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

[Frobby]

I just really hope we don't give 4 years. Markakis isn't even really worth that now, and to me he looks like an old 30 who has a chance to become even worse over the course of that contract. And since he's one of Bucks guys, he's likely going to throw him out there every day regardless of how his skills erode and he wouldn't give him a platoon partner either. Its worrisome that RF may be a black hole for a couple years.

It's amazing to me that people are so negative about how Markakis will do the next few years. I am not in favor of a four year deal, but I have no doubt at all that Nick has several 2 WAR years left in him.

[weams]

It's amazing to me that people are so negative about how Markakis will do the next few years. I am not in favor of a four year deal, but I have no doubt at all that Nick has several 2 WAR years left in him.

You can't pay 12 million for 2 WAR. I have to project him to do better than that for it to be a good deal.

[Frobby]

I think a significant amount of posters have a hard time getting excited about 2 WAR for several years at significant dollars. Hardy would have been tough to replace. Markakis would not be.

I understand this logic, and certainly agree that Hardy was more essential to retain than Markakis. I've admitted my own bias on Markakis, so I am not going to say much more, but I do think Markakis brings value to this team that statistics don't fully capture. It's not something I can prove, so I will just leave it at that.

[weams]

I understand this logic, and certainly agree that Hardy was more essential to retain than Markakis. I've admitted my own bias on Markakis, so I am not going to say much more, but I do think Markakis brings value to this team that statistics don't fully capture. It's not something I can prove, so I will just leave it at that.

I am willing to hope that Nick has better years ahead to justify this for us. It's just a bit of a gamble. Maybe his defensive metrics can treat him better.

[Frobby]

You can't pay 12 million for 2 WAR. I have to project him to do better than that for it to be a good deal.

Rather than debating this, I'll just wait to comment until Nick is actually under contract and we see the deals that others get. The economics of baseball are constantly in flux. I do think $12 mm for 2 WAR is not a bargain.

[Frobby]

I think you like to think he brings more to the team than stats fully capture. Do you want to pay him for being a good guy and someone whom his teammates respect? People like to think he's a team leader because he's been here so long. There is no evidence that he's anymore a team leader than any other player that's been here a few years. Cruz got more credit for being a team leader for one year than Markakis has for 7 or 8. I think Markakis has become a security blanket for some. He loves being an Oriole. He's a good guy. He lives all year round in Maryland. Good story. I don't want to pay 10M a year for several years for a good story.

Well, I do. I wouldn't want to do it if I thought his performance was going to go substantially downhill, however.

[Ohfan67]

Whatever you say. I said we're getting an AS C, you claim it's not enough. The difference between Wieters and Joseph/Hundley is >.100 points. You don't think we can find a DH to give us at least a .750?

Wieters offense was not the primary reason he was an all star IMO. that's what I meant. I also think Weiters and Machado may not hit start the season at full speed. I wasn't trying to be a smart ***.

[BarclaySouthway]

For me, baseball is also a sentimental game, and while I agree that letting him go makes sense on paper, I really would hate to see it actually happen. Nick Markakis is really just a league average player, but he's OUR league average player, the kind of player that helps me as a fan to feel a stronger connection to the team I root for. And that matters to me.

I totally understand this. It's exactly the idea behind signing Brian Roberts. I was guardedly optimistic when we signed BRob. I will be guardedly optimistic if we sign Nick. It was nice to see Nick in the playoffs, and his homer vs. the Tigers was extra-special.

I hope we can get 2 WAR/year from him.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well, I do. I wouldn't want to do it if I thought his performance was going to go substantially downhill, however.

Anyone else, any player from another team, any randomly-selected 31-year-old... you'd just assume he was going to lose half a win a year from now on out. And you'd figure his baseline including his zero-win 2013, so maybe 1.5-2 wins a year. 1.5, 1, and 0.5 wins. So if you're ok with 3/30 or 3/36, you're implying that things above and beyond the numbers are worth $5M, maybe more a year.

