PDA

View Full Version : White Sox, Angels Targeting Adam Dunn



savafan
06-29-2010, 11:27 AM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/06/white-sox-angels-targeting-adam-dunn.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

westofyou
06-29-2010, 11:51 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/2443158,CST-SPT-sox29.article



More important, he would be welcomed enthusiastically.

''He's one of my favorite guys that I ever got a chance to play with, actually,'' Sox reliever Matt Thornton said, recalling the time he spent with Dunn on Team USA last year in the World Baseball Classic. ''It was only for about four weeks that I got to play with him, but just a great clubhouse guy. He gets a bad rep for striking out a lot, but from what I've seen and talking to guys that have faced him a lot, he's had a lot of at-bats where he's 0-2 and then pretty soon it's a full count and he's drawing the walk. Then obviously, the power in his bat, he's one of the best in the game.''

Ghosts of 1990
06-29-2010, 11:52 AM
I love the guy and I miss him. Favorite Red of all-time, bar none.

savafan
06-29-2010, 11:58 AM
I believe someday we may equate the Dunn trade in the same breath as the Frank Robinson trade.

bucksfan2
06-29-2010, 12:03 PM
I love the guy and I miss him. Favorite Red of all-time, bar none.

Ironic that the Reds are playing their best baseball in over a decade and your lamenting the talents of a guy who doesn't have a position on the current Reds. Don't get me wrong I would like to have his bat somewhere in this lineup, but unfortunately he doesn't have a place to play for the Reds.

The Nats are up against a very difficult decision. The club is starting to come together. With Willingham, Dunn, and Zimmerman you have a nice core to any lineup. Add in Strasburg and Jordan Zimmerman, and from what I saw a pretty competent, young pen, and you have a very nice core developing. While Harper may be a couple of years away at best he is a very nice piece to have in the organization.

To me it makes sense for the Nats to hold onto Dunn and attempt to sign him to another 2-3 year contract this off season. The club is trending in the right direction right now no reason to mess with that. But if some team blows you away then I guess you have to pull the trigger on the trade.

westofyou
06-29-2010, 12:05 PM
I believe someday we may equate the Dunn trade in the same breath as the Frank Robinson trade.

Nope, the deals were both radically different, the people HATED the Robby trade which was a bad talent trade that had failures on the AAA star (Simpson) Reliever (Bauldshien) and Pappas. It was an attempt to get a team with bad pitching and the most runs in the league a leg up on their pitching.

Dunn was a money deal and acknowledged that he was blocked position wise, it was hated way less and hurt the team way less, the comparison is apples and tirechains

Always Red
06-29-2010, 12:07 PM
I believe someday we may equate the Dunn trade in the same breath as the Frank Robinson trade.

Tough to compare a trade under the old reserve clause (Robinson) vs. a trade to recoup some value prior to losing a player to free agency (Dunn).

Dunn is on that short list of players whom I will always stop and watch an at bat, when I have a chance.

savafan
06-29-2010, 12:07 PM
Dunn was a money deal and acknowledged that he was blocked position wise, it was hated way less and hurt the team way less, the comparison is apples and tirechains

I feel that history will show that what was given up versus what was received in both deals will be similar.

medford
06-29-2010, 12:09 PM
additionally, I have my doubts that Dunn will go on to win an MVP or hit for the triple crown. On top of that, the Reds had every opportunity to re-acquire Dunn the next offseason, but choose to pass like many major league teams did (at least at his asking price)

medford
06-29-2010, 12:11 PM
I feel that history will show that what was given up versus what was received in both deals will be similar.

Perhaps (I doubt Micah is going to be on the tip of anyone's toungue 20 seasons from now), and would say that would be a good argument to apply to many trades of proven major league talent in exchange for minor league prospects.

westofyou
06-29-2010, 12:11 PM
I feel that history will show that what was given up versus what was received in both deals will be similar.

The package the Red recieved from Baltimore was pretty darn nice, Simpson had just won the PCL batting title, Bauldshien was a top flight middle reliever in the Sully mode and Pappas despite never catching on here was a very very good pitcher.

Micha Ownings wishes he had 2 years of Milts career

cumberlandreds
06-29-2010, 01:19 PM
I feel that history will show that what was given up versus what was received in both deals will be similar.

Dunn is no where near the all around player that Robby was at that time. Robby won the triple crown the year after he was traded. I don't think Dunn will ever come close to a triple crown. IMO, just no comparison at all between the two players.

savafan
06-29-2010, 01:22 PM
Dunn is no where near the all around player that Robby was at that time. Robby won the triple crown the year after he was traded. I don't think Dunn will ever come close to a triple crown. IMO, just no comparison at all between the two players.

Maybe. Time will tell.

pedro
06-29-2010, 01:23 PM
Maybe. Time will tell.

Maybe?

hmmm.

Frank Robinson was probably one of top 20 players of all time.

I'm not sure Dunn is in the top 20 this year.

And Dunn was my favorite player when he was on the Reds.

Ghosts of 1990
06-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Ironic that the Reds are playing their best baseball in over a decade and your lamenting the talents of a guy who doesn't have a position on the current Reds. Don't get me wrong I would like to have his bat somewhere in this lineup, but unfortunately he doesn't have a place to play for the Reds.

Depends where Johnny Gomes ends up. And I still think Dunn will end up with better numbers this year.

That said, I think Gomes looks every bit the butcher in LF that Dunn was and might end up with less offensive numbers

westofyou
06-29-2010, 01:48 PM
Maybe. Time will tell.

Time has nothing to do with it, By even uttering such nonsense you devalue Frank, and no offense to Dunn but he couldn't carry Franks jock.

PuffyPig
06-29-2010, 01:53 PM
Nope, the deals were both radically different, the people HATED the Robby trade which was a bad talent trade that had failures on the AAA star (Simpson) Reliever (Bauldshien) and Pappas. It was an attempt to get a team with bad pitching and the most runs in the league a leg up on their pitching.

Dunn was a money deal and acknowledged that he was blocked position wise, it was hated way less and hurt the team way less, the comparison is apples and tirechains

Robinson also went on the win the triple crown.

Dunn went to Arizona for his first pennant race and the Diamonfbacks quickly crapped the bed.

He than had trouble finding emploment before settling for a two year deal with the worst team in the league.

Talk about a difference.

We may have done poory on the deal, but Arizona came out behind us.

kaldaniels
06-29-2010, 01:55 PM
I believe someday we may equate the Dunn trade in the same breath as the Frank Robinson trade.

That's an outrageous take. The Reds were getting what they could for Dunn before he left through FA. If you are upset about this, you should be more upset that they did not resign him after 2008. The trade is moot.

IslandRed
06-29-2010, 01:55 PM
I feel that history will show that what was given up versus what was received in both deals will be similar.


Tough to compare a trade under the old reserve clause (Robinson) vs. a trade to recoup some value prior to losing a player to free agency (Dunn).

Yep. The "given up" has to be viewed in that context. Even if we're being generous to Dunn in comparing him to a Hall of Famer like Robinson, there's no comparison between giving up the last two months before a player walks versus the rest of a career.

Hoosier Red
06-29-2010, 01:56 PM
1) Adam Dunn will not ever be regarded as the impact type of player that Frank Robinson was. Dunn will have a good career if he reaches 1 of Robinson's statistical benchmarks.

Right now Dunn has 333 home runs, let's say he doubles his 1st half totals from this year and ends the season with 350 home runs.
If he plays another 10 seasons, he still needs to average 24 homers a season. How many non steroid guys have hit 20+ homers every season in their 30's?

Even if he gets to 586 home runs, he still will fall well short of Robbie's RBI, Runs, essentially every offensive stat available. As good as Dunn's been, his OPS+ is 21 points short of Robinson's.
To give you an example of the difference compare Brandon Phillips 2010(123 OPS+) to Brandon Phillips 2009(102 OPS+)

Oh plus Robinson won a gold glove while Dunn is considered a DH playing LF or 1B.

This is not a knock on Dunn, he's a great player. Frank Robinson was absolutely one of the top players of all time.

2) That Robinson trade to me represents that one trade does not define a franchise more than anything else. The Reds traded away one of the top 20 players of all time, in his prime, and two years later were in the World Series.
Hopefully the Reds are crying over Adam Dunn in a similar manner this year.(Heck I'll even settle for losing to Dunn's team in the World Series.)

savafan
06-29-2010, 02:01 PM
My goodness, I didn't think my comment was going to be taken quite so literally...

Always Red
06-29-2010, 02:07 PM
Time has nothing to do with it, By even uttering such nonsense you devalue Frank, and no offense to Dunn but he couldn't carry Franks jock.

True. And I am a Dunn fan.

But just as these two players can't be compared, neither can the deals that took them away from the Reds, in my opinion. The Reds that traded Robby in Dec, 1965 operated under an entirely different set of rules than did the Reds of 2008, whom traded Dunn to Arizona.

The 1965 Reds effectively OWNED Frank Robinson. Robby and other players of his era had little recourse but to re-sign with their team, or they could try to hold out for a little more cash. They made a (poor) decision that Robby was an "old" 30, and traded him for what was considered at the time to be a lot of value. Milt Pappas is not well thought of around these parts, but he was a fine major league pitcher. The 1965 Reds had a lot of leverage with Robby; they owned him and could do with his contract whatever they wanted.

The 2008 Reds were essentially renting Adam Dunn; the days of club ownership of a player were long gone. His contract was expiring at the end of the season, and the Reds had decided they did not want to continue to pay Dunn 13-15 million a year (I know he signed for less, but he would not have signed with the Reds for what he eventually signed for). They had very little leverage with 2 months in the season left, and knowing Dunn would be walking away in the offseason. So, they swapped him for what they could at the time.

This is another reason why the Dunn and Robinson deals cannot be compared to each other at all. Apples and chainsaws, indeed.

kaldaniels
06-29-2010, 02:09 PM
My goodness, I didn't think my comment was going to be taken quite so literally...

I need to remember that line next time a bunch of people disagree with me. :cool:

Patrick Bateman
06-29-2010, 02:13 PM
My goodness, I didn't think my comment was going to be taken quite so literally...

Well, it was a completely ridciulous assertion.

The timing of the trade, the eras, the financial considerations were all incredibly different between the two trades. That doesn't even get into player valuation where there is obviously a monumental gap.

Usually when these types of things are failed to be considered then Redszone doesn't tend to be too restrained in the comments.

savafan
06-29-2010, 02:18 PM
I do believe that Dunn is one of the most prolific home run hitters of all time (# of home runs per at bats), and I think he'll finish among the top home run hitters on the career list when his career is done.

Both trades involved what I feel will be Hall of Fame caliber players who, for the most part, went unappreciated by the Reds team brass.

Therein lies my meaning behind the statement.

As for eras, timing, the belief that Dunn's career will parallel Robinson's at every turn...I wasn't implying this.

RedsManRick
06-29-2010, 02:21 PM
The Dunn comp question is always interesting. I'm surprised how little he's compared with Jim Thome. Questionable defender who bats lefty with massive power, walks, and strikeouts.

The big fear with Dunn will be his contact rates; the standard "old player skills" argument. Contact rates tend to drop in your 30's, precipitously so in your late 30's for guys built like Dunn. And the awesome power drops back towards just really good. We see this with Thome and Big Papi, as we saw it with Big Mac, Sosa, Sexson, even once-elite contact hitter Frank Thomas. It happened to Frank Robinson too -- but like Thome and Thomas, he was a .300 hitter during his prime so he stayed quite productive during his decline. The more complete a hitter you are, the longer you can last, but I don't think anybody would put Dunn in that group.

While I would not be shocked to see Dunn hitting 30+ HR for the next 10 years and clearing 600 HR, I also would not be shocked to see him out of baseball in 5 years.

Chip R
06-29-2010, 02:28 PM
Nope, the deals were both radically different, the people HATED the Robby trade which was a bad talent trade that had failures on the AAA star (Simpson) Reliever (Bauldshien) and Pappas. It was an attempt to get a team with bad pitching and the most runs in the league a leg up on their pitching.

Dunn was a money deal and acknowledged that he was blocked position wise, it was hated way less and hurt the team way less, the comparison is apples and tirechains

I'm not sure everyone hated the Robby deal. I believe there was a blurb in Redleg Journal that said that a lot of fans were in support of the trade.

We also have to remember the era. It was the mid 60s and Robby was an outspoken black man in a city that wasn't exactly hospitable to blacks. If RedsZone were around in the mid-60s, I would guess that Robby would have been as polarizing a figure amongst the fans as Adam Dunn was in his time here.

westofyou
06-29-2010, 02:33 PM
Both trades involved what I feel will be Hall of Fame caliber players who, for the most part, went unappreciated by the Reds team brass.

Actually that's incorrect too, the Reds knew what they had in Robby, DeWitt was a Rickey guy who not only believed in the over 30 decline (and don't be fooled back then it happened a LOT) but also thought the teams power was a strength (and it was) You can also slide in all sorts of realities that played into it (Frank being black in the civil rights era, DeWitt being an old school guy raised in the south, Frank getting in fights in town, the gun incident, the teams need for pitching, the slim margin that the Reds franchise operated on financially during the DeWitt era)

It's a big ball of old time reasons, Dunn's departure is less enwrapped in intrique, and regret.

westofyou
06-29-2010, 02:34 PM
I'm not sure everyone hated the Robby deal. I believe there was a blurb in Redleg Journal that said that a lot of fans were in support of the trade.

We also have to remember the era. It was the mid 60s and Robby was an outspoken black man in a city that wasn't exactly hospitable to blacks. If RedsZone were around in the mid-60s, I would guess that Robby would have been as polarizing a figure amongst the fans as Adam Dunn was in his time here.

Yes, as I just typed... many reasons and boy that Deron Johnson could hit!!

redsmetz
07-24-2010, 06:12 PM
Here's an interesting blog piece in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/24/AR2010072402096.html?hpid=artslot

One small bit of it:

Of Rizzo's options, then, re-signing the 30-year-old for three or four years is the most attractive. If the Nats lose him to free agency after the season, there is the consolation prize of two more than decent draft picks -- but they aren't going to find a player in the draft who can hit 30-plus homers in the big leagues next season. If the Nats trade him, they anger their franchise player and much of their fan base, and lose their best hitter at a time when hitting has been a problem.

SMcGavin
07-24-2010, 06:37 PM
We may have done poory on the deal, but Arizona came out behind us.

Huh? Arizona traded a few scrubs and got two months of about a .900 OPS. They then let him walk in the offseason with no financial penalty. It didn't end up mattering since they missed the playoffs, but that's a pretty nice little deal.

Put it this way. The Reds are in a pennant race right now - if they could go find a .900 OPS bat rental without giving up anybody good, I'd be thrilled.

Tornon
07-24-2010, 06:46 PM
Put it this way. The Reds are in a pennant race right now - if they could go find a .900 OPS bat rental without giving up anybody good, I'd be thrilled.

Maybe we can see if the nationals would trade us Dunn for Owings

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2010, 06:58 PM
Maybe we can see if the nationals would trade us Dunn for Owings

...Buck and Castillo

savafan
07-24-2010, 07:37 PM
...Buck and Castillo

I'd hate to give up on "Buck and Castillo". I think they'll be key factors in CBS' new fall lineup along with "Mayberry 2010" and "Another Tony Danza Show".

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2010, 07:48 PM
I'd hate to give up on "Buck and Castillo". I think they'll be key factors in CBS' new fall lineup along with "Mayberry 2010" and "Another Tony Danza Show".

Sound like Nash Bridges the new generation. :D

savafan
07-24-2010, 07:55 PM
Sound like Nash Bridges the new generation. :D

Just like that. ;)

fearofpopvol1
07-24-2010, 09:35 PM
What's interesting to me is that the White Sox are willing to trade a top tier prospect to land 2 months of Dunn. I know he's having a great year (better than most of his years with the Reds), but why is it that Rizzo can seem to leverage Dunn better than Jocketty could given the contract situations were basically the same? Is the market bigger? Are teams more desperate now than they were before?

CTA513
07-24-2010, 09:39 PM
What's interesting to me is that the White Sox are willing to trade a top tier prospect to land 2 months of Dunn. I know he's having a great year (better than most of his years with the Reds), but why is it that Rizzo can seem to leverage Dunn better than Jocketty could given the contract situations were basically the same? Is the market bigger? Are teams more desperate now than they were before?

AL teams might be willing to give up a better player because they can stick him at DH and 1B instead of OF and 1B in the NL.

fearofpopvol1
07-24-2010, 09:44 PM
AL teams might be willing to give up a better player because they can stick him at DH and 1B instead of OF and 1B in the NL.

Yes, but that could've been true when the Reds were trading him as well...it just so happened that it was to an NL team.

blumj
07-24-2010, 10:07 PM
What's interesting to me is that the White Sox are willing to trade a top tier prospect to land 2 months of Dunn. I know he's having a great year (better than most of his years with the Reds), but why is it that Rizzo can seem to leverage Dunn better than Jocketty could given the contract situations were basically the same? Is the market bigger? Are teams more desperate now than they were before?
The White Sox are almost always more willing to trade their prospects than a lot of other teams, but they usually don't have anyone that good to trade away.

Scrap Irony
07-24-2010, 10:16 PM
Rizzo has two teams that want Dunn (supposedly). When Jocketty had him, one team was interested.

That said, I'd absolutely offer Maloney and Alonso for Dunn right now.

oregonred
07-25-2010, 12:30 AM
Robinson also went on the win the triple crown.

Dunn went to Arizona for his first pennant race and the Diamonfbacks quickly crapped the bed.

He than had trouble finding emploment before settling for a two year deal with the worst team in the league.

Talk about a difference.

We may have done poory on the deal, but Arizona came out behind us.

I was going to post this alomst exactly but you beat me to it. The D-Backs didn't even offer Dunn arbitration. Dunn was there for the taking after the 2008 season (without even losing a draft pick) and only the gawd-awful at the time Nats seemed to want him. Two lost draft picks and another horrible decision for the cash strapped, sub .400 D-Backs organization.

redsfandan
07-25-2010, 09:30 AM
That said, I'd absolutely offer Maloney and Alonso for Dunn right now.
You can have him but I'll pass.

Cedric
07-25-2010, 09:54 AM
You can have him but I'll pass.

Have to agree. Just absolutely not the right place nor the right time.

TRF
07-25-2010, 09:57 AM
yeah, .950 OPS bats are teh suck. he'd screw up the chemistry and replace a guy that is a defensive wizard in gomes.

_Sir_Charles_
07-25-2010, 11:28 AM
Rizzo has two teams that want Dunn (supposedly). When Jocketty had him, one team was interested.

That said, I'd absolutely offer Maloney and Alonso for Dunn right now.

Where would you play Dunn? LF? Good grief, no thank you.

At some point in time, RZ'ers need to let this go. He's gone. For good. Wish him well in his future as an AL DH. It's what he was always destined to excel at.

And for what it's worth, Gomes has NOT been a disaster in LF. Far from it from what I've seen. And chemistry DOES matter. I wish the best for Adam, and that means the AL DH role. (not directed at you Scrap...just a general comment)

redsmetz
07-25-2010, 12:50 PM
For what it's worth, I found the point of the article the more intriguing idea, that Washington should be locking Dunn up and not looking to move him. Frankly, I think Dunn has found a home. Ryan Zimmerman has talked about it repeatedly that he is energized by playing alongside Dunn and Josh Willingham. While it's expected this time of year that we expect bottom dwelling clubs to be selling off their parts, I think Rizzo's intention is to get the Nats good. Everything I read about the guy indicates he knows what he's doing. If I'm him, I'm tying Dunn up for three or four years and anchoring him at 1st base where he belongs if he's going to play in the NL. Tom Boswell talked at the start of the season (or the end of last) that ownership in DC needs to start ponying up and putting good players on the field. The point of the blogger is that the time is now.

As much as we could have used Dunn's bat last year, there is nowhere for him to play here in Cincinnati, so in my mind, that's a moot discussion.

bucksfan2
07-26-2010, 09:39 AM
For what it's worth, I found the point of the article the more intriguing idea, that Washington should be locking Dunn up and not looking to move him. Frankly, I think Dunn has found a home. Ryan Zimmerman has talked about it repeatedly that he is energized by playing alongside Dunn and Josh Willingham. While it's expected this time of year that we expect bottom dwelling clubs to be selling off their parts, I think Rizzo's intention is to get the Nats good. Everything I read about the guy indicates he knows what he's doing. If I'm him, I'm tying Dunn up for three or four years and anchoring him at 1st base where he belongs if he's going to play in the NL. Tom Boswell talked at the start of the season (or the end of last) that ownership in DC needs to start ponying up and putting good players on the field. The point of the blogger is that the time is now.

