trade him in the next year. ``We do love Josh,'' owner Jeffrey Loria said Tuesday, declining to comment on talks. . . .

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/columnists/barry-jackson/story/1350571.html

 

 

Either Loria's set on keeping him past club control years, or he's making one big-ass mistake.

Well here's another scenario. Let's say Johnson is completely awesome again, shedding any performance concerns and injury concerns.

 

Option 1 - 4/$40 signed 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.

Option 2 - 5/$75(with a 6th year playing time vesting option, let's say $20 million so 6/$95 as long as healthy), for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and potentially 2016, and JJ is now 32/33 as a FA

 

In Option 2, you have also paid Johnson $5 million in 2010, bringing him to 6/$80 or 7/$100 for the total package (yes I conveniently made these numbers this way in an educated round ball). AJ Burnett just got a 5/$82.5 deal in free agency for comparison. JJ's per year total is lower because of two arbitration years left.

 

So anyways, if your intention is to keep Johnson as your ace, let's say you go Option 1. After 2011 you realize he's totally awesome, and you want to tac on more years. Sure says JJ, and you add on 3 years at current free agent levels to the end of it, let's say a healthy $18 million (and I fully acknowledge this could be more if he keeps pitching like 2009). You've now added $54 million and have JJ basically 2010-2016, 7/$94. This isn't really that lower than giving him a larger contract after 2010 is it? Even if the $18 figure is low, and it's more like $20, now we're at the hypothetical 'break even' of $100 million. And if he were to get CC money, now we're in the negative versus a contract after 2010.

 

I understand the hypothetical nature of this scenario (plus guaranteeing big money to a starter for 5 years years), but we're all screaming to death for a 4 year deal right now, when in reality, if we're looking at a 7 year payscale with Johnson right now (I'm using 7 years specifically because CC just got 7 years, Zito got 7 years + Option, Santana got 6 years + option so this is around the right time frame), the risk involved with signing now + renegotiate or having to guarantee all of it in next year, is not that big of a deal financially. We're talking $1 million a year over a 7 year span, and even if JJ slots up a few bucks, we're not looking at a big plus/minus on the ledger either way here.

 

All I mean by this is, if their intention is to sign Johnson for awhile, waiting to see that he does not fall apart in 2010 is not a terrible idea as the only downside of guaranteeing a contract next year versus this year, is the time you start guaranteeing future years. Which is important to long term plans. It's absolutely not the money as it's going to be very similar in either scenario when all is said and done (and we all know how the Marlins like the money). Thus we've reached the cost/benefit analysis. Our costs monetarily remain the same, but we certainly receive a healthy benefit in 1 further year of evaluation for Johnson in both performance and health. Personally, I still pick Option 1 + renegotiation potential to you know, create goodwill with your player, show your fan base you care, lock JJ up so you know you have him and deal with future contract status later.... But if you're confident you can sign JJ to a pretty realistic contract after 2010, Option 2 isn't necessarily "bad" if they want to see him 2+ years out of surgery.

 

I don't know what Sosnick is thinking, but if if the Marlins offer $75 with a vesting $20 mil option after 2010, plus a very competitive young team and new ballpark, I don't know how he can tell his client "let's take a $10 million arbitration tender for 2011 and wait this year to try and get 7/$140 million deal." This comparison - Sosnick going for the grand slam in free agency gets about 9/$155 tops (including 2010-2011 arbitration). The hypotheticals I have during these same years are 7/$100, and two free agency years to make up the $55 million difference. So assuming a healthy and awesome JJ until he's 35 years old, JJ would stand to make an extra $15-20 million for shooting for the grand slam versus taking a "modest" 5/$75 + vesting option from the Marlins post 2010. Personally, I don't think you risk $15-20 million if you're offered a contract that approaches $100 million. (ha). Assuming your not healthy, that's where it would heavily kick in. If JJ blows out his arm in say 2014 or whatever, he could stand to "lose" (rather not earn) $50-70 million versus cashing in. So he'd only have around $85 million to live off of, instead of $155. And that's a huge number difference and reflects the "guaranteed" nature. And I'm guessing, that's the difference Sosnick would sell his client. The worst case scenario. Which is pretty comical because your worst case scenario is literally like $85 million dollars, but hey, it does matter to them.

