Josh Johnson, 4 years $39 million

[Erick]

Yes, but when you have say, $100M to work with, $13.5M/year is only 13.5% of your payroll. When you have a $40M to work with, $13.5M is 30% of your payroll. Obviously the Marlins with their $40-50M payroll is taking the larger risk than a team with over twice the payroll.

 

 

Are we really going to have to spend that much more on the rest of our team?

Most of our core players are club controlled during this timeframe. And payroll is likely to increase over 50...at least by the 2012 season.

[BroncoBob27]

i really have no problem if the money went towards the stadium and mlb would never force them to jepordize the stadium funds so its clear that this was done the right way.

 

You might have no problem and neither would I, but the MLBPA would have a problem and it's against the rules of the CBA.

 

I don't think it went that way. Maybe more towards player developement and scouting if anything. Phrases I keep reading from the powers-that-be are more along the lines of "continued support" and "a shot across the bow to other teams." Any comments saying $$ was being spent differently or not at all are coming from the media and sports boards geniuses. Most times those three lines of "info" get blurred and most just the start to assume the worst. Large market owners complained loudly and MLB had to do or say something. We had the lowest payroll the last two years, and are known for frugality, so we were singled out. The requirement is to put a competitive team on the field. Something we have done the last two years. It's hard to make a point that you aren't spending enough to compete when you are competing.

 

But did they really compete ? A really concerned owner would have spent the extra $ 4 or $6 million needed at the end of the season to get us into the playoffs. Instead we got the injury prone Nick Johnson, who they let walk away at the end of the year after giving away two or three players.....we end up with nothing. Why make that trade ? We now don't have those trade-bait guys we used to get Johnson in the 1st place. It was only when forced by MLB did the Marlins finally do the right thing. Cheapazzness allowed them to let Gload go (to the Phillies no less :banghead) instead of keeping a good bench guy, who played big for us in some key situations last year. Its very frustrating being a fan of a team that is on the cusp of a special year, only to see the ownership think its better to pay for $ 20 million grants to already rich schools, upkeep on yachts & private French castles, and foo-foo artsy-fartsy paintings for the owner of the team.

 

Bob I know you act as the ownerships personal apologist most of the time, but even you must see through their disgustingly cheapazzness and feeding at the trough of MLB revenue sharing for their own pleasure at the MLB teams expense on the field.

 

You are of the group that mistakenly think the ownership group has been pocketing the $$$. Dosen't work. Simply can't happen in today's media driven world. And again I go back to what MLB, the union, and the team have continually said, "continued compliance." Don't cross the line and mix in what the media and bloggers are saying with absolutely no proof and start thinking those are the facts. Go by what the 3 major parties are saying. Until I get cold hard facts differently (and it's been alot of years the media has had to come up with proof of their allegations, unsuccessfully I may add) that's what I'm going to go by.

 

The bolded part is simple hogwash. It has always been known that $$$ going out would reflect $$$ coming in. And I've been saying since the geniuses put our payroll at around $36 mil for this year (see October posts and Media articles) for proof that made no sense, with tons of reasons why I came to that conclusion. Fans want a better product on the field, fans need to spend some time at the ball park. Telling someone else to open their wallet and how to spend their $$$ while you keep your wallet closed is hypocritical. And fits what I always say, "If you want better TV viewing then turn the channel." That's not being an apologist for ownership, that's knowing you can't run a biz in the red year in and year out. If you do you don't get a new stadium and you end up calling San Antonio home.

[BroncoBob27]

i really have no problem if the money went towards the stadium and mlb would never force them to jepordize the stadium funds so its clear that this was done the right way.

 

You might have no problem and neither would I, but the MLBPA would have a problem and it's against the rules of the CBA.

 

I don't think it went that way. Maybe more towards player developement and scouting if anything. Phrases I keep reading from the powers-that-be are more along the lines of "continued support" and "a shot across the bow to other teams." Any comments saying $$ was being spent differently or not at all are coming from the media and sports boards geniuses. Most times those three lines of "info" get blurred and most just the start to assume the worst. Large market owners complained loudly and MLB had to do or say something. We had the lowest payroll the last two years, and are known for frugality, so we were singled out. The requirement is to put a competitive team on the field. Something we have done the last two years. It's hard to make a point that you aren't spending enough to compete when you are competing.

