PDA

View Full Version : Reds avoid arbitration with Valentin



cincinnati chili
01-15-2006, 02:53 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2293492

1. Terms are not yet disclosed.
2. There's a typo in the article. He's had 949 career at-bats.
3. One year deal

RedLegSuperStar
01-15-2006, 02:59 PM
glad to hear..

Dan O.. Hey.. 1st Base? Guy named Adam Dunn.. Hits about 40 homers a year..

captainmorgan07
01-15-2006, 03:25 PM
if he's not in talks with dunn on a ltc he should be ran out of his office with people with torches and pitchforks chasing him

Heath
01-15-2006, 03:26 PM
He doesn't play utility infielder and he doesn't hit sacrifice flies.

You know, like National League-type players :rolleyes:

Reds4Life
01-15-2006, 03:28 PM
So the Reds had time to work out a deal with Valentin but not Dunn? Outstanding! :rolleyes:

Caveat Emperor
01-15-2006, 03:36 PM
So the Reds had time to work out a deal with Valentin but not Dunn? Outstanding! :rolleyes:

Dunn has incentive to stall -- the closer he gets to arbitration, the more the pressure will be on the Reds to come up with a better long-term offer/1-year contract as opposed to letting an arbitrator decide what the value of one of the game's best young power hitters is.

I don't think the Reds are totally at fault for not having some sort of deal completed for Dunn. There's simply no reason for him to settle for whatever terms they offer right now.

That's just good negotiating on his/his agent's part.

westofyou
01-15-2006, 03:39 PM
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/


The Reds have avoided arbitration with Javier Valentin and signed him to a one-year, $1.15 million deal.

With Jason LaRue's signing just before Christmas, the Reds have brought back the most productive catcher duo in the majors (.268, 28 HR, 110 RBI between them) for just over $5 million this season. They made $3.45 million last year, so the Reds really couldn't have asked for more when it comes to the finances.

There are still five players eligible for arbitration -- Adam Dunn, Aaron Harang, Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez and Wily Mo Pena. It's been a couple of years since the Reds actually went to a hearing with someone, and I'd be surprised if it happens this year.

RedLegSuperStar
01-15-2006, 03:44 PM
Who wants to bet Harang, Mo, Lopez, And Kearns all sign before Dunn

Falls City Beer
01-15-2006, 03:44 PM
He needs to bikini-wax that stache. Pay him an extra 20 grand to get it done post haste.

RedLegSuperStar
01-15-2006, 03:45 PM
Who wants to bet Harang, Mo, Lopez, And Kearns all sign before Dunn

Cause you know..signing Dunn to a LTC is #1 Priority of the new year...

Henry Clay
01-15-2006, 03:50 PM
So the Reds had time to work out a deal with Valentin but not Dunn? Outstanding! :rolleyes:

I would have to think O'Brien has tried to negotiate with Dunn. He made a public statement about his intention. Aside from whether O'Brien has negotiated in a competent manner (open to debate), the key question is whether Dunn and his agent are willing to negotiate with O'Brien and the Reds. From Dunn's perspective, this cannot seem like a great franchise to marry long-term. During his stint with the team, the GM has changed, ownership has changed, his role has changed, and multiple popular players have been dealt, and the bedrock of the team for twenty years, Larkin, went through some rough negotiations and relations with the team and management. Griffey has been mentioned in a series of negotiations for failed trades that were denied and then later admitted (Padres, White Sox), despite the fact that he has some informal agreement with the owner regarding trades. It would be one thing for Dunn to see all of this if it resulted in a winning record and bright future. Instead, he sees no real pitching upgrades, despite the long-standing pitching problems. He sees a low quality infield logjam develop to replace the outfield one from years past. And despite his comments to the media regarding Tony Womack, I have to think he knows what OPS is and how significant (or rather insignificant) Womack's numbers are. After all, Dunn appears to maximize his OPS numbers through power (nature) and plate discipline (nurture). This front office cannot impress or inspire him.

