Just go trade for Jay Bruce or Markakis

[eddie83]

First off there are concerns that OBP without power isn't sustainable long term. If pitchers don't fear you why not just feed you fastballs?

Secondly if all you do is get to first base, then even if you do that comparatively often, there isn't a huge amount of value if you are not able to advance runners multiple bases or advance multiple bases yourself.

Wouldn't a player who can't hit fastballs strike out more? It isn't like Markakis no longer makes contact. On this team he would hit leadoff. Hardy and Schoop with their lack of OBP aren't going to provide many RISP chances to begin with. You don't need speed to score on a HR by a teammate.

[eddie83]

Agreed, though Nick did hit quite a few doubles (38) last season. I'll be interested to see if he can get back to double-digit homers now that he's a year removed from neck surgery.

Playing in the AL East parks the doubles would be down and the homers up.

[eddie83]

Because it always matters. If you're a .700 OPS player you're a .700 OPS player. Yes, the OBP is a bit more valuable than the slugging, and maybe a team deficient in OBP could leverage the OBP-only player a bit more. But it's not like Nick's .700 OPS would effectively be an .800 or something because the O's don't have a lot of walks in the lineup.

I worry about how a player fits on this team, I don't care how they consort elsewhere. His worst season in 2013 when most think he was hurt his OBP was .329, the worst of his career. OBP is a need on the Orioles, power isn't.

[Can_of_corn]

Wouldn't a player who can't hit fastballs strike out more? It isn't like Markakis no longer makes contact. On this team he would hit leadoff. Hardy and Schoop with their lack of OBP aren't going to provide many RISP chances to begin with. You don't need speed to score on a HR by a teammate.

You missed the point.

The point is that if a pitcher doesn't fear a hitter than he will attack the strike zone and the hitter's walk total will suffer. I mentioned fastballs specifically since the general consensus is that most pitchers have better command of their fastballs than their other pitches.

[Frobby]

But the facts are that Nick is an average player. He got to around two wins the last couple years only by playing almost every single game. If his BABIP returns to his career norms this year and everything else stays the same he'll have an OPS around .700 and he'll be a 1.5 win player.

He's going to be 32. Most players are off their peaks by then. A reasonable assumption is that any player, Chris Davis or Mike Trout or Nick Markakis will decline through their early-to-mid 30s, and half a win a year is as good a guess as any. It's reasonable to assume that Nick will not be a decently productive player in a year or two. Maybe he can work hard and not decline as much as is typical, I hope so, he seems like a good guy.

I wonder if there are any aging studies of baseball's "middle class" (which is where I'd put Nick). There's just something about him that makes me feel he'll still be a very solid player at 34 when his current contract ends. Saying that, I don't think trading for him makes a lot of sense.

[eddie83]

You missed the point.

The point is that if a pitcher doesn't fear a hitter than he will attack the strike zone and the hitter's walk total will suffer. I mentioned fastballs specifically since the general consensus is that most pitchers have better command of their fastballs than their other pitches.

Ok, fine but Nick's total didn't drop. His offensive skill set of getting on base isn't weakening. His power and overall athleticism isn't the same, not saying they are. In Nick's last season here in 2014 Davis had a down year, Manny missed half a season and Wieters was hurt. The power potential on this team right now is thru the roof. I want to see players be on base when those HR's happen. I like the Kim signing but who knows what we have. The ballpark we play in isn't conducive to taking extra bases as it would in another park. The fact that a manager doesn't have to worry about pinch hitting for a guy like Markakis late in a game isn't something WAR figures in. In an ideal world you have players that can do everything but that isnt realistic, so why not add players that fit a specific team. We aren't built around speed and moving players around we live by the long ball. The more times someone is on base the more runs we score.

[Can_of_corn]

Ok, fine but Nick's total didn't drop. His offensive skill set of getting on base isn't weakening. His power and overall athleticism isn't the same, not saying they are. In Nick's last season here in 2014 Davis had a down year, Manny missed half a season and Wieters was hurt. The power potential on this team right now is thru the roof. I want to see players be on base when those HR's happen. I like the Kim sighing but who knows what we have. The ballpark we play in isn't conducive to taking extra bases as it would in another park. The fact that a manager doesn't have to worry about pinch hitting for a guy like Markakis late in a game isn't something WAR figures in. In an ideal world you have players that can do everything but that inst realistic, so why not add players that fit a specific team. We aren't built around speed and moving players around we live by the long ball. The more times someone is on base the more runs we score.

First off, once again, I am speaking in generalizations, not specifically about Markakis.

That being said you will notice that I also said "isn't sustainable long term".

[ShaneDawg85]

I rather take the opposite view that Nick Markakis makes almost no sense. I'm as in the tank for Nick as anybody, but at this point barring him getting back to even 2012 production levels the only way I'd take him is if the Braves released him and they signed him on a one year deal, or after his contract with Atlanta is up and they want to bring him back home. I love the guy, always will, but giving up anything of value for him is asinine.

[DrungoHazewood]

I wonder if there are any aging studies of baseball's "middle class" (which is where I'd put Nick). There's just something about him that makes me feel he'll still be a very solid player at 34 when his current contract ends. Saying that, I don't think trading for him makes a lot of sense.

Informal survey of 29-32 year old outfielders worth roughly 1.5-2.5 wins in:

2010 (rest of career fWAR in parentheses) : Juan Pierre (0.4), Ryan Raburn (2.1), Cody Ross (3.5), Ryan Ludwick (2.4), Austin Kearns (0.0)

2011: Jayson Werth (10.1), Josh Willingham (4.6), Coco Crisp (7.2), David DeJesus (3.5)

Don't know if that tells you anything except confirmation on my Davis thread statement that guys in their 30s regularly mix in good, bad, and injured seasons.

[Frobby]

Informal survey of 29-32 year old outfielders worth roughly 1.5-2.5 wins in:

2010 (rest of career fWAR in parentheses) : Juan Pierre (0.4), Ryan Raburn (2.1), Cody Ross (3.5), Ryan Ludwick (2.4), Austin Kearns (0.0)

2011: Jayson Werth (10.1), Josh Willingham (4.6), Coco Crisp (7.2), David DeJesus (3.5)

Don't know if that tells you anything except confirmation on my Davis thread statement that guys in their 30s regularly mix in good, bad, and injured seasons.

Yeah, it seems all over the lot. I'll only add that I think Nick is a better, more consistent player than most of these guys. Total career rWAR through age 31:

Markakis 27.4

Crisp 21.1

Werth 20.2

Dejesus 19.2

Pierre 15.6

Kearns 12.7

Ross 12.0

Willingham 11.6

Ludwick 10.5

Raburn 2.0

I don't see this as the end of the analysis, since a lot of Nick's value came early in his career, but I do think Nick's pedigree beats most of these guys.

[weams]

Yeah, it seems all over the lot. I'll only add that I think Nick is a better, more consistent player than most of these guys. Total career rWAR through age 31:

Markakis 27.4

Crisp 21.1

Werth 20.2

Dejesus 19.2

Pierre 15.6

Kearns 12.7

Ross 12.0

Willingham 11.6

Ludwick 10.5

Raburn 2.0

I don't see this as the end of the analysis, since a lot of Nick's value came early in his career, but I do think Nick's pedigree beats most of these guys.

I like Nick much more than any of them. As you said, most of Nick's career totals came before age 26. I'd love to have that guy.

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, it seems all over the lot. I'll only add that I think Nick is a better, more consistent player than most of these guys. Total career rWAR through age 31:

Markakis 27.4

Crisp 21.1

Werth 20.2

Dejesus 19.2

Pierre 15.6

Kearns 12.7

Ross 12.0

Willingham 11.6

Ludwick 10.5

Raburn 2.0

I don't see this as the end of the analysis, since a lot of Nick's value came early in his career, but I do think Nick's pedigree beats most of these guys.

I saw it the other way. Past four years Nick has been worth five wins or so. Beyond four years there's minimal impact on future projections. Werth was werth five wins in the single season preceding the one in question. Crisp was over 10 wins in the previous four. DeJesus over 10. Willingham almost 10.

[Ripken]

I like Nick much more than any of them. As you said, most of Nick's career totals came before age 26. I'd love to have that guy.

Pepper Leach: Wish we had him two years ago.

Charlie Donovan: We did.

Pepper Leach: Four years ago, then.

[Number5]

Pepper Leach: Wish we had him two years ago.

Charlie Donovan: We did.

Pepper Leach: Four years ago, then.

This guy's dead.

[Ripken]

This guy's dead.

Cross him off, then.