PDA

View Full Version : Dunn, Maas, and "Old Player's Skills"



11BarryLarkin11
06-30-2006, 01:44 PM
After watching Dunn continue to pile up the numbers, despite his low batting average, I thought that I'd give the Dunn bashers something that might justify their constant worry. :)

When I see a player like Adam Dunn, who is very big and not especially agile, I always thought this is a guy who is going to age poorly. People get bigger and less mobile as they age, so I think these types of players are going to be especially susceptible to the effects of aging. Mo Vaughn, Cecil Fielder, and Carlos Delgado are some of the players that I thought would be more susceptible to the effects of aging, as they don’t have much margin for error in the mobility and defensive departments. Basically, I’ve always thought that big lumbering guys weren’t good bets to be of value later in their careers.

As such, I've pretty much always thought that Adam Dunn shouldn't be brought back much after the age of 30. At that point, he’ll be very expensive and his game seems unlikely to stand up to the test of time. I’m a HUGE Dunn backer, but I’m not sure that even I want to see him in GABP at first base or in leftfield at the age of 33.

In that same vein, I recently came across a book which contained a Bill James wrote an article wherein he discussed what he called “Old Player’s Skills” and “Young Player’s Skills”. I found it to be rather interesting, as James breaks down the issue much further, and I couldn’t help but think of a player that we all know and love (well, not all of us ;)).

In essence, James considers power and drawing walks to be “Old Player’s Skills”, as the majority of players tend to improve their power and walks as they age (I don’t necessarily agree much with the improved walk rate, but that’s a discussion for another day ;)). And, he considers speed and batting average to be “Young Player’s Skills”, as batting average and speed decline over time.

Now, here’s the part that directly relates to the Reds. James believes that young players who succeed primarily on the basis of “Old Player’s Skills” will peak EARLIER in their career and age FASTER! I’m sure we can all think of a particular Reds leftfielder who fits this mold.

I won’t get into their specific details, but James performed a couple of studies in which the players with “young player’s skills” did indeed have substantially longer careers than those who relied primarily on “old player’s skills”. Not to say that those players who relied on “old player skills” didn’t have good careers, but rather that they peaked earlier and didn’t last as long.

Recently, the writers at Baseball Prospectus recently used James’ theory to explain the remarkable career of Kevin Maas. For those of you who don’t know, Maas was at one time the hottest thing since sliced bread. Maas came up in 1990 at the age of 25, which is a bit old for a prospect, and hit 21 homers in 254 At Bats. Maas exploded onto the scene that summer and was compared to everyone from Will Clark to Roy Hobbs. Maas still holds the MLB record for being the fastest player to reach 10 homeruns, which he managed to do in 77 At Bats. He captured the imagination of much of the baseball world, including me.

Maas was a good prospect before hitting the majors, but he was one who relied on “old player skills”. He had a strong OBP and good power, but a knee injury and poor genetics robbed him of speed and agility, which made him a poor defender. He also never posted a great batting average in the minors, but likely deserved to be called up before the age of 25. After his meteoric rise, it didn’t take long for Maas to struggle and his career flamed out at an early age.

Now, Maas is an extreme example, but I think James may have been on to something with his theory. Now, that’s NOT to say that having a YOUNG player on the team who succeeds by virtue of “old player’s skills” isn’t a good idea, but rather that one should be wary of keeping him on the team for too long.

In other words, giving Dunn a HUGE contract after his current one expires may not be the best idea in the world, as he may well peak earlier and fade away faster than expected. And, having a big dollar contract tied up in a player of that kind could be crippling to this franchise. In James’s view, Dunn’s batting average won’t get better as he ages, but rather it’ll worsen. And, Dunn will become even more lumbering, as he adds on the pounds that come with aging and loses the speed that goes with it.

How much worse can Dunn’s batting average and defense get before it outweighs his walk and power production? At some point, the immense power and walk benefits that Dunn provides will be outweighed by his defensive, mobility, and batting average problems.

It won’t happen this year or next year or even the year after that, but it’ll likely happen SOONER than we think. Hopefully, the front office takes that into account when considering the next contract for Adam Dunn. Enjoy Dunn's performance while it lasts, as he might not be around as quite as long as we should hope.

As usual, just my $.02.

Chip R
06-30-2006, 01:55 PM
So Dunn no longer is Kingman but now he's Maas? ;)

Hap
06-30-2006, 02:05 PM
I have bashed Dunn as much as anyone else, including several suggestions back in 2003 that he be sent to Louisville.

However...........................................

I have noticed great improvements in his defense in LF. And last night's game winning hit was the line drive single in a line drive single situation that we have all been hoping for.

He will continue to get his share of strikeouts and walks and warning track flyouts. But, I think he is finally learning how to play the game.

ochre
06-30-2006, 02:11 PM
You must love Hatteberg, because it sounds like he's what you want Dunn to become.

IslandRed
06-30-2006, 02:27 PM
11, I'd also had Adam Dunn pop into my head when I was reading that chapter. It's a reasonable thing to consider in a couple of years when it's time to decide how much money we're willing to spend to extend his contract again.

dabvu2498
06-30-2006, 02:32 PM
You must love Hatteberg, because it sounds like he's what you want Dunn to become.
I don't want to speak for 11BL11, but I'd take Boog Powell's career for Dunn's "potential" right now.

Plus, Boog got 2 rings, 2 other WS appearances, and 4 total playoff appearances.

registerthis
06-30-2006, 02:42 PM
Plus, Boog got 2 rings, 2 other WS appearances, and 4 total playoff appearances.

Yep, Boog Powell played on some good O's teams there in the 70s.

IIRC, Billy Bates has a World Series Ring.

Rings are satisfying to the player, but mean little when discussing a player's worth or abilities.

Johnny Footstool
06-30-2006, 02:42 PM
Mike Schmidt had "old player skills" throughout his career. So did Harmon Killebrew. Jim Thome did, too.

It's really not "old player skills". It's "late-count hitting."

Now, if you want to approach it from the angle of big-bodied players tending to break down later in their careers, you *might* have a justification for trading Dunn away before he hits his mid-30's. It would be tough to prove, though -- lots of players break down in their mid-30's, regardless of body size.

ochre
06-30-2006, 02:43 PM
I don't want to speak for 11BL11, but I'd take Boog Powell's career for Dunn's "potential" right now.

Plus, Boog got 2 rings, 2 other WS appearances, and 4 total playoff appearances.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Dunn already has better seasons on the books than any of Boog's, except maybe 1970. But you are right. Dunn's no Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, or Dave McNally. Good call.

westofyou
06-30-2006, 02:45 PM
Classic old player skills can be found in

Tom Brunansky

Phil Plantier

Ben Grieve

Roy Cullenbine.

Rojo
06-30-2006, 02:48 PM
I've thought about this very thing. James' point, I think, was that "old" players don't have much in the tank atheletically, and, ergo, cannot afford much slippage before becoming worthless. Dunn, however, is much more of an athelete than guys like Maas or Ron Kittle or Ken Phelps.

He could also be this guy:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/killeha01.shtml

dabvu2498
06-30-2006, 03:02 PM
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but Dunn already has better seasons on the books than any of Boog's, except maybe 1970. But you are right. Dunn's no Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, or Dave McNally. Good call.
Defensive, defensive...

OK, here's my Dunn rant, once and for all. And I'll put this disclaimer on it: I'm expressing the way a lot of "casual" Reds fans fell. Not all of these opinions are 100% mine, but most of them are somewhat valid.

Here's the Dunn statistic that most Reds fans get frustrated with, though it doesn't come out that way:
.481, .426, .469, .450

Anyone? Anyone? It's not BARISP, SLG, OBP, VORP, OPS, RC/27... it's the Reds' winning percentage over the last four years.

Now, you know, I know, everyone knows, that's not his fault. (Not entirely at least.) The perception (perpetuated by many) is, however, that if Dunn could have been traded for a Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, or Dave McNally-type pitcher, those numbers might be better. (See Wily Mo Pena-Bronson Arroyo.) Could that have happened??? Would that have happened??? We'll never know.

However, the original poster may be on to something here. With the last 2 first round draft picks used on OF's, could we be far away from a Dunn for ace blockbuster trade? Perhaps. Could one of those two OFs be MLB-ready by the time that happens? Perhaps.

PS: Look at Boog's career numbers. Not bad. And accounting for possible "slippage" as mentioned in the initial post... could be where Dunn is headed.

dabvu2498
06-30-2006, 03:05 PM
Classic old player skills can be found in

Tom Brunansky

Odd that you mention Brunansky. He's one of the "Similar Batters through Age 25" listed on Dunn's page at: http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dunnad01.shtml along with:
Darryl Strawberry (927)
Reggie Jackson (926) *
Jose Canseco (918)
Troy Glaus (909)
Tom Brunansky (902)
Juan Gonzalez (901)
Boog Powell (901)
Rocky Colavito (891)
Tony Conigliaro (890)
Harmon Killebrew (883) *

11BarryLarkin11
06-30-2006, 03:37 PM
I've thought about this very thing. James' point, I think, was that "old" players don't have much in the tank atheletically, and, ergo, cannot afford much slippage before becoming worthless. Dunn, however, is much more of an athelete than guys like Maas or Ron Kittle or Ken Phelps.