 

But did they really compete ? A really concerned owner would have spent the extra $ 4 or $6 million needed at the end of the season to get us into the playoffs. Instead we got the injury prone Nick Johnson, who they let walk away at the end of the year after giving away two or three players.....we end up with nothing. Why make that trade ? We now don't have those trade-bait guys we used to get Johnson in the 1st place. It was only when forced by MLB did the Marlins finally do the right thing. Cheapazzness allowed them to let Gload go (to the Phillies no less :banghead) instead of keeping a good bench guy, who played big for us in some key situations last year. Its very frustrating being a fan of a team that is on the cusp of a special year, only to see the ownership think its better to pay for $ 20 million grants to already rich schools, upkeep on yachts & private French castles, and foo-foo artsy-fartsy paintings for the owner of the team.

 

Bob I know you act as the ownerships personal apologist most of the time, but even you must see through their disgustingly cheapazzness and feeding at the trough of MLB revenue sharing for their own pleasure at the MLB teams expense on the field.

 

You are of the group that mistakenly think the ownership group has been pocketing the $$$. Dosen't work. Simply can't happen in today's media driven world. And again I go back to what MLB, the union, and the team have continually said, "continued compliance." Don't cross the line and mix in what the media and bloggers are saying with absolutely no proof and start thinking those are the facts. Go by what the 3 major parties are saying. Until I get cold hard facts differently (and it's been alot of years the media has had to come up with proof of their allegations, unsuccessfully I may add) that's what I'm going to go by.

 

The bolded part is simple hogwash. It has always been known that $$$ going out would reflect $$$ coming in. And I've been saying since the geniuses put our payroll at around $36 mil for this year (see October posts and Media articles) for proof that made no sense, with tons of reasons why I came to that conclusion. Fans want a better product on the field, fans need to spend some time at the ball park. Telling someone else to open their wallet and how to spend their $$$ while you keep your wallet closed is hypocritical. And fits what I always say, "If you want better TV viewing then turn the channel." That's not being an apologist for ownership, that's knowing you can't run a biz in the red year in and year out. If you do you don't get a new stadium and you end up calling San Antonio home.

[BroncoBob27]

And it makes my $45-50 mil Opening Day payroll even more plausable. It could go higher, but I don't change my predictions almost weekly.

 

 

Why don't people understand that this likely lowers our payroll for the next two seasons, albeit fairly marginally. He was due to get about 4.5 million in arbitration. If we get to the 45-50 million dollar range in 10, it's not because we gave JJ a contract. It will be because we are keeping Uggla and Cantu. That's literally the difference between 40 and 45 million.

 

 

Maybe because it's not what the 3 groups involved are saying. Maybe it's because this only the middle of January and they realize how slow the FA market is moving and actually realize more moves are almost guaranteed to happen. Maybe it's because it dosen't fit what is happening as far as season ticket sales.

[BroncoBob27]

And it makes my $45-50 mil Opening Day payroll even more plausable. It could go higher, but I don't change my predictions almost weekly.

 

 

Why don't people understand that this likely lowers our payroll for the next two seasons, albeit fairly marginally. He was due to get about 4.5 million in arbitration. If we get to the 45-50 million dollar range in 10, it's not because we gave JJ a contract. It will be because we are keeping Uggla and Cantu. That's literally the difference between 40 and 45 million.

 

 

Maybe because it's not what the 3 groups involved are saying. Maybe it's because this only the middle of January and they realize how slow the FA market is moving and actually realize more moves are almost guaranteed to happen. Maybe it's because it dosen't fit what is happening as far as season ticket sales.

[BroncoBob27]

My analysis: The Marlins get one cheap year out of Johnson. If he excells, he will be traded for sure after this season. If he is mediocre, the Marlins will be stuck with a bad contract. If he is injured, the Marlins will be stuck with an awful contract.

 

 

I give you a sad.

 

 

 

and I don't agree with the "MLB embarrassed them into doing it" crowd either. Maybe you could argue the timing of it, but I'm pretty sure they've been working hard on this for a while now and this (or something close to it) was always the goal.