It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't want to negotiate a long-term deal with Cincinnati. I'll be sad to see him go, but why shouldn't he maximize his earning potential through arbitration and then go where he can win once he's a free agent? This franchise is hardly worth a long-term commitment in light of the Reds' ML and minor league rosters. If nothing else, I wouldn't be surprised if he was waiting to see if new ownership brought any changes before signing on for more than a one year deal.

cincinnati chili
01-15-2006, 04:05 PM
I don't think the Reds are totally at fault for not having some sort of deal completed for Dunn.



Perhaps you are limiting your assessment to the recent past (the last year or so).

Had Dan O'Brien not been sitting on a pencil in his first months in office, he could have signed Dunn long term in December of '03.

Had Jim Bowden foreseen what many of us saw in Dunn, he could have gotten it done before getting canned.

RedLegSuperStar
01-15-2006, 04:07 PM
I would have to think O'Brien has tried to negotiate with Dunn. He made a public statement about his intention. Aside from whether O'Brien has negotiated in a competent manner (open to debate), the key question is whether Dunn and his agent are willing to negotiate with O'Brien and the Reds. From Dunn's perspective, this cannot seem like a great franchise to marry long-term. During his stint with the team, the GM has changed, ownership has changed, his role has changed, and multiple popular players have been dealt, and the bedrock of the team for twenty years, Larkin, went through some rough negotiations and relations with the team and management. Griffey has been mentioned in a series of negotiations for failed trades that were denied and then later admitted (Padres, White Sox), despite the fact that he has some informal agreement with the owner regarding trades. It would be one thing for Dunn to see all of this if it resulted in a winning record and bright future. Instead, he sees no real pitching upgrades, despite the long-standing pitching problems. He sees a low quality infield logjam develop to replace the outfield one from years past. And despite his comments to the media regarding Tony Womack, I have to think he knows what OPS is and how significant (or rather insignificant) Womack's numbers are. After all, Dunn appears to maximize his OPS numbers through power (nature) and plate discipline (nurture). This front office cannot impress or inspire him.

It wouldn't surprise me if he doesn't want to negotiate a long-term deal with Cincinnati. I'll be sad to see him go, but why shouldn't he maximize his earning potential through arbitration and then go where he can win once he's a free agent? This franchise is hardly worth a long-term commitment in light of the Reds' ML and minor league rosters. If nothing else, I wouldn't be surprised if he was waiting to see if new ownership brought any changes before signing on for more than a one year deal.


I see your points.. I just don't understand why Dunn would come out and say he wants to stay in Cincinnati. But if he does feel as you suggest then if I am the Reds I sign him to a 1 year deal and let him go out and mash homeruns and then deal him. Not a Casey deal where you get nothing in return, but for a ligitament starter and prospects.

RedLegSuperStar
01-15-2006, 04:09 PM
Perhaps you are limiting your assessment to the recent past (the last year or so).

Had Dan O'Brien not been sitting on a pencil in his first months in office, he could have signed Dunn long term in December of '03.

Had Jim Bowden foreseen what many of us saw in Dunn, he could have gotten it done before getting canned.

So so true!

Jpup
01-15-2006, 04:15 PM
I see your points.. I just don't understand why Dunn would come out and say he wants to stay in Cincinnati. But if he does feel as you suggest then if I am the Reds I sign him to a 1 year deal and let him go out and mash homeruns and then deal him. Not a Casey deal where you get nothing in return, but for a ligitament starter and prospects.

They got about all they could for Sean Casey IMO. Getting rid of his contract was the main thing and they did that. I think that is probably the best thing that DanO has done since being employed by the Reds.

What he has used the money on is horrendous.

captainmorgan07
01-15-2006, 05:00 PM
ahh the catcher combo is back hopefully they put up numbers like they did last year

KronoRed
01-15-2006, 10:03 PM
Not a bad deal, but I'm still in favor of trading one of the catchers, chances are one is going to decline.

As for Dunn..IMO Dan O has already decided to get rid of him, no deal will be done.