He could also be this guy:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/killeha01.shtml

Right. As you age, you are going to get a step slower, a little less agile, and your bat will slow just a bit. If you have a myriad of skills (speed, defense, contact hitting, etc) or if you have "young player's skills" then you are better equipped to fight off the effects of aging.

Rickey Henderson can lose a step and still be very effective. Tony Gwynn can handle reduced bat speed. But, can Adam Dunn?

I think we can agree that a key to a good batting average is the ability to make good, hard, consistent contact. Dunn is already on the bottom of the acceptability spectrum when it comes to batting average. If you are in your prime and still have difficulty with making contact, what happens with age? When age takes its toll, he'll slide even further. What happens when he can't catch up to the 94 MPH fastball? When his bat is just a hair slow and instead of a 500 foot homer, the ball pops the catchers mitt?

What happens to Dunn's already shabby defense when he's a step slower? What happens to his batting average when his bat is just a hair slower?

Dunn doesn't have the needed skills to offset the effects aging. I actually think Ben Grieve is the perfect example of players surviving with only "old player's skills".

Tony Gwynn would be fine going from .330 to .310, but Dunn would go from.255 to .235.

Dunn's margin for error is razor thin. Age or injury may really bring about a fast and early decline to a very good career.

westofyou
06-30-2006, 04:50 PM
Tony Gwynn would be fine going from .330 to .310, but Dunn would go from.255 to .235.
or it could go the other way.


Gwynn

AVG SLG OBA OPS

1987 .370 .511 .447 .958 9.67 RC/27
1988 .313 .415 .373 .787 5.67 RC/27


Killebrew

AVG SLG OBA OPS
1961 .288 .606 .405 1.012 9.11 RC/27
1962 .243 .545 .366 .912 6.84 RC/27

Rojo
06-30-2006, 05:45 PM
A better example of an "old" player might be Ben Broussard, who I see, in another thread, might be traded.

cincinnati chili
06-30-2006, 05:52 PM
My understanding is that Kevin Maas problems weren't "old player skills."

His problem was "can't hit a Major League breaking ball."

I'm not dismissing the premise of this thread, but it's going to be a while before he's old.

westofyou
06-30-2006, 05:55 PM
Jeff Jones Cedar Rapids 1982... those were some old player skills.

Redhook
06-30-2006, 06:50 PM
As good as Dunn is, I see absolutely no way he'll be here long term. He's due to make $13 million in 2008. I think that's too high for the Reds unless their payroll is around the $80 million range. And if he makes $13 million in 2008 what will we have to pay him beyond that? $15-$20/year? That's way too much for this team.

KronoRed
06-30-2006, 11:01 PM
JR falls off the payroll after 08, there will be money to sign him

SteelSD
07-01-2006, 01:05 AM
Defensive, defensive...

OK, here's my Dunn rant, once and for all. And I'll put this disclaimer on it: I'm expressing the way a lot of "casual" Reds fans fell. Not all of these opinions are 100% mine, but most of them are somewhat valid.

Here's the Dunn statistic that most Reds fans get frustrated with, though it doesn't come out that way:
.481, .426, .469, .450

Anyone? Anyone? It's not BARISP, SLG, OBP, VORP, OPS, RC/27... it's the Reds' winning percentage over the last four years.

Now, you know, I know, everyone knows, that's not his fault. (Not entirely at least.) The perception (perpetuated by many) is, however, that if Dunn could have been traded for a Jim Palmer, Mike Cuellar, or Dave McNally-type pitcher, those numbers might be better. (See Wily Mo Pena-Bronson Arroyo.) Could that have happened??? Would that have happened??? We'll never know.

However, the original poster may be on to something here. With the last 2 first round draft picks used on OF's, could we be far away from a Dunn for ace blockbuster trade? Perhaps. Could one of those two OFs be MLB-ready by the time that happens? Perhaps.

PS: Look at Boog's career numbers. Not bad. And accounting for possible "slippage" as mentioned in the initial post... could be where Dunn is headed.

