Markakis' Contract Renewed..Markakis annoyed

[El Gordo]

But he isn't a free agent in the current system so that doesn't make any sense. If Markakis were a free agent, then a lot of other young players would also be free agents, and they would each earn less money on the open market. So we should pay Markakis $10 million more than we have to for no reason?

Also, I don't see where the Cano comparison is coming in. Markakis made $400,000 in his second year, while Cano made $490,800. What's the big deal? Also, I don't know what Cano's contract was like coming out of the Dominican. Anyway, he signed an extension, so it's not really comparable.

Where did I say we should pat him $10 Mil? He would be worth that at least on the open market, so why not pay him a little more to keep him interested in staying with the O's when the time comes?

[O'sHeelsFan]

Yesterday, he said he'd still embrace the opportunity to be the long-term face of the organization - assuming he was content with the overall situation.

"Absolutely. I think it would be something I would look forward to being," Markakis said. "It would be an honor to be looked at like that."

I'm glad you pointed this quote out, Weams. I bolded the part that matters (actually not part of the quote itself). If we still suck in 4 years, Markakis will want out, and it will not matter how much he got paid this year. If we are good, or have been getting better and better w/ Nick as the centerpiece, he will likely want to stay.

This is a non-story, IMO. This will go away IF - IF - everything else goes according to plan over the next few years. If not, we could have paid him millions this year, and he would still want to leave when he could.

[Frobby]

Buster Olney has a piece up about Markakis and other young players being unhappy with their renewals:

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3277589&name=olney_buster&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fespn%2fblog%2findex%3fentryID%3d3277589%26name%3dolney_buster

Here is the part that is free content:

Nick Markakis became the latest young star to have his contract renewed, following Jeff Francoeur, Prince Fielder and others. In two years, this situation might become a full-fledged crisis for mid-market and small-market teams, because it is clear the young players will be looking to cash in (as is their absolute right) at the very high level established by Ryan Howard's $10 million arbitration victory, rather than sign a nice, tidy, modest long-term deal.

What this means is that within two years you might see these same players dangled on the trade market. Consider the plight of the Brewers, who have three rising stars in Fielder, Ryan Braun and Rickie Weeks and cannot possibly afford to pay all of them $10 million to $15 million a year in 2011.

The Orioles are playing a dangerous game with Markakis, Dan Connolly writes.

[davearm]

I sure won't mind it if baseball's changing financial landscape means that mid-market teams like the Brewers can only afford to keep guys like Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun for 3 or 4 years, instead of 6.

Pretty amazing to think that Fielder, Weeks, Hart, and/or Hardy could start exiting the picture as early as next offseason, after Cub fans have braced themselves for a decade of having to face that lineup. Already it is shaping up to be the last year of Ben Sheets in Milwaukee.

[RShack]

It'd be fine with me to extend him forever. But I just don't buy that this is a huge issue. Face it, we live in a time where the media tries to turn everything into a huge calamity. I think Nick has another good year, the O's make him a multi-millionaire, and everybody's happy.

[Frobby]

I sure won't mind it if baseball's changing financial landscape means that mid-market teams like the Brewers can only afford to keep guys like Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun for 3 or 4 years, instead of 6.

Pretty amazing to think that Fielder, Weeks, Hart, and/or Hardy could start exiting the picture as early as next offseason, after Cub fans have braced themselves for a decade of having to face that lineup. Already it is shaping up to be the last year of Ben Sheets in Milwaukee.

I hope you realize, apart from your parochial interests as a Cubs fan, that this trend sucks for baseball. It's bad enough to lose your best players after 6 years. If it now becomes commonplace for mid-market teams to trade their up-and-comers after only 4 years, that is just going to make it harder for fans to feel any connection with the players on their teams.

It was very hard to trade Bedard. If we have to trade Markakis two years from now I will be sick.

[AgentOrange]

I hope you realize, apart from your parochial interests as a Cubs fan, that this trend sucks for baseball. It's bad enough to lose your best players after 6 years. If it now becomes commonplace for mid-market teams to trade their up-and-comers after only 4 years, that is just going to make it harder for fans to feel any connection with the players on their teams.

It was very hard to trade Bedard. If we have to trade Markakis two years from now I will be sick.

Seriously. This type of situation would only benefit large market teams, which would kill the parity that MLB is trying to keep.

[square634]

Where did I say we should pat him $10 Mil? He would be worth that at least on the open market, so why not pay him a little more to keep him interested in staying with the O's when the time comes?

My point is that paying him a little extra now will end up costing much more than that over the long haul because of the arbitration process. As CrazySilver said, it will just grow exponentially. For example, just look at Ryan Howard. The Phillies paid him $900,000 last year, which tied him for a record with Albert Pujols for highest salary of a second year player. Howard was then able to parlay an Albert Pujols comp into a record $10 million in arbitration.

[baloriole4]

Only have one comment:

Stupid Angelos

[davearm]

I hope you realize, apart from your parochial interests as a Cubs fan, that this trend sucks for baseball. It's bad enough to lose your best players after 6 years. If it now becomes commonplace for mid-market teams to trade their up-and-comers after only 4 years, that is just going to make it harder for fans to feel any connection with the players on their teams.

It was very hard to trade Bedard. If we have to trade Markakis two years from now I will be sick.

Oh I get that. In the big picture, it's not a great trend.

[Jericho]

People are overreacting to this. Tons of players get their contracts renewed this time of year and very few of them are happy about it. Cole Hamels was not happy. Prince Fielder was not happy. It's pretty much par for the course for a big league team to do this. 99.9% of the time, it means nothing down the road.

[davearm]

My point is that paying him a little extra now will end up costing much more than that over the long haul because of the arbitration process. As CrazySilver said, it will just grow exponentially. For example, just look at Ryan Howard. The Phillies paid him $900,000 last year, which tied him for a record with Albert Pujols for highest salary of a second year player. Howard was then able to parlay an Albert Pujols comp into a record $10 million in arbitration.

You're greatly exaggerating this snowball effect.

Howard's $900K salary from last year had almost nothing to do with his $10M arb. award for this year.

[davearm]

People are overreacting to this. Tons of players get their contracts renewed this time of year and very few of them are happy about it. Cole Hamels was not happy. Prince Fielder was not happy. It's pretty much par for the course for a big league team to do this. 99.9% of the time, it means nothing down the road.

It's amazing to me how these players seem to think the compensation rules their player's union has negotiated for them should not apply to them.

[square634]

You're greatly exaggerating this snowball effect.

Howard's $900K salary from last year had almost nothing to do with his $10M arb. award for this year.

It certainly makes his case easier as a comp for Pujols. And while it may only be a small factor in the first arbitration case, players generally argue for and receive a percentage raise from their previous salary, which causes an exponential effect.

Actually, for one of my classes last semester, I represented Howard while someone else in the class represented the Phillies. One thing I do know for sure from that assignment is that previous year's salary is used as one of the criteria for an arbitration case. Probably the biggest factor in the $10 million decision is the CBA clause that states that the usual rules “shall not limit the ability of a Player or his representative, because of special accomplishment, to argue the equal relevance of salaries of Players without regard to service, and the arbitration panel shall give whatever weight to such argument as is deemed appropriate.”

[Frobby]

It's amazing to me how these players seem to think the compensation rules their player's union has negotiated for them should not apply to them.

I don't think that's it at all. The teams have discretion to pay the player more than the minimum, and I don't think it is out of bounds for a player who has been one of the top ones in his class to feel they are entitled to get something more than someone who has equal service time but who has contributed a lot less. Not legally entitled but enititled as a matter of fairness.