PDA

View Full Version : At This Point, Would You Trade Owings And Masset To The Nationals For Adam Dunn?



Hap
07-15-2009, 12:26 AM
i say yes

CTA513
07-15-2009, 12:28 AM
I doubt the Reds are looking to add more money to the payroll.

sonny
07-15-2009, 12:30 AM
Strangly, Adam is exactly what this team needs right now. But for Masset and Owings. I'll pass.

Now a Hairston and Arroyo....

TheNext44
07-15-2009, 12:32 AM
Not really sure where you are going with this.

But if it is a simple question with no subtext, then of course.

However, I doubt Bailey and Stewart, or Alonso and Wood would get it done. The Nats have made it clear they are not trading Dunn unless they get at least two top prospects.

Will M
07-15-2009, 12:33 AM
no. i can't stand Dunn. i think he is lazy. there is a reason the Reds didn't keep him and it wasn't because of his low average or not wanting a weak defender in LF.

CTA513
07-15-2009, 12:33 AM
Also I doubt the Reds would want him back unless the NL added the DH.

HokieRed
07-15-2009, 12:44 AM
I'd love to have Dunn back, and this price is ridiculously low, if anything. It's an absolute scandal that he wasn't on the ALL Star team this year. There are a half dozen guys who should not have been on that team before Dunn (even considering the one per team requirement).

Degenerate39
07-15-2009, 12:50 AM
Yes a million times over

WVPacman
07-15-2009, 12:56 AM
no. i can't stand Dunn. i think he is lazy. there is a reason the Reds didn't keep him and it wasn't because of his low average or not wanting a weak defender in LF.


i think he is lazy

Its hard to call somebody lazy when that player gives you 40+hr and 100+rbi every year.Just saying;)

Yes I would make that trade!

RedsManRick
07-15-2009, 12:58 AM
Dunn is a DH. In LF, he's a 2 win player -- we'd be just as good off, possibly better, with Dickerson out there every day. I'll take the legitimate 4th/5th starter who is cheaper, younger, and can hit a bit himself.

While I've argued otherwise, Dunn is overpaid. I'd much prefer Owings and the cash difference.

kaldaniels
07-15-2009, 01:03 AM
Player for player, sure. But that is a bit of a baited/unfair question due to it not addressing payroll issues. Sorry to be harsh but like noted above...where are you going with this?

Will M
07-15-2009, 01:11 AM
i think he is lazy

Its hard to call somebody lazy when that player gives you 40+hr and 100+rbi every year.Just saying;)

Yes I would make that trade!

in all the time he was with the Reds you never heard about him working on his defense, taking extra batting practice, working with the hitting coach to learn to drive the ball to the opposite field, etc, etc, etc

Darryl Strawberry was a lazy slug and got by on natural talent for several years. there are lots of examples in sports. if Dunn worked at his game he could have been an absolute monster, not just a good but complimentary player.

AtomicDumpling
07-15-2009, 01:12 AM
Of course I would make the trade. But I doubt our tightwad owner would.

Johnny Footstool
07-15-2009, 01:25 AM
in all the time he was with the Reds you never heard about him working on his defense, taking extra batting practice, working with the hitting coach to learn to drive the ball to the opposite field, etc, etc, etc

Darryl Strawberry was a lazy slug and got by on natural talent for several years. there are lots of examples in sports. if Dunn worked at his game he could have been an absolute monster, not just a good but complimentary player.

Freel worked his tail off. Would you want him back?

Will M
07-15-2009, 01:30 AM
Freel worked his tail off. Would you want him back?

1. Freel has nothing to do with Dunn.

2. i want a 25 man roster of professional players doing their best to win.

3. i don't want to pay my hard earned cash going to the ballpark to watch a guy who played video games all afternoon hit yet another grounder into the shift

Nasty_Boy
07-15-2009, 01:51 AM
in all the time he was with the Reds you never heard about him working on his defense, taking extra batting practice, working with the hitting coach to learn to drive the ball to the opposite field, etc, etc, etc

Darryl Strawberry was a lazy slug and got by on natural talent for several years. there are lots of examples in sports. if Dunn worked at his game he could have been an absolute monster, not just a good but complimentary player.


