325 replies to this topic

[Corsi]

That link gave me a malware warning

Looks like a mod deleted my original. Apologies for the malware warning. Link was shortened automatically via TweetDeck.

[RedOctober3829]

Who is Marino Pepen? Is this a credible source?

[Corsi]

Who is Marino Pepen? Is this a credible source?

His report was passed along by two of the writers at SoxProspects so I figured it was legit.

[absintheofmalaise]

Since about 99% of us only read English, could you post a translation next time please.

[Corsi]

Since about 99% of us only read English, could you post a translation next time please.

I went back to post translation, but by that time the post was gone.

Essentially, Sox are close to signing Napoli after meeting with him yesterday.

[bosockboy]

Google translation:
PARIRROJAS NEWS: # RedSox close to signing Mike Napoli, after meeting with the player this weekend. # MLB # RedSoxNation

[absintheofmalaise]

I went back to post translation, but by that time the post was gone.

Essentially, Sox are close to signing Napoli after meeting with him yesterday.

That's because of the malware warning.

[bosockboy]

Apparently Pepen broke the Ortiz agreement and works for SportsNation on ESPN. Seems to have some sort of Sox connection.

[pokey_reese]

I worry about the defensive downgrade at first, especially if we are essentially going to be starting a rookie left side of the infield with WMB and Iglesias. I would much rather sacrifice a little offense to get defensive stability at the position, given that he will be scooping for the youngsters.

I haven't watched Napoli at first much, but maybe he has good hands as a catcher, and his defensive problems are mainly range? If so, being next to Pedroia could help ameliorate some of that risk.

[RedOctober3829]

They are not close RT “@Dan_OMara: @Marino_Pepen tweeted that the Sox are close to signing Napoli. Can you confirm this?”

Jen Royle should know since she is close to Napoli.

https://twitter.com/...892535142244352

[Corsi]

Jen Royle tweets that the sides are not close.

[absintheofmalaise]

Which is why it is sometimes better to wait before you just post Twitter links in threads. Maybe wait till more than one confirms.

[Rice4HOF]

I worry about the defensive downgrade at first, especially if we are essentially going to be starting a rookie left side of the infield with WMB and Iglesias. I would much rather sacrifice a little offense to get defensive stability at the position, given that he will be scooping for the youngsters.

I haven't watched Napoli at first much, but maybe he has good hands as a catcher, and his defensive problems are mainly range? If so, being next to Pedroia could help ameliorate some of that risk.

If Igelsias is our starting shortstop, then the last thing I'm going to worry about is defence at first base. We'll need all the offence we can get.

[OCD SS]

Of course, but do they need an overpaid one filling a 25-man roster spot, or can they just hand the spot to a position player who's not playing in the field that day? Fewer teams are taking the first option now.

It's a side argument to the 1B thread, but I think that AL teams would be much better off employing a full time DH (as the Sox have with Ortiz) rather than just rotating guys who need to take it easy through the DH slot. In a post-steroid era where offense is harder to come by, that is a line-up slot that should be maximized, allowing them to employ a bat that can hit in the heart of the order, but shouldn't be in the field. The key (as the Sox have with Ortiz) is finding someone who doesn't really suffer from the DH/ PH penalty at the plate. (That to me makes DH a legitimate position.)

OTOH if a player is at less than 100% you're already sacrificing some of that bat to the DH/ PH penalty, and then a bit more because they're dinged up. At that point the team is probably better off just giving that player a day off and relying on the slugger they're paying at a fairly reasonable cost to go out and hit. The difference between the back-up fielder and the penalties incurred by the winded starter are probably close to canceling each other out. At the same time using the DH as a rotation relies on injuries and days off to happen on an ideal schedule, which is just usually not the case.

[seantoo]

If Igelsias is our starting shortstop, then the last thing I'm going to worry about is defence at first base. We'll need all the offence we can get.

Then again a bad defensive firstbasemen can negate good Defense at other infield positions. If Nomar had Adrian Gonzalez at first he'd have won a gold glove he IMHO likely did not because he did not have a good defensive back then.

[mabrowndog]

Then again a bad defensive firstbasemen can negate good Defense at other infield positions. If Nomar had Adrian Gonzalez at first he'd have won a gold glove he IMHO likely did not because he did not have a good defensive back then.

