January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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. In 2012 you're looking at having: 1B Logan CF Maybin RF Stanton LF Petersen 2B Coghlan 3B Dominguez Plus whatever pitchers come in at or around the minimum, and payroll should be up around the 60 million mark in 2012. It'll be fine.
January 15, 201016 yr 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. In 2012 you're looking at having: 1B Logan CF Maybin RF Stanton LF Petersen 2B Coghlan 3B Dominguez Plus whatever pitchers come in at or around the minimum, and payroll should be up around the 60 million mark in 2012. It'll be fine.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr Thats the right deal. Anything that costs more would be ridicoulous. His agent compared him to Greinke, but then wanted 1998 Kevin Brown money. Good for the fish, got er did. !
January 15, 201016 yr Thats the right deal. Anything that costs more would be ridicoulous. His agent compared him to Greinke, but then wanted 1998 Kevin Brown money. Good for the fish, got er did. !
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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.
January 15, 201016 yr 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. We have an ace making less than 10 million a year. The guy has only gotten better after the Tommy John surgery. We're getting a new stadium, and if the new stadium + the Hanley & JJ signings don't get fans excited, then this city truly does not deserve a baseball team. This is a "risk" that had to be taken. It was pretty obvious this was going to get done once we rejected the Rangers offer earlier this offseason (assuming that offer was true). Sooner or later, we need to keep some of our players and have a core to build around. Starting with one of the best players in baseball (best shortstop in baseball) + an ace to be the leader of your staff is a great starting point. Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc.
January 15, 201016 yr 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. We have an ace making less than 10 million a year. The guy has only gotten better after the Tommy John surgery. We're getting a new stadium, and if the new stadium + the Hanley & JJ signings don't get fans excited, then this city truly does not deserve a baseball team. This is a "risk" that had to be taken. It was pretty obvious this was going to get done once we rejected the Rangers offer earlier this offseason (assuming that offer was true). Sooner or later, we need to keep some of our players and have a core to build around. Starting with one of the best players in baseball (best shortstop in baseball) + an ace to be the leader of your staff is a great starting point. Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc.
January 15, 201016 yr 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. We have an ace making less than 10 million a year. The guy has only gotten better after the Tommy John surgery. We're getting a new stadium, and if the new stadium + the Hanley & JJ signings don't get fans excited, then this city truly does not deserve a baseball team. This is a "risk" that had to be taken. It was pretty obvious this was going to get done once we rejected the Rangers offer earlier this offseason (assuming that offer was true). Sooner or later, we need to keep some of our players and have a core to build around. Starting with one of the best players in baseball (best shortstop in baseball) + an ace to be the leader of your staff is a great starting point. Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc. Exactly. Every contract is a "risk".
January 15, 201016 yr 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. We have an ace making less than 10 million a year. The guy has only gotten better after the Tommy John surgery. We're getting a new stadium, and if the new stadium + the Hanley & JJ signings don't get fans excited, then this city truly does not deserve a baseball team. This is a "risk" that had to be taken. It was pretty obvious this was going to get done once we rejected the Rangers offer earlier this offseason (assuming that offer was true). Sooner or later, we need to keep some of our players and have a core to build around. Starting with one of the best players in baseball (best shortstop in baseball) + an ace to be the leader of your staff is a great starting point. Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc. Exactly. Every contract is a "risk".
January 15, 201016 yr 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. :lol :lol :lol Is anyone really this ignorant? Is that even possible? I can only conclude that someone needs to become more familiar with the concept of the opportunity cost of money.
January 15, 201016 yr 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. :lol :lol :lol Is anyone really this ignorant? Is that even possible? I can only conclude that someone needs to become more familiar with the concept of the opportunity cost of money.
January 15, 201016 yr Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc. Exactly. Every contract is a "risk". Yes, some bigger than others, of course.
January 15, 201016 yr Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc. Exactly. Every contract is a "risk". Yes, some bigger than others, of course.
January 16, 201016 yr Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc. Exactly. Every contract is a "risk". Yes, some bigger than others, of course. So you're opposed to Hanley's long-term contract too?
January 16, 201016 yr Every contract comes with risks of injury, etc. Exactly. Every contract is a "risk". Yes, some bigger than others, of course. So you're opposed to Hanley's long-term contract too?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.