Interesting that you brought up Boog Powell because he's the #2 comp for Dunn on Dunn's Baseball Prospectus PECOTA card (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/dunnad01.php). BTW, you'll only be able to view the data I'm talking about if you have a premium subscription. But so as to not draw the ire of BP, I'll post that link and then cite the data in my own words...

Adam Dunn is exceptionally unique from an historical perspective. His Similarity Index score is a 6. Basically, from a Similarity Index perspective, a "50" or higher is pretty common historically. A "20" or lower is not at all common. A "6" is so unusual historicall that he's got pretty much zero decent comps.

Dunn's top 10 comps are (with Similarity Scores):

1. Troy Glaus (43)
2. Boog Powell (24)
3. Hee Seop Choi (20)
4. Barry Bonds (19)
5. Tim Salmon (18)
6. Pat Burrell (18)
7. Scott Rolen (18)
8. Harmon Killebrew (16)
9. Carlos Delgado (16)
10. Fred McGriff, Ryan Klesko (15)

Nothing actually much comparable with Dunn. Even the most comparable player (Glaus) isn't substantially comparable. Why? Isolated Discipline, Isolated Power, and Secondary Average.

Adam Dunn: 2004-2006 IsoD

2004: .122 IsoD
2005: .140 IsoD
2006: .144 IsoD

Adam Dunn: 2004-2006 IsoP

2004: .303 IsoP
2005: .293 IsoP
2006: .329 IsoP

Adam Dunn: 2004-2006 SECA

2004: .502 SECA
2005: .506 SECA
2006: .563 SECA

Only once in his career has Troy Glaus produced a .100+ IsoD, a .300+ IsoP, and a .500+ SECA (2000- Angels). That was the only season in which Glaus produced a SECA of .500+ and it was at age 23. Yet that's the best comp the most complex system I know of can find for Dunn. Yikes.

And yes, SECA speaks to non-Out event quality. That's huge. Big-time huge. Few players are able to put up consistent SECA numbers at or above .500 for three seasons in a row. In fact, if Dunn finishes the season with a SECA above .500, the list for 2004-2006 will contain one name- Adam Dunn.

westofyou
07-01-2006, 01:30 AM
And yes, SECA speaks to non-Out event quality. That's huge. Big-time huge. Few players are able to put up consistent SECA numbers at or above .500 for three seasons in a row. In fact, if Dunn finishes the season with a SECA above .500, the list for 2004-2006 will contain one name- Adam Dunn.


CINCINNATI REDS
ALL YEARS
ALL POSITIONS
SECONDARY AVERAGE >= .500


1 Joe Morgan 1973-77 5
2 Adam Dunn 2004-05 2

ALL LEAGUES & TEAMS
ALL YEARS
ALL POSITIONS
SECONDARY AVERAGE >= .500


1 Barry Bonds 1990-98 9
2 Babe Ruth 1926-33 8
3 Babe Ruth 1919-24 6
T4 Joe Morgan 1973-77 5
T4 Mike Schmidt 1979-83 5
T4 Barry Bonds 2000-04 5
T7 Jimmie Foxx 1932-35 4
T7 Lou Gehrig 1934-37 4
T7 Hank Greenberg 1937-40 4
T7 Ted Williams 1946-49 4
T7 Mickey Mantle 1955-58 4
T7 Mark McGwire 1996-99 4
T13 Lou Gehrig 1929-31 3
T13 Ralph Kiner 1949-51 3
T13 Mickey Mantle 1960-62 3
T13 Frank Thomas 1993-95 3

SteelSD
07-01-2006, 02:05 AM
CINCINNATI REDS
ALL YEARS
ALL POSITIONS
SECONDARY AVERAGE >= .500


1 Joe Morgan 1973-77 5
2 Adam Dunn 2004-05 2

ALL LEAGUES & TEAMS
ALL YEARS
ALL POSITIONS
SECONDARY AVERAGE >= .500


1 Barry Bonds 1990-98 9
2 Babe Ruth 1926-33 8
3 Babe Ruth 1919-24 6
T4 Joe Morgan 1973-77 5
T4 Mike Schmidt 1979-83 5
T4 Barry Bonds 2000-04 5
T7 Jimmie Foxx 1932-35 4
T7 Lou Gehrig 1934-37 4
T7 Hank Greenberg 1937-40 4
T7 Ted Williams 1946-49 4
T7 Mickey Mantle 1955-58 4
T7 Mark McGwire 1996-99 4
T13 Lou Gehrig 1929-31 3
T13 Ralph Kiner 1949-51 3
T13 Mickey Mantle 1960-62 3
T13 Frank Thomas 1993-95 3

That's simply a ridiculous list and a good demonstration of how misunderstood Dunn's game is. He's an historical anomaly because no one has been able to produce those numbers with a Batting Average as low as Dunn's over time. He's so good that he's maybe the first player in our lifetime (or in any lifetime) who almost neutralizes Batting Average as a proficiency measurement. It's why he has pretty much zero realistic comps.

