PDA

View Full Version : Reds sign Pena to 1 year $1.25 mil. deal.



reds44
01-15-2006, 09:55 PM
I don't see this posted yet so..........

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article...e2005&fext=.jsp

captainmorgan07
01-15-2006, 10:27 PM
im glad to see dano's signing everybody but dunn to contracts somebody get his butt in gear

CTA513
01-15-2006, 10:42 PM
im glad to see dano's signing everybody but dunn to contracts somebody get his butt in gear

Dunn will probably get another 1 year contract, that way he will be way to expensive to sign long term.

paulrichjr
01-15-2006, 10:56 PM
im glad to see dano's signing everybody but dunn to contracts somebody get his butt in gear

Give the guy a little break! No one signs long-term contracts right before a new owner comes in. I would be surprised if an offer isn't made soon after the ownership change. I would be surprised if Dunn accepted it.

Marc_Lancaster
01-15-2006, 11:03 PM
Since the board keeps yelling at me for not posting in a while, let me just direct you over to the blog (http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/) for some news on this front. News that probably will make a lot of you rather unhappy.

And then I'll crawl back into hibernation.

KronoRed
01-15-2006, 11:19 PM
/\ Not surprising

Cyclone792
01-15-2006, 11:30 PM
Dunn Career Win Shares

Year Age Win Shares

2001 21 10
2002 22 21
2003 23 13
2004 24 32
2005 25 28


Aging pattern graph from TangoTiger ... http://www.tangotiger.net/aging.html

dsmith421
01-16-2006, 12:23 AM
I just read Lancaster's blog.

How Dan O'Brien has a job is absolutely beyond me. The man just exudes total incompetence. He clearly has no handle on any of the skills that make for a successful GM. He needs to be fired yesterday.

M2
01-16-2006, 12:33 AM
Marc, thanks for the info.

Just my take, but I think part of the problem the Reds have had with LTCs is linked to the team's problems at working the trade market -- DanO's an awful salesman. Obviously it would require being in the room with him to prove it, but both trades and LTCs require you to understand the other side and explain why what you're offering dovetails with that party's interests. DanO never seems to be able to identify where the give is with the other party. In LTC discussions a big part of it revolves around making that player understand where he fits into the team and where the team is headed. That would require DanO to stop treating the game like an academic exercise and start using short, declarative sentences.

Jpup
01-16-2006, 01:44 AM
what are the chances that DanO is fired before Opening Day? If the Reds are going to keep O'brien as their GM into the future, they should just go ahead and trade Felipe, Adam, Austin, and Wily Mo before they just walk away and the Reds end up with nothing.

Aronchis
01-16-2006, 04:56 AM
what are the chances that DanO is fired before Opening Day? If the Reds are going to keep O'brien as their GM into the future, they should just go ahead and trade Felipe, Adam, Austin, and Wily Mo before they just walk away and the Reds end up with nothing.

Walk away with nothing? It is when DanO leaves that they WOULD be traded then as the new regime levels the team and start over completely.

Caveat Emperor
01-16-2006, 05:10 AM
Marc, thanks for the info.

Just my take, but I think part of the problem the Reds have had with LTCs is linked to the team's problems at working the trade market -- DanO's an awful salesman. Obviously it would require being in the room with him to prove it, but both trades and LTCs require you to understand the other side and explain why what you're offering dovetails with that party's interests. DanO never seems to be able to identify where the give is with the other party. In LTC discussions a big part of it revolves around making that player understand where he fits into the team and where the team is headed. That would require DanO to stop treating the game like an academic exercise and start using short, declarative sentences.

Or, as a possibility to throw out there: If a player is really concerned with more than money and wants to see a commitment to building a winning team here in Cincinnati before they ink a deal, why on Earth would they deal with Dan O'Brien right now?

The franchise is in transition, and just about everyone and their brother agrees that O'Brien is just filling a seat until the new owners can get in place and fire him. So, if you're looking for long term information about the direction of the franchise and selling points on signing, O'Brien is a bad source of information right now and likely NOT going to be the guy you're dealing with this time a couple months from now.

So, why not wait to get the full story from the new owners and whatever new management they put in place as opposed to signing on the dotted line with a lame duck GM, a lame duck ownership group, and a franchise plan that may or may not be set to change drastically in the very short term future?

If I'm the agent for Adam Dunn, unless DanO comes at me with crazy amounts of coin, I tell him politely: "Thanks, but we'll wait for the adults to show up before we have a conversation."

Aronchis
01-16-2006, 05:23 AM
Or, as a possibility to throw out there: If a player is really concerned with more than money and wants to see a commitment to building a winning team here in Cincinnati before they ink a deal, why on Earth would they deal with Dan O'Brien right now?

The franchise is in transition, and just about everyone and their brother agrees that O'Brien is just filling a seat until the new owners can get in place and fire him. So, if you're looking for long term information about the direction of the franchise and selling points on signing, O'Brien is a bad source of information right now and likely NOT going to be the guy you're dealing with this time a couple months from now.

