Orioles Discussing Four-Year Deal With Nick Markakis (Signs w/ATL)

[Redskins Rick]

His bat is a question. He hit in the minors, hit in 2013 for the Royals, and hit last year after a terrible first two months. It's a gamble worth taking but even if doesn't hit, you don't have to ride him for 150 games. I suspect that his offense will be very close to what Markakis produced last year if given the playing time.

Lough should have gone to the DL, the effects of the conclusion took forever for him to shake and get back to 100%.

[eddie83]

I would liken it to an executive summary. Feel free to pick through the supporting documents as you wish.

All 30 teams have the same info and yet the same fools in the industry let a guy like Lough be a bench player but are willing to offer multiple years to Markakis. So my question is why?

[DrungoHazewood]

We don't really need WAR to see Markakis is a barely passable MLB starter who is only getting older.

Barely passable? I think that's an exaggeration. In 2014 there were 100 MLB regulars (min 125 games) who produced at or above Nick's rate of 2.1 rWAR /155 games. There are 255 regular position player slots in MLB (9 for each AL team, 8 for each NL team). Roughly 60% of those slots had either a combination of players or a single player who produced at a lower rate than Markakis.

Or stated another way, there were 70 players who played at least 125 games in 2014 and produced at a lower rate than Markakis. And another 92 who played at least half the schedule while producing at a rate lower than Nick.

He average-ish, not "barely passable". Not unless about half the slots in MLB get labeled barely passable.

[MurphDogg]

His bat is a question. He hit in the minors, hit in 2013 for the Royals, and hit last year after a terrible first two months. It's a gamble worth taking but even if doesn't hit, you don't have to ride him for 150 games. I suspect that his offense will be very close to what Markakis produced last year if given the playing time.

Yeah, he had a pretty good 86 at-bats over the last four months of the season. You think that is a good enough sized sample to say that his first two months of 88 at-bats were statistical noise or after affects of a mid-March concussion?

[eddie83]

Nick's 2014 is much closer to his 2013 than his 2012. The last two years he looks more like a .700-.720 OPS guy than .800-.820. I am OK with extending Nick for a few years as long as he is being compensated as a .700 OPS guy. If he won't take a pay cut, I would rather see De Aza and use Nick's money to make sure we extend Cruz or bring in someone comparable.

Markakis had was hurt in 2013, pretty obvious he wasn't right. His numbers in 2014 fell apart down the stretch.

[Can_of_corn]

All 30 teams have the same info and yet the same fools in the industry let a guy like Lough be a bench player but are willing to offer multiple years to Markakis. So my question is why?

Why do they continue to bat their best hitter third when it doesn't lead to more runs? Why do they pay a premium for closers? Why do they jump through hoops to get their closers as many saves as possible even if it leads to higher costs down the road?

Inertia can be a hard force to fight.

[Can_of_corn]

Markakis had was hurt in 2013, pretty obvious he wasn't right. His numbers in 2014 fell apart down the stretch.

Almost like he can't handle the strain of playing everyday?

[eddie83]

Which teams have offered a multiple year contract to Markakis? Did the Orioles trade for Lough last year with the intention that he was going to be their everyday LF? Answer: Yes.

It is believed Markakis will get multiple years somewhere. I doubt the Orioles will have to overpay to keep him. Lough was brutal last year early on with a terrible approach at the plate. He was benched for a reason.

[Redskins Rick]

]If you take the O's at their word' date=' they got De Aza because he was more of a sure thing than Lough.[/b'] If the O's sign Markakis, I think they should consider moving De Aza and putting Lough in LF. However, I think it would be even better to keep De Aza for 6M with a one year commitment, instead of investing 3-4 years in Markakis.

I dont remember them saying that when they traded for him.

At the time, they said, it was because of their bench depth was worrisome, and they were dealing with Pearce and a hurt wrist.

Jeff Mantos, was De Aza's hitting coach for 4 years, had put in a good word with DD, too.

[DrungoHazewood]

All 30 teams have the same info and yet the same fools in the industry let a guy like Lough be a bench player but are willing to offer multiple years to Markakis. So my question is why?

The system MLB has to distribute players among the various teams isn't perfectly efficient with regards to getting everyone their most optimal playing time or contract. Lough was controlled by the Royals until recently and they used him as they saw fit. Markakis was very good at a relatively young age, got a fair contract based on that, and his early performance helped set his reputation.

[Can_of_corn]

What he did in the minors, 2013 for the Royals, and 2nd half of 2014, are enough to say "He's worth taking a chance on".

Especially for 500K.

[Can_of_corn]

It is believed Markakis will get multiple years somewhere. I doubt the Orioles will have to overpay to keep him. Lough was brutal last year early on with a terrible approach at the plate. He was benched for a reason.

At least some of us think that Cruz's desire to play in the field played a part in that.

(by some of us I mean me)

[eddie83]

Almost like he can't handle the strain of playing everyday?

That is an industry issue not just Markakis. Pitchers will continue to dominate.

[Can_of_corn]

That is an industry issue not just Markakis. Pitchers will continue to dominate.

Huh?

Why did they dominate him more later in the year?

Maybe Nick isn't as young as he once was and can't handle the strain of playing 150+ games a year.

[eddie83]

If you take the O's at their word, they got De Aza because he was more of a sure thing than Lough. If the O's sign Markakis, I think they should consider moving De Aza and putting Lough in LF. However, I think it would be even better to keep De Aza for 6M with a one year commitment, instead of investing 3-4 years in Markakis.

And I would rather keep all 3 and not assume anything about Pearce.