PDA

View Full Version : Do Dallas Buck, Micah Owings, and Wilkin Castillo



fourrunhomer
12-22-2008, 04:46 PM
Do Dallas Buck, Micah Owings, and Wilkin Castillo equal Milt Pappas, Jack Baldschun, and Dick Simpson? In five years, will Reds fans look back at the trade of Adam Dunn and compare it to the trade of Frank Robinson? I know that with the era of free agency, trades of players like Dunn are expected and there is nowhere near the outcry from the fans as when Robinson was traded. But if Dunn continues to hit his 40 homeruns and get his 100 RBI's for at least the next five years and ends up with two World Series rings, will this trade go down as one of the worst trades of all time (at least as far as the Reds are concerned).
I know that Dunn does not hold a candle to Robinson defensively or as far as batting average, but his power numbers can be amazing. I do not look for him to win any MVP's but if he were on a winning team with his numbers I do believe he would be considered much more of a star than he is.
This question also depends on what kind of careers Buck, Owings, and Castillo end up with? And, is this even a legitimate question in the era of free agency?
I do not know how I feel about it, but I started thinking about it before last season when everyone seemed to be calling for the Reds to trade him.
Just a thought to hopefully generate some discussion. I'm not really looking for what anyone thinks of the trade right now, but would it be considered as bad a trade as the worst trade in Reds history if the above mentioned "If's" were to happen.

redsfanmia
12-22-2008, 04:49 PM
Dont insult Robinson by comparing him to Dunn.

Bip Roberts
12-22-2008, 05:06 PM
Regular Chris Rock here

redsfandan
12-22-2008, 05:07 PM
IF Dunn continues to do what he does how good the trade was will still depend on what Buck, Owings, and Castillo do AND what we do with the money that would've been spent on Dunn. IF we spend the money on a decent bat and a couple of those players help us then it wouldn't be THAT bad. Imo, a few months after it happenned is still too early to judge this kind of trade. We should have a better idea a year after it was made.

WildcatFan
12-22-2008, 06:04 PM
Seeing as how the options were to trade him for something or finish a lost year with him and see him walk in free agency for nothing, I'd say it was a good trade. The Reds had no intention of bringing him back, and the fact that they got a rotation contender plus a major-league-ready utility guy/backup catcher plus a pitching prospect for him means it was worth it. I would have liked to have seen Dunn finish his career in Cincinnati, but the split was inevitable.

CesarGeronimo
12-22-2008, 06:14 PM
No, your comparison doesn't make sense because Dunn was going to be a free agent and could leave at the end of the year anyway. The Reds got something for him, which is better than the nothing they would have received if they hadn't made the trade.

CRedsLarkin11
12-22-2008, 06:41 PM
I'm just happy the Reds got something and I think the return is decent. Owings good be a servicable 5th starter(if he returns to what he looked like before last season) and we all know he can hit. Dunn was going to leave in the offseason and he is no where near the player any of the greats are in these lopsided deals. Many people on here think Dunn was underappreciated by Reds fans... I believe he's overappreciated, look around the league, he's not that great. He's going to hit homers and get on base but that's it. He's a liability in the field and doesn't advance runners or knock them in. I don't really understand the love affair with Dunn but some people on here said stay away from Matt Holliday in the offseason. Yikes. I think watching this team year in and year out clouds our vision of what a great baseball player is

RED VAN HOT
12-22-2008, 07:24 PM
I actually think the Reds could sign Dunn now for less money than they would have had to pony up to sign him earlier in the year and avoid free agency. I think Dunn overpriced himself, perhaps because the economy looked better earlier in the year. Moreover, I doubt seriously if they will sign him now. The only question to me is whether Buck, Owings, and Castillo are worth more than the draft choices they would have received by losing him to FA. I say yes.

fourrunhomer
12-22-2008, 09:43 PM
My gut tells me it was probably a good deal for the Reds. Mostly because of the free agency factor. I wasn't one who wanted him run out of town though. I like him as a player. I believe he would be getting big money if he had put up those numbers for a winning team. My family are Reds fans (baseball fans for that matter) only because I love them so much. All of their favorite players are gone though. My son likes Griffey. He was really upset when he was traded. He also likes Todd Coffey (he just likes watching him sprint from the bull pen). My wife and daughter both like Dunn and Freel. They do not understand any of the business side of the game and players are constantly changing teams. I believe it was time for all these players to go in order for the team to move forward even though I liked all of them (Coffey just a little because of my son).
The point of my original post was not to be pro or anti Dunn. Just wondering what people will think five years from now IF he turns out to be great for a long time. His pending free agency is my main reason for thinking the trade was the right move. The players they got are a better bet than the draft and will be able to help the team much quicker. I just wonder if we will look back on this as the one who got away.

redsfandan
12-22-2008, 11:55 PM
Seeing as how the options were to trade him for something or finish a lost year with him and see him walk in free agency for nothing, I'd say it was a good trade. The Reds had no intention of bringing him back, and the fact that they got a rotation contender plus a major-league-ready utility guy/backup catcher plus a pitching prospect for him means it was worth it. I would have liked to have seen Dunn finish his career in Cincinnati, but the split was inevitable.


I actually think the Reds could sign Dunn now for less money than they would have had to pony up to sign him earlier in the year and avoid free agency. I think Dunn overpriced himself, perhaps because the economy looked better earlier in the year. Moreover, I doubt seriously if they will sign him now. The only question to me is whether Buck, Owings, and Castillo are worth more than the draft choices they would have received by losing him to FA. I say yes.

I should just quote these in response to the Dunn lovers. (I wonder if their girlfriends/wives are scared that these guys love a man so much. :rolleyes:)

E. Davis 44
12-23-2008, 09:30 AM
i say that the Dunn trade was awesome because getting Wilkin Castillo allowed us to cut Javy Valentin...that part alone made it a good trade for me.

E. Davis 44
12-23-2008, 09:31 AM
anyone else think that the Reds have plans to try Owings in RF like the Cards did with Ankiel in CF?

Nasty_Boy
12-23-2008, 10:12 AM
If Dunn said he was going to test free agency, the Reds had to take what they could before losing him for nothing. He would have ended up the Reds all time leader in HRs and RBIs, which is no small feat. Trust me, I'm disgusted by Dunn's departure and his treatment by fans and announcers with poofy hair and bad accents... but I also understand the business and the Reds decided the players they recieved were better than taking arbitration picks.

BRM13
12-23-2008, 10:33 AM
There is no way Dunn = Frank Robinson. Robinson was already an MVP, ROY, All-Star and building an obvious HOF career. Dunn was just one of the best players on a series of mediocre teams. NO comparison in skill levels.

But, there is at least one similarity. Many Reds fans wanted Robinson out of town no matter how good he was. You can still find old timers who will tell you that Robinson needed to be run out of town because he was such a bad guy. The 1960s version of 'bad clubhouse guy' I suppose. :( I have noticed over the years that Robinson doesn't say much about his time in Cincinnati; I get the impression he didn't like it and that the feeling was mutual.:confused:

Also, the Dunn trade was much more fair to the Reds. They gave up 2 months of Dunn and 2 potential draft picks for 3 moderately useful guys. If the Reds really had no intention of keeping Dunn--and it is pretty clear they didn't--then this trade was probably their best option.

TheNext44
12-23-2008, 05:38 PM
Not even addressing the Dunn trade, the Frank Robinson trade is one of the most mis-understood trades in MLB history. Yes it was a bad trade, but not nearly as bad as most people think.

First, The Reds got two good years out of Milt Pappas before trading him for Clay Carroll, who was a significant part of the BRM. He was a closer and set up man for years. They also eventually got Jim McGlothlin, Pedro Borbon and George Foster in deals involving the other players in the trade. So, while the Reds would have liked to have gotten an MVP year from Robinson, they did get two solid relievers, two solid starters and a future MVP in Foster. Not nearly as bad a deal as most people think.

Hondo
12-24-2008, 09:54 PM
Yeah, 100 Runs, 100 Walks, 40 Homers and a .390+ OB% are easy to come by...

Bip Roberts
12-24-2008, 10:09 PM
and apparently in super huge demand.

Kingspoint
12-26-2008, 04:01 PM
Heck, no,...in answer to your question. Dallas Buck and Micah Owings are/will be decent Major Leaguers.

Kingspoint
12-26-2008, 04:05 PM
The entire pitching staff has to love not seeing Adam Dunn in Left Field. Dunn had to go. It would make absolutely no sense for him to be on the team. Where does Votto and Alonzo play if not one of them in Left Field when Alonzo joins the team next September?

You don't win Championships with Walks and Homeruns. You win them with excellent pitching, excellent defense, clutch hitting, and doing all of the little things right, like moving runners over when you make an out, making sure the guy on 3rd scores with less than 2 outs, etc....all of the things that Adam Dunn doesn't do.

Thankfully, Walt understands this.

ChatterRed
12-27-2008, 12:05 PM
and apparently in super huge demand.

:D

I(heart)Freel
12-27-2008, 08:27 PM
Not the the Reds woulda done this (this still baffles me) but it's important to note that the Dbacks didn't offer Dunn arbitration. So the team that signs him doesn't have to give up draft picks.

So... getting that haul (with question marks all around) for 2 months of Dunn.... um, yes. H*ll yes.

redsfandan
12-27-2008, 09:44 PM
Wouldn't if be funny if Dunn came back so we would have him for '09 AND those 3 players? Yes I know it's not likely but I'd have to laugh.

Btw,...

Not the the Reds woulda done this (this still baffles me) but it's important to note that the Dbacks didn't offer Dunn arbitration. So the team that signs him doesn't have to give up draft picks.


that baffles you? how come? Instead of 2 prospects that we would have had to pay draft bonuses to we have 3 prospects that are cheaper and have more of a track record.

I(heart)Freel
12-28-2008, 12:12 PM
Wouldn't if be funny if Dunn came back so we would have him for '09 AND those 3 players? Yes I know it's not likely but I'd have to laugh.

Btw,...


that baffles you? how come? Instead of 2 prospects that we would have had to pay draft bonuses to we have 3 prospects that are cheaper and have more of a track record.

It baffles me that the Dbacks didnt offer Dunn arbitration. The assumption on this board has always been that Dunn would be offered arb so when judging the deal, it came down to: would two picks be better than the three guys we got back?

As it stands... the deal is judged by Dunn for two months or those three players. Hands down, a good deal for those in Redsland.

redsfandan
12-28-2008, 02:27 PM
It baffles me that the Dbacks didnt offer Dunn arbitration. ...

Arizona just couldn't financially afford to risk the chance that Dunn would accept arbitration.