Jump to content

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


Greg

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
My point was not in regard to whether or not Markakis should be offered a 4-year deal.

It is that it is absurd that he of all people would be chastising anyone else for not thinking clearly and objectively.

You know what they say about blind squirrels and nuts right?

Just because a poster has a checkered past doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.

Again, I wasn't contesting whether or not he was right or wrong about offering Markakis a 4-year deal.

His "better get your head checked" sentiment was well over the top, particularly considering his own history of rash, impulsive, and indiscriminate posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I wasn't contesting whether or not he was right or wrong about offering Markakis a 4-year deal.

His "better get your head checked" sentiment was well over the top, particularly considering his own history of rash, impulsive, and indiscriminate posting.

Well considering that I had him blocked for a time I certainly won't spend any more time defending his post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does an average player produce?
Approximately 2 WAR a season. Nick is close enough to average if for some reason you act as if 2013 never happened.
This post sums up my thoughts as well. I prefer we keep Nick, but if Duke lets him go and actually has a plan for replacing him, I'd be okay with that. If the plan is to HOPE that DeAza, Pearce, and lough can man the two corner outfield spots, well, I'll take Nick over that idea 7 days a week.

I don't want to dismiss what the Nick skeptics are saying. They have their points, and have articulated them very well over the last couple of weeks. I do think they should be asking themselves the following questions:

1. If David Lough were that good, how were we able to acquire him for Danny Valencia?

2. If David Lough were that good, why did Buck start de Aza most of the time over Lough once he was acquired?

3. If Alejandro de Aza were that good, how were we able to acquire him for Mark Blackmar and Miguel Chalas?

4. Do you really think you are better at seeing the strengths and weaknesses of these players, and their value, compared to Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter?

I have complete faith in Dan and Buck to evaluate the proper price point for Nick Markakis in light of the other options available to them. Dan has proven capable of being quite cold and calculating. Buck may be a bit attached to the players he has managed for 4+ years, but he's also more knowledgeable about what those players bring to the table than anyone on this board. And personally, I don't believe Peter Angelos will be involved, or that "fan favorite" considerations will play any significant role in the decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o

Regarding Markakis, I would like to see him remain an Oriole for his career (or at least for the bulk of his career, if he decides to eventually finish up with one or 2 more final years with another team in his late late 30's, early 40's, etc.)

How exactly the Orioles will accomplish that is (obviously) the $64,000 question, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between De Aza in LF and Markakis in RF, verses De Aza in LF with a combination of Lough/Pearce in RF?

Who backs up DeAza if he struggles? What if Pearce can't stay healthy? Why not keep Nick, use Pearce in a LF platoon with DeAza and have Lough as a backup option and number 4 OF? With that plan one thing goes wrong and we are screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to dismiss what the Nick skeptics are saying. They have their points, and have articulated them very well over the last couple of weeks. I do think they should be asking themselves the following questions:

1. If David Lough were that good, how were we able to acquire him for Danny Valencia?

2. If David Lough were that good, why did Buck start de Aza most of the time over Lough once he was acquired?

3. If Alejandro de Aza were that good, how were we able to acquire him for Mark Blackmar and Miguel Chalas?

4. Do you really think you are better at seeing the strengths and weaknesses of these players, and their value, compared to Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter?

I have complete faith in Dan and Buck to evaluate the proper price point for Nick Markakis in light of the other options available to them. Dan has proven capable of being quite cold and calculating. Buck may be a bit attached to the players he has managed for 4+ years, but he's also more knowledgeable about what those players bring to the table than anyone on this board. And personally, I don't believe Peter Angelos will be involved, or that "fan favorite" considerations will play any significant role in the decisions.

1- They had a need for a fail-safe option at third and Lough was older and redundant.

2- I think Lough ended up in the doghouse after a slow start and never fully captured Buck's trust.

3- Non-contender dumping a guy. There are plenty of worse trades go down every year. ie Hardy from the Twins

4- Hindsight has proven me right on occasion. This could be one of those occasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to dismiss what the Nick skeptics are saying. They have their points, and have articulated them very well over the last couple of weeks. I do think they should be asking themselves the following questions:

1. If David Lough were that good, how were we able to acquire him for Danny Valencia?

2. If David Lough were that good, why did Buck start de Aza most of the time over Lough once he was acquired?

3. If Alejandro de Aza were that good, how were we able to acquire him for Mark Blackmar and Miguel Chalas?

4. Do you really think you are better at seeing the strengths and weaknesses of these players, and their value, compared to Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter?

I have complete faith in Dan and Buck to evaluate the proper price point for Nick Markakis in light of the other options available to them. Dan has proven capable of being quite cold and calculating. Buck may be a bit attached to the players he has managed for 4+ years, but he's also more knowledgeable about what those players bring to the table than anyone on this board. And personally, I don't believe Peter Angelos will be involved, or that "fan favorite" considerations will play any significant role in the decisions.

1. I don't think anyone is saying he's that good. We're saying he is likely close to league average, which is all Markakis is at this point. The main thesis is that neither are that good, so why spend real money.

2. I think there is plenty of evidence that Lough should have played more after his horrific start, but he clearly never got out of the doghouse. Assuming managers don't make any mistakes because they know more than us is silly. Why should this board even exist if questioning the people in the industry is unacceptable?

3. See my answer to 1. No one is saying De Aza is that good, we are just saying that Nick Markakis isn't that good, either.

4. See number 2. People in the baseball industry make mistakes, even the smart ones. Dan Duquette saw the value in getting Cruz on a very friendly deal, he also signed Ubaldo Jimenez. If we can't debate what the organization is going to do and are just supposed to defer all opinions to the organization, what are we even doing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I don't think anyone is saying he's that good. We're saying he is likely close to league average, which is all Markakis is at this point. The main thesis is that neither are that good, so why spend real money.

2. I think there is plenty of evidence that Lough should have played more after his horrific start, but he clearly never got out of the doghouse. Assuming managers don't make any mistakes because they know more than us is silly. Why should this board even exist if questioning the people in the industry is unacceptable?

3. See my answer to 1. No one is saying De Aza is that good, we are just saying that Nick Markakis isn't that good, either.

4. See number 2. People in the baseball industry make mistakes, even the smart ones. Dan Duquette saw the value in getting Cruz on a very friendly deal, he also signed Ubaldo Jimenez. If we can't debate what the organization is going to do and are just supposed to defer all opinions to the organization, what are we even doing here?

Very good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post sums up my thoughts as well. I prefer we keep Nick, but if Duke lets him go and actually has a plan for replacing him, I'd be okay with that. If the plan is to HOPE that DeAza, Pearce, and lough can man the two corner outfield spots, well, I'll take Nick over that idea 7 days a week.

Dan always has a plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Do you really think you are better at seeing the strengths and weaknesses of these players, and their value, compared to Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter?

Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter don't spend nearly as much time on a baseball related related message board as a lot of these guys, much less have as many baseball related post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who backs up DeAza if he struggles? What if Pearce can't stay healthy? Why not keep Nick, use Pearce in a LF platoon with DeAza and have Lough as a backup option and number 4 OF? With that plan one thing goes wrong and we are screwed.

That is a fine plan for next year, but do you want to be stuck with Nick as our every-day RF for four years? I just don't think you can have $10 million a year tied up in an aging replacement level slap hitting corner outfielder. What if we have an opportunity to sign Machado to a Adam Jones-like extension but we can't do it because Nick is on the books? I want us to field a strong team next year, but not at any cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...