Markakis 4/48m or Rios 1/8.5m?

[Can_of_corn]

Yes, the only reason you don't do it is if you are afraid he will take it and you can't afford to pay him that for one year.

Or you have nowhere to play him.

[Can_of_corn]

It would basically force him to come back since he'd have no market with a QO attached to him, and then you have a disgruntled Markakis next year since we prevented him from getting his big contract. Just let the guy go instead of getting into a crappy situation like that.

He'd be a disgruntled player in a contract year with a chip on his shoulder. I can live with that.

[mdbdotcom]

Or you have nowhere to play him.

That would be ideal.

[Camden_yardbird]

What if the Orioles picked up the option and then negotiated an extension at a lower annual salary, functionally front ending the deal. Nick would be expensive in the first year where the Orioles are expected to increase salary to make another run and cheaper toward the back end where the Orioles could trade him or have less on the books for when I would expect they would want to be doing great a little more rebuilding.

17 up front and then say 6 a year for two years with an option at 10 for the last year with a 1 million dollar buyout. He gets 30 for three years, 40 for four and the Orioles retain a ton of flexibility based on the direction of the club.

IMO you need nick next year if you want to compete.

[Can_of_corn]

What if the Orioles picked up the option and then negotiated an extension at a lower annual salary, functionally front ending the deal. Nick would be expensive in the first year where the Orioles are expected to increase salary to make another run and cheaper toward the back end where the Orioles could trade him or have less on the books for when I would expect they would want to be doing great a little more rebuilding.

17 up front and then say 6 a year for two years with an option at 10 for the last year with a 1 million dollar buyout. He gets 30 for three years, 40 for four and the Orioles retain a ton of flexibility based on the direction of the club.

Because front loading contracts is almost always a bad idea for the club.

[AlbionHero]

IMO you need nick next year if you want to compete.

Which player do you think is better?

2013-2014 stats:

Player A: 140, 274/.335/.371, 24 homers, 5 sb, 170 runs, 109 rbi, 2.4 WAR

Player B: 1203 PA, .258/.319/.397, 25 homers, 30 sb, 140 runs, 103 rbi, 3.6 WAR

[AlbionHero]

-edit-

Player A: 1410 PA

[Reboulet'sStache]

It would basically force him to come back since he'd have no market with a QO attached to him, and then you have a disgruntled Markakis next year since we prevented him from getting his big contract. Just let the guy go instead of getting into a crappy situation like that.

I could see a team like the White Sox, who badly need a left handed outfielder and have a protected pick, going after Markakis. The QO can limit his asking price due to the fact that it reduces the amount of teams, but it doesn't eliminate all teams.

[Reboulet'sStache]

What if the Orioles picked up the option and then negotiated an extension at a lower annual salary, functionally front ending the deal. Nick would be expensive in the first year where the Orioles are expected to increase salary to make another run and cheaper toward the back end where the Orioles could trade him or have less on the books for when I would expect they would want to be doing great a little more rebuilding.

17 up front and then say 6 a year for two years with an option at 10 for the last year with a 1 million dollar buyout. He gets 30 for three years, 40 for four and the Orioles retain a ton of flexibility based on the direction of the club.

IMO you need nick next year if you want to compete.

Front loading contracts is a horrible idea. Money today is always worth more than money tomorrow.

And you see Markakis as the difference between competing and not competing? I realize people like him, but that is just an extreme position to take for a 2 WAR player.

[srock]

Front loading contracts is a horrible idea. Money today is always worth more than money tomorrow.

And you see Markakis as the difference between competing and not competing? I realize people like him' date=' but that is just an extreme position to take for a 2 WAR player.[/quote']

Nobody would intentionally front load a contract. But it could workout beneficial for both sides in certain situations where a player is basically restructuring a deal. If nick thinks he should get $15.5 (QO) but the orioles don't want to dot that and the orioles want I sign him for 3 years, I could see it happening.

It's unlikely, but possible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aristotelian]

Front loading contracts is a horrible idea. Money today is always worth more than money tomorrow.

And you see Markakis as the difference between competing and not competing? I realize people like him' date=' but that is just an extreme position to take for a 2 WAR player.[/quote']

Frontloading makes more sense than the opposite, when you are paying the most for a player's worst years. Look at A-Rod this year. The Yankees wish that one had been front loaded for sure.

[Can_of_corn]

Frontloading makes more sense than the opposite, when you are paying the most for a player's worst years. Look at A-Rod this year. The Yankees wish that one had been front loaded for sure.

No it doesn't. Future money is worth less then present money. The only time it makes sense is if the player were to demand the deal be structured that way.

[AlbionHero]

No it doesn't. Future money is worth less then present money. The only time it makes sense is if the player were to demand the deal be structured that way.

Why is it worth less? Because a GM knows he might not be around by the end of the deal?

It'll still impact the team the same now as it would then.

[Can_of_corn]

Why is it worth less? Because a GM knows he might not be around by the end of the deal?

It'll still impact the team the same now as it would then.

Reason 1- Inflation. Can you buy with $1,000 bucks now what you could in 1990? Of course not

Reason 2- Investing. Instead of paying Nick 14/8/5 if they pay him 5/8/14 then that 9 difference in the first year can be off earning income elsewhere.

Reason 3- Unknown future. Maybe Nick agrees to get traded after two seasons. Maybe he retires.

[Aristotelian]

Reason 1- Inflation. Can you buy with $1,000 bucks now what you could in 1990? Of course not

Reason 2- Investing. Instead of paying Nick 14/8/5 if they pay him 5/8/14 then that 9 difference in the first year can be off earning income elsewhere.

Reason 3- Unknown future. Maybe Nick agrees to get traded after two seasons. Maybe he retires.

Unknown future works both ways. Nick could be injured in Year 1 and you will be stuck with the balance of the contract.

Inflation is a negligible consideration when you are talking a 3-4 year contract. Even so, I could see a case for backloading say 3% increases per year based on inflation. But look at Miguel Cabrera's deal. His salary explodes from $22 million this year to $32 million in 2022-23. THat is extremely short-sighted in my opinion. I think DET will be regretting that one. Moreover, even considering inflation, I would expect a player like Nick's production to decline faster than the rate of inflation. It already is.

Investing? I don't think an MLB club is going to invest its payroll in the stock market. They would just spend the money on another player. That is what DET is thinking, but it's going to kill them in 2022.