 

I'm just trying to find something defensible with the front office here. This is the best I can come up with - if they truly want to keep Johnson, giving him the money after 2010 is relatively the same as giving it to him now. We still would only have two contracts on the books - Hanley and Johnson, and a slew of CC players. Still in good shape. So if they want to lowball Johnson right now? Sure, whatever. But I hope they are thinking with my above reasoning with, if he's wicked good in 2010, we still can get him after 2010 despite Sosnick saying this is the last chance. The money is relatively inconsequential, and if it's the bottom line that matters, we're all good.

Well here's another scenario. Let's say Johnson is completely awesome again, shedding any performance concerns and injury concerns.

 

Option 1 - 4/$40 signed 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.

Option 2 - 5/$75(with a 6th year playing time vesting option, let's say $20 million so 6/$95 as long as healthy), for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and potentially 2016, and JJ is now 32/33 as a FA

 

In Option 2, you have also paid Johnson $5 million in 2010, bringing him to 6/$80 or 7/$100 for the total package (yes I conveniently made these numbers this way in an educated round ball). AJ Burnett just got a 5/$82.5 deal in free agency for comparison. JJ's per year total is lower because of two arbitration years left.

 

So anyways, if your intention is to keep Johnson as your ace, let's say you go Option 1. After 2011 you realize he's totally awesome, and you want to tac on more years. Sure says JJ, and you add on 3 years at current free agent levels to the end of it, let's say a healthy $18 million (and I fully acknowledge this could be more if he keeps pitching like 2009). You've now added $54 million and have JJ basically 2010-2016, 7/$94. This isn't really that lower than giving him a larger contract after 2010 is it? Even if the $18 figure is low, and it's more like $20, now we're at the hypothetical 'break even' of $100 million. And if he were to get CC money, now we're in the negative versus a contract after 2010.

 

I understand the hypothetical nature of this scenario (plus guaranteeing big money to a starter for 5 years years), but we're all screaming to death for a 4 year deal right now, when in reality, if we're looking at a 7 year payscale with Johnson right now (I'm using 7 years specifically because CC just got 7 years, Zito got 7 years + Option, Santana got 6 years + option so this is around the right time frame), the risk involved with signing now + renegotiate or having to guarantee all of it in next year, is not that big of a deal financially. We're talking $1 million a year over a 7 year span, and even if JJ slots up a few bucks, we're not looking at a big plus/minus on the ledger either way here.

 

All I mean by this is, if their intention is to sign Johnson for awhile, waiting to see that he does not fall apart in 2010 is not a terrible idea as the only downside of guaranteeing a contract next year versus this year, is the time you start guaranteeing future years. Which is important to long term plans. It's absolutely not the money as it's going to be very similar in either scenario when all is said and done (and we all know how the Marlins like the money). Thus we've reached the cost/benefit analysis. Our costs monetarily remain the same, but we certainly receive a healthy benefit in 1 further year of evaluation for Johnson in both performance and health. Personally, I still pick Option 1 + renegotiation potential to you know, create goodwill with your player, show your fan base you care, lock JJ up so you know you have him and deal with future contract status later.... But if you're confident you can sign JJ to a pretty realistic contract after 2010, Option 2 isn't necessarily "bad" if they want to see him 2+ years out of surgery.

 

I don't know what Sosnick is thinking, but if if the Marlins offer $75 with a vesting $20 mil option after 2010, plus a very competitive young team and new ballpark, I don't know how he can tell his client "let's take a $10 million arbitration tender for 2011 and wait this year to try and get 7/$140 million deal." This comparison - Sosnick going for the grand slam in free agency gets about 9/$155 tops (including 2010-2011 arbitration). The hypotheticals I have during these same years are 7/$100, and two free agency years to make up the $55 million difference. So assuming a healthy and awesome JJ until he's 35 years old, JJ would stand to make an extra $15-20 million for shooting for the grand slam versus taking a "modest" 5/$75 + vesting option from the Marlins post 2010. Personally, I don't think you risk $15-20 million if you're offered a contract that approaches $100 million. (ha). Assuming your not healthy, that's where it would heavily kick in. If JJ blows out his arm in say 2014 or whatever, he could stand to "lose" (rather not earn) $50-70 million versus cashing in. So he'd only have around $85 million to live off of, instead of $155. And that's a huge number difference and reflects the "guaranteed" nature. And I'm guessing, that's the difference Sosnick would sell his client. The worst case scenario. Which is pretty comical because your worst case scenario is literally like $85 million dollars, but hey, it does matter to them.