[Dark Helmet]

I said I thought Nick would re-sign for 3/30. I think the Orioles throw in a 4th year option with a 2m buyout making it essentially 3/32m. I still think they re-sign Cruz for 3/45-48m. If they could then aquire Fowler to leadoff and have Nick hit 6 or 7 then im ready for battle.

[waroriole]

Wieters offense was not the primary reason he was an all star IMO. that's what I meant. I also think Weiters and Machado may not hit start the season at full speed. I wasn't trying to be a smart ***.

Gotcha. They may start slow, but I think they still give us more offense than Flaherty and Joseph. If Davis could just be 2012 Davis, we will have a good offense, even without Cruz.

[Dark Helmet]

Gotcha. They may start slow, but I think they still give us more offense than Flaherty and Joseph. If Davis could just be 2012 Davis, we will have a good offense, even without Cruz.

Machado worries me the most. So many knee problems at such a young age. Even if he is ready by OD, the odds he stays healthy over a 162 games aren't too good. Luckily we had Cruz to pick up the slack. Not having a guy like that in 2015 could be disastrous. I do think Davis will rebound and be a .270/.330/.480ish type player and will hit 30-35 HR. I hope anyhow.

[Frobby]

Anyone else, any player from another team, any randomly-selected 31-year-old... you'd just assume he was going to lose half a win a year from now on out. And you'd figure his baseline including his zero-win 2013, so maybe 1.5-2 wins a year. 1.5, 1, and 0.5 wins. So if you're ok with 3/30 or 3/36, you're implying that things above and beyond the numbers are worth $5M, maybe more a year.

I am not assuming Nick will be worth a total of 3 wins over the next three years. If I believed that, I wouldn't want him back.

I don't think any player is a "randomly selected 31-year old." I don't think that lumping a group of players together whose only common trait is age, and then taking a simple average of their decline, is a very useful tool for developing expectations for a particular player within that group. Do you think it is typical for a player who has accumulated 25 WAR by age 30 to only accumulate another 3 WAR in the following 3 years, and then start going into negative territory?

Here's a little experiment I just did; I am sure a more sophisticated one could be devised. There are 7 active players age 33 who have WAR totals between 20 and 33. I figure that's the range, up or down, where I would expect Nick to be at age 33 (he's at 25.4 rWAR now). Here's what I found:

Shane Victorino: 23.3 WAR through age 30, 7.4 over the next three years.

Jose Bautista: 15.0 WAR though age 30, 13.7 the next three years.

Alex Rios: 25.9 WAR through age 30, 2.6 the next three years.

Josh Hamilton: 20.8 WAR through age 30, 6.9 the next three years.

Justin Morneau: 21.5 WAR through age 30, 5.3 the next three years.

Brandon Phillips: 25.6 WAR through age 30, 7.4 the next three years.

Nick Swisher: 16.6 WAR through age 30, 6.6 the next three years.

Average: 21.2 through age 30, 7.1 the next three years.

Obviously, Nick is unlikely to be Jose Bautista, and sure he could turn out to be Alex Rios. But I think any projection of Nick's next three years that has 3.0 as its midpoint is way off base.

[Frobby]

Frobby. If you knew Markakis was going to accumulate 2 WAR, per year, over the next 4 years, having to play 155 games a year to do it, would you pay him 4/40M

I would. Obviously that's not a huge bargain, but it's a bit better than the going FA rate, and I believe Nick's steadiness and durability is helpful to the team. You seem to think that Nick playing 155 games a year is a bad thing, but that leaves Buck with a lot of flexibility everywhere else. Sign me up!

[weams]

I would. Obviously that's not a huge bargain, but it's a bit better than the going FA rate, and I believe Nick's steadiness and durability is helpful to the team. You seem to think that Nick playing 155 games a year is a bad thing, but that leaves Buck with a lot of flexibility everywhere else. Sign me up!

We would both agree that paying 6 million per WAR on low WAR production is overpaying though. Right. Not talking Nick here. Just Philosophy.