 

 

And those would be the same ones that were pretty much buying into what his agent was saying. Maybe they should read his comments on that very topic. They are on the Marlins web site right now.

[BroncoBob27]

My analysis: The Marlins get one cheap year out of Johnson. If he excells, he will be traded for sure after this season. If he is mediocre, the Marlins will be stuck with a bad contract. If he is injured, the Marlins will be stuck with an awful contract.

 

 

I give you a sad.

 

 

 

and I don't agree with the "MLB embarrassed them into doing it" crowd either. Maybe you could argue the timing of it, but I'm pretty sure they've been working hard on this for a while now and this (or something close to it) was always the goal.

 

 

And those would be the same ones that were pretty much buying into what his agent was saying. Maybe they should read his comments on that very topic. They are on the Marlins web site right now.

[BroncoBob27]

The only thing I don't like about this contract is how heavily it is backloaded. In 2012, we will owe JJ and Hanley alone $29 million. Even though we will probably be filled with a bunch of players who haven't reached arbitration yet, it still enforces tight restrictions on our payroll yet again.

 

A balanced contract of a little less than $10 million per year would have been better for our long-term future in my opinion. If we needed to, we could have traded either Uggla or Cantu this off-season to stay around the $45 million mark.

 

 

This is just how arbitration contracts work. They aren't really "backloaded" in a Delgado contract sense. Instead, JJ is getting slightly less than what he would be if he went year to year without a contract. Look at all contracts that are signed with 4 years or less of service time, all of them are like this.

 

 

Yeah, I know how arbitration contracts work, but you're acting as if backloading them is mandatory. I simply stated that it would have been in the best interest of the franchise to put more of that money into the first two years.

 

I don't think it is. Our payroll in 2012 and 2013 will be higher than it is now. So we will have more money to spend those years compared to this year and next year.

 

The only thing I would disagree with this post is the presumption of how much $$$ we will have to spend in 2011. I see a nice bump coming. The team is already getting an idea of how season ticket sales will be in 2011 by offering current season ticket holders reduced pricing if they buy now for 2011 (we have and alot of our section friends also have). By reduced I mean at near 2009 prices. And according to a Samson face to face question at the Holiday Party, ticket prices will see a very noticable increase for 2011 because of folks buying packages then to secure seating in the new pond. That translates to mean added income by number of packages sold and the raised price. Higher income equates to higher payroll. One of the many reasons I say this week's 3 way public announcement wasn't meant to single out the Marlins, but rather to more so act as a warning to other teams.

[BroncoBob27]

The only thing I don't like about this contract is how heavily it is backloaded. In 2012, we will owe JJ and Hanley alone $29 million. Even though we will probably be filled with a bunch of players who haven't reached arbitration yet, it still enforces tight restrictions on our payroll yet again.

 

A balanced contract of a little less than $10 million per year would have been better for our long-term future in my opinion. If we needed to, we could have traded either Uggla or Cantu this off-season to stay around the $45 million mark.

 

 

This is just how arbitration contracts work. They aren't really "backloaded" in a Delgado contract sense. Instead, JJ is getting slightly less than what he would be if he went year to year without a contract. Look at all contracts that are signed with 4 years or less of service time, all of them are like this.

 

 

Yeah, I know how arbitration contracts work, but you're acting as if backloading them is mandatory. I simply stated that it would have been in the best interest of the franchise to put more of that money into the first two years.

 

I don't think it is. Our payroll in 2012 and 2013 will be higher than it is now. So we will have more money to spend those years compared to this year and next year.

 

The only thing I would disagree with this post is the presumption of how much $$$ we will have to spend in 2011. I see a nice bump coming. The team is already getting an idea of how season ticket sales will be in 2011 by offering current season ticket holders reduced pricing if they buy now for 2011 (we have and alot of our section friends also have). By reduced I mean at near 2009 prices. And according to a Samson face to face question at the Holiday Party, ticket prices will see a very noticable increase for 2011 because of folks buying packages then to secure seating in the new pond. That translates to mean added income by number of packages sold and the raised price. Higher income equates to higher payroll. One of the many reasons I say this week's 3 way public announcement wasn't meant to single out the Marlins, but rather to more so act as a warning to other teams.

