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

[Can_of_corn]

I suppose we'll see what kind of sentimental pandering Friedman can do now that his available budget went from $3.75 to $500M.

I'm not a fan of a 4/48 deal for Markakis. But there's a significant difference between a 3- or 4-year deal at $10-12M per, and committing over $120M to a declining guy like Ryan Howard. Obviously there will be problems and risks if the plan is just to re-up all of the O's current players until they're 35 or 40. But let's actually get a signature on the Markakis contract before we declare the franchise dead.

Of course there is. But in a vacuum the impact of both deals could be similar considering Philadelphia's payroll capabilities.

Higher season tickets or not the O's can not suddenly start rolling out of spring training at the 160-170 million mark.

[DrungoHazewood]

Of course there is. But in a vacuum the impact of both deals could be similar considering Philadelphia's payroll capabilities.

Higher season tickets or not the O's can not suddenly start rolling out of spring training at the 160-170 million mark.

I guess, but it seems like a stretch. Howard's contract is much bigger, longer, and he has actually been terrible since before the contract kicked in. Markakis' hypothetical deal is much smaller in scale, and he's yet to tank. And the O's are heading towards a $125M or so payroll, which is at least 75% of the Phils'. If the O's go out and sign Markakis to 4/48 and Cruz to something like 4/65 then I'll start to have some serious concerns. But just a Markakis deal that may end up as 3/30 plus incentives or deferred money? Meh... if that kills the team they weren't going to win anyway.

[Scrat1]

I'm not a fan of a 4/48 deal for Markakis. But there's a significant difference between a 3- or 4-year deal at $10-12M per, and committing over $120M to a declining guy like Ryan Howard. Obviously there will be problems and risks if the plan is just to re-up all of the O's current players until they're 35 or 40. But let's actually get a signature on the Markakis contract before we declare the franchise dead.

1. I think I was clear that all of what I said hinges on the whether or not this signing occurs; I didn't say any of this is a foregone conclusion. I can stomach 3/30 for Markakis (though I wouldn't do it), but 4/48 is insanity. Can you give me even a quasi reasonable defense for giving Markakis 4/48 rather than bringing De Aza back at 1/6 and platooning Pearce and Lough in right field?

2. Regarding Howard, that's true but only to an extent. The Phillies have a significantly higher payroll. To give it a little more context, the Orioles payroll will be, perhaps optimistically, around 120 million in 2015. 12 million would be 1/10 of the payroll dedicated to a 1-2 WAR player. Howard is making 25 million a year, but the Phillies' payroll is about 175 million, so Howard is making about 1/7 of the Phillies payroll. Certainly Howard's contract is worse than Markakis' supposed 4/48 would be, but in terms of percentage of the payroll they aren't as far off as they appear. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to compare the two in terms of overpaying a declining, mediocre player because he's a fan favorite and in the process significantly reducing the team's future flexibility.

[Scrat1]

But just a Markakis deal that may end up as 3/30 plus incentives or deferred money? Meh... if that kills the team they weren't going to win anyway.

I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Of course giving Markakis a hefty contract isn't going to single handedly destroy the franchise, but it is nonetheless a poor, even reckless, move that, for me, would be indicative of a failure of process and decision making. 3/30 and I'll grit my teeth and move on. 4/48 and I would lose confidence that DD will be able to maintain a long-term competitive window. Not because the extra 1/12 would sink the organization, but because it is so obviously an unnecessary and bad decision that it would act as a sort of canary in a coal mine. What reason would I have to believe the same front office that would give such a contract to such a player would then turn around and make shrewd, calculated decisions elsewhere?

[DrungoHazewood]

1. I think I was clear that all of what I said hinges on the whether or not this signing occurs; I didn't say any of this is a foregone conclusion. I can stomach 3/30 for Markakis (though I wouldn't do it), but 4/48 is insanity. Can you give me even a quasi reasonable defense for giving Markakis 4/48 rather than bringing De Aza back at 1/6 and platooning Pearce and Lough in right field?

No, I can't give you a good baseball reason to sign him to 4/48. My estimate is that his production is worth 3/27 or maybe 4/30. And I could see going as high as 3/30 or 3/36 because he's Nick Markakis, lifetime Oriole and good guy.

2. Regarding Howard, that's true but only to an extent. The Phillies have a significantly higher payroll. To give it a little more context, the Orioles payroll will be, perhaps optimistically, around 120 million in 2015. 12 million would be 1/10 of the payroll dedicated to a 1-2 WAR player. Howard is making 25 million a year, but the Phillies' payroll is about 175 million, so Howard is making about 1/7 of the Phillies payroll. Certainly Howard's contract is worse than Markakis' supposed 4/48 would be, but in terms of percentage of the payroll they aren't as far off as they appear. I don't think it's that much of a stretch to compare the two in terms of overpaying a declining, mediocre player because he's a fan favorite and in the process significantly reducing the team's future flexibility.

