a thought

[fadetoblack2880]

i just have an observation. i've noticed people attacking dunn for his lack of hustle, as they say, when he goes out to left, and his low BA and high strike out numbers. yet he hits 40 homeruns and gets no credit at all. so now people want to see him traded. now, i miss austin kearns' bat as much as anyone else and i hated to see him go. that offense he and lopez provided has yet to be replaced, but now everyone is lobbying to see dunn dealt. why is it that people gripe about the lack of offense after the trade and now want to see the one true power threat dealt away? i know he strikes out way too often, but how can 40 homeruns be replaced that easily? i'm all for acquiring pitching, but only if there is enough offense left to at least score a few runs. you cannot base what a player will do based on his stats from the previous season. phillips may hit fiver homers next year. encarnacion could get hurt and miss the entire second half. i know dunn could too, but don't you guys think the team needs someone who is a legit homer threat? give the guy a break, he played 160 games this year and people are complaining because he may have not jogged out to left every inning of every game he played in. it's truly amazing. this team could win every game next year, yet someone will find something to complain about. i was happy with the reds this year. i wish they could've, at least, gotten to .500, but it was a very fun season to root for this team. you guys gotta agree with me, at least partially, about some of this. oh, and i wonder how many people hated dunn on june 30th?

[TeamBoone]

I don't understand the not jogging out to LF complaint.... I've never EVER seen him walk to left field. Granted, he doesn't sprint out there, but neither do any of the other OFers... they all jog.

PS - I don't want to see him traded. Not only are the HRs hard to replace, but so are the RBI. He had a prolonged slump, but it isn't the end of the world. Hopefully, he'll turn that around.

[Natty Redlocks]

i just have an observation. i've noticed people attacking dunn for his lack of hustle, as they say, when he goes out to left, and his low BA and high strike out numbers. yet he hits 40 homeruns and gets no credit at all. so now people want to see him traded. now, i miss austin kearns' bat as much as anyone else and i hated to see him go. that offense he and lopez provided has yet to be replaced, but now everyone is lobbying to see dunn dealt. why is it that people gripe about the lack of offense after the trade and now want to see the one true power threat dealt away? i know he strikes out way too often, but how can 40 homeruns be replaced that easily? i'm all for acquiring pitching, but only if there is enough offense left to at least score a few runs. you cannot base what a player will do based on his stats from the previous season. phillips may hit fiver homers next year. encarnacion could get hurt and miss the entire second half. i know dunn could too, but don't you guys think the team needs someone who is a legit homer threat? give the guy a break, he played 160 games this year and people are complaining because he may have not jogged out to left every inning of every game he played in. it's truly amazing. this team could win every game next year, yet someone will find something to complain about. i was happy with the reds this year. i wish they could've, at least, gotten to .500, but it was a very fun season to root for this team. you guys gotta agree with me, at least partially, about some of this. oh, and i wonder how many people hated dunn on june 30th?

It's not that Dunn is a terrible player. It's that he's getting expensive, and the question is whether or not he's a guy you definitely want to keep and build your team around, IMO. Junior isn't a terrible player either, but he's no longer a reliable centerpiece-type player, although he's still paid like one. How many expensive, unreliable, complementary lefty sluggers can a small market team afford? To me that question is more important than whether or not you can "replace his numbers". It's baseball, not a math contest, and you don't get to go to the World Series for having the most runs on paper.

I'm not adamant (heh heh) that Dunn be traded, but I do think that the only reason you don't at least explore it would be if you thought of him as your franchise hitter to build around. Just because he's our best hitter doesn't make him a franchise hitter who'll be worth the 13-15 mil he'll be making after next season. Sure, it's a gamble to trade him, but if you keep him, you're gambling that he won't have another disappointing season next year, putting his trade value truly in the toilet. As it is, he's still a perennial 40-hr guy, so now may turn out to be the best time to deal him, and we may be very sorry if we don't. I guess the bottom line is whether or not you believe he'll get to the next level soon. I think his best chance of that is in the AL where he can DH and not get worn down running around in the outfield all year.

[mth123]

i just have an observation. i've noticed people attacking dunn for his lack of hustle, as they say, when he goes out to left, and his low BA and high strike out numbers. yet he hits 40 homeruns and gets no credit at all. so now people want to see him traded. now, i miss austin kearns' bat as much as anyone else and i hated to see him go. that offense he and lopez provided has yet to be replaced, but now everyone is lobbying to see dunn dealt. why is it that people gripe about the lack of offense after the trade and now want to see the one true power threat dealt away? i know he strikes out way too often, but how can 40 homeruns be replaced that easily? i'm all for acquiring pitching, but only if there is enough offense left to at least score a few runs. you cannot base what a player will do based on his stats from the previous season. phillips may hit fiver homers next year. encarnacion could get hurt and miss the entire second half. i know dunn could too, but don't you guys think the team needs someone who is a legit homer threat? give the guy a break, he played 160 games this year and people are complaining because he may have not jogged out to left every inning of every game he played in. it's truly amazing. this team could win every game next year, yet someone will find something to complain about. i was happy with the reds this year. i wish they could've, at least, gotten to .500, but it was a very fun season to root for this team. you guys gotta agree with me, at least partially, about some of this. oh, and i wonder how many people hated dunn on june 30th?

There are many who are against trading Dunn unless the return is overwhelming. I am in the keep Dunn camp. You are very correct about the Reds offense. Potential Black Holes everywhere you look. From what I have read on here there three camps of people wanting to trade Dunn.

First there are the haters who simply don't like his style. These are the types that prefer the Ryan Freels of the world and don't care about the numbers if the player isn't a type who outwardly shows his hustle and desire. These types seem to prefer appearances over results IMO.

The second group is simply reacting to Dunn's second half slump. Dunn's the big man on campus now and he is going to take heat when the team is losing while he is slumping. It will be that way his entire career. I think he can handle that, because I think he's smart enough to know that he shouldn't care about all that.

The third group has the most logic in the trade Dunn camp (like Natty above). This group is looking at Dunn's production, his price, the team's many needs and the fact that he is one of the few that may bring a return on the trade market. This group really isn't that different than most of us. The slight difference is that they would shop Dunn, where others in the keep Dunn camp would sit back and wait to be blown away. I think either group would trade Dunn for the right return. The Keep Dunn group would probably have a higher price attached to Dunn's value.

As for the rest of your post, Adam Dunn is the least of this team's problems. You correctly point out with your Phillips example that many of this years offensive contributers may not reapeat. I see potential black holes at C, 1B, 2B, SS and at least 1 OF spot. If Griffey continues to decline or misses much time, that makes 2 OF spots. As I see it, Dunn and EE are the only two pieces in the line-up that are not potential black holes. We shouldn't be looking to move the solid spots in the line-up. We should be looking to solidify more spots. I am confident that some of these guys will probably be ok, but if say 3 of these spots do develop into black holes, you will be looking at a team with 4 automatic outs in the line-up (counting the pitcher). Its a given that you will always need pitching, and this team needs a lot of it, but how many games did the Reds get good to very good starting pitching in 2006 and lose anyway because no runs were on the board? I think a lot. If the offense isn't improved this team will not only continue to lose, but they will be boring and painful to watch. GABP could turn into a ghost town by July and the drop in revenue would be a bigger obstacle to winning long term than anything. As I see it, the team needs 2 bats (one of whom can play defense in the middle IF the other either an OF with Dunn or Griffey going to 1B or a 1B - possibly Votto), a solid mid-rotation (or better) starter, and a couple of hard throwing relievers with potential to close and pitch high leverage innings. That's a lot for a team with a limited budget and probably why the third Trade Dunn group I mentioned above is calling for it. I really do see the logic there.

To Trade Dunn (and still try to contend), the Reds would need to get something to replace him and fill at least 2 of these needs in return. These players would also need to be cheap enough that the deal creates payflex so that the Reds can acquire guys for the other needs. This is where the trade argument falls apart IMO. I don't see a team with those pieces trading it for Dunn. The other approach is to trade Dunn for prospects and use the money to replace his production. If you take this approach, you will end up signing a player who is older and even more expensive and have even less payflex to address the other needs. For this approach to work, you better get at least 3 almost guaranteed solutions in those prospects. Most teams don't have 3. The ones that do probably got them by making a similar deal with their own cost escalating stars and probably aren't in the market for a $10 Million player.

The only argument for trading Dunn IMO is the "blow it up completely and start over" approach. This would also probably mean trading Harang, Arroyo and Freel. Get prospects each time. Wait for Larue, Milton and Griffey to come off the books or dump their salaries somehow. Add the prospects acquired to Bailey, Bruce, Votto, EdE, Deno and Phillips. I couldn't logically argue with this so much, but I'd rather they try to add a few pieces now and contend. With Votto and Bailey possibly filling a couple of the needs w/o expending resources, I think a couple pieces could be added to what we have and not completely blow it up. I wouldn't want to wait out another rebuilding process.

[TeamBoone]

So many posters keep saying that Adam Dunn is getting expensive. What they seem to be forgetting is that WK negotiated his contract. If the Reds believe the price was fair and that they could afford it, why is this decision being second-guessed? Especially by many that were previously crying that Dunn should be signed LT. I don't get it, unless those same people now think he's not worth the price and would rather see him on an opposing team wreaking havoc against the Reds.

