PDA

View Full Version : Trade idea...



BuckeyeRedleg
10-28-2006, 04:28 PM
Ok, I never start these types of threads, but I have been searching for a team that would be a decent trading partner and I think I may have found one in Texas.


So here's my attempt at a slobberknocker:


Adam Dunn
Homer Bailey
Ryan Freel
Jason LaRue

to Texas for

Michael Young
Hank Blalock
Joaquín Benoit

Why it helps the Reds:
Will free the Reds of the whipping boy du jour and make Wayne look active which is what he needs from the fanbase. Yes, they would be letting the underappreciated Dunn go, but the players landed may be enough to make up for his lost run production.

-Young (SS) removes any issue with moving BP from 2B. I'm not sure how long Young is signed, but at 30, he would be a solid piece to the infield puzzle for 4 years. Plus, Young and his .850-ish OPS will be a significant upgrade over what the Reds trotted out there for the 2nd half of 2006.

-Blalock (3B) struggled in 2006, after struggling to match his brilliant 2004 season in 2005, but at 25 (soon to be 26), a change of scenery may be just what the doctor ordered for the youngster. What to do with Edwin you ask? Encarnacion can be moved to LF. I'm more in favor of making this trade for the ceiling of Blalock than I am for moving EE from 3B and I have no doubt that EE will be fine at 3B after a few more seasons, but if we can land Blaylock and he can get back to his 2004 form, I have no problem moving the athletic Encarnacion out to man Dunn's position. It will be an upgrade defensively.

-Benoit can move into the closer role or make a decent set-up guy if a FA closer can be acquired this off-season.

Texas lands two of their own in Dunn and Bailey. We are selling high on Homer and getting Dunn out of the NL where he can DH if need be and never do us any harm, by being in the AL. Much better than sending him "home" to a division rival, right? I would love to make this deal without Homer so I would offer Wood or Cueto first, but I think Homer would have to be included. Freel is nothing more than a throw-in and will free up some dough to make up for any payroll addition from the trade. LaRue is a salary dump, and gee another Texas boy (go figure) but I doubt Texas would want him and his money. We may need to eat a bit of his 2007 salary to get him home.

Ok, there is my first trade proposal.

Fire away. Be gentle.

OnBaseMachine
10-28-2006, 04:51 PM
No offense but the Reds get robbed in that deal.

Highlifeman21
10-28-2006, 05:08 PM
Ok, I never start these types of threads, but I have been searching for a team that would be a decent trading partner and I think I may have found one in Texas.


So here's my attempt at a slobberknocker:


Adam Dunn
Homer Bailey
Ryan Freel
Jason LaRue

to Texas for

Michael Young
Hank Blalock
Joaquín Benoit

Why it helps the Reds:
Will free the Reds of the whipping boy du jour and make Wayne look active which is what he needs from the fanbase. Yes, they would be letting the underappreciated Dunn go, but the players landed may be enough to make up for his lost run production.

-Young (SS) removes any issue with moving BP from 2B. I'm not sure how long Young is signed, but at 30, he would be a solid piece to the infield puzzle for 4 years. Plus, Young and his .850-ish OPS will be a significant upgrade over what the Reds trotted out there for the 2nd half of 2006.

-Blalock (3B) struggled in 2006, after struggling to match his brilliant 2004 season in 2005, but at 25 (soon to be 26), a change of scenery may be just what the doctor ordered for the youngster. What to do with Edwin you ask? Encarnacion can be moved to LF. I'm more in favor of making this trade for the ceiling of Blalock than I am for moving EE from 3B and I have no doubt that EE will be fine at 3B after a few more seasons, but if we can land Blaylock and he can get back to his 2004 form, I have no problem moving the athletic Encarnacion out to man Dunn's position. It will be an upgrade defensively.

-Benoit can move into the closer role or make a decent set-up guy if a FA closer can be acquired this off-season.

