PDA

View Full Version : What is too much for Dunn?



jojo
07-25-2008, 04:17 PM
There have been several threads devoted to Dunn, his worth, and whether the Reds should resign him.

Concerning resigning Dunn much of the argument has focused upon his production and how it might (or might not) be replaced.

This thread is meant to focus on what the ORG thinks the Reds should be willing to pay Dunn and for how long. The options are meant to frame what is somewhat practical (i.e. there isn't an option for 1 yr/$2M) based upon the market though some could argue about the practicality of the options at either margin.

In any event, vote for the maximum amount of years/dollars that you think the Reds should offer Dunn given the options without regard for whether you think Dunn would accept the offer.

With some luck there will be a consensus about what the Reds should offer and the debate within the thread can focus on whether Dunn would actually accept it.

fearofpopvol1
07-25-2008, 04:19 PM
4/56 is the max I would go (both in years and salary). It'd be great if the Reds could get it done for 48-50 though.

Cyclone792
07-25-2008, 04:20 PM
You'll get two different "groups" of offers: one group of realistic offers from those who want to keep Dunn, and another group of unrealistic low-ball offers from those who want to see Dunn walk.

dougdirt
07-25-2008, 04:21 PM
To me, its pretty simple. The longer the contract is, the less I am willing to pay per year. I would be willing to pay 45-48 million for a 3 year deal. However if he wants more than 3 years (and he probably will), the price per years in my offer is going to go down to something like 12-13 million per year rather than 15-16 and I will not go over a 5 year deal with him. I don't trust him to age well enough.

flyer85
07-25-2008, 04:24 PM
anything over 4 years. It's not as much about the $$ per year as it is about the length of the contract. If I was the Reds I would not go past 4 years(preferably 3).

The thing is if there haven't been discussions then the Reds really have no feel for what it actually might take.

I am pessimistic that Dunn will be a Red in 2009 ... which means Jocketty has a lot of heavy lifting ahead.

jojo
07-25-2008, 04:26 PM
You'll get two different "groups" of offers: one group of realistic offers from those who want to keep Dunn, and another group of unrealistic low-ball offers from those who want to see Dunn walk.

I put made this into a poll in the hopes of avoiding anything patently unrealistic.

While I'm sure the options in the poll won't be perfect for everyone, I both hope they are inclusive enough and I'm really interested in what the ORG suggests is appropriate.

Also another limitation is that adding "option years" as an option would've made the poll untenable.

membengal
07-25-2008, 04:28 PM
I am hoping for something no more than four years. 4 and 60 would be a decent contract.

nate
07-25-2008, 04:50 PM
I said 4/60. I'm not sure it gets done for that amount.

red-in-la
07-25-2008, 05:20 PM
It appears 4/60 is way ahead. If you were going to spend 4/60, wouldn't you spend it on Ben Sheets?

The Reds have allowed 504 runs. Only ONE team over .500 has allowed 500 runs.....that is the Marlins.

If you want a winning record, pay for pitching!!!!!!!!

Raisor
07-25-2008, 05:27 PM
It appears 4/60 is way ahead. If you were going to spend 4/60, wouldn't you spend it on Ben Sheets?

The Reds have allowed 504 runs. Only ONE team over .500 has allowed 500 runs.....that is the Marlins.

If you want a winning record, pay for pitching!!!!!!!!


develop pitchers, trade for pitchers, don't pay for pitchers.

jojo
07-25-2008, 05:27 PM
develop pitchers, trade for pitchers, don't pay for pitchers.

Ya.

red-in-la
07-25-2008, 05:32 PM
I agree that paying pitchers is risky, but the Reds have traded for and devloped what they have......they need at least one mreo starter and one more good reliever, that is assuming Burton is OK (ditto Harang).

So either you pay or you trade guys like Encarncion and Votto and hope to replace them with FA. If you give Dunn, who would have to be MVP type talent, the bank, and 4/60 ISTHE BANK, then I don't see where you add other FA hitters.

