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

[gmelson26]

Buck was just interviewed on Hot Stove. Interestingly, Rosenthal asked him about Markakis and Cruz and where the team was on all of that. Buck avoided talking about Markakis at all, but said he's now more confident about Cruz resigning than he was before the meetings. He's planning on "having lunch" with Cruz soon.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

I won't be happy with 4/48 for Nick, and I also think that they could probably get close his production at minimal costs out of year-to-year cobbling together of platoons and the like. But I also don't think that one somewhat ill-advised signing is the first domino to fall, inevitably leading to replicating the Phillies. I never liked domino theories, I think they're lazy.

[Teddy OBP]

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

We'd probably be outbid by 10 other teams on either of those deals. That's fine if you don't want to keep him at all, but it won't be close and would have a chilling effect on other upcoming FA's too I think.

[Teddy OBP]

I won't be happy with 4/48 for Nick, and I also think that they could probably get close his production at minimal costs out of year-to-year cobbling together of platoons and the like. But I also don't think that one somewhat ill-advised signing is the first domino to fall, inevitably leading to replicating the Phillies. I never liked domino theories, I think they're lazy.

Playing dominoes on a slippery slope...

[Teddy OBP]

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.

Equally productive being Lough and DeAza?

[DrungoHazewood]

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...

I would caution against saying "we" are "going to give Markakis nearly 50 million." All we have to go on now are third-hand rumors from sportswriters desperate for a column. We don't know that the Orioles are going to sign anyone, nor what the cost might be. We are basically calling Duquette an idiot for a contract that doesn't yet exist.

[Scrat1]

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.

I won't be happy with 4/48 for Nick, and I also think that they could probably get close his production at minimal costs out of year-to-year cobbling together of platoons and the like. But I also don't think that one somewhat ill-advised signing is the first domino to fall, inevitably leading to replicating the Phillies. I never liked domino theories, I think they're lazy.

I don't think it's remotely hyperbolic to suggest that such a decision would be a failure of process and decision making. Within negotiations, as you know, you place a value on something and when the price exceeds your perceived value, you walk away. I don't want someone in charge of the team that doesn't have the discipline to walk away from the table.

Let's take a quick look:

- Signing Markakis for 4/40+ (If it happens, obviously)

- Rodriguez for Miller

- Hoes, Hader and pick for Norris

- Arrieta and Strop for Feldman

- Delmonico for K Rod

Do you not notice a distributing trend here? Each one of these moves, within a vacuum, is somewhat justifiable. But taken in aggregate, I find it extremely worrisome. That's not just one domino.

[Can_of_corn]

We'd probably be outbid by 10 other teams on either of those deals. That's fine if you don't want to keep him at all, but it won't be close and would have a chilling effect on other upcoming FA's too I think.

I think that is nonsense.

[Frobby]

I don't think it's remotely hyperbolic to suggest that such a decision would be a failure of process and decision making. Within negotiations, as you know, you place a value on something and when the price exceeds your perceived value, you walk away. I don't want someone in charge of the team that doesn't have the discipline to walk away from the table.

Let's take a quick look:

- Signing Markakis for 4/40+ (If it happens, obviously)

- Rodriguez for Miller

- Hoes, Hader and pick for Norris

- Arrieta and Strop for Feldman

- Delmonico for K Rod

Do you not notice a distributing trend here? Each one of these moves, within a vacuum, is somewhat justifiable. But taken in aggregate, I find it extremely worrisome. That's not just one domino.

The trend I'm noting is two playoff appearances, and AL East title and an ALDS series win within the last three years, sandwiched around a contending season.

[Scrat1]

We are basically calling Duquette an idiot for a contract that doesn't yet exist.

No we are not. I've been very explicitly qualifying that everything I've said hinges on if this contract actually happens. No one is saying, "The fact that this rumor exists proves that DD is an idiot." Be a little more charitable than that.

[Can_of_corn]

Let's take a quick look:

- Signing Markakis for 4/40+ (If it happens, obviously)

- Rodriguez for Miller

- Hoes, Hader and pick for Norris

- Arrieta and Strop for Feldman

- Delmonico for K Rod

I would do the Miller trade every time.

He is the type of player that can move the dial in the playoffs.