[BroncoBob27]

No. When I heard we locked up Hanley for a couple of his free agent seasons, I was doing the Macarena. He has a complete clean bill of health -- he's a position player (less volatile/injury prone than pitchers), and one of the most electric and most valuable players in baseball.

 

 

 

Wrong.

[BroncoBob27]

No. When I heard we locked up Hanley for a couple of his free agent seasons, I was doing the Macarena. He has a complete clean bill of health -- he's a position player (less volatile/injury prone than pitchers), and one of the most electric and most valuable players in baseball.

 

 

 

Wrong.

[BroncoBob27]

Is JJ an injury risk? Yes. All athletes are. But Tommy John surgery is fairly routine at this point. Even precautionary in some instances.

 

You cant balk on giving young pitchers deals forever. You cant consistently have turnover in the rotation, veterans replaced by youth. It is not how you build winners.

 

 

I've been against giving pitchers long term deals. But JJ wanted to stay here, the team wanted him to stay here, the only thing stopping that was his agent demanding that 4th year. So buckle and get it done. And most notably without a no-trade clause (it's an out, just in case).

[BroncoBob27]

Is JJ an injury risk? Yes. All athletes are. But Tommy John surgery is fairly routine at this point. Even precautionary in some instances.

 

You cant balk on giving young pitchers deals forever. You cant consistently have turnover in the rotation, veterans replaced by youth. It is not how you build winners.

 

 

I've been against giving pitchers long term deals. But JJ wanted to stay here, the team wanted him to stay here, the only thing stopping that was his agent demanding that 4th year. So buckle and get it done. And most notably without a no-trade clause (it's an out, just in case).

[Nny]

The only thing I don't like about this contract is how heavily it is backloaded. In 2012, we will owe JJ and Hanley alone $29 million. Even though we will probably be filled with a bunch of players who haven't reached arbitration yet, it still enforces tight restrictions on our payroll yet again.

 

A balanced contract of a little less than $10 million per year would have been better for our long-term future in my opinion. If we needed to, we could have traded either Uggla or Cantu this off-season to stay around the $45 million mark.

 

 

This is just how arbitration contracts work. They aren't really "backloaded" in a Delgado contract sense. Instead, JJ is getting slightly less than what he would be if he went year to year without a contract. Look at all contracts that are signed with 4 years or less of service time, all of them are like this.

 

 

Yeah, I know how arbitration contracts work, but you're acting as if backloading them is mandatory. I simply stated that it would have been in the best interest of the franchise to put more of that money into the first two years.

 

The issue is that, if a player is making that much in his arbitration years, teams could use that contract to say to an arbitrator "hey, my player deserves to make this much money because JJ made this much money." It would be setting a precedence and now all the pitchers that would only be making ~4 mil right now in arbitration shoot up to ~10 mil.

[Nny]

The only thing I don't like about this contract is how heavily it is backloaded. In 2012, we will owe JJ and Hanley alone $29 million. Even though we will probably be filled with a bunch of players who haven't reached arbitration yet, it still enforces tight restrictions on our payroll yet again.

 

A balanced contract of a little less than $10 million per year would have been better for our long-term future in my opinion. If we needed to, we could have traded either Uggla or Cantu this off-season to stay around the $45 million mark.

 

 

This is just how arbitration contracts work. They aren't really "backloaded" in a Delgado contract sense. Instead, JJ is getting slightly less than what he would be if he went year to year without a contract. Look at all contracts that are signed with 4 years or less of service time, all of them are like this.

 

 

Yeah, I know how arbitration contracts work, but you're acting as if backloading them is mandatory. I simply stated that it would have been in the best interest of the franchise to put more of that money into the first two years.

 

The issue is that, if a player is making that much in his arbitration years, teams could use that contract to say to an arbitrator "hey, my player deserves to make this much money because JJ made this much money." It would be setting a precedence and now all the pitchers that would only be making ~4 mil right now in arbitration shoot up to ~10 mil.

[mystikol87]

And it makes my $45-50 mil Opening Day payroll even more plausable. It could go higher, but I don't change my predictions almost weekly.

