Reynolds as a trade candidate?

[GoldGlove21]

Sorry, missed part of the post. I do not know what people are talking about sometimes (Not you).

[Phantom]

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.

But their philosophy is to constantly be building for the future, even while contending. They have made their fair share of trades, and let a ton of guys walk. They bottomed out to almost an extreme, and now they are in a great place. We do not have that focus or discipline. We do not know if we are buyers or sellers. We somehow have a "youth" movement, with virtually no talent in the farm system to back it up.

[quidam]

Gordon's first 2 years were fine.

You missed the point.

[Sports Guy]

You missed the point.

No I didn't...I was just correcting you.

[quidam]

No I didn't...I was just correcting you.

Save the condescending tone for someone else.

Trading the majority of our established players like a Jones, Reynolds, Markakis, etc. for "major league ready" prospects is a volatile notion. The odds are very small that all those prospects are good at the same time as our 1 and 2 year arbitration players.

You have to build a team with a mixture of veteran and younger players for a multitude of reasons. A team full of Alex Gordon's in 2007 and 2008 would be less then stellar. The learning curve is just too great, even for ultra talented players like himself.

The two years where he "was fine" as you said he was a below league average offensive player. He then followed that up with a .687 ops average the next two years, a demotion to the minor leagues, a position change, and trade proposals from some OH faithful of "Pie for Gordon." If you consider that alright, then we have a different definition of success.

As I've said all along, Tampa Bay's rotation is the perfect comparison for what this team needs to do. They have their stud in Price. They have had solid guys like Kazmir, Shields, Jackson, Garza. They have then traded those guys, and replaced them with top prospects like Davis, Hellickson, and Neimann. In return they have received 3 out of their current top 10 prospects, starting right fielder, and backup middle infielder.

In our scenario we lack the depth at the ML level, and thus put all of our hopes and dreams on our top prospects. Any busts (Tillman), or setbacks (Matusz), and the rotation lacks any hope. We are forced to ride it out with these guys and then are left with a boom or bust situation where they are either good, or they have failed and have no trade value. It also forces our hand in keeping guys like Guthrie a year later then we should as opposed to trading him a year early.

[EutawStreet]

I realize that we are not contending in any way, but does anyone find it disconcerting that anytime we get production out of a player he is immediately placed on the trading block?

[Can_of_corn]

I realize that we are not contending in any way, but does anyone find it disconcerting that anytime we get production out of a player he is immediately placed on the trading block?

It would be if the front office was doing it. It doesn't bother me when the OH members do.

I do wish they would keep it confined to one thread per player however.

[Phantom]

I realize that we are not contending in any way, but does anyone find it disconcerting that anytime we get production out of a player he is immediately placed on the trading block?

I do not, as this is one of the ways to turn non-contending teams into contending teams.

[24fps]

I realize that we are not contending in any way, but does anyone find it disconcerting that anytime we get production out of a player he is immediately placed on the trading block?

I do. It's as if the whole point - and I mean the entire point - of being a fan for some people is to extract maximum trade value from each and every player on the team. Any beauty that might be derived from the game on the field becomes incidental. I would think the stock market would much more engaging for someone who felt this way.

Or perhaps the priesthood, as the underlying principle takes on all the fervor of a religious quest when taken to an extreme; something all too frequent these days IMO.

[Sports Guy]

Save the condescending tone for someone else.

Trading the majority of our established players like a Jones, Reynolds, Markakis, etc. for "major league ready" prospects is a volatile notion. The odds are very small that all those prospects are good at the same time as our 1 and 2 year arbitration players.

You have to build a team with a mixture of veteran and younger players for a multitude of reasons. A team full of Alex Gordon's in 2007 and 2008 would be less then stellar. The learning curve is just too great, even for ultra talented players like himself.

The two years where he "was fine" as you said he was a below league average offensive player. He then followed that up with a .687 ops average the next two years, a demotion to the minor leagues, a position change, and trade proposals from some OH faithful of "Pie for Gordon." If you consider that alright, then we have a different definition of success.

As I've said all along, Tampa Bay's rotation is the perfect comparison for what this team needs to do. They have their stud in Price. They have had solid guys like Kazmir, Shields, Jackson, Garza. They have then traded those guys, and replaced them with top prospects like Davis, Hellickson, and Neimann. In return they have received 3 out of their current top 10 prospects, starting right fielder, and backup middle infielder.

In our scenario we lack the depth at the ML level, and thus put all of our hopes and dreams on our top prospects. Any busts (Tillman), or setbacks (Matusz), and the rotation lacks any hope. We are forced to ride it out with these guys and then are left with a boom or bust situation where they are either good, or they have failed and have no trade value. It also forces our hand in keeping guys like Guthrie a year later then we should as opposed to trading him a year early.

You think the Int' market is volatile..You think trading vets for prospects is volatile.

Are you Andy MacPhail?

[LookinUp]

I realize that we are not contending in any way, but does anyone find it disconcerting that anytime we get production out of a player he is immediately placed on the trading block?

I find it more disconcerting that we're not in a clear rebuild with a point in time where we intend to contend.

What's implicitly being acknowledged, and sometimes explicitly, is that the O's still aren't near winning. This rebuild has failed. The cavalry isn't what we thought they'd be, or just isn't ready to lead us yet, so holding onto guys who may not be part of the winning solution is a waste of money.

It's certainly possible that, in two more years, the cavalry has stepped up and developed to the point that they can lead us. Therein lies the gray area. We know Lee and Vlad won't be around, but guys like Hardy and Reynolds most definitely could, Guthrie may (though it's unlikely he'll be effective, IMO), and the expense for that existing talent will increase.

So, what do we do? Are we willing to pay for the good guys here now (Hardy, Reynolds, Jones, Markakis, Roberts), increase pay for young guys who will be in arbitration AND add a couple of FA's who can help put us over the top? If so, that's looking very expensive and is still dependent on development of our young guys here now.

The alternative is to kick the can down the road a couple of more years. That means we trade the near term good players, extend the young cavalry and give Machado, Bundy's, Schoop and players we trade for a chance to grow together in hopes that we can win in 2014 or 2015.

The worst part is both alternatives suck. Ownership won't pay enough to make the first scenario work out. Fans aren't patient enough for the second alternative, and AM/Buck likely don't want to trade the talent now and wait 3 more years for hope. So, we have no clear path to contention.

This is Birdland.

[Dain45]

I read on MLBtraderumors where someone was talking about Reynolds to the White Sox for Dayan Viciedo and Jacob Petricka. They seemed to think we would want more but I for one would be all over that trade. I would probably do Reynolds for Viciedo. It didnt seem to make alot of sense though, why wouldnt they just bring up Viciedo? Kid is killing the ball.

[El Gordo]

I read on MLBtraderumors where someone was talking about Reynolds to the White Sox for Dayan Viciedo and Jacob Petricka. They seemed to think we would want more but I for one would be all over that trade. I would probably do Reynolds for Viciedo. It didnt seem to make alot of sense though, why wouldnt they just bring up Viciedo? Kid is killing the ball.

Big difference between MiL and ML. Reynold kills the ball in the ML. They want to win this season.

[El Gordo]

Well it seems to me it's all or nothing. Either keep Guthrie, Jones, Markakis, Koji, extend Hardy, sign Fielder, another SP and a LF bat next season, hope thet Matusz and Roberts will come back, Brtton and Ariteta will progress and go for broke the next two years while you have control of Reynolds, Jones, Hardy, Guthrie etc. Or realize that you can't compete within the next two year window, and trade the players who have the most value under the least control, for long term value.

[Dain45]

Big difference between MiL and ML. Reynold kills the ball in the ML. They want to win this season.

El Gordo, would you make that trade? I would be all over it.