So, why not wait to get the full story from the new owners and whatever new management they put in place as opposed to signing on the dotted line with a lame duck GM, a lame duck ownership group, and a franchise plan that may or may not be set to change drastically in the very short term future?

If I'm the agent for Adam Dunn, unless DanO comes at me with crazy amounts of coin, I tell him politely: "Thanks, but we'll wait for the adults to show up before we have a conversation."

Frankly I don't think we have a franchise plan. Lindner only was Chief from 2000-2005 which probably indicates that he had little interest into the Reds except the late Marge era plan Bowden devised. When Jimbo went up in flames in 2003, with the sale closing in pratically, Lindner went with a puppet he could control though it didn't work very well and didn't get the Limiteds a brass sendoff.

In terms of a long term franchise plan, they still didn't have one.

First, the Reds had a decayed plan with Marge, a poorly executed one by the Allen/Bowden duo, then none with Lindner who was just holding the phone.

If Dunn signs a LTC, it will be this year. If he doesn't sign one, that may be a sign a major culling is nearing. But any FO personal that Cast hires will either sign Dunn or trade him. If they just let him go as a FA, a bad bad sign that would be for the Reds future.

traderumor
01-16-2006, 08:35 AM
All of DanO's "plans" are null and void if he gets the boot.

creek14
01-16-2006, 08:43 AM
If new ownership doesn't kick this bum to the curb before ST I will be hard pressed to spend money on game tickets.

Usually by this time I am champing at the bit for ST and the regular season to get here. This year it's a big :sleep: or maybe a big :barf:

lollipopcurve
01-16-2006, 09:22 AM
A friend of mine likens to the Reds to the 1999 KC Royals, who had several good and relatively young offensive players -- Damon, Beltran, Sweeney, Dye. Had they been able to get those guys signed, they would have had a very solid offensive core for years. Instead, they kept only Sweeney and made poor trades for the others. Cellar-dwelling, 100 loss seasons ensued.
The Reds talk about upgrading pitching as the key to the future. I think that's only half of the equation, and unless they simultaneously fashion a solid offensive core -- and the materials have been staring them in the face for years already -- they will flounder, flounder and flounder some more.

Kc61
01-16-2006, 10:27 AM
Boy, when you fall out of favor around here you can do nothing right. I think we should take it easy on DanO on this one.

Realistically, what can you expect him to do? New owners are entering in 3 days. No player is going to sign a multi-year deal until they see what the new owners plan for them and the team. Nobody is going to negotiate with a lame duck.

O'Brien is simply trying to avoid arb hearings this year, leaving open the possibility of long-term deals. These are caretaker moves.

Frankly, I don't want DanO signing anyone to a long-term deal at this moment, including Dunn. Hopefully, there will be a new head of baseball operations soon who will have a plan for the team. Maybe signing Dunn for $50 million is part of that plan; maybe it isn't. Let the new guy decide.

DanO's biggest flaw, in my view, was his failure to change Bowden's team and re-design it to be better. Instead, he was "conservative" and made only small changes. We've seen the result. I hope the new guys are bolder and re-shape this team. Let them do it, though, once they get in.

registerthis
01-16-2006, 10:51 AM
Honestly, Dunn should have been signed to a LT deal after the 2004 season, as has been mentioned before several times. That was the window of opportunity for the reds. Now, signing him to a LT deal is goign to cost significant cash, regardless of who structures the deal. It's the reality of the situation. Therefore, as kc said, it's unrealistic to expect a LT deal for Dunn to come out at this time. Neither side has any motivation to pursue one until the new ownership is in place and a budget/plan has been decided upon.

I'm also coming to grips with the idea that there may never BE a LT contract for Dunn, and that this (or next) season will be his last with the club. His production is going to waste on a team with a pitching staff who can't keep the ball in the park, and the reds have not shown the propensity to sign productive FA pitchers, or to draft wisely. Therefore, it might not even make sense to pay Dunn a huge contract to stay here another 3-5 years, if the team continues to flounder. Dunn, too, will have little motivation for staying here even IF the money is there, because he likely wants to play for a competitive team.

KronoRed
01-16-2006, 10:54 AM
I'm always thinking it's the last year of Dunn, 3 years running now :lol:

But sadly I think this will be it.

I just hope we trade him to the AL.

Roy Tucker
01-16-2006, 11:03 AM
I truly fear for the future of this team.

I understand the new ownership coming in and all that. But the Reds do have some valuable pieces that a good team can be built around. But they are rapidly approaching (if not there or past it) where they need to *prove* to those players they are the Reds' future.

If they don't lock up that talent and lose it to free agency and given the current dearth of talent in the farm system, the current losing stretch will look like a walk in the park compared to a team with no Dunn, Kearns, Pena, Lopez, etc. *and* an abysmal pitching staff.

New management's #1 priority should be figuring out, once and for all, if these guys are the future. If they are, then do what it takes to sign them. If not, get a canny GM that will be able to pick the appropriate time in the market and get good young equivalent value for them.

And if they dither about and do neither and let them go in FA and all we get are draft picks that are years away, we are massively hosed for the foreseeable future.

