Is Nick Markakis still an everyday player?

[Reboulet'sStache]

I disagree strongly with this statement. Loyalty and tenure with an organization are a factor in every business I know of. I'm not saying they have overriding value, but they are a consideration. if you want a cohesive team, you cannot treat human beings as though they are nothing but chattel.

On one hand we have the Rays and A's that employ the commodity strategy. What teams would you point to as being the counter to them?

[mcgraw238]

I am absolutely against signing Nick at the figures that are being tossed around (even 3/30 is too much, in my opinion), but this is ridiculous. Other than getting hit in the hand by Sabathia, Markakis has missed very little time.

I also disagree with Law. Markakis is clearly still an everyday player, he's just a very average one. I don't think anyone here (well, except maybe Birdland) wouldn't want Markakis back if the price were right. Unfortunately, the price is not.

Spot on post. But, apparently questioning the wisdom of giving Nick a 4 year deal at $10M+ per year makes one a "Nick Basher."

[Reboulet'sStache]

Oh, it's crazy, all right. I guess 31 is the new 40 in your eyes, but not in mine. No matter where Nick plays next year, he will be a regular. I'm as sure of that as I am that the sun will rise in the East.

I don't think Law is arguing that. It's not a question if will he, but should he. There are a ton of players that will be doing things next year that they probably shouldn't be based on production level.

But like I said. In 2013, Markakis was below replacement. In 2014, he just barely produced at a level that would qualify one as a regular. And now he's a year older. Based on his production the last two years, it's not crazy to ask if he SHOULD be a regular going forward, it's unclear.

[Frobby]

The Rays had a lot of success with low payroll over the years by treating players as commodities that could be traded when they got too expensive.

I feel its best to take the human element out of building a team instead of getting too attached.

The Rays didn't have the luxury of showing much loyalty. They had a nice little run, but it appears to be over now. Andrew Friedman and Joe Maddon didn't show much loyalty to them, did they?

I think successful organizations, for the most part, have loyalty in the mix when they make decisions. Obviously they still need to give productivity the highest priority.

[Frobby]

I don't think Law is arguing that. It's not a question if will he' date=' but should he. There are a ton of players that will be doing things next year that they probably shouldn't be based on production level.

But like I said. In 2013, Markakis was below replacement. [b']In 2014, he just barely produced at a level that would qualify one as a regular[/b]. And now he's a year older. Based on his production the last two years, it's not crazy to ask if he SHOULD be a regular going forward, it's unclear.

I think there is a fallacy in your thinking here. At 2.5 fWAR, Nick ranked 80th among qualified MLB players last year. There are fewer than 3 players per team attaining that level. While 2.0 is sometimes cited as where an "average" regular should be, that's not a marginal regular. There were 146 players with enough PA to qualify, and Nick was essentially in the middle of the pack. If Nick performed as in 2013 a couple of years in a row, he'd be in danger of losing his "regular" status. But he's had one year in nine that was even remotely like that.

[Scrat1]

I disagree strongly with this statement. Loyalty and tenure with an organization are a factor in every business I know of. I'm not saying they have overriding value, but they are a consideration. if you want a cohesive team, you cannot treat human beings as though they are nothing but chattel.

I agree with this, to an extent. The question is how much you're willing to value that human factor. Over the past four years, Markakis has been worth an average of 1.45 fWAR a season, which is worth maybe $8-10 million on the market. But that is before taking aging into account. Even if you, probably over-generously, ignore the past four years and treat 2014's 2.0 fWAR as his baseline, it is still unlikely he'll be worth more than 8-10 million over the course of a three year contract and extremely unlikely he'll be worth it over a four year contract. The reality is despite Markakis being a once great Oriole, he's now only marginally better than replacement level. Any contract larger than 2/20 or 3/24 is more than satisfying the human factor. And can we please refrain from the use of words like "chattel," it's offensive to all of the people who have actually been treated like chattel, rather than the professional athletes that feel 20 or 30 million dollars is not adequate payment for their abilities. We should all be so lucky to be treated so poorly.

