It sounds like Flaherty is Buck's "Project" for this year.

[mikegallo]

It just occured to me that there exists another kind of larger-than-normal, defensive-challenged second baseman who killed the ball at AA Tennessee at an advanced age, then was picked in the Rule 5 draft: Dan Uggla.

I guess that might be what Ryan Flaherty becomes if everything works out great. Dan Uggla. Anybody agree/disagree?

That would be an amazing development imo and I would tip my hat to DD's FO. I think I would rather have him provide plus D at 3rd then the likely - D at 2nd (That's the word but until we see him for an extended period who knows?) and if he can develop into a 330+ WOBA suddenly we have another cheap building block and are closer to our goals.

I just wish Buck would use this guy and Antonelli in the field whether it's 2nd or 3rd as much as possible, so we can move Reynolds/Davis to DH as much as possible. Our DH spot is oopen versus lefties and to not upgrade our D on those days by using our DH would be a huge mistake imo.

[Oldorioles]

You don't give up your 7th best prospect without a fight.

I know a reputable organization ranked him at 7th, but this may be a little high. For example, Tony just came out with his updated rankings (in the Minors section) and he is ranked at #18 (for comparison Antonelli is #19 and Adams is #22). I agree with you though, it would still be nice to keep him.

[weams]

You think Nick will not be ready for OD?

I think it is possible. It was big deal surgery with big deal muscles.

[weams]

I've seen him play. He is not a great short stop but he is athletic.

Dan Uggla would be good. But if they think Flaherty can play ss (at least backup there) why is he necessarily as bad as Dan Uggla? Most of us have never seen the guy play and it's not like we have defensive stats that mean anything. We've got some sporadic scouting reports.

I think he could play second. It's not like he would be replacing a gold glover there.

[wildcard]

I've seen him play. He is not a great short stop but he is athletic.

I think he could play second. It's not like he would be replacing a gold glover there.

What have you seen in Flaherty and Antonelli? Can you compare them?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I've seen him play. He is not a great short stop but he is athletic.

I think he could play second. It's not like he would be replacing a gold glover there.

They had him on MASN yesterday and showed a fair amount of film of him. Looks tall and kinda wiry to me. Says he played shortstop his first couple years in the minors before the Cubs made him into more of a utility player. He says he prefers shortstop (not that it means he's good there).

[CA-ORIOLE]

That would be an amazing development imo and I would tip my hat to DD's FO. I think I would rather have him provide plus D at 3rd then the likely - D at 2nd (That's the word but until we see him for an extended period who knows?) and if he can develop into a 330+ WOBA suddenly we have another cheap building block and are closer to our goals.

I just wish Buck would use this guy and Antonelli in the field whether it's 2nd or 3rd as much as possible, so we can move Reynolds/Davis to DH as much as possible. Our DH spot is oopen versus lefties and to not upgrade our D on those days by using our DH would be a huge mistake imo.

I'm thinking Miller/Reimold will be the RH DH option at this point. Especially if Antonelli has an option. Like you I'd have preferred Reynolds at DH and we could have skipped the Betemit signing.

[El Gordo]

iF Reynolds regeresses to his mean UZR of -10, given his normal offense, he would be worth about 2-2.5 WAR,. Antonelli/Flaherty would need to have a +5 UZR and a .700 OPS to have 1.5 WAR at 3B. I think the chances of Reynolds glove regressing to the mean, are at least as good as Antonelli/Flaherty putting up a +5 UZR and .700 OPS.

[CA-ORIOLE]

iF Reynolds regeresses to his mean UZR of -10, given his normal offense, he would be worth about 2-2.5 WAR,. Antonelli/Flaherty would need to have a +5 UZR and a .700 OPS to have 1.5 WAR at 3B. I think the chances of Reynolds glove regressing to the mean, are at least as good as Antonelli/Flaherty putting up a +5 UZR and .700 OPS.