As much as we could have used Dunn's bat last year, there is nowhere for him to play here in Cincinnati, so in my mind, that's a moot discussion.

Good post. I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

I think the Nats should sign him to an extension, but I would be very wary of extending it too long. Its no secret that Dunn is a big guy with a Texas sized body. The first thing I would worry about is whether his body can take 3-4 more years of a daily pounding. He has been very durable up until this point in his career, but he is getting into his mid 30's.

Second off he still isn't fluid at 1b. The Nats tend to take him out in late game situations and put Kennedy at 1b. I don't know if I would want to build around a guy that is that much of a defensive liability. If there were a DH in the NL I think that Washington would be a perfect fit for Dunn. Since there isn't I see some risk in an extension.

Big Klu
07-26-2010, 04:12 PM
From the age of 33 to the end of his career at age 37, Dave Kingman played only five games in the OF (five games in RF for the Mets in 1983).

From the age of 27 to the end of his career at age 42, Willie McCovey never played another game in the OF.

From the age of 35 to the end of his career at age 42, Willie Stargell never played another game in the OF.

From the age of 32 to the end of his career at age 39, Don Baylor played only 14 games in the OF.


Once big guys get on the other side of 30 and leave the OF, they don't go back.

REDREAD
07-26-2010, 04:59 PM
I was going to post this alomst exactly but you beat me to it. The D-Backs didn't even offer Dunn arbitration. Dunn was there for the taking after the 2008 season (without even losing a draft pick) and only the gawd-awful at the time Nats seemed to want him. Two lost draft picks and another horrible decision for the cash strapped, sub .400 D-Backs organization.

IMO, there was also mini-collusion going on when Dunn became a FA.
I'm still kind of convinced that the owners are playing it smart.. They are letting CC Sabitha and the huge stars get their big bucks, but they are putting the squeeze on guys like Dunn.

Supposedly Wash was the only team that offered Dunn more than a 1 year deal.. (He had plenty of 1 year offers).

Dunn had the reputation of a .240-250 hitter with power that really didn't fit the mold of what most people want as a cleanup hitter. Sure, his OBP is great, but not many people are willing to pay 10+ million dollars for an OF that is best suited as a #2 high OBP hitter, and who was percieved as a huge defensive liablity.

IMO, Dunn has boosted his value this year by hitting for a better BA and playing 1b. Right or wrong, it was percieved that he did not want to play 1b in Cincy.

Again, the guy is a great hitter, but there's reasons teams were cold on him and Washington got a great value in signing him. I'm not bashing Dunn by any means, but I would not trade Alonso for him right now.

Redsfaithful
07-26-2010, 05:21 PM
IMO, there was also mini-collusion going on when Dunn became a FA.
I'm still kind of convinced that the owners are playing it smart.. They are letting CC Sabitha and the huge stars get their big bucks, but they are putting the squeeze on guys like Dunn.

Agree with this 100%, but I also think owners are more often in collusion than not.

KronoRed
07-26-2010, 05:35 PM
Agree with this 100%, but I also think owners are more often in collusion than not.

Good for them, and hey if they get caught we get 2 more expansion teams to beat up on :D

Brutus
07-26-2010, 06:24 PM
Obviously for a myriad of reasons it's not going to happen. But no doubt it would be interesting to see a lineup that included Phillips, Votto, Rolen, Dunn, Bruce and Stubbs. That's an awful lot of punch.

Will M
07-26-2010, 07:11 PM
someone (fangraphs i think) recently compared Dunn & Howard. Their conclusions were that both these guys are very good but not great players.
Dunn's numbers over the last few years are similar to Howard's despite Howard's awards & mega contract.
Fangraphs also felt that both these guys needed to be a DH. Playing in the NL these two guys give away too many runs with their gloves.

Big Klu
07-26-2010, 07:19 PM
someone (fangraphs i think) recently compared Dunn & Howard. Their conclusions were that both these guys are very good but not great players.
Dunn's numbers over the last few years are similar to Howard's despite Howard's awards & mega contract.
Fangraphs also felt that both these guys needed to be a DH. Playing in the NL these two guys give away too many runs with their gloves.

I must be getting old. I read the first two sentences of the above post and immediately thought that Dunn was being compared to Frank Howard.

mth123
07-27-2010, 04:35 AM
I must be getting old. I read the first two sentences of the above post and immediately thought that Dunn was being compared to Frank Howard.

Me too.

savafan
07-27-2010, 07:10 PM
IMO, Dunn has boosted his value this year by hitting for a better BA and playing 1b. Right or wrong, it was percieved that he did not want to play 1b in Cincy.


I keep hearing this said by guys like Lance and people here on Redszone, but I feel pretty confident when I say that it was the Reds who didn't want to move Dunn to first base. I've been told on two occasions by two different people within the organization that the Reds as an organization have a sort of unwritten policy toward moving players from already established positions.

IslandRed
07-27-2010, 07:43 PM
I keep hearing this said by guys like Lance and people here on Redszone, but I feel pretty confident when I say that it was the Reds who didn't want to move Dunn to first base. I've been told on two occasions by two different people within the organization that the Reds as an organization have a sort of unwritten policy toward moving players from already established positions.

The organizational policy is whatever the GM says it is, and the time period in question is the same time period, involving the same decision makers, as when they kicked Ken Griffey Jr. out of center field. I believe they just didn't think it was a great idea, since he wasn't that good either place and he was more comfortable in left field. Remember that the first thing Krivsky did, within a few weeks of his hiring, was to get Dunn to ink an extension -- and I'd be surprised if it wasn't part of the negotiation strategy to let Dunn play the position he preferred. Thus, Scott Hatteberg.

fearofpopvol1
07-28-2010, 02:42 AM
The demands for Dunn are high: http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=5414243


Any deal for Dunn would have to include Daniel Hudson, the White Sox's top pitching prospect. The Nationals also want one of three White Sox prospects: catcher Tyler Flowers, outfielder Jordan Danks or injured infielder Brent Morel.

Is Kenny Williams going to get fleeced?

redsmetz
07-28-2010, 05:31 AM
An update from the Washington Post, with an intriguing bit of info added in.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072603661.html

The most important decision Rizzo makes this time, of course, will be what to do with Adam Dunn. He has become one of the most sought-after prizes of the trade deadline, and Rizzo's stated preference remains signing Dunn to a contract extension. There are clear signs, though, that Rizzo wants to know what he could fetch for Dunn in a trade.

Over the all-star break, one Nationals employee said, representatives for Dunn approached Rizzo with a request. Dunn's side wanted to strike a contract extension, and soon, and they wanted a deadline set to hasten talks. Rizzo responded without ambivalence. The negotiation would be on the team's terms. No deadlines. If Dunn's side tried to set one, Rizzo told Dunn's agent, then the Nationals would trade him.

Sea Ray
07-28-2010, 11:28 AM
To Dunn's credit he's improved his game in Washington. As a Nat he's a .270 hitter. As a Red he was roughly a .230 hitter. He raised his average without taking a hit to his OPS. His walk driven OPS here did not reflect well on his ability to drive in runs--a necessity for a being worthy of a big payday.

So yes I do think he's increased his value since being a Red

Brutus
07-28-2010, 04:31 PM
To Dunn's credit he's improved his game in Washington. As a Nat he's a .270 hitter. As a Red he was roughly a .230 hitter. He raised his average without taking a hit to his OPS. His walk driven OPS here did not reflect well on his ability to drive in runs--a necessity for a being worthy of a big payday.

So yes I do think he's increased his value since being a Red

I think it's mostly cosmetic. His average is higher, without sacrificing any walks, but these two years in Washington are also his highest BABIP averages of his career (this year it's .358). His strikeout rates are the same as are most of the rest of his peripherals (both the good and bad). It's possible he's perceived as being a better value, but he's doing the same thing he's always done.

*BaseClogger*
07-28-2010, 04:50 PM
I think it's mostly cosmetic. His average is higher, without sacrificing any walks, but these two years in Washington are also his highest BABIP averages of his career (this year it's .358). His strikeout rates are the same as are most of the rest of his peripherals (both the good and bad). It's possible he's perceived as being a better value, but he's doing the same thing he's always done.

I think a factor could also be the home park. Bigger dimensions means more area in the outfield for singles to drop in as hits, where those might have been outs caught by the tightly-packed outfielders in GABP. I think a bigger park is actually good for Dunn because his power plays anywhere...

RedsBaron
07-28-2010, 05:03 PM
From the age of 33 to the end of his career at age 37, Dave Kingman played only five games in the OF (five games in RF for the Mets in 1983).

From the age of 27 to the end of his career at age 42, Willie McCovey never played another game in the OF.

From the age of 35 to the end of his career at age 42, Willie Stargell never played another game in the OF.

From the age of 32 to the end of his career at age 39, Don Baylor played only 14 games in the OF.


Once big guys get on the other side of 30 and leave the OF, they don't go back.
I agree with the above post, but I will add that the only reason Willie McCovey ever played in the outfield, even in his 20s, was because the Giants already had a future Hall of Fame first baseman in Orlando Cepeda. McCovey was never a decent outfielder and the Giants only got away with having him in leftfield because they had a pretty fair centerfielder, some guy named Mays. ;)
I also agree that Adam Dunn's natural baseball position is DH. Given his build, I would be very cautious about giving him a long term deal.

Big Klu
07-28-2010, 06:09 PM
I agree with the above post, but I will add that the only reason Willie McCovey ever played in the outfield, even in his 20s, was because the Giants already had a future Hall of Fame first baseman in Orlando Cepeda. McCovey was never a decent outfielder and the Giants only got away with having him in leftfield because they had a pretty fair centerfielder, some guy named Mays. ;)
I also agree that Adam Dunn's natural baseball position is DH. Given his build, I would be very cautious about giving him a long term deal.

True. The Giants actually moved Cepeda to the OF in 1959 to make room for McCovey, then switched them in 1962, when Cepeda complained about playing the OF. McCovey didn't return to 1B until 1965, when Cepeda missed nearly the entire season with a knee injury. The Giants then traded Cepeda to the Cardinals on May 8, 1966.

