PDA

View Full Version : Reason Dunn was traded was plain and simple



icehole3
08-13-2008, 06:56 AM
He wanted 120 million according to Bronson Arroyo. John Fay mentioned it with Marty last night, Fay says Arroyo told him if Dunn couldnt get it from the Reds he'll get it somewhere else and Marty replied "Wake me up when that happens, nobody is going to give that type of money out to a 1 dimensional type player."

The Reds should arrested for grand larceny stealing from the D-Backs like that.

:p:

RedEye
08-13-2008, 07:02 AM
He wanted 120 million according to Bronson Arroyo. John Fay mentioned it with Marty last night, Fay says Arroyo told him if Dunn couldnt get it from the Reds he'll get it somewhere else and Marty replied "Wake me up when that happens, nobody is going to give that type of money out to a 1 dimensional type player."

The Reds should arrested for grand larceny stealing from the D-Backs like that.

:p:

If the return is Owings-Parker-Buck, I agree with you. If not, I'm not as sure.

PuffyPig
08-13-2008, 07:11 AM
He wanted 120 million according to Bronson Arroyo. John Fay mentioned it with Marty last night, Fay says Arroyo told him if Dunn couldnt get it from the Reds he'll get it somewhere else and Marty replied "Wake me up when that happens, nobody is going to give that type of money out to a 1 dimensional type player."

The Reds should arrested for grand larceny stealing from the D-Backs like that.

:p:

Why?

The Diamondbacks traded for 6 weeks of Dunn. That's what they got. He was a rental. They will get two draft picks in the end.

Dunn's salary demands are immaterial to them.

princeton
08-13-2008, 07:24 AM
I assume that the Reds also saw something from the Dbacks that they liked better than two compensation draft picks.

Strikes Out Looking
08-13-2008, 07:56 AM
Why?

The Diamondbacks traded for 6 weeks of Dunn. That's what they got. He was a rental. They will get two draft picks in the end.

Dunn's salary demands are immaterial to them.

Unless, no one gives him the $20 million per year for a length of time he wants, he takes the arbitration and the arbitrater awards him $20 million for next year. And to get the draft picks, the Diamondbacks have to offer arbitration.

blumj
08-13-2008, 08:06 AM
Unless, no one gives him the $20 million per year for a length of time he wants, he takes the arbitration and the arbitrater awards him $20 million for next year. And to get the draft picks, the Diamondbacks have to offer arbitration.
Dunn won't accept arbitration, he'll get a long term contract, even if it isn't $20M a year or 6+ years. If by some weird chance he did accept arbitration, Dunn on a 1 year/$15-$20M deal is a very tradeable commodity. And, arbitration awards are not fully guaranteed until the season starts. There is absolutely no way they can get stuck having to pay him $20M next season if they really, really don't want to.

PuffyPig
08-13-2008, 08:22 AM
Unless, no one gives him the $20 million per year for a length of time he wants, he takes the arbitration and the arbitrater awards him $20 million for next year. And to get the draft picks, the Diamondbacks have to offer arbitration.

As many have pointed out in every Dunn thread out there, Dunn accepting arbitration is very, very slim, and if he does, it's a win-win for the team offering arbitration.

bucksfan2
08-13-2008, 08:28 AM
Dunn won't accept arbitration, he'll get a long term contract, even if it isn't $20M a year or 6+ years. If by some weird chance he did accept arbitration, Dunn on a 1 year/$15-$20M deal is a very tradeable commodity. And, arbitration awards are not fully guaranteed until the season starts. There is absolutely no way they can get stuck having to pay him $20M next season if they really, really don't want to.

People keep saying that Dunn is very tradeable but I just don't see it. Two deadlines pass with Dunn being shopped yet never traded. We have had debates after debates over here on RZ about Dunn. You don't think GM's have mixed emotions about Dunn as well? This August/September will go a long way towards showing Dunn's worth during a penant chace.

blumj
08-13-2008, 08:50 AM
People keep saying that Dunn is very tradeable but I just don't see it. Two deadlines pass with Dunn being shopped yet never traded. We have had debates after debates over here on RZ about Dunn. You don't think GM's have mixed emotions about Dunn as well? This August/September will go a long way towards showing Dunn's worth during a penant chace.
Yeah, I'm sure some GMs have mixed emotions about him, and others have no realistic position to play him. But there's also been no indication that the Reds ever had any real desire to trade him before, and, presumably, they were looking for very good value in return. But, when it comes to worrying about whether or not it's worth risking offering arbitration because you might get stuck paying him more money for one year than you'd want, you don't have to get value in return to avoid that.

nate
08-13-2008, 08:59 AM
Yeah, I'm sure some GMs have mixed emotions about him, and others have no realistic position to play him. But there's also been no indication that the Reds ever had any real desire to trade him before, and, presumably, they were looking for very good value in return. But, when it comes to worrying about whether or not it's worth risking offering arbitration because you might get stuck paying him more money for one year than you'd want, you don't have to get value in return to avoid that.

Right. I don't remember Dunn even being put on waivers last year. They usually publish that list.

I remember Jr. being on it, but not Dunn.

RedlegJake
08-13-2008, 09:00 AM
All this does is nail the trade down as a good one for me. Dunn at $100 million? No way in the world. If Parker and Owings are indeed the two who complete this trade then heck, YES! I like that return much, much better than two draftees.

redsfan30
08-13-2008, 10:21 AM
There is/was no way in the world a team like Cincinnati could/would give a player with so many holes in his game the kind of contract he is reportedly asking for. You just can't do it. It wouldn't be smart to wrap up such a huge chunk of the payroll into one player with the warts Dunn has.

For years, I have stayed far away from the Dunn debates. I like Adam Dunn. I fully believe he has his uses. But to give him that big of a deal would have just been flat out foolish.

The Reds did the right thing with he and Junior both.

It's time to try something different. We saw the best defensive outfield last night in Pittsburgh that this team has thrown out there in the last 10 years. Sure, Corey Patterson won't be back next year (we hope not, anyway) and Chris Dickerson is far from a sure thing for 2009, but it was awfully nice to see an outfield that could go get the ball. I have no problem at all with this team going in a speed/defense direction.

westofyou
08-13-2008, 10:24 AM
We need more Adam Dunn threads and we need more speculation on his finances by players who sell bad meat products with bad music.

Then we'd be in Baseball Heaven.

Raisor
08-13-2008, 10:25 AM
I have no problem at all with this team going in a speed/defense direction.

Hello early 80's!!

BCubb2003
08-13-2008, 10:30 AM
We need more Adam Dunn threads and we need more speculation on his finances by players who sell bad meat products with bad music.

Then we'd be in Baseball Heaven.

I'm getting the feeling that for better or worse Arroyo is speaking out a lot more these days. There was his candid comments about Brandon Phillips and potential clubhouse leaders, for instance. I kind of like that he cares enough to speak out, even if I'm not sure about what backlash there will be.

nate
08-13-2008, 10:31 AM
Hello early 80's!!

Can turf and doubleknit pullovers be far behind?

edabbs44
08-13-2008, 10:33 AM
Hello early 80's!!

As long as it is goodbye mid-late 00's, then it isn't any worse. :)

Chip R
08-13-2008, 10:45 AM
I'm getting the feeling that for better or worse Arroyo is speaking out a lot more these days. There was his candid comments about Brandon Phillips and potential clubhouse leaders, for instance. I kind of like that he cares enough to speak out, even if I'm not sure about what backlash there will be.


Perhaps he's trying to be a leader.

princeton
08-13-2008, 10:49 AM
Perhaps he's trying to be a leader.

as Bobby Knight might say, "a pitcher couldn't lead a prostitute to a bed."

not unless he's Micah Owings, of course :thumbup:

IslandRed
08-13-2008, 10:54 AM
Dunn won't accept arbitration, he'll get a long term contract, even if it isn't $20M a year or 6+ years. If by some weird chance he did accept arbitration, Dunn on a 1 year/$15-$20M deal is a very tradeable commodity. And, arbitration awards are not fully guaranteed until the season starts. There is absolutely no way they can get stuck having to pay him $20M next season if they really, really don't want to.

I doubt it's that simple. Offering arbitration would be a no-brainer for every team in every situation if they could just walk away from the deal if they didn't like the number or if they were only trying to get the picks. Remember when Maddux surprised the Braves by accepting their arb offer? If it was easy to get out of paying Maddux, they wouldn't have made the panic trade of Millwood.

KittyDuran
08-13-2008, 10:55 AM
We need more Adam Dunn threads and we need more speculation on his finances by players who sell bad meat products with bad music.

Then we'd be in Baseball Heaven.True... but a lot of things are said in the clubhouse between players - a lot that I'd just wish wasn't made public (for whatever reason).

Chip R
08-13-2008, 11:21 AM
as Bobby Knight might say, "a pitcher couldn't lead a prostitute to a bed."

not unless he's Micah Owings, of course :thumbup:


I don't know about that. You don't think Clemens and Schilling were/are leaders? Jack Morris? Bob Gibson? Pedro? Whitey Ford? Tom Seaver? Not that Bronson is a pitcher of their caliber but this isn't exactly the 27 Yankees he's trying to lead.

SunDeck
08-13-2008, 11:35 AM
as Bobby Knight might say, "a pitcher couldn't lead a prostitute to a bed."



I'd love to see Bob Gibson beat up Bobby Knight.

RedsBaron
08-13-2008, 11:39 AM
I'd love to see Bob Gibson beat up Bobby Knight.

He could.

Raisor
08-13-2008, 11:40 AM
He could.

Unless they're at the Kroger salad bar. You don't mess with Bobby at the salad bar.

princeton
08-13-2008, 11:41 AM
You don't think Clemens and Schilling were/are leaders? Jack Morris? Bob Gibson? Pedro? Whitey Ford? Tom Seaver?.

no

Chip R
08-13-2008, 12:50 PM
no


Your opinion but I'm sure their teammates would disagree. Regardless of what you think, it seems to me that Bronson is trying to be a leader on this team. He certainly didn't whine and complain when the Reds traded Jr. and Dunn. He has stated that he wants to stay here. Seems like he's at least making an attempt to me.

princeton
08-13-2008, 01:02 PM
Your opinion but I'm sure their teammates would disagree.

pitchers just aren't on the field enough. Reserves can't be leaders. and you've no doubt noted that not a lot of pitchers become managers.

BTW, when Bronson listed potential new leaders for the team, he didn't list a pitcher-- he listed Bruce and Votto, IIRC.

Johnny Footstool
08-13-2008, 01:08 PM
I have no problem at all with this team going in a speed/defense direction.

In a HR ballpark like GAB, those speedy outfielders can get to the wall quickly, and watch the ball fly over their heads.

Speed and defense are important, but you still need guys who can accumulate bases on offense.

Chip R
08-13-2008, 02:28 PM
pitchers just aren't on the field enough. Reserves can't be leaders. and you've no doubt noted that not a lot of pitchers become managers.

BTW, when Bronson listed potential new leaders for the team, he didn't list a pitcher-- he listed Bruce and Votto, IIRC.


I would say in most cases you're right but I think there are exceptions. Bronson has one thing that none of his teammates - except Mercker - has: a ring. That means a lot to players.

I think Bruce and Votto have potential but Bruce is awful young and Votto is young as well but isn't very experienced. Bronson is a veteran, has a long term deal and is not afraid to speak his mind.

Rojo
08-13-2008, 02:55 PM
Catchers are often leaders. Ooops.

princeton
08-13-2008, 02:57 PM
I would say in most cases you're right but I think there are exceptions.

honestly, I've never heard of one. When I played, the only pitcher/leaders that we had were guys that also played the field. The pitcher-only guys were different. This seems to be the case in the majors. but then, I was not a pitcher

traditionally, players outnumber pitchers, which tends to hurt their chances to win a caucus.

but, as Walt assembles more good-hitting pitchers to go with lousy-hitting players that can play any position, maybe Bronson has a chance to win a caucus. I'm thinking that the D-back catcher/infielder that we acquire, to go with the Babe Ruth of pitchers, will allow us to carry, oh, a 15 man pitching staff.

BCubb2003
08-13-2008, 03:52 PM
Catchers are often leaders. Ooops.

Then we're lousy with leaders.

As far as pitchers not being leaders, I'm not sure how much leadership happens on the actual field. It's more about setting the tone in the clubhouse, and the right pitcher could do that. Or a pitcher like Soto who wills his team to win.

Chip R
08-13-2008, 03:52 PM
honestly, I've never heard of one. When I played, the only pitcher/leaders that we had were guys that also played the field. The pitcher-only guys were different. This seems to be the case in the majors. but then, I was not a pitcher

traditionally, players outnumber pitchers, which tends to hurt their chances to win a caucus.

but, as Walt assembles more good-hitting pitchers to go with lousy-hitting players that can play any position, maybe Bronson has a chance to win a caucus. I'm thinking that the D-back catcher/infielder that we acquire, to go with the Babe Ruth of pitchers, will allow us to carry, oh, a 15 man pitching staff.


You said reserves can't be leaders either but more often than not, they become managers.

But let's say you're right and Bronson can't be a leader. Who is going to do that? First of all we have to eliminate all the pitchers and reserves to meet your criteria. I think Bruce and/or Votto can be leaders in the future but rookies are rarely leaders. So that eliminates Hanigan and Dickerson. Corey Patterson's a regular so he could be a candidate. Brandon Phillips is the obvious candidate but either he doesn't want the mantle of leadership thrust upon him or others don't see him as a leader. Keppinger could be a candidate but the only reason he's playing is because Gonzalez is out. Do you really see Edwin Encarnacion as a leader? Paul Bako could be a candidate but one could say he's a reserve and he doesn't exactly have a lot of job security. So who's left?

Ltlabner
08-13-2008, 05:23 PM
So who's left?

I'd say it's down to Bernie Stowe, the couch or one of the dozen mascots floating around the stadium.

nate
08-14-2008, 10:30 AM
Story here (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/123052):


DENVER - When Adam Dunn was traded, former teammate Bronson Arroyo said he could understand it because Cincinnati could not afford him.