Raisor
07-25-2008, 05:39 PM
RIL>

Most of us are talking about adding 2-3 million per year to Dunn's current deal. If the Reds can't afford that, especially with a) Junior coming off the books and b)Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and Volquez being years away from arbritration then there really isn't any long term hope.

I'd be looking to move Votto in the offseason myself. If the Braves, for example, can't/won't sign Tex, they're going to need some help at 1B.

membengal
07-25-2008, 05:57 PM
+1 to what Raisor said.

Except for the Votto part. He stays.

Raisor
07-25-2008, 06:03 PM
+1 to what Raisor said.

Except for the Votto part. He stays.

I'd like for him to stay too, but with Yonder Alonso in the wings, he'd be a good choice to flip for pitching.

membengal
07-25-2008, 06:04 PM
Alonso still isn't signed, and, even if he does sign, will take a year or two to get here. Plenty of time to see Votto finish developing and consider dealing him if and when Alonso ever gets here.

RedsBaron
07-25-2008, 06:17 PM
4 years at $60,000,000 got my vote. Raisor was absolutely correct-develop and trade for pitchers. The Reds cannot afford a Zito mistake.

Raisor
07-25-2008, 06:32 PM
Raisor was absolutely correct.


If I had a dollar for everytime I've read this, I could buy a cup of coffee (from Starbucks even!)

nate
07-25-2008, 06:34 PM
It appears 4/60 is way ahead. If you were going to spend 4/60, wouldn't you spend it on Ben Sheets?

No. He's been hurt a lot. He's going to be 30. Four years is too long for basically any FA pitcher (to me) let alone one with that pedigree.


The Reds have allowed 504 runs. Only ONE team over .500 has allowed 500 runs.....that is the Marlins.

The idea is to score more runs than you allow.


If you want a winning record, pay for pitching!!!!!!!!

If you want a winning record, pay for the players not in your system that help your team outscore the opponent.

nate
07-25-2008, 06:37 PM
I agree that paying pitchers is risky, but the Reds have traded for and devloped what they have......they need at least one mreo starter and one more good reliever, that is assuming Burton is OK (ditto Harang).

So either you pay or you trade guys like Encarncion and Votto and hope to replace them with FA. If you give Dunn, who would have to be MVP type talent, the bank, and 4/60 ISTHE BANK, then I don't see where you add other FA hitters.

"MVP Talent" will cost more than 4/60.

*BaseClogger*
07-25-2008, 06:45 PM
6/$72M because it is too long at that price. I don't wanna go over five years, and if it was for six years it would have to be for less per year...

jojo
07-25-2008, 08:12 PM
RIL>

Most of us are talking about adding 2-3 million per year to Dunn's current deal. If the Reds can't afford that, especially with a) Junior coming off the books and b)Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and Volquez being years away from arbritration then there really isn't any long term hope.

I'm one of the advocates for the Reds letting Dunn walk. IMHO, with Dunn, the issue is more related to the potential length of his next contract rather than annual amount. To clarify, I think he's a 3 win player at this moment with wins going for $4-5M. So I'd argue Dunn is worth $12 to $15M per year (though I think how long he'll remain a three win player is debatable). That said, I'd be less critical of the Reds overpaying him to take a shorter contract than if they tried to squeeze the annual portion by rewarding him with years.

For instance, 3 yrs/$54M is more palatable to me than 6 yrs/$90M. If the free agent market is as soft for Dunn as the trade market seems to be and the Reds decided that Dunn was a priority, i'd hope they'd try the short term overpay approach. If he only has 1 or 2 other suitors who aren't overwhelming him, he might be tempted to grab the overpay and see what the market might be like in a few short years with hopefully some playoff heroics on his resume.

Their roster is young and basically the Reds are "stealing" marginal wins from several players so I'd consider giving Dunn an extra $1M per win than market rate to be a forgivable sin in the short term if the Reds just have to pull that trigger.

Like I've argued many times though, I'm in favor of leveraging the pitching with a killer defense and having a more balanced offensive attack (i.e. a lower ceiling on the offense but a dramatically higher floor). Basically cleaning the dreck from the line up would go a long way.... A mock outfield modeled after that philosophy might resemble something like Winn-Dejesus-Bruce with a young vacuum cleaner like a Hu getting a significant number of innings at short (though saying that is easier than suggesting Jocketty could realistically make it all happen).

