Dunn And His Long Term Contract

[11BarryLarkin11]

"The Reds aren't currently working on multiyear pacts with any of their four remaining arbitration-eligible players.
The four are Adam Dunn, Aaron Harang, Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez. "We had some preliminary discussion," GM Dan O'Brien said of Dunn's situation. "But with the clock ticking here, it was decided that the best thing to do was to focus on '06 for the moment and then we can revisit the other topic." Dunn will be eligible for free agency after 2007." Jan. 16 - 1:26 pm et
Source: Cincinnati Post
================================================== ========

Buying out the remaining two years of arbitration is a key bargaining chip in getting Dunn locked into a multiyear deal. O'B is giving away one of the two final years by signing Dunn to a one year deal again and getting nothing in return.

OB has done very little this offseason and yet he doesn't have the time to get a multiyear deal with Dunn completed? I'm not sure how that's possible.

What's the incentive for Dunn to sign a multiyear deal when he only has one year remaining before he hits free agency, as will be the case after this season?

Avoiding the ugly arbitration process and locking in guaranteed cash for the next four seasons are a big motivators for a player. O'B is wasting his bargaining power. Signing Dunn to a one year deal for 2006 and then trying to lock him into a multiyear deal after the season is a significant negotiating mistake. And, the downside of signing Dunn to a multiyear deal is miniscule in comparison to the upside of getting it done.

O'B needs to sign Dunn to a four year deal. Essentially, buy out Dunn's remaining two years of arbitration in exchange for his first two free agent years. That's fair for both sides.

I think the inability to get Dunn locked up in a multiyear deal GREATLY increases the chances that Dunn will test the free agent waters after 2007. And, if Dunn tests the waters, he'll be gone. Cincy can't compete financially with the big boys and can't compete in W/L department either. With only one season before free agency, there's no real reason for Dunn to sign a multiyear deal with Cincy without testing the market first.

This would seem to be yet another example of O'B's inability to manage the MLB roster.

[savafan]

Seeing this makes me think the writing is on the wall that DanO will be gone shortly after the ownership transfer.

[Unassisted]

I disagree that this gets fully pinned on the GM. If the LTC offers made aren't being accepted, what exactly is DanO supposed to do about it? He doesn't have a currency-printing press to increase his offers beyond what the lame-duck ownership has authorized and I don't think contracts signed at gunpoint will stand up in court.

Maybe those 4 guys would prefer to test the FA waters, instead of re-signing with the Reds? Maybe they'd prefer to wait and see what the new ownership's commitment to winning and/or commitment to paying bigger salaries is before handcuffing themselves to the Reds?

[IslandRed]

Problem is, you're looking at this as a one-sided negotiation, where as long as the Reds throw down a by-the-book offer for a player of Dunn's caliber and service time, it's as good as done. It's not that simple. Locking in four years of guaranteed cash is a solid motivator. So is breaking the bank in arbitration for the next two years and getting out of Cincinnati for a better organization. Dunn doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who's motivated by fear, and I can't blame him for adopting a wait-and-see stance.

In fact, my personal opinion -- which is just that -- is that Cincinnati had no chance at retaining him past 2007 until the team was sold, that he wasn't going to sign a long-term deal with a Lindner/O'Brien regime under any circumstances. We may have a chance if he likes what he sees from the new ownership.

[Astrobuddy]

west.. whats your point?


Jpup.. same question.

[11BarryLarkin11]

Problem is, you're looking at this as a one-sided negotiation, where as long as the Reds throw down a by-the-book offer for a player of Dunn's caliber and service time, it's as good as done. It's not that simple. Locking in four years of guaranteed cash is a solid motivator. So is breaking the bank in arbitration for the next two years and getting out of Cincinnati for a better organization. Dunn doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who's motivated by fear, and I can't blame him for adopting a wait-and-see stance.

In fact, my personal opinion -- which is just that -- is that Cincinnati had no chance at retaining him past 2007 until the team was sold, that he wasn't going to sign a long-term deal with a Lindner/O'Brien regime under any circumstances. We may have a chance if he likes what he sees from the new ownership.

Actually, no, I'm not looking at it as a one sided negotiation, which is why O'B needs every last bit of leverage he can find. He certainly can't sell the Reds on their great performance on the field or their brilliance in the front office. As such, he needs every last bullet in the gun.

The new ownership group undeniably clouds the issue, but I see very little downside for the new owners in signing Dunn to a multiyear deal. And, whether or not O'B is authorized to commence negotiations, he should at least be laying the groundwork for negotiations. He should be expressing serious interest and listening to determine what Dunn is looking for in a four year deal. Then, when the new ownership is authorized, he would be ready to talk specifics and lock in a new deal. A multiyear deal would be unlikely to cost signficantly more in the first two years of the deal than either two one-year deals or arbitration hearings would produce. It's the final two that would be different and I hardly think that it would be of great concern to the new owners. Especially with Milton and then Griffey, to a certain extent, coming off the books in years to come.

I think it's a wasted opportunity, which, I guess, should be expected during O'B's tenure.

[Aronchis]

You are wrong.

O'brien is a lameduck GM. He should not be the one leading these charges, but Cast and his cohorts. They are in control now and set the plan. Obviously, much change is needed when implementing this plan.

The fact is, you need to overcome your O'brien obsession and come to conclusions based on the Cast era's first moves when the FO is overhauled(between now and next November most likely). If a player such as Adam Dunn is offered a long term deal from this new regime, it will tell us alot of where they are going, OR trading Dunn would probably tell us the same thing.

Many things can be taken from LTC's and whether or not they are given. A defining moment it may be.

[11BarryLarkin11]

You are wrong.

O'brien is a lameduck GM. He should not be the one leading these charges, but Cast and his cohorts. They are in control now and set the plan. Obviously, much change is needed when implementing this plan.

The fact is, you need to overcome your O'brien obsession and come to conclusions based on the Cast era's first moves when the FO is overhauled(between now and next November most likely). If a player such as Adam Dunn is offered a long term deal from this new regime, it will tell us alot of where they are going, OR trading Dunn would probably tell us the same thing.

Many things can be taken from LTC's and whether or not they are given. A defining moment it may be.

Actually, unless you are a member of the ownership group, I don't see how you can't definitively state any of that. Even if you were a prospective owner, I think MLB rules would prohibit you from publicly discussing plans for the organization until you are approved.

I think O'B SHOULD be a lame duck GM, but where is the proof that that is indeed the case? I find it to be rather unlikely that O'B is going to be fired the moment the new owners are in place. And, if that is indeed the case, are we to put all significant baseball decisions on hold until O'B's deal runs out? Is that the way to improve an organization?

[westofyou]

west.. whats your point?


Jpup.. same question.

That the world isn't viewed through your eyes only?

[Redsland]

DanO is getting the ol' stiff-arm from the arbs.

Not much he can do about that.

[Astrobuddy]

I know that.. and that applies here how?




Clemens still isnt going to the Yankees.

[Heath]

Do you know Clemens personally, how can you promise something like that? You would have to get me another job closer to Cincinnati as well. It could get expensive.

Hey jpup - can I get a little of that action.....

also - astrobuddy - don't let your story get in the way of good facts.

And M2 said it better than I thought it - I've been thinking about the Brewers and playoffs lately. No, I've not been seeing a psychologist.

woy's point of Jeff Bagwell seems pretty black and white. Not some fan who follows a club who drilled in their first Series in 43 years spouting off guesses.

[Heath]

I think O'B SHOULD be a lame duck GM, but where is the proof that that is indeed the case? I find it to be rather unlikely that O'B is going to be fired the moment the new owners are in place. And, if that is indeed the case, are we to put all significant baseball decisions on hold until O'B's deal runs out? Is that the way to improve an organization?

In a regular baseball world, I'd agree. But, the latest mumbo-jumbo coming from DanO gives me the slight hope that DanO's desk has been cleared out and he's waiting for Friday.

It's not the way to improve the organization 11BL11 - but would you rather have nothing accomplished -- or -- more irreparible damage.

[11BarryLarkin11]

In a regular baseball world, I'd agree. But, the latest mumbo-jumbo coming from DanO gives me the slight hope that DanO's desk has been cleared out and he's waiting for Friday.

It's not the way to improve the organization 11BL11 - but would you rather have nothing accomplished -- or -- more irreparible damage.

I'd rather have nothing, but signing Dunn wouldn't be damaging at all. I think even O'B would have a hard time messing that one up, despite his clear difficulties in handling the MLB roster. Worst case for a Dunn multiyear contract is that he gives Adam a bit too much. That's a risk I'm willing to take. And, it's certainly more attractive risk than the possibility of losing Dunn after the 2007 season.

[MartyFan]

Seeing this makes me think the writing is on the wall that DanO will be gone shortly after the ownership transfer.

I agree completely. DanO is gone.