"He was going to be moved no matter what," Arroyo told the Cincinnati Enquirer.

D-Backs' late rally falls short vs. Rockies

"I don't know if he told (the media), but it was no secret to us that he was looking for a $100 (million) to $120 million contract. I don't think this franchise is going to give out that kind of money."

Dunn had a quick rebuttal.

"I don't know where that number would come from. False information, that's all I can say," Dunn said.

"That makes me look like a jackass. You never hear players talking about money. I don't think about the offseason. Me and my agent don't even talk about numbers."

Dunn's contract expires after this season, and he is likely to move to another team since the D-Backs appear set at the corner outfield spots with Eric Byrnes and Justin Upton. "I'm in the present. I'll worry about that when the time comes," Dunn said.

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 10:33 AM
I'm surprised Arroyo let his name be associated with that comment. I would think it'd just be a clubhouse source.

It wouldn't surprise me if Dunn said it and it doesn't surprise me that he's now denying it. He obviously didn't say it in public. I don't believe Dunn in that he says they don't talk money in the clubhouse. I think money is one of the favorite subjects to discuss.

Unassisted
08-14-2008, 10:34 AM
Maybe he just doesn't remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_learning) discussing it with Bronson. Hard to imagine Bronson would just connect some dots and throw him under the bus like that. This looks more like damage control than an explanation. The fact that he mentioned his agent in the explanation makes me think his agent told him how to respond to this.

Team Clark
08-14-2008, 10:44 AM
Maybe he just doesn't remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_learning) discussing it with Bronson. Hard to imagine Bronson would just connect some dots and throw him under the bus like that. This looks more like damage control than an explanation. The fact that he mentioned his agent in the explanation makes me think his agent told him how to respond to this.

Exactly. He knows he said it. In his own words he just said it would make him look like a jack ass. He knows he said it and he just doesn't want to look bad. Why admit to it now? It's all water under the bridge. Guess we'll see what who was telling the truth when Dunn's contract is announced.

Falls City Beer
08-14-2008, 10:47 AM
Maybe he just doesn't remember (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_learning) discussing it with Bronson. Hard to imagine Bronson would just connect some dots and throw him under the bus like that. This looks more like damage control than an explanation. The fact that he mentioned his agent in the explanation makes me think his agent told him how to respond to this.

I 100% agree.

Look, Adam, it's no great mystery what you're likely to receive as a free-agent when you look at what comparable free agents have gotten.

I doubt Arroyo feels compelled to pull a number out of a hat to hurt the guy's reputation.

Matt700wlw
08-14-2008, 11:21 AM
If Dunn admits the money comment, then it looks like that's what it's all about. Very few athletes want it to look that way, whether it's true or not

RedsManRick
08-14-2008, 11:27 AM
Maybe one of them misremembered the conversation?

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0213/mlb_g_clemens2_300.jpg

princeton
08-14-2008, 11:30 AM
"I'm the Donkey not the Jackass!"

blumj
08-14-2008, 11:33 AM
You guys really haven't figured out yet that Bronson Arroyo says a lot of things without thinking first?

lollipopcurve
08-14-2008, 11:35 AM
I always go back to Dunn's agent's comment when Dunn signed the extension -- he said they they "were willing to give the team 1 year of Adam's free agency" based on some kind of loyalty. But the implication was clear: after 1 year he would go on the market. That tells me Dunn had no real interest in being "the guy" in Cincy -- do you think it's any coincidence that Dunn was willing to stay as long as Junior could guarantee he'd be here, too? I think not.

Those two guys ruled the team, in one way or another, for a long and losing time. Time for everyone to move on, try to win and get even richer.

RedlegJake
08-14-2008, 11:40 AM
You guys really haven't figured out yet that Bronson Arroyo says a lot of things without thinking first?

Bronson maybe says things he probably should keep quiet about but that's not the same as saying he made anything up.

TeamBoone
08-14-2008, 11:46 AM
I thought most "leading" was done in the clubhouse... I've always heard the term "clubhouse leader".

Pitchers are in the clubhouse just as much as position players.

gonelong
08-14-2008, 08:43 PM
I'd b POed too if I what I said in the confidence of the clubhouse was fed to a reporter. Weak move by BA.

GL

reds44
08-14-2008, 08:47 PM
"That makes me look like a jackass. You never hear players talking about money. I don't think about the offseason. Me and my agent don't even talk about numbers."


I'm going to miss Adam's quotes.

GAC
08-14-2008, 08:49 PM
I'd b POed too if I what I said in the confidence of the clubhouse was fed to a reporter. Weak move by BA.

GL

Maybe Bronson felt it was in his best interest to "brown-nose" the FO. ;)

CTA513
08-14-2008, 08:51 PM
I'm going to miss Adam's quotes.





Chris Burke followed Snyder to the plate and when the count went to 3-1, Dunn announced to the dugout that Burke was going to homer.

"Pretty bold prediction," Burke said.

"I told him I went out on a limb," Dunn said. "Marky Mark [Mark Reynolds] over there said I went out on a small limb."

That's because Burke came into the game hitting .196 and had not homered since last September, a span of 166 at-bats. However, he hammered the Rusch offering over the left-field wall to put the D-backs up, 3-1.

When asked about his soothsaying prowess, Dunn replied, "I see dead people."

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 08:59 PM
I'd b POed too if I what I said in the confidence of the clubhouse was fed to a reporter. Weak move by BA.

GL


Would you deny saying it and basically call the other player a liar?

SteelSD
08-14-2008, 09:23 PM
Would you deny saying it and basically call the other player a liar?

If something I said in confidence was leaked by someone, I'd hang that "someone" out to dry, and I'd do it without hesitation. In fact, in different workplace environments, I've started rumors about something with the full knowledge of upper management just to see where the leaks are in response to confidential items made public.

100% of the time, the issue has been someone who isn't performing and who is trying to move focus away from that.

Let's see...Adam Dunn...Bronson Arroyo...hmnn...

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 09:26 PM
If something I said in confidence was leaked by someone, I'd hang that "someone" out to dry, and I'd do it without hesitation. In fact, in different workplace environments, I've started rumors about something with the full knowledge of upper management just to see where the leaks are in response to confidential items made public.

100% of the time, the issue has been someone who isn't performing and who is trying to move focus away from that.

Let's see...Adam Dunn...Bronson Arroyo...hmnn...


I agree with you Steel. He should be mad, but I don't think he should deny saying it. He should just say something like I don't respect teammates who regurgitate clubhouse chatter.

RedsBaron
08-14-2008, 09:31 PM
pitchers just aren't on the field enough. Reserves can't be leaders. and you've no doubt noted that not a lot of pitchers become managers.

BTW, when Bronson listed potential new leaders for the team, he didn't list a pitcher-- he listed Bruce and Votto, IIRC.

From everything I have read, Bob Gibson was a leader, perhaps the leader of some very good Cardinal teams in 1964, 67 and 68.
For that matter, one of the most revered Reds managers ever, whose no. 1 is retired, is the late Fred Hutchinson. Hutch was a pitcher in his playing days.

SteelSD
08-14-2008, 09:42 PM
I agree with you Steel. He should be mad, but I don't think he should deny saying it. He should just say something like I don't respect teammates who regurgitate clubhouse chatter.

Dunn has already denied saying it with his "False information" quote.

There's actually no reason Dunn should do anything else because Arroyo's disclosure (accurate or not) is likely to hurt Dunn's marketability.

But hey, at least we're starting to find out who the real "character" issues are on the team and none of them have been recently traded.

gonelong
08-15-2008, 09:36 AM
Would you deny saying it and basically call the other player a liar?

1. Maybe Dunn never said it. It's quite possible that Arroyo pulled those numbers out himself and that Dunn didn't ever specifically state them. "I'm gonna get *PAID* this offseason" ... and then Arroyo extrapolates the numbers. In this case, yes, I'd more than likely deny it and call him a liar.

2. If I told him in the confidence of the clubhouse, then maybe I would. IMO that was totally uncalled for out of Arroyo.

I guess it'd depend on the topic and the person involved.

GL

Chip R
08-15-2008, 09:39 AM
2. If I told him in the confidence of the clubhouse, then maybe I would. IMO that was totally uncalled for out of Arroyo.


It's not like Arroyo's a priest or anything.

blumj
08-15-2008, 10:03 AM
1. Maybe Dunn never said it. It's quite possible that Arroyo pulled those numbers out himself and that Dunn didn't ever specifically state them. "I'm gonna get *PAID* this offseason" ... and then Arroyo extrapolates the numbers. In this case, yes, I'd more than likely deny it and call him a liar.

2. If I told him in the confidence of the clubhouse, then maybe I would. IMO that was totally uncalled for out of Arroyo.

I guess it'd depend on the topic and the person involved.

GL
Most likely, Dunn never said anything to Arroyo, and Arroyo didn't just make it up himself. He probably heard it around and stupidly passed it along. You know, gossip.

Sea Ray
08-15-2008, 10:14 AM
Dunn has already denied saying it with his "False information" quote.

There's actually no reason Dunn should do anything else because Arroyo's disclosure (accurate or not) is likely to hurt Dunn's marketability.

But hey, at least we're starting to find out who the real "character" issues are on the team and none of them have been recently traded.


Exactly my point. Dunn did deny saying it, but your earlier hypothetical assumed he did say albeit it confidence:


If something I said in confidence was leaked by someone, I'd hang that "someone" out to dry, and I'd do it without hesitation.

Which scenario are you commenting on? Are you saying Arroyo blew his confidence by repeating what was said in the clubhouse or are you saying Arroyo is flat out lying? If the former is true then Dunn is lying as well by denying that he ever said it. That's the difference.

Falls City Beer
08-15-2008, 10:17 AM
Bronson should have kept his mouth shut.

But so should Dunn. I don't believe for a second that Arroyo is lying about what he heard.

Sea Ray
08-15-2008, 10:17 AM
2. If I told him in the confidence of the clubhouse, then maybe I would. IMO that was totally uncalled for out of Arroyo.

I guess it'd depend on the topic and the person involved.

GL

Let's take the maybes out of this GL. We know either scenario 1 or 2happened. If it was 2 then you are OK with Dunn lying?

gonelong
08-15-2008, 10:17 AM
It's not like Arroyo's a priest or anything.

What tipped you off? :D

GL

gonelong
08-15-2008, 10:29 AM
Let's take the maybes out of this GL. We know either scenario 1 or 2happened. If it was 2 then you are OK with Dunn lying?

1. Its hypothetical
2. There a lies (You look nice today.) and then there are lies (I didn't kill that man.). IMO this one is pretty benign (if its a lie at all).

IMO the players have implied confidence from the other players that what happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse. So when Arroyo breaks this confidence, in my eyes he has already lied to Dunn.

Dunn obviously didn't put forth that number for public consumption, so even if Arroyo came by the number from (directly or indirectly) Dunn himself the number is more or less a "lie" itself.

GL

/last post on the topic

Sea Ray
08-15-2008, 10:37 AM
IMO the players have implied confidence from the other players that what happens in the clubhouse stays in the clubhouse. So when Arroyo breaks this confidence, in my eyes he has already lied to Dunn.

Dunn obviously didn't put forth that number for public consumption, so even if Arroyo came by the number from (directly or indirectly) Dunn himself the number is more or less a "lie" itself.

GL

/last post on the topic

You spent better part of that post explaining why you didn't like what Arroyo did. I get that. I'm not clear on your opinion of Dunn lying publically to us fans about saying it. Are you saying you're OK with Dunn lying because it's not as bad as what Arroyo did?

nate
08-15-2008, 11:00 AM
Dunn probably said it. Arroyo shouldn't have repeated it.

Dunn's reaction to Arroyo saying it, yeah, maybe it's a lie but what's he going to say?

"Yep, that's what I'm worth and I can't wait for the season to end so I can get it! Gonna buy a pony! And a firetruck! And a shirt for Marty!"

Probably the worst offense in this issue is Arroyo bringing it up.

He should've stuck to TACO FILLING.

Raisor
08-15-2008, 11:55 AM
Gonna buy a pony!

You know, I can actually see Dunn doing that.

KittyDuran
08-15-2008, 12:01 PM
I guess my question is... why did Arroyo make that statement (true or false)? What purpose did it serve? Or was there a hint of discord between him and Dunn? Did Bronson complain about Adam's ability in the OF and did Adam in response complain about Bronson's partying all night?

:confused:

KittyDuran
08-15-2008, 12:07 PM
Would you deny saying it and basically call the other player a liar?Well, Hal McCoy pretty much called Bronson that in his article.

KronoRed
08-15-2008, 01:47 PM
I guess my question is... why did Arroyo make that statement (true or false)? What purpose did it serve? Or was there a hint of discord between him and Dunn? Did Bronson complain about Adam's ability in the OF and did Adam in response complain about Bronson's partying all night?

:confused:

Perhaps, they do seem like a couple of fellows who wouldn't be the best of friends, if Dunn said it (I doubt he did) then Bronson looks like a jackass to the rest of his teammates who might now have to watch everything they say around him.

BCubb2003
08-15-2008, 02:12 PM
When judging a player's answer, it helps to know what the question was. Often the answer is relatively benign, and the edge was in the question.

So, what happens the first time Dunn faces Arroyo?

KittyDuran
08-15-2008, 02:56 PM
When judging a player's answer, it helps to know what the question was. Often the answer is relatively benign, and the edge was in the question.

So, what happens the first time Dunn faces Arroyo?By the schedule it looks like we'll find out 9/12...:)

KittyDuran
08-15-2008, 03:59 PM
I guess my question is... why did Arroyo make that statement (true or false)? What purpose did it serve? Or was there a hint of discord between him and Dunn? Did Bronson complain about Adam's ability in the OF and did Adam in response complain about Bronson's partying all night?

:confused:Well, someone also has some memory for the last assumption... Layney on the Sun Deck posted this:


Does anybody remember a comment Dunn made to the media before the season along the lines of not being happy that Arroyo was partying the night before he was supposed to pitch?
I believe he also said: "That won't be happening this season."

I wonder if that could be the reason for Arroyo saying what he did.
__________________
"I do all my good stuff from 11:00 P.M on"-Bronson Arroyo But neither of us know where we read this... :confused:

KittyDuran
08-15-2008, 04:00 PM
By the schedule it looks like we'll find out 9/12...:)I had to refer to my Reds pocket schedule to work that rotation - and on the cover is the pic of one of Dunn's walk-offs with Bronson front and center smiling and clapping his hands... :(

westofyou
08-15-2008, 08:38 PM
Worrying about Adam Dunn lying to the "fans" about what might have been said in the clubhouse ("What is said here stays here" is the common motto of all MLB Clubhouses) is way down at the bottom of my concern pile, and since we'll never know the real truth it becomes redszone steak - Useless noise.

SteelSD
08-15-2008, 10:56 PM
Exactly my point. Dunn did deny saying it, but your earlier hypothetical assumed he did say albeit it confidence:

Which scenario are you commenting on? Are you saying Arroyo blew his confidence by repeating what was said in the clubhouse or are you saying Arroyo is flat out lying? If the former is true then Dunn is lying as well by denying that he ever said it. That's the difference.

Ah, there's your real agenda coming full-on. Tragic.

BCubb2003
08-15-2008, 11:08 PM
Note that Arroyo said, "It was no secret to us..." Although it's unlikely, if you parse it closely enough, it's possible they're both telling the truth.

TeamBoone
08-15-2008, 11:41 PM
("What is said here stays here" is the common motto of all MLB Clubhouses)


I don't think this is true at all because the media is pretty much ALWAYS in the clubhouse and anything that's said is printable, even if it's just overheard. I was shocked at how much time the media is allowed in the players' sanctuary.

Cyclone792
08-16-2008, 12:17 AM
Speaking of Arroyo and partying, he's down at Pavilion in Mt. Adams right now. ;)

westofyou
08-16-2008, 12:44 AM
I don't think this is true at all because the media is pretty much ALWAYS in the clubhouse and anything that's said is printable, even if it's just overheard. I was shocked at how much time the media is allowed in the players' sanctuary.

Actually ALL clubhouses have times prior and post that NO media is there, that includes ST, the trainers room etc... they do get a moment to be a team.. one without a microscope pointed at them.

westofyou
08-16-2008, 12:45 AM
Speaking of Arroyo and partying, he's down at Pavilion in Mt. Adams right now. ;)

Good for him, he worked hard tonight and he's young, that's one of the best combinations out there.

WVRedsFan
08-16-2008, 12:59 AM
Good for him, he worked hard tonight and he's young, that's one of the best combinations out there.

When I was Bronson's age, partying and staying out late wasn't any problem. In fact, I could stay out all night (well, most of it) and be good as new in three to four hours. As I got older, that wasn't the case :).

I still contend that Bronson's problem is not the partying or the singing, but a lack of talent, not that he's bad, because he's just a tad below average. Something the power that be should have recognized before offering that extension. But that's just me.

Sea Ray
08-16-2008, 10:29 AM
Ah, there's your real agenda coming full-on. Tragic.

What's really telling is your bringing up some secret agenda on my part rather than answering my question which was directly related to your earlier post.

TeamBoone
08-16-2008, 01:40 PM
Actually ALL clubhouses have times prior and post that NO media is there, that includes ST, the trainers room etc... they do get a moment to be a team.. one without a microscope pointed at them.

That's true, but the times the media is allowed is so liberal that they're there just about all the time. I remember reading last year that the Reds' media is allowed in the clubhouse 4 hours prior to gametime and 1 hour afterward.

In my mind, that's pretty much all of the time the players are there, and then some.

BCubb2003
08-16-2008, 01:51 PM
I still think it's possible they were both telling the truth.

fearofpopvol1
08-16-2008, 03:14 PM
I don't doubt for a second what Arroyo said was true. Probably not a wise move by Arroyo but who knows if it was said in confidence or not. It's still probably true at the end of the day.

Wheelhouse
08-16-2008, 04:27 PM
Actually ALL clubhouses have times prior and post that NO media is there, that includes ST, the trainers room etc... they do get a moment to be a team.. one without a microscope pointed at them.

Who says it was said in the clubhouse? It could have been said at dinner or a bar. And there, players DO talk about money. Next question: WHY would Arroyo lie?

Raisor
08-16-2008, 04:31 PM
Who says it was said in the clubhouse? It could have been said at dinner or a bar. And there, players DO talk about money. Next question: WHY would Arroyo lie?

I'm sure he's not lying. It's just tacky to do it.

BCubb2003
08-16-2008, 04:32 PM
It could have gone from agent to team exec to agent to Arroyo, too.

RFS62
08-16-2008, 07:38 PM
I'm sure he's not lying. It's just tacky to do it.



Yep. He was probably jacked up on a JTM bender and didn't know what he was saying.

SteelSD
08-16-2008, 10:42 PM
What's really telling is your bringing up some secret agenda on my part rather than answering my question which was directly related to your earlier post.

Oh, your anti-Dunn agenda isn't anywhere near "secret". Never has been.

Yawn.

cincrazy
08-16-2008, 10:56 PM
Oh, your anti-Dunn agenda isn't anywhere near "secret". Never has been.

Yawn.

I don't believe it's an anti-Dunn agenda. What Sea Ray and many others have been stating for quite some time is that Dunn has strengths, but he also has tremendous flaws. It's not ripping the man, it's stating the obvious. I find it comical that anytime a sportswriter, broadcaster, fan, or whomever, states something negative about Dunn, they automatically get labeled as a fool that doesn't know anything about the game.

Adam Dunn did many positive things for the Reds over the years, lets make that clear. But he's too flawed of a player to build a franchise around. And lets make no mistake, Adam Dunn wants FRANCHISE money. Sorry, but he's not a franchise player. Bigger markets can afford to give him the money he's looking for. We simply cannot.

Redhook
08-17-2008, 08:34 AM
Adam Dunn did many positive things for the Reds over the years, lets make that clear. But he's too flawed of a player to build a franchise around. And lets make no mistake, Adam Dunn wants FRANCHISE money. Sorry, but he's not a franchise player. Bigger markets can afford to give him the money he's looking for. We simply cannot.

Perfectly stated. He will certainly be missed, but the Reds couldn't afford to give him franchise-type money.

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 12:03 PM
I don't believe it's an anti-Dunn agenda. What Sea Ray and many others have been stating for quite some time is that Dunn has strengths, but he also has tremendous flaws. It's not ripping the man, it's stating the obvious. I find it comical that anytime a sportswriter, broadcaster, fan, or whomever, states something negative about Dunn, they automatically get labeled as a fool that doesn't know anything about the game.

Ah, not just "flaws", but "tremendous flaws". Yeah, that's "ripping" the man considering that his only meaningful flaw is that he can't field as well as Left Fielders who can't hit a lick.

There isn't a single person on this board who liked Adam Dunn in a Reds uniform who hasn't objectively considered and weighed Adam Dunn's game in its entirety. While discussion may take place over values of both good and bad, you're grossly misrepresenting the reactions of folks who happen to dislike low-level analysis all-too-often centered on red herrings like Batting Average or Strikeouts.


Adam Dunn did many positive things for the Reds over the years, lets make that clear. But he's too flawed of a player to build a franchise around. And lets make no mistake, Adam Dunn wants FRANCHISE money. Sorry, but he's not a franchise player. Bigger markets can afford to give him the money he's looking for. We simply cannot.

That argument simply doesn't hold considering how young the Reds are at this point. If EVER a mid-market team could afford to pay real money to a consistent 100+ RC player (and that IS an offensive centerpiece), it's the Reds. I honestly wish I knew the exact date when the idea of "PayFlex" seeped into the brains of the Reds' fan base, but the reality is that money not spent is worth absolutely nothing.

And it wasn't like the Reds dealt from a position of strength when moving Dunn. They turned a current weakness into an even bigger issue and now will have to use the money "saved" to backfill a huge offensive hole. And that's a major issue because there aren't really any viable offensive replacement options for LF for the Reds unless they spend at least the same amount of money they could have given Dunn, and it's extremely unlikely that they'll get any sort of replacement offensive boost from the other positions of need (C, SS, CF).

The Reds are in a bad place without the value Dunn represents. Hopefully Jocketty can do something to make up for it, but in no way was or is Adam Dunn not a viable option for the currently team.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 12:15 PM
The Reds are in a bad place without the value Dunn represents. Hopefully Jocketty can do something to make up for it, but in no way was or is Adam Dunn not a viable option for the currently team.

I think it is safe to assume that the Reds won't be drastically increasing the payroll in the immediate short term, a la the Cubs a coup[le of years ago.

That being said, do you really think it would have been smart to bring him back? Look at it in a business sense and not in a statistical sense. Sure the offense is going to struggle without him. But would it have been smart to sign him to a nice sized deal when all signs are pointing to this team being at least a few years away?

SMcGavin
08-17-2008, 12:21 PM
But he's too flawed of a player to build a franchise around. .

This argument has been made a thousand times. Dunn "has too many holes" to build around.

I'm sorry but it's a ridiculous concept. The discussion of "flaws" or "holes" is completely irrelevant. All that matters is overall value. Let's say for argument's sake Dunn is +30 runs on offense and -5 runs on defense. His value is +25 runs. The exact same value as another hypothetical Player B who was +18 on offense and +7 on defense. Player B doesn't have the "holes" in his game that Dunn does - but how is that in any way relevant?

What if there was a guy who hit 70 HRs, but batted .200 and made 25 errors a year in LF? Would we avoid him because of "flaws" in his game? Because he's one-dimensional?

The conversation on resigning Dunn is a simple one - is Dunn's overall value worth the contract he would require? If you think the answer to that question is no, and that's why you wanted to let him go, I can understand that position. But the "too many flaws" argument is silly. It implies that another player with the same overall value as Dunn might be worth that contract, as long as that hypothetical player's value was spread evenly over contact, power, defense, and speed. How does that make any sense?

cincrazy
08-17-2008, 12:35 PM
This argument has been made a thousand times. Dunn "has too many holes" to build around.

I'm sorry but it's a ridiculous concept. The discussion of "flaws" or "holes" is completely irrelevant. All that matters is overall value. Let's say for argument's sake Dunn is +30 runs on offense and -5 runs on defense. His value is +25 runs. The exact same value as another hypothetical Player B who was +18 on offense and +7 on defense. Player B doesn't have the "holes" in his game that Dunn does - but how is that in any way relevant?

What if there was a guy who hit 70 HRs, but batted .200 and made 25 errors a year in LF? Would we avoid him because of "flaws" in his game? Because he's one-dimensional?

The conversation on resigning Dunn is a simple one - is Dunn's overall value worth the contract he would require? If you think the answer to that question is no, and that's why you wanted to let him go, I can understand that position. But the "too many flaws" argument is silly. It implies that another player with the same overall value as Dunn might be worth that contract, as long as that hypothetical player's value was spread evenly over contact, power, defense, and speed. How does that make any sense?

When you talk about overall value, you can't look at it in a vacuum. You can look at RC and home run's and walks, but you can't ignore defense, you can't ignore batting average, you can't ignore baserunning. That's my main problem with the Dunn argument. People pick and choose what they want to look at. Is Dunn a valuable player? Yes he is. But if he's so valuable, why were we only able to get the return that we got for him? If he's so valuable, why weren't the Yankees beating down our door to get him, or the Red Sox, or any other number of teams?

And to answer your question my friend, no I don't think Dunn's overall value is worth the contract he would require. And to me, that goes hand in hand with his flaws.

westofyou
08-17-2008, 12:39 PM
But if he's so valuable, why were we only able to get the return that we got for him?

Current Cost + Impending Free Agency + the pool of teams in need of a power based OF = The Reds return.

SMcGavin
08-17-2008, 01:34 PM
When you talk about overall value, you can't look at it in a vacuum. You can look at RC and home run's and walks, but you can't ignore defense, you can't ignore batting average, you can't ignore baserunning.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not ignoring defense, batting average, baserunning. It's about considering those, and every other aspect of a player's game, and then summing it up into a total value. It's not even a Dunn argument really, it's about how you evaluate personnel. Maybe the prototype of a LF you want is .275 AVG, 25 HR, solid defense. Well that player has an overall value. If there is another player who gets to that same total value, but does it in a different way, why is he any less desirable? Production is production, no matter what way you get there.

It's actually pretty ironic that you say

People pick and choose what they want to look at.

This is my point - don't pick and choose anything. Evaluate it all. Assign a total value. If that value is worth the salary it will take, sign the guy. The concept of "he has too many holes to build around" does not exist - there is no such thing. A guy can have all the holes in the world, as long as the rest of his game makes his total value high enough.

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 01:36 PM
I think it is safe to assume that the Reds won't be drastically increasing the payroll in the immediate short term, a la the Cubs a coup[le of years ago.

That being said, do you really think it would have been smart to bring him back? Look at it in a business sense and not in a statistical sense. Sure the offense is going to struggle without him. But would it have been smart to sign him to a nice sized deal when all signs are pointing to this team being at least a few years away?

Yeah, it actually would have been a smart move to bring him back and I am looking at it in a business sense. Considering where the team was coming into the season, 2008 sure wasn't a target, but 2009-2010 was a reasonable window assuming that Griffey was moved or bought out had Dunn been kept. Nownotsomuch.

Sea Ray
08-17-2008, 02:03 PM
Ah, not just "flaws", but "tremendous flaws". Yeah, that's "ripping" the man considering that his only meaningful flaw is that he can't field as well as Left Fielders who can't hit a lick.

There isn't a single person on this board who liked Adam Dunn in a Reds uniform who hasn't objectively considered and weighed Adam Dunn's game in its entirety. While discussion may take place over values of both good and bad, you're grossly misrepresenting the reactions of folks who happen to dislike low-level analysis all-too-often centered on red herrings like Batting Average or Strikeouts.