 

I'm just trying to find something defensible with the front office here. This is the best I can come up with - if they truly want to keep Johnson, giving him the money after 2010 is relatively the same as giving it to him now. We still would only have two contracts on the books - Hanley and Johnson, and a slew of CC players. Still in good shape. So if they want to lowball Johnson right now? Sure, whatever. But I hope they are thinking with my above reasoning with, if he's wicked good in 2010, we still can get him after 2010 despite Sosnick saying this is the last chance. The money is relatively inconsequential, and if it's the bottom line that matters, we're all good.

 

I see your math and I understand it I just don't get it. JJ will be much more difficult to sign next year, a contract of any kind wil actually be an exponential increase from what the Marlins would have to offer now. I just see JJ headed to F/A not involving himself in some BS half-ass negotiation with the Marlin's FO next year

I see your math and I understand it I just don't get it. JJ will be much more difficult to sign next year, a contract of any kind wil actually be an exponential increase from what the Marlins would have to offer now. I just see JJ headed to F/A not involving himself in some BS half-ass negotiation with the Marlin's FO next year

 

Yep, I agree completely. The point is, if they are somehow confident in signing him, they could still offer some 5-6 year deal next year and probably get it signed. Of course, that is guaranteeing a boatload. The easy thing to do is just give him 4 years and if you want to extend him, extend him. And leave all doubt and mystery behind.

Lot of good stuff here but the economy and geo-political issues may make rising baseball salaries a thing of the past like seven year contracts and high cleats into second base.

 

Someone posted in the last couple of days how the economy is getting better which it isn't and with approximately 18% unemployment (the unofficial number of those filing and those who have either used up all their benefits or have simply given up looking for work) and 34.5% unemployment among blacks, the closing of more auto plants (Saturn most recently) and those allied to them, and printing trillions of dollars that will eventually come home to roost when the Fed tries to strengthen the dollar and interest rates skyrocket we are going to need a decade to unwind what's been done in Washington in the last year.

 

A recession is when someone else loses their job. A depression is when you lose your job.

 

I think we're in for a long strike when the current collective bargaining agreement comes around as so many teams that no one ever thought would be in trouble are. The market for 7 year $140 million contracts is getting smaller and smaller. It's the Yankees and maybe the Red Sox on a good day. The marketplace for high-priced talent, regardless of the level of that talent, is going to evaporate and the game is going to get younger and younger (which we have already seen beginning). Today's $20 million a year contract is soon going to be $12 million with strings attached. JJ perhaps was born five or six years too late and sooner or later the economic realities his agent is ignoring are going to come hit him in the face like a 34oz bat.

 

Take the 3/$30 million with an option for a fourth and be happy your family can count on that.

 

A number of the arguments being made here and elsewhere focus on "what the Marlins should do".

 

Equally as important is what JJ should do.

 

Loria correctly reminded his interwiewer a few days ago that not only do the Marlins "love" JJ they fully understand his primary motivation is to protect his family. Perhaps it's time each side puts their cards on the table and negotiates in good faith instead of in the media and gets it done or the Marlins announce their intentions (because it's the right thing to do) for the next two years so everyone (including the fans)knows where they stand. I believe regardless of his talent, most fans if they knew JJ was here for the next two years would be fine with that and with the bargain he represents over that period through arbitration will understand it gives the Fish enough time to either groom a replacement internally or acquire one. In "Marlins time", two years is a long long time.

 

The 2012 season and the new stadium will open with or without JJ on the mound. I plead guilty to being ambivalent on the subject of JJ, I think there are much more important things to worry about than one pitcher on one team.

