PDA

View Full Version : Since the Arizona Diamondbacks traded T. Pena,, Is Reynolds possibly available??



redsfan4445
07-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Saw they traded Pena, and I wondered if Reynolds is available? Maybe the Reds could offer a deal including either Frazier OR Francisco for him??

Travis Wood, Frazier/OR Francisco (or Edwin if they would take him) and another low level prospect for him?
He would be the perfect protection for Votto!!

Just Curious

BRM
07-08-2009, 11:56 AM
Leads the NL in K's. Marty would love him.

Highlifeman21
07-08-2009, 12:00 PM
Leads the NL in K's. Marty would love him.

It would be interesting to follow EE to see if his new team's fanbase continues to underappreciate him as well.

And Marty would love Dunn @ 3B.

Homer Bailey
07-08-2009, 12:00 PM
He's a second year player making a bit over 400K. There is no possible way he is available for anything close to what you proposed. End of discussion.

jojo
07-08-2009, 12:09 PM
Saw they traded Pena, and I wondered if Reynolds is available? Maybe the Reds could offer a deal including either Frazier OR Francisco for him??

Travis Wood, Frazier/OR Francisco (or Edwin if they would take him) and another low level prospect for him?
He would be the perfect protection for Votto!!

Just Curious

Arizona probably likes Reynolds more than they like the above scenario.

dfs
07-08-2009, 12:21 PM
Travis Wood, Frazier/OR Francisco (or Edwin if they would take him) and another low level prospect for him?

Why would the Diamondbacks do that? It doesn't make them either better or cheaper and they give up the best player in the deal.
I guess you could offer the mets that same deal for David Wright and see how many takers you get?

OnBaseMachine
07-08-2009, 01:10 PM
I would love to see the Reds acquire Reynolds. His bat would look nice sandwiched between Joey Votto and Jay Bruce.

flyer85
07-08-2009, 01:14 PM
he set the strikeout record last year and is on pace to smash it this year ... not the Reds type.

Brutus
07-08-2009, 01:21 PM
I don't know if I could handle a guy that strikes out in more than a third of his plate appearances. Of course, he's definitely one of your three true outcomes kind of guy.

He's intriguing though. His power and speed combination is impressive. I think he's actually got a chance to become a more complete hitter with seasoning. That said, the Diamondbacks almost assuredly have no intentions of trading him and if they were receptive to the idea, it would take more than the Reds should throw at them to get it done.

osuceltic
07-08-2009, 03:11 PM
It would be interesting to follow EE to see if his new team's fanbase continues to overappreciate him as well.


Slight edit to reflect my thoughts.

CTA513
07-08-2009, 03:59 PM
he set the strikeout record last year and is on pace to smash it this year ... not the Reds type.

:thumbup:


He's already up to 114 K's before the all-star break.
Last year he had 204 K's and 34 errors.

redsfan4445
07-08-2009, 05:06 PM
WOw i guess i should have looked harder at his stats then just the homers and RBI's he has.. he isnt the answer. sorry for thinking he might be

Highlifeman21
07-08-2009, 05:55 PM
WOw i guess i should have looked harder at his stats then just the homers and RBI's he has.. he isnt the answer. sorry for thinking he might be

Why should strikeouts matter?

Focus on the HRs and RBIs.

BRM
07-08-2009, 05:57 PM
WOw i guess i should have looked harder at his stats then just the homers and RBI's he has.. he isnt the answer. sorry for thinking he might be

Actually, I wouldn't mind having him at all. Just don't think Arizona would be willing to trade him.

Brutus
07-08-2009, 06:22 PM
Why should strikeouts matter?

Focus on the HRs and RBIs.

For someone that strikes out 200 times in a season, with an average BABIP, that's an additional 30 hits in a season he would get by merely cutting down to 100 strikeouts. Though you might have a few double plays in there, I'm guessing that would add an additional 15 runs by just Reynolds cutting down on those K's. That's an extra win or two.

Patrick Bateman
07-08-2009, 06:29 PM
For someone that strikes out 200 times in a season, with an average BABIP, that's an additional 30 hits in a season he would get by merely cutting down to 100 strikeouts. Though you might have a few double plays in there, I'm guessing that would add an additional 15 runs by just Reynolds cutting down on those K's. That's an extra win or two.

That's not how it really works in practice. For Reynolds to suddenly drop those Ks by such an epically high amount, he probably has to take a difference approach to the plate, and would suffer a corresponding loss in the power department.

A guy like Reynolds with holes in his swing would be cutting down on those Ks perhaps through a more patient approach, as he's not a high walk guy. By that virtue, he could stand a chance to turn those Ks into walks, but almost certainly not hits, that is unless he starts taking less powerful cuts.

Then again, the guy does have an OPS of over .900, so I have trouble really questioning what Reynolds is doing right now.

Highlifeman21
07-08-2009, 06:49 PM
That's not how it really works in practice. For Reynolds to suddenly drop those Ks by such an epically high amount, he probably has to take a difference approach to the plate, and would suffer a corresponding loss in the power department.

A guy like Reynolds with holes in his swing would be cutting down on those Ks perhaps through a more patient approach, as he's not a high walk guy. By that virtue, he could stand a chance to turn those Ks into walks, but almost certainly not hits, that is unless he starts taking less powerful cuts.

Then again, the guy does have an OPS of over .900, so I have trouble really questioning what Reynolds is doing right now.

