Is Andrew Miller a must sign. I believe so. He can get both righties and lefties out and has filthy

[Dark Helmet]

No reason the Orioles shouldn't be able to sign Miller AND one of Cruz/Markakis. Miller can be a dominant closer and Britton could be a dominant 7th inning guy. Hunter could be traded or non tentered and so could Matusz. That alone would pay for one of Millers years.

[Frobby]

I'm only going with the context of which would you rather have, Markakis at 4/40 or Miller at 4/40.

You are just trying to hurt my feelings.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm treating it like a hypothetical in a vacuum. So, even if Miller is a setup man, I'd rather sign him to a 4/40 contract than sign Nick Markakis as a starting RF to a 4/40 contract.

[Bradysburns]

I'll take the bait. I wouldn't do either contract BUT, given the choice, I'll go with Miller over Markakis.

Why? To me, locking in a solid right fielder with a canon arm, steady defense, strong clubhouse presence, a history with our team, leadoff capabilities, durable... who contributes night after night. That is far more difficult to find - and thus more valuable - than any reliever. I would include about 95% of closers in that estimation, too.

The fetishization of pitchers in recent years bothers me. The whole idea of drafting pitchers first, year after year. Look at what Manny Machado has brought to the team, for example. Compare that to ANY pitcher we have drafted in the last decade. Not even close in terms of impact, IMO.

I would suspect that anyone paying 4/40 for Miller will seriously regret it.

[Can_of_corn]

And what did Rowell and Snyder bring?

Position players taken in the first round are far from locks.

Just because the O's have recently hit better with bats then arms means nothing.

[weams]

Why? To me, locking in a solid right fielder with a canon arm, steady defense, strong clubhouse presence, a history with our team, leadoff capabilities, durable... who contributes night after night. That is far more difficult to find - and thus more valuable - than any reliever. I would include about 95% of closers in that estimation, too.

The fetishization of pitchers in recent years bothers me. The whole idea of drafting pitchers first, year after year. Look at what Manny Machado has brought to the team, for example. Compare that to ANY pitcher we have drafted in the last decade. Not even close in terms of impact, IMO.

I would suspect that anyone paying 4/40 for Miller will seriously regret it.

Manny was 1/3. Hobgood was the killer pick.

[Bradysburns]

And what did Rowell and Snyder bring?

Position players taken in the first round are far from locks.

Just because the O's have recently hit better with bats then arms means nothing.

Yes, but I could cite a whole list of pitchers we've taken who haven't worked out, as you know. On the other hand, I could also talk about Wieters, Markakis, Machado... all of whom have been a huge part of our recent winning. One might even say the cornerstones.

[Bradysburns]

Manny was 1/3. Hobgood was the killer pick.

You know it's just a matter of time before Hobgreat ascends to the TOR.

That had to be one of the weirdest picks ever.

[sportsfan8703]

Yes, but I could cite a whole list of pitchers we've taken who haven't worked out, as you know. On the other hand, I could also talk about Wieters, Markakis, Machado... all of whom have been a huge part of our recent winning. One might even say the cornerstones.

Machado and Wieters were top 5 picks. Markakis chose not to sign with the reds the year before. We were willing to spend on hitters, but then when it came to pitchers we took value signing like Matusz and Hobgood.

[Can_of_corn]

Machado and Wieters were top 5 picks. Markakis chose not to sign with the reds the year before. We were willing to spend on hitters, but then when it came to pitchers we took value signing like Matusz and Hobgood.

I am guessing you do not know that Markakis was a value signing?

Matusz, on the other hand, wasn't.

[El Gordo]

Miller had a career year last season at 2.3 fWAR. Nick had a career average year at 2.5 fWAR. Which will be more productive the next 4 years? They are about a year apart in age.

[Brooks The Great]

Miller had a career year last season at 2.3 fWAR. Nick had a career average year at 2.5 fWAR. Which will be more productive the next 4 years? They are about a year apart in age.

I don't put much stock in fWAR when comparing the two. One was one of the most dominant relievers in the game in 2014. The other was an average outfielder with an expensive contract. Miller recently converted into his role and has developed over the past few seasons; Markakis is a veteran who has has plateaued, and regressed in many ways from his peak. Markakis hit his peak a whopping 7 seasons ago. Miller only converted to a full-time reliever 3 years ago and has improved each season.