You must not have listened or read very much. There were examples and talk of all these things, it just wasn't as loud as the stuff from Marty PDoc etc... And if you ever watched him take BP, you would see that he consistently drives the ball oppo. Now I agree that Dunn is no superstar, but I hardly call him a complimentary player. Dunn is what he is... Don't you think that maybe he reached his talent level and doens't have the ability to any better? What he is isn't a bad thing, but it's far from a perfect thing. Reds fans wanted a savior and Dunn came to the majors with tons of hype... Given the opportunity he would have been the all-time Reds leader in many important offensive categories. I just feel the guy came along at the wrong time to be truely appreciated.

cincinnati chili
07-15-2009, 01:51 AM
Respectfully, the results of this poll make me question why we segregate the 'Old Red Guard' group from the 'Reds Live' Group (majority would rather NOT have Dunn). If you'd rather have two replaceable guys with below-average career ERAs instead of a guy who's played at a hall-of-fame pace throughout his career and who is continuing to do so, then you deserve the team we've been left with for the last 10 years.

Razor Shines
07-15-2009, 01:55 AM
You must not have listened or read very much. There were examples and talk of all these things, it just wasn't as loud as the stuff from Marty PDoc etc... And if you ever watched him take BP, you would see that he consistently drives the ball oppo. .


No kidding. The stupid thing about this:

in all the time he was with the Reds you never heard about him working on his defense, taking extra batting practice, working with the hitting coach to learn to drive the ball to the opposite field, etc, etc, etc
Is that last year during spring training even Marty talked about him working on those things.

MartyFan
07-15-2009, 02:18 AM
No, but I would consider signing Barry Bonds....errrrrrr

KronoRed
07-15-2009, 03:39 AM
Of course

WVRedsFan
07-15-2009, 03:57 AM
For Owings and Massett? Absolutely. Has left field defense been so good that it made up for the runs Dunn manufactured? Hardly. The starting pitching we thought we had went south with the injury to Volquez, Arroyo's carpel tunnel or whatever it is, Harnag's lack of consistency, combined with an anemic offense has left us far down in the standings. Only a potent offense will change those losses into wins. I'd take Dunn in a New York minute, but it's not going to happen.

Ron Madden
07-15-2009, 04:50 AM
In a heartbeat.

BearcatShane
07-15-2009, 05:02 AM
No disrespect to the original poster, but why even discuss this? Everyone knew the Reds were not going to get a great return for Dunn and Griffey and for them to get a very good middle reliever with future set-up man and closer stuff as well as a solid fifth starter with a good bat is pretty good in my opinion. Yeah, Adam Dunn on the Reds and Masset and Owings off of the team would make the Reds better, but that's not the way the organization wanted to go and I'm ok with that. A lot of people mock the Reds commitment to winning and think they have no plan or future, but I'm on board with ownership/Jocketty. They are not going to trade their young guys and their going to try to build around the solid core of Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey and Phillips. With Frazier, Alonzo, Stubbs and Heisley coming in the not to distant future. I know, we as Reds fans have been told to be patient for far too long, but Jocketty is the best GM this team has had in years and I honestly trust him to build the Reds into a contender. Now does this mean the Reds will win 89 games in 2011 and make the playoffs? Yes, it absolutley does.

Ron Madden
07-15-2009, 05:18 AM
Prospects are a good thing, they really are but sometimes they're over-rated.

The secret to a successful franchise is to build your team around Talented Players, hang on to the Productive Ones as long as they Produce or until you can trade them for more Productive Players.

TheNext44
07-15-2009, 05:19 AM
Dunn is a DH. In LF, he's a 2 win player -- we'd be just as good off, possibly better, with Dickerson out there every day. I'll take the legitimate 4th/5th starter who is cheaper, younger, and can hit a bit himself.

While I've argued otherwise, Dunn is overpaid. I'd much prefer Owings and the cash difference.

I agree on the math and the thinking, but I think with Bruce on the DL for most of the season, Dickerson will be the Reds RF, so Dunn would be replacing Gomes/Nix.

Dunn is a little worse defensively to that pair. Gomes is actually worse than Dunn, and Nix a little better than league average. With Nix getting most of the playing time, that's around 3 runs less with Dunn than with the platoon.

Dunn is better offensively than this platoon. Hard to predict what they each will do the rest of the season, but using rough numbers based on what they have done this year, Dunn should be worth around 10 more runs offensively the rest of the season.

Add in the fact that the Reds would have Gomes and Nix off the bench, and that would push everyone else down the ladder in terms of PA's. That means less PA's for Hairston, Rosales, Janish and whoever else the Reds bring up. That is probably worth 3 runs the rest of the season at the very least.

So bringing in Dunn would be worth around 10 runs or one win.

The big question would be what value Masset and Owings have over their replacements. I don't know how to figure pitcher run or win values, or even know who their replacements would be, so hopefully someone can assist me with that.

Dunn's salary should be factored in as well, but only if it prevents the Reds from adding talent. Hard to say right now. The FO says they have payroll flexibility, but who knows how much.

AtomicDumpling
07-15-2009, 05:44 AM
no. i can't stand Dunn. i think he is lazy. there is a reason the Reds didn't keep him and it wasn't because of his low average or not wanting a weak defender in LF.

That reason is money.

The ownership of the Reds believe profit is more important than winning. It is too bad most Reds fans don't have a problem with that philosophy.

Fans in this town have become so accustomed to being losers that we don't even protest as our teams rake in the profits while fielding cheap minor league talent.

BearcatShane
07-15-2009, 05:47 AM
That reason is money.

The ownership of the Reds believe profit is more important than winning. It is too bad most Reds fans don't have a problem with that philosophy.

Fans in this town have become so accustomed to being losers that we don't even protest as our teams rake in the profits while fielding cheap minor league talent.

Why drop 46 million for a closer then? Why give Arroyo and Harang all the money they got?

AtomicDumpling
07-15-2009, 05:51 AM
Why drop 46 million for a closer then? Why give Arroyo and Harang all the money they got?

Why is our team payroll so low? Sure, you can name a couple players making fair salaries, but as a whole the team is far below the threshold of what it takes to win.

The Reds dumped Dunn's salary and pocketed it. They didn't use that money to bring in reinforcements. It just became extra profit.

BearcatShane
07-15-2009, 06:26 AM
Why is our team payroll so low? Sure, you can name a couple players making fair salaries, but as a whole the team is far below the threshold of what it takes to win.

The Reds dumped Dunn's salary and pocketed it. They didn't use that money to bring in reinforcements. It just became extra profit.

Wasn't Arroyo's salary upped this year? And Harang's and they added Taveras, which was dumb but thats still close to 3 mill for him. I would bet Arroyo and Harang's higher slary plus Taveras is close to the 13 million dollars that Adam Dunn was making. Not to mention whatever % they are paying Ramon Hernandez. Do I wish they spend a little more money? Of course but I don't think they let players go just to pocket the money.

Ron Madden
07-15-2009, 06:38 AM
It's not about how much money the Reds spend, the sore point is the amount of money they waste.

AtomicDumpling
07-15-2009, 06:44 AM
Wasn't Arroyo's salary upped this year? And Harang's and they added Taveras, which was dumb but thats still close to 3 mill for him. I would bet Arroyo and Harang's higher slary plus Taveras is close to the 13 million dollars that Adam Dunn was making. Not to mention whatever % they are paying Ramon Hernandez. Do I wish they spend a little more money? Of course but I don't think they let players go just to pocket the money.

The Reds' payroll is lower this year than last by at least $3 million (the Orioles are paying $2mil of Hernandez's salary), plus they pocketed the money they saved by not paying Dunn or Griffey for two months last year, which was several million dollars.

The Reds are raking in the profits while choosing to spend less money on players than their rivals do.

According to Forbes Magazine:

The Reds made a profit of $17.0 million in 2008.
The Reds made a profit of $19.3 million in 2007
The Reds made a profit of $22.4 million in 2006
The Reds made a profit of $17.9 million in 2005
The Reds made a profit of $22.6 million in 2004

The value of the team rose from $255 million to $342 million over the same period.