Pretty much how I feel.

Reynolds could K 300 times a year as long as his OPS is North of .900.

PuffyPig
07-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Why should strikeouts matter?

Focus on the HRs and RBIs.

HR's yes, RBI's no. RBI's are team dependent.

Brutus
07-08-2009, 08:48 PM
That's not how it really works in practice. For Reynolds to suddenly drop those Ks by such an epically high amount, he probably has to take a difference approach to the plate, and would suffer a corresponding loss in the power department.

A guy like Reynolds with holes in his swing would be cutting down on those Ks perhaps through a more patient approach, as he's not a high walk guy. By that virtue, he could stand a chance to turn those Ks into walks, but almost certainly not hits, that is unless he starts taking less powerful cuts.

Then again, the guy does have an OPS of over .900, so I have trouble really questioning what Reynolds is doing right now.

Albert Pujols is an example to the contrary. You can still hit home runs without having to take rips at the fence every swing. Pujols is the exception, not the rule, but it still goes to show it can be done.

Power is generated through bat speed and a short, compact swing (generally). You do not have to be a free-swinger to maintain power while gaining discipline.

westofyou
07-08-2009, 08:56 PM
Mark Reynolds at his price is not going anywhere, that said he makes Dunn look like a contact hitter at times.

Brutus
07-08-2009, 08:56 PM
HR's yes, RBI's no. RBI's are team dependent.

Not entirely. It still depends on hitters getting the runners in. Albert Pujols does not have many more opportunities than Lance Berkman this season (both No. 3 hitters with comparable guys getting on base in front of them). However, he has a ratio of runs driven in to men left on base nearly 33 percent better with his opportunities than Berkman. That manifests itself with a lot more RBI's (31 more to be precise).

It's much better to say RBI's are influenced by the team, but they're not team dependent. I think that term is used a little too freely to describe RBI's.

I definitely do not think RBI's are a very good stat. I just don't think they're totally useless nor are they totally team dependent. The hitter still has some degree of responsibility in compiling them.

Patrick Bateman
07-08-2009, 09:15 PM
Albert Pujols is an example to the contrary. You can still hit home runs without having to take rips at the fence every swing. Pujols is the exception, not the rule, but it still goes to show it can be done.

Power is generated through bat speed and a short, compact swing (generally). You do not have to be a free-swinger to maintain power while gaining discipline.

Hence the phrase "Almost certainly." Pujols is a freak of nature, and honestly has no place in this conversation.

Of course the guy wouldn't lose all his power over night, but I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if the dude is decreasing his amount of Ks by over a 100 in a season, than he's going to lose a significant amount of his power.

The main thing is, the Ks that Reynolds would be most capable of dumping are the ones through ill advised swings. To get rid of those Ks, you take those pitches and turn them into walks. He doesn't have the Pujols or Guerrerro type of ability to hit out of zone pitches for singles and doubles. If he could he wouldn't be outpacing Adam Dunn in strikeouts. The main point I'm trying to make is that it's not as easy as just saying "if he cuts his Ks down to 100, he'll get 30 more hits." There are so many other factors at play that make that statement overly simplified, and in essence, incorrect.

Patrick Bateman
07-08-2009, 09:17 PM
I definitely do not think RBI's are a very good stat. I just don't think they're totally useless nor are they totally team dependent. The hitter still has some degree of responsibility in compiling them.

The problem with RBI's, and you are completely right in their merits and flaws, is that there are far more superior stats for what you just outlined as a reason to use RBIs.

Degenerate39
07-09-2009, 02:44 PM
Why should strikeouts matter?

Focus on the HRs and RBIs.

I doubt you can sell that philosophy to Cincinnati Fans. But I completely agree with it.

bucksfan2
07-09-2009, 03:32 PM
Hence the phrase "Almost certainly." Pujols is a freak of nature, and honestly has no place in this conversation.

Of course the guy wouldn't lose all his power over night, but I think it's pretty reasonable to say that if the dude is decreasing his amount of Ks by over a 100 in a season, than he's going to lose a significant amount of his power.

The main thing is, the Ks that Reynolds would be most capable of dumping are the ones through ill advised swings. To get rid of those Ks, you take those pitches and turn them into walks. He doesn't have the Pujols or Guerrerro type of ability to hit out of zone pitches for singles and doubles. If he could he wouldn't be outpacing Adam Dunn in strikeouts. The main point I'm trying to make is that it's not as easy as just saying "if he cuts his Ks down to 100, he'll get 30 more hits." There are so many other factors at play that make that statement overly simplified, and in essence, incorrect.

I think for the most part that if you decrease you strike outs you will increase your offensive output. You do make a good point that if you take it to the extreme, you may change your approach at the plate and lose some of your power.

I think power hitters may have a more fundamental flaw in their swing because of the power the swing packs. But in most cases a strikeout is predicated on a bad swing or the inability to foul a pitchers pitch off. Brandon Phillips is a great example of what can happen if you change your approach at the plate. Its not so much when you miss the pitches in the zone, rather by not swinging at more balls out of the zone you maximize the number of swings you get at pitches in the zone. Granted this is much easier said than done, but it goes to show you what happens if you become more patient at the plate, and swing at fewer bad pitches.

Topcat
07-09-2009, 04:43 PM
Love Reynolds as a DH but as a positional player ummmmmmmmmm not so much. LF maybe and hope he doesnt commit 34 errors playing there :eek: