Jump to content

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

Greg

By Greg
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
Is it really okay to take a sure bet when you know that guy is a fringe starter who is likely to get worse with age? At least if you go with guys on one year deals you have more flexibility if they don't work out.

I don't think most people regard Nick Markakis as a "fringe starter". Some of you guys really need to get a grip. Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter aren't babes in the woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
I don't think most people regard Nick Markakis as a "fringe starter". Some of you guys really need to get a grip. Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter aren't babes in the woods.

They are they best at what they both do in baseball. And that means they are better at this than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlbionHero Major Leaguer

AlbionHero

Posted
Posted
I don't think most people regard Nick Markakis as a "fringe starter". Some of you guys really need to get a grip. Dan Duquette and Buck Showalter aren't babes in the woods.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=rf&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=1000&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2012&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

Among all RFs with at least 1000 PA from 2012-2014, he was 31st out of 40 RFs. He's a fringe starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted

According to that. What he is saying is that the folks who assess that, may not be right. And probably are not. In fact many of the elements that produce that data are dismissed by some smart folks out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teddy OBP Veteran All-Star

Teddy OBP

Posted
Posted
I don't think it's the market for Markakis which is why I think it would be even crazier to pay him that amount. The extra 2-3M won't kill the franchise. It's the whole 10-12M we could have spent elsewhere with cheap in house replacements for Markakis. There is absolutely no reason, besides he's "our guy" to guarantee 4 years at those numbers. Everyone knows, including Frobby, that we wouldn't be pursuing him for that type of contract if he had been a lifelong Houston Astro.

Heyman takes a lot of (deserved) grief but his me, agent, GM were pretty close last year for most of the guys. 4/40 is on the low end of that range and 4/48 is not past the top end.

If we don't sign him for that, I think it 100% that someone else will. Maybe that FO will regret it too, but I don't have any doubt that someone will pay him that.

If we don't then we have to weigh the money saved and replacements vs known quantity, guy that loves and is loved by the team, and the impact on the clubhouse of keeping him or sending him packing.

I can't put a dollar amount on what that last one is worth, but I think it definitely impacts other guy's thoughts on whether they stay or go.

I also think they're considering what happens to the clubhouse if Nick, Wieters, and Davis are all gone in a two year span.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcard Hangout Grand Counsel

wildcard

Posted
Posted
According to that. What he is saying is that the folks who assess that, may not be right. And probably are not. In fact many of the elements that produce that data are dismissed by some smart folks out of hand.

Nicely stated. Nick is not perfect but he deserves better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdbdotcom Hangout Grand Counsel

mdbdotcom

Posted
Posted

So Nick gets punished for playing the whole 2013 season in less than peak condition following 3 surgeries? Go back to the same page and look at RF with at least 400 AB in 2014. He finished 12 out of 30, right behind Kole Calhoun, Seth Smith, and Daniel Nava. That is not a fringe player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeveJones007 Hangout Veteran Council

VeveJones007

Posted
Posted

Markakis will probably be worth the contract, but the issue I have is surplus value. The Orioles can't afford to invest 8-10% of their payroll in a player and get even value for their money. In the current baseball economy, every single move the O's make should seek to get $1.50+ of value for every dollar they spend.

That's the only way to keep up with the teams that have deeper pockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...