What Could We get for Markakis and/or Roberts?
by Baysox39 on Jul 26, 2009 1:08 PM EDT
75 comments
Of course this is the unthinkable to many of you. Some may want to tar and feather me for even thinking of us trading Nick or Brian. But this team is a losing team with Nick and BRob. It could be a losing team without them as well. However this losing must stop and management must have the balls to trade popular players to get the right mix of guys here to win. Milt Pappas was as popular as any player the Orioles had at the time. But without that trade which brought Frank Robinson to Birdland we may not have played the Dodgers in 1966 to become world champs. This team needs help. We can not win with the players we have. If Nick can bring us a corner infielder, some top line prospects, and we can patch right field with 15-20 hrs and 90 RBIs I say lets do it. This has nothing to do with my love and fondness of our players. I just want to win and we don't have a lot to offer other than Nick to get players to Baltimore that perform. With Roberts, Markakis, Jones and Wieters we are a losing team. Hard to imagine but it is true. The future is coming with Tillman, Arietta, Bergenson, Erbe and other young arms but if we can't score, hit with 2 outs, run the bases and treat each at bat like it is the last we will waste those young arms. What are your thoughts on a trade that would change the completion on this team. Please excuse the mistakes. I don't type well and I am now putting on my body armor for incoming rounds.
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
nobody is untouchable
but markakis is close. there’s no good reason to trade a guy that we just locked up for 6 years who hasn’t hit his prime yet. instead they should be aggressive in free agency to find corner infielders who can hit. i wouldn’t do anything to that outfield right now.
and if we could have gotten anything decent for roberts, mcphail already would have done it. he was on the trading block for a long time.
by joet on Jul 26, 2009 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I'm Hoping
We dont need to trade Markakis, Andy has repeated that he’ll grow the arms and buy the bats. Its not like this team doesnt have money to spend, Angelos spent on guys like Tejada before, so he’ll be willing again. As long as our pitching comes along, Baltimore could be an appealing option for free agents in a few years.
Plus, the PR hit the Orioles would take by trading Markakis would be massive, the risk does not outweigh the reward
You'd get called a fucking idiot for trading the two of them
Because that’s what you would be.
"I hate making excuses. If I suck, then I suck. And I suck. That's the way I'm playing. If you suck, you suck. You have to take responsibility in this game. Right now, that's the way I feel. Yes, I suck." - Jose Guillen/quote of the year
Well
Not necessarily for roberts, but considering the return we would get its really not worth it.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 26, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Markakis
His value is down right now so he would not return that much. Although he was much better in the 2nd half in 06 and 07, so he can still turn it on. The thing is that at 25 his best years should still be in front of him. Hopefully we are competing by the time he is 27 (which is your peak year according to stats) and since he is a part of the future you dont trade him.
To answer your question he is what I would expect as a return in a trade.
For Roberts:
1 B+ prospect (fringe BA top 100) and a pair of C+ or B- prospects.
For Markakis:
1 A- prospect (teams still dont want to trade their most elite prospects for anybody) a B+ prospect and a pair of C+ or B- prospects.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
His value is down???????
He’s hitting .300 (.298 after today) has 66 RBI and 12 HRs and his OPS is .826. How is his value down??
"We're not the other teams' farm system." - Andy MacPhail
Because his OPS is down
He finished last year with an OPS of .897 and people thought his doubles may become home runs and they haven’t. Or maybe i’m too wrapped up in his fantasy value being down and his real value is still where it was.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 27, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions
it is to my understanding
that the season is not quite over. am i wrong?
i believe that a current OPS of .826 could in fact translate to an OPS of .897 by the end of the year (all assuming that i am correct about the season still going on…….)
by twistedlogic on Jul 27, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
With Roberts, Markakis, Jones and Wieters we are a losing team
There is no question that Jones and Wieters haven’t even come close to their peaks, and it can be argued that Markakis hasn’t either. To say we are a losing team with them is completely disregarding the age and experience factor. The Rays used to suck, too, before guys like Crawford, Kazmir, Shields, and Upton got better. Look where they are now.