The premise in your first sentence certainly has some truth, but regardless of who might have played 1B Nomar was never going to win a Gold Glove as long as Omar Vizquel and A-Rod were in the AL

[HriniakPosterChild]

It's a side argument to the 1B thread, but I think that AL teams would be much better off employing a full time DH (as the Sox have with Ortiz) rather than just rotating guys who need to take it easy through the DH slot. In a post-steroid era where offense is harder to come by, that is a line-up slot that should be maximized, allowing them to employ a bat that can hit in the heart of the order, but shouldn't be in the field. The key (as the Sox have with Ortiz) is finding someone who doesn't really suffer from the DH/ PH penalty at the plate. (That to me makes DH a legitimate position.)

OTOH if a player is at less than 100% you're already sacrificing some of that bat to the DH/ PH penalty, and then a bit more because they're dinged up. At that point the team is probably better off just giving that player a day off and relying on the slugger they're paying at a fairly reasonable cost to go out and hit. The difference between the back-up fielder and the penalties incurred by the winded starter are probably close to canceling each other out. At the same time using the DH as a rotation relies on injuries and days off to happen on an ideal schedule, which is just usually not the case.

Suppose everything you say is true and also that the front office would plan to DH Napoli fulltime after Ortiz has retired. Why should they/we believe he doesn't really suffer from the DH/ PH penalty at the plate?

[OttoC]

The Book says that the DH/PH penalty varies significantly from player to player. And although the sample size is small (186 PA), Napoli has an OPS over 100 points higher at DH than he does for a career mark. I'd like to see that study to learn what effect small-sample-size DHs have on it. If you look at AL batting splits by position, you find that DH only trails 1B in OPS among position players but when you look at the NL splits, their DHs trail all their other position players in OPS (except pitchers).

[redsoxstiff]

Well, J.D. Drew was 31 when the Sox gave him a 5 year deal, with a career OPS+ of 132 (to Napoli's 126). Granted, Drew had defensive value but Napoli can potentially catch. Both have obviously missed a lot of time in their careers. Was it wise to go 5 years on Drew? No, and it likely wouldn't be wise to do so on Napoli- but for an upper echelon free agent, you have to outbid the market. It seems likely that someone will give Napoli five years.

It seems easier to fiddle with the numbers in this "market' than the years...

If we take on the chin with a middling player[time wise]]...I'd rather go for it all...balls to the wall...If we are going to go over get Hamilton and be done...

[DanoooME]

It's a side argument to the 1B thread, but I think that AL teams would be much better off employing a full time DH (as the Sox have with Ortiz) rather than just rotating guys who need to take it easy through the DH slot. In a post-steroid era where offense is harder to come by, that is a line-up slot that should be maximized, allowing them to employ a bat that can hit in the heart of the order, but shouldn't be in the field. The key (as the Sox have with Ortiz) is finding someone who doesn't really suffer from the DH/ PH penalty at the plate. (That to me makes DH a legitimate position.)

OTOH if a player is at less than 100% you're already sacrificing some of that bat to the DH/ PH penalty, and then a bit more because they're dinged up. At that point the team is probably better off just giving that player a day off and relying on the slugger they're paying at a fairly reasonable cost to go out and hit. The difference between the back-up fielder and the penalties incurred by the winded starter are probably close to canceling each other out. At the same time using the DH as a rotation relies on injuries and days off to happen on an ideal schedule, which is just usually not the case.

The bolded above inrigued me. It's only one year's worth of data,but.here's 2012 DH production (AL only as the NL sample size is only 9 games)