Jpup
07-01-2006, 02:40 AM
That's simply a ridiculous list and a good demonstration of how misunderstood Dunn's game is. He's an historical anomaly because no one has been able to produce those numbers with a Batting Average as low as Dunn's over time. He's so good that he's maybe the first player in our lifetime (or in any lifetime) who almost neutralizes Batting Average as a proficiency measurement. It's why he has pretty much zero realistic comps.

who is the closest thing to Adam Dunn that is currently playing?

buckeyenut
07-01-2006, 07:22 AM
who is the closest thing to Adam Dunn that is currently playing?

The two that come to my mind, even though they are much older, are Thome and Bonds. But the BA screws up those direct comparisons.

RedsBaron
07-01-2006, 08:23 AM
I've had similar thoughts about Dunn. Studies have shown that most players peak between ages 26 and 28, so there is a decent chance that Dunn is in his peak years now, and when his current contract expires after the 2008 season he may very well be past his peak.
I agree with Steel that Dunn is a unique talent, and I'm not saying the Reds should either trade him, or not resign him after 2008---but they should be cautious.
The guys who have tended to age the best are, no surprise, true "five toolers" such as a Mays or Aaron who have speed, power and the ability to hit. A guy such as Vince Coleman, who had speed but nothing else, tends not to age well either, because once he loses a step he has nothing else to offer.

RedsBaron
07-01-2006, 08:27 AM
Mike Schmidt had "old player skills" throughout his career. So did Harmon Killebrew. Jim Thome did, too.


Schmidt had "young player skillis" too. He had seasons when he stole 23 and 29 bases early in his career and he was quite agile. Schmidt won multiple Gold Gloves. He had both the abilities to draw walks and hit with power and the speed and agility associated with "young player skills." He could've run rings around Killebrew or Thome.

ochre
07-01-2006, 10:46 AM
He could've run rings around Killebrew or Thome.
The funny thing is, despite his reputation as a big oaf, I think Dunn could too.

Johnny Footstool
07-01-2006, 11:46 AM
Schmidt had "young player skillis" too. He had seasons when he stole 23 and 29 bases early in his career and he was quite agile. Schmidt won multiple Gold Gloves. He had both the abilities to draw walks and hit with power and the speed and agility associated with "young player skills." He could've run rings around Killebrew or Thome.

If Dunn had played in the '70s, I'll bet he would have stolen quite a few bases.

Johnny Footstool
07-01-2006, 11:47 AM
The two that come to my mind, even though they are much older, are Thome and Bonds. But the BA screws up those direct comparisons.

Troy Glaus is fairly close, as Steel pointed out.

Maldez
07-01-2006, 12:31 PM
I seems every time I get set to post something with a heading like "Adam Dudd", the big guy breaks out of his mess and becomes the hero he's supposed to be.

When Adam Dunn's going bad, he looks as lost at the plate as your next door neighbor. No clue.

But when he's goin' good, he has superstar written all over him. You look at the guy and just know he's going to have 800 career HRs.

So who's the real Adam Dunn?

ochre
07-01-2006, 02:25 PM
He's the real Adam Dunn. What people seem to want is Albert Pujols.

jimbo
07-01-2006, 02:54 PM
When Adam Dunn's going bad, he looks as lost at the plate as your next door neighbor. No clue.

But when he's goin' good, he has superstar written all over him. You look at the guy and just know he's going to have 800 career HRs.

So who's the real Adam Dunn?

You can say that about any player in the majors. When they are slumping, they all look clueless. When are on top of their game, they all look like superstars. What they really are depends on which way they lean the majority of the time. Dunn leans more to the superstar side.

The problem with some fans is that they always want more and cannot accept him for what he is.

M2
07-02-2006, 02:11 PM
My understanding is that Kevin Maas problems weren't "old player skills."

His problem was "can't hit a Major League breaking ball."

I'm not dismissing the premise of this thread, but it's going to be a while before he's old.

Exactly, anyone who remembers Maas should know better than to think he's some kind of comp for Dunn and I'll worry about the old player skills when Dunn's 30.

