Long weekend costs Mark Reynolds millions

The Boston Globe reports that Mark Reynolds missed being a 'super two' by three days of service time. This is important, because it means he does not qualify for arbitration this winter - if he had, it would likely have cost the Diamondbacks a lot more money, given his 40-homer performance. Instead, he'll still basically get the league minimum, or close to, in 2010. That "long weekend" likely saved Arizona about $4.5m. Elsewhere, be interesting see what Timmeh gets from the Giants, as he will be a super two...

3 months ago Jim McLennan 14 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

in a case like this

is it better to go ahead and reward your player with a boost in income above what they are currently making or do you play the “it’s a business” card and give him the minimum and hope that you don’t need to build any goodwill between the player and the franchise?

I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....

by piratedan7 on Oct 20, 2009 2:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It might be a good time

To mention a contract extension. If you can buy out all the arb years now, then you can give him an increase this season, based on the cost-certainty and savings from a couple of years down the line.

"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by Jim McLennan on Oct 20, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was going to say the same thing

He just missed out on a big pay day. Do we give it to him anyway with an extra year or two? I vote in favor of this. This way the organization gets benefits and Mark gets paid. Win – win.

Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.

by AJforAZ on Oct 20, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

For an organization that seems so intent on having a “face of the franchise” (although that was probably more Moorad than anything else), Reynolds sure seems like the best candidate because of the increase in both his play and his presence in the locker room last year.

by Azreous on Oct 20, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's also

always better to have a home-grown “FOTF”.

Webby was it for a couple years, but…..

I have a shrine dedicated to Mark Reynolds, wherein I keep his bobblehead, signed baseball, and jersey T-shirt.

by DbacksSkins on Oct 22, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This will get done

After all, we can’t have completely crap luck on extensions, right? (Aside from Haren, it’s been CY, Snyder, and Byrnes all failing at being good after extensions. Only hope for CY remains)

Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"

by IHateSouthBend on Oct 20, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

Push hard now for his arbitation years at least. Maybe if we show him the money right now, so soon after he got screwed by the Super 2 ruling, we can get a couple of team options in there at the end.

I would LOVE to have team options on Reynolds during his peak years. He could be amazing. But best to hedge against his also striking out 350 times a year by then.

by Counsellmember on Oct 21, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Phew! Big break! In terms of an extension, I’d be a little careful. Reynolds is great, but he’s such a bizarre player historically (contact rate, BABIP, etc), I’d be a little careful with rich extensions. Plus, we may want to see how things shake out over the course of the season to see what our long term goals are (when our target range is for going for it).

"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8

by njjohn on Oct 20, 2009 8:48 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

When talking extension, the fact his defense is bad should also be taken into account. Taking into consideration we’ll have him locked up for free next year, and then pay him something like $20M for his 3 arb years (I pulled this number out of my ass, but it sounds about right), we should not go higher than $36M for 6 years. Maybe $25M for 5 years plus a $10M option for 2014.

Btw, this is huge news, saves us a nice chunk of money!

by paqs on Oct 21, 2009 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

in all honesty

his fielding is like his hitting. He has improved but there are still some holes. I also believe that a competent first sacker might save him a few gaffes because last year, whomever we had at first didn’t dig balls out of the dirt very well costing our fielders and pitchers some unexpected grief. On a side note, he was 2nd only to Zimmerman in Washington in the total number of “web gems” earned by the guys who end up watching baseball every night, so there is a fair number of " oh wow!" defensive plays there as well. Not sure we’re gonna get a discount based on his defensive numbers.

I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....

by piratedan7 on Oct 21, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whenever a guy can create outs

By consistently diving into the stands, that has to be worth something. His D isn’t as much of a huge gaping problem anymore, I agree.

by IHateSouthBend on Oct 21, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great point about Web Gems

I saw that too and think it’s great! He may have holes in his game, but you can’t say enough about how hard he’s tried. I think Reynold is someone who will continue to improve defensively.

I’m much more worried about Drew, I think we have basically seen the range of his abilities, which are pretty average with the glove.

by Counsellmember on Oct 21, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs