Jump to content

Markakis' Contract Renewed..Markakis annoyed


StunninSteve

Recommended Posts

Truly just joking. I wonder if there's a PECOTA system for law students projecting firm performance...

Judging by my law school grades, perhaps I'm the Luis Hernandez of BigLaw...defying expectations (with a soaring professional perforamnce).

Or, depending on your perspective, perhaps I'm not defying anything. My six-month review is looming. I'll keep you posted. :D

Lucky Jim, of 6 months experience, had a horrendous court room mark of 9-18for a .333 of effectiveness, numbers that motivated that to be sent to the smaller firm in a moment given of the campaign. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 150
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The O's have a long history of nickel and diming their homegrown players.There is a such thing as throwing in a few extra bucks as an act of good faith. They lowballed Bedard a couple of years and it soured him on the org. There's little things that stick in people's crawl,it's human nature no matter how you rationalize it.

Everybody scratched their head over the Gibbons deal at the time for no other reason than he was injury prone and had one good year.Mora's contract seemed as though it was retroactive to compensate for the years he was cheap and productive.

Here you have a different situation and the team saying it's going in a different direction and a "youth movement" yet they are still up to their go to the mat stinginess when it comes to one of their own. Here's a team that threw what, $18 million at Baez and $24 million at Huff and they can't cough up another 100,000 or so at Nick who could be the new face of the team if Roberts is traded?

Yeah Nick can say ,well this is the way the business works and blow it off or he could circle his calendar for when he becomes a FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The O's have a long history of nickel and diming their homegrown players.There is a such thing as throwing in a few extra bucks as an act of good faith. They lowballed Bedard a couple of years and it soured him on the org. There's little things that stick in people's crawl' date='it's human nature no matter how you rationalize it.

Everybody scratched their head over the Gibbons deal at the time for no other reason than he was injury prone and had one good year.Mora's contract seemed as though it was retroactive to compensate for the years he was cheap and productive.

Here you have a different situation and the team saying it's going in a different direction and a "youth movement" yet they are still up to their go to the mat stinginess when it comes to one of their own. Here's a team that threw what, $18 million at Baez and $24 million at Huff and they can't cough up another 100,000 or so at Nick who could be the new face of the team if Roberts is traded?

Yeah Nick can say ,well this is the way the business works and blow it off or he could circle his calendar for when he becomes a FA.[/quote']

So, which is it? Do the O's nickel & dime? Or do they overpay in appreciation of past performance?

This is a non-issue, in the end, unless the O's misplay their hand in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The O's have a long history of nickel and diming their homegrown players.There is a such thing as throwing in a few extra bucks as an act of good faith. They lowballed Bedard a couple of years and it soured him on the org. There's little things that stick in people's crawl' date='it's human nature no matter how you rationalize it.[/quote']

FWIW, they did not lowball Bedard in my opinion, except arguably in discussions of a long-term deal (for which we don't know the details). The one-year deals they gave Bedard after he became arbitration-eligible were very fair.

This Markakis situation is a little different from any other one we might discuss. It is very rare for a 3rd-year player -- even a very good one -- to earn substantially more than the minimum to which he is entitled. Yes there have been several notable exceptions, but even more notable non-exceptions.

So while I would have liked to see the O's do something proactive, I would not excoriate them without knowing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, they did not lowball Bedard in my opinion, except arguably in discussions of a long-term deal (for which we don't know the details). The one-year deals they gave Bedard after he became arbitration-eligible were very fair.

This Markakis situation is a little different from any other one we might discuss. It is very rare for a 3rd-year player -- even a very good one -- to earn substantially more than the minimum to which he is entitled. Yes there have been several notable exceptions, but even more notable non-exceptions.

So while I would have liked to see the O's do something proactive, I would not excoriate them without knowing more.

Thank you!

Once again, too many of us rush to tar the current FO with the brush of previous ones. We have a long way to go before Markakis is out of the Orioles' control. I expect they'll make him a very generous extension offer before then. There will be a problem only if he turns it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, they did not lowball Bedard in my opinion, except arguably in discussions of a long-term deal (for which we don't know the details). The one-year deals they gave Bedard after he became arbitration-eligible were very fair.

This Markakis situation is a little different from any other one we might discuss. It is very rare for a 3rd-year player -- even a very good one -- to earn substantially more than the minimum to which he is entitled. Yes there have been several notable exceptions, but even more notable non-exceptions.

So while I would have liked to see the O's do something proactive, I would not excoriate them without knowing more.

I agree with most of this. However, the O's are in a particularly precarious situation. They've lost for 10 straight years. They've been ravaged by scandals, poor attendance, a new rival down I-95, and regular invasions of Red Sox and Yankees fans in their home park. They've traded two of their biggest stars and are on the verge of trading a third who is also their most popular community guy. They're settling in for a long rebuilding process of which Markakis is the centerpiece. Once the Roberts deal is finally completed, he'll be the only player on the team the average fan has any kind of identification with.

