Mets have talked to O's about Markakis

[Camden_yardbird]

Has anyone asked "Would the Mets be interested in Markakis?" Two years left on a very expensive contract does not make sense for a team that is missing its ace to TJ surgery and won't likely compete in the next two years.

[Can_of_corn]

Has anyone asked "Would the Mets be interested in Markakis?" Two years left on a very expensive contract does not make sense for a team that is missing its ace to TJ surgery and won't likely compete in the next two years.

If year one doesn't pan out they can decline the option for a couple million. NY teams can have a different set of goals then a team in Baltimore.

[weams]

If year one doesn't pan out they can decline the option for a couple million. NY teams can have a different set of goals then a team in Baltimore.

Yeah, I guess a one year 17 million dollar deal would be fine for them if he is not a top player.

[LookinUp]

But when you consider that my theory of Nick's decline is predicated upon him having a lax off season program then the additional motivation of a walk year could have a larger then normal impact.

I'm not a Markakis lover, but IIRC, the last two offseasons he's had a hamate bone issue and a rib/stomach muscle issue, or something like that. It's been common knowledge that he hasn't been able to have aggressive offseason workout habits the last two.

I'd trade him for the right to spend $15 million better, but I do think Markakis will be much better this year, and I truly am one of his smallest fans.

[SeaBird]

Has anyone asked "Would the Mets be interested in Markakis?" Two years left on a very expensive contract does not make sense for a team that is missing its ace to TJ surgery and won't likely compete in the next two years.

Better question is: If Markakis was on another team and you were the GM of the Orioles, would you be interested in him and that contract?

[weams]

Better question is: If Markakis was on another team and you were the GM of the Orioles, would you be interested in him and that contract?

Vernon Wells and his contract got traded twice. He had a reputation of a top to the craft hitter and defender. And he is recovering from injuries where the worst thing that can happen is that you lose 17 million in the deal. It is a conceivable deal, especially after what Pence got.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm not a Markakis lover, but IIRC, the last two offseasons he's had a hamate bone issue and a rib/stomach muscle issue, or something like that. It's been common knowledge that he hasn't been able to have aggressive offseason workout habits the last two.

I'd trade him for the right to spend $15 million better, but I do think Markakis will be much better this year, and I truly am one of his smallest fans.

I have been pushing my pet theory longer then that.

[Ripken]

I think we all like Nick... but I'm easily in the "bag of balls" category. That $15M is really a problem right now. I don't think there'd be a noticeable difference between Kakes and Hank in RF next year, save for the enormous cost of the former.

[weams]

I think we all like Nick... but I'm easily in the "bag of balls" category. That $15M is really a problem right now. I don't think there'd be a noticeable difference between Kakes and Hank in RF next year, save for the enormous cost of the former.

It is really 17 million that we owe. A trade saves us 17 million.

[tntoriole]

I think we all like Nick... but I'm easily in the "bag of balls" category. That $15M is really a problem right now. I don't think there'd be a noticeable difference between Kakes and Hank in RF next year, save for the enormous cost of the former.

Oh, I don't think I would go quite that far in my Nicky nihilism. Urrutia has a ways to go to show he can even be an adequate outfielder, much less play right field anywhere close to Nick. If Urrutia were in RF next year, I suspect you would be uttering a few choice words as balls bounced off the Camden Yards wall at bizarro angles and turned into triples rather than being thrown out at second.

[section18]

If trading Nick helps us land Ellsbury do it. If not Ellsbury then Beltran or Garza. In fact just ridding the team of $32 million over the next two years is huge and add JJ's 10 or 11 mill and DD should be able to do some interesting things with this team. We definitely need more speed and if McLouth doesn't return we need Ellsbury even more. He is a game changer. I've written about him several times so I won't repeat myself. Even when he gets a single he usually turns it into a double or triple with his stealing. We need to manufacture more runs and he certainly would help us do that.

[JayThomas]

Yeah, funny how it is just "common wisdom" that hitters perform better in their walk years. But, once again, "common wisdom" has little data to support it.

From 2001-2010, 177 players performing in the last year of a contract hit for a collective .282 batting average, with an .824 OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage, an increasingly used measurement of the moneyball era). They also averaged 19 home runs, 51 extra base hits and 73 runs batted in per 500 at-bats.

That?s not much different from their collective numbers from the previous year: .283 batting average, .821 OPS, 19 homers, 51 extra base hits and 74 RBI. Two years before? A .279 batting average and .809 OPS, with 18 home runs, 50 extra base hits and 73 RBI per 500 at-bats.

Not much different. We may very well see Markakis rebound (as it would be unlikely for him to perform much worse than in 2013) , but that would be better explained by him returning to his career norms rather than Nick performing better because it is a walk year.

Excellent data. Good get. Where did you find/accumulate these numbers?

[tntoriole]

Excellent data. Good get. Where did you find/accumulate these numbers?

From an article in Forbes magazine a couple of years ago which I have used in a couple of other discussion/blogs about the same topic. I will try to see if I can find it online for you.

[JayThomas]

From an article in Forbes magazine a couple of years ago which I have used in a couple of other discussion/blogs about the same topic. I will try to see if I can find it online for you.

That's just really compelling data. Don't waste too much time trying to find it, but if you do, that'll be great.

[BohKnowsBmore]

From an article in Forbes magazine a couple of years ago which I have used in a couple of other discussion/blogs about the same topic. I will try to see if I can find it online for you.

What do you think accounts for the general perception or "common wisdom" in this situation? Do you think its just a general assumption about human behavior? Going further, is there potentially confirmation bias regarding this assumption to highlight instances of a player performing highly and getting paid while ignoring those that perform on par with previous performances or that hold steady? I would think the level of improvement might actually be somewhat statistically significant just because players in their "walk" year following years of arbitration are probably at the middle of their respective primes. Was the Forbes article in regards to players hitting FA for the first time or after their first ML deal? Because if its the latter it could have to do with some players who had been in steady states of decline (who didn't then get paid the big bucks) dragging down the overall average. Just spitballing here. Would be interesting to see the article, though. Do you have a link?