Roch: O's trying to reach a deal with Reynolds

[weams]

Honest to God I wouldnt give ANY of those three away for Smoak who has been a disappointing player for almost three seasons now. There are better options. As much as I once would've never said it

Reynolds is a better option than Smoak.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/y8AWFf7EAc4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thank Goodness Roy. Thank Goodness.

[weams]

He disappeared during the playoffs. Big time.

MSK

He was really hurt, and maybe concussed. Tough guy.

[OFFNY]

He disappeared during the playoffs. Big time.

MSK

He was really hurt, and maybe concussed. Tough guy.

Also, how many other Orioles disappeared during the playoffs ??? We had a team batting average of .187 and a team on-base percentage of .229 in the divisional playoff series against the Yankees.

Nate McLouth, Lew Ford, and the now-departed Robert Andino were the only players on the team that hit higher than .250 in said series (.318, .375, and .364, respectively.)

Ryan Flaherty hit .250, Chris Davis hit .200, and everybody else was below the Mendoza line.

OFFNY

[PaulFolk]

It is funny here we are at 2pm and only one person has a comment on the breaking Reynolds news from last night. You know the news that we are prepared to let him walk for chump change, and that a deal is probably not going to happen.

I don't consider this "breaking news," because nothing has actually happened yet. Saying that the O's are "prepared" to let Reynolds walk is essentially meaningless at this point. It could be posturing. It could be the O's being tight-lipped about their plans. There's no point in freaking out about this until we see if the O's actually do let Reynolds go.

[TradeAngelos]

I don't consider this "breaking news," because nothing has actually happened yet. Saying that the O's are "prepared" to let Reynolds walk is essentially meaningless at this point. It could be posturing. It could be the O's being tight-lipped about their plans. There's no point in freaking out about this until we see if the O's actually do let Reynolds go.

Would you agree that most assumed Reynolds would be back on a reasonable 2 year deal before last night?

Would you agree that article Britt wrote didn't "eliminate" that possibility, but threw a big bucket of cold water on that idea from what she reported?

Would you agree that is Reynolds at 1/9ish or 2/16ish our best option at 1st base?

Would you agree that there isn't another 1b on the market that you know of, who could produce similar numbers at a similar cost?

And finally, can you give me one good reason why the Orioles wouldn't bring him back at the numbers being talked about?

It might be up in the air now, but it sure sounds like in about 35 hours it won't be anymore.

[scOtt]

Would you agree that most assumed Reynolds would be back on a reasonable 2 year deal before last night?

Would you agree that article Britt wrote didn't "eliminate" that possibility, but threw a big bucket of cold water on that idea from what she reported?

Would you agree that is Reynolds at 1/9ish or 2/16ish our best option at 1st base?

Would you agree that there isn't another 1b on the market that you know of, who could produce similar numbers at a similar cost?

And finally, can you give me one good reason why the Orioles wouldn't bring him back at the numbers being talked about?

It might be up in the air now, but it sure sounds like in about 35 hours it won't be anymore.

Would you agree that this is something that hasn't even happened yet?

Let it play out to its conclusion, then you can bash the FO all you want.

[DrungoHazewood]

Would you agree that most assumed Reynolds would be back on a reasonable 2 year deal before last night?

I didn't assume anything.

Would you agree that article Britt wrote didn't "eliminate" that possibility, but threw a big bucket of cold water on that idea from what she reported?

I guess you could read that into it, but beat writers write a lot of stuff. Nothing has actually happened yet.

Would you agree that is Reynolds at 1/9ish or 2/16ish our best option at 1st base?

That's probably a semi-reasonable offer if you assume his offense will bounce back and his unusual defense is also productive, but given that he's been worth less than one total win over the last three years combined you could also argue that either of those contracts is a huge overpay.

Would you agree that there isn't another 1b on the market that you know of, who could produce similar numbers at a similar cost?

No. There are always other options. The names on the free agent list and the names thrown around by reporters aren't the only first basemen in the world. Once you've convinced yourself that your options are Mark Reynolds, Mark Reynolds, and Mark Reynolds you're probably going to get a bad deal. And yes, I know, it's not my money and the O's have far, far more than they know what do to with, so I shouldn't care.

And finally, can you give me one good reason why the Orioles wouldn't bring him back at the numbers being talked about?

They don't believe his total production is worth the money. They agree with UZR and +/- and think his defense is more effort than production, and they see a guy who's been just above an average MLB hitter the last three years and is now playing a premium offensive position.

[TradeAngelos]

OK I will play since you were the only one to respond

I didn't assume anything.

I said "most".

I guess you could read that into it, but beat writers write a lot of stuff. Nothing has actually happened yet.

Not a stretch to "read anything into" these quotes.."The Orioles and Mark Reynolds have had no negotiations regarding the first baseman's 2013 contract according to a baseball source....Whether those conversations will pick up steam and morph into something more serious doesn't look promising, with the last substantial contact between the two sides coming about two weeks ago.