Keep Markakis. Trade Roberts only if the haul is very good, and I trust that MacPhail will do so if the opportunity arises.
Yea, we are a losing team with them
we are also a losing team with Rich Hill and Jason Berken. In fact, we are a losing team with every player we have.Thats the most illogical thought process ive ever heard. Markakis is a great piece to have, and by trading him you’d create a nice big hole in the only area we’ve actually assembled something resembling what a winning team would have. How about we wait to see what pans out with the pitching and trade the extra pieces we have there instead of creating holes in positions we have no real depth at?
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
All Good Points.
I threw that out there to facilitate conversation about how we should approach turning our franchise into a winning one.
"Losing teams find ways to beat themselves" Jim Palmer
unless the following words are
for Albert Pujols
"I hate making excuses. If I suck, then I suck. And I suck. That's the way I'm playing. If you suck, you suck. You have to take responsibility in this game. Right now, that's the way I feel. Yes, I suck." - Jose Guillen/quote of the year
I still wouldn't trade Nick for Pujols.
Just my opinion, but we signed him for the next six years for a reason, the guy is young and not even close to his prime yet in my mind. B-rob i wouldn’t be such a hard loss if we got just as good in return. we have taken the time to build this outfield into one of the best. We are a losing team if you ask me because our pitching rotation is really a joke, it is. Hill and Berken have been huge let downs, at least we have prospects in the minors. Wieters has gotten so much hype its craxzy. The Guy is a ROOKIE for crying out loud, let him get the rest of the seaon under his belt. Did anyone, I ask, anyone think we were going to actually be a contender this year, or even next? I don’t see it possibly till 2011, unless we start buying our talent and saying screw the farm system, which is the Sox and Yanks way.
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
Nikc for Pujols would be the steal of the...
well, of all time. Thats not gonna happen though. I still think we have a shot at CONTENDING (maybe not making the playoffs, but making a legit run) next year if we can address the corner infield spots and the young pitching works out right away.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
Pujols>Nicky. I love Nick, but that's just basic 1+1. Pujols deserves his own league for
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 26, 2009 6:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ahh. Stupid iPhone posting. My thumb slid across post. Pujols deserves his own league for crying out loud. He's a beast.
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 26, 2009 6:13 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Well we can hope at CONTENDING(not making the playoffs) next year
which is pretty much what we have done for the past how many years, to me, if you don’t make it to the playoffs, you don’t CONTEND. We can be one game out of first and guess what we didn’t contend.
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
Contend.
• CONTEND (verb)
The verb CONTEND has 6 senses:
1. maintain or assert
2. have an argument about something
3. to make the subject of dispute, contention, or litigation
4. compete for something; engage in a contest; measure oneself against others
5. come to terms or deal successfully with
6. be engaged in a fight; carry on a fight
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
yea...
i’d like to be engaged in the fight for a playoff spot. If that is what you call what we’ve been doing for the past 12 years, well, then you have a much nicer pair of rose colored glasses than I.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
Well really it has been horrible and painful.
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
But we do not CONTEND
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
Um, yea...
I’m the one that said I think we could contend next year. You’re the one that said that you have to make it to the playoffs to contend, which really makes no sense.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
I said we technically
Contend, but we do every year. When we start making the Playoffs then we are A CONTENDER, who may have a shot.
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
No. A contender is one who has a shot at making the playoffs. Contending is being on the same level as the guys on top. You don't have to make the playoffs to be a contender.
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 27, 2009 4:25 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Pujols = monster, Nick = really good
If the O’s had Pujols this year I think we would be at least above .500 this year. Thats how good I think he is. He is a one man show with the bat and glove.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 26, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions
You don't win without pitching
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
Pujols creates wins
And i dont think pitching factors into a Pujols for Markakis trade, although Nick did used to be a pitcher.