That means the Reds owners made a profit of $186.2 million dollars in just five years -- an average of $37.24 million per year.

Yet most fans still believe the Reds cannot afford to hire good players!!

The Reds can afford to win, but they would rather make a profit.

redsmetz
07-15-2009, 06:45 AM
I voted No, even though Dunn's bat sure is something this club could use. But I have to say that the Adam Dunn well here is poisoned and there's no coming back at this point. I wouldn't hanker too much for his glove, but his bat would have been nice. I know I couldn't take Marty sounding off every night about him and hearing and reading the vitriol that accompanied him in his final season here.

mth123
07-15-2009, 07:34 AM
All he did was go out and play 160 games per year while his teammates, who for some reason don't get that stigma attached to them, spend a significant amount of time watching from the clubhouse. He spent those 160 or so games each year providing a constant power source in the line-up that had to be accounted for each time through the order whether he was hitting well or slumping and mixed in enough walks that he continued to get on base at a high rate no matter how well he was swinging.

Lazy players sit it out. Dunn played every day. I'll take that package warts and all over the guys who have trouble staying in the line-up and/or make you wish they were hurt when they are in there. There isn't any evidence that Dunn didn't work on his game, but if you believe he wasn't working hard enough, maybe he was properly directing his energy on playing the game each day and performing while his "harder working" teammates were watching the game from the clubhouse or at home on the DL.

The reason the Reds were a losing team during the Dunn years is because there was only one of him and he was stuck on a team with a bunch of clowns (especially in the rotation) most of the time. It had nothing to do with what he was doing pre-game.

I hope somebody closes this thread.

Always Red
07-15-2009, 07:57 AM
All he did was go out and play 160 games per year while his teammates, who for some reason don't get that stigma attached to them, spend a significant amount of time watching from the clubhouse. He spent those 160 or so games each year providing a constant power source in the line-up that had to be accounted for each time through the order whether he was hitting well or slumping and mixed in enough walks that he continued to get on base at a high rate no matter how well he was swinging.

Lazy players sit it out. Dunn played every day. I'll take that package warts and all over the guys who have trouble staying in the line-up and/or make you wish they were hurt when they are in there. There isn't any evidence that Dunn didn't work on his game, but if you believe he wasn't working hard enough, maybe he was properly directing his energy on playing the game each day and performing while his "harder working" teammates were watching the game from the clubhouse or at home on the DL.

The reason the Reds were a losing team during the Dunn years is because there was only one of him and he was stuck on a team with a bunch of clowns (especially in the rotation) most of the time. It had nothing to do with what he was doing pre-game.

I hope somebody closes this thread.

great post; I agree with all you have written.

I voted "no" because I am happy that Dunn is doing well in DC; and very happy that I do not have to hear, every single day, from my family, friends and some here at RZ how lazy and what an utterly worthless player AD is. It was a wearying, nearly full time job just to defend the guy.

I have moved on. Now, let's go about getting that LF production replaced.

jojo
07-15-2009, 08:04 AM
Dunn is a DH. In LF, he's a 2 win player -- we'd be just as good off, possibly better, with Dickerson out there every day. I'll take the legitimate 4th/5th starter who is cheaper, younger, and can hit a bit himself.

While I've argued otherwise, Dunn is overpaid. I'd much prefer Owings and the cash difference.




2009 ASB
WAR $alary
Adam Dunn 0.7 8M
Owings/Masset 0.7 .82M


But ya, this thread probably needs closed.

Highlifeman21
07-15-2009, 08:19 AM
no. i can't stand Dunn. i think he is lazy. there is a reason the Reds didn't keep him and it wasn't because of his low average or not wanting a weak defender in LF.

Opinion.

So what's the reason the Reds didn't keep him, if it wasn't low average or his suspect at best D in LF?

Has he been lazy for the Nationals this year too?

Highlifeman21
07-15-2009, 08:21 AM
in all the time he was with the Reds you never heard about him working on his defense, taking extra batting practice, working with the hitting coach to learn to drive the ball to the opposite field, etc, etc, etc

Darryl Strawberry was a lazy slug and got by on natural talent for several years. there are lots of examples in sports. if Dunn worked at his game he could have been an absolute monster, not just a good but complimentary player.

