Yankee blog asks: would you trade Swisher and Montero for Markakis?

[JTrea81]

Yeah, I don't agree with giving him away either. That's ridiculous. That being said, his market value is certainly debatable.

It's not like we wouldn't replace him. And we could do so for less and maybe even get better production.

It's called proper allocation of resources.

Obviously if you have to eat a ton of contract to move him you'd expect something back, but if you can just move his deal, I'd gladly give him away.

For $15 million a year you should be seeing 3.0+ fWAR performance especially because Markakis is supposed to be at his peak now.

Instead Markakis has yet to crack 3.0 fWAR since 2008. That money can be better spent for players that can be 4-5+ fWAR players.

Right now the only justification to keep Markakis at his current salary is that it would cost too much to deal him and he's a fan (Angelos) favorite. The second though is hardly justification if that's all that's keeping him here and some team is willing to take his entire contract.

[JTrea81]

The problem is, where do you play Montero?

You put him at DH

[Lucky Jim]

Perfectly sound logic. That being said, the Yankees can afford to be inefficient and we really can't. I know your point here doesn't relate to this particular trade proposal, but I think Nick for Montero type deal is the kind of thing we should be looking at.

I agree the Yankees can afford a lot more inefficiency than we can. I'd trade Nick if the return made sense. I'm not willing to just give him away, which JTea apparently would be willing to do because he doesn't like Nick's contract. Nick for Montero? I'd have to seriously consider it, even though Montero is unproven at the major league level. Based on my brief look at him in the last series we had with the Yankees, he's going to hit for power, for sure.

Yeah, I don't agree with giving him away either. That's ridiculous. That being said, his market value is certainly debatable.

Yes to all of this.

It's not like we wouldn't replace him. And we could do so for less and maybe even get better production.

It's called proper allocation of resources.

Obviously if you have to eat a ton of contract to move him you'd expect something back, but if you can just move his deal, I'd gladly give him away.

For $15 million a year you should be seeing 3.0+ fWAR performance especially because Markakis is supposed to be at his peak now.

Instead Markakis has yet to crack 3.0 fWAR since 2008.

No to any of this.

[JTrea81]

No to any of this.

Is Markakis irreplaceable?

What justification is there to pay $42 million over the next 3 seasons for a total of 6.0-7.0 fWAR performance if some team is willing to take that contract?

[Sports Guy]

It's not like we wouldn't replace him. And we could do so for less and maybe even get better production.

It's called proper allocation of resources.

Obviously if you have to eat a ton of contract to move him you'd expect something back, but if you can just move his deal, I'd gladly give him away.

For $15 million a year you should be seeing 3.0+ fWAR performance especially because Markakis is supposed to be at his peak now.

Instead Markakis has yet to crack 3.0 fWAR since 2008. That money can be better spent for players that can be 4-5+ fWAR players.

Right now the only justification to keep Markakis at his current salary is that it would cost too much to deal him and he's a fan (Angelos) favorite. The second though is hardly justification if that's all that's keeping him here and some team is willing to take his entire contract.

Yea..its something you should learn.

[Sports Guy]

You put him at DH

But that is why Montero could have reduced value.

[JTrea81]

Yea..its something you should learn.

If you think Markakis' contract is a proper allocation of resources given his downward trend, it's not me that needs to learn something...

[Sports Guy]

Is Markakis irreplaceable?

What justification is there to pay $42 million over the next 3 seasons for a total of 6.0-7.0 fWAR performance if some team is willing to take that contract?

Not everyone assumes he is going to be a 2ish WAR player.

And are you really trying to ask someone to justify why they would slightly overpay for any player? LOL..That is laughable.

[JTrea81]

But that is why Montero could have reduced value.

The point is to dump Markakis' salary. You could sign David DeJesus for less than we have committed to Markakis and get similar production.

[JTrea81]

Not everyone assumes he is going to be a 2ish WAR player.

And are you really trying to ask someone to justify why they would slightly overpay for any player? LOL..That is laughable.

You overpay for the players that are difference makers. You don't overpay for complementary players.

[Lucky Jim]

Is Markakis irreplaceable?

What justification is there to pay $42 million over the next 3 seasons for a total of 6.0-7.0 fWAR performance if some team is willing to take that contract?

I would trade Markakis for value. I would not trade him to dump his contract. Frobby and CA-O both recognize that the contract has not worked out perfectly: it has been inefficient when it was meant to be highly efficient (and thus our gamble on finding excess value hasn't paid off) but that doesn't mean that his value is easily replaceable.

Every substitution comes with risk, and few come with the (apparent) upside of a guy who once was a near 5-WAR guy. I've noted the Markakis trends in other threads, and even support the argument that we may over-rate his defense.

None of that means dumping him is worthwhile, in and of itself. For someone so willing to take on inefficiency in FA contracts, why do you care about the relatively marginal inefficiency of Markakis's?

[Sports Guy]

You overpay for the players that are difference makers. You don't overpay for complementary players.

Except you always advocate overpaying for complementary players. Stop being so freaking inconsistent with your thoughts.

[Frobby]

It's not like we wouldn't replace him. And we could do so for less and maybe even get better production.

It's called proper allocation of resources.

Obviously if you have to eat a ton of contract to move him you'd expect something back, but if you can just move his deal, I'd gladly give him away.

For $15 million a year you should be seeing 3.0+ fWAR performance especially because Markakis is supposed to be at his peak now.

Instead Markakis has yet to crack 3.0 fWAR since 2008. That money can be better spent for players that can be 4-5+ fWAR players.

Right now the only justification to keep Markakis at his current salary is that it would cost too much to deal him and he's a fan (Angelos) favorite. The second though is hardly justification if that's all that's keeping him here and some team is willing to take his entire contract.

I am not going to lie here -- Nick is my favorite player and I would be bummed out if he were traded or waived, and that influences my thinking a bit.

However, I think you underestimate how easy it would be to replace Nick. Take a look at the FA outfielders, and tell me who is likely to be better over the next three years in your opinion?

[Sports Guy]

I would trade Markakis for value. I would not trade him to dump his contract. Frobby and CA-O both recognize that the contract has not worked out perfectly: it has been inefficient when it was meant to be highly efficient (and thus our gamble on finding excess value hasn't paid off) but that doesn't mean that his value is easily replaceable.

Every substitution comes with risk, and few come with the (apparent) upside of a guy who once was a near 5-WAR guy. I've noted the Markakis trends in other threads, and even support the argument that we may over-rate his defense.

None of that means dumping him is worthwhile, in and of itself. For someone so willing to take on inefficiency in FA contracts, why do you care about the relatively marginal inefficiency of Markakis's?

Don't you get it? We can take his minor inefficiency, get rid of it and then get a much bigger inefficiency!!!!

Its the best way to do things!! WOOHOOO!!!

[Sports Guy]

I am not going to lie here -- Nick is my favorite player and I would be bummed out if he were traded or waived, and that influences my thinking a bit.

However, I think you underestimate how easy it would be to replace Nick. Take a look at the FA outfielders, and tell me who is likely to be better over the next three years in your opinion?

Well he thinks DeJesus and Beltran are as good or better.