 

 

Why don't people understand that this likely lowers our payroll for the next two seasons, albeit fairly marginally. He was due to get about 4.5 million in arbitration. If we get to the 45-50 million dollar range in 10, it's not because we gave JJ a contract. It will be because we are keeping Uggla and Cantu. That's literally the difference between 40 and 45 million.

 

 

Maybe because it's not what the 3 groups involved are saying. Maybe it's because this only the middle of January and they realize how slow the FA market is moving and actually realize more moves are almost guaranteed to happen. Maybe it's because it dosen't fit what is happening as far as season ticket sales.

 

You're misunderstanding bobbob's point. He's saying that, in this contract, JJ is actually going to make a little bit less than he was likely to receive in arbitration ($3.75 MM vs an estimated $4.5MM); all other things being equal, we have a slightly smaller monetary obligation now than we expected before this contract was signed.

 

I don't think he meant to imply that this contract signifies any other cost cuts or anything; just that, if given all our other moves, for example, our payroll would have been $45 MM if JJ went to arbitration, it would be $44.5 MM now that he's signed this deal.

[mystikol87]

And it makes my $45-50 mil Opening Day payroll even more plausable. It could go higher, but I don't change my predictions almost weekly.

 

 

Why don't people understand that this likely lowers our payroll for the next two seasons, albeit fairly marginally. He was due to get about 4.5 million in arbitration. If we get to the 45-50 million dollar range in 10, it's not because we gave JJ a contract. It will be because we are keeping Uggla and Cantu. That's literally the difference between 40 and 45 million.

 

 

Maybe because it's not what the 3 groups involved are saying. Maybe it's because this only the middle of January and they realize how slow the FA market is moving and actually realize more moves are almost guaranteed to happen. Maybe it's because it dosen't fit what is happening as far as season ticket sales.

 

You're misunderstanding bobbob's point. He's saying that, in this contract, JJ is actually going to make a little bit less than he was likely to receive in arbitration ($3.75 MM vs an estimated $4.5MM); all other things being equal, we have a slightly smaller monetary obligation now than we expected before this contract was signed.

 

I don't think he meant to imply that this contract signifies any other cost cuts or anything; just that, if given all our other moves, for example, our payroll would have been $45 MM if JJ went to arbitration, it would be $44.5 MM now that he's signed this deal.

[Fish Dynasty]

The only thing I don't like about this contract is how heavily it is backloaded. In 2012, we will owe JJ and Hanley alone $29 million. Even though we will probably be filled with a bunch of players who haven't reached arbitration yet, it still enforces tight restrictions on our payroll yet again.

 

A balanced contract of a little less than $10 million per year would have been better for our long-term future in my opinion. If we needed to, we could have traded either Uggla or Cantu this off-season to stay around the $45 million mark.

 

 

This is just how arbitration contracts work. They aren't really "backloaded" in a Delgado contract sense. Instead, JJ is getting slightly less than what he would be if he went year to year without a contract. Look at all contracts that are signed with 4 years or less of service time, all of them are like this.

 

 

Yeah, I know how arbitration contracts work, but you're acting as if backloading them is mandatory. I simply stated that it would have been in the best interest of the franchise to put more of that money into the first two years.

 

The issue is that, if a player is making that much in his arbitration years, teams could use that contract to say to an arbitrator "hey, my player deserves to make this much money because JJ made this much money." It would be setting a precedence and now all the pitchers that would only be making ~4 mil right now in arbitration shoot up to ~10 mil.

 

 

Teams and players would know that the money he is making in his first two years isn't the money he would be making in arbitration, its just the way the contract would be structured. And even if they did, then the team could use the same tactics and decrease the amount they would receive in their first two FA years.

 

If a team and a player already agree on a base contract on 4 years/39 million, then I don't think the player would care how the money is laid out on an annual basis, but making this an even contract could have given the Marlins a little more flexibility in the future.

[Fish Dynasty]

The only thing I don't like about this contract is how heavily it is backloaded. In 2012, we will owe JJ and Hanley alone $29 million. Even though we will probably be filled with a bunch of players who haven't reached arbitration yet, it still enforces tight restrictions on our payroll yet again.