The marketplace for high-priced talent, regardless of the level of that talent, is going to evaporate and the game is going to get younger and younger (which we have already seen beginning). Today's $20 million a year contract is soon going to be $12 million with strings attached

 

Take the 3/$30 million with an option for a fourth and be happy your family can count on that.

 

The 2012 season and the new stadium will open with or without JJ on the mound. I plead guilty to being ambivalent on the subject of JJ, I think there are much more important things to worry about than one pitcher on one team.

 

I disagree completely that the market is going to dry up for premier free agents. It's just got to be the right one at the right time. An over 30 Jason Bay isn't going to get $20 a year (but he did already turn down 4/$60), but Lincecum, Josh Johnson, maybe Justin Upton - you know the ones not being bought out for whatever reason - are all going to become free agents at 27-28 years old, and they will all get the $150 contracts on the free market if they are performing like they are. It's not just the Yankees and Red Sox. The Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Philly, Mariners, Cubs, how about a resurgent Baltimore in 2 years when their pitchers get set, are all still going to have tremendous buying power. Baseball is not going into a depression. Maybe there isn't another A-Rod, but that's pretty much it. Lackey might break $100 million this offseason. He's getting at least AJ (5/$82) money.

 

If the Marlins do offer 3/$30, and not 3/$22, and has a $10+ vesting option for year 4, I think it gets done. 3/$22 and a $12 option will not, but chalk up some more bucks so it has the potential to get over the Greinke and Wainwright contracts, and that's a deal. That's a reasonable compromise to both sides. The Marlins guarantee 3 at appropriate levels, and JJ/Sosnick gets the 4th he wants as long as realistic performance levels are reached.

 

And I think keeping an ace is the biggest deal this organization has. To obtain one in free agency, is going to be expensive. To acquire/draft a young one in a trade, is a once a decade event. We need Johnson. We need him now. And we need him in 2012. The team takes a major step backwards without him. Hanley and Johnson are the key. They our are "Chipper and Maddux." Sign them, build around them.

Nice of you to completely obliterate my point by cutting and pasting half of what I said. Basically my point was the market for long term high price tag deals was getting smaller and smaller, what I don't get is you say you "disagree competely" and then you make the same point yourself.

 

The comments you misquoted were in the context of the last generation's Mike Hampton-esque deals, what I used as an example as seven years/$140 million. Read the two sentences previous to what was extracted. Then if you want to disagree be my guest I think it's going to be a long time before owners in this economy are going to start handing those out again (which is a big part of what Sosnick ignores as well when he starts talking about long term $100 million contracts for JJ). Pure fantasy.

 

And I never said anything about the market "drying up". Nor did I say that baseball was "going into a depression". Honestly, you're welcome to make your point because basically they are valid, but you don't need to butcher what I said to do it.

 

The only way contracts return to those levels is if the Fed starts tightening and interest rates shoot up (and with it inflation rears its ugly head again) in effect increasing the value of the dollar abroad while weakening it at home. That is what inflation does. Multi-year contracts whether they three years or whatever years are based on what dollars will be worth so you give a guy $28 million in year three because that how many dollars it takes to be the equivalent of what say $21 million is worth today. It's an agent's wet dream scenario but in fact the value of those dollars remain the same.

 

And btw we're not arguing about much when you say almost exactly what I suggested earlier that an agreed upon fourth year option is a common sense solution if both parties really want a deal. My fear is that Sosnick doesn't want a deal, at least not right now in this economy because the timing works against his clients best interests, at least in his estimation (JJ, looking for economic security for his family may have a different view of things), he wants to paint the Marlins into a corner and then demand the Marlins trade JJ if there is any light at the end of the tunnel a year from now.

Great to see that the baseball team I root for is becoming as stupid as the hockey team I root for.

Jay Bouwmeester, Version 2.0, here we come.

 

Just f***ing trade the guy...NOW!

Nice of you to completely obliterate my point by cutting and pasting half of what I said. Basically my point was the market for long term high price tag deals was getting smaller and smaller, what I don't get is you say you "disagree competely" and then you make the same point yourself.

