Add new comment

Like Doc boomerangs back to eye ratio with the regularity of Old Faithful, I remain stuck in the infinite loop of "order matters".  Two years ago I noted that in building a ball club, the ORDER that one assembles a team is critical to actually succeeding at getting ALL the part needed to win a pennant or a ring in place AT THE SAME TIME.
Mark Reynolds?  Fine ballplayer.  My comp would be - the righty version of Russell Branyan - only allowed to play full-time -- and one who has likely gotten a decent boost in numbers from playing in Arizona - (while his HR home/away split is even - his OPS split is .852/.784).  Trust me, while Arizona is no Coors - it DOES have the ability to inflate the performance of a select sub-set of hitters.
Baseball has long had a distinct distaste for anyone who cannot get a hit 1 of 4 times.  The .250 BA, (not .200), is the REAL bottom line for what the bulk of baseball deems acceptable.  It's the ONLY reason Branyan couldn't get a full-time gig prior to Seattle - (and why even after his stellar year, he couldn't make any money).
The .198 BA from 2010 doesn't scare me.  The .235 ROAD BA for his career DOES.  That's in "average" parks, against the (perceived), inferior NL pitching.  The problem is - Branyan's .230/.330/.490 line (as a lefty) was driven by MONSTER HRs that could make it out of the Laurentian Abyssal.  Park don't matter to Branyan.
Park will matter to Reynolds - especially safeco.  So, yes, while you do need some right-hand hitters, I think a "reasonable" projection for Reynolds in Safeco would begin with his .240/.330/.460 road line -- and chop off 20 points of average and 40 points of slugging.  That turns him into a .220/.310/.420 (.730) guy - hitting high 20s HRs and fanning 220 times.  Didn't the club just spend the last 4 years with a .730 so-so glove RH power hitter, who could "just barely" hit HRs in Safeco - who was only getting 1, 2 and 3 million to play? 
BUT - the part that triggers my "order matters" hot button is: (contract is '11 - '13 (5; 7; 11 million - (500k buyout)).  Locking in 5 and 7 million for the next two seasons isn't horrible.  The 11 million would be (if he doesn't pan out).  But, the REAL question is opportunity cost. 
In sooooo many ways, it's the same "type" of move that Kotchman was.  He's a 1b/3b.  You ALREADY have a 3B locked up for multiple years -- you've got a supposed 1B (Smoak) that will hopefully be a mainstay for the next decade.  That leaves DH and OF for most of his ABs.  (And, of course, the plan is for Ackley to play 2B, so Figgins isn't going to pick up ABs there).
Okay - I can appreciate the "concept" of the McLemore can-play-anywhere "popcorn regular".  But, I view the value of that guy as *ONLY* materializing AFTER you have quality plugged into most of your lineup - where you'll be happy to have the swiss army knife on your bench, should all the rest of your talent stay healthy - but you won't really miss "much" if/when any number of players hit the DL.
Once-upon-a-time Figgins WAS that guy for LA -- but that was when they HAD talent everywhere.  But, clearly, Figgins was not valuable in that regard to Seattle in 2010?  Why?  Because almost every position was a black hole. 
There's a point at which having flexibility becomes useless - when moving player X from 1B to 3B simply means that the guy at first is going to hit .600 instead of the guy at third - there's no benefit.
The key here is - could there be a point in time when adding a Mark Reynolds would be a solid move?  Yes.  Is that time today?  I don't think so.  Given the specific talent in the pipeline, the positions in play - the league/park transfer downsides - and paying 5 - 7 million to a guy for 2 years, (while you're rebuilding) ... I'm just not seeing the fit.
In the end, Reynolds feels way more like the fan-happy love-child of Beltre-Lopez -- yes, he can draw a few walks to off-set some of those Ks -- but does he REALLY have the power to overcome the Safeco slide that almost all righties suffer? 
The upside is that unlike Beltre, you'd be buying low - (after the .198 season) - and when he's already signed relatively cheap for a couple of years.  But, with Beltre, the club was at least getting the BEST 3B glove in the game.  Reynolds is only a 'decent' glove. 
Honestly, I could see Reynolds as a "plan B" guy -- the guy you settle for when your primary target slips away.  In the end, I just don't see him as a significant change (production-wise) from Lopez.