That's the big "if" .. the Marlins are betting $40M he remains healthy and productive .. and they're certainly much closer to the situation than any of us are, so that does give me some confidence in the deal. However, they're usually very apprehensive about guaranteeing more than 3 yrs, and they were hesitant to go that long with him earlier this offseason during contract talks, so that makes me not so confident. Either way, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

 

The hesitancy could very well have been a negotiating tactic. Also, the first part of that sentence should show you just how confident the FO is that they would actually give a guy a 4 year deal.

That's the big "if" .. the Marlins are betting $40M he remains healthy and productive .. and they're certainly much closer to the situation than any of us are, so that does give me some confidence in the deal. However, they're usually very apprehensive about guaranteeing more than 3 yrs, and they were hesitant to go that long with him earlier this offseason during contract talks, so that makes me not so confident. Either way, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

 

The hesitancy could very well have been a negotiating tactic. Also, the first part of that sentence should show you just how confident the FO is that they would actually give a guy a 4 year deal.

Just awesome news. That's all I can say really. Certainly made my day to find out JJ signed a deal.

Just awesome news. That's all I can say really. Certainly made my day to find out JJ signed a deal.

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.

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.

Please tell me ^ ^ is a troll.

Please tell me ^ ^ is a troll.

Please tell me ^ ^ is a troll.

 

 

I think already know the answer to that.

Please tell me ^ ^ is a troll.

 

 

I think already know the answer to that.

Some incentives in JJ's contract:

 

If the soon-to-be 26-year-old wins the Cy Young Award, he will collect a $500,000 bonus. An All-Star in 2009, there also is a bonus of $50,000 if he again should reach the Midsummer Classic.

 

But the big prize on the contract is connected to winning it all.

 

Should Johnson be the World Series MVP, he would trigger a $1 million bonus.

Some incentives in JJ's contract:

 

If the soon-to-be 26-year-old wins the Cy Young Award, he will collect a $500,000 bonus. An All-Star in 2009, there also is a bonus of $50,000 if he again should reach the Midsummer Classic.

 

But the big prize on the contract is connected to winning it all.

 

Should Johnson be the World Series MVP, he would trigger a $1 million bonus.

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.

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.

Very glad MLB call out the FO, otherwise we will be still waiting for a contract with Johnson, its a great day.

Very glad MLB call out the FO, otherwise we will be still waiting for a contract with Johnson, its a great day.

Being in KY I'm pretty much the only Marlins fan in my group of friends. I was delighted to get a ton of texts/tweets about this yesterday. Great news all around!

Being in KY I'm pretty much the only Marlins fan in my group of friends. I was delighted to get a ton of texts/tweets about this yesterday. Great news all around!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Payroll increase (although somewhat forced), JJ signing, Uggla signing or arbi offer likely.

 

Best news for me out of all of this is that it looks like we're finally starting to set a new standard: we're willing to spend money again.

 

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.

 

They were in talks with him and made him several offers well before the revenue sharing thing was brought up.