Johnson Part of the Core

[eddie83]

Closers are a part of the game whether people like it not. You have to be able to get both lefties and righties out and be able to pitch back to back. I don't think everyone meets that criteria. I understand the idea that anyone can do it but I don't think it is quite that easy. If this was 2008 we should deal JJ but it isn't, we are a contending team and have a pitcher that has been solid over his entire career.

I have been critical of JJ this year to say the least. I think his losses played a very big role in us not getting 15-17 games over .500 the first half or so of the season. At the end of the day though he didn't have an awful season.

He doesn't get a lot of K's but he doesn't let up a lot of HR's either. I think we are a better team with him and we have no better option on the roster. I would rather go into next year with someone that has shown they can get he job done instead of rolling the dice.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I didn't "beotch and moan" about it.

I dismissed it.

Totally different.

Exactly. I use sarcasm/humor because I don't like "beotch and moan". It's not like the arguments for/against Johnson haven't been laid out.

[Can_of_corn]

Dismissed it by continuing to post about it here. Over and over again.

You have this remarkable tendency to post replies that have no relevance to the ongoing conversation.

What does me dismissing the importance of saves have to do with my continuing to post in this thread?

[mark_beckens]

You have this remarkable tendency to post replies that have no relevance to the ongoing conversation.

What does me dismissing the importance of saves have to do with my continuing to post in this thread?

I don't know, why do you feel the need to tell everyone how little you think of Johnson? We post about an accomplishment, you dismiss it and mock it. I think that makes you a troll in this thread.

[mark_beckens]

Yeh, act like the "kick your dog" comment was literal because you totally didn't know that was a figure of speech. Keep obfuscating things.

I have a fine sense of humor. I don't think you're as funny as you think you are. That comment didn't even come across as trying to be humorous to me. It came across as mean IMHO.

Frobby/Rick clearly agreed with me as he responded. Maybe he doesn't have a sense of humor either.

If you really did mean the comment to be funny rather than nasty, you had an opportunity to say without attacking me. I would have simply replied that I'm sorry I misinterpreted your tone. Instead, your first words were intended to attack me personally. I get it. This is who you are. I'm done with this and I stand by my original statement.

Agrees with you also. Johnson haters are out in force today.

[Can_of_corn]

I don't know, why do you feel the need to tell everyone how little you think of Johnson? We post about an accomplishment, you dismiss it and mock it. I think that makes you a troll in this thread.

I don't think little of Johnson.

If the O's were paying him a couple million next year I would be glad to have him back.

I have no issue with Johnson. I have issues with overpaying relief pitchers and managers blindly following the dictates of the Save Rule.

According to vatech I have made my opinions abundantly clear on these topics.

Odd that you still don't get it.

[Il BuonO]

I don't think little of Johnson.

If the O's were paying him a couple million next year I would be glad to have him back.

I have no issue with Johnson. I have issues with overpaying relief pitchers and managers blindly following the dictates of the Save Rule.

According to vatech I have made my opinions abundantly clear on these topics.

Odd that you still don't get it.

That's it in a nutshell. Jim Johnson is a fine human. I'm almost certain although I don't know the man. What does that have to do with have to do with anything?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yeh, act like the "kick your dog" comment was literal because you totally didn't know that was a figure of speech. Keep obfuscating things.

I have a fine sense of humor. I don't think you're as funny as you think you are. That comment didn't even come across as trying to be humorous to me. It came across as mean IMHO.

Frobby/Rick clearly agreed with me as he responded. Maybe he doesn't have a sense of humor either.

If you really did mean the comment to be funny rather than nasty, you had an opportunity to say without attacking me. I would have simply replied that I'm sorry I misinterpreted your tone. Instead, your first words were intended to attack me personally. I get it. This is who you are. I'm done with this and I stand by my original statement.

I post with some pretty biting sarcasm at times. You certainly don't have to find it funny and I'm sure most other posters don't as well. I don't know who Rick is but I'm quite sure you're right that Frobby probably doesn't find me funny or appreciate my sarcasm as well. If you find it offensive though, then you might be better served putting me on ignore. That goes for any other poster on the board who is offended by me, as i really don't intend on changing my style. Again, I'm not interested in taking a poll of who likes my style or not.

If the moderators have an issue with me, then I'll take it from there I guess.

Other than that, I'll also stand by my original reply that you're taking yourself way too seriously.

Edit: I'd like to add that although I know we have different view points, I'll miss interacting with you on more tangible subjects....like baseball. I'll certainly continue to read and appreciate your baseball related analysis.

[mdbdotcom]

I don't think little of Johnson.

If the O's were paying him a couple million next year I would be glad to have him back.

I have no issue with Johnson. I have issues with overpaying relief pitchers and managers blindly following the dictates of the Save Rule.

According to vatech I have made my opinions abundantly clear on these topics.

Odd that you still don't get it.

