Is Markakis Greatest Value to us Sentimental?

[scOtt]

No one would be excited to sign him for even 3/30 if he played for another team. He's not an exciting player. He offers on base capability but once he gets on base it takes two hits to get him in. To answer the original post, it's mostly sentimental. You need not do anything more than read one of the best posters on the site, Frobby, talk about Markakis. If we are cold and calculating, there is no way we should spend 10M a year on a player who is probably one of the easiest to replace on the team for 1M or less. Can Lough replace him? Maybe not but I'd gamble 500K that between defense, base running, and offense, that he comes pretty damn close. And there's nothing to say it has to be Lough. Depending on the makeup of the team it could be Pearce. It could be Pearce and Lough. Replacing Markakis with a low cost player has very little downside. They could be worse than Markakis but it's not like you are going from a 4-5 win player to a 1 win player. Even if Lough and Pearce are terrible you don't necessarily lose a lot. This is a small risk, and one the team should take, no doubt, IMO. Thanks for your service, Nick. Now lets see what your real market value is. Good luck.

That kind of thinking is what leads to the 5 worthless SS years back in 2006 or whatever. We'll go with cheap X till he falters, then we'll go with X_b... then X_c etc.

[scOtt]

What makes you think you'd get negative WAR from Lough? Even in a year where the fans gave up on him and he was in Bucks doghouse, he was worth 2 WAR. Do you really think he could get even worse than that? I'd say 1.5-2 WAR is the minimum from him.

His minimal track record. Not a single full season.

[AlbionHero]

His minimal track record. Not a single full season.

Well, speed and defense are very consistent things you can expect every year. He was always a great defender and fast over his minor league career and the first couple years of his major league career. Those two traits alone should give him a couple WAR with significant play time, even if his offense isn't very good.

[scOtt]

Well, speed and defense are very consistent things you can expect every year. He was always a great defender and fast over his minor league career and the first couple years of his major league career. Those two traits alone should give him a couple WAR with significant play time, even if his offense isn't very good.

2 WAR is a lot from pure defense. And he has to get on base to do anything offensively.

And don't get me wrong, I like Lough. Hope we get him back. But I prefer the certain 2 WAR Nick brings full time.

[AlbionHero]

2 WAR is a lot from pure defense. And he has to get on base to do anything offensively.

And don't get me wrong, I like Lough. Hope we get him back. But I prefer the certain 2 WAR Nick brings full time.

Even if he doesn't get 2 dWAR, his style would be able to prevent him from getting negative WAR... speed and defense is just too consistent to fall off a cliff one year. He's a pretty safe player to go with, since you know he'll get at least 1.5-2 WAR in a season.

[scOtt]

Even if he doesn't get 2 dWAR, his style would be able to prevent him from getting negative WAR... speed and defense is just too consistent to fall off a cliff one year. He's a pretty safe player to go with, since you know he'll get at least 1.5-2 WAR in a season.

That's my point. We don't KNOW he'll get that in a full season. He's never had one. We KNOW we'll get a minimum of that from Nick.

[DrungoHazewood]

Haven't read the whole thread yet... part of it is sentimental, no doubt. But his consistency is what I value. You KNOW what you're going to get, at a minimum. If you talk about DeAza or Lough, you might get Nick's value. Or you might get zero or even negative WAR. You don't know.

Nick is one year removed from a zero-win season.

[Reboulet'sStache]

Haven't read the whole thread yet... part of it is sentimental, no doubt. But his consistency is what I value. You KNOW what you're going to get, at a minimum. If you talk about DeAza or Lough, you might get Nick's value. Or you might get zero or even negative WAR. You don't know.

You're also not paying them to produce at a level we would be asking Nick to produce at.

[Bahama O's Fan]

Are we going to continue to get the same production out of Nick for the next three years or is he going to regress due to age? You cannot base a contract offer on what he produces now, but what you project him to produce for the length of the contract.

[Frobby]

Are we going to continue to get the same production out of Nick for the next three years or is he going to regress due to age? You cannot base a contract offer on what he produces now' date=' but what you project him to produce for the length of the contract.[/quote']

Undeniably correct. But I'm more bullish on how Nick holds up in his early 30's than a lot of posters appear to be. With each passing day, I become more and more aware of my personal bias on this subject. But I'm sticking to my guns. Retaining Nick is a good thing unless he's insisting on more than 3 years and more than $11-12 mm/yr. Sign him for about that and I'll be a happy camper.

[weams]

Markakis' option has been officially declined. Nick is now a FA.

[weams]

Undeniably correct. But I'm more bullish on how Nick holds up in his early 30's than a lot of posters appear to be. With each passing day, I become more and more aware of my personal bias on this subject. But I'm sticking to my guns. Retaining Nick is a good thing unless he's insisting on more than 3 years and more than $11-12 mm/yr. Sign him for about that and I'll be a happy camper.

What if he wants 4/48?

[Frobby]

What if he wants 4/48?

Too much, considering he'll be a 10-and-5 guy in a year and the O's couldn't trade him without his consent.

[Babypowder]

That's my point. We don't KNOW he'll get that in a full season. He's never had one. We KNOW we'll get a minimum of that from Nick.

What happened in 2013?

[BarclaySouthway]

Is Markakis Greatest Value to us Sentimental?

Yes. Absolutely. ... They will definitely be paying for previous performance and for sentimentality.

Seems like a losing proposition, eh? You could say that the O's would be paying for consistency, but it seems like they would be paying dearly for it.

Also, I can't shake the thought that Nick managed to accumulate a merely respectable 2.1 rWAR in his walk year. After he signed his last deal, after putting up 7.4 rWAR, he dropped to 2.9 the next year, and never even reached that level again.