Orioles Listening to Offers on Jim Johnson

[Ommaculate]

Guess the initial extension talks were not fruitful.

After what happened in the playoffs and last year, it wouldn't surprise me if Johnson wants a change of scenery.

[weams]

I'd love that deal. Porcello should be better with our D.

No one eats any money on that either.

[oriole]

I like the idea of Johnson for Porcello. I think more would have to be sent to the Tigers though. Johnson has had the blessing of accruing the money stat in Saves but other than that he isn't really anything special. Now he is just an overpaid reliever with a history of financially beneficial opportunities.

Maybe something like Johnson, Patton and a couple million to Detroit for Porcello.

[wildcard]

No one eats any money on that either.

If the Tigers have their choice of free agents Nathan or Wilson why would they give up Porcello to get Johnson?

[tntoriole]

After what happened in the playoffs and last year, it wouldn't surprise me if Johnson wants a change of scenery.

Fans are unlikely to be very happy if he blows saves wherever he goes to change scenery. I would think closers are likely less susceptible to the change of scenery effect, as their role is usually pretty much the same from team to team (admittedly JJ got a lot more opportunities in the last two years than he might get in other situations, but you would think that would be a plus.) Unless he still really wants a shot at starting, but that would certainly change the negotiations no matter what.

[srock]

I'd be surprised if there is a decent trade available for Jim Johnson. 10 closers on the free agent market. Cost no players. O's would have to send money with JJ to off set expected arbitration salary.

I doubt if DD has even talked salary with Johnson's agent yet. Word was he hasn't talked to Boras about Davis or Wieters contracts. DD is concentrating on filling out the roster and will address salary later is my guess.

Yeah I gotta think the best course of action is take JJ to arbitration and just pay him a little more then we like for 1 year. There isn't a clear upgrade in the FA market for equal money. JJ in arbitration is going to be the best value if we want a closer in 2014.

That's a big IF in my book, but I suspect Buck and Duq want a closer.

[weams]

If the Tigers have their choice of free agents Nathan or Wilson why would they give up Porcello to get Johnson?

Because Nathan and Wilson get multi year deals? At equal money?

[weams]

If the Tigers have their choice of free agents Nathan or Wilson why would they give up Porcello to get Johnson?

Because Porcello costs 7.7 million?

[CaptainRedbeard]

I'll be shocked if we get anything of value for Johnson. There are a ton of free agent closers available right now and he's in line to be paid equal to or more than he's worth. Last offseason the Tigers may have done Porcello for Johnson. No way they do that now.

The Tigers will have no trouble moving Porcello if they are inclined. His salary is not an obstacle to his trade value. They could spend 10 million on Wilson or Nathan and trade Porcello for prospects. They'd have a better closer than Johnson, with whatever they get for Porcello. That's a way better deal for them. Maybe if we included prospects with Johnson it could work, but they are definitely more of a win-now team.

I honestly think the Tigers would be more interested in Matusz than Johnson. If they intend to move Smyly to the rotation to fill Porcello's spot they won't have much in the way of effective left-handed relief. Matusz is a stellar LOOGY who is still a cheaper alternative to the free agent market. Would Matusz land Porcello by himself? No. But he'd likely be a better starting point.

[wildcard]

Because Nathan and Wilson get multi year deals? At equal money?

Wilson is projected to get a one year contract coming off back from injury.

[wildcard]

Because Porcello costs 7.7 million?

OK, got you. Good reason.

[Number5]

I'll be shocked if we get anything of value for Johnson. There are a ton of free agent closers available right now and he's in line to be paid equal to or more than he's worth. Last offseason the Tigers may have done Porcello for Johnson. No way they do that now.

The Tigers will have no trouble moving Porcello if they are inclined. His salary is not an obstacle to his trade value. They could spend 10 million on Wilson or Nathan and trade Porcello for prospects. They'd have a better closer than Johnson, with whatever they get for Porcello. That's a way better deal for them. Maybe if we included prospects with Johnson it could work, but they are definitely more of a win-now team.

I honestly think the Tigers would be more interested in Matusz than Johnson. If they intend to move Smyly to the rotation to fill Porcello's spot they won't have much in the way of effective left-handed relief. Matusz is a stellar LOOGY who is still a cheaper alternative to the free agent market. Would Matusz land Porcello by himself? No. But he'd likely be a better starting point.

I'm not so sure about this. Detroit has been rumored to be shopping Porcello for a year now. His salary does seem to be a hindrance. It makes sense that they are looking for the kind of trade you are talking about, but no team has been interested in offering that much.

It isn't so much that Detroit is down on Porcello, but they have 4 other RHP in the rotation (Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, and Fister) and they apparently would really like to have LHP Smyly as #5. $7.7 million is an awful lot for a long man/spot starter. While not as restricted as the Orioles are budget-wise, trading Porcello does make financial sense for the Tigers. If they are going to spend $9 or 10 million on a free agent closer anyway, trading Porcello and his salary for Johnson and plugging in a solid long man/spot starter that makes $5 or 6 million less makes a lot of sense for them, IMO. If they can get the Orioles to kick in a million or 2, so much the better for them.

[atomic]

Last year... now that JJ's salary will bump another couple mil and his peripherals clearly indicate that he in NOT a top 10 closer, we'd be lucky to get a couple medium prospects. We'll take what we can get and hopefully dump most of his salary.

He should have been traded last offseason.

Wieters and Hardy should be traded this offseason... but we'll be discussing what we can get for Hardy in a trade this time next year.

We aren't trading Jim Johnson for prospects we are trading him for players that can help us now. We are not a rebuilding team. Suggesting that we trade Wieters and Hardy last season is comical. Who would have played Shortstop and Catcher?

[El Gordo]

if you were Johnson's agent, then would you go for that? I bet Johnson's agent is thinking 3 years at 27 or something in that ballpark.

When JJ is a FA he won't get that much IMO. Something like 3/18M-3/21M

[weams]

I'm not so sure about this. Detroit has been rumored to be shopping Porcello for a year now. His salary does seem to be a hindrance. It makes sense that they are looking for the kind of trade you are talking about, but no team has been interested in offering that much.

It isn't so much that Detroit is down on Porcello, but they have 4 other RHP in the rotation (Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, and Fister) and they apparently would really like to have LHP Smyly as #5. $7.7 million is an awful lot for a long man/spot starter. While not as restricted as the Orioles are budget-wise, trading Porcello does make financial sense for the Tigers. If they are going to spend $9 or 10 million on a free agent closer anyway, trading Porcello and his salary for Johnson and plugging in a solid long man/spot starter that makes $5 or 6 million less makes a lot of sense for them, IMO. If they can get the Orioles to kick in a million or 2, so much the better for them.

Sure. Btw, We played our playoff game in Texas because Nathan blew the save in the most import game of the year in 2012 completing their collapse. One the values of Jim Johnson are that he is healthy, young, ground-ball oriented and a team's commitment to him is only one season. On any trade, Jim Johnson brings back a guy with a contract. Not a young stud.