Pujols is the best hitter in the game, and sometimes great hitting overcomes good pitching. Look at the Phillies last year, they had good pitching fo sho, but their lineup was what made them elite.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 26, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions
You win with Alber Pujols.
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 27, 2009 4:26 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Albert. Screw my phone.
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 27, 2009 4:26 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
unless we start buying our talent and saying screw the farm system, which is the Sox and Yanks way
And clearly they are failed franchises.
"There's only one cure for what's wrong with all of us pitchers, and that's to take a year off. Then, after you've gone a year without throwing, quit altogether." -Jim Palmer
To futher fix that
They dont say screw the system, they buy talent at all levels and consistently spend among the most on the draft.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 26, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
If that be idea if the opportunity arose
Albert Pujols is one of the best players in baseball ever. Ever. He’s a first ballot Hall of Famer and will likely retire as the third-best first baseman in history after Lou Gehrig and Jimmie Foxx.
I would bet big money that Nick Markakis will never have a season even remotely like any of Albert Pujols’ seasons so far and probably won’t have any seasons like Pujols in the future until Pujols really starts to decline.
Overestimating Markakis’ worth in such a manner is silly homering.
The tag line should say "That would be a bad idea if the opportunity arose"
It’s also a bad idea to post things at 2:24 in the morning and think they’ll come out coherent.
Also
There is no intrinsic superiority to building a winning team through a farm system as opposed to building a winning team through free agency. It’s not like they put an asterisk on your World Series record or something.
The only good team that most people who participate in this website have any memory of was built through free agency and did pretty well for a couple of years. They even went wire-to-wire one year.
Sort of
That team had a number of players on it that were home grown. Anderson, Moose, Hoiles, Cal, Hammonds, Rhodes, and Benitez all played important roles on this team. There success was hugely dependent on free agents, but they wouldn’t have won without the home grown talent. This team is also a great example of why you don’t build through free agency. After the wire to wire year, this team quickly fell apart. The high price free agents predictably saw declines as they aged. If you build from your farm, your success is sustainable. Look at the Red Sox. Their current core is vastly different than what they had in ‘04 and it will be completely different in 2013. You want to have guys at their peak and free agents are generally past their peak. Plus, even cheap free agents are much more expensive than guys you draft. Only the Yanks have an infinite budget, so for all other teams the money dumped into free agents can’t be spent on the draft or scouting or player develoment. MacPhail wants to build a winning organization, not simply a winning team.
by uneasy rider on Jul 27, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Anderson came from Boston's system
Hoiles came from Detroit’s. Jeffery Hammonds was hooooorrible in both 95 and 96 and (shocker) was injured both years. I’m all for building from the farm, but some of those guys might not be the best examples. Sure, they still came through our system, but they weren’t exactly home grown.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
I don't even understand why people would suggest trading either of those two guys.
I mean, those giant contracts in the offseason were for a reason. They are extremely valuable to us as a franchise and WILL be a part of it all when we start to win. Sorry, I just think even suggesting it is absurd. B-Rob is one of the best second baseman in the game today, and everyone knows Nicky is one of the best RFers you will find. Any trade that were made would involve finding someone new to fill in those spots, and I guarentee you would not have the same production. They stay.
P.S Writing long posts on an iPhone is a major pain. Forgive any spelling/grammar errors.
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 26, 2009 5:19 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I think its an interesting intellectual exercise, even if its an unthinkable actual possibility
Everything has a price. For example, if the phillies offered us everything the Jays want for halladay and said they’d throw in utley and hamels, I’d certainly give up markakis. Obviously thats would never happen, but its interesting to consider where that line is.
Yes i ranted and your comment is true....Why???