I certainly have concerns over those points, too. I just don't think that a $10M-$12M, 3-4 year deal is going to cripple any franchise. We'll see what happens. I find it odd/unusual/unlikely that the same GM that kicked Jim Johnson to the curb, unceremoniously trading him for a journeyman minor leaguer, would get all teery-eyed and weepy and sign a guy he knows won't be nearly worth it because, gosh darn it, he's Nick Markakis.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think this is a little bit disingenuous. Of course giving Markakis a hefty contract isn't going to single handedly destroy the franchise, but it is nonetheless a poor, even reckless, move that, for me, would be indicative of a failure of process and decision making. 3/30 and I'll grit my teeth and move on. 4/48 and I would lose confidence that DD will be able to maintain a long-term competitive window. Not because the extra 1/12 would sink the organization, but because it is so obviously an unnecessary and bad decision that it would act as a sort of canary in a coal mine. What reason would I have to believe the same front office that would give such a contract to such a player would then turn around and make shrewd, calculated decisions elsewhere?

I think it's hyperbolic to call the difference between 3/30 and 4/48 reckless and a "failure of process and decision making". One is $10M a year for three years, the other is $12M a year for four years. By my estimate the first is reasonable, the second a bit of an overpayment.

[Bahama O's Fan]

So to sum up:

71 pages with no update on the contract. Most people would like to have Nick back; the problem is at what price? What is a 31 year old RF with a good OBP, great arm, good clubhouse leader with little range and not much speed worth? Let's put it this way: If you had unlimited resources, like the Yankees, how much would you sign Markakis for?

[Reboulet'sStache]

So to sum up:

71 pages with no update on the contract. Most people would like to have Nick back; the problem is at what price? What is a 31 year old RF with a good OBP' date=' great arm, good clubhouse leader with little range and not much speed worth? Let's put it this way: If you had unlimited resources, like the Yankees, how much would you sign Markakis for?[/quote']

Probably the price we are about to pay, which is what is so disheartening about it.

[Can_of_corn]

So to sum up:

71 pages with no update on the contract. Most people would like to have Nick back; the problem is at what price? What is a 31 year old RF with a good OBP' date=' great arm, good clubhouse leader with little range and not much speed worth? Let's put it this way: If you had unlimited resources, like the Yankees, how much would you sign Markakis for?[/quote']

If I had to?

2/18.

[Scrat1]

I think it's hyperbolic to call the difference between 3/30 and 4/48 reckless and a "failure of process and decision making". One is $10M a year for three years, the other is $12M a year for four years. By my estimate the first is reasonable, the second a bit of an overpayment.

I think you can only say this if you view the decision strictly in a vacuum, but of course that's not the case. Acknowledging the fact that we have, in all likelihood, equally productive alternatives already on the roster for a fraction of the cost, the decision to pay Markakis 4/40 or more is, in my opinion, absolutely indefensible. Again, I don't think that contract is going to bury the Orioles, but I do think it's clearly enough a bad decision that if it happens I'll just be unhappily waiting for more of the same.

[clapdiddy]

If I had to?

2/18.

I'd be willing to go 2/20 with a 10M option & buyout of 1M on the third year.

[Frobby]

I think it's hyperbolic to call the difference between 3/30 and 4/48 reckless and a "failure of process and decision making". One is $10M a year for three years, the other is $12M a year for four years. By my estimate the first is reasonable, the second a bit of an overpayment.

Thanks for calming the hyperbole that is being tossed around here. I'm a huge Nick fan, but I'd really like to see his deal be three years and be as cheap as possible. If it's 4/$48 mm, "a bit of an overpayment" is the correct assessment. But I think people should calm down until we see the contract that actually emerges.

[Teddy OBP]

Not sure what you mean? If John Heyman projects (don't know if he did) Yasmany Thomas to get a 7/105M contract does that mean that it's not overpaying. If he projects Markakis to get a certain contract I don't understand how it's still not a bad contract. And since when is Jon Heyman got a crystal ball into what GM's around the league will be offering Markakis?

I was referring (and I think Murph also) to his annual column where he gets independent estimates from an agent, a GM, and then comes up with his own (presumably based on conversations with other agents and GMs). Seemed to be reasonably accurate in most cases last year. For Nick they range from 4/40 to 4/50 this year.

[Can_of_corn]

I'm very calm thanks.

[AlbionHero]

If I had to?

2/18.

2/18 is about the exact contract I'd give him. Crazy how someone like Aoki could be looking at that type of contract yet we're going to give Markakis nearly 50 million. Thats not how smart organizations are run...