If they had someone in the wings to take his place, it would be a lot easier to let him go. Or, if that were the only problem they need to addres and could focus on that. Neither of those is the case. They have starting pitching issues and OBP issues and Johnson does an effective job.

If Hammel would accept $6 million to close next year, they'd probably be happy to sign him and trade JJ for whatever they could get. Failing that, I think they see him as an expensive solution to what would become a big problem if they let him go.

They can overpay JJ with the money they'll save by letting BRob go.

[Can_of_corn]

If they had someone in the wings to take his place, it would be a lot easier to let him go. Or, if that were the only problem they need to addres and could focus on that. Neither of those is the case. They have starting pitching issues and OBP issues and Johnson does an effective job.

If Hammel would accept $6 million to close next year, they'd probably be happy to sign him and trade JJ for whatever they could get. Failing that, I think they see him as an expensive solution to what would become a big problem if they let him go.

They can overpay JJ with the money they'll save by letting BRob go.

The problem with that is any "proven closer" that doesn't have at least 2 years of team control remaining is going to be overpaid. I would be open to giving someone like Stinson or Wright a shot at closing.

[CA-ORIOLE]

If they had someone in the wings to take his place, it would be a lot easier to let him go. Or, if that were the only problem they need to addres and could focus on that. Neither of those is the case. They have starting pitching issues and OBP issues and Johnson does an effective job.

If Hammel would accept $6 million to close next year, they'd probably be happy to sign him and trade JJ for whatever they could get. Failing that, I think they see him as an expensive solution to what would become a big problem if they let him go.

They can overpay JJ with the money they'll save by letting BRob go.

This argument is pretty simple, If they're going to increase payroll next year it's less of an issue paying Jim Johnson 8 mil+ to close next year. It's just not good baseball economics to do so imo, and yes it's a bit frustrating for me to see the team throw him out there today and have him attain "50" and more leverage and negotiating power for next years contract. I'm not excited about the accomplishment at all and the performance today was pretty underwhelming and reflects on many of his problems.

Johnson is an averagish relief pitcher by his peripherals. Some of that caught up with him this year. At the same time, his durability and platoon splits are certainly strong positives. I actually wasn't calling for Jim Johnson's head earlier in the year when he was struggling, like most of the people on here.

In the end the argument is about economics and value.

[Crazysilver03]

If they had someone in the wings to take his place, it would be a lot easier to let him go. Or, if that were the only problem they need to addres and could focus on that. Neither of those is the case. They have starting pitching issues and OBP issues and Johnson does an effective job.

If Hammel would accept $6 million to close next year, they'd probably be happy to sign him and trade JJ for whatever they could get. Failing that, I think they see him as an expensive solution to what would become a big problem if they let him go.

They can overpay JJ with the money they'll save by letting BRob go.

I feel like the whole "waiting in the wings" thing is overrated. I don't think anyone envisioned JJ as a closer. There are a decent amount of pitchers that get thrusted into the role that they never saw coming. We had Hoey and Ray in the wings and the baseball gods clipped both wings.

Why would they want to install Hammel in to the closers role?

[Crazysilver03]

For myself...

I don't see the value in allowing a player to accumulate stats that will only raise team cost to retain said player.

Buck just handed Moye Sports Associates their first bullet point in an arbitration hearing.

This.

It is silly to be to think that in sports, 50 saves is so much more important than 49. Or batting .300 is so much more important to .299.

[mdbdotcom]

This argument is pretty simple, If they're going increase payroll next year it's less of an issue paying Jim Johnson 8 mil+ to close next year. It's just not good baseball economics to do so imo and yes it's a bit frustrating for me to see the team throw him out there today and have him attain "50" and more leverage and negotiating next years contract. I'm not excited about the accomplishment at all and the performance today was pretty underwhelming and reflects on many of his problems.

Johnson is an averagish relief pitcher by his peripherals. Some of that caught up with him this year. At the same time, his durability and platoon splits are certainly strong positives. I actually wasn't calling for Jim Johnson's head earlier in the year when he was struggling, like most of the people on here.

In the end the argument is about economics and value.

Only if you have an alternative. If you're stuck in the middle of nowhere without your phone, and the first car that comes by in two days offers you a lift for $100, you pay the man.

Also, with the infusion of $25 million in TV money going into all team coffers, this is the year to absorb overpaying someone like JJ.

[Crazysilver03]

Only if you have an alternative. If you're stuck in the middle of nowhere without your phone, and the first car that comes by in two days offers you a lift for $100, you pay the man.

Also, with the infusion of $25 million in TV money going into all team coffers, this is the year to absorb overpaying someone like JJ.

But it isn't only a one year thing. The more he gets next year the more he can get as a free agent. That is part of the fallacy of "pay the man" arguments in arbitration. And just because you have extra money doesn't mean you should waste it. The really ___ thing about the situation is that when the team tenders JJ a contract, they will kind of lock themselves in to having to sign him to an extension. If not, JJ could/would simply walk in free agency with no compensation.