Photo

Reynolds


  • Please log in to reply
353 replies to this topic

#341 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:32 PM

Reynolds is fine but 9 million is just too much.

He just isn't that good...and this is from someone who expects a nice bounce back year.


Of course not and that is why for much of the year we were all thinking the O's would decline the option, non tender him and someone next year would get great value for him. Now, undoubtedly Reynolds raised his value somewhat over the last few months. He played a solid 1b and started hitting. Before I thought he'd have to settle for a 1/3-4 mil deal. He's raised his value beyond that with the last few months of the season( offensively just a 3 week stretch at the end of August). I don't think anyone is arguing he is worth 9 mil. However, there is a need for him here and it's a 1 year commitment to him which is important. I mean if he is horrible next year ultimately it's better to have given him 1/9 than 2 /10 and have him on the books for '14.

#342 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:38 PM

I think Reynolds would find that the one year deal and try to re-establish value is likely going to be his best option.

The idea of taking 2/12 from the Orioles is a good one IMO because on the open market, he is only likely to get a 1/6 type contract...if he has a poor year in 2013, he is likely to get a really small deal or even a MiL contract.

He can/will get more for one year from the Orioles than he will from another team.


So lets say worst case scenario is he has to take a 1/6 mil on the open market and bombs next year and signs a minor league deal for '14. He loses 5 mil dollars or so overall. But that's the bottom line worst case scenario. The upside is he makes more than 1/6 on the open market(which I think is very possible) or he plays out next year on a 1 year deal and reestablished himself and earns a better contract for '14 and beyond.

#343 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:39 PM

Of course not and that is why for much of the year we were all thinking the O's would decline the option, non tender him and someone next year would get great value for him. Now, undoubtedly Reynolds raised his value somewhat over the last few months. He played a solid 1b and started hitting. Before I thought he'd have to settle for a 1/3-4 mil deal. He's raised his value beyond that with the last few months of the season( offensively just a 3 week stretch at the end of August). I don't think anyone is arguing he is worth 9 mil. However, there is a need for him here and it's a 1 year commitment to him which is important. I mean if he is horrible next year ultimately it's better to have given him 1/9 than 2 /10 and have him on the books for '13.

I agree with your last sentence.

The issue I have is that the payroll has very little wiggle room..giving him 9 million sucks in that regards.

#344 SportsGuy

SportsGuy

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 91,979 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:41 PM

So lets say worst case scenario is he has to take a 1/6 mil on the open market and bombs next year and signs a minor league deal for '14. He loses 5 mil dollars or so overall. But that's the bottom line worst case scenario. The upside is he makes more than 1/6 on the open market(which I think is very possible) or he plays out next year on a 1 year deal and reestablished himself and earns a better contract for '14 and beyond.

Sure..but it's risky for him. Players have false beliefs all the time and he definitely has reason to believe he can bounce back but still, it's a bit risk.

Realistic best case for him is an 8-9 million dollar contract for one year.

#345 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 06:45 PM

I agree with your last sentence.

The issue I have is that the payroll has very little wiggle room..giving him 9 million sucks in that regards.

I agree with you there. It's just a swallow hard and accept it type of thing knowing it's a 1 yr commitment at a position of need. Also, to be clear, I'm fine with offering Mark 2/10-12 and hope we can get him on that deal. I just would be surprised if Reynolds accepts it. I 'm playing devil's advocate, trying to look at it from Reynolds perspective.

#346 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:40 PM

The Sheriff tends to be a bit dramatic and it overstates what appears his range is -- the bellyflops look cool but most good first baseman can just catch the ball without the theatrics.

The belly flops I saw were mostly not about range, they were mostly about reach. I disagree that most 1Bmen can do that. Maybe there's a little bit to it, just because Reynolds isn't tall, but if you're blowing off his starfish-flops with his toe on the base, I think you're just wrong about that. (If you're not talking about that, well, never mind ;-))

FWIW (which might not be much), I happen to know a 92 year old guy who went to the very 1st OD in '54 and has been paying attention ever since. He says Jim Gentile is the best 1B-man he ever saw on a thrown ball... not just the best Oriole, but the best anybody. He says he still thinks that, mainly because of height, but he thinks the latest version of Reynolds is the best guy the O's ever had other than Gentile... says it could be a tie if not for height...

 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#347 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,407 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:09 PM

OK...

Some questions:

1. For 1B in particular, is there any rule of thumb about the relative weights of 1st step vs. good hands?

2. Ditto, but for the relative value of being good on hit balls vs. thrown balls?

3. So, the scale you think on goes average/above average/elite, is that right?

4. Is this your scale or some generic scouting scale?

I'd think there would be distinctions between good and very good... it seems like both should be between average and elite, but I know zip about what scales are used in scouting (except for the 20-80 thing for p-quality)...