Spring~Fields
07-25-2008, 09:56 PM
How much is too much? I donít know.

It depends upon the amount of money that the organization can realistically afford to spend on the major league player budget.

If a single player takes of too much of a percentage of that budget dollar figure, then the general manager will be compelled to spread the remainder amongst the remaining number of his roster. The amount remainder will be smaller of course, but it often compels them to go to dumpster diving to fill the roster in relief pitcher, bench players or starting position players and we Reds fans have not faired well when the Reds general managers have had to do that. They end up with too many players below league average or to keep it simple players who run a negative RS RA negative DIFF and a team that produces losing seasons.

Then there are the competitors who long ago adjusted their situations from their revenues and expenses perspectives to bring things in align for them to pay the higher payrolls now, where as the Reds have not, and they are having to play catch up.

Thatís another reason many of us advocate doing like the other small market teams like Oakland, Florida, Tampa, Minnesota or Arizona etc, we donít think that the Reds can do or win a payroll race with the Chicagoís of the world.

It is not really about Dunn, it is about what the team can afford for their roster and the quality of players on that roster that it takes to win or compete within the division.

NJReds
07-25-2008, 10:15 PM
I said 3/$45 ... but I'd give a 4th year if there was an team option or buyout.

GAC
07-25-2008, 10:17 PM
It's not my money. I voted 5 yr/75 mil. ;)

jojo
07-25-2008, 10:18 PM
It's not my money. I voted 5 yr/75 mil. ;)

That probably threatens dollar hotdog nights though... :cool:

GAC
07-25-2008, 10:22 PM
That probably threatens dollar hotdog nights though... :cool:

Not a hotdog man. I go for those Gametime Burgers though. :p:

Rojo
07-25-2008, 10:26 PM
A point in Dunn's favor that I haven't seen brought up is his durability. He may have a fast-aging body type, but so far we haven't seen it.

princeton
07-25-2008, 10:29 PM
A point in Dunn's favor that I haven't seen brought up is his durability. He may have a fast-aging body type, but so far we haven't seen it.

he can't run fast enough to hurt himself.

the other interesting thing about Dunn, which is not in his favor, is that he has seemed to have been untradeable for anything of value. that'll get worse when he signs his next contract.

It's always preferable to have liquid assets.

edabbs44
07-25-2008, 10:37 PM
develop pitchers, trade for pitchers, don't pay for pitchers.

This team doesn't draft pitchers. That is problem #1. You need to have talented pichers to develop.

AmarilloRed
07-25-2008, 11:51 PM
4/60. I expect after 4 years we will have a better alternative than Dunn from the minors, but we don't have one now. Edwin or Votto might be able to make the transition to LF, but it is far from a sure thing. I would not want to go longer than 4 year, or 15 million to re-sign Dunn, however.

Nugget
07-26-2008, 12:32 AM
Wow - Yonder Alonso has neither signed with the REDS or played an inning of pro-ball and he is already the reason to trade away a good young 1B. That really is playing fantasy ball.

GAC
07-26-2008, 06:23 AM
But isn't 4 yrs @ 60 mil, which averages out to 12 mil/yr, asking Dunn, a player in his prime, to take a pay cut?

mth123
07-26-2008, 07:30 AM
But isn't 4 yrs @ 60 mil, which averages out to 12 mil/yr, asking Dunn, a player in his prime, to take a pay cut?

Not a math guy eh GAC? It averages $15 Million and seems about right IMO.

This thread makes me laugh. Many seem to think Dunn isn't worth a long high dollar contract, but most of those same people are absolutely sure he'll get it. Why is that?

I'd offer 3/45 and if he balks go to 4/60. Dunn will be 29, 30, 31 and 32 during a 4 year deal. Heck, I'd throw in a $5 Million signing bonus. I know the arguments against his "old player skills" and body type, but its not like he's a 32 year old getting that deal.

