What does Nick's departure say to the other players who we may want to retain?

[Bahama O's Fan]

If we had signed all three back, Cruz, Markakis and Miller, what would our payroll be this year? How much would we have committed to 2016?

[weams]

At least Wieters isn't whining and sounding like an idiot.

"That's the thing. You never know," Wieters said. "Nick wanted to be an Oriole for life more than anybody and that's why this game is always going to have that business side to it. Especially the more revenue that it makes, it's going to become more and more of a business. The Little League kid in you thinks that part kind of stinks, but at the same time it's still baseball and it's a great game no matter where you're playing. And especially in Baltimore, it's been a great experience."

"Nick, blah, blah,blah, Nick...Nick.."

[weams]

If we had signed all three back' date=' Cruz, Markakis and Miller, what would our payroll be this year? How much would we have committed to 2016?[/quote']

If they had not non tendered Davis and De Aza and Matusz. Which they would have? About 160 million for 2015.

[Can_of_corn]

If we had signed all three back' date=' Cruz, Markakis and Miller, what would our payroll be this year? How much would we have committed to 2016?[/quote']

I think a good way to shorthand it would be to add their three contracts and remove Snider, De Aza and Matusz.

Cruz-14.25

Markakis- 11.00

Miller-9.0

Matusz- 3.2

De Aza- 5.0

Snider- 2.1

23.95 Million increase for 2015.

[Bahama O's Fan]

I think a good way to shorthand it would be to add their three contracts and remove Snider, De Aza and Matusz.

Cruz-14.25

Markakis- 11.00

Miller-9.0

Matusz- 3.2

De Aza- 5.0

Snider- 2.1

23.95 Million increase for 2015.

Thanks and how much would be committed to for 2016?

[Can_of_corn]

Thanks and how much would be committed to for 2016?

According to Cot's they have $41.833 committed to 2016. None of the players I removed are signed beyond this season so approximately 66 million.

[OFFNY]

I really believe part of not offering big money to Markakis' date=' Cruz and Miller this offseason [b']was Dan seeing who the free agents were next season.[/b] He probably can only spend on resigning one set of them. I think he would rather have some of Wieters, Davis, Chen, etc... back than the others due to age and positions they play.

And IF that is the case, that would seem to indicate that Duquette plans on being here next year.

[weams]

I think he really wanted Cruz back, and had a good shot at him until the Mariners added one year too many.

I do also. I think it was real close.

[weams]

Wow. With Jones and Davis already popping off, this post on December 4 was amazingly prescient.

Frobby is a smarter guy than we sometime give him credit for My wife is every bit as upset that Nick Markakis is not an Oriole as is the Frobbster. She is gathering up old jerseys to purge as we speak. Nick was a good Oriole.

[Redskins Rick]

Frobby is a smarter guy than we sometime give him credit for My wife is every bit as upset that Nick Markakis is not an Oriole as is the Frobbster. She is gathering up old jerseys to purge as we speak. Nick was a good Oriole.

Nick was a great Oriole and I cherish his memories here.

But, the stats don't lie, and as much I was for his staying here.

At some point, the correct decision was to let him move on.

[Redskins Rick]

Wow. With Jones and Davis already popping off, this post on December 4 was amazingly prescient.

Jones didn't go anywhere as far as Davis did and talk about losers.

[DrungoHazewood]

My worry is that the Orioles had a nice confluence of players who hit their prime at about the same time, and who were underpriced, but now that they are entering free agent eligibility, the O's simply can't afford to keep the majority of them unless they're willing to give at least a modest home team discount. And there are players who might be inclined to do that to keep the gang together, but when they perceive the organization as not showing a lot of loyalty to other players who were part of the core, they reciprocate by saying "fine then, I see how it is, I'll go where the money is best."

You can look at it a couple of different ways. On the one hand, if the O's can't afford to keep everyone, then Nick was a logical person to put limits on. He's a couple years older than some of the others, and has declined some. On the other hand, I continue to think that Nick meant more to his teammates than many people around here appreciate. He was the longest-tenured Oriole, he played hard and he played hurt, and he persevered through the hard years. I think when the O's let him go, some of the other players sort of said to themselves, "if they'll be cold-hearted with Nick, they'll do it with anyone, so I need to think just as coldly."

Horefully it will all work out. The Rays and A's have had a long run of success while not retaining a lot of major contributors once they hit free agency, and one can argue that it has to be that way. But there's no question that the future is very uncertain after 2015.

Nick Markakis signed for $44M when an optimistic take on his value was more like $30M. Including risk about his neck and his zero-value 2013 you could argue for much lower. If I were Duquette the only thing I would have done differently was to tailor what he said to the press a little differently. Something delicately worded, but getting to this point: "We love Nick, but roughly double the value we believe his on-field performance will deliver? Not happening."

[Frobby]

Nick Markakis signed for $44M when an optimistic take on his value was more like $30M. Including risk about his neck and his zero-value 2013 you could argue for much lower. If I were Duquette the only thing I would have done differently was to tailor what he said to the press a little differently. Something delicately worded, but getting to this point: "We love Nick, but roughly double the value we believe his on-field performance will deliver? Not happening."

Yeah, that would really have ingratiated Duquette with Nick's former teammates. For the record, I don't agree that $30 mm is an optimistic take on Nick's value over the next four years, or that $44 million will be roughly double his value in that period. But you knew I'd feel that way. $44 mm is on the upper border of what I would have thought was reasonable, and I don't have a problem with the Orioles' decision not to go there, but to me, you've overstated the case. I guess time will tell.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, that would really have ingratiated Duquette with Nick's former teammates. For the record, I don't agree that $30 mm is an optimistic take on Nick's value over the next four years, or that $44 million will be roughly double his value in that period. But you knew I'd feel that way. $44 mm is on the upper border of what I would have thought was reasonable, and I don't have a problem with the Orioles' decision not to go there, but to me, you've overstated the case. I guess time will tell.

Yes, I know you're extremely bullish on Markakis. But if he'd spent his last eight years on the D'backs or Mariners or something I'd have been very disappointed with anything like a $44M offer. I don't think 4/$30M is at all unrealistic. It's exactly the same methodology I'd use for any player (well, except the part about ignoring 2013 - which is why I think it's optimistic).

And if you're concerned about ingratiating yourself with the players, tell them that they'll all receive offers commensurate with their past production and likely production going forward. If you want a 4/44 contract you need to make a case that your on-field production is likely to be somewhere in that neighborhood. To get there with Markakis you have to assume little aging, very good health despite surgery, and that his intangibles are worth quite a bit. That's three high-risk assumptions.

[Scrat1]

This may matter now, as the players are mouthing off a bit more than usual, but I doubt it will a year from now. Like always, it's going to come down to 1) money, 2) money, and 3) winning. In eight months Nick leaving will seem like ancient history.