SMcGavin
07-28-2010, 06:20 PM
To Dunn's credit he's improved his game in Washington. As a Nat he's a .270 hitter. As a Red he was roughly a .230 hitter. He raised his average without taking a hit to his OPS. His walk driven OPS here did not reflect well on his ability to drive in runs--a necessity for a being worthy of a big payday.

So yes I do think he's increased his value since being a Red

Dunn was not a .230 hitter on the Reds. I do agree that he has increased his value though, if his improved 1B defense is legitimate. It is his first season playing there full time and the results have been much better. Dunn as a neutral or slightly below fielder is a really valuable player.

Sea Ray
07-28-2010, 10:39 PM
Dunn was not a .230 hitter on the Reds. I do agree that he has increased his value though, if his improved 1B defense is legitimate. It is his first season playing there full time and the results have been much better. Dunn as a neutral or slightly below fielder is a really valuable player.

He raised his avg 25 pts after moving on to the Nats. That increases his value. If he'd hit .272 as a Red things would have been different

savafan
07-29-2010, 05:17 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/07/adam-dunn-rumors-thursday.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


The White Sox are saying internally that they're out of the Dunn sweepstakes, according to ESPN.com's Buster Olney (on Twitter).

The Angels may become sellers, and the Yankees say they're out on Dunn. Right now, Tampa Bay seems to be the most active in pursuing Adam.

KronoRed
07-29-2010, 05:19 PM
The Angels aren't going to become sellers in a week, they are buying.

savafan
07-29-2010, 05:24 PM
The Angels aren't going to become sellers in a week, they are buying.

Buster Olney's just implying that they may become sellers in the next 36 hours. I'm only the messenger.

Mario-Rijo
07-29-2010, 05:27 PM
To Dunn's credit he's improved his game in Washington. As a Nat he's a .270 hitter. As a Red he was roughly a .230 hitter. He raised his average without taking a hit to his OPS. His walk driven OPS here did not reflect well on his ability to drive in runs--a necessity for a being worthy of a big payday.

So yes I do think he's increased his value since being a Red

Something some of us always argued he could do, but wasn't putting in the work. He finally put in the work after leaving 'Zona and now he is more valuable. Doesn't hurt that he also made the switch to 1st base.

Mario-Rijo
07-29-2010, 05:29 PM
The Angels aren't going to become sellers in a week, they are buying.

Well with the injury to Piniero (out 6-8 weeks) they may very well be.

blumj
07-29-2010, 05:31 PM
The Angels aren't going to become sellers in a week, they are buying.
They're a mess. If they're still buying anything they don't get to keep after '10, they're fooling themselves.

Mario-Rijo
07-29-2010, 05:33 PM
Dunn was not a .230 hitter on the Reds. I do agree that he has increased his value though, if his improved 1B defense is legitimate. It is his first season playing there full time and the results have been much better. Dunn as a neutral or slightly below fielder is a really valuable player.

.245 ish as a Red
.270 as a Nat

KronoRed
07-29-2010, 05:33 PM
He raised his avg 25 pts after moving on to the Nats. That increases his value. If he'd hit .272 as a Red things would have been different

Unlikely, the Reds still would have been bad and he would have gotten a bunch of ridiculous criticism.

I bet he still doesn't run out onto the field :D

Brutus
07-29-2010, 05:42 PM
The Angels aren't going to become sellers in a week, they are buying.

I said this in another thread: they aren't buyers. They made acquisitions of opportunity for the future. Haren was available for a good price and they had leverage because of geography. They jumped on it. Remember he's signed for a couple more seasons.

CTA513
07-29-2010, 05:45 PM
Unlikely, the Reds still would have been bad and he would have gotten a bunch of ridiculous criticism.

I bet he still doesn't run out onto the field :D

He uses a segway like this:

savafan
07-29-2010, 07:15 PM
Unlikely, the Reds still would have been bad and he would have gotten a bunch of ridiculous criticism.

I bet he still doesn't run out onto the field :D

The important thing is, is he hitting sacrifice flies?

savafan
07-29-2010, 08:07 PM
Apparently talks with Tampa Bay have hit a snag because Dunn is adamant about not DHing. Rumor now is a 3 way trade with the White Sox and Diamondbacks that will have Edwin Jackson go to Washington.

savafan
07-29-2010, 08:25 PM
The Tigers have now entered the Dunn trade talks.

REDREAD
07-30-2010, 09:29 AM
I keep hearing this said by guys like Lance and people here on Redszone, but I feel pretty confident when I say that it was the Reds who didn't want to move Dunn to first base. I've been told on two occasions by two different people within the organization that the Reds as an organization have a sort of unwritten policy toward moving players from already established positions.

That may be the case. I was basing my opinion on a report that said that when Dunn signed his extension, there was an unwritten agreement that he would stay in LF.. Dunn also said he prefered LF to 1b.

Obviously, that doesn't prove anything, and he obviously changed his feelings toward 1b.. However, the perception was that he wanted to play LF.. That may have cooled some teams from even talking to him. I guess that was my point.. The point wasn't that it was a bad thing for Dunn to perfer LF.

REDREAD
07-30-2010, 09:33 AM
He raised his avg 25 pts after moving on to the Nats. That increases his value. If he'd hit .272 as a Red things would have been different


Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.. His higher BA makes him a lot more attractive.
That's why if he's traded this year, he will fetch more than Ownings and change.

Degenerate39
07-30-2010, 10:13 AM
He uses a segway like this:

He also fields from that thing

cumberlandreds
07-30-2010, 10:13 AM
The important thing is, is he hitting sacrifice flies?

I saw him get one against somebody last week. I immediately thought about Marty. :D

bucksfan2
07-30-2010, 10:44 AM
Apparently talks with Tampa Bay have hit a snag because Dunn is adamant about not DHing. Rumor now is a 3 way trade with the White Sox and Diamondbacks that will have Edwin Jackson go to Washington.

I just can't wrap my mind around this. Dunn can't play LF anymore and was moved to 1b. I guess he plays a passable 1b, but his footwork is pretty bad, and he is taken out of games for late inning defensive replacements. To me it really says a lot about a guy's defensive ability if they are willing to take his bat out of the game. Why wouldn't he want to go to an AL team and for 2+ months play DH and have a chance to make the playoffs? Then this off season when teams are wining and dinning him he can make a deal to play 1b again.

Ghosts of 1990
07-30-2010, 10:46 AM
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly.. His higher BA makes him a lot more attractive.
That's why if he's traded this year, he will fetch more than Ownings and change.

I was one of the folks who knew it was a terrible move to just get Owings, and was hoping Wilkin Castillo got an extended chance here on the small chance that he could become a great little ballplayer for us.

Looking back, we gave Dunn away. Just wish we'd have re-signed him and kept putting him in LF for about 5 more years.

traderumor
07-30-2010, 10:47 AM
I just can't wrap my mind around this. Dunn can't play LF anymore and was moved to 1b. I guess he plays a passable 1b, but his footwork is pretty bad, and he is taken out of games for late inning defensive replacements. To me it really says a lot about a guy's defensive ability if they are willing to take his bat out of the game. Why wouldn't he want to go to an AL team and for 2+ months play DH and have a chance to make the playoffs? Then this off season when teams are wining and dinning him he can make a deal to play 1b again.Good question. Probably the same reason that he wanted to insist that he play LF for the Reds. Winning seems to be optional. What position he plays is a deal breaker.

bucksfan2
07-30-2010, 10:55 AM
I was one of the folks who knew it was a terrible move to just get Owings, and was hoping Wilkin Castillo got an extended chance here on the small chance that he could become a great little ballplayer for us.

Looking back, we gave Dunn away. Just wish we'd have re-signed him and kept putting him in LF for about 5 more years.

He isn't a LF.

pahster
07-30-2010, 11:04 AM
He isn't a LF.

At this point I think he needs to play 1B or DH, at least most of the time. That said, he's no worse than Gomes is out there and he's unquestionably by far the better hitter of the two.

Sea Ray
07-30-2010, 11:13 AM
I was one of the folks who knew it was a terrible move to just get Owings, and was hoping Wilkin Castillo got an extended chance here on the small chance that he could become a great little ballplayer for us.

Looking back, we gave Dunn away. Just wish we'd have re-signed him and kept putting him in LF for about 5 more years.

Nothing wrong with "giving him away" because we could have re-signed him as a FA. There was not a bidding war for his services. Your gripe lies with not re-signing him. Trading him had nothing to do with it. If we'd had not traded him we would not have offered him arbitration

OnBaseMachine
07-30-2010, 11:21 AM
The White Sox are on the verge of acquiring Edwin Jackson from the D-Backs and they may then flip Jackson to the Nationals for Dunn, per Jayson Stark.

SMcGavin
07-30-2010, 11:27 AM
He isn't a LF.

Probably true. He belongs at 1B and the Reds have a guy there now who is doing pretty OK for himself. But if Dunn isn't a LF, there's no way Jonny Gomes is either.

Redsfan320
07-30-2010, 11:59 AM
The latest:


Sox GM Kenny Williams has something big cooking, tweets Joe Cowley of the Chicago Sun-Times, and if he gets it done the Jackson deal is off.

Could they be making a push for Dunn with in-house options?

320

REDREAD
07-30-2010, 01:23 PM
I was one of the folks who knew it was a terrible move to just get Owings, and was hoping Wilkin Castillo got an extended chance here on the small chance that he could become a great little ballplayer for us.

Looking back, we gave Dunn away. Just wish we'd have re-signed him and kept putting him in LF for about 5 more years.

Reports were that he was asking for over 100 million.. Just my opinion, but if he was willing to give us the Washington deal, he might've been retained.

However, if we assume the budget would not have changed, it's easy to see that shedding Dunn (and Jr & Freel) was a really good thing. If we still had Dunn, would we have had the room to take on Rolen, Hernandez, and some of the other players that are helping turn the team around?

I really liked Dunn, but at 10 million or more, I'm not sure the team can carry him at that salary.. Especially the 240 hitting Dunn that was more intent on trying to draw a walk with men on base. How many times did we see Dunn get pitched around, followed by EdE weakly popping out.. Dunn's high OBP was not really leveraged by this team when he was here. Not really his fault, but the team needed to be reconstructed.