DH Breakdowns

Team	Total Players	TM AVG	TM OBP	TM SLG	TM sOPS+	Most Games	Who	2nd Most	Who
BOS	19	278	360	473	121	81	David Ortiz	17	Ryan Lavarnway
KCR	8	302	360	475	121	138	Billy Butler	8	Brayan Pena
NYY	16	293	362	497	117	38	Alex Rodriguez	28	Raul Ibanez
TOR	17	266	340	469	114	82	Edwin Encarnacion	32	Adam Lind
LAA	7	273	321	468	108	92	Kendrys Morales	34	Albert Pujols
CHW	12	230	335	445	107	93	Adam Dunn	39	Paul Konerko
MIN	10	253	336	427	103	48	Ryan Doumit	42	Joe Mauer
OAK	11	256	345	437	100	52	Jonny Gomes	50	Seth Smith
TEX	13	265	323	432	100	72	Michael Young	23	Adrain Beltre
BAL	16	240	323	407	94	60	Chris Davis	27	Jim Thome
CLE	15	226	317	385	87	62	Travis Hafner	27	Carlos Santana
DET	12	257	291	395	82	118	Delmon Young	11	Amdy Dirks
TBR	18	228	289	397	81	83	Luke Scott	25	Evan Longoria
SEA	12	214	287	310	60	78	Jesus Montero	47	John Jaso

It's kind of a mixed bag, as the top two teams did have a main DH (at least until Ortiz got hurt in the Sox' case). But the #3 team was the Yankees who had the lowest number of games by their primary DH by far. And Detroit, who had the player with the 2nd most individual games at DH, had one of the worst OPS+ numbers. I think there needs to be more data to see if there's any kind of pattern here.

• Back to top

[OCD SS]

The bolded above inrigued me. It's only one year's worth of data,but.here's 2012 DH production (AL only as the NL sample size is only 9 games)

It's kind of a mixed bag, as the top two teams did have a main DH (at least until Ortiz got hurt in the Sox' case). But the #3 team was the Yankees who had the lowest number of games by their primary DH by far. And Detroit, who had the player with the 2nd most individual games at DH, had one of the worst OPS+ numbers. I think there needs to be more data to see if there's any kind of pattern here.

Thanks for adding the data, I admit that this is something that I think intuitively feels right, but I haven't delved into the numbers in detail. Part of this may be a hold over from when it seemed that some of the smarter teams did employ full time DH's when they could. I'm thinking about guys like Frank Thomas, Hafner, and Ortiz. The Yankees always seemed to have too old a roster to effectively manage that strategy and the A's were maybe a bit too cheap (or were playing DH's all over the field). A big part of my prejudice against a DH rotation is that in the abstract it would always seem like you could find a guy who needs a day off, but the ouchies/ injuries never really align so conveniently...

I didn't look that closely at if Napoli would fit this profile, and I'm not sure that I expect him to age as well as Ortiz has anyway, but I think the Sox are better off taking full advantage of the offensive leverage the DH spot allows, especially if they're going to sacrifice offense at other positions. I would rather not give Napoli 4 years, unless the 4th yr lessens the overall contract so that it's not really that much more than an option commitment...

[maufman]

I worry about the defensive downgrade at first, especially if we are essentially going to be starting a rookie left side of the infield with WMB and Iglesias. I would much rather sacrifice a little offense to get defensive stability at the position, given that he will be scooping for the youngsters.

I haven't watched Napoli at first much, but maybe he has good hands as a catcher, and his defensive problems are mainly range? If so, being next to Pedroia could help ameliorate some of that risk.

I think defense at 1B is underrated, so I'm curious how much the Nationals' QO is going to drive down LaRoche's price.

LaRoche is pretty much the textbook case of the sort of free agent you should never sign -- i.e., a not-great player who will cost you a draft pick, is entering his age 33 season, and is coming off a career year. At some point, however, financial considerations will overwhelm those factors. If LaRoche costs 3/30 and a 2nd-round pick, that's probably a better deal than 4/48 for Napoli.

Edited by maufman, 26 November 2012 - 11:45 AM.

[Div School Sox Fan]

Can you explain what you mean by "regressed 5-4-3 WAR projection" here? If it means what I think it means, it gives too much weight to his career year in 2011, and also his career high GP in 2010.

Also, I'm curious if "regressed" takes into account that Napoli is entering his age 31 season -- when projecting a player's age 31-34 production, obviously a steep discount from his age 28-30 production is needed.

1) It's based on Tango's studies of player projection, the basis for his Marcel system. You do a regressed weighted average of the previous three seasons - for a position player projection for 2013, you weight 2012 as 5/14, 2011 as 4/14, 2010 as 3/14 and league average as 2/14. I disagree that this method gives "too much weight" to any of those seasons - these are broadly speaking the correct weights for doing a projection.

