Why No QO to Markakis?

[Can_of_corn]

Did Dan do that contract with Roberts?

No, but the organization did.

I can't think of a reason why Dan would even be considering a four year deal for Markakis if there was not some form of pressure on him.

It makes no sense as a singular thing.

[weams]

Didn't say it wasn't justified, just that they overpaid to keep him. Don't recall if Mora was an overpay when he signed.

It was like paying Altuve for his year last year would be. "Pay the Man."

[CA-ORIOLE]

Both, I suspect, but more the latter. If they wanted him back for $15+ mm they would have exercised his option.

Not relevant. The QO was less than the option and the option does not provide the upside of a draft pick.

[JayThomas]

I can't think of a reason why Dan would even be considering a four year deal for Markakis if there was not some form of pressure on him.

It makes no sense as a singular thing.

I totally agree. It is not in DD's genetic makeup to make an offer to Nick which would turn his head away from the open market. Dan would make the QO and move along.

[Frobby]

Not relevant. The QO was less than the option and the option does not provide the upside of a draft pick.

The cost difference between the option ($15.5 mm over the $2 mm buyout) and the QO ($15.3 mm) was trivial. The draft pick is only important if you don't want Nick to sign. From Nick's point of view, turning down the mutual option would have cost him $2 mm, so there's no way he'd turn down the option and then accept the QO. So, if the O's thought their best outcome was to keep Nick for one year, exercising the option was the way to go. Buying out the option makes it clear that one year at $15 mm doesn't interest the O's.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The cost difference between the option ($15.5 mm over the $2 mm buyout) and the QO ($15.3 mm) was trivial. The draft pick is only important if you don't want Nick to sign. From Nick's point of view, turning down the mutual option would have cost him $2 mm, so there's no way he'd turn down the option and then accept the QO. So, if the O's thought their best outcome was to keep Nick for one year, exercising the option was the way to go. Buying out the option makes it clear that one year at $15 mm doesn't interest the O's.

Bref says it's a team option, not a mutual option. The exercise the option they are paying him 17.5 mil (the option price). They decline the option and offer him a QO they pay him 17.3 mil (15.3 mil QO plus the 2 buyout).

My point was about gambling on him declining the option and in the worst case having him back for 1 year at around 15 mil. Exercising the option should never have been a consideration. QO plus buyout very well may have been a consideration.

Hence I don't see your point below as being relevant:

If they wanted him back for $15+ mm they would have exercised his option.

What am I missing here?

[DrungoHazewood]

Didn't say it wasn't justified, just that they overpaid to keep him. Don't recall if Mora was an overpay when he signed.

In 2004 Mora had a .981 OPS and was worth 5.6 rWAR. Batted .340 with a .419 OBP. He was 32 years old. In 2005 he declined to an .821 and 4.2 rWAR. On May 19th, 2006 he was OPSing .863 and signed a 3/25 extension at the age of 34. From that day to the end of 2006 he OPS'd .685 and ended up with a 2.1 win season. His extension was from 2007-09, and over that period he OPS+'d 98 and was worth a total of 4.0 wins. I don't remember what the value of a win in free agency was then, maybe $4M? So they paid for maybe 6 wins and got 4. It probably wasn't a ridiculous contract in the abstract, although I'm sure I was very much against it. He was being paid market rates+ for his age 35-37 seasons on a hopeless team without a functioning minor league system and a desperate need to invest in any number of areas.

[Frobby]

Bref says it's a team option, not a mutual option. The exercise the option they are paying him 17.5 mil (the option price). They decline the option and offer him a QO they pay him 17.3 mil (15.3 mil QO plus the 2 buyout).

My point was about gambling on him declining the option and in the worst case having him back for 1 year at around 15 mil. Exercising the option should never have been a consideration. QO plus buyout very well may have been a consideration.

Hence I don't see your point below as being relevant:

What am I missing here?

BB-ref is wrong. It was a mutual option, where the O's could buy it out for $2 mm but Nick could get out of it by waiving the buyout.

[weams]

BB-ref is wrong. It was a mutual option, where the O's could buy it out for $2 mm but Nick could get out of it by waiving the buyout.

This is factual.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I love DD, but he miscalculated on this one. We should have QO'd Nick.

[Can_of_corn]

I love DD, but he miscalculated on this one. We should have QO'd Nick.

Even if you want to keep him it would lower his price.

[weams]

I love DD, but he miscalculated on this one. We should have QO'd Nick.

I believe that all free agents should be qualified. Always.

[weams]

Even if you want to keep him it would lower his price.

It must have been an agreement. A token of esteem. That's the only answer.

[Can_of_corn]

I believe that all free agents should be qualified. Always.

So Patton?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Even if you want to keep him it would lower his price.

Exactly. We would have better negotiating leverage. He most likely would not have taken it. DD should have better understood the market, taken the risk and made the offer.