Basically, they're in a position where they absolutely can't afford to piss off Nick Markakis. That puts him in a position of power. Maybe he was being overly greedy or maybe not, but they're asking a lot of him. They're not just asking him to be the best player on the team, they're speaking publicly about how they want him to be a team leader even though he has a quiet personality and is still one of the youngest players on the team. They're plastering his face all over town in their PR material because they don't have anybody else marketable that they aren't in the process of trying to trade. Given all of that, I don't understand how they couldn't at least give him the $1 million the Yankees gave Robinson Cano last year with slightly less service time when the Yankees weren't in a position where they were asking Cano to be the be-all and end-all for their franchise. Even if they didn't meet his demands, he should have gotten more than a $55,000 raise given all they're asking of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to know the only way a mistake can be made is to be prematurely preemptive.

I never said this - so please don't imply that I did.

I have no problem signing NM to a LT deal now.

I have no problem waiting.

I just do not see the urgency to guarantee NM his future $ right now. It might save more $ than if we wait a year (and it might not), but the health and production risk should go down if we wait another year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, they're in a position where they absolutely can't afford to piss off Nick Markakis. That puts him in a position of power. Maybe he was being overly greedy or maybe not, but they're asking a lot of him. They're not just asking him to be the best player on the team, they're speaking publicly about how they want him to be a team leader even though he has a quiet personality and is still one of the youngest players on the team. They're plastering his face all over town in their PR material because they don't have anybody else marketable that they aren't in the process of trying to trade. Given all of that, I don't understand how they couldn't at least give him the $1 million the Yankees gave Robinson Cano last year with slightly less service time when the Yankees weren't in a position where they were asking Cano to be the be-all and end-all for their franchise. Even if they didn't meet his demands, he should have gotten more than a $55,000 raise given all they're asking of him.

I disagree with most of this. While there are responsibilites to being the "face of the franchise" as is claimed the Os are offering to NM, there are certainly financial benefits to this for NM.

Further, we are not the NYY and it would be dangerous to set a precedent like giving NM a $1M contract for this year. We shouldn't start acting like the NYY. If NM wants a secure LT contract, then let's work out a deal where he gets $1M for 2008. I would not give that $ to him to be a kind franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mets just renewed John Maine too, but he was grounded enough to take it well, saying something like 'how could I complain when the minimum MLB salary is more than most people will earn in their life?'

Best view of it, IMO.

The league minimum is 390k for 2008. I'd KILL to make that. I'd have sweet house and a ton of toys and invest a bunch of it, too.

Maine just won points with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the whole "Markakis miffed" article on ESPN. I'm kinda confused, I don't really understand the specifics of this. Is this the last year that he is under contract? I haven't read the entire thread, so I will do that and maybe I'll understand.

All I know is that Nick is worth more than $455,000 a year. And I don't like the fact that he is mad at us. Just all the more reason he might not re-sign with us, whenever that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the whole "Markakis miffed" article on ESPN. I'm kinda confused, I don't really understand the specifics of this. Is this the last year that he is under contract? I haven't read the entire thread, so I will do that and maybe I'll understand.

All I know is that Nick is worth more than $455,000 a year. And I don't like the fact that he is mad at us. Just all the more reason he might not re-sign with us, whenever that is.

It is the last year he is under complete team control and essentially has to take whatever contract we give him (or retire, I guess). He will still be under our control for 2009, 10, 11, but those will be arbitration years.

$455,000 is a perfectly fair sum for someone in his position. Is he "worth" more in terms of performance? Of course. But this is how the business of baseball works. The highest amount ever given to someone in Markakis's position was, I believe (could be wrong), $900,000 (Ryan Howard).

Don't forget that if they get a long term deal done, they can always tear up this year's contract and pay him more if that's what he wants. But he has to bargain for it. It's a poor business practice to just hand someone money for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the last year he is under complete team control and essentially has to take whatever contract we give him (or retire, I guess). He will still be under our control for 2009, 10, 11, but those will be arbitration years.

$455,000 is a perfectly fair sum for someone in his position. Is he "worth" more in terms of performance? Of course. But this is how the business of baseball works. The highest amount ever given to someone in Markakis's position was, I believe (could be wrong), $900,000 (Ryan Howard).

Don't forget that if they get a long term deal done, they can always tear up this year's contract and pay him more if that's what he wants. But he has to bargain for it. It's a poor business practice to just hand someone money for no reason.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ton of guys are being renewed, especially high-profile guys. More than I remember in the past. Fielder, Kinkajoo, Maine, Joba Chamberlain, perhaps Papelbon.

Anyone smell collusion? Well, maybe not, but it seems like ownership is trying to hold the line here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ton of guys are being renewed, especially high-profile guys. More than I remember in the past. Fielder, Kinkajoo, Maine, Joba Chamberlain, perhaps Papelbon.

Anyone smell collusion? Well, maybe not, but it seems like ownership is trying to hold the line here.

When it's abiding by the terms of a contract, I don't see how it could be "collusion". More likely, the players' union is trying to get the young stars to piss and moan so that Tulowitzki-type deals become more of the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would have been non-news a year or two ago, but with the new trend to lock up young homegrown talent to long term deals buying out arbitration and some of FA, I don't blame him for being a bit miffed.

Players should just live with the fact that people need to "do their time" and play out their first couple years at owner control and that they will more than make up for it when they hit arbitration.

Now, don't get me wrong, my opinion is they should lock him up for as long as he will sign, but on the other hand, many superstars before them have had to play those first few years for pennies on the dollar, and what should make the new wave special?

The next CBA should have some sort of max-scale for non-arbitration players to avoid such a situation and let them sign long term deals once they hit arb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...