Pardon me while I go slash my wrists.

ghettochild
01-16-2006, 11:09 AM
Since the board keeps yelling at me for not posting in a while, let me just direct you over to the blog (http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/) for some news on this front. News that probably will make a lot of you rather unhappy.

And then I'll crawl back into hibernation.

:laugh: troll hahahhaa


see you again next spring, marc :beerme:

M2
01-16-2006, 11:30 AM
Or, as a possibility to throw out there: If a player is really concerned with more than money and wants to see a commitment to building a winning team here in Cincinnati before they ink a deal, why on Earth would they deal with Dan O'Brien right now?

The franchise is in transition, and just about everyone and their brother agrees that O'Brien is just filling a seat until the new owners can get in place and fire him. So, if you're looking for long term information about the direction of the franchise and selling points on signing, O'Brien is a bad source of information right now and likely NOT going to be the guy you're dealing with this time a couple months from now.

So, why not wait to get the full story from the new owners and whatever new management they put in place as opposed to signing on the dotted line with a lame duck GM, a lame duck ownership group, and a franchise plan that may or may not be set to change drastically in the very short term future?

If I'm the agent for Adam Dunn, unless DanO comes at me with crazy amounts of coin, I tell him politely: "Thanks, but we'll wait for the adults to show up before we have a conversation."

I agree that's a factor too, but I figure a better operator would be able to negotiate around that limitation, perhaps even insist he's working as the agent for new ownership. Dan Duquette did some quality work as a lame duck GM, for instance.

lollipop, your friend has come up with a great analogy.

Someone in the Reds organization has to convince Dunn, Lopez and Harang that the plan is to build around them. That's always the best pitch. Here's the plan with you at the center of it. Ideally what you do is go to do Dunn and say, '"Here's the young core and you're the key to it. We sign you and the others will follow. You can be the guy who brings this whole thing together."

RedsManRick
01-16-2006, 12:10 PM
I'm really curious who the rudder is on this ship. It seems it has been Barry for a decade, followed by Casey and nobody else really fits the profile. The most talented guys on the team simply don't seem to be interested in being leaders.

Junior is, but in a very deferential way and he's not somebody you can build around at this point in his career. LaRue, I believe, is the official guy, but he seems more in the Aaron Boone mold and is on a 1 year contract. Dunn just doesn't seem interested in being a leader.

Now, typically I don't buy in to the whole intangibles argument -- as winning generates chemistry, not the other way around. But in terms of building a nucleus, you need to be able to sell those guys on the idea of leading the team in to the future. I just don't think we've got the type of guys who want to make that kind of commitment. I suppose the ownership change could change everything, but I'm not holding my breath.

I expect Dunn to test the FA market when he's available and unless Kearns has nailed down a permanent spot in the Reds OF, take the highest money/lowest pressure combination he can find -- perhaps Houston as they'll have the money with Biggio, Bagwell, Clemens, and possibly Pettitte off the books. As for the Reds "core", I think we're looking at Lopez, Encarnacion, Harang, and possibly Claussen. I wouldn't count on any of the outfielders being a permanent part of the Reds future.

M2
01-16-2006, 05:57 PM
I'm really curious who the rudder is on this ship. It seems it has been Barry for a decade, followed by Casey and nobody else really fits the profile. The most talented guys on the team simply don't seem to be interested in being leaders.

Junior is, but in a very deferential way and he's not somebody you can build around at this point in his career. LaRue, I believe, is the official guy, but he seems more in the Aaron Boone mold and is on a 1 year contract. Dunn just doesn't seem interested in being a leader.

Now, typically I don't buy in to the whole intangibles argument -- as winning generates chemistry, not the other way around. But in terms of building a nucleus, you need to be able to sell those guys on the idea of leading the team in to the future. I just don't think we've got the type of guys who want to make that kind of commitment. I suppose the ownership change could change everything, but I'm not holding my breath.

I expect Dunn to test the FA market when he's available and unless Kearns has nailed down a permanent spot in the Reds OF, take the highest money/lowest pressure combination he can find -- perhaps Houston as they'll have the money with Biggio, Bagwell, Clemens, and possibly Pettitte off the books. As for the Reds "core", I think we're looking at Lopez, Encarnacion, Harang, and possibly Claussen. I wouldn't count on any of the outfielders being a permanent part of the Reds future.

I think you might be right about what the core will have to be. DanO may have frittered away the chance to keep Dunn.

As for leadership, I really don't worry about that. Larkin was a special case. Guys like him don't come along too often. I figure it's always a committee of players who set the tone in a clubhouse. FWIW, I never considered Casey a leadership guy. He was everyone's best buddy and a lot of fans considered him the face of the team, but that's a different animal from being the true clubhouse leader. When the team was down and out, as it often was during his years in Cincinnati, Casey's butt-slapping prowess was rendered ineffectual.

To their credit, the Reds usually play hard. If the pieces of a winning team were in place I'm relatively confident the franchise has the right clubhouse mindset to make the most of it. That's been part of my frustration in recent years. The club has pushed itself to the upper reaches of what it can achieve and the Reds management keeps going back at it like a vampire looking for a hidden vein.