Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KowboyKoop
If Nick Johnson were a durable player, you can definitely argue that Dunn isn't a great signing. That's fine..but that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Adam Dunn vs. the .325 OBP guy who rarely strikes out that you brought up. Adam Dunn is significantly better than that guy offensively. Adam Dunn is a small upgrade offensively over Nick Johnson if Johnson can stay healthy and thus, wouldn't be worth the contract...if Johnson was durable, but he's not.
This is a good signing for the Nats. They really should trade Johnson for something decent in return...there will be a team willing to give up a nice arm perhaps for him.
Yeah, Johnson's constant stay on the DL year in and year out complicates matters, I know.
FTR, I don't recall bringing up a .325 OBP guy, but if I did, OK, fair enough comparison.
As for trading Johnson, again this is another reason, IMO, why it wasn't a great deal. With Johnson's injury history, they'll get very little for him most likely right now.
Had they entered the year with Johnson at first (a year they're not going anywhere anyway, with or without Dunn), and had he stayed healthy and played his usual first base and got on base his usual 40% of the time, I believe they could've gotten more for him in June in a deal. But, that's a huge risk, given his injury situation.
We're gonna disagree, that's all.
For me, if I were looking at the whole year, I'd take a chance on Johnson (man the guy is due to be healthy), and get a .400 OBP with 20 dingers for little money, OR, have a nice trade guy in June if necessary.
Signing Dunn at $10 million a year, in this economy, means he ain't going nowhere in June, nobody is gonna trade for him at that price when the economy is likely to be worse in June than now, and the Nats aren't going anywhere either way.
It's another reason why I did like them going after Tex. Yeah, he was gonna cost twice as much, but it was an eight year deal, long enough to turn the franchise around, PLUS he's better than Dunn.
Basically renting a career .247 hitter for $10 million a year at first base for two years, in this economy, and IMO it's a bad deal. I'm in the minority. Let's see where the Nats finish both years of this deal.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
For what it's worth, I don't think this move does much considering the state of the team right now. It's not a terrible move, but a contender would've gotten more out of signing Dunn.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
You're grossly underestimating Dunn's value if you don't think there would be teams interested in trading for him if the Nationals were to shop him in either year of this deal. There's always a team at the deadline looking for a left-handed power bat, and I can name half a dozen teams off the top of my head that could (have) used a guy like Dunn. The Twins, Orioles, Mets, Pirates, Giants, and Cardinals, there ya go ;).
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
I have no idea why an AL team didn't sign Dunn. It certainly has nothing to do with Dunn being a bad player, though.
Perhaps Dunn doesn't want to DH and therefore didn't want to sign with an AL team.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YEAH DAAAAWG
You're grossly underestimating Dunn's value if you don't think there would be teams interested in trading for him if the Nationals were to shop him in either year of this deal. There's always a team at the deadline looking for a left-handed power bat, and I can name half a dozen teams off the top of my head that could (have) used a guy like Dunn. The Twins, Orioles, Mets, Pirates, Giants, and Cardinals, there ya go ;).
If they wanted him at this price, they would have signed him already. Those teams may have different needs halfway through the season - there is usually someone that has an injury and needs a left-handed bat - but there wasn't obviously a ton of interest now. And I don't think it is because most MLB GM's are stupid. I'm sorry, believing that you really know more than the people that get paid to run professional teams is a ridiculous level of arrogance. I'm not saying that every deal makes sense, but the people hired to be GM's are not stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dps
Perhaps Dunn doesn't want to DH and therefore didn't want to sign with an AL team.
That was my first reaction - if he had decided that he didn't want to DH, there are a lot fewer places for him to go.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Dunn stated that he would much rather play for an NL team. Not sure where that was though or how long ago...I'd imagine that since he was a FA for so long....he wasn't quite so picky as time went by.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
I'm sorry, believing that you really know more than the people that get paid to run professional teams is a ridiculous level of arrogance. I'm not saying that every deal makes sense, but the people hired to be GM's are not stupid.
Yeah, OK. I just can't seem to help myself when it comes to Bowden. I thought he did a lousy job at Cincy and I really haven't agreed with his moves here with my team, the Nats. But you're right, that's arrogant. If I were GM, they'd probably be worse. (Man that hurts to say out loud).
Besides, disagreeing with GM's moves is a ritual in baseball, ain't it? :D
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kenny1234
I'm sorry, believing that you really know more than the people that get paid to run professional teams is a ridiculous level of arrogance. I'm not saying that every deal makes sense, but the people hired to be GM's are not stupid.
See, the funny thing is, I never said I thought or felt that way, so I don't know how you got the impression that I did. I do think it was a mistake that they didn't sign him or try to sign him or take into consideration making a run at him, or whatever the case may be, but I never indicated that I feel that I'm smarter than GM X, Y, or Z. They all could have, and still could use, the high level of offensive dominance and presence he brings to the lineup, but there's obviously a lot more than talent (offensive or otherwise) and cost that goes into whether or not a team decides to sign a player or to attempt to sign a player.
Quote:
Perhaps Dunn doesn't want to DH and therefore didn't want to sign with an AL team.
This could just be me pulling something out of the air, but I do seem to recall Dunn stating his preference to continue playing the field. Again, it's possible, if not probable, that I'm wrong on that.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KowboyKoop
I'd imagine that since he was a FA for so long....he wasn't quite so picky as time went by.
Well, a couple weeks ago there were reports/articles saying that Dunn said he didn't want to play for the Nationals, and we all see what happened there :D.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
For what it's worth, I don't think this move does much considering the state of the team right now. It's not a terrible move, but a contender would've gotten more out of signing Dunn.
Yes & No - adding Dunn (I simmed 35 season with & then without him) does make a significant change in the Nats W/L they go from a 72 win team upto 78 win team & indirectly affects their opponents more than their division finish.
However,& this is based on what I have read Dunn doesn't get a no trade clause so THEY could trade him for prospects at deadline,if,as is likely,they are out contention.
Ofcourse,all this is dependent on Dunn's form,tightness of WC race & finances but overall at 10 million coupled that a team who would get wouldn't be trading for a rental (thanks to that extra year) the package they would get back would be superior to the haul Arizona forked over in 08 (Castillo/Owings & Buck)
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRENCHREDSOX
Yes & No - adding Dunn (I simmed 35 season with & then without him) does make a significant change in the Nats W/L they go from a 72 win team upto 78 win team & indirectly affects their opponents more than their division finish.
However,& this is based on what I have read Dunn doesn't get a no trade clause so THEY could trade him for prospects at deadline,if,as is likely,they are out contention.
Ofcourse,all this is dependent on Dunn's form,tightness of WC race & finances but overall at 10 million coupled that a team who would get wouldn't be trading for a rental (thanks to that extra year) the package they would get back would be superior to the haul Arizona forked over in 08 (Castillo/Owings & Buck)
It wouldn't be much superior, if at all, I wouldn't think. And FWIW, I wouldn't call BBM a reliable projection client.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
This deserves repeating in this thread as well, reference the Angels signing Abreau to a one year, $5 million dollar deal.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Theres at least one positive from all this. You know what you are getting from him. 35+ HR, 100+ Walks and 100+ K's.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OldFatGuy
This deserves repeating in this thread as well, reference the Angels signing Abreau to a one year, $5 million dollar deal.
You're really, really stripping this down a lot. You realize that, don't you?
Abreu and Dunn are roughly a wash offensively. Dunn has more power, Abreu gets on base at a slightly better percentage and has a better batting average, both walk a ton, and both have roughly the same career OPS. However, I don't think you realize that Abreu isn't exactly the master of putting the ball in play either. Abreu strikes out an average of 127 times per 162 games, while Dunn K's an average of 180 times per 162 games. A decent gap, but again, Abreu isn't exactly great at putting the bat on the ball either.
Defensively Abreu really isn't that great. I don't know his defensive numbers and don't know where to find them, but I doubt he's significantly better than Dunn at this stage of his career. Neither are particularly fast, but I've heard both described as smart baserunners, at the least.
Lastly, factor in that Dunn is entering his age 29 season and should be hitting his prime, while Abreu is entering his age 35 season and on the decline, and the Abreu > Dunn argument really makes little to no sense, especially for a team like the Nationals. At the very least Dunn is going to put people in the seats and sell jerseys because people will want to come see him hit home runs and I think he'll end up being a fan favorite. And maybe, just maybe, if the Nationals can put things together and get the kids like Marrero and Detwiler developed in the next couple years, they could be able to resign him right around the time when they may be ready to compete.
I completely fail to see how this is a bad deal in anyway.
Re: Dunn signs a two-year contract with the Nationals
Well, first I'll admit up front that I don't know what "stripping this down a lot" means, but if it means STFU, OK, I'll quit. I went overboard with Dickay earlier today, so maybe it's just a bad day for me.
But before I leave, I NEVER SAID Abreu > Dunn. Nowhere.
I basically said exactly what you said, offensively they are a wash. But the Nats paid TWICE AS MUCH for Dunn. TWICE AS MUCH. Is Dunn twice as good as Abreu? Not in my opinion. Especially baserunning and fielding, although Abreu is deteriorating rapidly in the field.
Next year the Nats are going to face a couple of other decisions, in particular Zimmerman becomes arb eligible. So, IMO, again, $20 million for two years for a left handed batter that's not much better than another that signed the same day for $5 million, and isn't all that much better than the left handed first baseman they have now (though he is injury prone), and on a team that's going to probably finish in last place both years, or at the best next to last (given Florida's desire to spend nothing on ballplayers), and IMO they could do that well without Dunn.
Finishing 4th in the NL East with Dunn is no better than finishing 4th in the NL East without him, and in fact is worse since you're committing $20 million dollars to do it.
And he's probably not even going to hit 30 HR's either year for the Nats, much less 40.
