Adam Dunn redux
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
From: John Kasupski on 22 Sep 2009 15:56 On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT), HTP <tmbowman25(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >The Reds have the worst offense in the league. I think Adam Dunn is >still a legit topic here. Well, then I'll go back to what I said to Danny the other night. We're talking about a team where the guy who started the year at shortstop hit .210 with an OBP of .258 and the guy who replaced him after he was traded has hit .220 with a ..300 OBP, the guy with the most PT at 3B (Rosales) has hit .202 with a .293 OBP, the CF and leadoff man hit .238 with a .273 OBP, and the right fielder hit .208 with a .282 OBP. The guy who was supposed to start at 3B played in only 43 games, hit .209 with a .333 OBP, and got traded. The guy who was supposed to be the starting catcher only played in 77 games, spent a lot of his time at 1B while Votto was on the DL, and hit .249 with a .330 OBP. Looking at those numbers, I'm inclined to think that even Ted Williams in left field wouldn't have made that much difference in the Reds' offense this year. Now, you can try and maintain that the Reds should've gotten more for Dunn when they traded him, but at season's end, 29 teams passed on him and he was signed by the absolute worst team in baseball. If that's any indication of his value in the eyes of major league GMs - and I think it is - the Reds may have been lucky that they got anything more than a Double-A utility infielder for him. There was no interest in this guy. You can also maintain that the Reds didn't do enough to improve the offense after Dunn was traded - and you'll certainly get no argument from me on that point - but bringing back Dunn this past winter wasn't going to solve the problem when there were gaping holes at four other positions. They needed to do a lot more than that...and they still do, for that matter. JK
From: HTP on 22 Sep 2009 15:59 On Sep 22, 12:39 pm, "David Short" <David.No.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote: > "HTP" <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >The Reds have the worst offense in the league. I think Adam Dunn is > >still a legit topic here. > > Go into the wayback machine and have the reds re-up Adam for another year.. > Does it make a difference? > > They won't have the money to sign Mike Lincoln, The Virus or Arthur Rhodes > and probably to re-up stormy. Too bad so sad on the first two, but they > would have missed Rhodes and stormy. Without the two of them (and Lincoln) > they would have been forced to push Roenicke into the majors. > > I would guess that the virus' playing time would have gone to Dickerson. > They probably would not have been able to sign Gomes and Niz with Dunn in > the fold. > > I'm guessing 90 runs on offense. It may not be that much. He wouldn't have > given that many away with his glove, but it would have been painful to > watch. > > Would it have pushed this ballclub any closer to contention? No. No, I don't > think so. There just wasn't/isn't enough talent here right now. > > dfs I'm was making no claim other than the fact that its a legit topic.
From: HTP on 22 Sep 2009 16:48 On Sep 22, 12:56 pm, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)spamfilter.verizon.net> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:38:39 -0700 (PDT), HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >The Reds have the worst offense in the league. I think Adam Dunn is > >still a legit topic here. > > Well, then I'll go back to what I said to Danny the other night. We're talking > about a team where the guy who started the year at shortstop hit .210 with an > OBP of .258 and the guy who replaced him after he was traded has hit .220 with a > .300 OBP, the guy with the most PT at 3B (Rosales) has hit .202 with a .293 OBP, > the CF and leadoff man hit .238 with a .273 OBP, and the right fielder hit .208 > with a .282 OBP. The guy who was supposed to start at 3B played in only 43 > games, hit .209 with a .333 OBP, and got traded. The guy who was supposed to be > the starting catcher only played in 77 games, spent a lot of his time at 1B > while Votto was on the DL, and hit .249 with a .330 OBP. > > Looking at those numbers, I'm inclined to think that even Ted Williams in left > field wouldn't have made that much difference in the Reds' offense this year. bench Taveras, put Dickerson/Bruce in center, with Bruce/Gomes in rf. Now put Ted in left. That makes a huge difference to the offense. All theoretical of course, but its silly to say that swapping out Willie Tavares for Ted Williams makes almost no difference in an offense. > > Now, you can try and maintain that the Reds should've gotten more for Dunn when > they traded him, but at season's end, 29 teams passed on him and he was signed Youre use of the word "passed" implies that they considered signing him to fill a need, or were at least in a financial position to do so, and chose not to. This is false. Its not a possibility that Dunn could have signed with every one of the 30 teams. Go team-by-team and look at each teams LF or DH situation in last December. First eliminate the teams that cant or wont spend 10-15 million per year for him or anyone. Next, eliminate the teams that are fairly set at LF and/or DH. Now consider that there are a few other comparable outfielders on the market who were also looking for jobs. Youre left with a handful of teams. > > You can also maintain that the Reds didn't do enough to improve the offense > after Dunn was traded - and you'll certainly get no argument from me on that > point - but bringing back Dunn this past winter wasn't going to solve the > problem when there were gaping holes at four other positions. They needed to do > a lot more than that...and they still do, for that matter. i dont recall anyone claiming Dunn was a cure-all.
From: HTP on 22 Sep 2009 17:24 On Sep 22, 12:39 pm, "David Short" <David.No.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote: > "HTP" <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > > I would guess that the virus' playing time would have gone to Dickerson. > They probably would not have been able to sign Gomes and Niz with Dunn in > the fold. > > I'm guessing 90 runs on offense. It may not be that much. He wouldn't have > given that many away with his glove, but it would have been painful to > watch. I missed this. You think the Reds would have been 90 runs better offensively essentially swapping out TaverasNix/Gomes for Dunn? Thats alot. That would push them to 687 runs and 4.58/g. That would be 6th in the league. > > Would it have pushed this ballclub any closer to contention? No. No, I don't > think so. There just wasn't/isn't enough talent here right now. > I really think that had the Reds had been reasonably luckier on the injury front then they would have been at least a winning ballclub. Well, that and not playing WillieT everyday at leadoff.
From: tom dunne on 22 Sep 2009 18:21
On Sep 22, 1:34 pm, David Short <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > john smith wrote: > > I really wish people would stop getting ugly in here with all the > > personal attacks. The ticky tack back and forth nonsense reminds of a > > couple of fifth graders arguing with one another. This nonsense is just > > going nowhere... > > yup. I've stopped posting in this group because of all of the arguing - I think this is my first post here in a month. It seems the name- calling and personal attacks are worse now than in any of the threads I was ever involved in :( |