2) It is true that this doesn't account for aging. A player heading into his age 31 season will probably underperform the regressed, weighted average by a bit. If you think Napoli is likely to age quite badly (not unreasonable given body type and position), then you could adjust it down even more.

This is just a baseline. I think that it may be the case that Napoli isn't worth a 3/36 contract, but your original claim was that any "saber" method would treat Napoli as a horrendous signing at these rates, and I don't think that's correct. So long as you treat Napoli as a relatively normal 30-year-old rather than a 30-year-old destined to collapse, I think the contract numbers bandied about are in the realm of reasonable, based on a simple projection baseline.

[maufman]

This is just a baseline. I think that it may be the case that Napoli isn't worth a 3/36 contract, but your original claim was that any "saber" method would treat Napoli as a horrendous signing at these rates, and I don't think that's correct. So long as you treat Napoli as a relatively normal 30-year-old rather than a 30-year-old destined to collapse, I think the contract numbers bandied about are in the realm of reasonable, based on a simple projection baseline.

Thanks.

Our disagreement is more about the dollars than the projections. The dollars being discussed lately are more like 4-5 years at 8 figures per season. Somewhere between 3/36 and those numbers, imo a line is crossed between a reasonable overpay to fill a position of need and a horrendous signing.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Thanks.

Our disagreement is more about the dollars than the projections. The dollars being discussed lately are more like 4-5 years at 8 figures per season. Somewhere between 3/36 and those numbers, imo a line is crossed between a reasonable overpay to fill a position of need and a horrendous signing.

Would be better described as a difference over the years, rather than the dollars? I'd be OK with 3/36, but not with 4/48 or 5/60. I think 5/60 would be an awful contract and 4/48 a bad one because of the likelihood that he is a waste of money by year 5. Sounds like what you're saying is more in line with this than the AAV's being floated around.

[maufman]

Would be better described as a difference over the years, rather than the dollars? I'd be OK with 3/36, but not with 4/48 or 5/60. I think 5/60 would be an awful contract and 4/48 a bad one because of the likelihood that he is a waste of money by year 5. Sounds like what you're saying is more in line with this than the AAV's being floated around.

There's a huge difference between 3/36 and 4/48.

You can't disregard either total money or AAV, but they're not equally important. Most free agents weigh total money much more heavily than AAV, which makes total money the right measuring stick to use in assessing how big a commitment is needed to land a given player. Therefore, our willingness to give a player like Napoli more AAV on a shorter deal isn't terribly relevant. 4/44 is a lot more like 4/48 than it is like 3/36 -- both in terms of the attractiveness of the offer to a free agent, and the risk/reward analysis for the club making the offer.

So yeah, somewhere in the gap between $36mm and $48mm, I go from being a tepid supporter of signing Napoli to a forceful opponent. But the latter is a 33% increase on the former, so I think it's irrational to have roughly the same opinion of both proposals.

Edited by maufman, 26 November 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[radsoxfan]

There's a huge difference between 3/36 and 4/48.

You can't disregard either total money or AAV, but they're not equally important. Most free agents weigh total money much more heavily than AAV, which makes total money the right measuring stick to use in assessing how big a commitment is needed to land a given player. Therefore, our willingness to give a player like Napoli more AAV on a shorter deal isn't terribly relevant. 4/44 is a lot more like 4/48 than it is like 3/36 -- both in terms of the attractiveness of the offer to a free agent, and the risk/reward analysis for the club making the offer.

So yeah, somewhere in the gap between $36mm and $48mm, I go from being a tepid supporter of signing Napoli to a forceful opponent. But the latter is a 33% increase on the former, so I think it's irrational to have roughly the same opinion of both proposals.

I don't think it's particularly irrational to have a similar opinion of both contracts. Looking at the 48 million offer as 33% more money is not the way I would view it at all.

Now I completely agree, I would prefer Napoli on a 3/36 deal compared to 4/48. But in the almost pathologic desire to avoid long term commitments, I think people sometimes go overboard in drastically favoring shorter deals.

The 3/36 contract and the 4/48 contract are the exact same financial commitment, with the exact same luxury tax implications (less important now I know) in the 2013-2015 seasons. Nothing changes at all from the Red Sox perspective over that time. The only difference is what happens for one season, in 2016.

