TT: Would you pay Joe Orsulak $12 million year?

[Tony-OH]

Would you give Joe Orsulak $12 million a year if he was playing today? Now don?t get me wrong, Orsulak was a gutty player who was one of the Orioles better players during some dark years, but would you be giving a 30-year old Orsulak the money Nick Markakis is reportedly looking for?

I can hear some people screaming at their monitors already, "Nick Markakis is not Joe Orsulak!" Well, if you look over the last three years of his career and compare it to Orsualk at the same age, you find pretty similar players.

Between 28 and 30 years old, Nick Markakis put up a combined 3.5 WAR and 34 RAR (runs above replacement level player) while Orsulak put up a 5.1 WAR and 51 RAR. Orsulak became a free agent after his 30-year old season with the Orioles and had to take more than a 50% pay cut (1.3 mil to $660K) to sign as a free agent with the Mets.

Over the next five years Orsulak combined to put up -2.9 WAR and -24 RAR and was out of baseball after his age 35 season.

Now Markakis was a much better player than Orsulak before turning 28 putting up a 21.7 WAR 216 RAR in 4085 Pas in his 22-27 years versus Orsulak only putting up a 3.6 WAR and 38 RAR in only 1808 PAs during the same time. Obviously Markakis was the overall better player in his career, but during their peak, Orsulak actually outperformed Nick Markakis.

Just for comparison sake, Alejandro De Aza put up a 2.9 WAR and 29 RAR in his 28-30 years in about 100 less PAs than Markakis.

De Aza may not be as good as Markakis overall, but if Markakis is looking for more than 8-9 million a season, he can be replaced cheaper with possibly as good of better numbers when De Za is platooned with someone like Pearce/Young/Alvarez.

(PS: A shout out to Erik Schwink for making this comparison on his facebook page)

[Can_of_corn]

Didn't Joe lead the league in outfield assists one season?

[AlbionHero]

Over the next five years Orsulak combined to put up -2.9 WAR and -24 RAR and was out of baseball after his age 35 season.

It really is crazy how fast some of these guys decline once they're in their 30s. Makes any of these kinds of deals really risky, especially if they're showing decline before the deal is signed like Markakis.

But to answer the original question, I wouldn't. Solid player, but like Markakis, can be replaced at a much lower price.

[DrungoHazewood]

I get what you're saying, Tony. But I think you're selling Markakis short to make a point. Both Nick and Orsulak came up at 21/22, Orsulak had a cup of coffee a year earlier, but Nick was a regular a year sooner. Through age 30 Nick's career has been worth about three times that of Orsulak. Even if you limit this to the last three years, Nick has put up a 105 OPS+ to Orsulak's 101, and Orsulak's 1.5 rWAR advantage is completely a +17 defensive rating which is out of character from the rest of his career. Nick, aside from his fluky injury season in 2012, has played almost every day. Orsulak never played 140 games in a season and only had 15% of his career PAs against lefties - so he was sitting the bench against many pitchers Nick would face.

And Orsulak was coming off a three year run that saw his rWAR total go from 2.4 to 1.8 to 0.9. His peak was worth about what Nick was last year, but then he had consecutive years of serious decline going into his walk year. If he was a free agent today he'd be looking at a short and cheap deal after that kind of fall-off heading into his 30s.

I'm not advocating some of the 4/40 or 4/50 deals I've seen thrown around for Markakis. But he's a better player than Joe Orsulak was, and probably deserves something like 3/30.

[Tony-OH]

I get what you're saying, Tony. But I think you're selling Markakis short to make a point. Both Nick and Orsulak came up at 21/22, Orsulak had a cup of coffee a year earlier, but Nick was a regular a year sooner. Through age 30 Nick's career has been worth about three times that of Orsulak. Even if you limit this to the last three years, Nick has put up a 105 OPS+ to Orsulak's 101, and Orsulak's 1.5 rWAR advantage is completely a +17 defensive rating which is out of character from the rest of his career. Nick, aside from his fluky injury season in 2012, has played almost every day. Orsulak never played 140 games in a season and only had 15% of his career PAs against lefties - so he was sitting the bench against many pitchers Nick would face.

And Orsulak was coming off a three year run that saw his rWAR total go from 2.4 to 1.8 to 0.9. His peak was worth about what Nick was last year, but then he had consecutive years of serious decline going into his walk year. If he was a free agent today he'd be looking at a short and cheap deal after that kind of fall-off heading into his 30s.

I won't argue with any of that, and overall I think he was probably the better player overall from 28-30, but at the end of the day, Orasulak was more valuable during those years. As I stated, Markakis is clearly the better player over his career, but Markakis is in a decline and I'm not even sure if I knew Markakis was going to produce what he produced last season overall the next four season whether I want that back at the price he wants.

What you can't deny is that Markakis and Orsulak performed as similar players over the 28-30 year seasons with Markakis getting the edge offensively overall and in his age 30 season. Still, if Markakis was a free agent from another team, would people be clamoring for us to sign him? I doubt it!

It would be an interesting study to see how much a player's earlier success affects his decline. My guess is Markakis will outperform Orsulak over the 4-5 years which should be hard considering Orsulak's rapid decline about to mediocre. Still, I think it does show the Orioles have to very careful they give him or risk having an expensive everyday player who could be replaced with cheaper options each year.

[Oriole1940]

Would you give Joe Orsulak $12 million a year if he was playing today? Now don?t get me wrong, Orsulak was a gutty player who was one of the Orioles better players during some dark years, but would you be giving a 30-year old Orsulak the money Nick Markakis is reportedly looking for?