[Yardball85]

I don't think it's remotely hyperbolic to suggest that such a decision would be a failure of process and decision making. Within negotiations, as you know, you place a value on something and when the price exceeds your perceived value, you walk away. I don't want someone in charge of the team that doesn't have the discipline to walk away from the table.

Let's take a quick look:

- Signing Markakis for 4/40+ (If it happens, obviously)

- Rodriguez for Miller

- Hoes, Hader and pick for Norris

- Arrieta and Strop for Feldman

- Delmonico for K Rod

Do you not notice a distributing trend here? Each one of these moves, within a vacuum, is somewhat justifiable. But taken in aggregate, I find it extremely worrisome. That's not just one domino.

Teams make moves when they are in the playoff hunt, as we have been the past three years. Acquiring Miller was the right move even though we didn't win it all, because it greatly improved our chances. Acquiring Norris - who was under control for 2.5 more years for an unknown in Hader and a fourth outfielder in Hoes - was the right move. Arrieta and Strop - both of whom couldn't do anything here - for a starter who could give us innings - was the right move. Delmonico, who was suspended for PED use and amassed a .704 OPS in I believe A ball - was the right move.

I see a trend of making trades to give this team a push to win a World Series. And two outta three playoff appearances under this man ain't bad.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think it's remotely hyperbolic to suggest that such a decision would be a failure of process and decision making. Within negotiations, as you know, you place a value on something and when the price exceeds your perceived value, you walk away. I don't want someone in charge of the team that doesn't have the discipline to walk away from the table.

Let's take a quick look:

- Signing Markakis for 4/40+ (If it happens, obviously)

- Rodriguez for Miller

- Hoes, Hader and pick for Norris

- Arrieta and Strop for Feldman

- Delmonico for K Rod

Do you not notice a distributing trend here? Each one of these moves, within a vacuum, is somewhat justifiable. But taken in aggregate, I find it extremely worrisome. That's not just one domino.

The trend I'm noting is two playoff appearances, and AL East title and an ALDS series win within the last three years, sandwiched around a contending season.

I don't have an issue with any of those deals. You can argue that some were slight overpayments. But they're the type of deals contending teams make all the time, with the bonus of not giving up any of the O's top prospects. Miller was key down the stretch this past year. Norris has become a solid mid-rotation pitcher and is under control for another year. Arrieta and Strop were given more chances than Earl's first wife. And K Rod didn't work out, but Delmonico (like Hoes) was a grade C prospect. The O's have two playoff appearances in the last three years, and yet some relatively minor moves to shore up the team during the stretch run are "extremely worrisome"? I guess I'm not the worrying type.

[Scrat1]

I would do the Miller trade every time.

He is the type of player that can move the dial in the playoffs.

I disliked the move then and I still don't like it, but that's not my point. Even if you think some of those moves were good ones, it still shows a willingness to deal assets for short term gains. Flags fly forever and all that. But in terms of the longterm health of the franchise, you can't continually make that exchange.

I don't have an issue with any of those deals. You can argue that some were slight overpayments. But they're the type of deals contending teams make all the time, with the bonus of not giving up any of the O's top prospects. Miller was key down the stretch this past year. Norris has become a solid mid-rotation pitcher and is under control for another year. Arrieta and Strop were given more chances than Earl's first wife. And K Rod didn't work out, but Delmonico (like Hoes) was a grade C prospect. The O's have two playoff appearances in the last three years, and yet some relatively minor moves to shore up the team during the stretch run are "extremely worrisome"? I guess I'm not the worrying type.

I disagreed with some of those moves and others I was fine with. You'll notice you haven't seen me on here complaining about them, because, as you said, they were all, considering the context, at least somewhat justifiable. It isn't until the rumored Markakis deal that I've brought all those past deals up. The previous deals I can understand, but all those deals along with a 4/48 deal for Markakis (if it happens) shows, to me, a recklessness with assets that a mid market team can not afford beyond a couple years.

[weams]

I won't be happy with 4/48 for Nick, and I also think that they could probably get close his production at minimal costs out of year-to-year cobbling together of platoons and the like. But I also don't think that one somewhat ill-advised signing is the first domino to fall, inevitably leading to replicating the Phillies. I never liked domino theories, I think they're lazy.

I think Mickigjt get 5/50.