Essentially, the question becomes, how much would you be willing to guarantee a currently 31 year old Mike Napoli right now for the 2016 season on a 1 year contract. Clearly 12 million is on the high side for someone who will likely be a DH or a poor fielding 1B and likely won't be able to catch much. And of course there is a real risk of injury or underperformance in the next 3 years, which would make him far less valuable in 2016 than he would seem to be now.

At the same time, lets not pretend that 4th year has little or no value to the team either. Of course reasonable minds can differ on that value precisely (but to pick a number), I'd probably think the break even point on a 1 year negotiation for the 2016 season for Mike Napoli might be in the 8M range, especially given the prospect of salary inflation. Basically, I'd be willing to guess there is a 50% chance that turns out to be a better than market value for the Sox, and a 50% chance that is a less than market value deal for the Sox.

By this logic, if I think 3/36 is a good deal, I should also think 4/44 is a good deal. Simply saying at "36M = good" and "48 M = bad" is sort of missing the point. If someone thinks 3/36 is a pretty good idea, I can still easily understand someone thinking 4/48 is also worth doing (although likely a few million of an overpay in year 4).

Edited by radsoxfan, 26 November 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[RedOctober3829]

Source: Napoli appears to be #RedSox' No. 1 free-agent pursuit; everyone else "1A." Meeting with Texas tomorrow, could decide before next wk

https://twitter.com/...516306140123138

[SoxScout]

Texas writers say that meeting in Texas is today.

[Corsi]

Peter Gammons said that Boston has the most interest in Napoli, but he’s hearing the team is hesitant to offer him a three-year contract because of concerns about his defensive prowess at first base. The Red Sox also have first base prospect Travis Shaw coming up through the minors, who could be ready by the end of next season.

http://nesn.com/2012...-gammons-video/

[Rudy Pemberton]

Odd rationale. They think his defense at first is good enough for two years, but will be unacceptable in year three, even though they'll have an opening at DH? And Travis Shaw is suddenly a big time 1B prospect? Gammons is back on the Sox payroll, love it.

Weren't there rumors the other day about a 4-5 year deal?

[Drek717]

Odd rationale. They think his defense at first is good enough for two years, but will be unacceptable in year three, even though they'll have an opening at DH? And Travis Shaw is suddenly a big time 1B prospect? Gammons is back on the Sox payroll, love it.

Weren't there rumors the other day about a 4-5 year deal?

The rumor was that Seattle was willing to go 4 years and the Sox didn't want to if I recall correctly.

The concern about a 3rd year sure reads like the FO trying to convince the Napoli camp that a 3 year deal is a "win" for them, not for the Sox (as opposed to a 4 year deal), but it isn't completely over the top FO mouthpiece material, just a little slanted.

When Gammons not only talks about Shaw as a legit starting 1B prospect but adds that he could be ready by the end of 2013 he fully jumps the shark.

[Corsi]

The Red Sox are engaging in talk with free-agent first baseman Adam LaRoche as a possible first-base alternative toMike Napoli.

Boston is believed to have offered Napoli a three-year deal but is reluctant to add a fourth year. LaRoche is expected to command three years, though negotiations are just getting started.

Napoli has drawn strong interest from the Mariners, who are talking to him, and also the incumbent Rangers.

http://www.cbssports...-goes-elsewhere

[E5 Yaz]

@jaysonst And if the Red Sox signed LaRoche, they would lose their second-round pick. That's a big deal to this group

[maufman]

The Rangers' unwillingness to extend a QO probably means they aren't serious bidders. Unless a "mystery team" emerges, it's between us and Seattle.

At the same time, lets not pretend that 4th year has little or no value to the team either. Of course reasonable minds can differ on that value precisely (but to pick a number), I'd probably think the break even point on a 1 year negotiation for the 2016 season for Mike Napoli might be in the 8M range, especially given the prospect of salary inflation. Basically, I'd be willing to guess there is a 50% chance that turns out to be a better than market value for the Sox, and a 50% chance that is a less than market value deal for the Sox.

I haven't done a study, but I suspect the final year of a 4+ year contract seldom ends up being a good deal for the club.

