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

[wildbillhiccup]

13 minutes ago, Mondo Trasho said:

I disagree on Cruz. Cruz was a 34 year old corner outfielder/DH coming off a career year (in his walk year no less) with a history of positive PED tests. It was a trap signing that any good GM would avoid like the plague. Seattle took a big gamble on signing him (and it paid off for them) but that's not a gamble I want the O's to be making on the regular. There's was zero good reason to think he was going to continue being as productive as he was in 2014.

I can see that side of the argument too. It's just camouflaged by the awful signings of Trumbo and Davis that they made in later years. 

[Frobby]

11 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I can see that side of the argument too. It's just camouflaged by the awful signings of Trumbo and Davis that they made in later years. 

The organization seems to have had a big change in philosophy after the 2015 season.    And it burned them.

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The organization seems to have had a big change in philosophy after the 2015 season.    And it burned them.

I think Peter started back to his meddling ways, trying to get one more WS trip in his lifetime.

[Mondo Trasho]

24 minutes ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I can see that side of the argument too. It's just camouflaged by the awful signings of Trumbo and Davis that they made in later years. 

Both of which were also great examples of trap signings.

[Ruzious]

2 hours ago, Mondo Trasho said:

I disagree on Cruz. Cruz was a 34 year old corner outfielder/DH coming off a career year (in his walk year no less) with a history of positive PED tests. It was a trap signing that any good GM would avoid like the plague. Seattle took a big gamble on signing him (and it paid off for them) but that's not a gamble I want the O's to be making on the regular. There's was zero good reason to think he was going to continue being as productive as he was in 2014.

It wasn't his career year.  He just had trouble staying healthy in past years, but he was perfectly healthy that season.  He was huge down the stretch for the O's and a leader.  It was clear the O's were going to get hurt badly by not signing him.  And then signing Davis to a far far far bigger contract than Cruz got with Seattle made absolutely no sense.  

[Mondo Trasho]

52 minutes ago, Ruzious said:

It wasn't his career year.  He just had trouble staying healthy in past years, but he was perfectly healthy that season.  He was huge down the stretch for the O's and a leader.  It was clear the O's were going to get hurt badly by not signing him.  And then signing Davis to a far far far bigger contract than Cruz got with Seattle made absolutely no sense.  

So...a guy approaching his mid 30s, with a history of injury (and positive PED tests) was a good bet for a big contract? I mean come on. The only way anyone would have known he was going to play like he did in Seattle was if they had a crystal ball. The O's cannot afford to bet on players like Cruz with anything more than a one year flyer deal.

[Ohfan67]

36 minutes ago, Mondo Trasho said:

So...a guy approaching his mid 30s, with a history of injury (and positive PED tests) was a good bet for a big contract? I mean come on. The only way anyone would have known he was going to play like he did in Seattle was if they had a crystal ball. The O's cannot afford to bet on players like Cruz with anything more than a one year flyer deal.

This has been argued to death on here over the years. I usually don't like free agent signings, but I was strongly in favor of signing Cruz for the deal he got from Seattle. In my opinion it was the right risk at the right time, primarily because it was not, in reality, a lot of money at the time. And it was the right time. But alas the Orioles really didn't do much that offseason and the rest is history. Ancient history now. Let's hope the Orioles get to the point where they can reinforce a winning team with a significant free agent in the not-so-distant future. 

[tntoriole]

5 hours ago, Mondo Trasho said:

I disagree on Cruz. Cruz was a 34 year old corner outfielder/DH coming off a career year (in his walk year no less) with a history of positive PED tests. It was a trap signing that any good GM would avoid like the plague. Seattle took a big gamble on signing him (and it paid off for them) but that's not a gamble I want the O's to be making on the regular. There's was zero good reason to think he was going to continue being as productive as he was in 2014.

Obviously the Seattle GM felt that there was much, much more than "zero good reason" as did I and many on this board said so at the time.   I believed Nelson was David Ortiz, version 2- namely, PED or not, he was going to perform more like Ortiz than like Chris Davis and that Cruz had his offensive game honed in a way that fit him to a T.   The fact is that all free agency signings are high risk and high reward signings.  ALL of them.    There is no such thing as a "trap" signing as it relates to only some big free agent signings.  They are ALL traps.   They all could be tremendous or they all could be disastrous.    But where were we in the winter of 2014?  We were the defending AL East division champions AND it was not even close that year, not even close.     If that is not a time to "go for it" then there will never be any such time for this organization EVER.   And Duquette, Angelos, Brady, Buck whomever....did ZERO that offseason...ZERO...which was and remains unforgivable in my fan book.    They continued to do the "prudent" course, not to fall into the "trap", except when they didn't and executed the really dumb moves (see Davis, Davis, Davis...Davis...)...and now here we are...the worst team and the worst organization in MLB.  

[Mondo Trasho]

5 minutes ago, tntoriole said:

Obviously the Seattle GM felt that there was much, much more than "zero good reason" as did I and many on this board said so at the time.   I believed Nelson was David Ortiz, version 2- namely, PED or not, he was going to perform more like Ortiz than like Chris Davis and that Cruz had his offensive game honed in a way that fit him to a T.   The fact is that all free agency signings are high risk and high reward signings.  ALL of them.    There is no such thing as a "trap" signing as it relates to only some big free agent signings.  They are ALL traps.   They all could be tremendous or they all could be disastrous.    But where were we in the winter of 2014?  We were the defending AL East division champions AND it was not even close that year, not even close.     If that is not a time to "go for it" then there will never be any such time for this organization EVER.   And Duquette, Angelos, Brady, Buck whomever....did ZERO that offseason...ZERO...which was and remains unforgivable in my fan book.    They continued to do the "prudent" course, not to fall into the "trap", except when they didn't and executed the really dumb moves (see Davis, Davis, Davis...Davis...)...and now here we are...the worst team and the worst organization in MLB.  