I like Miller's chances of providing value relative to his contract much, much more than Markakis' chances. Markakis also has a lot more downside. If he becomes a liability, he could really hurt the team because he's going to be playing everyday while the team slowly realizes he would need to be turned into a part-time player. Many a hitter has killed their team while the team clings onto hope that their pricey veteran can re-discover their ability to hit. Look at what happened to the Braves with both Dan Uggla and B.J. Upton. If Miller regresses suddenly, I'd love his chances of still providing value strictly as a LOOGY. Think Arthur Rhodes past his age-40 season.

If it comes down to paying one or the other $10 million for 4 years, I would take Miller without hesitation.

[Frobby]

I don't put much stock in fWAR when comparing the two. One was one of the most dominant relievers in the game in 2014. The other was an average outfielder with an expensive contract. Miller recently converted into his role and has developed over the past few seasons; Markakis is a veteran who has has plateaued, and regressed in many ways from his peak. Markakis hit his peak a whopping 7 seasons ago. Miller only converted to a full-time reliever 3 years ago and has improved each season.

I like Miller's chances of providing value relative to his contract much, much more than Markakis' chances. Markakis also has a lot more downside. If he becomes a liability, he could really hurt the team because he's going to be playing everyday while the team slowly realizes he would need to be turned into a part-time player. Many a hitter has killed their team while the team clings onto hope that their pricey veteran can re-discover their ability to hit. Look at what happened to the Braves with both Dan Uggla and B.J. Upton. If Miller regresses suddenly, I'd love his chances of still providing value strictly as a LOOGY. Think Arthur Rhodes past his age-40 season.

If it comes down to paying one or the other $10 million for 4 years, I would take Miller without hesitation.

You have some valid points, but I disagree with you for two reasons:

1. A relief pitcher can only have so much value, and Miller about hit the limit last year. Over the last four years, only three relievers have been worth 8 WAR, and only 20 have been worth 4 WAR. If Miller were to be worth 6 WAR in the next four years, that would make him a top 10 reliever in all of baseball. Meanwhile, there were 48 outfielders who produced 8 WAR, 68 who produced 6 WAR, 83 who produced 4 WAR.

2. Miller has great stuff, but he doesn't have proven durability. He pitched 30 innings in 2012, 53 in 2013 (minors and majors combined).

Overall, I just think that Nick's odds of justifying 4/$40 mm are much higher.

[mdbdotcom]

It will be a lot easier to replace Markakis's overall production than Miller's (at minimum prices). Meaning, in the makep of our current team, Miller is a more important piece than Markakis.

Based on stats alone, the Orioles shouldn't pay either guy that much.

Nick is not a lot more than average and he is likely to decline. And while he continues to get on base against lefties, his .650-ish OPS against them in 2014 is not good enough. Even if they were to re-sign him, the O's would be wise to find a platoon partner who hits lefties (which takes away a lot of Nick's 'play every game' value).

Miller had a great year, which made him worth the trade, but there is no evidence that he is likely to produce that way for the next four years. Finding someone who can do what he did is a bit of a roll of the dice, and I think the O's would be well served to bring a bunch of hard throwing failed starters to audition in spring training for relief jobs. Next year's Andrew Miller may be just as likely to come from there as it is to come from re-signing Andrew Miller.

[Brooks The Great]

I don't think there are very many relievers over the past 5 or so seasons that produced similar strikeout rates to Miller in 2014 in similar innings. The only reliever I found - admittedly after only a brief look - who had a similar strikeout rate in 50+ innings and then struggled the following season was Antonio Bastardo in 2012. And Bastardo that season wasn't even all that good. Miller has been incredible as a reliever since 2012.

The only relievers that are similar in terms of strikeout rate dominance would be guys like Kimbrel, Chapman, Jansen and Greg Holland (Betances and Boxberger established themselves for the first time last year as elite reliever strikeout artists). Kimbrel, Chapman and Jansen have been able to sustain their success over several seasons. I expect Miller to sustain his success as well because his stuff is so good.

Miller has boasted a K/9 rate of over 14.00 for the past two seasons. I don't see any reason to doubt that he'll be a great reliever for several years to come. I doubt Markakis' ability to be anything more than average, and there's a good amount of downside to him.