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
fangraphs did a trade value list
i think somebody referenced it in another thread. wieters was number 5. adam jones was number 19. markakis was 35. that means if any of the 34 players ahead of markakis were offered for him, straight up, we should probably pull the trigger.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2009-mlb-trade-value-recap/
by no means is this a definitive list or anything, but i think it’s directionally pretty good.
i don’t think it’s bad to ask what it would take to trade markakis or roberts, as long as we acknowledge that it’s unlikely and probably a waste of time to think too much about it. and let’s be real – roberts is worth a lot more to us for marketing purposes than he is to anyone else for baseball skills alone. he’s good, but he’s on the wrong side of 30 and he’s not a perennial all-star or anything.
That Longoria Contract
Is the kind of thing GM’s lust over
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 26, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Marketing Purposes'? What a laugh...
So you get a 35+ superstar or a 30+ superstar? what good is that besides Nick and B-rob????This is a ridiculous ?
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
i'm not sure i understand what you're disagreeing with
can you explain?
What do we need
marketing purposes for, we are a losing team, Roberts is a great baseball player with tremendous skills and it would be a loss for him to leave us. So what do you want for him who isn’t on the wrong side of 30?
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
You always need marketing
And most people here would have been in favor of trading roberts for the right price, but that price was never met. Therefore Roberts is still an Oriole and will be one for 4 more years.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 26, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
losing teams need to draw fans too
as a homegrown asset who helps sell tickets and t-shirts and who has roots in the community now, roberts is more valuable to us than he would be to any other team. not to mention that we don’t have any real options at 2nd base other than him.
my point is that if ANY of the players on that fangraphs link was offered straight up for roberts, we should do it immediately. hanley ramirez? absolutely. justin verlander? in a heartbeat. john lester? of course. roberts just isn’t that valuable. as i mentioned earlier in this thread, if other teams wanted him so badly, he would have already been traded. he’s a good player. he doesn’t have “tremendous skills”, unless you just mean that he’s an above average 2B.
DUMB argrument.
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
Keep them both and let it go
"You don't EVEN KNOW who Nick Markakis is"- .....My 4 year old daughter to another kid.
"I'm a Country Boy"- ......Alan Jackson
DinG ding ding. We have a winner.
"He's a gazelle." -Adam Jones on Nolan Reimold.
by LenaO on Jul 27, 2009 4:30 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
A 34/35 year old Roberts seems pretty useless to me
"There's only one cure for what's wrong with all of us pitchers, and that's to take a year off. Then, after you've gone a year without throwing, quit altogether." -Jim Palmer
I'd be all for flipping Roberts
But Markakis is the type of guy whom you want to trade FOR considering his age.
"There's only one cure for what's wrong with all of us pitchers, and that's to take a year off. Then, after you've gone a year without throwing, quit altogether." -Jim Palmer
I figured all Baysox39 would want would be three “sweet swinging” lou montanez types.
Don't let the sunshine fool ya. - Townes Van Zandt
this team loses
because we cant pitch! There is no point in making our lineup worse at this point.
Get out the rye bread and mustard grandma, cause it's GRAND SALAMI TIME!
by WestcoastO'sFan on Jul 27, 2009 4:38 PM EDT reply actions
Oooo
You stir all that is sabermetric inside me up. Clutch hitting is a myth I tell you.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 28, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I'd phrase it a bit differently
Clutch hitting (or clutch hits) exist(s), to the extent that hits in certain situations are actually much more valuable than hits in other situations. It’s clutch hitters that don’t exist — i.e. it’s not a repeatable skill, and people who get a lot of clutch hits in one season are no more likely than those who didn’t to get clutch hits the following season.
by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jul 28, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
more pedantry
Beyond clutch hits, clutch hitting exists because teams that collectively get a lot of hits in key situations may outperform their predicted record based on underlying metrics (e.g. the may win a lot of one run games, or score a lot more runs than their collective OBP/SLG would suggest)…but it’s a product of luck and random variation rather than skill. So you can say that a team is doing well because they get lots of hits in the clutch — that’s a description of what happened — but you can’t use that information to assume anything about the underlying character of the team or its players.
by Joltin Joe Orsulak on Jul 28, 2009 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Well put
You said it much more elegantly than I would have.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 28, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions
What do you base this on?