I can hear some people screaming at their monitors already, "Nick Markakis is not Joe Orsulak!" Well, if you look over the last three years of his career and compare it to Orsualk at the same age, you find pretty similar players.

Between 28 and 30 years old, Nick Markakis put up a combined 3.5 WAR and 34 RAR (runs above replacement level player) while Orsulak put up a 5.1 WAR and 51 RAR. Orsulak became a free agent after his 30-year old season with the Orioles and had to take more than a 50% pay cut (1.3 mil to $660K) to sign as a free agent with the Mets.

Over the next five years Orsulak combined to put up -2.9 WAR and -24 RAR and was out of baseball after his age 35 season.

Now Markakis was a much better player than Orsulak before turning 28 putting up a 21.7 WAR 216 RAR in 4085 Pas in his 22-27 years versus Orsulak only putting up a 3.6 WAR and 38 RAR in only 1808 PAs during the same time. Obviously Markakis was the overall better player in his career, but during their peak, Orsulak actually outperformed Nick Markakis.

Just for comparison sake, Alejandro De Aza put up a 2.9 WAR and 29 RAR in his 28-30 years in about 100 less PAs than Markakis.

De Aza may not be as good as Markakis overall, but if Markakis is looking for more than 8-9 million a season, he can be replaced cheaper with possibly as good of better numbers when De Za is platooned with someone like Pearce/Young/Alvarez.

(PS: A shout out to Erik Schwink for making this comparison on his facebook page)

Must be a slow day, talking about De Aza in same breath with Nick. When De Aza wins Gold Gloves, plays nearly all games in a typical year and throws out many baserunners, I would compare him to Nick. Also, it is strange that Buck apparently can see Nicks value when many others cannot. Or maybe Buck is a top notch baseball man. Also, when De Aza plays for the same team as long as Nick, added credibility, since a player does not do that, especially in these throwaway days that we live in, unless management values that player very highly. So don't take my word for it, ask those in management that know these things.

[Can_of_corn]

Must be a slow day, talking about De Aza in same breath with Nick. When De Aza wins Gold Gloves, plays nearly all games in a typical year and throws out many baserunners, I would compare him to Nick. Also, it is strange that Buck apparently can see Nicks value when many others cannot. Or maybe Buck is a top notch baseball man. Also, when De Aza plays for the same team as long as Nick, added credibility, since a player does not do that, especially in these throwaway days that we live in, unless management values that player very highly. So don't take my word for it, ask those in management that know these things.

OK, I won't take your word for it.

[OriolesMagic83]

I would be on board w/ signing the 40 double/yr Nick, but that player hasn't been around for a few years. The O's will be getting the 25 double/10 HR Nick, w/ declining speed and range.

I expect Nick to put up a year in 2015, like he did this year, but in 2017 and 2018, he could be hitting like Schoop w/o the power or defense. The O's will be starting him every day too, even if he is hitting .220 w/ 2 HR. No way do the O's cut a player making $10-12 mill/yr.

[ledzepp8]

I'm not arguing to sign Nick to some silly contract but comparing him to Joe Orsulak borders on ridiculous.

[crawjo]

To answer this question we need to know what the budgetary limit is on the Orioles now and over the next four years, and what other options they have to replace Markakis. I think that going with some combination of Lough, De Aza, Pearce and Delmon Young is not a good plan for a contending team. Part of Markakis's value lies in his consistency and his ability to stay on the field. You aren't getting a star player, you are getting a solid regular contributor. How much value you give to that depends on your budget and your priorities.

Orsulak is not a great comp, although he did have some solid seasons with the team.

[Tony-OH]

I'm not arguing to sign Nick to some silly contract but comparing him to Joe Orsulak borders on ridiculous.

Thanks for the excellent stat based disagreement. It's post like these that show why this is the best community around where people can disagree without calling the other opinion ridicuclous, especially when you don't bother to prove other wise.

If you want to hold grudges from prior disagreements and make smart alleck disrespectful posts, feel free to go back to your other community and stay there. this community holds each other to higher standard and for some one who has been around here for a long time off and on, it's pretty disappointing to see such a comment directed for me.

I welcome any and all disagreements but the expectation is that you prove why the other post or analysis is wrong. It's pretty sad that i had to be having this conversation with you.

[Tony-OH]

To answer this question we need to know what the budgetary limit is on the Orioles now and over the next four years, and what other options they have to replace Markakis. I think that going with some combination of Lough, De Aza, Pearce and Delmon Young is not a good plan for a contending team. Part of Markakis's value lies in his consistency and his ability to stay on the field. You aren't getting a star player, you are getting a solid regular contributor. How much value you give to that depends on your budget and your priorities.

Orsulak is not a great comp, although he did have some solid seasons with the team.

Please explain why 28-30 year old Orsulak is not a good comp for 28-30 old Markakis.

[wildcard]

Orsulak did not hit lefties well throughout his career including his 28-30 years. He was usually platooned. Which is why he never had more than 486 at bats in a year and on a normal year less than that. Platoon players don't make what players that play 160 games a year make.

[brooksfrankjim]

I made the Orsulak comparison a few weeks ago. At this age he and Nick are similar players. I have advocated a 3 or 4 year deal for Nick at 8m per year.

Candidly, I tend to agree with those that say De Aza and Alvarez platoon likely is as good as Nick. If it is me I spend the money on Miller.

[Rene88]

Funny, I drove by Manor Tavern last night because my dad lives there and had to get something, should have stopped by:)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk