More kind words from Dunn as he makes his return to Cincy

[lollipopcurve]

Couple things:

Dunn has finally made the move to 1B. Long overdue. This was not going to happen with the Reds.

Dunn has improved as a hitter this year, after a several seasons of treading water as a Red. As noted on the telecasts, he's gone to a heavier bat and is using the whole field better. It is likely this would not have happened with the Reds, for whatever reason.

Fantasizing about Dunn still in a Reds uniform? Not the same guy you're looking at now....

[M2]

Gomes had a .751 OPS from 2006-8. While he certainly can do better than that, with repeated exposure he's not going to be phenomenally better than that.

Dunn's 2006-8 OPS was .897.

It's not really too hard to spot the qualitative difference between the two. Dunn needed to get himself away from the Reds in order to get to the next level, but Gomes isn't likely to replace what Dunn delivered while he was in a Reds uniform, let alone come close to matching the kind of production we'll be seeing from Dunn in the near future.

And this is coming from someone who was high on Gomes back to when he was in A ball. Ideally, he'd be a 200-300 PA backup OF.

[WMR]

Well, I'm not suggesting he was looking for the first opportunity he had to leave town. I really don't believe that was the case.

But what I'm saying is that a lot of people made comments that he was going to ask for money he knew the Reds were not able (or at very least going) to pay. Whether he was intentionally pricing himself out of the picture or simply trying to leverage it, I don't know. But a lot of people commented that Dunn re-signing was not a realistic thing, if not in part by his expected demands, the club's expected reluctance or both.

Even in hindsight, though, he got $20 mil in a sluggish economic situation. Given when the Reds traded him the financial situation was not quite as depressed, it was perfectly reasonable at that time to assume his demands were much, much higher. Arroyo said he was talking $100 mil in a large multi-year deal. While that was not ever going to be what it wound up as, I can't say I blame the Reds for balking at figures even close to half that.

Brutus, again, this is all supposition. You can't really know any of this, but you're pretending like these are the incontrovertible facts of the situation. That is simply not the case.

[westofyou]

Let's cut to the chase, the Reds LF has produced a .694 OPS this season, they have not replaced Dunn's production there or anywhere else on the field. To insist that they have is a waste of zeros and ones.

If you don't like Dunn we get it it, if you do like him we get it, but if you think that the Reds LF has produced a OPS above .700 then we do not get it. Because it's simply not true.

[nate]

Let's cut to the chase, the Reds LF has produced a .694 OPS this season, they have not replaced Dunn's production there or anywhere else on the field. To insist that they have is a waste of zeros and ones.

If you don't like Dunn we get it it, if you do like him we get it, but if you think that the Reds LF has produced a OPS above .700 then we do not get it. Because it's simply not true.

Right. It's like saying the Reds LF would've produced an OPS of .947...

...if Joey Votto had been playing LF.

[M2]

Let's cut to the chase, the Reds LF has produced a .694 OPS this season, they have not replaced Dunn's production there or anywhere else on the field. To insist that they have is a waste of zeros and ones.

If you don't like Dunn we get it it, if you do like him we get it, but if you think that the Reds LF has produced a OPS above .700 then we do not get it. Because it's simply not true.

Remember how every year earlier in the decade the starting pitching got fixed in August and September? I suspect that will become the new cry with the offense. A Jerry Hairston Jr. or a Jonny Gomes has a hot season and suddenly he'll be declared part of the solution. All bench players will be considered starters, all rookies will be can't-miss.

[Cyclone792]

Remember how every year earlier in the decade the starting pitching got fixed in August and September? I suspect that will become the new cry with the offense. A Jerry Hairston Jr. or a Jonny Gomes has a hot season and suddenly he'll be declared part of the solution. All bench players will be considered starters, all rookies will be can't-miss.

Too true, and I'm already considering Gomes to be the next Hairston. I mean, Hairston was the answer the masses were crying for last season. The Reds bring him back, and well, he turns back into himself for 2009.

Gomes will likely do the same thing in 2010. I'm cool with bringing him back in a platoon role against southpaws, as you suggested in a previous post, but the Reds will really need to limit his PAs vs. right-handers next season otherwise there will just be another hole left unfilled.

[nate]

The thing the Reds keep failing at is taking a nice 200 ABs and making it the solution to the starting job when it should be the solution to the bench.

[Highlifeman21]

Too true, and I'm already considering Gomes to be the next Hairston. I mean, Hairston was the answer the masses were crying for last season. The Reds bring him back, and well, he turns back into himself for 2009.

Gomes will likely do the same thing in 2010. I'm cool with bringing him back in a platoon role against southpaws, as you suggested in a previous post, but the Reds will really need to limit his PAs vs. right-handers next season otherwise there will just be another hole left unfilled.

Gomes just shouldn't play vs. RHP, much like Phillips shouldn't hit cleanup vs. RHP.

But, Gomes has proven valuable vs. LHP, and he's definitely 1 piece to a solid platoon. Unfortunately we haven't found a dude that can rake against RHP to pair with Gomes.

[Johnny Footstool]

They handled Joe Randa correctly -- sign him, let him play over his head for 3/4 of a season, then ship him out for prospects. But that's the exception.

[Brutus]

If Gomes had the number of innings and ABs that Nix has in LF, I might be more convinced.

I say, we're still on the road to figuring it out.

Gomes has only 70 plate appearances less than Nix. The LF aggregate totals for the Reds don't take a lot of his production into account because he's been logging so many innings in RF since the Bruce injury. The samples are not really far different between the two, though I understand your point.

[Brutus]

Gomes had a .751 OPS from 2006-8. While he certainly can do better than that, with repeated exposure he's not going to be phenomenally better than that.

Dunn's 2006-8 OPS was .897.

It's not really too hard to spot the qualitative difference between the two. Dunn needed to get himself away from the Reds in order to get to the next level, but Gomes isn't likely to replace what Dunn delivered while he was in a Reds uniform, let alone come close to matching the kind of production we'll be seeing from Dunn in the near future.

And this is coming from someone who was high on Gomes back to when he was in A ball. Ideally, he'd be a 200-300 PA backup OF.

Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005. So he's not even doing something that he has not sustained before. Unlike Jerry Hairston, and some past Reds' flash-in-the-pans, he's doing this at an age (28) that is conducive to improvement. Hairston's season came at 32 - typically the end of peak production - and had never really been replicated prior to that.

Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park. Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.

As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant. The question that has been discussed is whether the Reds have a suitable replacement, not whether the scrap heap in aggregate has performed at Dunn's level. Much of the LF OPS comes from McDonald, Dickerson and Hairston as well as Nix, instead of Nix and Gomes. Most of Gomes' hot streak has been logged as 'RF' OPS due to the Bruce injury. If Gomes and Nix were in a full platoon all season, or maybe Gomes getting a majority of the at-bats, that LF OPS would actually be looking rather handsome right now.

For an organization that is strapped for cash, you bet I'll take a guy with tremendous power that is going into peak age, when he may cost only 20 cents on the dollar compared to a guy with an actually similar skillset. The guy has shown this ability before. It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.

[westofyou]

As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant.

Except for the part about that being the production the Cincinnati Reds LF's have turned in this year so far.

Other than that it means nothing.

[nate]

Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

And the counting stats in those three years?

As someone else pointed out in another thread, showing up counts.

How about the last three years?

The difference in price is that Dunn showed up for the whole season and put in his work. Not to say Gomes wouldn't but he didn't.

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

The question is, can he do it for an entire season's worth of ABs? He never has before.

It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005.

But he only managed to get into 100 games that season.

Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park.

That's awesome, but the excitement is tempered greatly by it being done four years apart and in a couple hundred ABs this season.

Can he do it for a whole baseball season? Can the Reds afford to run that experiment to see if he can?

Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.

I don't think he's been short-changed. I think he's on the path to proving himself rather than having arrived.

It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.

I'm not worried about his ability to improve. I'm worried about his ability to continue the lofty production and stay on the field.

I'm all for Gomes being on the team next year.

I'm also all for the Reds either signing another player that makes Gomes an asset coming off the bench or swings a mean stick at another position.

[Highlifeman21]

Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005. So he's not even doing something that he has not sustained before. Unlike Jerry Hairston, and some past Reds' flash-in-the-pans, he's doing this at an age (28) that is conducive to improvement. Hairston's season came at 32 - typically the end of peak production - and had never really been replicated prior to that.

Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park. Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.

As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant. The question that has been discussed is whether the Reds have a suitable replacement, not whether the scrap heap in aggregate has performed at Dunn's level. Much of the LF OPS comes from McDonald, Dickerson and Hairston as well as Nix, instead of Nix and Gomes. Most of Gomes' hot streak has been logged as 'RF' OPS due to the Bruce injury. If Gomes and Nix were in a full platoon all season, or maybe Gomes getting a majority of the at-bats, that LF OPS would actually be looking rather handsome right now.

For an organization that is strapped for cash, you bet I'll take a guy with tremendous power that is going into peak age, when he may cost only 20 cents on the dollar compared to a guy with an actually similar skillset. The guy has shown this ability before. It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.

How is it not very relevant?

Reds LFers have OPS'd .694 combined this year, which means that the Reds haven't come remotely close to sniffing replacing Dunn's production.

The Reds might have a suitable platoon replacement with Gomes. They still need to find someone who rakes vs RHP to complete the platoon. My boy Laynce Nix sure hasn't fit that description, as much as I've wanted him to.

Until they figure out their platoon, they can't even begin to think they've replaced Dunn's production.

As for the whole finances thing, we've got plenty of deadweight in contracts on this club that if we didn't have, we could afford Dunn. But, we chose to keep bad contracts, and then sign more dreck, so Dunn wasn't an option to us. Wouldn't you like to have Dunn for the bargain of $10M per year, or would you like to think that you can get less production for less money from Gomes, and somehow it'll magically equal Dunn's production?