Henry Clay
01-15-2006, 10:27 PM
I see your points.. I just don't understand why Dunn would come out and say he wants to stay in Cincinnati. But if he does feel as you suggest then if I am the Reds I sign him to a 1 year deal and let him go out and mash homeruns and then deal him. Not a Casey deal where you get nothing in return, but for a ligitament starter and prospects.

I'm speculating, of course, but I think he is like a lot of guys who say things like this because they don't want to be seen as difficult. Moreover, it doesn't take much of a contrary message for the sports media to start reporting that a guy wants out of a place or is demanding a trade. Dunn knows he is bound to the Reds during his arbitration years unless he's traded. He loses nothing by saying he likes playing in Cincinnati unless and until he actually signs a long-term contract. He might still sign a long-term deal, but I can't imagine he would prefer to play in Cincinnati where he has lost every year when his hometown team just went to the World Series.

marcshoe
01-16-2006, 12:49 AM
Marc Lancaster just mentioned on the ORG board that he's posted news (not good) about the negotiations with Dunn on his blog. He's seeing the Reds taking care of a one year deal now, and worrying about long-term later, more by Dunn's choice than the FO's.

As to Valentin, I suggested a couple of weeks ago that the Reds trade Valentin to the Pirates, who need a catcher, for Craig Wilson, who has no future for them, but I hesitated because Wilson's contract would take money away from what was available to sign Dunn. Now I'll stretch this idea to it's illogical absurdity.

The Reds identify a decent pitching prospect in the lower levels of the Pirates' system, and trade Valentin and (here I'm dreaming) Womack to the Pirates for Wilson and said prospect. Although they have Freddy Sanchez, the Pirates list Jose Castillo, of the lifetime .303 obp (even worse than Womack's), as the starter on their depth chart, and, given some of their previous moves, would possibly consider bringing a veteran proven winner like Womack back to the team he started with as a positive thing.

Now I know the Reds would never do this, at least under current management, but it's an idea I like, and I am allowed to dream.

Red Heeler
01-16-2006, 09:15 AM
Marc Lancaster just mentioned on the ORG board that he's posted news (not good) about the negotiations with Dunn on his blog. He's seeing the Reds taking care of a one year deal now, and worrying about long-term later, more by Dunn's choice than the FO's.

As to Valentin, I suggested a couple of weeks ago that the Reds trade Valentin to the Pirates, who need a catcher, for Craig Wilson, who has no future for them, but I hesitated because Wilson's contract would take money away from what was available to sign Dunn. Now I'll stretch this idea to it's illogical absurdity.

The Reds identify a decent pitching prospect in the lower levels of the Pirates' system, and trade Valentin and (here I'm dreaming) Womack to the Pirates for Wilson and said prospect. Although they have Freddy Sanchez, the Pirates list Jose Castillo, of the lifetime .303 obp (even worse than Womack's), as the starter on their depth chart, and, given some of their previous moves, would possibly consider bringing a veteran proven winner like Womack back to the team he started with as a positive thing.

Now I know the Reds would never do this, at least under current management, but it's an idea I like, and I am allowed to dream.

In most cases, there is no such thing as untradeable when it comes to players unless they are hurt for the entire duration of their contract and were never very good to start with (see Dreifort, Darren). I never bought that Sean Casey or Junior Griffey were unmovable. The "greater fool" is always out there hoping to resurrect what was. When it comes to trading Womack, unfortunately for the Reds, I'm afraid that the greatest fool is sitting in their front offices.

marcshoe
01-16-2006, 09:28 AM
Yeah. The problem at the moment is likely that the Reds have no desire to trade Womack, in spite of the comment I saw somewhere that there was a possibility of thinning out the second basemen via trade. Womack's probably the one that O'Brien most wants to hold on to.

But there's always hope that after this week, a change is gonna come. At least I can hold that hope for the moment.

cincinnati chili
01-16-2006, 10:37 AM
Could the Reds trade Womack even if they wanted to?

