Reynolds as a trade candidate?

[quidam]

Jones is only here for two more years. If you trade him you can get a ML ready young SP and a good B level MiL prospect for him. Why keep him? Markakis can only be moved to a team with money, but the Sux and MFY's would love to have him at his salary, and have good prospects to trade. Guthrie should be moved and has a lot of value to contenders at the TD. We could get 3-4 good young ML ready or cloes to that SP for those guys plus a long term 1B. Again do you see this team getting to the playoffs in two years, if you keep them and sign some FA's? I don't.

If you keep trading for prospects every year then you will constantly be in a state of rebuild. By the time the prospects you obtain for Jones, Markakis, etc. become established at the ML level Matusz, Arrieta, Wieters, Reimold, and Jim Johnson will all be reaching free agency, and thus by your logic need to be traded.

First priority should be acquiring two more established starters for the rotation. Then you look to fix the holes in lf, 2nd, 1b, and dh. Last year we attempted to fill 4 positions and McPhail went 2/4. It can be done if we obtain the right pieces.

[El Gordo]

If you keep trading for prospects every year then you will constantly be in a state of rebuild. By the time the prospects you obtain for Jones, Markakis, etc. become established at the ML level Matusz, Arrieta, Wieters, Reimold, and Jim Johnson will all be reaching free agency, and thus by your logic need to be traded.

First priority should be acquiring two more established starters for the rotation. Then you look to fix the holes in lf, 2nd, 1b, and dh. Last year we attempted to fill 4 positions and McPhail went 2/4. It can be done if we obtain the right pieces.

Why don't you think we can get ML ready prospects for these guys. E.g. you could get Nova and Betances from the Yankees for Jones. Nova is already in the ML and Betances is on his way. We need more than two starters.

[mcneck]

Yeah, 20 errors at third can't make you feel any better about him playing first.

Yes but I would venture to say that at least 75% of those errors are throwing errors which he would not commit at 1st. He has pretty good range and I think is pretty good withe the glove which would make him a pretty good fit at first.

[baltimorebirds]

All of that has been shown to be incorrect thinking.

It isn't the trading that is the issue, it is the logic. So just because the team loses the production he provides has no value now or in the future? He's signed for two more years after this one, don't forget.

If Matusz threw eight innings of one-hit ball and the bullpen blew the game in the ninth, would your first thought be to try and trade him while his value was high since his performance couldn't help a mediocre team?

The only way to get better is to find these kinds of players and KEEP THEM while adding more around them. You trade them if you have to, but not before. Otherwise you end up in a losing cycle that makes thirteen years feel like a summer vacation.

He is actually only signed for one more year (thru the 2012 season.) I am not saying the production he provides is not valuable, but yes - I believe it is "less" valuable to a team that is going to lose anyway. For example, most analysts suggest that it is not worthwhile to spend a lot of money on a closer (as we have done with Gregg and Gonzalez last year) if there aren't going to be many games to save. When he homers, etc. doesn't decrease his value, but if we aren't going to win with his production, I believe it decreases his value to us (and therefore, increases his value to a winning contending team.) That is the whole idea of "blowing it up."

[baltimorebirds]

please note: I just wanted to know your thoughts - not if the Orioles should do not, but if Reynolds is a legitimate trade candidate.

I'm actually quite surprised that more people on here are for trading Hardy, but keeping Reynolds (at least it seems that way.)

No need to jump on people. We are all frustrated that the O's have been so disappointing, but the only way to get good prospects is to trade good ML talent.

[quidam]

Why don't you think we can get ML ready prospects for these guys. E.g. you could get Nova and Betances from the Yankees for Jones. Nova is already in the ML and Betances is on his way. We need more than two starters.

There is no such thing as an ML ready prospect. Players have adjustment periods when they get to the majors that can be as few as a couple months or in most cases a couple of years.

The Royals had two ML ready prospects in Gordon and Hochevar. Gordon looks like he has turned the corner 3-4 years into his career and Hochevar has yet to pitch 150 innings in a season.

The chances of all these prospects coming to the majors and being successful at the same time as our young players is very low, even if they are "ML ready."

[Sports Guy]

You can always look to trade anyone but Reynolds is signed cheaply and brings an element to the team that we need and don't have..power.

[GoldGlove21]

Yes but I would venture to say that at least 75% of those errors are throwing errors which he would not commit at 1st. He has pretty good range and I think is pretty good withe the glove which would make him a pretty good fit at first.

I would say he is more like 50/50 on the throwing error/fielding error line. We don't need Reynolds at 1st or 3rd, we are in the AL East, he could DH. I also this 20 errors is very high for him. He might make 20 in a season next year, but he isn't likely to make 20 in a half.

[El Gordo]

There is no such thing as an ML ready prospect. Players have adjustment periods when they get to the majors that can be as few as a couple months or in most cases a couple of years.

The Royals had two ML ready prospects in Gordon and Hochevar. Gordon looks like he has turned the corner 3-4 years into his career and Hochevar has yet to pitch 150 innings in a season.

The chances of all these prospects coming to the majors and being successful at the same time as our young players is very low, even if they are "ML ready."

They also have a ML ready prospect in Hosmer. I would rather trade for a guy i have control of for 6 years and give him 2 to develop than keep a guy I have for 2 years when I have no chancxe to contend.

[GoldGlove21]

I agree with this line of thinking, but the Royals are not going to trade Reynolds for Hosmer. Just saying....

[Sports Guy]

There is no such thing as an ML ready prospect. Players have adjustment periods when they get to the majors that can be as few as a couple months or in most cases a couple of years.

The Royals had two ML ready prospects in Gordon and Hochevar. Gordon looks like he has turned the corner 3-4 years into his career and Hochevar has yet to pitch 150 innings in a season.

The chances of all these prospects coming to the majors and being successful at the same time as our young players is very low, even if they are "ML ready."

Gordon's first 2 years were fine.

[El Gordo]

I agree with this line of thinking, but the Royals are not going to trade Reynolds for Hosmer. Just saying....

I assume you are trying to make a joke.

[Phantom]

If you keep trading for prospects every year then you will constantly be in a state of rebuild. By the time the prospects you obtain for Jones, Markakis, etc. become established at the ML level Matusz, Arrieta, Wieters, Reimold, and Jim Johnson will all be reaching free agency, and thus by your logic need to be traded.

This is exactly what Tampa Bay has accomplished, and if you stay disciplined about it, you can be contending and rebuilding simultaneously. The alternative appears to be sustained mediocrity.

[GoldGlove21]

You think they would give up Hosmer for Reynolds? Kansas City operates on the cheap and they treat things like we do. They do not want to deal away a guy controlled for 6 years for a guy controlled for two. The problem I have with making trades is that I want to win by making a hole to fill 2+ others. Getting Hosmer gives us a first baseman, but it costs us a very good power hitter.

[GoldGlove21]

No, Tampa drafted well and high. They put a ton of money into the draft and developing players. They didn't obtain most of the good talent by trades, the let guys walk for picks. I see your point, but no the same philosophy.