OnlyBucs

7A4844445062414845404F48290 wrote:

Which makes Reynolds "just another suspect."  So I guess he's nobody special after all. 


Yes, San Francisco really hoodwinked Huntington into taking Crick for McCutchen. I bet Reynolds was just a throw-in -- who ended up somehow magically being good. I suspect to think otherwise would mean giving the Pirates (and in this case specifically NH) some credit.



I'm agnostic as to whether they should trade Reynolds. But it's not a given that every trade the club -- let alone Cherington -- makes will be a disaster of Archer proportions. Trading him might improve the Pirates. Good trades happen too. I wonder if the Giants would do that trade again. Alas, I've noticed that McCutchen bringing back Reynolds has been memory holed in some quarters.

1F495F4B445E4E45485F6D4A404C4441034E2D0 wrote:

Not to mention Polanco’s a ”great player”.




The folks who want the Pirates to sign everyone to long-term contracts because that wouldn't be "cheap" tend to leave out examples like Polanco. And Kevin Young. And Pat Mears...

142A25252F2621222F2F0B26312C430 wrote:

Not to mention Polanco’s a ”great player”.




The folks who want the Pirates to sign everyone to long-term contracts because that wouldn't be "cheap" tend to leave out examples like Polanco.  And Kevin Young.  And Pat Mears...


But it was you who wrote that Polanco is a “great” player.

742234202F35252E233406212B272F2A6825460 wrote:

But it was you who wrote that Polanco is a “great” player.




I was hoping it would be obvious that my tongue was firmly in my cheek throughout that whole post, but my hopes have been dashed.



On the other hand, I have no doubt Polanco is indeed "great" at certain things...

I still think he was a reasonable risk to sign like that at the time though.

Also, I'm interested in seeing what a Marte trade is going to look like here . . . both compared to what our deal was and what we could be looking at for our own CFer.

162428283C0E2D24292C2324450 wrote: I still think he was a reasonable risk to sign like that at the time though. 


It was absolutely reasonable. I personally wouldn't have signed him to his current contract, but it was a reasonable risk, I agree. And, regardless, his downfall the past few years had little to do with preventing the team from being a playoff team in any event, so I suppose the only losers here are Bob Nutting's ledger and us fans. But it is a reminder of what can happen with the long-term contracts a certain number of fans continue to clamor for.

I dont think we have many untradeable players. So, if some team wants Reynolds, I'd say, "What are you willing to cough up? It better be good." Aside from that, I see no reason to trade him.

714F40404A4344474A4A6E435449260 wrote:

But it was you who wrote that Polanco is a “great” player.




I was hoping it would be obvious that my tongue was firmly in my cheek throughout that whole post, but my hopes have been dashed.



On the other hand, I have no doubt Polanco is indeed "great" at certain things...


Possibly, but none of those are baseball related. He’s been average in nearly every way throughout his career.

41737F7F6B597A737E7B7473120 wrote: I still think he was a reasonable risk to sign like that at the time though. 


In hindsight, you may be right.  The club was betting on him getting better, but he never really improved much and, in fact, regressed in many ways, especially defensively. I don’t know if that was evident at the time of his getting his current contract, but it didn’t take long thereafter for it to show.