PDA

View Full Version : Dunn's value increasing?



buckeyenut
05-24-2008, 10:23 AM
Just heard an interesting discussion on the Mike and Mike podcast. The talk was about how 2b, 3b and HRs are all down the last two years, likely due to drug testing.

So, if that is true, and Dunn the last couple weeks has proven he just have a slow start rather than a decline, does that mean that Dunn's value to the team and price tag is actually going UP as others decline and the power he provides is relatively more scarce?

RedlegJake
05-24-2008, 12:01 PM
If Dunn stays hot and the homers pile up (which I have no doubt they will), then yes Dunn's value climbs. Thing is he is just as valuable to the Reds as another team. Much, much more valuable than what we'd get in return. Think of this offense without Dunn.

OnBaseMachine
05-24-2008, 12:08 PM
The only way I trade Dunn at this point is if someone knocks Jocketty over a with huge offer. I'm talking something along the lines of an "A" prospect and two "B or B+" prospects. If no one wows you with an offer than sign him to a LTC, hopefully somewhere around three years at $15 million a year with maybe an option for a fourth year. This offense is already terrible, now try to imagine how awful it would be without Adam Dunn in it. Scary thought isn't it?

jojo
05-24-2008, 02:08 PM
I don't think 25-30 at bats really changes anything relating to Dunn's value.

kaldaniels
05-24-2008, 02:11 PM
I don't think 25-30 at bats really changes anything relating to Dunn's value.

In a free agent walk year, I'd disagree and say it goes a long way. It shows he is not headed for an Andruw Jones-like downturn.

RedsManRick
05-24-2008, 02:13 PM
Dunn is 14th in OPS in the NL right now. Perhaps most surprising however is his strikeout numbers. Dunn in tied for 22nd with just 38. Those who have more include Ryan Howard, Chris Young, Adrian Gonzalez, Ryan Braun, Matt Kemp, and Pat Burrell. He's 3rd in walks.

I don't really care about his SO numbers if the production is there, but I think it could be useful in altering his perception in the trade market.

GoReds
05-24-2008, 02:28 PM
If I could replace Dunn's salary slot with a nearly comparable RH bat (Matt Holliday is a good example), then you'd have to consider it. However, I don't see a lot of those bats becoming available.

jojo
05-24-2008, 04:09 PM
In a free agent walk year, I'd disagree and say it goes a long way. It shows he is not headed for an Andruw Jones-like downturn.

He'll be signed based upon his history and to the extent that his '08 production colors decisions it will be based upon his whole season.

kaldaniels
05-24-2008, 05:21 PM
He'll be signed based upon his history and to the extent that his '08 production colors decisions it will be based upon his whole season.

All I know is I'm sure Andruw Jones will cause teams to second guess deals in free agency...thats for sure. Dunn certainly has helped his and the Reds situation involving him over the past week. I'm no idiot...obviously teams look at a players track record (usually the past 3 seasons specifically)...but Dunn's tear certainly will help him and the Reds. Like I said, I'm sure A. Jones will cause a few gun-shy GMS at somepoint in the next year.

Blitz Dorsey
05-24-2008, 07:24 PM
This is going to be really interesting to see what happens with Dunn. It's either going to be a controversial blockbuster trade (after June 15 obviously) or the Reds are going to re-sign him to what will surely be a controversial long-term contract. I have decided I really don't care how this plays out as long as Dunn is either signed or we get a stud young starting pitcher for him.

I am really curious as to his market value. That darn limited no-trade clause hurts the Reds a little bit of course. However, Dunn would almost assuredly accept any trade. The last thing he would want the Reds to do right before he was about to become a free agent would be sit him for all of August and September. Not that it would ever come to that, but could you imagine if Dunn vetoed a trade the Reds really wanted, then refused to sign a LTC and the Reds were stuck with him and they were out of the race? The Reds could tell Dunn, "OK, your numbers won't look quite as good as they should when you hit the market. We'll just sit you down if you don't accept this trade. Plus this team is a contender or they wouldn't be trading for you."