That's probably a semi-reasonable offer if you assume his offense will bounce back and his unusual defense is also productive, but given that he's been worth less than one total win over the last three years combined you could also argue that either of those contracts is a huge overpay.

"Huge overpay" is a relative term. Relatively speaking, that "huge overpay" is all of $2-$5 million. Also on the other hand, being that Reynolds is right in his prime, and his defense really came around at 1st it could also be considered a "huge underpay" at the end of 2014

No. There are always other options. The names on the free agent list and the names thrown around by reporters aren't the only first basemen in the world. Once you've convinced yourself that your options are Mark Reynolds, Mark Reynolds, and Mark Reynolds you're probably going to get a bad deal. And yes, I know, it's not my money and the O's have far, far more than they know what do to with, so I shouldn't care

Like who? Name some names. Obviously your vast knowledge of replacement level 1b that can hit 30-40 bombs in their late 20's if far greater than mine.

They don't believe his total production is worth the money. They agree with UZR and +/- and think his defense is more effort than production, and they see a guy who's been just above an average MLB hitter the last three years and is now playing a premium offensive position.

See 2 questions above in relation to cost, and perceived value.

[Frobby]

It is funny here we are at 2pm and only one person has a comment on the breaking Reynolds news from last night. You know the news that we are prepared to let him walk for chump change, and that a deal is probably not going to happen.

Any comments on the situation? Do you agree with the apparent decision to play hardball over a million bucks, with a player that has the ceiling Reynold has?

If we let Reynolds walk what do you think the plan should be to replace his production?

Is there any reason on this earth to make this decision being he can be had for such a reasonable price relatively speaking?

It is all about "value" and "efficiency" remember.

I will judge it when I see what happens. If they non-tender him, he spends a few weeks looking around, and we sign him for $6.5 mm, we'll look pretty smart. If we non-tender him and pick up some other good bat at a reasonable price, we may look pretty smart. If we non-tender him, he signs somewhere else and we get nobody good to replace him, we will look like idiots. Part of the GM's job is to know the market, and we'll see how well Duquette knows it. Non-tendering Reynolds will make me nervous, because there is some risk involved, but I won't freak out.

[weams]

OK I will play since you were the only one to respond

See 2 questions above in relation to cost, and perceived value.

What does this mean?

[Dark Helmet]

If no other moves are made, the one I would like to see made for sure, is Mark Reynolds back at 1B. If we had an option, that was clearly better, then yes. But, I think Reynolds will have a bounce back year, but even if he doesn't 25 HR with an OPS of.800+ with solid defense, is worth 8-9M a year over 2 years. Davis would probably be fine at 1B, but i'd rather have him at DH, and some occasional starts in the OF and at 1B. I think the offense is weaker without Mark, and I think the team is weaker also. If the O's have a better option in mind, then i'm on board. But, if the decision on Reynolds is made solely because of finances, and that Davis is just cheaper and adequate at 1B, then I will not be too pleased.

[weams]

If no other moves are made, the one I would like to see made for sure, is Mark Reynolds back at 1B. If we had an option, that was clearly better, then yes. But, I think Reynolds will have a bounce back year, but even if he doesn't 25 HR with an OPS of.800+ with solid defense, is worth 8-9M a year over 2 years. Davis would probably be fine at 1B, but i'd rather have him at DH, and some occasional starts in the OF and at 1B. I think the offense is weaker without Mark, and I think the team is weaker also. If the O's have a better option in mind, then i'm on board. But, if the decision on Reynolds is made solely because of finances, and that Davis is just cheaper and adequate at 1B, then I will not be too pleased.

Dan Connolly say we are interested in Koji Uehara and Kameron Loe.

[DrungoHazewood]

What does this mean?

I read it as he doesn't particularly care if Reynolds' value is anywhere between negative and $10M or $15M. That paying $9M for a guy who's worth $1M is irrelevant, the O's should just pay it.

[weams]

I read it as he doesn't particularly care if Reynolds' value is anywhere between negative and $10M or $15M. That paying $9M for a guy who's worth $1M is irrelevant, the O's should just pay it.

Anytime you have a player who has more value than you are paying him, it makes him more valuable to your team. Even if you are not a cheapskate owner. And to other teams. Having players at value contracts makes your team stronger, more valuable, and more flexible when needed. I do not care about Peter Angleos' bank account nor his family's legacy. I do care about the Orioles becoming a good business model so we can have fun like last year, more often.

It's always a price value relationship. The hedge funds all turned out to be Ponzi schemes.

[DrungoHazewood]

OLike who? Name some names. Obviously your vast knowledge of replacement level 1b that can hit 30-40 bombs in their late 20's if far greater than mine.

You're clearly exaggerating for effect, I never said there were replacement level first basemen who'd hit 30-40 homers. In fact, 2012 Reynolds is the only one I can think of. But there are a lot of players who could play first and give Reynolds-like production that the O's could trade for, sign, or otherwise acquire. I'm not going to play games and name names you'll shoot down, but there are always 1-2 win first basemen who are available.