Texas lands two of their own in Dunn and Bailey. We are selling high on Homer and getting Dunn out of the NL where he can DH if need be and never do us any harm, by being in the AL. Much better than sending him "home" to a division rival, right? I would love to make this deal without Homer so I would offer Wood or Cueto first, but I think Homer would have to be included. Freel is nothing more than a throw-in and will free up some dough to make up for any payroll addition from the trade. LaRue is a salary dump, and gee another Texas boy (go figure) but I doubt Texas would want him and his money. We may need to eat a bit of his 2007 salary to get him home.

Ok, there is my first trade proposal.

Fire away. Be gentle.

3, since you included LaRue.

Trading Dunn and Bailey (as much as I think he'll be a bust) in the same deal and not getting back a starter that either compliments Arroyo and Harang or is better than either of those two is criminal.

I like Young, don't get me wrong, we'd have a great DP combo of Young and Phillips, but Young is the big offensive piece back in that deal to replace Adam Dunn.

As for Blalock, he'd be a nice piece to have, but we have EE at 3B, so unless we're moving one of them to 1B, this doesn't fit our team. Moving EE to LF is probably one of the more amusing suggestions I've read lately concerning the 2007 Reds.

Unless Benoit closes for us after this deal, you're seriously selling a Dunn/Bailey combo deal ridiculously short. Essentially it would be an everyday SS, another everyday position player (3B or 1B) and a middle reliever unless Benoit closes for our everyday LF, one of the top rated SP prospects in all of baseball, our super utility man, and a salary dump catcher.

I guess Adam Dunn has worn out his welcome as well as his value in this town if this is the kind of deal we'd hope to get for him.....

Krusty
10-28-2006, 05:50 PM
Take Bailey out of the deal.

Would you deal Dunn for Michael Young?

BuckeyeRedleg
10-28-2006, 05:58 PM
I said be gentle. :)


Moving EE to LF is probably one of the more amusing suggestions I've read lately concerning the 2007 Reds.

Moving him to 1B is completely acceptable, but LF is amusing?

Umm, ok.

BuckeyeRedleg
10-28-2006, 06:03 PM
Take Bailey out of the deal.

Would you deal Dunn for Michael Young?

No. But I would deal Dunn, Freel, and Larue for Blalock and Young.

I would like to keep Homer as well, but I'm not opposed to trading him while his stock is high, for a known commodity.

Raisor
10-28-2006, 07:18 PM
Would you deal Dunn for (fill in the blank)?


Let me guess, you're in favor of trading Dunn?;)

Highlifeman21
10-28-2006, 07:53 PM
I said be gentle. :)



Moving him to 1B is completely acceptable, but LF is amusing?

Umm, ok.

I was gentle!

I have no doubt EE has the athleticism to play LF, but I think he'd be better defensively at 1B.

LF is Griffey's spot, provided we don't trade Adam Dunn.

BuckeyeRedleg
10-28-2006, 10:41 PM
I was gentle!

I have no doubt EE has the athleticism to play LF, but I think he'd be better defensively at 1B.

LF is Griffey's spot, provided we don't trade Adam Dunn.

Thanks for taking it easy on me.

You are still assuming the braintrust will have the cajones to tell Jr. he cannot play CF any longer.

Highlifeman21
10-29-2006, 04:34 PM
Thanks for taking it easy on me.

You are still assuming the braintrust will have the cajones to tell Jr. he cannot play CF any longer.

I'm hoping Ken Griffey Sr can help let his son know that CF is no longer a viable option.

I don't think Krivsky has the cojones to tell Jr he's no longer the everyday CF and needs to start getting used to the view from LF. I'm wondering, however, if we might see the new owner go straight to Jr and let him know his new position.

I would love Cast forever if he did that.

reds44
10-29-2006, 04:42 PM
No.

Krusty
10-29-2006, 05:01 PM
Let me guess, you're in favor of trading Dunn?;)

Dunn is my new whipping boy this offseason.

dougdirt
10-29-2006, 05:15 PM
Adam Dunn, Rheal Cormier and Javon Moran for Brad Wilkerson and Hank Blalock is a rumor I have heard.

11BarryLarkin11
10-29-2006, 05:25 PM
Here's mine:

Adam Dunn and Rheal Cormier for Morgan Ensberg, Adam Everett, and Dan Wheeler (or Lidge or Qualls).

Ensberg improves the defense at third (moving Edwin to first) and replaces a big chunk of Dunn's lost power and patience.

Moving Dunn enables us to shift Griffey to left, which dramatically improves the outfield defense and likely will keep Griffey healthier.

Adam Everett gives the best defensive shortstop in baseball and enables us to keep Phillips at second, where they'll form one of the best DP combos in baseball.

And, we get a top notch setup/closer to bolster the bullpen.


The Astros get a 26 year old hometown slugger for below market value and a solid, groundball lefty for the bullpen. And, I think Dunn would be more than happy to sign a multiyear deal to stay in Houston. And, Dunn would likely be a more attractive option than Carlos Lee or Gary Sheffield, in whom the Astros are rumored to be interested.

I think it's win/win.

Highlifeman21
10-29-2006, 05:41 PM
Here's mine:

Adam Dunn and Rheal Cormier for Morgan Ensberg, Adam Everett, and Dan Wheeler (or Lidge or Qualls).

Ensberg improves the defense at third (moving Edwin to first) and replaces a big chunk of Dunn's lost power and patience.

Moving Dunn enables us to shift Griffey to left, which dramatically improves the outfield defense and likely will keep Griffey healthier.

Adam Everett gives the best defensive shortstop in baseball and enables us to keep Phillips at second, where they'll form one of the best DP combos in baseball.

And, we get a top notch setup/closer to bolster the bullpen.


The Astros get a 26 year old hometown slugger for below market value and a solid, groundball lefty for the bullpen. And, I think Dunn would be more than happy to sign a multiyear deal to stay in Houston. And, Dunn would likely be a more attractive option than Carlos Lee or Gary Sheffield, in whom the Astros are rumored to be interested.

I think it's win/win.

Except for the fact Dunn stays within the division. There's nothing in a winning equation about that.

We don't have to move Dunn to open a spot in LF for Griffey. That's very flawed logic, IMO. Dunn can easily play 1B, and was slated to do so in ST before we picked up Hatteberg. Hatteberg's a dish best served as a LHB off the bench.

11BarryLarkin11
10-29-2006, 05:50 PM
Personally, I think the "don't trade within the division" logic is a bit outdated.

In all seriousness, what's the difference? The Astros are going to add a big bat regardless of whether or not it's Adam Dunn. If it's not Dunn, then it'll be Carlos Lee, Gary Sheffield, etc. Is it much more preferable to face those guys on a regular basis? A big bat is a big bat. Free agency has made impact talent readily available, you just have to open your wallet to get it.

So, if we can improve both the defense and the bullpen, while not losing TOO much on offense by dealing Dunn within the division, then I'm all for it. And, I think the case could be made that Houston would be more willing to trade talent for Dunn than other teams because he'd be more likely to sign a multiyear deal to stay in the state of Texas.

Besides, there'd be advantages to having Dunn within the division. When we'd play the Astros, we'd just have to hit the ball to left field with regularity. ;)

I guess I can understand not wanting to deal Dunn to a division rival if you feel he's going to continue improving. But, if you think that, then I don't understand why you'd want to deal him in the first place.

Highlifeman21
10-29-2006, 06:05 PM
Personally, I think the "don't trade within the division" logic is a bit outdated.

In all seriousness, what's the difference? The Astros are going to add a big bat regardless of whether or not it's Adam Dunn. If it's not Dunn, then it'll be Carlos Lee, Gary Sheffield, etc. Is it much more preferable to face those guys on a regular basis? A big bat is a big bat. Free agency has made impact talent readily available, you just have to open your wallet to get it.

So, if we can improve both the defense and the bullpen, while not losing TOO much on offense by dealing Dunn within the division, then I'm all for it. And, I think the case could be made that Houston would be more willing to trade talent for Dunn than other teams because he'd be more likely to sign a multiyear deal to stay in the state of Texas.

Besides, there'd be advantages to having Dunn within the division. When we'd play the Astros, we'd just have to hit the ball to left field with regularity. ;)

I guess I can understand not wanting to deal Dunn to a division rival if you feel he's going to continue improving. But, if you think that, then I don't understand why you'd want to deal him in the first place.

I don't want to deal Adam Dunn. He will continue to improve. He had a down year for him in 2006 and still was our best offensive player. He has age on his side, and a desired skillset to avoid outs and acquire bases.

Granted, Dunn will never hit for high average, but he'll continue to get on base close to .400 OBP every year. That's not something I want to trade, and definitely not to a division rival.

reds44
10-29-2006, 06:07 PM
Adam Dunn, Rheal Cormier and Javon Moran for Brad Wilkerson and Hank Blalock is a rumor I have heard.
Now that's intereseting. If Dunn is traded, I need some pitching back.

Where would Blalock play?

11BarryLarkin11
10-29-2006, 06:18 PM
I don't want to deal Adam Dunn. He will continue to improve. He had a down year for him in 2006 and still was our best offensive player. He has age on his side, and a desired skillset to avoid outs and acquire bases.

Granted, Dunn will never hit for high average, but he'll continue to get on base close to .400 OBP every year. That's not something I want to trade, and definitely not to a division rival.

Ah, well, then I can understand you not wanting to make the deal. But, I think he's done improving and is just getting more and more expensive. And, I say that as a big fan of Dunn and his power/patience combo.

I love OBP as well, which is why I want Morgan Ensberg in the deal. In 2006, Dunn hit .234 with a .365 OBP, while Ensberg hit .235 with a .396 OBP. So, Ensberg actually had MUCH BETTER OBP skills in 2006. I would suspect Ensberg's OBP would come back to earth a bit in 2007, but it would still be robust enough to offset most (if not all) of the loss of OBP from Dunn. Ensberg could also replace about 30-35 of the lost homeruns. And, Ensberg would actually be an asset in the field.

I'm very concerned about Dunn and aging. He has VERY little margin for error and survives on the "old player skills" of power and patience. And, young players who succeed by relying strictly on "old player skills" age much more rapidly than the average ballplayer. Dunn is already at the bottom of the acceptable spectrum for his defense and ability to make contact. I don't typically worry about strikeouts, but when you are breaking strikeout records in your early 20s, how are you going to do when your bat slows with age?

If Dunn's bat slows even a little bit, he'll be obliterating strikeout records and hitting fewer homeruns. At that point, it'll be difficult to justify having him in the lineup. You have to make a decent amount of contact to be an effective offensive player. Right now, Dunn does, but if he slips even a little it could get ugly. He's only going to get slower in the field and slower at the plate, which doesn't bode well for Dunn.

What if Dunn peaked in 2004 at the age of 24? The general consensus is that most players peak around age 28, but Dunn could have hit his peak early due to his reliance on "old player skills".

I think Dunn is going to age MUCH more quickly than the average ballplayer and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that he's peaked already. In fact, I don't think it's a stretch for him to be out of baseball by the time he's 31/32. In the future, if he can't make the minimum amount of contact necessary to be a productive offensive player, then there's no way he'll hold onto a job. You wouldn't keep him around for his defense or prowess on the bases, so he HAS to make contact frequently enough to hit ~40 HRs to justify his price. He can do it now, but when will it become a factor?

Given that he'll cost $10.5M in 2007 and may not improve, I think the time to move him is now.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)

dougdirt
10-29-2006, 06:21 PM
Well Blalock plays 3B currently, but I would imagine he could play 1st base. I would much rather see him at 1st over Hatteberg.

Same source said that the Rangers and Reds are both finding out that no one is making offers for any type of servicable pitching for either Dunn or Blalock.

mth123
10-29-2006, 06:28 PM
Ah, well, then I can understand you not wanting to make the deal. But, I think he's done improving and is just getting more and more expensive.

I love OBP as well, which is why I want Morgan Ensberg in the deal. In 2006, Dunn hit .234 with a .365 OBP, while Ensberg hit .235 with a .396 OBP. So, Ensberg actually had MUCH BETTER OBP skills in 2006. I would suspect Ensberg's OBP would come back to earth a bit in 2007, but it would still be robust enough to offset most (if not all) of the loss of OBP from Dunn. Ensberg could also replace about 30-35 of the lost homeruns. And, Ensberg would actually be an asset in the field.

I'm very concerned about Dunn and aging. He has VERY little margin for error and survives on the "old player skills" of power and patience. And, young players who succeed by relying strictly on "old player skills" age much more rapidly than the average ballplayer. Dunn is already at the bottom of the acceptable spectrum for his defense and ability to make contact. I don't typically worry about strikeouts, but when you are breaking strikeout records in your early 20s, how are you going to do when your bat slows with age?

If Dunn's bat slows even a little bit, he'll be obliterating strikeout records and hitting fewer homeruns. At that point, it'll be difficult to justify having him in the lineup. You have to make a decent amount of contact to be an effective offensive player. Right now, Dunn does, but if he slips even a little it could get ugly. He's only going to get slower in the field and slower at the plate, which doesn't bode well for Dunn.

What if Dunn peaked in 2004 at the age of 24? The general consensus is that most players peak around age 28, but Dunn could have hit his peak early due to his reliance on "old player skills".

I think Dunn is going to age MUCH more quickly than the average ballplayer and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that he's peaked already. In fact, I don't think it's a stretch for him to be out of baseball by the time he's 31/32. If he can't make the minimum amount of contact necessary, then there's no way he'll hold onto a job. You wouldn't keep him around for his defense or prowess on the bases, so he HAS to make contact frequently enough to hit ~40 HRs to justify his price.

Given that he'll cost $10.5M in 2007 and may not improve, I think the time to move him is now.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)

I'm in the keep Dunn camp, but this is a good post. I'm sure other trade Dunn folks think many of the same things, but this was well said, logical and didn't spew a bunch of emotional "he doesn't run to his position" junk.

Very well presented and getting some one to replace some of his offense makes it less awful IMO.

I'm still not convinced.:)

reds44
10-29-2006, 06:36 PM
Well Blalock plays 3B currently, but I would imagine he could play 1st base. I would much rather see him at 1st over Hatteberg.

Same source said that the Rangers and Reds are both finding out that no one is making offers for any type of servicable pitching for either Dunn or Blalock.
Well, let's take a look at the trade closer then.

Reds get:
Blalock CIF
Wilkerson OF

Rangers get:
Dunn
Moran
Cormier



Blalock (L):

2006-
BA: .266
HR: 16
RBI: 89
OBP: .325
SLG: .401
OPS: .726

2005-
BA: .263
HR: 25
RBI: 92
OBP: .318
SLG: 431
OPS: .749

Career-
.272/.335/.445

Wilkerson (L):

2006 (90 Games):
BA: .222
HR: 15
RBI: 44
OBP: .306
SLG: .422
OPS: 728

2005 (148 Games w/ Washington)
BA: .248
HR: 11
RBI: 57
OBP: .351
SLG: .405
OPS: .756

Career Line:
.252/.358/.252




Adam Dunn:

2006-
BA: .234
HR: 40
RBI: 92
OBP: .365
SLG: .490
OPS: .855

2005-
BA: .247
HR: 40
RBI: 101
OBP: .387
SLG: .540
OPS: .927

Career line:
.245/.380/.513


Now I personally don't think much of Cormier, and I think Moran is the 2nd coming of Brandon Watson so basically the trade is Dunn for Wilkerson and Blalock. First of all, I think Wilkerson makes a good chunk of change, so I don't know how much money this saves us. Regardless, if that is the best we can get for Adam Dunn I would rather hold onto him.

I will understand if we can't get quality pitching for him, but we have to do better then that deal.

Highlifeman21
10-29-2006, 06:41 PM
Ah, well, then I can understand you not wanting to make the deal. But, I think he's done improving and is just getting more and more expensive. And, I say that as a big fan of Dunn and his power/patience combo.

I love OBP as well, which is why I want Morgan Ensberg in the deal. In 2006, Dunn hit .234 with a .365 OBP, while Ensberg hit .235 with a .396 OBP. So, Ensberg actually had MUCH BETTER OBP skills in 2006. I would suspect Ensberg's OBP would come back to earth a bit in 2007, but it would still be robust enough to offset most (if not all) of the loss of OBP from Dunn. Ensberg could also replace about 30-35 of the lost homeruns. And, Ensberg would actually be an asset in the field.

I'm very concerned about Dunn and aging. He has VERY little margin for error and survives on the "old player skills" of power and patience. And, young players who succeed by relying strictly on "old player skills" age much more rapidly than the average ballplayer. Dunn is already at the bottom of the acceptable spectrum for his defense and ability to make contact. I don't typically worry about strikeouts, but when you are breaking strikeout records in your early 20s, how are you going to do when your bat slows with age?

If Dunn's bat slows even a little bit, he'll be obliterating strikeout records and hitting fewer homeruns. At that point, it'll be difficult to justify having him in the lineup. You have to make a decent amount of contact to be an effective offensive player. Right now, Dunn does, but if he slips even a little it could get ugly. He's only going to get slower in the field and slower at the plate, which doesn't bode well for Dunn.

What if Dunn peaked in 2004 at the age of 24? The general consensus is that most players peak around age 28, but Dunn could have hit his peak early due to his reliance on "old player skills".

I think Dunn is going to age MUCH more quickly than the average ballplayer and I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilities that he's peaked already. In fact, I don't think it's a stretch for him to be out of baseball by the time he's 31/32. In the future, if he can't make the minimum amount of contact necessary to be a productive offensive player, then there's no way he'll hold onto a job. You wouldn't keep him around for his defense or prowess on the bases, so he HAS to make contact frequently enough to hit ~40 HRs to justify his price. He can do it now, but when will it become a factor?

Given that he'll cost $10.5M in 2007 and may not improve, I think the time to move him is now.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. :)

A lot of great points.

The only thing I have to refute is Ensberg's age vs. Dunn's age. 3+ years advantage Dunn. That being said, I think you know what you're getting going forward for the next 4 years for Ensberg. With Dunn, and being one of his biggest supporters, I'm not sure what we'll get in the next 4 years.

This now becomes a question of ceiling vs. reliability. I'd like to see us realize and enjoy Dunn's ceiling, but I certainly understand the concern of those not willing to live with Dunn's growing pains.

If we're going to move Dunn, it has to help our pitching needs, while not sacrificing too much offensive production. If that can happen, then trade Dunn. If we're not addressing any needs, then it's just a question of making a trade for the sake of making a trade.

dougdirt
10-29-2006, 06:44 PM
Well, let's take a look at the trade closer then.

Reds get:
Blalock CIF
Wilkerson OF

Rangers get:
Dunn
Moran
Cormier

Now I personally don't think much of Cormier, and I think Moran is the 2nd coming of Brandon Watson so basically the trade is Dunn for Wilkerson and Blalock. First of all, I think Wilkerson makes a good chunk of change, so I don't know how much money this saves us. Regardless, if that is the best we can get for Adam Dunn I would rather hold onto him.

I will understand if we can't get quality pitching for him, but we have to do better then that deal.

I didnt propose the deal, just one I heard was being talked about.

reds44
10-29-2006, 07:00 PM
I didnt propose the deal, just one I heard was being talked about.
I know.

11BarryLarkin11
10-29-2006, 07:56 PM
I'm in the keep Dunn camp, but this is a good post. I'm sure other trade Dunn folks think many of the same things, but this was well said, logical and didn't spew a bunch of emotional "he doesn't run to his position" junk.

Very well presented and getting some one to replace some of his offense makes it less awful IMO.

I'm still not convinced.:)

Thanks, MTH. Actually, this is really the only argument I can make for dealing Dunn, as I'm a big fan of his. But, I think there's a tipping point at which Dunn ceases to make sense for the Reds. And, I think we've reached that point. However, if the debate is about Dunn's value as a player, then I'll happily jump in on the side of his power/patience outweighing his strikeouts/errors.

But, if we're talking about team building and Dunn's value to the Reds, then I have to come down on the other side of the argument. And, even that has come about only recently for me, as Dunn's production slipped for the second consecutive year (which really increased my concern about early aging and "old player skills"), while his salary continues to escalate.

As to why I think the specific trade I suggested makes sense for the Reds, I'll try and explain it a bit further.

Here's why I think it makes sense:

Whether you like Dunn or not, I think everyone would agree that whatever his value is, it is made up of power and patience alone. That's what he offers, Homeruns and Walks. He's not bringing a high batting average, a substantial number of stolen bases, or top notch defense to the table, only power and patience. So, if you were to replace Dunn, then that's what you'd have to replace: lost homers and lost walks. Nothing more.

So, just for a rough example, if you compare Ensberg and Dunn in 2006, you'll see that Dunn had 17 more homers (40 to 23) and 11 more walks (112 to 101) than Ensberg. Which is fairly substantial, but if you dig a bit deeper, you'll see that Dunn also had 188 more Plate Appearances (683 to 495) than Ensberg.

So, if you extrapolate out Ensberg's 2006 rate of performance over 683 Plate Appearances, then the story looks a bit different. If you increase Ensberg to 683 Plate Appearances in 2006, then Ensberg would actually have had 27 more walks than Dunn (139 to 112) and Dunn would have 7 more homers (40 to 33) than Ensberg.

So, given the same amount of Plate Appearances, Dunn would have provided 27 fewer walks and 7 more homers than Ensberg. So, the gap may not be as wide as we think.

Now, again, this is just a rough look at it. You could make the case that Dunn is a more durable player than Ensberg and that Ensberg's OBP was abnormally high in 2006 (both true), etc. But, the point is to try and roughly quantify what exactly we would lose if we made this deal, as I think it becomes a lot harder to oppose it, if you look at it this way.

As for Ensberg, he actually had a down year in 2006, as his very strong OBP was really the only impressive part about it. I suspect that his walk rate would fall to earth a bit in 2007, but his HRs and Batting Average would likely climb. And, Ensberg would be an ASSET at third, rather than a liability in left. I think it's fair to say that Ensberg is a top 10 defensive third baseman (John Dewan has him at #7 in his Fielding Bible), while Dunn is one of the two worst defensive leftfielders in baseball.

So, even if Ensberg's offensive production wouldn't entirely replace Dunn's, he brings improved defense at a much more important/difficult position, which would help save runs in 2007.

And, when you factor in their respective salaries for 2007, Dunn will be at $10.5M and Ensberg should be at around $4.5M, I think the scales tip farther towards making the deal.

So, to be generous, would Dunn's extra ~10 HRs and extra ~12 walks really outweigh the cost savings (~$6M) and defensive improvement (how many runs would Morgan save at third) to be gained by making the trade? And, Dunn may not even provide that much of an advantage over Ensberg. Dunn may continue his downward trend in 2007 or the change in home parks may help Ensberg and hurt Dunn.

Personally, I think you could make a strong case for the deal right there, but that doesn't even factor in the advantages of adding the best defensive shortstop in baseball AND a top notch setup man or closer (Preferably Wheeler, but maybe Lidge or Qualls). Whether the deal as proposed is spot on or not (although I think it's in the ballpark, at the very least), Dunn's much higher trade value would enable us to deal him for a package of talent that would provide better aggregate production than Dunn would provide and do it at a lower cost.

To me, this deal gives us one of the best defensive left sides of the infield in baseball (after having one of the worst in Felipe and EE for much of 2006), a top notch reliever for our always beleaguered bullpen, and potentially several million dollars in salary savings, while costing us very little in terms of offensive production. And, I view Cormier as being expendable and expensive.

To me, it all points to dealing Dunn, if the right deal comes along. And, in my opinion, this is the right deal.