That argument simply doesn't hold considering how young the Reds are at this point. If EVER a mid-market team could afford to pay real money to a consistent 100+ RC player (and that IS an offensive centerpiece), it's the Reds. I honestly wish I knew the exact date when the idea of "PayFlex" seeped into the brains of the Reds' fan base, but the reality is that money not spent is worth absolutely nothing.

And it wasn't like the Reds dealt from a position of strength when moving Dunn. They turned a current weakness into an even bigger issue and now will have to use the money "saved" to backfill a huge offensive hole. And that's a major issue because there aren't really any viable offensive replacement options for LF for the Reds unless they spend at least the same amount of money they could have given Dunn, and it's extremely unlikely that they'll get any sort of replacement offensive boost from the other positions of need (C, SS, CF).

The Reds are in a bad place without the value Dunn represents. Hopefully Jocketty can do something to make up for it, but in no way was or is Adam Dunn not a viable option for the currently team.


That's really deep Steel. Unfortunately my "agenda" has nothing to do with whether the Reds should have kept Adam Dunn or what he did for this team as a player. I'd love to comment on your ramblings but I want to stay focused on the subject at hand. Since you seem to be missing my point, I'm going to hit you right between the eyes with it.

We both agree what Arroyo did was not right. It wasn't something you or I would take public.

If Adam Dunn is lying to us, Joe Public, about what he said, IMO that's not right either. It may be understandable but that's a fault on Dunn's ledger. I would even agree his error is small in comparison to Arroyo's. However you are so pumped up about defending the man that you will not acknowledge any fault on Dunn's part and the lengths you've gone to defend him with the above posts including getting off topic, bringing up secret agendas and not answering my direct questions are "telling" to say the least. :)

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 02:23 PM
Yeah, it actually would have been a smart move to bring him back and I am looking at it in a business sense. Considering where the team was coming into the season, 2008 sure wasn't a target, but 2009-2010 was a reasonable window assuming that Griffey was moved or bought out had Dunn been kept. Nownotsomuch.

I was talking more present tense.

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 02:24 PM
I was talking more present tense.

As am I.

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 02:28 PM
That's really deep Steel. Unfortunately my "agenda" has nothing to do with whether the Reds should have kept Adam Dunn or what he did for this team as a player. I'd love to comment on your ramblings but I want to stay focused on the subject at hand. Since you seem to be missing my point, I'm going to hit you right between the eyes with it.

We both agree what Arroyo did was not right. It wasn't something you or I would take public.

If Adam Dunn is lying to us, Joe Public, about what he said, IMO that's not right either. It may be understandable but that's a fault on Dunn's ledger. I would even agree his error is small in comparison to Arroyo's. However you are so pumped up about defending the man that you will not acknowledge any fault on Dunn's part and the lengths you've gone to defend him with the above posts including getting off topic, bringing up secret agendas and not answering my direct questions are "telling" to say the least. :)


Dude, you've been so into bait recently that you should really open up a tackle shop. Better than using it to fish for red herring.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 02:31 PM
As am I.

So if Dunn was kept you think this team would have had a legit chance to make some noise in the very near term?

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 02:35 PM
So if Dunn was kept you think this team would have had a legit chance to make some noise in the very near term?

Yep, with the right development from the young players and a couple additional moves, there was a decent window of opportunity projecting to be open as early as next season.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 02:37 PM
Yep, with the right development from the young players and a couple additional moves, there was a decent window of opportunity projecting to be open as early as next season.

I'd have to disagree, but to each their own. The start of the window is upon us, but the planning should have taken place 3 years ago to reinforce the youngsters over the next 3-5 years.

mth123
08-17-2008, 02:44 PM
So if Dunn was kept you think this team would have had a legit chance to make some noise in the very near term?

Front of the rotation? If Harang is healthy, check. 4 solid starters and several candidates.

Middle of the line-up? With Bruce, Votto and EdE all likely to continue developing to go with Dunn's 40-100-100-.380/520 and Phillips being a plus in the middle IF, check.

Back of the Bullpen? Overpaid closer but a solid one none the less. Good set-up guy in Burton and several high octane arms to cobble together. Check.

You have those things you always are just minor additions away. Before the Dunn deal, the team's greatest need was upgrading the fringes and much of what was needed was in house. A solid defensive SS and a Solid defensive C and a few middle relief guys to soak up innings are not major pieces to add (but killers if you don't have them).

Now the middle of the order is missing its biggest weapon. This team won't contend in 2009. Bruce may replicate Dunn's numbers in time, but the team needs another big bopper. It may be Alonso eventually, but we're now looking at 2011 or 2012 at the soonest. By then the pitching may be gone, the rest of the cast will be cost prohibitive and it will be time to rebuild again. 2009 to 2011 was the best chance IMO. Now with Dunn gone, I think they missed the window.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 03:06 PM
Front of the rotation? If Harang is healthy, check. 4 solid starters and several candidates.

Middle of the line-up? With Bruce, Votto and EdE all likely to continue developing to go with Dunn's 40-100-100-.380/520 and Phillips being a plus in the middle IF, check.

Back of the Bullpen? Overpaid closer but a solid one none the less. Good set-up guy in Burton and several high octane arms to cobble together. Check.

You have those things you always are just minor additions away. Before the Dunn deal, the team's greatest need was upgrading the fringes and much of what was needed was in house. A solid defensive SS and a Solid defensive C and a few middle relief guys to soak up innings are not major pieces to add (but killers if you don't have them).

Now the middle of the order is missing its biggest weapon. This team won't contend in 2009. Bruce may replicate Dunn's numbers in time, but the team needs another big bopper. It may be Alonso eventually, but we're now looking at 2011 or 2012 at the soonest. By then the pitching may be gone, the rest of the cast will be cost prohibitive and it will be time to rebuild again. 2009 to 2011 was the best chance IMO. Now with Dunn gone, I think they missed the window.

This is the same song every year. Every year this team just needs a few tweaks, then somehow find themselves scraping the bottom.

If Harang is healthy, there are 4 solid starters? This season you have Volquez and then three guys who have ERAs of 4.90, 5.51 and 5.59. And let's not talk about the #5 carousel of Fogg, Belisle and whoever else. Not gonna cut it. In addition, Harang's health is part of the equation. He might not be healthy and that has to be factored in.

Middle of the lineup sounds good, but as you can see the offense has its issues even with those guys.

Who are the high octane arms in the back of the pen you speak of?

This roster was poorly constructed and will not win until either a ton of money is injected now or it gets torn down to the youngsters and they put together a solid 3 year plan. I think that's the route Walt is taking and it makes sense.

mth123
08-17-2008, 03:18 PM
This is the same song every year. Every year this team just needs a few tweaks, then somehow find themselves scraping the bottom.

If Harang is healthy, there are 4 solid starters? This season you have Volquez and then three guys who have ERAs of 4.90, 5.51 and 5.59. And let's not talk about the #5 carousel of Fogg, Belisle and whoever else. Not gonna cut it. In addition, Harang's health is part of the equation. He might not be healthy and that has to be factored in.

Middle of the lineup sounds good, but as you can see the offense has its issues even with those guys.

Who are the high octane arms in the back of the pen you speak of?

This roster was poorly constructed and will not win until either a ton of money is injected now or it gets torn down to the youngsters and they put together a solid 3 year plan. I think that's the route Walt is taking and it makes sense.

I think much of what is wrong with this pitching staff is explained by (in order of offensiveness) Ken Griffey JR in RF, David Ross catching, Jeff Keppinger at SS and a cast of guys playing out of position in CF. Dunn in LF and EDE at 3B didn't help anything, but their bats are worth it (but EdE needs to improve IMO). A good CF with Bruce in RF will go a long way toward fixing the fly ball trio that have disappointed this year (and Cueto will get better anyhow). The fifth spot isn't much worse than anyone's. Even though the defense has improved now, the staff is worn out and probably toast for the rest of the year. I am worried about Harang though.

Again, I expect improvement from Bruce, EdE and Votto to take up much of the slack and would advance the offense next year if Dunn were still here.

Plenty of guys for the pen. Lincoln probably is back. So is Bray. Roenicke, Herrera, Fisher, Stewart, Watson, some cheap signings...

There was a window. It may have needed a lot of things to go right, but there was one. Now, I don't see one in sight.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 03:20 PM
I think much of what is wrong with this pitching staff is explained by (in order of offensiveness) Ken Griffey JR in RF, David Ross catching, Jeff Keppinger at SS and a cast of guys playing out of position in CF. Dunn in LF and EDE at 3B didn;t help anything,but their bats are worth it (but EdE needs to improve IMO). A good CF with Bruce in RF will go a long way toward fixing the fly ball trio that have disappointed this year (and Cueto will get better anyhow). The fifth spot isn't much worse than anyone's. Even though the defense has improved now, the staff is worn out and probably toast for the rest of the year. I am worried about Harang though.

Again, I expect improvement from Bruce, EdE and Votto to take up much of the slack and would advance the offense next year if Dunn were still here.

Plenty of guys for the pen. Lincoln probably is back. So is Bray. Roenicke, Herrera, Fisher, Stewart, Watson, some cheap signings...

There was a window. It may have needed a lot of things to go right, but there was one. Now, I don't see one in sight.

I agree about the window. I also think that the plan for that window was botched.

SMcGavin
08-17-2008, 05:47 PM
This is the same song every year. Every year this team just needs a few tweaks, then somehow find themselves scraping the bottom.


It's alot different actually. Now, the team has the pitching mostly in place. In the past, we were saying "if only we could add a couple more high caliber arms". Now we are just looking for a decent fifth starter. You cite the 2008 ERAs of Cueto, Harang, and Arroyo - do you think it's in any way likely that those three have similar ERAs at this time next season? The Reds bullpen has an ERA of 3.47 this year, and there are solid relief prospects on the horizon. For the first time in forever we go into an offseason solid in that area.

For sure the Reds needed to make some moves in the offseason. But for the first time in a while, I thought the necessary moves were just complimentary ones and not foundation-shakers. But now the only guy who will definitely be better than league average on offense next year is gone. I think we are going to see a dramatic leap forward by this pitching staff next year, but I no longer think Cincinnati has the offense to support it.

Sea Ray
08-17-2008, 05:59 PM
I'd have to disagree, but to each their own. The start of the window is upon us, but the planning should have taken place 3 years ago to reinforce the youngsters over the next 3-5 years.

I'd have to disagree with Steel as well. The fact is if they re-sign Dunn they'll be short of the cash needed to upgrade the many other holes on this team. Whether WK spends that cash properly remains to be seen but if Dunn is re-signed at say $15mill for 2008 that means we're stuck with $500,000-1 mill options for filling the holes at C,RH power hitter, SS, LH-SP and bullpen help.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 06:12 PM
It's alot different actually. Now, the team has the pitching mostly in place. In the past, we were saying "if only we could add a couple more high caliber arms". Now we are just looking for a decent fifth starter. You cite the 2008 ERAs of Cueto, Harang, and Arroyo - do you think it's in any way likely that those three have similar ERAs at this time next season? The Reds bullpen has an ERA of 3.47 this year, and there are solid relief prospects on the horizon. For the first time in forever we go into an offseason solid in that area.

I think that Volquez regresses a bit next year. Cueto should get better. Harang is a huge question mark. So is Arroyo.

I can't see how they are going into next year as being solid in the bullpen as well. Cordero has been less than spectacular. Bray is hot and cold. Burton has been great. But it takes more than three to party.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 06:12 PM
I'd have to disagree with Steel as well. The fact is if they re-sign Dunn they'll be short of the cash needed to upgrade the many other holes on this team. Whether WK spends that cash properly remains to be seen but if Dunn is re-signed at say $15mill for 2008 that means we're stuck with $500,000-1 mill options for filling the holes at C,RH power hitter, SS, LH-SP and bullpen help.

Ahem? ;)

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 07:12 PM
I'd have to disagree with Steel as well. The fact is if they re-sign Dunn they'll be short of the cash needed to upgrade the many other holes on this team. Whether WK spends that cash properly remains to be seen but if Dunn is re-signed at say $15mill for 2008 that means we're stuck with $500,000-1 mill options for filling the holes at C,RH power hitter, SS, LH-SP and bullpen help.

"RH power hitter" isn't a position, although I'd like to watch some heads explode should the Reds pursue someone like Pat Burrell, who's basically an older, less productive RH version of Dunn. Exactly who do you think the Reds are going to be spending money on during the offseason if not Dunn? The FA Catching cupboard is bare, meaning any acquisition there is going to likely be cheap from a salary perspective. Shortstop is a virtual FA black hole as well, although someone's going to pay Rafael Furcal a lot more than he's worth. Solid LH starting pitching? Chuckle.

You don't get to enter the offseason market with everyone else's players being Free Agents and then just go pick and choose what you think it is you need. You can only shop what's available. And it doesn't seem you've really looked at the choices. Well, either that or you think there are a LOT more really good players available than there actually are.

edabbs44
08-17-2008, 07:19 PM
"RH power hitter" isn't a position, although I'd like to watch some heads explode should the Reds pursue someone like Pat Burrell, who's basically an older, less productive RH version of Dunn. Exactly who do you think the Reds are going to be spending money on during the offseason if not Dunn? The FA Catching cupboard is bare, meaning any acquisition there is going to likely be cheap from a salary perspective. Shortstop is a virtual FA black hole as well, although someone's going to pay Rafael Furcal a lot more than he's worth. Solid LH starting pitching? Chuckle.

You don't get to enter the offseason market with everyone else's players being Free Agents and then just go pick and choose what you think it is you need. You can only shop what's available. And it doesn't seem you've really looked at the choices. Well, either that or you think there are a LOT more really good players available than there actually are.

Curious as to what the problem would be with Burrell, exactly. He and Dunn are similar producers and Burrell would be that RH bat this team needs to even out the lineup. I don't think he is the answer by himself, but he could be part of the solution if they play it right.

mth123
08-17-2008, 07:24 PM
Curious as to what the problem would be with Burrell, exactly. He and Dunn are similar producers and Burrell would be that RH bat this team needs to even out the lineup. I don't think he is the answer by himself, but he could be part of the solution if they play it right.

No problem IMO. He's just older, closer to the decline, probably just as expensive, and an even worse fielder. If he could be had for half the price or on a one or two year deal, he'd be a good enough choice. Any more than that, why not just keep Dunn?

Raisor
08-17-2008, 07:25 PM
Career

Dunn vs LHP 833
Pat the Bat vs RHP 827

IslandRed
08-17-2008, 09:47 PM
My opinion on the matter hasn't changed. (Lately.) I would have been okay with Dunn being brought back because I like him, but free agents are overpaid as a rule, Dunn probably won't be an exception, and the Beane Handbook says there's no such thing as an indispensable overpaid player. Dunn's probably going to be a 4-5 win above replacement player for a couple of more years at least, and that's absolutely nothing to sneeze at. But it's also something a competent GM ought to be able to replace if he has $15 million or more to spend, especially on a team with numerous holes where he can take a "replace the aggregate" approach instead of being limited to just that one spot.

No, it's not a good free-agent market for the holes in question. But offseason trading wasn't outlawed last time I checked, and deals can be swung if there's room to take on some salary. That tends to be Jocketty's favorite method of adding veteran talent.

Mostly, on an analytical basis, if I was looking at the holes we had to fill and the resources we had to fill it, if I didn't have an attachment to Dunn already, I doubt my first conclusion would be, "we should give a huge free-agent contract to a left fielder." I *do* have an attachment to Dunn, and I'm going to hate seeing him come to Cincinnati in someone else's uniform. But business is business.

SMcGavin
08-17-2008, 09:50 PM
I think that Volquez regresses a bit next year. Cueto should get better. Harang is a huge question mark. So is Arroyo.

I can't see how they are going into next year as being solid in the bullpen as well. Cordero has been less than spectacular. Bray is hot and cold. Burton has been great. But it takes more than three to party.

I'll agree that Volquez will regress a bit. Also that Cueto should get better. Arroyo's poor year is almost entirely due to an unsustainably high HR rate. Even considering that HR rate, his ERA should be much lower than it is. Going into 2009 he's the same guy he's always been, someone you can count on to give a bunch of innings in the low to mid 4 ERA range. Harang is a bit riskier because of the injury - but if he's truly healthy now, his 2009 is going to look a lot more like his 2007/2006 than his 2008. I don't see those two as question marks as much as I see them as almost guaranteed rebound candidates (and if I was another GM, guys I'd go hard after in the offseason). Out of Volquez/Cueto/Harang/Arroyo, I expect at least three of the four to be league average or better in 09.

I'm also high on the pen. Coming back should be the following four:
Cordero 3.64
Burton 2.23
Bray 2.70
Lincoln 3.53

I know reliever ERA isn't the best stat, but I could have put FIPs up there and that group would still look pretty good. I think Roenicke and Herrera are perfectly capable of coming up and throwing some innings in the 4.25 range. We could use a good long man (Masset could be that guy), but all things considered the bullpen is the least of my worries.

The 2009 offense though - we are going to need giant leaps forward from more than one guy. I think Bruce can do it, but he's the only one.

SteelSD
08-17-2008, 10:08 PM
No, it's not a good free-agent market for the holes in question. But offseason trading wasn't outlawed last time I checked, and deals can be swung if there's room to take on some salary. That tends to be Jocketty's favorite method of adding veteran talent.

You're absolutely right about trading being an alternate way to add talent. Yet, I look around the Reds' MLB roster and system and I'm having a really hard time finding anything of real value the Reds can afford to trade.

IslandRed
08-17-2008, 10:25 PM
You're absolutely right about trading being an alternate way to add talent. Yet, I look around the Reds' MLB roster and system and I'm having a really hard time finding anything of real value the Reds can afford to trade.

At the major-league level, I don't see much unless Jocketty's willing to take on some good old-fashioned challenge trades.

The farm system's in better shape top to bottom, way better, than it used to be but it still requires the team to separate its gold from its pyrite earlier and better than its trading partners. The jury's still out, although Jocketty tended to make the right calls on that in St. Louis, except for the Mulder trade disaster.

Mostly, I don't think we'll be playing with enough cash to pay market rate for wins and get where we need to go. Walt's going to have to take some risks and win more than he loses.

Sea Ray
08-18-2008, 09:36 AM
Ahem? ;)

:redface:

Sea Ray
08-18-2008, 09:42 AM
"RH power hitter" isn't a position, although I'd like to watch some heads explode should the Reds pursue someone like Pat Burrell, who's basically an older, less productive RH version of Dunn. Exactly who do you think the Reds are going to be spending money on during the offseason if not Dunn? The FA Catching cupboard is bare, meaning any acquisition there is going to likely be cheap from a salary perspective. Shortstop is a virtual FA black hole as well, although someone's going to pay Rafael Furcal a lot more than he's worth. Solid LH starting pitching? Chuckle.

You don't get to enter the offseason market with everyone else's players being Free Agents and then just go pick and choose what you think it is you need. You can only shop what's available. And it doesn't seem you've really looked at the choices. Well, either that or you think there are a LOT more really good players available than there actually are.


The mistake you're making Steel is that you're assuming the only players available are FAs. Almost every player is available via trade. I'll just throw one name out there. Seattle 3B Adrian Beltre. As for LH pitchers there will always be Randy Wolf types but to start to project next year's roster now is fruitless.

Last year no one projected Edison Volquez as our ace in 2008. Afterall he wasn't even a free agent. How could we have acquired an ace if he wasn't a FA??? It happens Steel. Let's see what WJ comes up with but if he has the opportunity to acquire an Adrian Beltre at least he'll have the cash to pay him.

Raisor
08-18-2008, 09:52 AM
The mistake you're making Steel is that you're assuming the only players available are FAs. Almost every player is available via trade. I'll just throw one name out there. Seattle 3B Adrian Beltre. As for LH pitchers there will always be Randy Wolf types but to start to project next year's roster now is fruitless.

.

If you're getting someone like Beltre, what is there to give up that won't cause a hole someplace else?

At 13-ish million for Beltre, I'd much rather have Eddie.

Beltre
06 793
07 801
08 740

RFS62
08-18-2008, 09:55 AM
If you're getting someone like Beltre, what is there to give up that won't cause a hole someplace else?

At 13-ish million for Beltre, I'd much rather have Eddie.

Beltre
06 793
07 801
08 740



Yep

Sea Ray
08-18-2008, 10:21 AM
If you're getting someone like Beltre, what is there to give up that won't cause a hole someplace else?

At 13-ish million for Beltre, I'd much rather have Eddie.

Beltre
06 793
07 801
08 740

I haven't studied the pros and cons of EE vs Adrian but I think Beltre's numbers would go up greatly playing 80 games in GABP.


Regardless it's way too early to start debating hypotheticals. There are just too many variables.

Raisor
08-18-2008, 10:25 AM
I haven't studied the pros and cons of EE vs Adrian but I think Beltre's numbers would go up greatly playing 80 games in GABP.


Regardless it's way too early to start debating hypotheticals. There are just too many variables.

ok, but would they go up enough to
a) be better then Eddie
b) be worth the 13-mil-ish he'd be making
c) worth what it would cost to trade for him in personal for a one year rental?

wheels
08-18-2008, 10:34 AM
The mistake you're making Steel is that you're assuming the only players available are FAs. Almost every player is available via trade. I'll just throw one name out there. Seattle 3B Adrian Beltre. As for LH pitchers there will always be Randy Wolf types but to start to project next year's roster now is fruitless.

Last year no one projected Edison Volquez as our ace in 2008. Afterall he wasn't even a free agent. How could we have acquired an ace if he wasn't a FA??? It happens Steel. Let's see what WJ comes up with but if he has the opportunity to acquire an Adrian Beltre at least he'll have the cash to pay him.


Who do the Reds have that they can deal to bring these guys in?

Short of Cueto, Bruce and Volquez, they don't have many attractive trading chips. Maybe Arroyo, but.....

flyer85
08-18-2008, 10:36 AM
Walt will have to roll the dice with young undervalued players who may be ready to blossom ... trading for established players will be too expensive in terms of talent because there is little he can afford to trade.

He needs to pull off a couple of Carter for Quentin deals.

Sea Ray
08-18-2008, 01:04 PM
Who do the Reds have that they can deal to bring these guys in?

Short of Cueto, Bruce and Volquez, they don't have many attractive trading chips. Maybe Arroyo, but.....

You bring up some great questions. This isn't going to be easy. Let's sit back and see how the winter unfolds.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2008, 01:18 PM
Harang, Arroyo, Votto, EdE, Phillips, and even Homer have some tradeability (though Homer's is very limited, toss-in level).

Walt's got a bunch of options.

edabbs44
08-18-2008, 01:33 PM
Harang, Arroyo, Votto, EdE, Phillips, and even Homer have some tradeability (though Homer's is very limited, toss-in level).

Walt's got a bunch of options.

Homer should have more tradeability that that. It isn't rare for a young phenom to take some lumps early and then develop into a good starter. Hell, I'd be targeting Homer in a trade right now if I was an opposing GM.

Sometimes it isn't "a change of scenery" that's needed, even when that is the popular belief. Maybe they just need time.

HokieRed
08-18-2008, 01:52 PM
I'd be reluctant to trade Homer primarily because his upside is still so great relative to his possible trade value at this moment (which I would, like edabbs, rate still higher than many might think). I'm convinced that if WJ moves Homer, he will get something good for him. Also no way I see WJ tying up a lot of money in whatever tiny improvement Beltre represents over EE. That, however, does not mean EE might not be part of a trade. EE, Phillips, Arroyo, and Harang would, I expect, be the primary players WJ will try to move, with some of our higher level pitching prospects mixed in as incentives.

SteelSD
08-18-2008, 08:55 PM
The mistake you're making Steel is that you're assuming the only players available are FAs. Almost every player is available via trade. I'll just throw one name out there. Seattle 3B Adrian Beltre. As for LH pitchers there will always be Randy Wolf types but to start to project next year's roster now is fruitless.

Adrian Beltre? Randy Wolf? If the best you can do is cite examples of how to spend saved cash AND players to trade for and/or pay expensive mediocrity then I'll consider my position nothing but strengthened.


Last year no one projected Edison Volquez as our ace in 2008. Afterall he wasn't even a free agent. How could we have acquired an ace if he wasn't a FA??? It happens Steel.

Sorry, but it seems that the Reds are fresh out of stock of Josh Hamiltons. And I think you'll want to re-think the idea that I'm in any way, shape, or form averse to using trades as a route to build a roster.


Let's see what WJ comes up with but if he has the opportunity to acquire an Adrian Beltre at least he'll have the cash to pay him.

Yeah, it's really great to have enough money to pay a couple of players like Beltre or Wolf who, combined, aren't worth a single Run above league average. Talk about diminishing returns...

Sea Ray
08-18-2008, 10:10 PM
Steel, it's not about projecting as of right now what players would improve the team over Adam Dunn. The debate is endless. I just threw out those names as guys who could help us.

How much $$ and years do you think Dunn is worth to this team? $15mill/yr for 5 yrs? $20mill/yr for 4 yrs? Let's hear it.


Talk about diminishing returns...

You get diminish much from the past 7 years...

SteelSD
08-18-2008, 11:06 PM
Steel, it's not about projecting as of right now what players would improve the team over Adam Dunn. The debate is endless. I just threw out those names as guys who could help us.

Yeah, you threw out names of players who'd combine to be paid nearly 20 million per season who don't project anywhere near Dunn's actual value. The debate isn't "endless". It's just now reached a place where you'd suggest spending at least as much money while also swapping talent resources for players who don't project to equal his value. Solid.


How much $$ and years do you think Dunn is worth to this team? $15mill/yr for 5 yrs? $20mill/yr for 4 yrs? Let's hear it.

Well, I thought that you already had that figured out considering that Beltre is set to earn about 13.5M next season and that Wolf will likely be looking for a rebound contract in excess of 8M bucks per season. Players and/or prospects are additional resources that also translate to cash.

You're spending a lot more than it would take to sign Dunn at the high end (@20M per season) while receiving less value. It's pretty clear that you don't have a real understanding of what you're suggesting the Reds do.

In short, your resource management plan isn't viable from a performance standpoint, as is all too-often the case.

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 09:00 AM
Yeah, you threw out names of players who'd combine to be paid nearly 20 million per season who don't project anywhere near Dunn's actual value. The debate isn't "endless". It's just now reached a place where you'd suggest spending at least as much money while also swapping talent resources for players who don't project to equal his value. Solid.



Well, I thought that you already had that figured out considering that Beltre is set to earn about 13.5M next season and that Wolf will likely be looking for a rebound contract in excess of 8M bucks per season. Players and/or prospects are additional resources that also translate to cash.

You're spending a lot more than it would take to sign Dunn at the high end (@20M per season) while receiving less value. It's pretty clear that you don't have a real understanding of what you're suggesting the Reds do.

In short, your resource management plan isn't viable from a performance standpoint, as is all too-often the case.

The possibilities are endless Steel. Maybe the M's would pay the Lion's share of Beltre's salary if we agreed to take Johjima off their hands. The finances can be anything. I never said I'd be willing to pay $20mill for Beltre and Wolf.

Are you going to answer my question or do like you usually do...run off with your tail between your legs? I'll ask it one more time.

What is Dunn worth to this club?

SteelSD
08-19-2008, 10:32 AM
The possibilities are endless Steel. Maybe the M's would pay the Lion's share of Beltre's salary if we agreed to take Johjima off their hands. The finances can be anything. I never said I'd be willing to pay $20mill for Beltre and Wolf.