I thought you couldn't trade a newly-signed player until June 1. Maybe that was just for multi-year deals

marcshoe
01-16-2006, 11:06 AM
I thought Womack was still operating under the contract he signed last year with the Yankees (with NY picking up part of it). I could be confused, though.

cincinnati chili
01-16-2006, 12:17 PM
I thought Womack was still operating under the contract he signed last year with the Yankees (with NY picking up part of it). I could be confused, though.

You're 100% right. I forgot this was a trade. My bad.

Redsland
01-16-2006, 12:49 PM
If we accept a guy in trade who has a $2MM contract, and we accept $1MM in cash to help offset that contract, and we then trade that player to a new team, can we keep the money, making his new team responsible for the whole $2MM?

westofyou
01-16-2006, 12:53 PM
If we accept a guy in trade who has a $2MM contract, and we accept $1MM in cash to help offset that contract, and we then trade that player to a new team, can we keep the money, making his new team responsible for the whole $2MM?Only if they barter something that's worth the 1 million bucks. IIRC When the Marlins aquired Hampton they flipped him to the Braves for some players and they also undertook some of his salary to get betetr prospects.

Red Heeler
01-16-2006, 01:00 PM
If we accept a guy in trade who has a $2MM contract, and we accept $1MM in cash to help offset that contract, and we then trade that player to a new team, can we keep the money, making his new team responsible for the whole $2MM?

You would have to pay another team the rest of Womack's salary to take him off your hands. Pittsburg might bite if they were only responsible for around $500,000 of his salary, and the Reds only asked for minor league roster filler in return.

REDREAD
01-17-2006, 02:15 PM
Womack at 1 million is not bad at all. We only gave up Howard for him - a marginal prospect that the Reds were never going to give a chance to anyhow. So, from the DanO point of view, it's not that bad of a move. Remember, we needed depth at infield. Even tough Womack has one of the worst OBP, he can semi-competently fill in at several positions (which is valuable on a team like the Reds that feels compelled to carry 12 pitchers).

I agree there's a big risk that Narron will not use him properly though. Still, I don't see the urgent need to unload Womack.

pedro
01-17-2006, 03:40 PM
Womack at 1 million is not bad at all. We only gave up Howard for him - a marginal prospect that the Reds were never going to give a chance to anyhow. So, from the DanO point of view, it's not that bad of a move. Remember, we needed depth at infield. Even tough Womack has one of the worst OBP, he can semi-competently fill in at several positions (which is valuable on a team like the Reds that feels compelled to carry 12 pitchers).

I agree there's a big risk that Narron will not use him properly though. Still, I don't see the urgent need to unload Womack.

I couldn't disagree more. Womack is one of the worst players in the major leagues. Just because he can stink at several positions doesn't make him valuable in any way.

westofyou
01-17-2006, 04:15 PM
Womack at 1 million is not bad at all. We only gave up Howard for him - a marginal prospect that the Reds were never going to give a chance to anyhow. So, from the DanO point of view, it's not that bad of a move. Remember, we needed depth at infield. Even tough Womack has one of the worst OBP, he can semi-competently fill in at several positions (which is valuable on a team like the Reds that feels compelled to carry 12 pitchers).

I agree there's a big risk that Narron will not use him properly though. Still, I don't see the urgent need to unload Womack.You buy that vet crap more than anything else the front office sells you, I'd think by now that you'd have clued in to it like everything else that pushes your buttons about this organization.

flyer85
01-17-2006, 04:20 PM
I couldn't disagree more. Womack is one of the worst players in the major leagues. Just because he can stink at several positions doesn't make him valuable in any way.he is an offensive and defensive liability at any position he plays. He parlayed a good offensive season at the end of a career in a bloated 2 year deal. Even the Yankees were smart enough to see that he is useless on a 25 man roster unless he hits well over .300 and they realized that it wasn't going to happen. They found an all day sucker in DanO to actually trade for a worthless player and take his part of salary and give up some minor leaguers for him. The stupidity of the acquisition defies description on a multitude of levels.