Well, Reynolds averages a sub 2 fWAR (1.8) for his career and I'd rather give the AB's and opportunity in the field to Flaherty/Antonelli as it's not only about the numbers they'd provide in 2012 but how they could potentially progress and help the team in the future. Not to mention the impact on the pitching staff.

[mikegallo]

iF Reynolds regeresses to his mean UZR of -10, given his normal offense, he would be worth about 2-2.5 WAR,. Antonelli/Flaherty would need to have a +5 UZR and a .700 OPS to have 1.5 WAR at 3B. I think the chances of Reynolds glove regressing to the mean, are at least as good as Antonelli/Flaherty putting up a +5 UZR and .700 OPS.

If Reynolds can put up similar O at DH as 3rd to me it makes no sense not to move to DH. I agree it's likely that Reynolds D does regress some, but D is gonna be so huge for this team given our non strike out staff that any slight upgrades to our D (One that has 15+ run potential is huge) should be made without a doubt.

A RS is equal to a RA all things being equal, but on this team we KNOW all things aren't equal. Four things went without dispute this offseason....

1. Our team D is generally considered bad to really bad

2. Our pitching staff is truly awful

3. Our O is about league average

4. We play most of our games in hitter friendly parks

Given those facts I would argue that Run Prevention added capacity is much more valuable then Run Scored capacity. I honestly believe the current state of sabermeterics does not show the total Run value of team D whereas Run scored stats give a much fuller picture.

If I am Buck and I have any tool in my lineup card that can aid my staff in preventing runs, I use them in every logical spot....It just doesn't make any sense to me that Reynolds is not a full time DH after a -30 UZR last year. If any player can be made to argue to become a DH it's Reynolds....Otherwise you can't make any reasonable arguement for any player to DH.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I would argue that Run Prevention added capacity is much more valuable then Run Scored capacity. I honestly believe the current state of sabermeterics does not show the total Run value of team D whereas Run scored stats give a much fuller picture..

Why ? To what extent ? It's true that runs prevented are marginally more valuable than runs scored, but we're talking "marginal". Are you inferring psychological effect? What do you got? Expand.

[DrungoHazewood]

If Reynolds can put up similar O at DH as 3rd to me it makes no sense not to move to DH.

Except that, in general terms, a -20 third baseman with an .800 OPS is about the equal of a DH with an .800 OPS. For Reynolds to be more valuable in the long run as a DH you have to believe he's a lot closer to last year's defense than his normal defense.

[DrungoHazewood]

Why ? To what extent ? It's true that runs prevented are marginally more valuable than runs scored, but we're talking "marginal". Are you inferring psychological effect? What do you got? Expand.

Yea, I'd like to hear that as well. I see little or no evidence that defense is improperly valued. Sure, on an individual basis there are arguments about how much impact someone has, but on a team level this isn't a particularly hard nut to crack.

[El Gordo]

Reynolds is unlikely to come any where neer a -30 UZR this season. Remember he was a + 2 UZR in 2010. If he comes near to that he would be much more valuable to the team at 3B. People seem to think you can just plug any bat into DH. That just isn't true. Ask Adam Dunn. I wouldn't be surprised if Reynolds struggled a lot at DH. I would rather move him to 1B before I stuck him at DH. I think it makes sense to see how much he can improve at 3B before moving him anywhere, and I don't know if either Antonelli's, Flaherty's or Andino's gloves, will be good enough to justify their offense at 3B.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Except that, in general terms, a -20 third baseman with an .800 OPS is about the equal of a DH with an .800 OPS. For Reynolds to be more valuable in the long run as a DH you have to believe he's a lot closer to last year's defense than his normal defense.

You can also consider/considered:

1. The players available for DH and what we ended up with.

2. The effect of defense on pitching psychology.

3. The limited/marginal value Reynolds would give at third assuming an average/good case.

4. The DH adjustment/replacement value not reflecting positional flexibility.

5. The opportunity to play younger players with more potential at third.