1. I'd give good hands a little bit of a lead on 1st step at first base (reverse at 3B), but they are both important though with arm strength bringing up the rear at 1st. It's probably something like 50% hands 35% 1st step and 15% arm strength for me at first.

2. Thrown balls (all hands) is probably a little more important since you have many more chances on thrown balls in a game than on batted balls. It's why I weigh hands a little more than first step/range.

3. It's semantics, but it's tied to the 20-80 scale. 50 is average, 60 is above average, 70 is plus and 80 is plus-plus. If you want other terms, you could call it average, above average, very good and elite. All semantics and all based on the same 20-80 though.

4. It's an industry thing, see above.

If I had to grade his hands, Reynolds is probably a 70 for hands(I'm hesitant to give out 80s, they are reallllllly rare, or should be), 60 for his arm, and 40 for first step/range. Total package I'm willing to put him somewhere between 50-60 defensively, the more reps he gets there the closer to 60 he gets. I think if he puts in some work on his footwork and really works hard at trying to develop that first step he might be able to get better and creep on that 70 range, but that would take a ton of improvement on that first step and I don't think he can improve it that much.
@JeremyMStrain

#348 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:44 PM

1. I'd give good hands a little bit of a lead on 1st step at first base (reverse at 3B), but they are both important though with arm strength bringing up the rear at 1st. It's probably something like 50% hands 35% 1st step and 15% arm strength for me at first.

2. Thrown balls (all hands) is probably a little more important since you have many more chances on thrown balls in a game than on batted balls. It's why I weigh hands a little more than first step/range.

3. It's semantics, but it's tied to the 20-80 scale. 50 is average, 60 is above average, 70 is plus and 80 is plus-plus. If you want other terms, you could call it average, above average, very good and elite. All semantics and all based on the same 20-80 though.

4. It's an industry thing, see above.

If I had to grade his hands, Reynolds is probably a 70 for hands(I'm hesitant to give out 80s, they are reallllllly rare, or should be), 60 for his arm, and 40 for first step/range. Total package I'm willing to put him somewhere between 50-60 defensively, the more reps he gets there the closer to 60 he gets. I think if he puts in some work on his footwork and really works hard at trying to develop that first step he might be able to get better and creep on that 70 range, but that would take a ton of improvement on that first step and I don't think he can improve it that much.

OK... cool...

Using your numbers, that would be:
Hands: 50% * 70 = 35
Step: 35% * 40 = 14
Arm: 15% * 60 = 9
Total = 58, which would be most of the way to above average, up from average.

Does this fit what you mean?

 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#349 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,407 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:51 PM

Yeah pretty much. I was spitballing on the %, that's just for me personally, everyone might put different weight on things, but that sounds pretty close.
@JeremyMStrain

#350 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 157,146 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 12:48 PM

MLBTR: Non-Tender Candidate: Reynolds
http://www.mlbtrader...k-reynolds.html

#351 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,764 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:05 PM

MLBTR: Non-Tender Candidate: Reynolds
http://www.mlbtrader...k-reynolds.html

Letting Reynolds walk is risky. I guess we could replace with Davis but I have a feeling we have a James Loney or Casey Kotchman type at 1B. Yuck!
@mikeghg

#352 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:53 PM

Letting Reynolds walk is risky. I guess we could replace with Davis but I have a feeling we have a James Loney or Casey Kotchman type at 1B. Yuck!

I've gone back and forth but I'm on board with non tendering him. I think it's best for us to "play the field" before commiting to Reynolds at a better salary for the O's. Probably in the 6 to 7 mil/yr range for a couple of years. If Reynolds can do better or decides to go somewhere else it's not that big a deal. Worst case scenario, if we strike out on other FA, is we put Davis at 1B for '13. I really believe he is the fallback option. I'm not worried about signing a Loney or Kotchman.

#353 Mike B

Mike B

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,764 posts
  • LocationTowson Md.

Posted 24 November 2012 - 12:19 AM

I've gone back and forth but I'm on board with non tendering him. I think it's best for us to "play the field" before commiting to Reynolds at a better salary for the O's. Probably in the 6 to 7 mil/yr range for a couple of years. If Reynolds can do better or decides to go somewhere else it's not that big a deal. Worst case scenario, if we strike out on other FA, is we put Davis at 1B for '13. I really believe he is the fallback option. I'm not worried about signing a Loney or Kotchman.

I think you are right about Davis, but based on what I saw he is not a good first base option. He dropped a lot of balls when playing first base last year.
@mikeghg

#354 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 157,146 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:38 AM

Camden Chat: Should the O's offer arbitration?
http://www.camdencha...o-mark-reynolds




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=