Printable View
If the Nationals had a hitter like Dunn in '05 when they challenged for the division, there's a good chance they could have won the division. Their biggest Achilles heel in recent years has been their offense, power production in particular, and Dunn is an immediate and profound remedy to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
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.
Why??? Are ALL 10 of those teams stupid, is that you're contention? If it's cost, well, yeah, that's one of my complaints if you read my comments. So why not then?? Are a majority of AL teams being run by idiots too?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
As far as Bowden is concerned. Take a look at the Nats record over the 4 years he's been there. Four years into a gig is normally time enough to see whether something is working out or not, his trend continues to be DOWN. Fewer wins almost every year than the year before.
Sounds like he should apply to be CEO of the automakers to me.
Pretty much, or they found someone else.....Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Bowden has basically given the Nationals real tools to survive. He refitted them, and while painful, in the long run they should look good. If Peter Angelos dies...Quote:
As far as Bowden is concerned. Take a look at the Nats record over the 4 years he's been there. Four years into a gig is normally time enough to see whether something is working out or not, his trend continues to be DOWN. Fewer wins almost every year than the year before.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I'm not defending Bowden's overall body of work. I just think you aren't giving Dunn a fair shake.Quote:
As far as Bowden is concerned. Take a look at the Nats record over the 4 years he's been there. Four years into a gig is normally time enough to see whether something is working out or not, his trend continues to be DOWN. Fewer wins almost every year than the year before.
Sounds like he should apply to be CEO of the automakers to me.
Yeah, Johnson's constant stay on the DL year in and year out complicates matters, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
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.
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.
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 ;).
Perhaps Dunn doesn't want to DH and therefore didn't want to sign with an AL team.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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 YEAH DAAAAWG
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
Besides, disagreeing with GM's moves is a ritual in baseball, ain't it? :D
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:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
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.Quote:
Perhaps Dunn doesn't want to DH and therefore didn't want to sign with an AL team.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KowboyKoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX
This deserves repeating in this thread as well, reference the Angels signing Abreau to a one year, $5 million dollar deal.
Theres at least one positive from all this. You know what you are getting from him. 35+ HR, 100+ Walks and 100+ K's.
You're really, really stripping this down a lot. You realize that, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
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.
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.
It is if he puts butts in the seats, which I admit is a stretch--I don't thinik he's a big enough name (or talent) to actually draw a lot of additional fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
It doesn't mean "STFU", I'm actually rather enjoying this debate. But I think you're focusing and putting far too much weight in the negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
I think we misinterpreted each other here. I realize you didn't say that or insinuate it, and I didn't mean to insinuate that you did, but I could certainly see where I did.Quote:
But before I leave, I NEVER SAID Abreu > Dunn. Nowhere.
And both signings are good for their respective teams. Abreu is a great .280/.400/.450 guy for a contending team like the Angels, especially at that price. Likewise, Dunn is great for the Nat's. Like I said earlier, the Nat's biggest Achilles heel ever since moving to Washington has been power production and getting on base, and Dunn remedies that instantaneously. I'm not sure about how they compare in terms of baserunning, but I highly doubt the gap is all that substantial, and Dunn is going to be playing 1B for the Nats while Abreu is going to DH and play the outfield, so the defense is essentially a moot point since they'll be playing different positions. It may be twice as much, but it still isn't that much, especially when Carlos Silva is getting 12 million a year to suck like a Hoover. And this also leads me into the next part.Quote:
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.
It's only a two year deal. If they had signed him for anything more than two years, I wouldn't be nearly as adamant in defending the deal, but two years for a guy like Dunn isn't bad at all. Especially when you consider that, if things go according to plan and maybe a little better, they could be ready to compete three or four years from now and they'd be able to resign Dunn just in time for that to happen. That's very speculative and optimistic at this point, but just saying.Quote:
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.
Except that he could generate them a lot of revenue, and hell, who knows, maybe he can help them be reasonably competitive. I wouldn't go bet the bank on the Nationals, but I can see them being reasonably competitive now, certainly moreso than they would be without him. Plus if/when he walks at the end of the two years, they'll probably rake in some draft picks for him, or they can trade him for some solid prospects in year two of the deal.Quote:
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.
For what it's worth, the new Nationals Park is more or less a neutral park in terms of favoring pitchers vs. hitters.Quote:
And he's probably not even going to hit 30 HR's either year for the Nats, much less 40.
Quote:
(multi-year): Batting - 101, Pitching - 102
(one-year): Batting - 101, Pitching - 102
Over 100 favors batters, under 100 favors pitchers.
Really this signing isn't as bad as you think OFG, if anything needs to be worked on its roster construction. How many OF do you guys have now?
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/68911/nationalsof.PNG
Even if you compared Abreu and Dunn at their prices and years, Dunn is entering his prime with Abreu on the decline. Abreu will not start as many games and is much more of a liability in the outfield than Dunn playing 1B. Also, as already pointed out, Dunn strikes out more, but does that matter when he hits for more power and projects to get on base just as much as Abreu?
Good point. That's a possibility. I don't recall seeing any statements from him or his agent about that, though (which, of course, doesn't mean it isn't true).Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
I think Steve Phillips is evidence against this. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
I think he's just saying that you're really overthinking it and digging into it deep.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
They are not a wash offensively. Abreu's OPS+ the last 4 years has ranged from 114 to 126. Dunn, from 114 to 141. Dunn had an off year in 2006, but those other 4 seasons were 129, 136, 141. Abreu's other 3 (besides his 114) were 120, 126, and 126. Then factor in that this is about projecting future value, and Dunn is easily ahead by a solid margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Abreu's walk rate is trending downward. His OBP's the last two years were .369 and .371. Dunn is better at getting on base and CRUSHES him in the power department.
