Long-term contract talks with Josh Johnson hits roadblock

by craig on Nov 21, 2009 7:54 AM EST in News Comment 9 comments

Long-term contract negotiations with Josh Johnson may have come to an end.

"Josh obviously wanted to do something to stay long-term with the Marlins, but it doesn't look that way now,' his agent, Matt Sosnick, said today.

Johnson, 25, is entering his second winter of arbitration but was hoping to sign a four-year contract worth at least $40 million.

The Marlins were believed to be willing to go no longer than three years for about $22 million.

When the sides could not resolve their differences, the Marlins said they preferred to go year-to-year.

"They made it very clear they only wanted to talk about a one-year deal,' Sosnick said.

Don't know if the Marlins offer is accurate but if it is, 3 year/$22 million is a pretty low ball offer. Team Johnson is locked on a four-year deal and the Marlins aren't budging from a three-year deal. I can understand not wanting to go more than three years with a pitcher, they tend to get hurt. While it makes for a nice rule of thumb, however, every now and then an exception is called for. And this would seem to warrant such an exception. To get Johnson for a 4-year, $40 million deal, you are locking in a number one starter below the projected fair market price. I would be willing to roll the dice on this one and I think the Marlins should, but they don't ask me.

If the two sides continue to refuse to give and it becomes obvious that there is no possibility of a deal being reached, the Marlins need to trade JJ as soon as possible, like before spring training. The risk of waiting until after the 2010 season is that he could get hurt, or maybe even have an off-year, thus lowering his trade value. Right now, Johnson is extremely valuable and impact pitchers are hard to come by in the offseason. If the team is going to trade him anyway, it makes sense to do so when you know you can get a high value for him.

Hopefully this is all posturing and the two sides will continue the talks later on, but I wouldn't count on it.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Sigh....

Typical Marlins off-season ‘negotiating’ — getting rid of one of our best players

by LondonDave on Nov 21, 2009 10:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

What's JJ's estimated arb salary for 2010?

I’m thinking we could keep him one more year before we trade him. We’d still most likely get a good return, plus I think we can compete next year with him.

by tdp992 on Nov 21, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

$ 4-5 million

by craig on Nov 21, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I saw this from a mile away...

I believe him and hanley are the guys you build a playoff caliber team around. Look at JJ’s numbers for the past 2 years: 22-6 with a 3.25 or something era. If somebody agrees with me let me know or if you don’t post that too.

by Pepsidude95 on Nov 21, 2009 1:10 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

Trade him to the Giants.

JJ and Uggla for Madison Bumgarner, Conor Gillaspie, Nick Noonan, Clayton Tanner, Waldis Jacquin, and Brandon Crawford.

Or the Twins; JJ for Aaron Hicks, Wilson Ramos, Kyle Gibson, and a mid-level pitching prospect with potential.

by JP 23 on Nov 21, 2009 2:17 PM EST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

tbh

the 2nd trade hardly seems like enough. The former trade is borderline.

I think, if JJ gets shopped, the Marlins should be able to net a higher return than recent pitching deals (Cliff Lee/Rich Harden). They might be able to get close to Dan Haren trade value.

That said, each trade exists in it’s own environment. The 2nd trade just doesn’t seem like enough. Hicks has a high ceiling, but is very far away. Ramos might be more backup catcher. Gibson’s an unknown.

The first trade is close if you like some of the other Giants prospects. I’m not a huge fan of many of the guys you listed, so I’m not as high on the deal, but it’s borderline enough that I could see it happen.

by toonsterwu on Nov 23, 2009 5:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're not going to find more realistic deals than that. No ones going to give us 5 superstar prospects.

What do you think we could get?

If we were to allow teams a window to talk an extentsion with JJ, we could probably get more.

by JP 23 on Nov 23, 2009 8:08 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not expecting the Fish to land 5 superstar prospects

I do, though, think that the Marlins could land a deal better than the Cliff Lee/Rich Harden trades of recent years, and perhaps close to the Dan Haren deal. The extra year Haren had likely means that Josh probably couldn’t net as high a return, but then again, each trade exists in it’s own environment.

I’m just not a huge fan of the Twins deal you are suggesting. I think that’s a deal heavily in the Twins favor. I like Aaron Hicks. Has the shot to be a solid OF, but he’s so far away that, as the centerpiece of a deal for an ace, I don’t think he’s good enough. Now, certainly, one could argue he’s an upside asset, like a Josh Donaldson or Jason Knapp in recent trades, but you’d have to have enough upper level ability to balance that out, and I’m far from sold on Wilson Ramos. Also, Gibson just signed so he can’t be dealt towards midseason anyways.

The first deal is close enough that I could buy it from a value perspective. I’m not a huge fan of it, either, though. I think Crawford was a Cal League overhype. Tanner’s a solid mid-end of the rotation possibility. Noonan showed some positive trends this year, but I’m still far from certain that he has the bat to make the bigs as anything more than a utility player, if he makes it. Gillaspie’s a corner IF with little power. Joaquin is a nice potential power pen arm. Everything rides on Bumgarner, who’s velocity, by most accounts, slipped from the low 90’s to the upper 80’s. That said, I still like Bumgarner, but this is really Bumgarner and change and I’m not a fan of the change. Add in Uggla to the deal, and I don’t love it, but it’s close if you like the change.

Put it this way, the Lee/Harden trades were similar in that, both had two upper level “safer” assets (Marson/Donald vs. Murton/Patterson) to go with a potential 2/3 type arm in the upper levels (Carrasco vs. Gallagher) and an upside asset (Knapp vs. Donaldson). Due to Josh’s age and the fact that, if you deal him in the offseason, the value’s probably higher, I think you could do better than that. The Haren deal was two top 40 (BA had CGonzalez at 22 and BAnderson at 36 at the time of the deal), an intriguing OF (Cunningham), usable arms in Eveland/Smith, and a decent corner IF guy in Chris Carter at the time (A’s also sent Connor Robbertson).

by toonsterwu on Nov 23, 2009 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs