PDA

View Full Version : Dunn's Contract - Rosenthal Wrong?



JaxRed
06-10-2007, 09:00 AM
Rosenthal says:

"Reds left fielder Adam Dunn lacks a no-trade clause, but his contract includes a provision that grants him his own form of protection, effectively allowing him to determine his own fate.
If Dunn is traded, his $13 million club option for '08 will be voided, making him a free agent at the end of the season, according to a source with knowledge of his contract.

Thus, any team that acquired him likely would request a negotiating window to sign him long-term, rather than simply rent him for two or three months.

If the Reds keep Dunn and exercise his option after the season, he will gain full no-trade protection until next June 15. After that date, he could be traded to 10 clubs, but the list would be of his own choosing. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dunn will have less than 7 years ML service when 2007 is over. I say if he gets traded his Option voids and he becomes Arb eligible.

RedlegNation
06-10-2007, 09:47 AM
That's the way I understand Dunn's contract is set up. I don't think Rosenthal is incorrect.

IslandRed
06-10-2007, 11:19 AM
Dunn will have less than 7 years ML service when 2007 is over. I say if he gets traded his Option voids and he becomes Arb eligible.

I'm missing your point, I guess. The threshold for free agency is six years, not seven. If he's traded, his contract ends at the end of 2007, since there will no longer be a 2008 club option. So why couldn't he file for free agency like any other player with six-plus years of service who was not under contract? His new team could still offer him arbitration, but he'd be under no obligation to accept.

Matt700wlw
06-10-2007, 11:22 AM
What a dumb contract :p:

JaxRed
06-10-2007, 11:30 AM
I'm missing your point, I guess. The threshold for free agency is six years, not seven. If he's traded, his contract ends at the end of 2007, since there will no longer be a 2008 club option. So why couldn't he file for free agency like any other player with six-plus years of service who was not under contract? His new team could still offer him arbitration, but he'd be under no obligation to accept.


Ok, I'm wrong. Thought it was 7.

KronoRed
06-10-2007, 12:48 PM
What a dumb contract :p:

I can think of dumber ones...

redsmetz
06-10-2007, 02:27 PM
What a dumb contract :p:

If the intent was to show a commitment to Dunn for the long term and tie him to the club for that time, it succeeds. I think, afterall, that's what WK was attempting to do. In some ways, the overriding philosophy is that these are just all cogs in the great machinations of baseball. In fact, Krivsky was saying to Dunn and the fan base, we want Adam Dunn here for the duration of this contract. As many have pointed out, Dunn is what he is and while having some flaws, is among the most productive players in the game. He's ours - I just keep wondering why we don't enjoy him more.