Eh, I think you can measure each free agent separately and each has their own level of risk (which of course is non-zero). That said, the Orioles are not a team with a substantial amount of room for error when it comes to free agents. They have to be more cautious than say the Yankees or Red Sox, or the Dodgers or a handful of other teams. Being wrong on Cruz would be crippling. This is exactly why signing Trumbo and Davis were bad moves as well.

Cruz had only once prior to 2014 played at least 150 games and in 2014 put up arguably his best statistical season, at age 34. It's not out of the question to think that signing a guy out to his 38th birthday has a higher chance of ending in disaster. That it didn't is pure luck, and Seattle should thank its lucky stars.

The problem coming out of 2014 was that the team had no infrastructure for long term success. I see no reason why "going for it" in 2015 would have ended any other way than it did. It's hard to accept, but the window closed after 2014, managing the aftermath was crucial, and obviously whoever was in charge didn't manage that task right.

There's this myth that if only they had gone all in after 2014 they'd have won something. The team went wire to wire in 1997, and went all in for 1998. How did that turn out? When the window closes, it closes. The best you can do is begin a new window.

[Frobby]

75% of posters polled said they would not have matched Seattle’s offer to Cruz.

By the way, this thread is about Markakis, not Cruz.   

[Ohfan67]

22 minutes ago, Frobby said:

75% of posters polled said they would not have matched Seattle’s offer to Cruz.

By the way, this thread is about Markakis, not Cruz.   

And it’s a thread in Orioles Talk even though Markakis hasn’t been an Oriole in four years. 

[tntoriole]

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

75% of posters polled said they would not have matched Seattle’s offer to Cruz.

By the way, this thread is about Markakis, not Cruz.   

 

28 minutes ago, Mondo Trasho said:

Eh, I think you can measure each free agent separately and each has their own level of risk (which of course is non-zero). That said, the Orioles are not a team with a substantial amount of room for error when it comes to free agents. They have to be more cautious than say the Yankees or Red Sox, or the Dodgers or a handful of other teams. Being wrong on Cruz would be crippling. This is exactly why signing Trumbo and Davis were bad moves as well.

Cruz had only once prior to 2014 played at least 150 games and in 2014 put up arguably his best statistical season, at age 34. It's not out of the question to think that signing a guy out to his 38th birthday has a higher chance of ending in disaster. That it didn't is pure luck, and Seattle should thank its lucky stars.

The problem coming out of 2014 was that the team had no infrastructure for long term success. I see no reason why "going for it" in 2015 would have ended any other way than it did. It's hard to accept, but the window closed after 2014, managing the aftermath was crucial, and obviously whoever was in charge didn't manage that task right.

There's this myth that if only they had gone all in after 2014 they'd have won something. The team went wire to wire in 1997, and went all in for 1998. How did that turn out? When the window closes, it closes. The best you can do is begin a new window.

I wish the Seattle GM and Atlanta GMs were here to defend their decisions...I suspect they would disagree with your assessment of their strategy as “pure luck,”  GMs get paid to make choices that turn out right, and get fired for those that end up in the toilet.  Otherwise, all teams could just let us guys on the board make all the choices.  Our genius choices that offseason and since really worked out well...I don’t buy the pure luck, unforeseeable view, I just happen to think more talented GMs and more supportive owners make better decisions and thus end up being more “lucky”. 

And whether adding Nick, Cruz and Andrew Miller and then adding even more upgrade players that offseason (my definition of all in) to the 2015 team would have turned out any different results, well, we will never know, now will we? 

[Ohfan67]

On 10/25/2018 at 1:50 PM, Ohfan67 said:

Actually, when you look at Nick's performance in Atlanta and what the Orioles got out of right field, neither are impressive. Nick's OPS+ in Atlanta was 105 and when you use things like Baseball References Wins Above Average to compare WAA by position neither the Braves or Orioles had anything to crow about over the last four years. Was Nick better than what the Orioles ran out there, on average? Yes. But Nick's value was below average over for a RF over those four years. I think the hard truth is that the Orioles should have found a better right fielder than Nick, not resigned Nick. 

edit: Link: https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/team_compare.cgi?request=1&year=2018&lg=MLB

Clicking back through the years of Nick's deal is interesting. 

Wow, this got a down vote with no factual challenge. I guess some Markakis fans are touchy!  

[atomic]

1 hour ago, Ohfan67 said:

Wow, this got a down vote with no factual challenge. I guess some Markakis fans are touchy!  

I didn't down vote you but your logic is flawed. And you put something as fact when it is not.  Signing Nick would have been a good decision.  If you don't see that I am guessing you were against signing him at the time and you don't want to admit you were wrong. 

[foxfield]

21 minutes ago, atomic said:

I didn't down vote you but your logic is flawed. And you put something as fact when it is not.  Signing Nick would have been a good decision.  If you don't see that I am guessing you were against signing him at the time and you don't want to admit you were wrong. 

Yeah...this is outstanding logic. 

 

In what world would Nick have been a good signing. Unless your way back machine includes resigning Miller and Cruz and not signing Chris Davis and Trumbo II. 

Nick was a great Oriole. And I was thrilled he had a great fourth year. He did prove the Orioles wrong about two things. His ability to keep playing 150 games and the ability to produce in that fourth year. But the first three years were not good. 

Having the exact same performance from Nick here for each of 4 years would have been practically worthless and denied him his big year this year. Let’s not get carried away. Even in Baltimore, where nearly every move in hindsight is questionable, the Orioles got this one right even if they managed it poorly to get there.