 

The comments you misquoted were in the context of the last generation's Mike Hampton-esque deals, what I used as an example as seven years/$140 million. Read the two sentences previous to what was extracted. Then if you want to disagree be my guest I think it's going to be a long time before owners in this economy are going to start handing those out again (which is a big part of what Sosnick ignores as well when he starts talking about long term $100 million contracts for JJ). Pure fantasy.

 

And I never said anything about the market "drying up". Nor did I say that baseball was "going into a depression". Honestly, you're welcome to make your point because basically they are valid, but you don't need to butcher what I said to do it.

 

The only way contracts return to those levels is if the Fed starts tightening and interest rates shoot up (and with it inflation rears its ugly head again) in effect increasing the value of the dollar abroad while weakening it at home. That is what inflation does. Multi-year contracts whether they three years or whatever years are based on what dollars will be worth so you give a guy $28 million in year three because that how many dollars it takes to be the equivalent of what say $21 million is worth today. It's an agent's wet dream scenario but in fact the value of those dollars remain the same.

 

And btw we're not arguing about much when you say almost exactly what I suggested earlier that an agreed upon fourth year option is a common sense solution if both parties really want a deal. My fear is that Sosnick doesn't want a deal, at least not right now in this economy because the timing works against his clients best interests, at least in his estimation (JJ, looking for economic security for his family may have a different view of things), he wants to paint the Marlins into a corner and then demand the Marlins trade JJ if there is any light at the end of the tunnel a year from now.

 

I didn't butcher or obliterate anything. Stop it. I'll gladly explain what a reasonable reader understands when you type.

 

I think we're in for a long [not applicable] strike when the current collective bargaining agreement comes around as so many teams that no one ever thought would be in trouble are. The market for 7 year $140 million contracts is getting smaller and smaller. [This could be implied long term, however my previous post completely attacks this point by saying players like Lincecum, Johnson, and Upton will reach this level if "arbitrationed" till free agency. The long term deal is here to stay for star player in there prime and its silly to argue otherwise. Mike Hamption, was in his prime that deal. 27/28 years old and signed for a bunch. CC did the same thing this offseason] It's the Yankees and maybe the Red Sox on a good day [ Or the Dodgers, Angels, Cubs, Mets (who had a higher salary than the Red Sox), Phillies, and another half dozen other teams over the $90 million payroll mark0.. The marketplace for high-priced talent, regardless of the level of that talent, is going to evaporate [Am I to imply high priced talent as a long term deal only? Also what's long? I think 4 years, i.e. what Jason Bay is looking for, is a long contract. 7 years is really long. So you want to play semantics over size of the deal here? ] and the game is going to get younger and younger (which we have already seen beginning). Today's $20 million a year contract is soon going to be $12 million with strings attached.[Manny Ramirez is getting that much money on a short term deal, so are the days of short and long term players getting $20 million done and they will all depreciate to $12 millionish? You see the major problems with your now defense] JJ perhaps was born five or six years too late and sooner or later the economic realities his agent is ignoring are going to come hit him in the face like a 34oz bat.

 

If Johnson is healthy and good in 2010-2011, he will be a $100 million player in free agency. So is Lincecum (whom mildly threatened he will do this, and reports this week he could go for broke with a $20+ arbitration tender this year because no one has ever had the pedigree he has). So are all the similar star players at their age, like a Justin Upton if he continues, etc. The only difference in all of is this the mid level player - Carlos Silva isn't going to get a 4/$40 contract in free agency anymore. It's going to be like 3/$24 now. Garret Anderson signs for 1/$2.5 now. Huge decrease there for this group of players, which makes up a much larger percentage than your real star impact players. There is ALWAYS room at the top, and somebody will always pay for them. Mid Market, is what is hurting as everyone wants to "bargain" shop Randy Wolf, Jason Marquis, Xavier Nady, and Adrian Beltre.

 

---

 

The topic of JJ accepting a 3/4 year contract worth $30-40 million is totally different than the above. $22 is to low, but $30 and vesting option? Yea, that's probably worth it to him for fear of blowing out his arm in the next 2 seasons before "serious payday." Also, if your fear is Sosnick doesnt want a deal. Why do you think that? It's because there are triple digits waiting in free agency.