A missing point from the talk about Nick and Cruz's exit...

[FanSince88]

It seems to me that those defending the O's letting Nick and Nelson go are missing a crucial point. It doesn't necessarily squash their case, but it is a huge oversight.

People have said that it is a good thing the O's didn't box themselves in with long contracts to veteran players who aren't getting any younger. But what they're missing is if length of contract is such a big deal, then WHY NOT TRADE ONE OR BOTH OF THEM AFTER 1 OR 2 YEARS? Then you'd at least get something back in return for them. And due to inevitable inflation, their contracts may look downright cheap by 2017. Sure, their numbers may go down a bit in the future, but I doubt either of them will have a Jimenez-like implosion out of the blue. Both players should remain marketable at least for the next year or two, especially around the trade deadline. My point is if this was really all about a 4 year deal vs 3 year deal, it seems very short-sighted.

Personally I think the O's should have kept one of them but maybe not both. Now it seems like they're really taking a bigger risk than they'd taken if they'd signed both of them. Say what you will about Cruz and Nick, you pretty much knew what you were going to get with them. Both very consistent.

The full starting lineup for this team was never really together all year long due to injury, and sadly, it never will be now. That's a shame.

[Number5]

It seems to me that those defending the O's letting Nick and Nelson go are missing a crucial point. It doesn't necessarily squash their case, but it is a huge oversight.

People have said that it is a good thing the O's didn't box themselves in with long contracts to veteran players who aren't getting any younger. But what they're missing is if length of contract is such a big deal, then WHY NOT TRADE ONE OR BOTH OF THEM AFTER 1 OR 2 YEARS? Then you'd at least get something back in return for them. And due to inevitable inflation, their contracts may look downright cheap by 2017. Sure, their numbers may go down a bit in the future, but I doubt either of them will have a Jimenez-like implosion out of the blue. Both players should remain marketable at least for the next year or two, especially around the trade deadline. My point is if this was really all about a 4 year deal vs 3 year deal, it seems very short-sighted.

Personally I think the O's should have kept one of them but maybe not both. Now it seems like they're really taking a bigger risk than they'd taken if they'd signed both of them. Say what you will about Cruz and Nick, you pretty much knew what you were going to get with them. Both very consistent.

The full starting lineup for this team was never really together all year long due to injury, and sadly, it never will be now. That's a shame.

The downside of a long term contract to an aging player is that if the player's skills deteriorate more quickly than anticipated, that player becomes pretty much unmarketable to other teams in trade. Signing an overly risky long term deal is not protected by a game-plan than includes trading the player two years down the road. The risk is still very real.

[weams]

The downside of a long term contract to an aging player is that if the player's skills deteriorate more quickly than anticipated, that player becomes pretty much unmarketable to other teams in trade. Signing an overly risky long term deal is not protected by a game-plan than includes trading the player two years down the road. The risk is still very real.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/soriaal01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/riosal01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mauerjo01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/teixema01.shtml

[lovetoaster]

I don't think Cruz is very consistent per se. His best year was last year, and his value has never been higher. In my opinion, I doubt he is going to be able to replicate that season, and definitely not on a consistent basis.

As for Nick, he is pretty consistent, but he is worth the contract he got for that consistency? That is up for debate.

I don't think the point about a trade was missed, but I don't think a lot of teams were in the financial ballpark for either Cruz or Markakis this offseason. If they don't perform up to their deals (which is entirely possible), who will want to take over those contracts in a year or two?

[Crazysilver03]

If inflation makes these contacts look "cheap" in 2017 than baseball will be in miserable condition.

[Can_of_corn]

You mean aside the fact that after next season Nick will be a 10/5 player with full trade protection?

[Crazysilver03]

You mean aside the fact that after next season Nick will be a 10/5 player with full trade protection?

Shhh this thread isnt about that "crucial point".

[weams]

You mean aside the fact that after next season Nick will be a 10/5 player with full trade protection?

Ah, yes. There would have been that.

[LookitsPuck]

I don't think Cruz is very consistent per se. His best year was last year, and his value has never been higher. In my opinion, I doubt he is going to be able to replicate that season, and definitely not on a consistent basis.

As for Nick, he is pretty consistent, but he is worth the contract he got for that consistency? That is up for debate.

I don't think the point about a trade was missed, but I don't think a lot of teams were in the financial ballpark for either Cruz or Markakis this offseason. If they don't perform up to their deals (which is entirely possible), who will want to take over those contracts in a year or two?

Average OPS over last 4 years: 823

Average OPS+ over last 4 years: 120

Slash line over last 4 years: 265/323/500

Yes, he had a very good year in 2014. But he's been above average over the last 4 years. His career OPS+ is 118. Last 4? 120. So, pretty consistent, IMHO.

[MdSooner]

You mean aside the fact that after next season Nick will be a 10/5 player with full trade protection?

Please, for the love of god, do NOT confuse us with the facts. We are on a roll!

[LoyalBirdFan]

You mean aside the fact that after next season Nick will be a 10/5 player with full trade protection?

Interesting... You are a great candidate.

[LA2]

What I'm afraid we're going to miss is both Cruz's and Nick's ability to shorten up their swings or turn them inside-out in the right situations. Everyone is talking about Cruz's power, but some of that was part of his ability to get opp.-field hits (more reliably than Jones or Hardy). I guess we can hope resurgent seasons from Manny and Davis can help provide some of that.

[notyourbuddy]

Nick Swisher and Jason Bay were consistent (better?) offensive players than Cruz and were younger when they signed similar 4 years deals. Two years later those teams couldn't give them away.

Nothing is a guarantee.

[Phantom]

It seems to me that those defending the O's letting Nick and Nelson go are missing a crucial point. It doesn't necessarily squash their case, but it is a huge oversight.

People have said that it is a good thing the O's didn't box themselves in with long contracts to veteran players who aren't getting any younger. But what they're missing is if length of contract is such a big deal, then WHY NOT TRADE ONE OR BOTH OF THEM AFTER 1 OR 2 YEARS? Then you'd at least get something back in return for them. And due to inevitable inflation, their contracts may look downright cheap by 2017.

Ignore 2014 for a second. Nick was a zero win player in 2013, and Nellie was worth 1.5 wins. Too small a sample? From 2011-2013, Nick was never worth 2 wins, and Cruz was never worth above 1.5. So even with if they are literally able to turn back the clock, they would be untradeable with these contracts, and that is ignoring the much more realistic possibility of decline.

[Camden_yardbird]

In two years the draft pick we get from Cruz will, baseball gods willing, be more valuable than Cruz.

As for Nick...10/5 plays a roll as does the neck thing.