[registerthis]

So many posters keep saying that Adam Dunn is getting expensive. What they seem to be forgetting is that WK negotiated his contract. If the Reds believe the price was fair and that they could afford it, why is this decision being second-guessed? Especially by many that were previously crying that Dunn should be signed LT. I don't get it, unless those same people now think he's not worth the price and would rather see him on an opposing team wreaking havoc against the Reds.

I can't speak for others, but it's not his current contract but the next one that concerns me. Adam Dunn at $10 million is fine. Adam Dunn at $13-$15 million, not so much.

[Chip R]

So many posters keep saying that Adam Dunn is getting expensive. What they seem to be forgetting is that WK negotiated his contract. If the Reds believe the price was fair and that they could afford it, why is this decision being second-guessed? Especially by many that were previously crying that Dunn should be signed LT. I don't get it, unless those same people now think he's not worth the price and would rather see him on an opposing team wreaking havoc against the Reds.

Right. He's already expensive. It's not like he was making $500K this year and $10M next. He'll get a $3M raise next year. It's probably in line with what he'd get if he was in arbitration.

I can understand wanting to trade Dunn because of the belief he's underperforming (although I can't fathom why one would sell low) but because he's making a lot of money shouldn't be one of them. I really get bothered when someone says that we can't afford so and so because we can only afford him for $2M instead of $3M or because someone's going to get a $1.5M raise. This isn't one of the Florida teams where they have to pinch pennies. This team's going to have a $60M budget. It's not Yankeesque or even Houstonesque but it's not like we have to dump every player making over $5M.

[vaticanplum]

Right. He's already expensive. It's not like he was making $500K this year and $10M next. He'll get a $3M raise next year. It's probably in line with what he'd get if he was in arbitration.

And, expensive or not, it's still a good deal relative to his production in the standards of the current market.

This is not a low-market team with no money to spend. They just need to make sure their money goes towards things that are worth it. In my opinion, Adam Dunn is one of them. Eric Milton, not so much.

[redsfan30]

The thing that makes me laugh the hardest about the whole Dunn thing is most of the people who want him traded because they think he's a bum are expecting nothing short of a haul in return.

They think he sucks, yet they expect to get the sun for him.

Go figure.

[dabvu2498]

And, expensive or not, it's still a good deal relative to his production in the standards of the current market.

Based on 2006 Win Shares Above Bench, THT's "Fair Market Value Calculator" has Dunn over-priced by roughly 1M based on his 7.5M in 2006.

Have fun with it: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/st...s/ws_val_form/

[Chip R]

The thing that makes me laugh the hardest about the whole Dunn thing is most of the people who want him traded because they think he's a bum are expecting nothing short of a haul in return.

They think he sucks, yet they expect to get the sun for him.

Go figure.

How long have you been here?

[RFS62]

The thing that makes me laugh the hardest about the whole Dunn thing is most of the people who want him traded because they think he's a bum are expecting nothing short of a haul in return.

They think he sucks, yet they expect to get the sun for him.

Go figure.

It's the RedsZone way.

[jnwohio]

I really get bothered when someone says that we can't afford so and so because we can only afford him for $2M instead of $3M or because someone's going to get a $1.5M raise. This isn't one of the Florida teams where they have to pinch pennies. This team's going to have a $60M budget. It's not Yankeesque or even Houstonesque but it's not like we have to dump every player making over $5M.

Amen Chip! I have heard our current GM speak to the issue; and, he clearly doesn't believe in the "small market" theory. The place he came from is a supposedly small market which has a pretty impressive record at getting into the playoffs. Small market is a state of mind term that gets thrown around too much by folks that often have other agendas they maybe even have not totally thought out themselves or would rather not take the time to explain in detail.

I saw an article the other day that put the Reds '06 payroll at between $59M and $60M. That is right at the bottom of the what I would call the middle pack bunched between $60M and $75M (right around 20th down from the top). Indications are with the new TV deal there will a significant increase in '07; so let's put small market to rest along with the rest of the can't be done attitudes and excuses of the prior regime.

[vaticanplum]

Based on 2006 Win Shares Above Bench, THT's "Fair Market Value Calculator" has Dunn over-priced by roughly 1M based on his 7.5M in 2006.

Have fun with it: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/st...s/ws_val_form/

I tried that, I failed. But it says that the calculation is based on 2005 salaries and you used it for 2006; wouldn't that affect things?

[wheels]

The thing that makes me laugh the hardest about the whole Dunn thing is most of the people who want him traded because they think he's a bum are expecting nothing short of a haul in return.

They think he sucks, yet they expect to get the sun for him.

Go figure.

Good post.