I'm going to try and make this the last time I pick on perfectly good player and Oriole with a promising future Nick Markakis.  I realize almost everybody here understands that the O's need better players than him if they're going to become an elite team, but I decided to illustrate this with the Orioles' own past success.

Nick Markakis' best season so far is his current one where he's hitting for an OPS+ of 125 making him pretty much tied with Luke Scott for the best hitter on the team this year.  Not too shabby, but the 1966, 1971, and 1983 Orioles had five guys with over 300 at bats whose OPS+  were either almost or exceeding 125.  The 1969 and 1970 Orioles had four and the 1979 team had three.

On the 1969-1971 Oriole pennant winners Don Buford's OPS+ was 128, 126, and 153 (and just for shits and giggles, it was 148 in 1968).  Even though I think Buford is an underrated player, no one thinks about him as one of the standout players on those teams.  I bet a lot of you are like me and sometimes get him mixed up with Don Baylor and Al Bumbry.

My point is not that Nick Markakis sucks or will never be a great player, it's that the Orioles own history shows you have to have better players than him to win it all.  There are no shortcuts and as it stands now, he's just not good enough.  He is valuable and if they're going to win they'll need players just like him, but they need players substantially better than him as well.