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

[Frobby]

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.

I don't want to make excuses for Nick's 2013 season. It was bad, and 2014 was just OK. I think RZNJ is certainly right that the Orioles wouldn't be pursing Nick on a 4-year deal if he were a lifelong Astro. Where we differ is that I think there are several teams who would be pursuing him, it just wouldn't be us. And to me, there's nothing wrong with taking a different approach with your own players who have been there a long time than you do with some outside player, just so long as you don't take things too far.

[Guest]

Orioles overpaid once for him.Let's not do it a second time.

[Can_of_corn]

Orioles overpaid once for him.Let's not do it a second time.

That was a perfectly reasonable contract when he signed it.

[weams]

and 4th in PA despite the low WAR. That's not fringe

Well there you go. Another guy who looks beyond the math.

[weams]

Orioles overpaid once for him.Let's not do it a second time.

He was near 1.000 OPS when he started his decline.

[Can_of_corn]

Trout's neck has completely disappeared.

[Guest]

He was near 1.000 OPS when he started his decline.

Better ways to spend this 40 to 48m is all I'm saying. If Dan plays hardball no way Nick gets 4 years from any other G.M.

[Frobby]

Better ways to spend this 40 to 48m is all I'm saying. If Dan plays hardball no way Nick gets 4 years from any other G.M.

I think you're wrong. I think Dan already considered the market when he allowed 4 years to be the framework. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't think Nick could get it elsewhere. But he probably expects Nick to take a bit of a haircut on AAV and deferral in exchange for knowing he's going to stay where he's comfortable for four years. Whatever Nick gets, he could probably get a bit more if he didn't mind selling himself to the highest bidder.

[mdbdotcom]

I don't want to make excuses for Nick's 2013 season. It was bad, and 2014 was just OK. I think RZNJ is certainly right that the Orioles wouldn't be pursing Nick on a 4-year deal if he were a lifelong Astro. Where we differ is that I think there are several teams who would be pursuing him, it just wouldn't be us. And to me, there's nothing wrong with taking a different approach with your own players who have been there a long time than you do with some outside player, just so long as you don't take things too far.

I really don't care if they let him go. I just thought calling him a fringe player was hyperbole.

[ledzepp8]

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.

I get that this is the thinking of this board, but we don't know that it's the thinking of Orioles management. They seem to be raising payroll on a yearly basis since Buck arrived. DD doesn't seem to be shying away from spending some money. Is it going to be Yankee level? Of course not. But I think some people need to stop acting like it's 1998-2011 and take note that the payroll has risen $34 million since 2010.

[ledzepp8]

I really don't care if they let him go. I just thought calling him a fringe player was hyperbole.

Of course it is. Maybe there's not a huge market for Markakis as a FA and maybe the Orioles are going to overpay him but I would bet the vast majority of teams in the league would not mind having him patrol RF for them. Calling him a fringe starter is just being silly. Some of the people on this board tend to talk in such absolutes about nearly everything.

[OFFNY]

Orioles overpaid once for him.Let's not do it a second time.

That was a perfectly reasonable contract when he signed it.

Yes, and I remember when the Orioles signed BOTH Markakis AND Roberts to long-term extensions in January and February of 2009, respectively. Those moves were very much lauded at that time by Orioles fans and critics/sportswriters that the Orioles were willing to spend money to lock up key players (especially Markakis, who was very young at the time) for the foreseen future, while they were continuing to attempt to develop their young starting pitchers (Tillman, Britton, Matusz, Arrieta, Bergesen, David Hernandez, etc.) whom were at the highest levels of the minors.

Roberts actually had one of the best years of his career after signing that extension in 2009, when he broke the all-time major league record for doubles in a single season by a switch-hitter (56), hit 16 home runs, stole 30 bases, scored 110 runs, and had an OBP of 356. After that, he unfortunately went on the D.L. for the almost the entire remainder of that contract (2010-2013.)

Markakis has been healthy for the better part of that 6-year extension that he signed back then (January of 2009), and has been a steady, reliable player overall.

If one looks hard enough, one can find a reason to complain ........ but as far as I'm concerned, Peter having the willingness to break out his wallet for a very young Nick Markakis, and a (at the time) prime Brian Roberts should be waaaaaay down on the complaints list of how the Orioles have been run over the past 5-10 years.

[AlbionHero]

One thing I'm worried about with Nick is that he may just be lax about getting better after getting his big contract like the last time. Will he be as motivated to have big years again?

[Singleton]

I think you're wrong. I think Dan already considered the market when he allowed 4 years to be the framework. He wouldn't have done that if he didn't think Nick could get it elsewhere. But he probably expects Nick to take a bit of a haircut on AAV and deferral in exchange for knowing he's going to stay where he's comfortable for four years. Whatever Nick gets, he could probably get a bit more if he didn't mind selling himself to the highest bidder.

Just because there's another team out there willing to pay more doesn't mean its a good deal for us. I like our guys but its hard for me to imagine this ends well for us and our flexibility to improve in other areas will be further limited.

[Brooks The Great]

Something doesn't make sense. One report had the O's opening offer at 8/34. Roch guesses the contract could be 4/40 or 4/48. There's no way the O's are starting at 4/34 and increasing their offer to 4/48. I can buy the 4/40 though. Of course, this assumes that the report of 4/34 was accurate but the oddness of the number would lead me to believe there's something to that report.

I'd be fine with 4/34. We'll likely be pulling my hair out over the last two years of the contract, but given the lack of reliable alternatives and the apparent benefits of Markakis in terms of clubhouse chemistry, I could live with it.