Again, it would never come to that. I'm sure Dunn would accept just about any trade. But the limited no-trade clause is not just something we can ignore. I wish Dunn didn't have any no-trade stipulations in his contract.

Ron Madden
05-24-2008, 07:32 PM
I think it's kinda silly to even think this club will be suddenly improved by trading Adam Dunn.

Blitz Dorsey
05-24-2008, 07:35 PM
I think it's kinda silly to even think this club will be suddenly improved by trading Adam Dunn.

I don't think anyone said that. I think it's just a matter of being realistic. If Dunn wants too much money (i.e. more than Jocketty and Castellini think he's worth) and they can get a good young pitcher or two for him, Dunn is going to be traded. If Jocketty and Castellini like the idea of signing Dunn to a long-term contract and Dunn isn't looking to completely break the bank, something can be done.

There is no question this team won't be immediately better in 2009 if they trade Adam Dunn. In a perfect world they could re-sign him and fill out their pitching holes in free agency. However, I fear Dunn is going to want too much jack and the Reds' front office has already made up their mind what they think of his true value. I don't see the Reds and Team Dunn seeing eye-to-eye on Dunn's value. I certainly hope I'm wrong though.

Redhook
05-24-2008, 09:47 PM
In today's market Dunn is worth approximately $15 million per year. Good deal for the big market teams. Pretty bad deal for the small market teams. The Reds just can't afford to give a luxury like Dunn 20% of the payroll. There's only a handful players in all of baseball that are worth 20% of a payroll, and unfortunately, Dunn is not one of them.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with him. I'm really curious to find out. I'm still expecting him to be traded sometime in late June for 3 decent minor leaguers.

AtomicDumpling
05-24-2008, 10:41 PM
Just heard an interesting discussion on the Mike and Mike podcast. The talk was about how 2b, 3b and HRs are all down the last two years, likely due to drug testing.

So, if that is true, and Dunn the last couple weeks has proven he just have a slow start rather than a decline, does that mean that Dunn's value to the team and price tag is actually going UP as others decline and the power he provides is relatively more scarce?

I think the original idea of this thread (before it got hijacked with the usual "should we sign him or trade him" mumbo jumbo) was an interesting point.

I think Dunn's value does rise given the recent reduction in homers around the league. With many players there is a question of whether or not their production will fall now that the league's PED testing program has toughened. There is no such question with Adam Dunn. His name has never been linked with steroids or HGH. He doesn't have the muscle-freak body associated with PED users either. GMs around the league can rest assured that Adam Dunn's production will stay consistent and won't drop off due to steroid withdrawal.

Power is harder to find now than it has been for the last decade. We all know power is what wins games. So I think Dunn's value does increase as a result.

SteelSD
05-25-2008, 12:42 AM
In today's market Dunn is worth approximately $15 million per year. Good deal for the big market teams. Pretty bad deal for the small market teams. The Reds just can't afford to give a luxury like Dunn 20% of the payroll. There's only a handful players in all of baseball that are worth 20% of a payroll, and unfortunately, Dunn is not one of them.

Dunn isn't a "luxury". He's an offensive driver. Despite dumb managers using him poorly, we should have figured that out by now. By either trading or buying out Griffey's final season, not only can the Reds afford him, but they certainly should.

And if one is going to use an argument about a high percentage of payroll going to one player, we should remember that the Reds' Closer is receiving an average of nearly 12M per season over the next four years. I honestly have little issue with overpaying for something proven the Reds need that they couldn't necessarily produce internally, but we need to remember that there are very few hitters who can approximate Dunn's value either in FA or via trade.

Frankly, I don't see Dunn's value being increased by anything right now. He's the same guy now that he's been over the past few seasons and has a history of excellent performance.

SteelSD
05-25-2008, 12:49 AM
BTW, for the RBI junkies, Adam Dunn is currently 7th in the NL in RBI per AB. He's one slot ahead of Chipper Jones who has as many HR (12) with 26 more AB and a BA of .416.

So wha' happen' was...

MWM
05-25-2008, 12:54 AM
If the Reds "can't afford" to pay a player like Adam Dunn $15MM per year over a few years, they ought to just pack up and call it quits. They'll never be able to compete for a World Series.