I'm interested to see what PECOTA projects for Napoli this spring -- not so much their 2013 projection, which won't be much different from the other systems out there, but their long-range outlook. It seems to me there's a fair chance (not 50/50, but perhaps one-in-three) that Napoli won't be a useful major-league player by 2016. I mean, it's not hard to see him being unable to play the field by then, and if he projects for a mid-800s OPS in 2013 at age 31, how much will that have deteriorated by age 34? A righty who can't field and posts a sub-800 OPS is pretty much useless. (Insert Jonny Gomes joke here.)

Edited by maufman, 29 November 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[JakeRae]

The Rangers' unwillingness to extend a QO probably means they aren't serious bidders. Unless a "mystery team" emerges, it's between us and Seattle.



I haven't done a study, but I suspect the final year of a 4+ year contract seldom ends up being a good deal for the club.

I'm interested to see what PECOTA projects for Napoli this spring -- not so much their 2013 projection, which won't be much different from the other systems out there, but their long-range outlook. It seems to me there's a fair chance (not 50/50, but perhaps one-in-three) that Napoli won't be a useful major-league player by 2016. I mean, it's not hard to see him being unable to play the field by then, and if he projects for a mid-800s OPS in 2013 at age 31, how much will that have deteriorated by age 34? A righty who can't field and posts a sub-800 OPS is pretty much useless. (Insert Jonny Gomes joke here.)

The other side of this coin is, how much should his offense improve by not being asked to catch anymore? For his career, he is actually better as a C than at 1B and best at DH offensively although the latter two categories are SSS and the majority of the difference is BABIP driven (although his DH BB% and ISO numbers are enough better than his positional numbers to make the idea that he is best suited to DH an intriguing proposition for the 2015+ Red Sox). Still, the general trend is for catchers to add offense when they leave the rigors of the position behind. He should also be able to improve his 1B defense in the short term with a full Spring Training at the position and playing there every day. I'm not proposing a large effect here, but if we are marginally underestimating his true talent level, that could have a big impact on his value over the course of 3 or 4 years.

[Yo La Tengo]

Span to the Nationals likely means that Morse is their 1B and LaRoche is no longer an option. I'm not interested in signing LaRoche, but having him on the market could temper the Napoli price tag a bit.

[bohous]

Span to the Nationals likely means that Morse is their 1B and LaRoche is no longer an option. I'm not interested in signing LaRoche, but having him on the market could temper the Napoli price tag a bit.

Stark on Twitter

Jayson Stark‏@jaysonst
In the wake of Denard Span deal, #Nationals are "definitely shopping Mike Morse a little bit," says AL exec. Could deal Morse & sign LaRoche

I admittedly don't know much about Morse. Primarily an OFer last couple of years but 85 games at 1b in 2011. If you think he can stay on the field and replicate his 2011 could be a good value get.

edit: spelling and stuff

Edited by bohous, 30 November 2012 - 12:51 PM.

[HriniakPosterChild]

Stark on Twitter




I admittedly don't know much about Morse. Primarily an OFer last couple of years but 85 games at 1b in 2011. If you think he can stay on the field and replicate his 2011 could be a good value get.

edit: spelling and stuff

Dave Cameron's take:

Mike Morse, 1B/DH/cover-your-eyes-OF

You may remember Morse as an underpowered guy who couldn’t defend even a corner OF position and got shipped off because the Mariners had a similar prospect in Matt Tuiasasopo.

[Washington] put up with his horrific outfield defense long enough, and between the injury problems and his awful approach at the plate, they’re not convinced that he’s a championship caliber first baseman. So, rather than pay him $7 million to be a pinch-hitter in the final year of his contract, they’re looking to see if anyone else wants to take him off their hands.

--
Edit: Hit Send too soon.

Edited by HriniakPosterChild, 30 November 2012 - 08:07 PM.

[Corsi]

Mark Reynolds non tendered by the Orioles.

[SoxLegacy]

Wow, that is definitely a caution inspiring analysis of Morse, and I hope and pray that the Sox have nothing to do with Reynolds.

[OttoC]

Wow, that is definitely a caution inspiring analysis of Morse, and I hope and pray that the Sox have nothing to do with Reynolds.

I think I'd rather have Reynolds than LaRoche.

[NHbeau]

I think I'd rather have Reynolds than LaRoche.

Him or Morse would be better than 3 years of LaRoche.

