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

[SrMeowMeow]

I cannot argue with your logic, only with your assessment of these players and what the next three years likely holds for them. I have always liked Beltran, though. If he stays healthy I like his chances to be as good or better than Nick -- but his injury risk is much, much higher, and his risk of a very serious age-related drop-off is much higher than for Nick.

If one believes that WAR is a pretty good measure of value, and that Nick isn't likely to be better in 2012-14 than he was in 2009-11, then your position isn't illogical. I just don't agree with either premise.

What's wrong with WAR? I think we can all agree that Nick has been just average the last couple years. That doesn't imply that he won't improve, but when I look at his WAR and compare it to an eyeball assessment of his more basic stats, I don't see any huge discrepancy.

[Frobby]

What's wrong with WAR? I think we can all agree that Nick has been just average the last couple years. That doesn't imply that he won't improve, but when I look at his WAR and compare it to an eyeball assessment of his more basic stats, I don't see any huge discrepancy.

I'm comfortable with the offensive component, less comfortable with the defensive component. I think that's been discussed to death.

[DrungoHazewood]

Markakis is no longer a good player. Value wise, he's an average RFer in the AL.

If this is what to expect or worse going forward (which I think it is) better to trade him now to a team with Frobby's perspective than to keep him and watch him suck up precious payroll dollars for limited production.

For 3 million more than is guaranteed to Nick, you could sign Carlos Beltran IMO for the same amount of time.

And Beltran has a good chance of outperforming Markakis even in his mid to late 30's and missing time IMO.

This is a pretty good representation of most of your flaws in talent evaluation. First, you think league average performance is no good. Second you think it's more likely that a 35-year-old who's played 100 games once in three years is going to be better than league average and you'd sign him to a huge, long-term deal.

Of course the whole post is nuts.

[SrMeowMeow]

I'm comfortable with the offensive component, less comfortable with the defensive component. I think that's been discussed to death.

Well, I don't agree, but I'll drop it.

[DrungoHazewood]

I cannot argue with your logic, only with your assessment of these players and what the next three years likely holds for them. I have always liked Beltran, though. If he stays healthy I like his chances to be as good or better than Nick -- but his injury risk is much, much higher, and his risk of a very serious age-related drop-off is much higher than for Nick.

If one believes that WAR is a pretty good measure of value, and that Nick isn't likely to be better in 2012-14 than he was in 2009-11, then your position isn't illogical. I just don't agree with either premise.

I think it is illogical to think that any 35-37 year old player, especially an injury-prone one, is a good bet to be a better than league average performer and worth a large contract.

[Frobby]

I think it is illogical to think that any 35-37 year old player, especially an injury-prone one, is a good bet to be a better than league average performer and worth a large contract.

I do not believe he will get a huge contract, i.e., one that exceeds Nick's 3/$42 mm. More likely, 2 years, $25 mm or so.

[Sports Guy]

I do not believe he will get a huge contract, i.e., one that exceeds Nick's 3/$42 mm. More likely, 2 years, $25 mm or so.

Zero chance you can get him here for that.

BTW, last month, Jtrea said he would give Beltran a 4/60 deal.

[Frobby]

Zero chance you can get him here for that.

BTW, last month, Jtrea said he would give Beltran a 4/60 deal.

What do you think he will getl?

[Sports Guy]

What do you think he will getl?

I think he gets at least what you said...from a contender.(Boston?)

[Frobby]

I think he gets at least what you said...from a contender.(Boston?)

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply he'd sign with us for that.

[DrungoHazewood]

In all of baseball history there have been 81 players worth 20-25 WAR from age 30-34. Beltran is 32nd on that list, two notches below Joe Dimaggio. Care to guess how many of those players were worth 13 wins from 35-38 (i.e. worth a 4/60 deal)?

Hint: the answer is between five and seven.

There were 32 HOFers with 20-25 WAR between age 30 and 34. Ted Williams and Fred Clarke were the only ones worth a 4/60 deal after their 34th birthdays. Only 13 of the 32 HOFers (again, of similar value to Beltran at ages 30-34) would have been worth a 2/25 deal for ages 35-36.

[Larry18]

I can see the Phillies giving Beltran a 3 year deal in the $35M range.

[DrungoHazewood]

I can see the Phillies giving Beltran a 3 year deal in the $35M range.

And the Phils can probably absorb the loss when he only gives them $15-$20M in value.

[Frobby]

In all of baseball history there have been 81 players worth 20-25 WAR from age 30-34. Beltran is 32nd on that list, two notches below Joe Dimaggio. Care to guess how many of those players were worth 13 wins from 35-38 (i.e. worth a 4/60 deal)?

Hint: the answer is between five and seven.

There were 32 HOFers with 20-25 WAR between age 30 and 34. Ted Williams and Fred Clarke were the only ones worth a 4/60 deal after their 34th birthdays. Only 13 of the 32 HOFers (again, of similar value to Beltran at ages 30-34) would have been worth a 2/25 deal for ages 35-36.

Yeah, but $25 mm was a lot more money back then...

Who are the other 4 players?

[Larry18]

And the Phils can probably absorb the loss when he only gives them $15-$20M in value.

The Phillies aren't playing for theoretical value. They are playing for world championships and they have a need Beltran fills.