Will Markakis sign with the O's before the FA signing begin? (Option Declined)

[Babypowder]

I guess this hinges on the meaning of "significant" but I think there is value in durability, loyalty, fitting into the clubhouse, a batting style the compliments the others on the roster, etc. Not many millions a year, but something.

Having said that, teams do need to be very careful to not turn average players into irreplaceable leaders.

The numbers often being thrown around (3/30 to 4/40) are what I would consider too significant.

[POR]

The team was how many games over .500 and best record since 79?

This was with Nick leading off and holding down RF on most of those games.

The answers to your questions are 30 and no (they had a better record in 1997).

The Orioles wons the World Series in 83 and brought virtually everyone back. The next five years 16 games back was there best finish.

Markakis is a decent player, but I don't think he is worth the amount that was discussed in the MLBTR article. I think the Orioles would be better off making De Aza a starter and using the savings eleswhere.

[clapdiddy]

The numbers often being thrown around (3/30 to 4/40) are what I would consider too significant.

Markakis is a 10-12M per year player. Not sure if he's that in Duquette's eyes, but that's about where the market will probably be with him.

[DrungoHazewood]

The team was how many games over .500 and best record since 79?

This was with Nick leading off and holding down RF on most of those games.

Teams win many games despite imperfect, below-average, or downright cobbled-together solutions. The Giants might be World Champs with four of their top six starters having below-average ERAs. The Royals had two starters with OPS+es over 100.

But winning despite inefficient solutions shouldn't prevent you from identifying areas where you could improve.

[DrungoHazewood]

Markakis is a 10-12M per year player. Not sure if he's that in Duquette's eyes, but that's about where the market will probably be with him.

When you get below a certain level of production it doesn't really matter what a free agent valuation of that player is, because it becomes easier to acquire almost free talent at that level. Nick isn't that far above that level. You could argue that a 1.0 win player in 150 games was worth $6M/year in free agency. But many or most teams would just opt for a $500k flyer on a minor league free agent, or a non-tender, or a journeyman if they're looking for that level of production.

[Redskins Rick]

Teams win many games despite imperfect, below-average, or downright cobbled-together solutions. The Giants might be World Champs with four of their top six starters having below-average ERAs. The Royals had two starters with OPS+es over 100.

But winning despite inefficient solutions shouldn't prevent you from identifying areas where you could improve.

Improve, sure, I have no problem with wanting to improve.

But, at least IMO, there isn't much FAs available to improve over Nick in RF.

Unless DD can pull off a block buster trade with his surplus of pitching.

[backwardsk]

That was in his final year of arbitration, coming off of a very good 2013. He's a free agent now, coming off an injury plagued down year. I'm not exactly sure what he will get, the market is very thin for center fielders and a lot of teams will be interested. I'd be interested on a 1 year deal. Ultimately, I think he ends up getting a better deal than I'd be interested in anyway.

MLBTRADERUMORS predicts1/12. But wouldn't be surprised by a 3 yr deal. I would believe if he does sign a one year deal, he'd look for a full time role.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frobby]

Markakis is a 10-12M per year player. Not sure if he's that in Duquette's eyes, but that's about where the market will probably be with him.

I've rarely seen such a wide variation of opinion about a player's value as we are seeing with Markakis. Some folks wouldn't want him at $8 mm/yr, it seems, while others would gladly pay $12-13 mm for multiple years. My guess is the real answer will be somewhere in between.

[clapdiddy]

I've rarely seen such a wide variation of opinion about a player's value as we are seeing with Markakis. Some folks wouldn't want him at $8 mm/yr, it seems, while others would gladly pay $12-13 mm for multiple years. My guess is the real answer will be somewhere in between.

I think we would agree that he's not a 17.5M/year player, though, right?

[Frobby]

I think we would agree that he's not a 17.5M/year player, though, right?

Correct.

[srock]

I've rarely seen such a wide variation of opinion about a player's value as we are seeing with Markakis. Some folks wouldn't want him at $8 mm/yr, it seems, while others would gladly pay $12-13 mm for multiple years. My guess is the real answer will be somewhere in between.

In my mind it depends on the contract. 1 year deal, $12 million is possible.

3 or more year deal, it comes down to how the end of the contract is structured.

My meaningless opinion is that Nick should be getting $25-30 in guaranteed money over 4 years. But the Orioles need to structure the contract so they can get out of it at the end.

[Babypowder]

I've rarely seen such a wide variation of opinion about a player's value as we are seeing with Markakis. Some folks wouldn't want him at $8 mm/yr, it seems, while others would gladly pay $12-13 mm for multiple years. My guess is the real answer will be somewhere in between.

It's not that I don't believe Markakis is worth 10-12 a year. I don't think he is worth that to the Orioles, a team with a budget and a rising payroll, with replacements already in-house who can provide the value that Markakis provides with smaller salaries. Why spend 10 million on 2 wins when you can get it for 550k?

[DrungoHazewood]

In my mind it depends on the contract. 1 year deal, $12 million is possible.

3 or more year deal, it comes down to how the end of the contract is structured.

My meaningless opinion is that Nick should be getting $25-30 in guaranteed money over 4 years. But the Orioles need to structure the contract so they can get out of it at the end.

This is one of those cases where you wish you could just put in a clause that read "$1M plus $6M x (fWAR or zero, whichever is higher)", and with identical options that kick in for next year if prior year value was > 1 WAR. If Nick has a 2-win season he gets $13M and the same contract for next year, if he has a 0 win season he gets $1M and some nice parting gifts.

[Frobby]

It's not that I don't believe Markakis is worth 10-12 a year. I don't think he is worth that to the Orioles, a team with a budget and a rising payroll, with replacements already in-house who can provide the value that Markakis provides with smaller salaries. Why spend 10 million on 2 wins when you can get it for 550k?

It boils down to risk. David Lough could be a 2 WAR player, or he could have negative offensive value. Nick, with the notable exception of 2013, has been a pretty steady 2+ WAR player. We each have our own opinions about Lough's potential, but the opinions that matter are Dan's and Buck's.

[wildcard]

It boils down to risk. David Lough could be a 2 WAR player, or he could have negative offensive value. Nick, with the notable exception of 2013, has been a pretty steady 2+ WAR player. We each have our own opinions about Lough's potential, but the opinions that matter are Dan's and Buck's.

This is comparing apples and oranges. Nick has been a starting OF since he broke in and he will be a starting OF next year. We don't know for who yet. The O's will not offer Lough a starting OF role off what he did last year. He is a bench player as he enters 2015 and again we don't know for who.

Pearce has a better chance of being a starting OF than Lough does at this point in their careers.