[SoxLegacy]

Agreed in hoping that LaRoche is also not on the front burner for the Sox. I think that he is a bad contract waiting to happen due to athe myriad of factors as noted above.

[YTF]

I think I'd rather have Reynolds than LaRoche.

I gotta tell you that I'm intrigued by Reynolds. We all know him as low average, good power and tons of Ks, but in his first and third seasons (of six played) he hit .279 and .260. Seasons 2-5 he averaged over 150 games played. In 2009........44HR, 102 RBI, 76 BB, .260 BA, .349 OBP, .892OPS while striking out 223 times. Granted this WAS while playing in the NL West with the D'Backs, but the guy's just 29 yo and if the Sox can move back toward being a disciplined team at the plate they might be able to get this guy to cut down some on the Ks and raise his BA a bit and at the same time find a bit of value here and Reynolds can play both corner infield positions. Wonder what it might take in years and $$$ to sign him.

[SoxLegacy]

I gotta tell you that I'm intrigued by Reynolds. We all know him as low average, good power and tons of Ks, but in his first and third seasons (of six played) he hit .279 and .260. Seasons 2-5 he averaged over 150 games played. In 2009........44HR, 102 RBI, 76 BB, .260 BA, .349 OBP, .892OPS while striking out 223 times. Granted this WAS while playing in the NL West with the D'Backs, but the guy's just 29 yo and if the Sox can move back toward being a disciplined team at the plate they might be able to get this guy to cut down some on the Ks and raise his BA a bit and at the same time find a bit of value here and Reynolds can play both corner infield positions. Wonder what it might take in years and $$$ to sign him.

While I understand your interest, there is no way Reynolds should ever see the field from the 3B position. He really is a butcher. Living in the Baltimore area I have seen a lot of him and he is a feast or famine guy at the plate. A friend who is an O's fan was quite happy to see him non-tendered--he compared Reynolds to Rob Deer, Pete Incaviglia and even brought up the name of Dave Kingman. Now I am not saying he is that bad, but those are not comparisons that give me hope.
Edit: Went to B-R and looked at the numbers for Inky, Deer, and Reynolds:

BA OBP SLG OPS
Inky: .246/.310/..448/.758
Deer: .220/.324/.442/.766
Reynolds:.235/.332/..475/.807

Actually, Kingman's name appears as one of Reynolds comps, as does Tony Conigliaro, Mike Schmidt, Dean Palmer, and several other swing for the fences types.His first two comps by age were with Schmidt, the most recent ones to Palmer. Reynolds does have a big bat, but that massive amount of K's gives me pause.

Edited by SoxLegacy, 01 December 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[OttoC]

I certainly wasn't thinking of Reynolds as a third baseman but even though he strikes out a lot, he also walks. Over the last four seasons has has walked 73 to 83 times, which would have ranked him near the top of the Red Sox club from 2010-12. Also for his career, almost half of his hits have been for extra bases (340/399).

[SoxLegacy]

I certainly wasn't thinking of Reynolds as a third baseman but even though he strikes out a lot, he also walks. Over the last four seasons has has walked 73 to 83 times, which would have ranked him near the top of the Red Sox club from 2010-12. Also for his career, almost half of his hits have been for extra bases (340/399).

This is very true and hard to understand. I've seen him flail away at terrible pitches and look just awful at the plate on numerous occasions, and other times he's drawing a couple of passes in a game.

[The Boomer]

This is very true and hard to understand. I've seen him flail away at terrible pitches and look just awful at the plate on numerous occasions, and other times he's drawing a couple of passes in a game.

He actually played SS at UVA and in the ml on his way up with the Diamondbacks. He should be able to slide across the infield and play a decent 1B which ought to allow him to work more on his hitting. Batting not higher than 5th and regularly lower in most Sox lineups, he will be more than adequate and is still young enough to have better seasons at the plate. He might be their best choice as a free agent unless a trade for someone better is out there. A single season make good deal or one for 2 but not more than 3 years at a price comparable to the contract non- tendered would be worth it IMO.

[SoxLegacy]

Boomer, I saw that he started out as a SS which makes his poor glove work even more strange. He did turn in a very credible performance at first once he was settled in and moving back and forth between the corners. Maybe you are right and he would be an ok fill in. That high K number scares me though.