Resources are resources. Swap out a portion of Beltre's salary and replace it with Johjima's (an awful target) and you still are paying mediocrity of pile of cash. Try to get the M's to pay even more of Beltre's salary and the Reds are going to need to up the ante from a return perspective. If a team is looking to dump salary, the acquiring team isn't going to be able to produce any kind of real resource mitigation because it runs contrary to the reason the highly paid mediocre players are available in the first place.


Are you going to answer my question or do like you usually do...run off with your tail between your legs? I'll ask it one more time.

What is Dunn worth to this club?

Given the window his presence would likely allow, at least 17M per season and potentially 20M per knowing how much revenue can be generated by a playoff-caliber team.

And have you really never seen me speak to how much money I'd be willing to pay Dunn? Really??

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 10:38 AM
Given the window his presence would likely allow, at least 17M per season and potentially 20M per knowing how much revenue can be generated by a playoff-caliber team.

And have you really never seen me speak to how much money I'd be willing to pay Dunn? Really??


OK, that's fair. How many years?

I have no idea where you've posted this opinion elsewhere but I'll take you at your word that you've posted it clearly in other places.

HokieRed
08-19-2008, 11:13 AM
I suspect we will see WJ try to sign really significant free agents--a Sabathia or Sheets, for instance--and, if he cannot, depend primarily on the trading market. I've always been pretty neutral about re-signing Dunn, seeing that his value is really very high--maybe as much as 20 million a year to this team--and yet also seeing, largely from the Griffey experience, and from a kind of systems perspective, that making that kind of commitment over many years to any--I repeat, ANY--player really shapes and limits the way you'll see future possibilities. That's not a big problem for a team like NY or Boston that can just ultimately create flexibility for itself by spending around its long-term commitments, but it is for a Cincinnati.

Johnny Footstool
08-19-2008, 11:23 AM
I suspect we will see WJ try to sign really significant free agents--a Sabathia or Sheets, for instance--and, if he cannot, depend primarily on the trading market. I've always been pretty neutral about re-signing Dunn, seeing that his value is really very high--maybe as much as 20 million a year to this team--and yet also seeing, largely from the Griffey experience, and from a kind of systems perspective, that making that kind of commitment over many years to any--I repeat, ANY--player really shapes and limits the way you'll see future possibilities. That's not a big problem for a team like NY or Boston that can just ultimately create flexibility for itself by spending around its long-term commitments, but it is for a Cincinnati.

If Sabathia and Sheets do end filing for free agency, I seriously doubt the Reds would be in the running to sign them. However, it would open the door for Jocketty to trade a pitcher for J.J. Hardy.

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 11:29 AM
Given the window his presence would likely allow, at least 17M per season and potentially 20M per knowing how much revenue can be generated by a playoff-caliber team.



OK Steel. You're a numbers guy so let's look at the numbers. Right now the Reds are on the hook for $46.625mill to 6 players for 2009 not including buyouts, bonuses etc: Harang (11), Arroyo (9.5), Cordero (12), Phillips (4.75), Freel (4) and A Gon (5.375). Let's take your figure of $17mill for Dunn. That means we're tying up $63.625mill in 7 players. I'm not even including Alonzo in this.

This year our payroll is higher than it's ever been at about $74mill. That leaves $11mill to sign at least 18 players including arbitration guys like EE and FAs like Lincoln and Affeldt. That's basically impossible. You'd have to have a team of 18 guys being paid the minimum under that scenario.

So you're the GM Steel. How do you field a contending team with 18 guys making about $500,000/yr? The numbers just don't work for this franchise. They have to let Dunn walk.

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 11:31 AM
I suspect we will see WJ try to sign really significant free agents--a Sabathia or Sheets, for instance--and, if he cannot, depend primarily on the trading market. I've always been pretty neutral about re-signing Dunn, seeing that his value is really very high--maybe as much as 20 million a year to this team--and yet also seeing, largely from the Griffey experience, and from a kind of systems perspective, that making that kind of commitment over many years to any--I repeat, ANY--player really shapes and limits the way you'll see future possibilities. That's not a big problem for a team like NY or Boston that can just ultimately create flexibility for itself by spending around its long-term commitments, but it is for a Cincinnati.

I'd be very surprised if the Reds spent for either of those guys. In reality the Brewers are better equipped to pay them than the Reds are.

Ltlabner
08-19-2008, 11:33 AM
OK Steel. You're a numbers guy so let's look at the numbers. Right now the Reds are on the hook for $46.625mill to 6 players for 2009 not including buyouts, bonuses etc: Harang (11), Arroyo (9.5), Cordero (12), Phillips (4.75), Freel (4) and A Gon (5.375). Let's take your figure of $17mill for Dunn. That means we're tying up $63.625mill in 7 players. I'm not even including Alonzo in this.

This year our payroll is higher than it's ever been at about $74mill. That leaves $11mill to sign at least 18 players including arbitration guys like EE and FAs like Lincoln and Affeldt. That's basically impossible. You'd have to have team of 18 guys being paid the minimum under that scenario.

So you're the GM Steel. How do you field a contending team with 18 guys making about $500,000/yr? The numbers just don't work for this franchise. They have to let Dunn walk.


It's *possible* that next years team includes Votto, Bruce, Hannigan, Cueto, Bailey and Dickerson, all of whom make the minimum or darn near it.

EE, Burton and Bray are all still pretty cheep. Not sure about Volquez.

And that doesn't include any trades that relieve sallary any further.

It's still a daunting task for Walt to fill every need by 2009, both in terms of sallary and plain old availablity of players, but I don't think it's as impossible as you portray.

The "we can't afford Dunn" argument is weak.

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 11:50 AM
It's *possible* that next years team includes Votto, Bruce, Hannigan, Cueto, Bailey and Dickerson, all of whom make the minimum or darn near it.

EE, Burton and Bray are all still pretty cheep. Not sure about Volquez.

And that doesn't include any trades that relieve sallary any further.

It's still a daunting task for Walt to fill every need by 2009, both in terms of sallary and plain old availablity of players, but I don't think it's as impossible as you portray.

The "we can't afford Dunn" argument is weak.


It is a daunting task to cram Dunn in or is it weak to argue we can afford him? Which is it?

What's weak is your argument above. You've mentioned 9 players that may very well make the minimum. Fine. You've got 9 more to go. And how are you going to improve on this team if you don't add better players? Keeping Dunn and this existing crew will get you more of the same: 70 win seasons. You're suggesting we jettison guys like Affeldt, Weathers and Lincoln for rookies and expect the team to improve. Under your scenario we also have to start minimum salaried guys at 1B, C RF, CF and LF. Talk about weak arguments...

You will go to all sorts of unreasonable lengths to keep Dunn.

Ltlabner
08-19-2008, 12:02 PM
It is a daunting task to cram Dunn in or is it weak to argue we can afford him? Which is it?

You will go to all sorts of unreasonable lengths to keep Dunn.

Yea, low cost consistant offensive production. What a dumb move to want that on my team. Silly me.

Yes, if you are closed minded, and have already decided that Dunn is worthless, it seems like an impossible task. If you are unable to think more than one step beyond where you are now it is impossible. If you have zero creativity other than to keep slamming your head into the wall, it's gonna be tough. If all you can see is "Dunn sux" then yep, it's going to be hard to think much beyond that myopic viewpoint.

But, as you pointed out somewhere else, it's hard to discuss the construction of next years team because we don't know all the variables. We don't even know for sure what the sallary budget will be for next year. But you know for certian we can't afford Dunn? Talk about weak.

Who's to say BCast doesn't bump the budget more since the losing hasn't stopped? Who's to say Walt doesn't pull off a slobernocker trade(s) moving some combination of Arroyo, Freel, Cordero, AGon (thus opening up a lot more sallary to play with)? Who's to say that a team of mostly kids couldn't give other teams a run for their money and at least compete? Golly, who's to say a combination of some of those things happens? Wouldn't that be wild.

What is weak about the "we can't afford Dunn argument" is that those who can't stand Dunn always build the arugument around plugging Dunn into this same exact team next year. How dumb would that be?

What it all boils down to, as it usually does, is that people don't like Dunn the player and will fabricate all sorts of reasons as to why Dunn shouldn't be here.

RedsBaron
08-19-2008, 12:34 PM
In today's Sports Illustrated online edition, John Donovan has a column discussing the effects that Manny Ramirez and Adam Dunn have had on their new teams.
Donovan does mention that he is dealing with a small sample size, but, after noting that Dunn had hit .286 with a .464 OBP in his first six games with Arizona (4-2), he then wrote:
"What kind of effect has Dunn had? Some, including centerfielder Chris Young, credit Dunn's patience at the plate and threat in the middle for a complete mind-change in the Arizona hitters."

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 12:55 PM
But, as you pointed out somewhere else, it's hard to discuss the construction of next years team because we don't know all the variables. We don't even know for sure what the sallary budget will be for next year. But you know for certian we can't afford Dunn? Talk about weak.

Who's to say BCast doesn't bump the budget more since the losing hasn't stopped? Who's to say Walt doesn't pull off a slobernocker trade(s) moving some combination of Arroyo, Freel, Cordero, AGon (thus opening up a lot more sallary to play with)? Who's to say that a team of mostly kids couldn't give other teams a run for their money and at least compete? Golly, who's to say a combination of some of those things happens? Wouldn't that be wild.





Excellent point. If they can cast off some of the deals WK tied them into Dunn could fit.


What is weak about the "we can't afford Dunn argument" is that those who can't stand Dunn always build the arugument around plugging Dunn into this same exact team next year. How dumb would that be?

You make my point with your statement above. If we keep Dunn then we don't have any money to do anything but plug him into the same team and that would be dumb.

The only way keeping Dunn makes sense is if they either raise payroll or dump salaries.

fearofpopvol1
08-19-2008, 01:20 PM
In today's Sports Illustrated online edition, John Donovan has a column discussing the effects that Manny Ramirez and Adam Dunn have had on their new teams.
Donovan does mention that he is dealing with a small sample size, but, after noting that Dunn had hit .286 with a .464 OBP in his first six games with Arizona (4-2), he then wrote:
"What kind of effect has Dunn had? Some, including centerfielder Chris Young, credit Dunn's patience at the plate and threat in the middle for a complete mind-change in the Arizona hitters."

The Fukodome effect, if you will...

Ltlabner
08-19-2008, 01:33 PM
If we keep Dunn then we don't have any money to do anything but plug him into the same team and that would be dumb.

Wow, you really are just insistant that Dunn doesn't make any sense, aren't you?

Look, if you can't seen beyond the "I don't like Dunn" nose on your face, and insist of the Reds building teams as they always have in the past, then there's no point in discussing this any further. As if signing Dunn prevents any other moves from being made, other sallaries from being traded or BCast upping the team payroll. Nope. We have to ram our head into the wall with another year of CPatt, Freel and Javy because that big lazy guy who strikes out is around. One has little to do with the other.

You do realize the stupidty of arguing Dunn's too expensive while at the same time arguing that we need more tallent than just the rookie kids right? That tallent isn't going to be free and you can't have it both ways. So pay Dunn, or pay someone else. All of which tells me the issue has nothing to do with payroll and everything to do with not liking Dunn as a player. Meanwhile, you've yet to suggest a plausable way to replace his production without tying the team down with a sallary they "can't afford".

Meanwhile teams who can see beyond the "small-market" crap are already realizing the benefit of having Dunn around. Yea, it's only a 6 week $2,000,000 rental but something tells me you don't even think he's worth that.

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 01:56 PM
Meanwhile teams who can see beyond the "small-market" crap are already realizing the benefit of having Dunn around. Yea, it's only a 6 week $2,000,000 rental but something tells me you don't even think he's worth that.

I think acquiring Dunn was a great move for Arizona. In fact I'd like nothing better than a scenario like this:

Some year in the future our Reds are gearing up for a stretch run and they re-acquire Adam Dunn for the stretch run and he leads them to the ring we all want so badly. He finishes his career as a Red. I'll join hands with you and all the others here in welcoming the guy home where he belongs.

princeton
08-19-2008, 02:23 PM
There was a time, when Bonds and Jr got their big contracts, and when ARod signed with Texas, when it was questioned whether a team could win consistently if one player was eating up 25 percent or more of the payroll-- although I don't think that Bonds ever made up THAT much (did he?)

the counterargument has always been that teams like, oh, the Marlins have won with a payroll less than what the Rangers were paying out to the rest of their players, so why couldn't a team win with a Marlins payroll PLUS a big contract too?

and the countercounterargument is that those low payroll teams didn't have sustained success, a big contract in a sea of little ones breeds contempt, etc...

but maybe there's a countercountercounterargument. it's been a while since I've seen this things discussed. I do know that an NL team paying out a third of its payroll to two DHs (Jr and Dunn) probably wasn't a good idea though...

IslandRed
08-19-2008, 02:50 PM
Look, if you can't seen beyond the "I don't like Dunn" nose on your face, and insist of the Reds building teams as they always have in the past, then there's no point in discussing this any further.

Well, just playing devil's advocate here, aren't you implicitly insisting the Reds are going to continue being as dumb as they have in the past? :p:

As good as Dunn is, teams in the lower-to-middle payroll class often lose players who are just as productive and they keep on truckin'. We all know the recent history of the A's. The Twins lost Johan Santana from a 79-win team and are in the thick of the postseason chase, even though they've received pretty much nothing from the players they got for Johan. The Marlins went 71-91 last year and packed Miguel Cabrera off to Detroit, and they're still in the race. Both Santana and Cabrera were considerably superior to Dunn on a VORP basis, in fact they were among the very few best players in the game, yet losing them was not a waterline hit to even the near term of those franchises, much less the long term. But Dunn is irreplaceable?

I'm not suggesting that losing free agents is a good thing. I'm sure the Twins would love to have Santana right about now. I'm suggesting that when it comes to building winning baseball teams, there are lots of ways to skin that particular cat. Some of those ways involve high-priced free agents and many of them do not.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2008, 03:05 PM
Not to be too much of a metaboarder, but man, these discussions of Dunn--while interesting to some--are completely futile. No one's opinion will shift even a hair's-width on the guy. So now that the guy's gone, can I make a plea for sanity, and ask, as nicely as I possibly can: can we do without the Dunn discussions in *every. single. thread*? Please?

