I don't care what anyone says, 100 saves in two years is impressive

[Sanfran327]

Yes. I'm also of the view that the issue is about payroll allocation, not whether JJ is a good relief pitcher. It does matter a bit, however, how good a relief pitcher you expect Johnson to be. His 2012 performance was probably worth $8 mm or even more; his 2013 performance wasn't. If he is somewhere in between next year, $8 mm is probably a slight overpay.

Here are some closer salaries:

Papelbon $13 mm

Soriano $11 mm

Rivera $10 mm ($15 mm at peak)

Bell $9 mm

Street $7 mm ($7.5 mm at peak)

Nathan $7 mm ($11.25 mm at peak)

Hanrahan $7 mm

Putz $6.5 mm

I don't believe there are any other closers in MLB making as much or more than the $6.5 mm that Johnson made this year. Fernando Rodney and Grant Balfour are free agents this year, and the Rangers have a $9 mm option on Joe Nathan that has a $500 k buyout. Those guys should set the top of the market for relief pitchers this winter. Interestingly, all three of them will be at least 36 years old next year.

Isn't this supposed to mean something in salary arbitration? Or does a player's salary automatically escalate purely based on some percentage added on to the previous year? Seems to me if arbitration is to make sure a player is earning what his performance is worth or something near it, you'd think he'd be somewhere near that 6.5M figure. Also, is $8M just the best educated guess, or is there something else that suggests that figure?

[Frobby]

Isn't this supposed to mean something in salary arbitration? Or does a player's salary automatically escalate purely based on some percentage added on to the previous year? Seems to me if arbitration is to make sure a player is earning what his performance is worth or something near it, you'd think he'd be somewhere near that 6.5M figure. Also, is $8M just the best educated guess, or is there something else that suggests that figure?

There's no mathematical formula. There are a series of written criteria for the arbitrators to consider, including (from memory) last year's performance, career performance, contribution to team performance, seniority, and salaries of players in comparable roles with comparable levels of seniority. Seniority does play a pretty significant role, such that a pay cut in arbitration is just about unheard of, even if the player's performance has slipped. As a general rule of thumb, compared to what a similar free agent would get, a player will get 40% of that amount in first year of eligibility, 60% in the second year, and 80% in the third year. Johnson is actually arbitration eligible for the fourth time, and his salaries had gone like this:

$975 k 1st time (Super Two after posting a 3.42 ERA in 26 IP in a season interruped by injuries)

$2.625 mm 2nd time (after posting a 2.67 ERA in 91 innings, mostly as a 7th/8th inning guy but finishing the year as the closer going 9 for 9)

$6.5 mm 3rd time (after posting a 2.49 ERA in 68.2 IP and saving 51 of 54)

The raises Johnson received in 2012 and 2013 exceeded the norm, because he had performed very well in the previous year. He did not perform as well in 2013, and so I really don't think a huge increase is warranted under the criteria listed above, though I'm sure some increase will be in order.

[Stotle]

There's no mathematical formula. There are a series of written criteria for the arbitrators to consider, including (from memory) last year's performance, career performance, contribution to team performance, seniority, and salaries of players in comparable roles with comparable levels of seniority. Seniority does play a pretty significant role, such that a pay cut in arbitration is just about unheard of, even if the player's performance has slipped. As a general rule of thumb, compared to what a similar free agent would get, a player will get 40% of that amount in first year of eligibility, 60% in the second year, and 80% in the third year. Johnson is actually arbitration eligible for the fourth time, and his salaries had gone like this:

$975 k 1st time (Super Two after posting a 3.42 ERA in 26 IP in a season interruped by injuries)

$2.625 mm 2nd time (after posting a 2.67 ERA in 91 innings, mostly as a 7th/8th inning guy but finishing the year as the closer going 9 for 9)

$6.5 mm 3rd time (after posting a 2.49 ERA in 68.2 IP and saving 51 of 54)

The raises Johnson received in 2012 and 2013 exceeded the norm, because he had performed very well in the previous year. He did not perform as well in 2013, and so I really don't think a huge increase is warranted under the criteria listed above, though I'm sure some increase will be in order.