I really like Nick, but I find the idea of signing Nick to a 4/48 equally as absurd as Law's comment.

I think this is a very fair way to look at this.

[Scrat1]

I think there is a fallacy in your thinking here. At 2.5 fWAR, Nick ranked 80th among qualified MLB players last year. There are fewer than 3 players per team attaining that level. While 2.0 is sometimes cited as where an "average" regular should be, that's not a marginal regular. There were 146 players with enough PA to qualify, and Nick was essentially in the middle of the pack. If Nick performed as in 2013 a couple of years in a row, he'd be in danger of losing his "regular" status. But he's had one year in nine that was even remotely like that.

As I mentioned in my previous post, citing Nick's 2014 numbers as if this is his baseline ability is disingenuous. It's the most he has been worth in four years. There's no reason to think that's what he's likely to produce over the next several years, especially considering it took 700 PA to accumulate. The average of his past four years, 1.45 fWAR, gives much more weight to RebStache's argument.

[Reboulet'sStache]

I think there is a fallacy in your thinking here. At 2.5 fWAR, Nick ranked 80th among qualified MLB players last year. There are fewer than 3 players per team attaining that level. While 2.0 is sometimes cited as where an "average" regular should be, that's not a marginal regular. There were 146 players with enough PA to qualify, and Nick was essentially in the middle of the pack. If Nick performed as in 2013 a couple of years in a row, he'd be in danger of losing his "regular" status. But he's had one year in nine that was even remotely like that.

So the standard by which you can be viewed as a fringy regular is if he produce a few negative WAR seasons in a row? That can't be right.

And what are all of these players paying for this production? Assuming what you are saying is right. The problem is you eventually reach the point where teams don't give you long term contracts at what is basically the market rate for your production. Instead they promote minor league players and let them give them whatever production they can. They sign one year platoon players, etc. Nick, based on his production over the last two years, has reached the point where it's unclear whether he should be looked at as the kind of player you seek out as a major league regular. Where the regular starter money risk vs reward is worth it.

[El Gordo]

The Rays had a lot of success with low payroll over the years by treating players as commodities that could be traded when they got too expensive.

I feel its best to take the human element out of building a team instead of getting too attached.

Interesting. How much actual team building experience do you have, that leads to this feeling?

[Rene88]

Don't we already have a bash Markakis thread?

The amount of threads on the same topic in the offseason is comical.

[malkusm]

I disagree strongly with this statement. Loyalty and tenure with an organization are a factor in every business I know of. I'm not saying they have overriding value, but they are a consideration. if you want a cohesive team, you cannot treat human beings as though they are nothing but chattel.

Regarding this, we aren't talking about job functions that are specialized based on the company or specific work criteria. Bringing a new engineer in requires that the engineer become familiar with the project at hand, company protocol, and so forth. Hitting a baseball and playing the outfield are pretty homogenous. If you have a guy who has done it in another city, they're going to be able to do it pretty well in Baltimore. Maybe Nick knows how to play wall balls better. Is that worth an extra 3M/year or an extra year of commitment above and beyond what the market would likely offer him? But again, to me this is a calculation of value and production, not a question of loyalty or cohesiveness.

No one would be sadder to see Nick go than I would (I'd have to get a new jersey for one thing), but if the front office is including some vague loyalty fudge factor into their analysis of what to offer Markakis, I'd be pretty disappointed.

[malkusm]

Interesting. How much actual team building experience do you have, that leads to this feeling?

No more or less than anyone on the other side of the argument does?

[Scrat1]

Interesting. How much actual team building experience do you have, that leads to this feeling?

How much do you have? This line of ad hominem questioning is ridiculous. Everyone here has roughly the same information to go off of. Argue for or against the content of what he is saying instead of speculating about the experience of some random stranger over the internet.

[24fps]

The amount of threads on the same topic in the offseason is comical.

True, but the other Markakis thread just turned 100 pages with no sign of slowing down. No reason for a new thread just because Keith Law said something stupid about the Orioles.

[Scrat1]

No more or less than anyone on the other side of the argument does?

Yeah, exactly. It's a lazy argument.