Would you have signed Nick Markakis for 4/$44M?

[olehippi]

I voted "yes." People on here saying the Orioles would be regretting the last 2 years of a 4 year deal seem to forget that Markakis just turned 31 LAST MONTH! He's still in his prime, not at the point of decline! I think the Briaves understand that, but apparently the Orioles didn't.

I think it would be perfect if Markakis proves to be a catalyst for the Braves like that "old" Frank Robinson was for the Orioles. Nick doesn't have Frank's power, but he has proven he can be a very productive hitter.

I wish Nick nothing but good luck!

[Can_of_corn]

I voted "yes." People on here saying the Orioles would be regretting the last 2 years of a 4 year deal seem to forget that Markakis just turned 31 LAST MONTH! He's still in his prime, not at the point of decline! I think the Briaves understand that, but apparently the Orioles didn't.

I think it would be perfect if Markakis proves to be a catalyst for the Braves like that "old" Frank Robinson was for the Orioles. Nick doesn't have Frank's power, but he has proven he can be a very productive hitter.

I wish Nick nothing but good luck!

He isn't in his prime. Nick hit his prime early and started his decline early.

Not everyone ages the same.

[webbrick2010]

Sorry to see him go

We may or may not replace his production in 2015

but we will be a better team in 2016 and beyond without Nick Markakis

What about the home town discount Nick?

Once again it is always about the money

[Dipper9]

I love Nick, but it wasn't the fiscally responsible thing to do. Good job DD.

The money isn't really the issue to me. I am starting to agree with the stat guys and think I'd rather not have Nick locked up in RF for 4 more years. So NO, I would not have signed him, though I have really enjoyed watching him play for 9 years in Baltimore.

[MijiT88]

It really bothers me how people are so willing to just let him go...He was our guy, the only thing we had to root for for many years, it just doesnt seem right how so many people say they wouldnt give him this contract. And nothing that he ahs done the past few years says hes on a decline, sure he wasnt what he was when he was 26 but he is one of the most consistent and reliable players in the league. You know what you get from him day in and day out and that has value, plus add the value that he had in the community and to me its not an issue at all if he gets overpaid a little to stay here. He was a bright spot on so many bad teams, and when we finally get a contender we let him go. That doesnt bode well for my feelings and it may not sit well with other players considering our team. Build something that is good, and be ok with good not great. That is what this is telling me. Frustration let this all come out and argue if you must, but it just doesnt sit well with me at all.

[Frobby]

Simple question, do you think the Orioles should have signed Nick for 4 years, $44 million?

That is different from the poll question:

Would you have signed Nick Markakis for 4/$44M?

My answer to the poll question is yes. My answer to the question in the OP is, it's a borderline case, but I can understand the Orioles passing at that price/length. Now they are charged at finding a cost-efficient use for the money.

[McLovin]

As a leadoff hitter - and not the late 2000's stud version of himself - Nick basically duplicated McClouth's 2013 with less speed and more arm.

I wish we still had the 2009 Nick. The 2015 Nick just ain't worth the money.

[Malike]

It really bothers me how people are so willing to just let him go...He was our guy, the only thing we had to root for for many years, it just doesnt seem right how so many people say they wouldnt give him this contract. And nothing that he ahs done the past few years says hes on a decline, sure he wasnt what he was when he was 26 but he is one of the most consistent and reliable players in the league. You know what you get from him day in and day out and that has value, plus add the value that he had in the community and to me its not an issue at all if he gets overpaid a little to stay here. He was a bright spot on so many bad teams, and when we finally get a contender we let him go. That doesnt bode well for my feelings and it may not sit well with other players considering our team. Build something that is good, and be ok with good not great. That is what this is telling me. Frustration let this all come out and argue if you must, but it just doesnt sit well with me at all.

He was already over paid a lot in his last contract. He earned 15M dollars in 2013 and wasn't even worth 1 win in 160 games. He was worth 2 wins last year and made 15M dollars. I love Nick, he's my favorite Oriole, but it was not a bad move not giving him 4 years at 11M per.

[MurphDogg]

That is different from the poll question:

My answer to the poll question is yes. My answer to the question in the OP is, it's a borderline case, but I can understand the Orioles passing at that price/length. Now they are charged at finding a cost-efficient use for the money.

Damn, I hate when people do that. Sorry. I think I was waffling on which way to phrase the question because I feel like you do. I am sad and I really wish they had signed him to the deal, even though I think it is probably not a smart baseball move.

[bagman]

Will Nick be productive for all four years?

Can you name a single player that signed a long term contract at 30 years old that was productive for the entire contract. It doesn't happen. Nick was one of the faces of the organization and you overpay for that sometimes. Another question should be, will his replacement be as productive for the next four years? We can only hope. Even if we offered 4/44 he still may have left for ATL. All I know is my 9yr is heartbroken and the Os just got worse today. Maybe tomorrow they will get better.

[Frobby]

Can you name a single player that signed a long term contract at 30 years old that was productive for the entire contract. It doesn't happen.

Sure it does, and a four year contract at age 31 is not super long. I can't understand why people are acting like a contract that ends at age 34 is like it ends at age 40. If you want to argue that Markakis doesn't warrant four years, fine, but there are plenty of 30-31 year old players I'd gladly sign for that long.

[Nevermore]

Well, I guess I am part of a minority here. Nick wanted a contract that would have given him stability, unlike some of the hired gun players who strictly go to the highest bidder. My understanding is that team management were offering Nick a 4 year contract. They were simply working out the details. Thet even decided not to offer a QO, that's how confident management was in resigning Nick. But then management rescinded the length of the contract, wanting only 3 years. Basically, they were opening the door out. And the Os won't even get a draft pick.

[Can_of_corn]

Sure it does, and a four year contract at age 31 is not super long. I can't understand why people are acting like a contract that ends at age 34 is like it ends at age 40. If you want to argue that Markakis doesn't warrant four years, fine, but there are plenty of 30-31 year old players I'd gladly sign for that long.

AsI stated earlier Nick certainly looks to be declining at a faster rate then some of peers. In a matter of speaking he is 34 already.

[mdbdotcom]

I don't understand why some who wanted Nick back are blaming the Orioles alone for the situation. After reading Roch's story about Hardy's conversation with Nick this afternoon, it's pretty clear that the O's wanted him and offered originally offered him a 4-year deal pending his physical. After the physical, they reduced the length of the contract to three years and wouldn't go further.

Well, it's a two-way street. If being an Oriole was that important to Nick he could have taken the three year deal. Apparently, the extra guaranteed year was more important to Nick. I'm fine with that, and that's his decision, but to blame the whole situation on the Orioles seems shortsighted.

[Malike]

Sure it does, and a four year contract at age 31 is not super long. I can't understand why people are acting like a contract that ends at age 34 is like it ends at age 40. If you want to argue that Markakis doesn't warrant four years, fine, but there are plenty of 30-31 year old players I'd gladly sign for that long.

Interested in your feelings about Nick reportedly turning down 4/40 with the O's to take 4/44 with the Braves. He was over paid in his last deal, and if it turns out he did indeed leave the O's for 4M dollars, my view of Nick will change drastically.