At the very least, keep the Dunn discussions to this thread and not 17 others?

Ltlabner
08-19-2008, 03:13 PM
I'm not suggesting that losing free agents is a good thing. I'm sure the Twins would love to have Santana right about now. I'm suggesting that when it comes to building winning baseball teams, there are lots of ways to skin that particular cat. Some of those ways involve high-priced free agents and many of them do not.

I agree 100%. I don't think for a minute we are "doomed" without Dunn.

I just don't agree with the notion that we "can't afford him" especially when it's a smoke-screen for people who don't like him as a player.

Ltlabner
08-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Not to be too much of a metaboarder, but man, these discussions of Dunn--while interesting to some--are completely futile. No one's opinion will shift even a hair's-width on the guy. So now that the guy's gone, can I make a plea for sanity, and ask, as nicely as I possibly can: can we do without the Dunn discussions in *every. single. thread*? Please?

At the very least, keep the Dunn discussions to this thread and not 17 others?

Sure.

Can you keep your constant doom and love of all things Cards to this thread and not 17 others.

:p:

Falls City Beer
08-19-2008, 03:15 PM
Sure.

Can you keep your constant doom and love of all things Cards to this thread and not 17 others.

:p:

When the Cards stop whippin up on my beloved Reds, sure thing. You got it! :)

Until then, most of my advice to the FO/discussion is going to resemble the model the Cards use. Cuz it works. And how.

BRM
08-19-2008, 03:18 PM
The Cards model works? Really? I thought they were just a team lucky enough to draft Pujols. ;)

Ltlabner
08-19-2008, 03:19 PM
When the Cards stop whippin up on my beloved Reds, sure thing. You got it! :)

Until then, most of my advice to the FO/discussion is going to resemble the model the Cards use. Cuz it works. And how.

Ok, but could you at least stop saying "getem on, getem over, getem in" in every broadcast?

BRM
08-19-2008, 03:23 PM
Ok, but could you at least stop saying "getem on, getem over, getem in" in every broadcast?

:laugh:

FCB is George Grande? Who woulda thunk it?

Falls City Beer
08-19-2008, 03:38 PM
:laugh:

FCB is George Grande? Who woulda thunk it?

George can out-curse me and drink me under the table.

gonelong
08-19-2008, 03:42 PM
Not to be too much of a metaboarder, but man, these discussions of Dunn--while interesting to some--are completely futile. No one's opinion will shift even a hair's-width on the guy. So now that the guy's gone, can I make a plea for sanity, and ask, as nicely as I possibly can: can we do without the Dunn discussions in *every. single. thread*? Please?

At the very least, keep the Dunn discussions to this thread and not 17 others?

This thead has Dunn right in the title, so it seems to be a good place for this dicussion.

If you count all the opinions that have been swayed in the least on this board the top 3 would be:
1. Stikeouts really, really, really bad ... to ... ok not so bad.
2. Low BA means low offensive output ... to ... OPS > OBP > SLG > BA
3. Adam Dunn's the suxor ... to ... Adam Dunn has some value

All three of these can pretty much be attributed to discussion on or about AD.

Dunn's an interesing topic because he is an outlier, as most intersting topics are. I reject your plea. :D

GL

BRM
08-19-2008, 03:57 PM
George can out-curse me and drink me under the table.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can out drink FCB.

Rojo
08-19-2008, 03:57 PM
the counterargument has always been that teams like, oh, the Marlins have won with a payroll less than what the Rangers were paying out to the rest of their players, so why couldn't a team win with a Marlins payroll PLUS a big contract too?


My quasi-counter: it should be possible but it isn't because it requires straddling two distinct baseball cultures. Most teams are either fish (Yanks) or fowl (Marlins).

Having said that, I'd think young position players plus a vet ace starter or closer would work. Maybe it has, I can't recall.

Sea Ray
08-19-2008, 04:00 PM
George can out-curse me and drink me under the table.

George Grande can't even bring himself to say Best Damn Sports Show

SteelSD
08-19-2008, 08:50 PM
My quasi-counter: it should be possible but it isn't because it requires straddling two distinct baseball cultures. Most teams are either fish (Yanks) or fowl (Marlins).

Citing the Marlins is interesting because that team produced a 41.98M dollar payroll in 2002. Cliff Floyd was their highest paid player at 6.5M. In 2003, the payroll increased to 48.75M and they added Ivan Rodriguez who, at 10 million bucks, represented 20.51% of the Marlins' total payroll even after they bumped it.

Rojo
08-19-2008, 11:21 PM
Citing the Marlins is interesting because that team produced a 41.98M dollar payroll in 2002. Cliff Floyd was their highest paid player at 6.5M. In 2003, the payroll increased to 48.75M and they added Ivan Rodriguez who, at 10 million bucks, represented 20.51% of the Marlins' total payroll even after they bumped it.

It was interesting that they opened the wallet for a guy that wasn't an offensive monster.

The idea of adding a vet, rockstar ace to a young team is interesting as well.

Raisor
08-19-2008, 11:44 PM
Citing the Marlins is interesting because that team produced a 41.98M dollar payroll in 2002. Cliff Floyd was their highest paid player at 6.5M. In 2003, the payroll increased to 48.75M and they added Ivan Rodriguez who, at 10 million bucks, represented 20.51% of the Marlins' total payroll even after they bumped it.

Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek took up 25% of the Twins payroll in 1991, by the way. (For comparison, Dunn/JR was about 27% of the Reds.)

It's not what you pay your best players, it's how you fill in the rest of the team.

WVRedsFan
08-19-2008, 11:47 PM
Not to be too much of a metaboarder, but man, these discussions of Dunn--while interesting to some--are completely futile. No one's opinion will shift even a hair's-width on the guy. So now that the guy's gone, can I make a plea for sanity, and ask, as nicely as I possibly can: can we do without the Dunn discussions in *every. single. thread*? Please?

At the very least, keep the Dunn discussions to this thread and not 17 others?


Not going to happen, FCB. In a grand RedsZone tradition, there are some who continue to grieve the loss of Wayne Krivsky over and over. My opinion is they are both gone, so it's time to look at the current Reds...

On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea either...

Sea Ray
08-20-2008, 11:04 AM
Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek took up 25% of the Twins payroll in 1991, by the way. (For comparison, Dunn/JR was about 27% of the Reds.)

It's not what you pay your best players, it's how you fill in the rest of the team.


1991 was a different era, unfortunately for small markets. At that time the Oakland A's had the highest payroll in all of baseball and teams like the Twins, Reds, Pirates and A's were very good, if not dominant. I don't think we'll ever go back to those days, do you?

deltachi8
08-20-2008, 11:09 AM
1991 was a different era, unfortunately for small markets. At that time the Oakland A's had the highest payroll in all of baseball and teams like the Twins, Reds, Pirates and A's were very good, if not dominant. I don't think we'll ever go back to those days, do you?

i don't believe that was the point of the post.

And while the Reds and Pirates have sucked bus fumes for a long time, the A's and Twins have been quite good - for the most part- for a while now.

cincrazy
08-20-2008, 11:13 AM
i don't believe that was the point of the post.

And while the Reds and Pirates have sucked bus fumes for a long time, the A's and Twins have been quite good - for the most part- for a while now.

What you say is certainly true, but I think the point Sea Ray was trying to make was that teams like the Reds and Twins and A's could be near the top in payrolls in 1991, and that's what we'll never see again. The Twins and A's have been very successful, but what if the A's could have kept Giambi and Tejada and Hudson? Do they have a world title by now? And how much better would the Twins be with Hunter and Santana this year? They're already 17 games over .500.

RedsManRick
08-20-2008, 11:15 AM
i don't believe that was the point of the post.

And while the Reds and Pirates have sucked bus fumes for a long time, the A's and Twins have been quite good - for the most part- for a while now.

Market size has always been one factor among many contributing to the ability of an organization to compete. But it never has been more important than good management.

Sea Ray
08-20-2008, 11:31 AM
i don't believe that was the point of the post.

And while the Reds and Pirates have sucked bus fumes for a long time, the A's and Twins have been quite good - for the most part- for a while now.

You're right it wasn't the point of the post and that's why I brought it up. If I'm just regurgitating what's already written it's a waste of bandwidth. I was bringing up a different point which is what debate is all about.

My point is that the salary structures are so much different nowadays you can't compare its construction with 1991. The disparities are too great.

Your point about the success of the Twins and A's is a very good one and it makes my point. Thank you! It's 2008 and the Twins and A's are very good and they do not have two players making 25% of their payroll.

SteelSD
08-20-2008, 11:31 AM
Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek took up 25% of the Twins payroll in 1991, by the way. (For comparison, Dunn/JR was about 27% of the Reds.)

It's not what you pay your best players, it's how you fill in the rest of the team.

Yep. And in 2006, Torii Hunter and Brad Radke combined for 31.2% of the Twins' payroll.

The 2002 Oakland A's won over 100 games while Jermaine Dye and Ray Durham sucked up over one-third of their payroll (33.68%). Add in David Justice and over 50% of that team's payroll went to just three guys.

Sea Ray
08-20-2008, 11:33 AM
Market size has always been one factor among many contributing to the ability of an organization to compete. But it never has been more important than good management.

I agree but your statement would not complete unless we added that market size is more important now than it was in 1991.

SteelSD
08-20-2008, 11:35 AM
It's 2008 and the Twins and A's are very good and they do not have two players making 25% of their payroll.

Justin Morneau and Joe Nathan currently combine to take in 25.29% of the 2008 Twins payroll.

Eric Chavez and Mark Ellis represent 34.40% of the A's payroll. Probably more than that after the Harden and Blanton deals went down (like around 40%).

RedsManRick
08-20-2008, 11:49 AM
I agree but your statement would not complete unless we added that market size is more important now than it was in 1991.

True. But one could argue that the change in influence of market size makes good management even more important for those in small markets. They they have a bigger challenge to overcome now than ever. And yet, they're still doing it with regularity.

I think the change we're seeing in the move to more "Moneyball" inclined front offices (meaning those who are keen on exploiting market inefficiencies to gain an edge) is due to this reality. When everybody was more or less in the same boat, you could be a sub-par front office in a smaller market and still sputter along close to respectability with a bit of luck. These days, if you're small and stupid, you get absolutely eaten alive. The pressure is highest on those with the fewest natural advantages.

Sea Ray
08-20-2008, 11:58 AM
Yep. And in 2006, Torii Hunter and Brad Radke combined for 31.2% of the Twins' payroll.

The 2002 Oakland A's won over 100 games while Jermaine Dye and Ray Durham sucked up over one-third of their payroll (33.68%). Add in David Justice and over 50% of that team's payroll went to just three guys.

From what I can tell, the A's paid David Justice's salary and not Ray Durham's that year but your point is well taken. They had a very good year with that structure in 2002. I tend to think it was built on the Marlin's model: take on an extra high salaried guy, go for it then send them off again.

It'll be interesting to see who's interested in Adam Dunn next year. I know the A's and Twins value high OBP guys but I tend to think they won't be interested due to tying up that much $$, although I could be wrong. You showed it already:)

princeton
08-20-2008, 12:09 PM
From what I can tell, the A's paid David Justice's salary and not Ray Durham's that year but your point is well taken. They had a very good year with that structure in 2002. I tend to think it was built on the Marlin's model: take on an extra high salaried guy, go for it then send them off again.


and assigning a big part of your payroll to a guy like Adam Dunn is problematic. If your team goes south or if you find a big cheap bat that can only play Adam's only position-- well, you're in trouble as the trade market for him has always been low. Even ARod, who's such a better player at such a more important position that it's not even funny, was nearly untradeable.

ideally, a team needs its assets to be readily tradeable. Pitching is the most liquid of assets, as it's always in demand.

Sea Ray
08-20-2008, 01:59 PM
and assigning a big part of your payroll to a guy like Adam Dunn is problematic. If your team goes south or if you find a big cheap bat that can only play Adam's only position-- well, you're in trouble as the trade market for him has always been low. Even ARod, who's such a better player at such a more important position that it's not even funny, was nearly untradeable.

ideally, a team needs its assets to be readily tradeable. Pitching is the most liquid of assets, as it's always in demand.

Some Dunn supporter(s) have gone on record as saying he's worth anywhere from $17-20mill a year. This is where a lot of us part company. At $17mill he'd be the 7th highest paid player in baseball and that assumes Manny Ramirez gets a contract next year in the $17mill plus range and that the Yankees pickup the option on Giambi. At $20mill per year he'd be paid more than any player not wearing a NYY uniform. Those of us that say Dunn is a very good player but he's not worth that kind of money get "labeled" around here.

Rojo
08-20-2008, 03:40 PM
Those of us that say Dunn is a very good player but he's not worth that kind of money get "labeled" around here.


Its the luddite litmus test.

Ltlabner
08-20-2008, 04:59 PM
Justin Morneau and Joe Nathan currently combine to take in 25.29% of the 2008 Twins payroll.

Eric Chavez and Mark Ellis represent 34.40% of the A's payroll. Probably more than that after the Harden and Blanton deals went down (like around 40%).

Damn details. Always in the way of a good agenda fueled rant.

edabbs44
08-20-2008, 09:51 PM
It's 2008 and the Twins and A's are very good and they do not have two players making 25% of their payroll.

The A's are "very good" this year?

Sea Ray
08-20-2008, 11:13 PM
The A's are "very good" this year?


Well they were before they cleaned house in June

Rojo
08-21-2008, 08:17 PM
Always in the way of a good agenda fueled rant.

"agenda fueled rant"?

Jpup
08-22-2008, 01:44 AM
Adam Dunn was traded because he strikes out a lot. Plain and simple.

How could they pay 16 million per for a guy that strikes out so much. There it is. The truth.

People wonder why some don't have faith in Walt Jocketty, there it is.

