Originally Posted by RedsManRick
MF, I think the question is not whether or not culture/leadership is important. Let's assume it is for the sake of discussion. The question is whether Dunn's presence somehow prevented the Reds from having said culture. I think it's difficult to make the case that Dunn is at fault for the Reds attitude. Rather, I think the attitude is a direct result of a dearth of talent. Losing begets losing. I don't disagree that the Reds culture left a lot to be desired. But I don't see many teams with the poor talent level the Reds have run out there the last 8 years with the type of culture being described. It's tough to adopt a position where losing is unacceptable when the deck is constantly stacked against you.
I suppose one could argue that no amount of talent is worth the money Dunn would require if it does not also come with the type of leadership abilities you've described. However, I imagine that on a team in the hunt, Dunn's attitude and role in the clubhouse will be cast in a very different light. It would have been very interesting to see how Dunn would have been received had he been surrounded with more talent in Red.
RMR I think this was an important cog of the trade. When you commit a lot of money to a particular player you have not only take the player on the field but you also take the player off the field. The Reds management, especially Jocketty, had to make a decision on Dunn. Maybe they thought what Dunn brought to the field as well as the clubhouse wasn't worth the long term commitment. Maybe they felt that 8 years of losing had a substantial impact on Dunn and his attitude and it was time to part ways.
Winning teams play a different brand of baseball. I have seen it many times when the Cards come into town. I saw it last season when the Angles came to town. You see it when you watch the Red Sox play. I don't mean to knock Dunn but maybe the Reds felt that his personality, drive, desire to win wasn't going to work with the direction or commitment that the FO was heading towards.
Maybe the "idiot" PDoc was onto something. Maybe, just maybe, the stat guys love Dunn too much yet the traditionalist undvervalue Dunn. His offense will be tough to replace but his defense sure won't. Maybe the Reds felt they needed to go in a different direction and that direction was without Dunn.