Another thing I think gets lost in the "spend the money on pitching" idea is the fact that you can't just walk into the pitching store and say you want a starting pitcher for $15MM a year. A pitcher who really is worth that kind of money isn't available just whenever you want them. Also, if the Reds are willing to spend that much on him, in the current market, there's probably a few teams willing to spend more. Few free agent pitchers are going to choose Cincy over other options unless the Reds offer a good amount more than anyone else is willing to pay. And that's what gets you Eric Milton. Teams tend to sign their own players at reasonable contracts much more than they're able to sign FAs.

It's not as simple as saying "let's just go spend the money on pitching."

TeamBoone
05-25-2008, 01:45 AM
In addition, a ton of people on this board are complaining about the Reds lack of offense this year... just think what it would be WITHOUT Adam Dunn.

Caveat Emperor
05-25-2008, 03:44 AM
Teams tend to sign their own players at reasonable contracts much more than they're able to sign FAs.

It's not as simple as saying "let's just go spend the money on pitching."

Truth that bears repeating.

The best pitchers in baseball simply don't hit free agency with any regularity -- they're either re-signed by the club that develops them (see: Webb, Brandon; Peavy, Jake; and Harang, Aaron) or they're traded before they hit the market to a team that then re-signs them to a big-money deal (see: Beckett, Josh; Santana, Johan).

GAC
05-25-2008, 06:31 AM
I think it's kinda silly to even think this club will be suddenly improved by trading Adam Dunn.

I'm not one who advocates trading Adam. But I disagree that this club cannot be improved upon if he is gone. That is really hard to predict IMO depending on what Jocketty gets in return.

And would not the addition of a Jay Bruce, along with the continued maturation of guys like Votto, help to offset that offensive production?

Plus, you can have addition by subtraction if we can get rid of guys like Jr and Patterson. But then you have the "Dusty Factor". And from what I've seen so far this year, and his concept of lineup construction and who he seems to place his misguided faith in as far as run production.... "Houston, we have a problem". ;)

BuckeyeRedleg
05-25-2008, 08:53 AM
Another counter to the argument that so much percentage of payroll shouldn't be tied to one or two players, is the fact that guys like Volquez, Ceuto, Votto, Bailey, Bruce etc. are making the major league minimum.

So, it all really balances out.

Re-sign Dunn. Now.

buckeyenut
05-25-2008, 09:16 AM
I think the original idea of this thread (before it got hijacked with the usual "should we sign him or trade him" mumbo jumbo) was an interesting point.

I think Dunn's value does rise given the recent reduction in homers around the league. With many players there is a question of whether or not their production will fall now that the league's PED testing program has toughened. There is no such question with Adam Dunn. His name has never been linked with steroids or HGH. He doesn't have the muscle-freak body associated with PED users either. GMs around the league can rest assured that Adam Dunn's production will stay consistent and won't drop off due to steroid withdrawal.

Power is harder to find now than it has been for the last decade. We all know power is what wins games. So I think Dunn's value does increase as a result.
Sorry, I should have known better than to bring up a completely different point and discussion with Adam Dunn's name involved. How silly of me. :thumbdown

Thanks for getting the point of the thread, AtomicDumpling.

Raisor
05-25-2008, 09:21 AM
And would not the addition of a Jay Bruce, along with the continued maturation of guys like Votto, help to offset that offensive production?



If the Reds lose Dunn, they'll need to replace up to THREE ofers. Bruce is one.

Chip R
05-25-2008, 09:32 AM
If the Reds lose Dunn, they'll need to replace up to THREE ofers. Bruce is one.


Dude, they have Freel and the Hop. You could put it to song. Instead of "Willie, Mickey and the Duke" we'd have "Hopper, Freel and the Bruce." :D

GAC
05-25-2008, 09:35 AM
If the Reds lose Dunn, they'll need to replace up to THREE ofers. Bruce is one.

That's true. But if Uncle Waltie intends to let Dunn walk, or trade him by the deadline, then he obviously must have a plan to correct that right?

Maybe he'll extend Corey on Dusty's recommendation? ;)