Braves sniffing around on Markakis; Official 4 years 44 million.

nsacpi said:
I think the no help on the horizon line overstates things.

Peraza is a Top 50 prospect who will be major league ready within a year.

Sims is a Top 100 prospect. Between Sims, Hursh and Parsons, I think we'll see one reliable mid-rotation starter emerge by 2016.

Bethancourt is a Top 100 prospect that will be cheap and cost controlled for a while.

Further away, we have Albies. I suspect he will be a Top 100 prospect by the end of next season.

I have a higher regard than most for Kubitza. I think there is about a 50% chance he will provide a cheap in-house solution for 3rd base.

There are some weaknesses in our farm system. Two in particular. One is the lack of starting pitching at the lower levels of the farm system. This showed up in a dramatic way in the condition of the pitching staff in Rome this past season. Given the attrition rates for pitching prospects, we had nowhere near the prospects we needed in high A and low A. Maybe some of that will be alleviated by the players we took in the last draft (Fulenchek, Povse, Sobotka, Diaz). But it probably won't be enough to get things back to where they nee to be. The other issue was the shortage of positional prospects in high A. Once Wren and Peraza got promoted, there was little left. So in a year or two there will be a situation where there is little help available in the upper levels for promotion to the bigs.
Click to expand...

I count Bethancourt and Peraza as "here" already - my bad.

Outside of them Albies has a long way to go (and will also have to eventually change positions assuming Andrelton and Peraza are cornerstones), and even if one of Sims, Hursh, or Parsons can become a reliable #4/#5 Miller and Jenkins both have significantly higher upsides.

I agree that there are a few interesting pieces when you dig deep, but there's very little impact talent in our system anywhere.
 
clvclv said:
I count Bethancourt and Peraza as "here" already - my bad.

Outside of them Albies has a long way to go (and will also have to eventually change positions assuming Andrelton and Peraza are cornerstones), and even if one of Sims, Hursh, or Parsons can become a reliable #4/#5 Miller and Jenkins both have significantly higher upsides.

I agree that there are a few interesting pieces when you dig deep, but there's very little impact talent in our system anywhere.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Saying there is any salary relief coming from the minors in the next year or two isn't realistic. It is pretty bare down there.
 
clvclv said:
I count Bethancourt and Peraza as "here" already - my bad.

Outside of them Albies has a long way to go (and will also have to eventually change positions assuming Andrelton and Peraza are cornerstones), and even if one of Sims, Hursh, or Parsons can become a reliable #4/#5 Miller and Jenkins both have significantly higher upsides.

I agree that there are a few interesting pieces when you dig deep, but there's very little impact talent in our system anywhere.
Click to expand...

I think the near-term is ok and way down the road if you believe in guys like Fulenchek, Grosser and Povse might be ok. The problem is the gap. Or more precisely the two gaps. One between the ready or near ready guys like Bethancourt, Peraza and Kubitza and the very far away guys like Albies and Davidson. And there is a gap on the pitching in terms of not having enough prospects on the A level team to have a good chance of getting through the attrition that is normal with pitching prospects.
 
nsacpi said:
Could be. It is a possibly the most significant positive aspect of the signing.
Click to expand...

I guess if you are building for the future he was kinda the most logical fit then. I'm asking because I don't know not to make a point really. No other FA OF that would be a fit here (looking at you melky) and we got him. Keeping that pick was a huge portion of making a move to fill in. Also, a player without a bottom barrel OBP.
 
So what is the issue with Nick's neck that caused the Oreos to not even offer him a QO?
 
BRule said:
In terms of WAR:

Markakis - 2.5
Aoki - 2.3
Boni - 2.1
Morse - 1
Rasmus - .6
Rios - .2

I would've signed Aoki, shorter deal and way less money.
Click to expand...

I don't have mad love for Aoki, but I think he would have been a more sensible option given the way things are. I even think Rasmus would have been a better option if they could have inked him to a two-year deal. I'm all about length of contract here. 4 years for just about anyone out there is too long in my estimation.
 
gilesfan said:
So what is the issue with Nick's neck that caused the Oreos to not even offer him a QO?
Click to expand...

In March 2013, Markakis, 31, was diagnosed with a small disk herniation in his neck. And even though he appeared in 160 and 155 games the past two seasons, his condition and diminished power gave the Orioles pause, according to major-league sources.
 
A good read.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/...gest-for-several-reasons-20141204-story.html?

Ultimately, it was a business decision. Even though the Orioles appeared close to a four-year deal with Markakis in October, they became increasingly uncomfortable with giving the 31-year-old a fourth year. The club had health concerns about Markakis because of a lingering bulging disk in his neck.

Since missing some time with a herniated disc in his neck in spring training of 2013, Markakis played in 160 games that year and 155 games this past season, so the injury didn’t hinder his ability to be on the field. It also didn’t stop the Braves from pursuing Markakis.

The Orioles also were concerned that Markakis’ game was in decline. Despite winning his second Gold Glove, there was belief his foot speed in right field was diminishing. Also, after averaging 45 doubles from 2007 to 2010, Markakis averaged just 27 doubles over the past four seasons.

And the Orioles’ recent success over the past few years has been helped by the club not being locked into many risky long-term deals. They would be more handcuffed by those type of deals than other teams.

[...]

At the end of the day, the Braves got a player the Orioles wanted – and needed – for the long haul. Will the risk of pulling back from that fourth year overcome the cost of replacing Markakis on and off the field?

The Orioles are now presented with the challenge of diving into a shrinking outfield free-agent market to replace both Markakis and Nelson Cruz.

But it’s also the message it sends to players inside the Orioles clubhouse. Markakis not was an instrumental part of the Orioles turnaround, but despite his flaws, he epitomized “The Oriole Way.”

[...]

When it comes to Markakis, the sense is that the Orioles weren’t outbid by the Braves, but that they just didn’t make a very strong push to keep him.

 
Hawk said:
A good read.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/...gest-for-several-reasons-20141204-story.html?

Ultimately, it was a business decision. Even though the Orioles appeared close to a four-year deal with Markakis in October, they became increasingly uncomfortable with giving the 31-year-old a fourth year. The club had health concerns about Markakis because of a lingering bulging disk in his neck.

Since missing some time with a herniated disc in his neck in spring training of 2013, Markakis played in 160 games that year and 155 games this past season, so the injury didn’t hinder his ability to be on the field. It also didn’t stop the Braves from pursuing Markakis.

The Orioles also were concerned that Markakis’ game was in decline. Despite winning his second Gold Glove, there was belief his foot speed in right field was diminishing. Also, after averaging 45 doubles from 2007 to 2010, Markakis averaged just 27 doubles over the past four seasons.

And the Orioles’ recent success over the past few years has been helped by the club not being locked into many risky long-term deals. They would be more handcuffed by those type of deals than other teams.

[...]

At the end of the day, the Braves got a player the Orioles wanted – and needed – for the long haul. Will the risk of pulling back from that fourth year overcome the cost of replacing Markakis on and off the field?

The Orioles are now presented with the challenge of diving into a shrinking outfield free-agent market to replace both Markakis and Nelson Cruz.

But it’s also the message it sends to players inside the Orioles clubhouse. Markakis not was an instrumental part of the Orioles turnaround, but despite his flaws, he epitomized “The Oriole Way.”

[...]

When it comes to Markakis, the sense is that the Orioles weren’t outbid by the Braves, but that they just didn’t make a very strong push to keep him.
Click to expand...

would they trade for JUp?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top