Degenerate39
08-22-2008, 02:11 AM
Adam Dunn was traded because he strikes out a lot. Plain and simple.

How could they pay 16 million per for a guy that strikes out so much. There it is. The truth.

People wonder why some don't have faith in Walt Jocketty, there it is.

http://www.blogging-baseball.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/RyanHowardHappyTip.thumbnail.jpg

icehole3
08-22-2008, 04:54 AM
add massage chairs to the sofa's. Jr and Dunn needed separation in order to reconstruct this team IMO, just saying.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/articles/2008/08/21/20080821dbxmain0822.html

icehole3
08-22-2008, 06:45 AM
Is it safe to say that even back in high school Dunn wasnt thrilled with working on his craft???

nate
08-22-2008, 07:23 AM
Is it safe to say that even back in high school Dunn wasnt thrilled with working on his craft???

:rolleyes:

RichRed
08-22-2008, 07:28 AM
Is it safe to say that even back in high school Dunn wasnt thrilled with working on his craft???

I think it's safe to say that when he was in high school, he was a high school kid - that's it.

icehole3
08-22-2008, 07:59 AM
I think it's safe to say that when he was in high school, he was a high school kid - that's it.

So what youre saying is most high schoolers on Friday would go to school and do nothing all day but sit in the office relaxing???

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 08:07 AM
So what youre saying is most high schoolers on Friday would go to school and do nothing all day but sit in the office relaxing???

Oh no. Everyother high-school kid on the planet was in class paying 100% attention to the teacher. They were taking hard-core notes. Between classes they ran to the next class so they could resume the learning without delay. Durring the lesson you could count on them to ask fungent and probing questions so as to more deeply understand the subject matter.

After school you could find all the other kids in study groups reviewing the days materials and quizzing each other. The kids who also played sports would spend the evening hours doing atheletic drills and wind sprints. I'm pretty sure they all said their prayers before bedtime too.

That damn Dunn. What a lazy oaf.

nate
08-22-2008, 08:43 AM
So what youre saying is most high schoolers on Friday would go to school and do nothing all day but sit in the office relaxing???

This might blow your mind but in some high schools, students have enough credits by the last semester of their senior year and do indeed, not have but a single class (or no class) on Friday.

icehole3
08-22-2008, 08:51 AM
Here's the quote, just so there's no confusion.

This is the guy who described what it was like to be a star quarterback at a Texas high school this way: "Our principal was the former coach and athletic director. Here was my Friday: I'd show up, he'd take me to breakfast. I'd hang out in his office. Then I had athletic period. And then I'd go home."

Doesnt football begin at the beginning of school or am I missing something?

Roy Tucker
08-22-2008, 08:55 AM
fungent?

icehole3
08-22-2008, 09:01 AM
fungent?

?????

flyer85
08-22-2008, 09:03 AM
fungent?a strong odor that makes you laugh?

RFS62
08-22-2008, 09:16 AM
fungent?

Yeah, I saw that too and almost said something..



a strong odor that makes you laugh?

That's awesome, Flyer.

:lol:

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 09:21 AM
fungent?

Of all my misspellings thats the one you question? :)


pun·gent

1. sharply affecting the organs of taste or smell, as if by a penetrating power; biting; acrid.
2. acutely distressing to the feelings or mind; poignant.
3. caustic, biting, or sharply expressive: pungent remarks.
4. mentally stimulating or appealing: pungent wit.
5. Biology. piercing or sharp-pointed.

I mean, these are some pretty smart kids that are out learning while that big dumb Dunn is laying around.

RichRed
08-22-2008, 09:22 AM
So what youre saying is most high schoolers on Friday would go to school and do nothing all day but sit in the office relaxing???

No, what I'm saying is the level of a man's work ethic shouldn't necessarily be inferred based on one quote about how he spent a year in high school.

But what YOU'RE saying is that this quote is just further proof that Dunn is lazy. Is that about the size of it?

Roy Tucker
08-22-2008, 09:31 AM
Of all my misspellings thats the one you question? :)



I mean, these are some pretty smart kids that are out learning while that big dumb Dunn is laying around.

Aw, I'm just being stupid.

It just struck me when I read your reply and I thought "fungent? what??". I don't know what it is, but it sounds funky. Google thought it was "fun gent" which you don't want to Google.

Your misspellings are usually along the lines of phonetically spelling and those I usually get. But altering the first letter of a word can result in some odd mental images.

Just trying to keep things light. Play on...

Chip R
08-22-2008, 09:31 AM
No, what I'm saying is the level of a man's work ethic shouldn't necessarily be inferred based on one quote about how he spent a year in high school.

But what YOU'RE saying is that this quote is just further proof that Dunn is lazy. Is that about the size of it?


Pete Rose was quite the student in high school.

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 09:36 AM
Aw, I'm just being stupid.

It just struck me when I read your reply and I thought "fungent? what??". I don't know what it is, but it sounds funky. Google thought it was "fun gent" which you don't want to Google.

Your misspellings are usually along the lines of phonetically spelling and those I usually get. But altering the first letter of a word can result in some odd mental images.

Just trying to keep things light. Play on...

I'm just playing back my friend.

Honestly, I really thought it was spelled that way. :bash: :laugh:

icehole3
08-22-2008, 10:12 AM
Pete Rose was quite the student in high school.

watch it Chip

Raisor
08-22-2008, 10:15 AM
I am shocked SHOCKED that a Texas highschool football star might possibly have been shown favortisim in highschool. SHOCKED!!

westofyou
08-22-2008, 10:21 AM
Is it safe to say that even back in high school Dunn wasnt thrilled with working on his craft???

Some on Redzone never work on theirs, why the surprise?

Chip R
08-22-2008, 10:58 AM
watch it Chip


You brought it up. What's good for the goose...

pahster
08-22-2008, 11:00 AM
I was pretty lazy during the entirety of my senior year in high school. Doesn't seem to have hurt me.

Highlifeman21
08-22-2008, 11:19 AM
Here's the quote, just so there's no confusion.

This is the guy who described what it was like to be a star quarterback at a Texas high school this way: "Our principal was the former coach and athletic director. Here was my Friday: I'd show up, he'd take me to breakfast. I'd hang out in his office. Then I had athletic period. And then I'd go home."

Doesnt football begin at the beginning of school or am I missing something?

There's really only 2 sports in Texas: Football and Spring Football.

Dunn was a star QB in Texas, so he lived and acted the part. I can't fault him for that at all.

Good for him taking Fridays off. I'm sure he deserved it! (yes, I'm being serious here)

Highlifeman21
08-22-2008, 11:23 AM
Pete Rose was quite the student in high school.

Did Pete Rose actually graduate from Western Hills? Or was it an honorary diploma kinda thing?

westofyou
08-22-2008, 11:32 AM
Did Pete Rose actually graduate from Western Hills? Or was it an honorary diploma kinda thing?
Yes... but he was not allowed to play baseball his senior year because he flunked so many classes the prior year.

Pete wasn't even the best player on the team, nor was he the guy the scouts came to see play on WHHS's field. That was Eddie Brinkman, who signed for 75K after he graduated.

westofyou
08-22-2008, 11:34 AM
2-17-1913


F. C. LANE, Editor BASEBALL MAGAZINE.

DEAR SIR :—In the last number of the BASEBALL MAGAZINE I was struck by the article on the value of a star. This article it seems to me presented the subject in rather a new light and on the whole I agreed with the substance of the arguments.

The common people of baseball of which I am one, no doubt, get many erroneous opinions of our favorite game and are glad to have some fearless publication which knows more about the subject than we do, come out and set us right.

Personally I go to see the Tigers whenever Cobb plays, if I can get to the park, and I believe there are a number of other people as anxious to see the great Georgia star perform as I am, but probably Mr. Navin is right in saying that on the whole, the public will not support a star unless he is with a winning team.

Very truly yours,
FRANKLIN KRAMER.
Cincinnati, O.

Chip R
08-22-2008, 11:40 AM
Yes... but he was not allowed to play baseball his senior year because he flunked so many classes the prior year.

Pete wasn't even the best player on the team, nor was he the guy the scouts came to see play on WHHS's field. That was Eddie Brinkman, who signed for 75K after he graduated.


Stop the lies.

MWM
08-22-2008, 11:46 AM
Yes... but he was not allowed to play baseball his senior year because he flunked so many classes the prior year.


He was too busy working on his craft.

westofyou
08-22-2008, 11:51 AM
He was too busy working on his craft.

Actually every Sunday since he was 8 years old Pete would accompany his uncle Harry to River Downs to bet on the ponies.

So yes... he was working on his craft.

vaticanplum
08-22-2008, 11:55 AM
I sincerely doubt I need to point this out, but ohmigod this argument has dissolved into riconkulousness. Besides the fact that anybody who wants to judge someone else on his high school self needs a serious reality check, the proof is in the pudding in this case. Adam Dunn is one of the elite baseball players on the planet by any standard whatsoever. He obviously learned to work hard at some point, whether he was 5 or 10 or 20.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can take for granted the level of baseball he plays. No one is that good without some serious hard work. Period.

MWM
08-22-2008, 11:57 AM
Iriconkulousness.

My new favorite word. Can I have your permission to use it?

vaticanplum
08-22-2008, 11:58 AM
My new favorite word. Can I have your permission to use it?

Be my guest. It is often the only word applicable to Adam Dunn discussions.

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 12:01 PM
riconkulousness.


My new favorite word. Can I have your permission to use it?

Please note the first line in my signature.

A trademark infringement case is already in process.

Chip R
08-22-2008, 12:03 PM
Please note the first line in my signature.

A trademark infringement case is already in process.


But isn't irriconkulousness a different word than riconkulousness? Like relevant and irrelevant. Where's William Safire when we need him?

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 12:08 PM
But isn't irriconkulousness a different word than riconkulousness? Like relevant and irrelevant. Where's William Safire when we need him?

Actually the orginal word used was "riconkulousness" in VP's post. MWM accidently added an ir at the front.

But that word comes far to close to my word.

I must protect my brand.

Chip R
08-22-2008, 12:09 PM
Actually the orginal word used was "riconkulousness" in VP's post. MWM accidently added an ir at the front.

But that word comes far to close to my word.

I must protect my brand.


Do I hear an accusation of SHENANIGANS?

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2008, 12:22 PM
Actually the orginal word used was "riconkulousness" in VP's post. MWM accidently added an ir at the front.

But that word comes far to close to my word.

I must protect my brand.

Nick Swardson's lawyers are on the phone...

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 12:23 PM
Nick Swardson's lawyers are on the phone...

Actually, I stole it from Colin Cowherd, but that's really beside the point. I demand justice.

Attica! Attica!

Roy Tucker
08-22-2008, 12:34 PM
But isn't irriconkulousness a different word than riconkulousness? Like relevant and irrelevant. Where's William Safire when we need him?

More like regardless and irregardless.

vaticanplum
08-22-2008, 01:00 PM
Actually the orginal word used was "riconkulousness" in VP's post. MWM accidently added an ir at the front.

But that word comes far to close to my word.

I must protect my brand.

"Riconkulousness" is actually a bastardization of a less, shall we say, family-friendly word that is popular among my nearest and dearest.

But then, I assume ridonkulousness has the same roots. So I defer to your brand. I mean no infringement. Or shenanigans.

Degenerate39
08-22-2008, 01:03 PM
This might blow your mind but in some high schools, students have enough credits by the last semester of their senior year and do indeed, not have but a single class (or no class) on Friday.

:thumbup: Best part of school. Getting to have 4 electives for your last semister of school.

nate
08-22-2008, 01:12 PM
:thumbup: Best part of school. Getting to have 4 electives for your last semister of school.

You best study hard!

Otherwise, you'll end up like Adam Dunn.

Degenerate39
08-22-2008, 02:06 PM
You best study hard!

Otherwise, you'll end up like Adam Dunn.

Making 13 million doesn't sound too bad to me.

Heath
08-22-2008, 03:05 PM
:thumbup: Best part of school. Getting to have 4 electives for your last semister of school.

I had government, AP English, AP History, Computer and three free periods my senior year.

I played lotsa golf since the free three periods were after lunch.

Ltlabner
08-22-2008, 03:06 PM
"Riconkulousness" is actually a bastardization of a less, shall we say, family-friendly word that is popular among my nearest and dearest.

But then, I assume ridonkulousness has the same roots. So I defer to your brand. I mean no infringement. Or shenanigans.

I have advised my legal team to stand down.

There. Now we can be friends again.

Highlifeman21
08-22-2008, 04:50 PM
I had government, AP English, AP History, Computer and three free periods my senior year.

I played lotsa golf since the free three periods were after lunch.

My Fall schedule Senior year of HS went a lil something like this....

Band
AP English
Golf (I had 4 quarters of PE classes SR year. Golf, Volleyball, Weight Training, Weight Training)
AP Calculus
Study Hall
Lunch
AP Government
Accounting

My Golf coach also happened to be the Basketball coach and Athletic Director, so he "arranged" for me to get out of my Study Hall, and set up something with my AP Government teacher so that I could miss classes when we didn't have a test or a quiz. I was always back by 7th period Accounting, since I'm not sure if it was my school, or my athletic conference that had a goofy rule that said in order to participate in any athletic events you had to attend at least 5 periods the day of your event.

That being said, if we had a home match I'd go play the course during Study Hall, Lunch and AP Goverment (if I didn't have a quiz or a test) and be back for 7th Period Accounting. During 3rd Period, I'd hit balls into a net in our gym.

Tell ya what, really helped drop my stroke average from 41 and change as a Junior to under 39 as a Senior....

If I got that kind of treatment as a golfer in OH, I can hardly imagine the treatment Dunn received as a QB in Texas.... :cool:

RFS62
08-22-2008, 06:35 PM
I have advised my legal team to stand down.

There. Now we can be friends again.



I thought it was the same word but you had just misspelled it.

:p:

vic715
08-22-2008, 08:16 PM
wat does this have to do with dunn