On the whole Brunansky part of this thread: If you want to see a Reds player who's got a game that resembles Brunansky's, look no farther than Austin Kearns.

11BarryLarkin11
07-02-2006, 02:22 PM
Exactly, anyone who remembers Maas should know better than to think he's some kind of comp for Dunn and I'll worry about the old player skills when Dunn's 30.

That was the point of the post. Whether or not the Reds would be wise to give another multiyear contract after his current contract expires. Whether or not he would be worth the cost during his 29-33 years.

M2
07-02-2006, 02:43 PM
That was the point of the post. Whether or not the Reds would be wise to give another multiyear contract after his current contract expires. Whether or not he would be worth the cost during his 29-33 years.

I'd extend him and possibly look to move him after age 30 or 31.

11BarryLarkin11
10-14-2006, 08:16 PM
I originally posted this a few months ago, but I'm wondering if it's time to start worrying that it is already happening. The generally held belief is that most players peak around 27/28, but I think it's possible that Dunn has peaked already and I'm interested to know what everyone thinks about the possibility. I'm a big Dunn backer, but I'm a bit worried.

Here are his stats for the past few years, which I'm sure isn't breaking news to anyone.

Year: BA/OBP/SLG/OPS/AB per HR
2006: .234/.365/.490/.855/12.3
2005: .247/.387/.540/.927/13.6
2004: .266/.388/.569/.957/14.0

At what point do we consider this to be a downward trend? Is it possible that he peaked in 2004 at the age of 24?

I'm not a proponent of batting average, but there is a squeal point at which it starts to impact production. Dunn has to put the bat on the ball with great enough frequency to allow his power to reach its true production.

Is now the time to deal him? If he declines again next year, what do we do with him? If he declines again in 2007, do we exercise a $13M option on him for 2007? If he declines even slightly in 2007, then it's going to be a very difficult decision.

At what point does his declining offensive production no longer outweigh his defensive problems?

I think it's something to consider and if he has peaked then this is likely our last chance to deal him for anything of value. At some point, it'll be advisable for the Reds to part ways with Dunn, but is that time here already????

snowstorm
10-14-2006, 08:32 PM
I originally posted this a few months ago, but I'm wondering if it's time to start worrying that it is already happening. The generally held belief is that most players peak around 27/28, but I think it's possible that Dunn has peaked already and I'm interested to know what everyone thinks about the possibility. I'm a big Dunn backer, but I'm a bit worried.

Here are his stats for the past few years, which I'm sure isn't breaking news to anyone.

Year: BA/OBP/SLG/OPS/AB per HR
2006: .234/.365/.490/.855/12.3
2005: .247/.387/.540/.927/13.6
2004: .266/.388/.569/.957/14.0

At what point do we consider this to be a downward trend? Is it possible that he peaked in 2004 at the age of 24?

I'm not a proponent of batting average, but there is a squeal point at which it starts to impact production. Dunn has to put the bat on the ball with great enough frequency to allow his power to reach its true production.

Is now the time to deal him? If he declines again next year, what do we do with him? If he declines again in 2007, do we exercise a $13M option on him for 2007? If he declines even slightly in 2007, then it's going to be a very difficult decision.

At what point does his declining offensive production no longer outweigh his defensive problems?

I think it's something to consider and if he has peaked then this is likely our last chance to deal him for anything of value. At some point, it'll be advisable for the Reds to part ways with Dunn, but is that time here already????

I think that the Reds should NOT trade Dunn this offseason. Considering that this was the 3rd straight year of a decline in his statistics combined with the very poor final 2 months of his season, I think his trade value has dropped significantly. You won't get anything close to what you would have received had the Reds traded him before last season. The Reds are best off keeping him and hoping that he has a better year next year. Trading him just simply wouldn't be worth it at this point since you'll get a minimal return anyway.

Natty Redlocks
10-14-2006, 09:09 PM
I think that the Reds should NOT trade Dunn this offseason. Considering that this was the 3rd straight year of a decline in his statistics combined with the very poor final 2 months of his season, I think his trade value has dropped significantly. You won't get anything close to what you would have received had the Reds traded him before last season. The Reds are best off keeping him and hoping that he has a better year next year. Trading him just simply wouldn't be worth it at this point since you'll get a minimal return anyway.
The point, though, is that if he continues to decline you get absolutely nothing for him. Ruling out the possibility of trading him is just as stubborn and foolish as insisting he must be traded.