Defensively, they're a wash. Slight edge to Abreu on the bases.
Barring injury, yes, he will. The guy has phenomenal power.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
There's a great article in The Hardball Times annual analyzing the results of the Hit Tracker tool, which measures various attributes of player home runs, such as distance, wind, ballpark, etc. Dunn had 6 home runs of 450+ feet, more than anybody else. His average "standard distance" on his home runs was 412.2. Standard distance is how far the homer would travel if hit in 70 degree calm weather at sea level.
Using the tool, they then projected how many home runs Dunn would hit in 2009 given each home park (they did the same for Manny Ramirez and Jason Bay). His 2009 projection in Washington is 44 home runs. His lowest projection is 36 with the Mets, most is 49 with the Dodgers. Dunn is a legit 40 home run power, regardless of park. There is absolutely no way he hits under 30 home runs in each of his two years with the Nationals, barring injury.
LOL. That's certainly true.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
Exactly. They're a wash in almost every way, until you factor in that Dunn is entering/in his prime and Abreu is in the twilight of his career.Quote:
Even if you compared Abreu and Dunn at their prices and years, Dunn is entering his prime with Abreu on the decline. Abreu will not start as many games and is much more of a liability in the outfield than Dunn playing 1B. Also, as already pointed out, Dunn strikes out more, but does that matter when he hits for more power and projects to get on base just as much as Abreu?
Something like that yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I didn't know anything about that projection or tool, but it makes plenty of sense. Very few of Dunn's homers and squeakers that just make it over the fence, and a good portion of them are jaw-dropping shots.Quote:
Barring injury, yes, he will. The guy has phenomenal power.
There's a great article in The Hardball Times annual analyzing the results of the Hit Tracker tool, which measures various attributes of player home runs, such as distance, wind, ballpark, etc. Dunn had 6 home runs of 450+ feet, more than anybody else. His average "standard distance" on his home runs was 412.2. Standard distance is how far the homer would travel if hit in 70 degree calm weather at sea level.
Using the tool, they then projected how many home runs Dunn would hit in 2009 given each home park (they did the same for Manny Ramirez and Jason Bay). His 2009 projection in Washington is 44 home runs. His lowest projection is 36 with the Mets, most is 49 with the Dodgers. Dunn is a legit 40 home run power, regardless of park. There is absolutely no way he hits under 30 home runs in each of his two years with the Nationals, barring injury.
The projection is a weighted average of his home runs the last 3 years, and then adjusted for the factors of each park and climate.
seems like this gives them a surplus of power hitters...pena, milage, dunn...seems, to me on paper, like a lot of guys with plenty of pop, but who is going to get on? you can't win consistently by hitting solo's all year.
They have like no power outside of Dunn.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
- 117 homers last season - 15th out of 16 teams in the NL last season
- .373 team slugging percent - Last in the NL
- Leading home run hitters were Ryan Zimmerman and Lastings Milledge with 14
- The only other players with double digit homers were Willie Harris (13), Ron Belliard (11), and Elijah Dukes (13), and there's no way Harris duplicates his performance from last year, and I'd bet against Belliard duplicating his as well. Zimmerman, Dukes, and Milledge should get better, but still not much power there.
Sorry, that part of my comment wasn't actually directed at you - it was more of a general statement. The Every time any decision is made, or in the case of Dunn not made, people criticize the GM's by implying that they are stupid, don't understand the "new" statistics, and can't make a decent decision to save their life. And I just think that is arrogant. Do I agree with every decision by any GM? Of course not. But they have the job they have because they can convince people of their ability to put together a team that either wins or makes money. And that takes a combination of intellectual ability and baseball knowledge that I'm guessing no one on this forum has.Quote:
Originally Posted by YEAH DAAAAWG
No worries.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
also who said Pena was starting? There OF to me looks like Willingham, Milledge, Dukes and Kearns?
Hopefully Willingham, Milledge, and Dukes. It's pretty apparent to me that Kearns is not capable of hitting well enough to be a major league regular.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
...I'm leading the parade down Charles Street. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
Would I have wanted Dunn for the O's? Heck yes. But I do see OFG's point on one thing: $10m is probably too much money, and it's the one reason I would see that most AL GMs didn't bite. (I'm hopeful that this means the O's are seriously considering extending Brian Roberts and building around him, but I don't know if that'll be the case.)
I have looked at Bowden moves and I am not sure how he got a job after Cinci, his moves were bad, and I also think that he gets out smarted. Now I also think that no GM is worse than Bill Bavasi, I mean seriously Jose Vidro!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by kenny1234
At least his name wasn't Carl Everett :PQuote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
He really hit the lottery with Carlos Silva, though :p.
I saw something earlier where OldFatGuy said that in Dunn hit 40 homers in Cinergy Field and he'll perhaps only 30 homers for the Nationals... The two stadiums are basically a wash though.
Cinergy Field- 330, 375, 404, 375, 330
Nationals Park- 336, 377, 402, 370, 335
Almost identical in terms of distances, so either one would be easy for Dunn to hit homers in.
Dunn...or anybody else for that matter...hasn't played in Cinergy Field since 2002....:pQuote:
Originally Posted by 5dodgers5
The Reds have been playing in Great American Ballpark since 2003, and it's dimensions are close to the Nationals Park dimensions as well, but dimensions aren't the only aspect of stadiums that affect offense.
LOL. I looked up on google "Cincinnati Reds stadium info" and went with the top choice... didn't really check my facts.