O's and Royals showing interest in Nick the Stick

Im for sure ok with moving Markakis. But this forum is strange. In another thread we have several posters saying 20 Mil a year is being given out to average players now. Nick is getting 11 I think. Is his contract so bad?

That being said, the smart move is to move him. We arent competing next year and it will help our weak payroll. Hopefully
 
The contract is what makes him marketable. Three cotrollable years for a proven vet should bring a solid return. The Braves better be damn sure about Mallex first,
 
TURBO said:
Im for sure ok with moving Markakis. But this forum is strange. In another thread we have several posters saying 20 Mil a year is being given out to average players now. Nick is getting 11 I think. Is his contract so bad?

That being said, the smart move is to move him. We arent competing next year and it will help our weak payroll. Hopefully
Click to expand...

If 20 million is average, then we will need his 11 million to spend to go along with whatever else we have freed up on payroll to make a run at another player.
 
If I thought Markakis would perform like he did in this year in 2017 and 2018 I would be all for keeping him but I am worried he is going to fall off that cliff Melvin and Uggla wentry over and become untradeable. I swear if we end up trading a good player at any point in his contract to help offload his salary because he falls off a cliff I will rage like never before.
 
rico43 said:
The contract is what makes him marketable. Three cotrollable years for a proven vet should bring a solid return.
Click to expand...

The Don said:
If 20 million is average, then we will need his 11 million to spend to go along with whatever else we have freed up on payroll to make a run at another player.
Click to expand...

Both of these things. I think the Braves shouldn't pay a huge chunk of his remaining contract just to make him go away; they should only make his contract even more palatable if it means receiving a really good return, instead of a mere solid return. Either way, I feel like—given the way the OF market has developed—Markakis at $11 million per annum has real value to some teams (and certainly more value, at his age, than he has for the Braves). Moreover, as [MENTION=1]The Don[/MENTION] alludes, the Braves—given their proposed "competitiveness window—are a lot less well-positioned to stomach a substantial production drop-off in the final season or two of that deal.

rico43 said:
The Braves better be damn sure about Mallex first
Click to expand...

I think that's more the case if they're trading Inciarte. You'd know be than I would, to be sure, but it seems like the biggest question-marks surrounding Mallex Smith's big-league future are those regarding his ability to be a capable defender in CF. If Inciarte is still around, I'd think Smith—with his on-base-premised skillset—has good potential to reasonably replicate what Markakis provides in RF (and it's not as if Markakis is a wizard out in RF these days).
 
NinersSBChamps said:
He's at worst our second best hitter. Makes zero sense to trade him away.
Click to expand...

It makes zero sense to keep him for 3 years when 2 of those years will be spent as a 70 win team.

Anyways, I have a feeling you just post insanely stupid things like that to get reactions out of people. So congrats, you got me.
 
NinersSBChamps said:
Makes zero sense to trade him away.
Click to expand...

I assume this is hyperbole, and you can indeed see that—regardless of whether you feel it's ultimately in the Braves' best interests—it at least makes some sense to trade Markakis at this point?
 
I'm not terribly worried about Markakis falling off a cliff. He's a professional hitter with a good eye. That should let him age more gracefully.

Uggla was all about bat speed so when his bat started to slow he collapsed. Upton was a head case and anything but a professional.

At $11 million a year he's not that bad of an investment. But I would trade him.
 
Enscheff said:
It makes zero sense to keep him for 3 years when 2 of those years will be spent as a 70 win team.

Anyways, I have a feeling you just post insanely stupid things like that to get reactions out of people. So congrats, you got me.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think we will indeed be competitive in 2017. And I would suggest there is a small glimmer of hope for 2016 depending on how the rest of the offseason shakes out.
 
Carp said:
I disagree. I think we will indeed be competitive in 2017. And I would suggest there is a small glimmer of hope for 2016 depending on how the rest of the offseason shakes out.
Click to expand...

If by rest of offseason shakes out you mean we trade Markakis and Sign Justin Upton and sign Scott Kamir, you may be onto something. If we do that we could be a 75-80 win team. We're projected around 68 wins now, but those 2 moves likely put us up to that level.
 
I'd want him gone if we clear deal or get a b prospect or better.

But I'm hoping we can get the Cubs to go blockbuster for inciarte and a pitcher. Cubs have a bunch of of prospects that are close and would be blocked by Schwarber inciarte heyward. I'm think soaker plus two close guys and a high ceiling position guy who could be farther

Nick is getting older. He's going to be a 1 war player maybe two. We should be able to replace that.
 
Markakis, Aybar, Pierzynski, Norris, Grilli, and Jim Johnson (and even Bourn) all fit the same mold - and do so for a rebuilding team perfectly.

Are they All-Stars? Of course not. However, they're all veterans with track-records of success signed to affordable contracts that make them attractive as Plan B options for more than a few teams that view themselves as potential contenders. Those aren't pieces you just "give away" to clear their salaries. What often gets missed when looking at those kinds of players is that they even provide value to the 2016 Braves. That value doesn't make them "valuable" to those who just look at the numbers. They're here because they hopefully provide you a bridge to the first wave of kids that are coming.

If you're still following the 2017 narrative at this point, you'll never understand it. The only way being competitive in 2017 happens is if The Johns sneak in and land a Cespedes or Upton, 2 or 3 of the young guns make huge strides this season, and prospects like Smith, Swanson, and Albies force their hand. The Markakis types are here in the event they don't. They provide you options that will allow you to keep from rushing the kids while not being black holes. Think about it - how bad might last year have been WITHOUT Nick, A. J., KJ, Uribe, Grilli, and Johnson???

I completely understand feeling like you were "lied to" about 2017 as a target date, but if you really understood the vast wasteland the system had become you knew that was an absolute best-case scenario even IF everything worked out as hoped in anyone's wildest dreams - the veterans signed or traded for performed really well (and stayed healthy in Grilli's case) and you found teams with the right pieces that needed them, the prospects all sped up their timelines, etc..

All those guys are "expendable", inexpensive, and won't be in the way if and when the prospects show they're ready. Even if you're not able to get Top 100 prospects for them, you'll still be able to find someone that can use them that will at least give you International Bonus Slots to add them when you go on the spending spree this July 2nd. Will that save you tons of money? Not if you don't look at the "big picture", but when you step back and really calculate the numbers, a couple million in bonus slots PLUS taking 3 months of those salaries suddenly makes the Maitans awfully cheap when you consider the 100% penalty you get if/when you sign them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top