What you are essentially saying is that baseball is the only activity where certain people handle pressure either better or worse than the average person. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Baseball is not that unique of an activity.
I know that many of the sabermetric guys have long said that clutch hitters (or chokers) don’t exist (primarily because it’s hard to measure), but I think most have given up that idea. We may not have many good metrics to determine who’s a good or bad clutch hitter; but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
"Hey Yankees... you can take your apology and your trophy and shove 'em straight up your ass!" --Tanner Boyle
by BirdFanInPhilly on Jul 28, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Example
I will even use two Yerkees as to not appear biased:
Bernie Williams = clutch hitter
Alex Rodriguez = NOT clutch hitter
I am sure we all remember the various times through the late 90’s and early 2000’s when Bernie would come up in a “clutch” post season situation and almost always deliver. Likewise, we also know of A-Rod’s struggles in the post season when put in “clutch” situations.
I don’t need stats to tell me who I would rather have at the plate with two outs in the ninth and down by a run with a man on. Being clutch isn’t quantitative, rather it is a qualitative characteristic that I feel some people just don’t possess.
Being clutch isn’t quantitative, rather it is a qualitative characteristic that I feel some people just don’t possess.
The problem with chalking it up to a qualitative characteristic is that there’s no way to verify or substantiate these cliams in any rigorous way. You can point to specific incidents but then somebody could easily point to counter examples. A-Rod was quite clutch in the playoffs with Seattle. Jeter was been choked like a dog in the ALCS 2004. I think Shane Spencer is clutch is hell (see 1998 playoffs). Well, not really but I can cherry pick examples if we simply say that being clutch is a qualitative characteristic.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
I just find it hard to believe
that this concept of clutch simply doesn’t exist. Let’s take it outside of baseball for a moment and use extreme examples.
Michael Jordan. Tiger Woods. Roger Federer. I find it hard to say, no matter what the method of analysis is, that these men are not clutch in there brand of sport. When the Bulls needed it, Jordan gave them points. When Tiger needs to, he makes the impossible put. Aside from last year against Nadal, Federer seems to have that extra level that he can call on when the pressure is on.
There are no statistics involved with my argument. Like I said, it is just a feeling…and one that I think most would agree with.
by sickuvitall on Jul 29, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions
You are going to find this a polarizing issue
Sabermetric people will disagree with you and others will agree with you but to say that “most” would agree with you is probably false.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 29, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
To continue this
would be pointless. We have our opinions. Hey, look at the bright side…we are all lost O’s swimming in a fish bowl, year after year.
Agreed
My point was more that you will probably find more people on both sides of the argument than it sounds like you expect.
But on a side note, in basketball you will see great players take over at the end of the game. I dont think it is them being clutch as much as them fully exerting themselves after pacing themselves through the game in order to do so. Players like Kobe see something that is open and may leave it for the end of the game so that when the team really needs it he can get it for them. It also helps that players like Jordan are just better players than everybody.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 29, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Clutch may very well exist. It’s just difficult to prove it empirically.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
On another note
I like the Huff sig. Not only does it bring to light the fact that Huff is kinda terrible, but it also incorporates a truly classic piece of CC humor.
"Qualitative characteristics"
are the last refuge of a scoundrel. To call someone clutch is, in effect, to say that that player’s performance is likely to improve as the stakes go up. Regardless of the question of metrics, that is an inherently quantitative claim.
I understand the point
of measuring performance in a quantitative manner. My point is that I get a certain feeling when certain players are put into certain situations. The idea that “this is the guy that you want at the plate in this situation”. Sure you could point to certain numbers to make that claim, but my assessment of a player’s ability to perform in the clutch goes beyond that and relies on what MY eyes have seen and what MY mind thinks.
All this shit that we need to apply stats to every possible scenario is a result of player’s paychecks and “stat-heads”. Forget about the numbers for a minute and let your mind do its own work based on what you have seen.
by sickuvitall on Jul 29, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
SBNation.com Recent Stories
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