During the 1st WBC, Dunn didn't attend so he could work on getting better @ 1B for the Reds, and then right before Opening Day the Reds added Scott Hatteberg.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-Dunn agenda, carry on.

redsfandan
07-15-2009, 08:26 AM
I'm not a part of the Dunn fan club. Unlike some I don't think he's a given for the HOF. And I kinda prefer that a player be at least close to average defensively. But I'm also not a Dunn hater. I won't dispute that his bat has value. I just think he's perfect for the AL.

All that said, I can't separate the players from the money due them, how valuable they are compared to replacements, and I had to consider a couple other things too. Masset has been pretty good this year and Owings should have an era roughly 2 runs lower then what we're used to receiving from a 5th starter. Both players will make less than $1m this year combined to Dunn who makes $8 million this year. Next year Dunn will make $12m while Masset/Owings may cost around $2 million combined. For pure VALUE it could be argued that the CHEAPER Owings/Masset is worth as much or more than Dunn. PLEASE let me explain...

Now the emergence of Owings (and Bailey) should allow the Reds to unload an overpaid pitcher (Arroyo). Dunn would allow the Reds to unload ... Nix and Gomes. Not alot of savings there. Just the opposite really. Having Dunn this year instead would've cost around $7m more while...

So bringing in Dunn would be worth around 10 runs or one win.
Plus we maybe able to bring in a FA bat for leftfield in the offseason that could provide much of the same production while keeping those two valuable, CHEAP players.

FA bat + Owings/Masset = around $12m spent in 2010 on three players.
Dunn + Arroyo in 2010 = $23 million spent in 2010 on two players.

So it's not an either or situation that would only involve those 3 players. Just like any trade it would have an effect on other players as well and what you can do with the roster.

Highlifeman21
07-15-2009, 08:30 AM
Respectfully, the results of this poll make me question why we segregate the 'Old Red Guard' group from the 'Reds Live' Group (majority would rather NOT have Dunn). If you'd rather have two replaceable guys with below-average career ERAs instead of a guy who's played at a hall-of-fame pace throughout his career and who is continuing to do so, then you deserve the team we've been left with for the last 10 years.

Respectfully, I wholeheartedly agree.

Newly added, and even a small contingent of already included, posters to tORG aren't elevating the level of thought or the quality of content and discourse of tORG, but rather dragging it closer to a RedsLive or The Sun Deck level of posting.

You're absolutely right that fans that can't identify that Dunn helps any team more than Owings and Masset deserve The Lost Decade, and honestly are part of the losing culture of this organization.

Frustrated with a losing ballclub and a losing culture? Don't give them any of your money. Force them to find ways to put a winner on the field to earn your fandom, and your money back.

redsfandan
07-15-2009, 08:35 AM
Newly added, and even a small contingent of already included, posters to tORG aren't elevating the level of thought or the quality of content and discourse of tORG, but rather dragging it closer to a RedsLive or The Sun Deck level of posting.

You're absolutely right that fans that can't identify that Dunn helps any team more than Owings and Masset deserve The Lost Decade, and honestly are part of the losing culture of this organization.

No offense but imo these kind of posts don't exactly "elevate the level of thought or quality". I just don't think things are always as simple as black and white. I prefer to look at the big picture.



I hope somebody closes this thread.
I'm expecting it will be.

redsfandan
07-15-2009, 08:40 AM
That reason is money.
That's only partly correct. Remember that the Reds wanted to improve the defense. I think most, if not all, agree that Dunn couldn't help there.

Why is our team payroll so low? Sure, you can name a couple players making fair salaries, but as a whole the team
is far below the threshold of what it takes to win.

The Reds dumped Dunn's salary and pocketed it. They didn't use that money to bring in reinforcements. It just became extra profit.

It's not about how much money the Reds spend, the sore point is the amount of money they waste.
Exactly, how you use what money you have to spend matters more than how much you have to spend. Tampa made the World Series last year with a payroll $30m less than ours last year. It doesn't matter how much you spend if it's on bad contracts.

The Reds' payroll is lower this year than last by at least $3 million (the Orioles are paying $2mil of Hernandez's salary),
plus they pocketed the money they saved by not paying Dunn or Griffey for two months last year, which was several million dollars.

The Reds are raking in the profits while choosing to spend less money on players than their rivals do.

According to Forbes Magazine:

The Reds made a profit of $17.0 million in 2008.
The Reds made a profit of $19.3 million in 2007
The Reds made a profit of $22.4 million in 2006
The Reds made a profit of $17.9 million in 2005
The Reds made a profit of $22.6 million in 2004

The value of the team rose from $255 million to $342 million over the same period.

That means the Reds owners made a profit of $186.2 million dollars in just five years -- an average of $37.24 million per year.

Yet most fans still believe the Reds cannot afford to hire good players!!

The Reds can afford to win, but they would rather make a profit.
Now let's look at those profits again but this time since Bob C took over in Nov '05:

The Reds made a profit of $17.0 million in 2008.
The Reds made a profit of $19.3 million in 2007
The Reds made a profit of $22.4 million in 2006

Profits went down each year while ...

Opening Day payrolls for 25-man roster (per Cots)
(salaries plus pro-rated signing bonuses):
2009: $ 73,558,500
2008: $ 74,117,695
2007: $ 68,904,980
2006: $ 60,909,519

... the Reds payroll went up each year. Coincidence? This year is an exception for payroll increases for obvious reasons (the economy??).

Falls City Beer
07-15-2009, 08:54 AM
No.

The last thing this team needs to do is trade pitching for hitting.

edabbs44
07-15-2009, 09:08 AM
During the 1st WBC, Dunn didn't attend so he could work on getting better @ 1B for the Reds, and then right before Opening Day the Reds added Scott Hatteberg.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-Dunn agenda, carry on.

Never let the facts get in the way of any agenda, like the fact that Hatteberg was signed on Feb 14, 2006.

Jpup
07-15-2009, 09:38 AM
Respectfully, the results of this poll make me question why we segregate the 'Old Red Guard' group from the 'Reds Live' Group (majority would rather NOT have Dunn). If you'd rather have two replaceable guys with below-average career ERAs instead of a guy who's played at a hall-of-fame pace throughout his career and who is continuing to do so, then you deserve the team we've been left with for the last 10 years.

exactly. I'd give them more than Owings and Masset.

hebroncougar
07-15-2009, 09:43 AM
in all the time he was with the Reds you never heard about him working on his defense, taking extra batting practice, working with the hitting coach to learn to drive the ball to the opposite field, etc, etc, etc

Darryl Strawberry was a lazy slug and got by on natural talent for several years. there are lots of examples in sports. if Dunn worked at his game he could have been an absolute monster, not just a good but complimentary player.

I'd love to hear all the players you "hear" about working on the above? Just because you don't hear it, does it not happen? Since Jacoby became the hitting coach, there are very few players that do any hitting to the opposite field as Reds. I can think of Votto and Hernandez, neither has been under Jacoby's tutelage long. Just about every other player is up there trying to yank the ball. Dunn is what he is, a good player who provides lots of power and obp.

nate
07-15-2009, 10:08 AM
1. Freel has nothing to do with Dunn.

2. i want a 25 man roster of professional players doing their best to win.

3. i don't want to pay my hard earned cash going to the ballpark to watch a guy who played video games all afternoon hit yet another grounder into the shift

Utter nonsense and hyperbole.

lollipopcurve
07-15-2009, 10:13 AM
Would you want Dunn's production? Of course.

Would you want Dunn the person? No. The team is forging a new chemistry, and he would disrupt that process, especially given the likelihood that he would be unhappy returning to Cincinnati.

So, in the abstract, it's a yes. In the real world, it's a no.

nate
07-15-2009, 10:14 AM
Adam Dunn is my favorite player. But the issue with Dunn isn't about his production, it's about what he costs and what the Reds are likely to pay. Yes, they could absolutely use his offense. No, I'm not sure it's the best way to spend the payroll.

So the real question is, right now, would you trade Dunn for Owings, Masset and a huge pile of cash for Dunn?

