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

[osfan83]

It probably would've made the Tigers series more difficult but as great as Miller was I'm not sure it would 've changed the ultimate outcome. I'm one of the few who didn't like the trade though.

When the trade was made, we did not know we were going to sweep the Tigers and be swept by the Royals. We just knew were we were most likely headed to the post season, and a shutdown lefty out of the pen might be the difference in a game 7.

[Can_of_corn]

Calmer than you are.

Right, I'm frothing at the mouth here. They had to up my meds just so I didn't chew through the keyboard.

Frobby is a lot more emotional about this topic then I am. These guys are pretty much just commodities to me.

[Teddy OBP]

I think that is nonsense.

Fair enough. We've been a good landing point for FA's for about a season and a half after spending Confederate Dollars for years and years.

The only thing that I can point to for what the market is for Markakis is Heyman's article and the discussions that I've heard on MLB radio. They are all bunched around 4/40-4/48. That's not a lot to go on but it is something more than how I feel about the player.

If we made an offer that is significantly below what the perceived market is for a player that has been with us his whole career and is well liked by management and he signs elsewhere for 4/40-4/48 what do you suppose the effect would be? Not a positive one, that's for sure. You may not agree but I don't think it is nonsense.

[Teddy OBP]

When the trade was made, we did not know we were going to sweep the Tigers and be swept by the Royals. We just knew were we were most likely headed to the post season, and a shutdown lefty out of the pen might be the difference in a game 7.

I think the fact that if we didn't get Miller then the Tigers were very likely to made a huge difference. The plus for us and minus for them won us the series I think.

No explanation for the Royals series. The way the ball bounced in all four games I don't know what would have made a difference.

[Can_of_corn]

Fair enough. We've been a good landing point for FA's for about a season and a half after spending Confederate Dollars for years and years.

The only thing that I can point to for what the market is for Markakis is Heyman's article and the discussions that I've heard on MLB radio. They are all bunched around 4/40-4/48. That's not a lot to go on but it is something more than how I feel about the player.

If we made an offer that is significantly below what the perceived market is for a player that has been with us his whole career and is well liked by management and he signs elsewhere for 4/40-4/48 what do you suppose the effect would be? Not a positive one, that's for sure. You may not agree but I don't think it is nonsense.

I don't think the O's sensible offer ever gets made public.

Why would it?

You think Nick is going to talk? Nick barely talks in interviews.

[SteveO]

I don't think the O's sensible offer ever gets made public.

Why would it?

You think Nick is going to talk? Nick barely talks in interviews.

Me Nick, Me like playing baseball, Me do nice things for charity, Me free agent, Me sign for money, Me happy to be here in (insert team name here)

There you go, that is the Captain Caveman summary of any interview Nick does past, present and future.

[cacavolante]

I think the fact that if we didn't get Miller then the Tigers were very likely to made a huge difference. The plus for us and minus for them won us the series I think.

No explanation for the Royals series. The way the ball bounced in all four games I don't know what would have made a difference.

Maybe. But the Tigers still would've been playing from behind in the middle to late innings of games 1 and 3. It's a stretch to me to suggest that Miller changed the outcome of the series.

[Can_of_corn]

This is so boring.

For you maybe. This thread is a rep goldmine for me.

[DrungoHazewood]

Well there is the Ubaldo contract...

I don't think that a current lack of bad contracts make knowingly signing one acceptable.

It's a risky contract, not a bad one. Howard's is/was a bad contract because it was for more than he was worth on the day he signed it, and it didn't take effect for two more years. When it was signed he would have had to improve during his decline years just to break even. Nick's, even at $12M per, is only making the optimistic assumption that he declines at a rate roughly equal to inflation.

[Can_of_corn]

It's a risky contract, not a bad one. Howard's is/was a bad contract because it was for more than he was worth on the day he signed it, and it didn't take effect for two more years. When it was signed he would have had to improve during his decline years just to break even. Nick's, even at $12M per, is only making the optimistic assumption that he declines at a rate roughly equal to inflation.

I never said (at least I never meant) that the contracts were equally bad. The point is that they could be equally harmful. Theoretically the O's could have roughly 25 million tied up in two replacement level players come 2017.

[El Gordo]

I never said (at least I never meant) that the contracts were equally bad. The point is that they could be equally harmful. Theoretically the O's could have roughly 25 million tied up in two replacement level players come 2017.

According to JDXM the O's first offer was 4/34. I think the range of expectations with Nick is from about4/34 to 4/48 best case.

[Can_of_corn]

According to JDXM the O's first offer was 4/34. I think the range of expectations with Nick is from about4/34 to 4/48 best case.

Thank goodness I used terms like theoretically and roughly. Yes I was hedging toward the high end.

[lovetoaster]

Right, I'm frothing at the mouth here. They had to up my meds just so I didn't chew through the keyboard.

Frobby is a lot more emotional about this topic then I am. These guys are pretty much just commodities to me.

Sorry, I was making a Big Lebowski reference there.

[Frobby]

Frobby is a lot more emotional about this topic then I am. These guys are pretty much just commodities to me.

Biased, but not emotional. The players are not commodities to me. The days that Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray and Mike Mussina left the organization were very dark days in my life. I realize that nothing lasts forever, but I'm all for keeping loyal players who do a good job.

[droper]

If they can bring Nick back at $10M a year I'd say they are in good shape. Markakis in 2014 was 49th in OBP(.342), 40th in runs scored(81), 80th in offensive player WAR (2.5) and 21st in K% (8.7%). Not a world beater by any means but a solid, play every day, average baseball player. Those numbers are not a simple feat to replace Although not a bargain at 4/40 its hardly crippling and I think the good feeling for how players are treated that Cruz had talked about would only be helped by bringing back Nick.

Also look at other OF contracts around the league. Is $10M really a stretch?

2015 in millions

Josh Hamilton 23

Jacoby Ellsbury 21

Jayson Werth 21

Matt Kemp 21

Carl Crawford 20.5

Andre Ethier 18

Matt Holliday 17

Curtis Granderson 16

Carlos Gonzalez 16

Nick Swisher 15

Carlos Beltran 15

Ryan Braun 14.5

Justin Upton 14.5

BJ Upton 14.45

Jose Bautista 14

Shin-Soo Choo 14

Michael Bourn 13.5

Shane Victorino 13

Alex Gordon 12.5

Brett Gardner 12

Jay Bruce 12

Martin Prado 11

Coco Crisp 11

Yoenis Cespedes 10.5

Andrew McCutchen 10

Angel Pagan 9

Michael Cuddyer 8.5

Cody Ross 8.5

Carlos Gomez 8

Marlon Byrd 8

Carlos Quentin 8

Jason Heyward 7.8

Cameron Maybin 7

David Murphy 6

Seth Smith 6

Allen Craig 5.5

Rajai Davis 5

David Dejesus 5

Chris Young 2.5