RANDY IN INDY
07-26-2008, 08:11 AM
Wow - Yonder Alonso has neither signed with the REDS or played an inning of pro-ball and he is already the reason to trade away a good young 1B. That really is playing fantasy ball.

:beerme:

dfs
07-26-2008, 10:08 AM
I'm interested in the reason behind the reluctance to go more than 4 years.

Dunn is 28. 5 years gets us to 33. 6 is to 34. He's pretty much the age that you can lock somebody up.

Is it more a matter of not wanting to commit to ANY long term contract or more of a matter of believing that Dunn is going to crash and burn early because of his size and lack of peripheral skills?

Just for reference, when Junior came to cincy he was 29.

mth123
07-26-2008, 01:22 PM
I'm interested in the reason behind the reluctance to go more than 4 years.

Dunn is 28. 5 years gets us to 33. 6 is to 34. He's pretty much the age that you can lock somebody up.

Is it more a matter of not wanting to commit to ANY long term contract or more of a matter of believing that Dunn is going to crash and burn early because of his size and lack of peripheral skills?

Just for reference, when Junior came to cincy he was 29.


I think for most people its the size and "old man skills." The theory I've seen is that players whose skills are power and plate discipline age earlier than more athletic players. Intuitively, it seems that speed guys would seem to age earlier as they lose a step they lose their value, but I haven't seen the numbers. For me personally its the size and the ability for his knees to take the pounding of all that weight day-in and day-out. If the Reds were in the AL where he could DH to stay healthy, 5 or 6 years would be less risky.

Generally, I think 5 or 6 years for Dunn might be ok. I'd front load the deal though so if he needs to be moved to the AL towards the end, the $ wouldn't be so prohibitive.

IslandRed
07-26-2008, 01:26 PM
Is it more a matter of not wanting to commit to ANY long term contract or more of a matter of believing that Dunn is going to crash and burn early because of his size and lack of peripheral skills?

For me, it's some of both. I don't mind giving longer contracts so long as the terms are such that it's not crippling if it doesn't work, but I'd go longer than four only for the surest bets.

The second issue you raise is why I don't consider Dunn one of those. Players of his type tend not to age well, and when they slip they slip fast (e.g. Travis Hafner). There's a good argument to be made that a three-year deal isn't overly risky, but beyond that, I think we're bucking the odds if we give him a contract that presumes he will perform just as well at ages 32+ as he is now at 28.

HokieRed
07-26-2008, 01:56 PM
I'd be reluctant to give anybody more than four years. The real problem is that you lose flexibility. Everything always has to be decided around that long-term contract. In Dunn's case, his defense is already marginal (I actually think he's a better LFer than most people give him credit for being, but he's still slightly below average). What's that defense going to be like in 4 or 5 years? Will he move to 1b? In the past he's not indicated he would. Of course from his standpoint he should try, this time around, to get the longest deal he can, which is part of why I think there's very little chance Walt will sign him.

Razor Shines
07-30-2008, 12:11 AM
Well now that Tex has been sent to the Angels, I hope he goes there and absolutely rakes and they win the World Series. They'd probably be more likely to sign Tex this off season. That would probably take them out of the running for signing Dunn and therefore not driving up the $$ on next his contract. Hopefully this trade gives the Reds a better chance of re-signing Dunn.

Benihana
07-30-2008, 12:32 AM
I think the lack of interest in trading for him should bring down his value (and hopefully asking price) at least a little bit. I would offer 3 yrs/$48 MM, and if he wanted more security the most I'd offer would be 4 yrs/$56 MM. If he demands any more than that, I let him walk. I don't want him on the books when all the kids start approaching free agency.

MartyFan
07-30-2008, 01:02 AM
It appears 4/60 is way ahead. If you were going to spend 4/60, wouldn't you spend it on Ben Sheets?

The Reds have allowed 504 runs. Only ONE team over .500 has allowed 500 runs.....that is the Marlins.

If you want a winning record, pay for pitching!!!!!!!!

Pitching and Defense...to many HR's this year...still, I think next years staff of pitchers with the same names in place is better than this years staff...also, our hitters aren't hitting...this team should be 10-15 wins better this year but they aren't because they are under-performing and/or learning on the job.