I don't think I would.

BRM
07-15-2009, 10:21 AM
The last thing this team needs to do is trade pitching for hitting.

I suspect that's exactly what will happen later this month. Either Harang or Arroyo will be dealt and the return will likely be position player(s). If the return is for major leaguers at all.

guttle11
07-15-2009, 10:26 AM
Not at all. Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I want the team to get better. Making the pitching worse and hitting better doesn't not add wins. They need to improve both.

Will M
07-15-2009, 10:27 AM
I suspect that's exactly what will happen later this month. Either Harang or Arroyo will be dealt and the return will likely be position player(s). If the return is for major leaguers at all.

does trading Arroyo count as trading pitching?

bucksfan2
07-15-2009, 10:31 AM
Opinion.

So what's the reason the Reds didn't keep him, if it wasn't low average or his suspect at best D in LF?

Has he been lazy for the Nationals this year too?

Guy isn't entitled to his opinion? It seems like if you ever say something bad about Dunn you get hammered just like this.

I am with Will M on this one. I want nothing to do with Dunn. I think he is overweight, lazy, and sees baseball as an means to the end. He bides his time playing baseball in order to fish and hunt all off season long. I can't blame him because if I could make $10M+ a year I would be doing the same thing.

From most reports I have heard the Reds clubhouse seems to be glad Dunn is gone. There have been numerous articles written about how there is a different feel to the Reds without the elephant in the room. For a team that is stressing pitching and defense Dunn has no spot on this team. His tenure is as a Red is over, and for me thankfully so.

As for the players involved, Masset has closer stuff and Owings is a slightly below average pitcher with a great bat and the best PH the Reds have. There is no way in hell I would trade those two for a DH in the national league.

Eric_the_Red
07-15-2009, 10:34 AM
I'd rather keep the pitching and use the salary difference to improve LF. Pitching, hitting AND defense?! Wacky idea, I know. But if only someone could get that theory to the FO.

redsfandan
07-15-2009, 10:35 AM
Adam Dunn is my favorite player. But the issue with Dunn isn't about his production, it's about what he costs and what the Reds are likely to pay. Yes, they could absolutely use his offense. No, I'm not sure it's the best way to spend the payroll.

So the real question is, right now, would you trade Dunn for Owings, Masset and a huge pile of cash for Dunn?

I don't think I would.
A Dunn lover taking a pass. I'm impressed. Looking at it in a vacuum is a little different then taking a minute to consider everything else that also matters.

Blitz Dorsey
07-15-2009, 10:45 AM
Of course not with the added caveat of Masset. He's only been one of the best middle relievers in MLB this year (and should be a set-up man).

But Owings is the only good player we got for Dunn. So that should be the question. Would you trade Owings for Dunner? I would do that, and I actually like Owings. But Owings and Masset? No way.

I still CANNOT BELIEVE we got Nick Masset for a washed-up Griffey. Did that really happen?

PuffyPig
07-15-2009, 10:45 AM
Not really sure where you are going with this.

But if it is a simple question with no subtext, then of course.

However, I doubt Bailey and Stewart, or Alonso and Wood would get it done. The Nats have made it clear they are not trading Dunn unless they get at least two top prospects.

Bailey and Stewart are not top prospects?

Alonso and Wood are not top prospects?

PuffyPig
07-15-2009, 10:49 AM
.

So the real question is, right now, would you trade Dunn for Owings, Masset and a huge pile of cash for Dunn?



Why would we be paying a whole pile of cash? Dunn is the one making the money.

Jpup
07-15-2009, 10:51 AM
He bides his time playing baseball in order to fish and hunt all off season long.

You have no idea and to pretend like you do is out of line.

I think it's time for an end to all threads about Adam Dunn because it always turns in to posts like this. People post what they think he is like and have no idea as to who he is. When you actually have a first hand encounter or even second hand encounter with Dunn then it would be fine to post it. The quote above is pure nonsense.

Boss-Hog
07-15-2009, 11:10 AM
Despite thinking better of it, I initially allowed this thread to stay open and hoped the usual personal crap in most other Dunn-related threads would not occur here. Sadly (but predictably), I was wrong.