 

A balanced contract of a little less than $10 million per year would have been better for our long-term future in my opinion. If we needed to, we could have traded either Uggla or Cantu this off-season to stay around the $45 million mark.

 

 

This is just how arbitration contracts work. They aren't really "backloaded" in a Delgado contract sense. Instead, JJ is getting slightly less than what he would be if he went year to year without a contract. Look at all contracts that are signed with 4 years or less of service time, all of them are like this.

 

 

Yeah, I know how arbitration contracts work, but you're acting as if backloading them is mandatory. I simply stated that it would have been in the best interest of the franchise to put more of that money into the first two years.

 

The issue is that, if a player is making that much in his arbitration years, teams could use that contract to say to an arbitrator "hey, my player deserves to make this much money because JJ made this much money." It would be setting a precedence and now all the pitchers that would only be making ~4 mil right now in arbitration shoot up to ~10 mil.

 

 

Teams and players would know that the money he is making in his first two years isn't the money he would be making in arbitration, its just the way the contract would be structured. And even if they did, then the team could use the same tactics and decrease the amount they would receive in their first two FA years.

 

If a team and a player already agree on a base contract on 4 years/39 million, then I don't think the player would care how the money is laid out on an annual basis, but making this an even contract could have given the Marlins a little more flexibility in the future.

[Nny]

Teams and players would know that the money he is making in his first two years isn't the money he would be making in arbitration, its just the way the contract would be structured. And even if they did, then the team could use the same tactics and decrease the amount they would receive in their first two FA years.

 

 

It's arbitration that's the problem, not signing players to contracts pre-arb years. An agent goes to an arbitrator and says "hey, JJ is making this much money so my client deserves a lot more", arbitrator listens.

[Nny]

Teams and players would know that the money he is making in his first two years isn't the money he would be making in arbitration, its just the way the contract would be structured. And even if they did, then the team could use the same tactics and decrease the amount they would receive in their first two FA years.

 

 

It's arbitration that's the problem, not signing players to contracts pre-arb years. An agent goes to an arbitrator and says "hey, JJ is making this much money so my client deserves a lot more", arbitrator listens.

[LordMagnus]

Yes, but when you have say, $100M to work with, $13.5M/year is only 13.5% of your payroll. When you have a $40M to work with, $13.5M is 30% of your payroll. Obviously the Marlins with their $40-50M payroll is taking the larger risk than a team with over twice the payroll.

 

 

No, the point is that if you sign players to bad contracts instead of signing good players to good contracts, you're in a bad spot regardless. Teams that always play it safe never get anywhere.

[LordMagnus]

Yes, but when you have say, $100M to work with, $13.5M/year is only 13.5% of your payroll. When you have a $40M to work with, $13.5M is 30% of your payroll. Obviously the Marlins with their $40-50M payroll is taking the larger risk than a team with over twice the payroll.

 

 

No, the point is that if you sign players to bad contracts instead of signing good players to good contracts, you're in a bad spot regardless. Teams that always play it safe never get anywhere.

[bobbob1313]

You're misunderstanding bobbob's point. He's saying that, in this contract, JJ is actually going to make a little bit less than he was likely to receive in arbitration ($3.75 MM vs an estimated $4.5MM); all other things being equal, we have a slightly smaller monetary obligation now than we expected before this contract was signed.

 

I don't think he meant to imply that this contract signifies any other cost cuts or anything; just that, if given all our other moves, for example, our payroll would have been $45 MM if JJ went to arbitration, it would be $44.5 MM now that he's signed this deal.

 

 

You get me. You really get me.

[bobbob1313]

You're misunderstanding bobbob's point. He's saying that, in this contract, JJ is actually going to make a little bit less than he was likely to receive in arbitration ($3.75 MM vs an estimated $4.5MM); all other things being equal, we have a slightly smaller monetary obligation now than we expected before this contract was signed.

 

I don't think he meant to imply that this contract signifies any other cost cuts or anything; just that, if given all our other moves, for example, our payroll would have been $45 MM if JJ went to arbitration, it would be $44.5 MM now that he's signed this deal.

 

 

You get me. You really get me.