If I had to guess, I think Johnson will do really well in arbitration. He is going to comp to some very good arms from a saves/experience perspective. I also think Baltimore's willingness to give him the $6.5 MM works against them quite a bit. I thought that was a pretty bad decision, considering Johnson was asking for $7.1, which would have put him way ahead of where comparable arms have been previously compensated.

For BP's mock arbitration series, I stepped in Baltimore's shoes to argue for the $5.7 MM amount, and against the $7.1 MM amount.

Link here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19515

The first few paragraphs in the opening argument, I think, form a pretty strong case against Johnson being worth even close to $7.1 MM given experience/performance:

The club?s submission of $5,700,000 (which would be the largest annual salary ever for a reliever with less than two years of experience as his team?s closer) appropriately compensates Johnson for both his platform-season performance and his previous, though limited, experience as a closer. But it does not?and the panel should not?overcompensate Johnson based on one impressive season?s worth of performance in the absence of the demonstrated sustained success in the role of closer that has historically been fundamental in awarding a reliever an annual salary greater than $6,000,000 (adjusted for the increase in average player salary to 2012 levels).

Quite simply, Jim Johnson?s submission of $7,100,000 seeks to place him in elite company among relievers with comparable service time, and does so in opposition to the manner in which top-tier salaries historically have been determined for closers. Since 2007, only six relievers with comparable service time have received a salary over $6,000,000 (adjusted). In each case, the player?s platform year performance has not been a driving factor in determining his salary, as can be determined by comparing baseline statistics for each.

TABLE

While these platform year statistics vary widely, having no discernable unifying characteristic, further examination of this grouping of players shows there is a performance nexus we can look to in determining whether, historically, a player has been rewarded with a salary greater than $6,000,000 (adjusted). The commonality among these six arms is a uniform demonstration of sustained success in the role of closer, evidenced by multiple years of service in the role and an accumulation of at least 100 saves over the course of their respective careers as of the completion of their platform year.

Since 2007, no reliever with service time comparable to Johnson?s has been awarded a salary north of $6,000,000 (adjusted) without meeting this criteria, and no reliever that has met this criteria has received a salary less than Brad Lidge?s 2007 adjusted salary of $6,250,000 (aside from Joakim Soria, who was under a multi-year contract at the time and, we assume, chose to sacrifice annual realization for greater long-term security). Indisputably, this level of annual salary has historically been reserved for established closers with sustained success over multiple seasons. While Johnson by all accounts enjoyed a highly productive 2012, his 72 career saves (60 over his seven months as closer for Baltimore from September/October 2011 through September/October 2012) leave him well short of such a distinction.

But he now has $6.5 as a baseline to go with a really nice two-season save total that will put him with top tier comps (track record means a lot, so save totals, and the fact he has been the exclusive closer for two years, is huge).

[weams]

Jim was worth twice as much WAR as Tommy Hunter the last two years.

[OFFNY]

Jim was worth twice as much WAR as Tommy Hunter the last two years.

This thread was started on my mommy's birthday (September 28th), and the last post until now was on my birthday (October 3rd.)

You ruined it, Weams. :laughlol:

[weams]

If I had to guess, I think Johnson will do really well in arbitration. He is going to comp to some very good arms from a saves/experience perspective. I also think Baltimore's willingness to give him the $6.5 MM works against them quite a bit. I thought that was a pretty bad decision, considering Johnson was asking for $7.1, which would have put him way ahead of where comparable arms have been previously compensated.

For BP's mock arbitration series, I stepped in Baltimore's shoes to argue for the $5.7 MM amount, and against the $7.1 MM amount.

Link here: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=19515

The first few paragraphs in the opening argument, I think, form a pretty strong case against Johnson being worth even close to $7.1 MM given experience/performance:

But he now has $6.5 as a baseline to go with a really nice two-season save total that will put him with top tier comps (track record means a lot, so save totals, and the fact he has been the exclusive closer for two years, is huge).

Should he be traded?

[weams]

This thread was started on my mommy's birthday (September 28th), and the last post until now was on my birthday (October 3rd.)

You ruined it, Weams. :laughlol:

Sorry Bud. I hate that I did that to you.

[OFFNY]

Sorry Bud. I hate that I did that to you.

That's OK, Weams.

You look out for me a lot more than you wrong me.