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

[Can_of_corn]

Some of those guys are just collateral damage for him on the big scheme of things.

I firmly believe he sacrifices lesser clients to facilitate deals for the bigger names.

[Can_of_corn]

From what I understand, the Orioles have tried the past two offseasons to extend Wieters, and he (or Boras) have refused to even negotiate. So yes, a player COULD in theory put his foot down, but Matt doesn't seem to be that player.

I agree Matt doesn't seem interested in extending.

[Fan4Life]

It felt like it. I don't know. Maybe I am the only one who sees it that way.

I see it that way. I liked Nick, and BRob, would love to have had them both retire as Orioles. But neither appeared to value that as much as other things..

[Dipper9]

I see it that way. I liked Nick, and BRob, would love to have had them both retire as Orioles. But neither appeared to value that as much as other things..

I agree, and this is what people like Birdland don't get.

I'm sure at some price the Orioles would have been more than willing to bring back Markakis, but Nick obviously was going for the best available deal and not just a good deal from the Orioles. Wieters will do the same. Davis will do the same. Manny will do the same. Almost every player is going to go sign the biggest and best contract they can get, and they show no or very little loyalty to the team they are on. (JJ Hardy seems to be one of the few exceptions). Birdland and others cannot expect the Orioles to just resign all of their guys at whatever price tag they place on themselves. They can't expect the Orioles to just rollover and spend spend spend. It doesn't happen in any business anywhere.

So hate on Angelos. Hate on the Orioles. Call Peter greedy or whatever else you want. But at some point, you need to realize the PLAYERS are the ones who are looking out for themselves and their families, and they have NO loyalty to the team. If you believe otherwise then you are sadly mistaken.

[jjnono]

No player has ever accepted a qualifying offer. None ever not very few. None.

Thank you, Weams, you make my point. There was NO risk in extending a QO to Nick. And yet now he's gone and we have nothing in return. How does that stack up unless DD underestimated Nick's value?

[El Gordo]

If it were me I wouldn't have been confident giving Nick more than two years. Three because he was a fan favorite and a clubhouse guy. The Angelos boys agreed with me. We may well end up a better team by replacing him.

[Frobby]

I firmly believe he sacrifices lesser clients to facilitate deals for the bigger names.

Evidence? Examples?

[weams]

I agree, and this is what people like Birdland don't get.

I'm sure at some price the Orioles would have been more than willing to bring back Markakis, but Nick obviously was going for the best available deal and not just a good deal from the Orioles. Wieters will do the same. Davis will do the same. Manny will do the same. Almost every player is going to go sign the biggest and best contract they can get, and they show no or very little loyalty to the team they are on. (JJ Hardy seems to be one of the few exceptions). Birdland and others cannot expect the Orioles to just resign all of their guys at whatever price tag they place on themselves. They can't expect the Orioles to just rollover and spend spend spend. It doesn't happen in any business anywhere.

So hate on Angelos. Hate on the Orioles. Call Peter greedy or whatever else you want. But at some point, you need to realize the PLAYERS are the ones who are looking out for themselves and their families, and they have NO loyalty to the team. If you believe otherwise then you are sadly mistaken.

You know, they have auctions for stuff. Sometimes a few people bid on an item. Then it gets expensive. Some guy wins the thing after it maxes out. That doesn't mean the guys who did not get the thing did not want it, they just thought a better value might come along.

[pdiddy]

Thank you, Weams, you make my point. There was NO risk in extending a QO to Nick. And yet now he's gone and we have nothing in return. How does that stack up unless DD underestimated Nick's value?

I think there is a decent chance he might have been the first. $17M ish versus the $11M a year he's getting on his contract...which pretty much every national reporter and analyst has called an overpay.

I like Nick and would have liked to see him back but I'm not broken up about it. The reaction of the national media also tells me that Atlanta paid too much. They never miss a chance to ding Angelos and the team (see Balfour, etc.) and are passing on that this go around. That tells me something.

As far as Wieters goes, if the O's have tried to extend him twice and gotten nothing, I don't fault them there either. If they make a reasonable offer and he skips town I'll be OK with that too. He's not really had a complete season here at all that shows me he's a superstar. Shouldn't pay him like one.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think there is a decent chance he might have been the first. $17M ish versus the $11M a year he's getting on his contract...which pretty much every national reporter and analyst has called an overpay.

We can disagree as a matter of opinion but the numbers are fairly straight forward. The 2 mil option buyout was a sunk cost, QO or no QO. Accepting the QO was 15.3 million for one year if accepted. The contract final contract was 44 mil for 4 years with an 11 mil AAV. Big difference in risk between the two. Nick was a 2 WAR player last year worth approximately 12 mil by fangraphs in FA dollars. I've read estimations that 1 win next year will be worth about 7 million dollars or about 14 mil for a 2 WAR player.

[tntoriole]

Thank you, Weams, you make my point. There was NO risk in extending a QO to Nick. And yet now he's gone and we have nothing in return. How does that stack up unless DD underestimated Nick's value?

The risk was that Nick would have been less likely to sign with another team and would have signed a 4 year deal with us at 40. I think DD subtly managed to both offer to Nick at a certain value but I also believe that DD was not bothered at all that Nick took another offer and that, in fact, he facilitated Nick leaving by not saddling him with a QO (even at the cost of a pick.)

[tntoriole]

I think that the primary message DD and Buck send is that players are evaluated

and that their contributions, while valued, are replaceable and that this is done by a methodology, not just by whim and fancy or sentiment. This quote by DD in Roch's article this morning is a perfect example and serves as an example to players that says "hey, we evaluate you rigorously"

I love DD.

"So we took a look at the production of Nelson Cruz and saw that he gave us an opportunity for specific offensive capabilities and specific defensive capabilities. And based upon the evaluation system which we use to value that contribution to the team in our market based on our fans and the size of our market and the revenues that an incremental win will bring in for the team, we decided that Nelson Cruz's production gave us a good opportunity to get a return on that $15.3 million, so we made a qualifying offer to him."

[weams]

The risk was that Nick would have been less likely to sign with another team and would have signed a 4 year deal with us at 40. I think DD subtly managed to both offer to Nick at a certain value but I also believe that DD was not bothered at all that Nick took another offer and that, in fact, he facilitated Nick leaving by not saddling him with a QO (even at the cost of a pick.)

Like many have said, the Orioles would never had gotten the pick.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Like many have said, the Orioles would never had gotten the pick.

Wow, So, you think Nick would have been the first one to take the QO?

[Crazysilver03]

No player has ever accepted a qualifying offer. None ever not very few. None.

Does this have to be brought up everytime we discuss a QO? If so it makes for a very boring conversation. Markakis would probably be the most likely player to take a QO out of all the ones ever offered.