Here are some more reasons why it works for all parties involved:
1) Dunn is from Texas, the Astros are looking for a big bat (Carlos Lee, Gary Sheffield, etc),
2) the Astros would likely get equivalent production at lesser salary from Dunn,
3) Dunn would be happy to play in Houston,
4) Dunn would be likely to sign a multi-year deal with Houston, maybe even at a discount,
5) Astros would get a bit of good PR bringing home a "good old boy",
6) Astros have soured on Ensberg who has been on the trading block since the before the deadline last year and have Aubrey Huff (if they re-sign him) and Mike Lamb to fill his slot.

Anyway, in aggregate, I think you lose little offensive production, but dramatically improve the defense and the bullpen by making the deal. And, the Reds would likely save several million dollars by getting rid of Dunn and Cormier, which could be used to bring in additional talent.

I like Dunn as much, if not more, than the next guy, but I think the time to deal him is now. I think the risk of keeping him (seeing him decline again) outweighs the risk of dealing him (watching him flourish) at this point, especially when you factor in his salary. As each year passes, he becomes less valuable to the Reds, as he becomes less and less of a bargain.

Here's a scary thought, if Dunn takes a step backward in 2007, do we exercise the $13M option for 2008? If he hits .230 with 37 homers in 2007, is he worth it? That's a question I wouldn't really want to have to answer, but I think the right deal could also substantially improve the Reds in 2007. Which, of course, is the ultimate goal. I don't think the team as currently configured can get to the next level.

Anyway, that's my $.02. :)

mth123
10-29-2006, 08:11 PM
Where does EE play? Moving him off 3B lowers his value. His throwing will improve. Your right its not bad.

11BarryLarkin11
10-29-2006, 08:23 PM
Personally, I'd move Edwin to first. I think that's where he'll have to end up eventually. If not 1st, he'd have to go to left, but that's where Griffey needs to be for the next couple of years.

I know the general consensus is that Edwin needs another year or two to prove himself before we move him, but I'd be perfectly content moving him now. His bat is so good that it will play anywhere, though admittedly not as well at first. But, his defensive position needs to be determined first and foremost by his glove, not his bat.

And, I could live with his poor fielding percentage if he had a very strong range. But, in 2006, both his Zone Rating (admittedly, not a perfect metric) AND his Fielding Percentage were the worst of any regular third baseman in baseball. His Zone Rating of .741 placed him in a tie for last with A-Rod and Troy Glaus, while his .916 FP was far and away the worst in baseball.

So, not only did he have problems with the balls he fielded, but he didn't get to as many as he should have. And, I'm not entirely sure his throwing will improve, though it is certainly possible. But, I'm just not convinced that he'll ever become even an average defensive third baseman and if we could find out definitively, I think we'd all be surprised how many runs our defense costs us over the course of a season.

I don't think moving Edwin to first hurts us much at all and it may even help him relax and focus more on offense. At the very least, I think it would force Narron to give Edwin consistent playing time and stop using Edwin's defense as a reason to keep him out of the lineup.

Then, if you want to take it a step farther, you could trade Joey Votto to address other needs, as Edwin would be our first baseman of the future. Personally, I like the idea of dealing Joey Votto and David Ross to the Giants for Kevin Correia, Jonathan Sanchez, and a pitching prospect. The Giants are flush with young pitching, but have a lot of holes to fill in their everyday lineup for 2007. So, by shifting Edwin to first, we could add two young starting pitchers with significant upside to the rotation, as Votto would be expendable.

To me, the Reds are handcuffed by their current roster makeup. There are just too many poor defenders and a logjam at the left end of the defensive spectrum. Dealing Dunn (if done correctly), could really help the Reds restructure their roster. And, there would be a significant amount of trickle down benefit to doing so.

RedLegSuperStar
10-29-2006, 08:57 PM
I like the idea of getting Blalock.. Why not deal Travis Wood and mid level prospect for Blalock... then move Hank to RF.

Sure we lose a potential stud arm but get a potent bat. This team needs offense and needs it badly. Don't get me wrong... I'm not willing to give up to a lot for a little. This team probably wont rid them selves of Junior (not that I'd be in favor of it) or Milton. But maybe Dunn and Larue can sweeten any deal if cash is ponied up for LaRue.