tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post4322317234608516930..comments2007-08-23T14:58:16.188-04:00Justinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-26263411707480247692007-08-23T14:58:00.000-04:002007-08-23T14:58:00.000-04:00<I>If Adam Dunn does not want to be here beyond 2008, what is the point of picking up his option?</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I guess the point would be to try to compete next season. The argument in the article is that the Reds--if they get good-case improvements from the other young offensive players--have less ground to make up with Dunn in the lineup than without him. <BR/><BR/>That said, I'm not opposed to trading Dunn, if such a thing is possible, and if the return genuinely improves the ballclub. If Jay Bruce is indeed ready, such a trade becomes much more likely to improve the club. But I was operating under the impression that Dunn's no-trade clause prevented that. Maybe you're right that he'd be willing to waive it...but there must have been a reason he wanted it there in the first place.<BR/>-jJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-17132599269414141222007-08-23T11:57:00.000-04:002007-08-23T11:57:00.000-04:00Hi,<BR/><BR/>Getting Adam Dunn to sign a long-term extension certainly wouldn't be the worst thing this team could do. He is consistently productive at fairly high level. Suppose he doesn't want to sign an extension beyond 2008. What then? That, to me, is the most critical question the franchise faces. If Adam Dunn does not want to be here beyond 2008, what is the point of picking up his option? None. Start the post-Dunn era immediately. Trading him this winter would probably yield more than trading him June 15th or later. And I am certain that money could get him to waive that clause in his contract. If there is no FA starting pitchers worth pursuing then a trade becomes the sensible option. This team cannot go into 2008 with anything close to the same pitching staff and expect to compete. I know the record is better under Mackanin, but I don't think that will continue. Well, thanks for your time.<BR/><BR/>Dave<BR/><BR/>PS People assume that if you are for trading Adam Dunn that somehow indicates you don't think much of him as a ballplayer. That is not true. I see it as the best way to improving the team.texasdavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17215541522980498371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-45803027010626058712007-08-22T14:54:00.000-04:002007-08-22T14:54:00.000-04:00I guess the other thing one could say about Bruce's playing time is that past history suggests that that Hamilton and/or Griffey will be injured a fair bit next season, so we could potentially go with four outfielders again. I'd prefer to convert some of that talent into pitching and hope that Hopper can fill in whenever there are injuries, but if the there isn't good talent to be had via trades, it's not the worst option.<BR/>-jJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-85779676531165623042007-08-22T14:50:00.000-04:002007-08-22T14:50:00.000-04:00Hi,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments.<BR/><BR/>I wrote a detailed response to this last night, and when I went to post it, I got an error and lost everything.<BR/><BR/>So I'll be a bit more brief now:<BR/><BR/>* I ran a few numbers of my own, and I think you're right that we may have underestimated the expected contributions of Hopper/Freel because we didn't allow for enough PA's. My guess is we were shy by 10-15 runs, which is about where you were with your first post. I can elaborate on how I came to those numbers if you want.<BR/><BR/>* At this point, as far as Dunn is concerned, I think the Reds options are limited:<BR/><BR/>- Letting him walk: at this point, I think the best free agent starting pitcher may be Jason Jennings. I mean, seriously, who else is there? So even if we saved the $13 million next season, I'm not sure we'd be able to get a good enough pitcher now that Zambrano and Burhle are off the market. The Reds also will have some extra money to play with this season even if they pick up Dunn, because Milton ($11m), LaRue ($2.5m), Lohse ($4m), and (I'd expect) Hatteberg will be off the books. Dunn's option is only ~$3 million more than he's making this year ($10.5m).<BR/><BR/>We would probably get at least one compensation draft pick if he walked, but that won't help us for several years. And furthermore we have to pay those signing bonuses, which cuts (albeit a small amount) into the $$ saved a small amount.<BR/><BR/>- Keeping him seems like a better option to me. He's a known quantity, and has been incredibly consistent and durable the past four seasons. So we know what we'll get--roughly 100-110 runs created, with a loss of 10-15 runs in the field. That's good production, and will help the team. And $13 million seems pretty fair given comparably productive free-agent outfielders.<BR/><BR/>- Trades: if the Reds pick up his option, he has a no-trade clause through mid-season next year. But they could still try to move him at next year's deadline if the Reds aren't in the hunt (for a good return, of course).<BR/><BR/>* As far as the youth movement goes, I agree that Votto and Bruce should probably be playing with the Reds next year. I'd put Votto in a platoon with Cantu (or some other right-hander) at 1B, replacing Hatteberg. Finding room for Bruce is more of a challenge. Since I'm arguing that it makes the most sense to keep Dunn, my tendency is to trade Griffey. Moving Hamilton to RF and Bruce to CF should improve the defense about the same amount as moving Hamilton or Bruce to LF, and Griffey should still have good value in the offseason (I hope).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's how I see it.<BR/>-JustinJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-84685096641442933112007-08-21T15:46:00.000-04:002007-08-21T15:46:00.000-04:00I still have a problem with the 70 number. The way I look at is in 2008 the Reds will either have Adam Dunn in left field or they won't. If they have him they can count on 650 PA and 100 RC. If they don't have him they now have 650 PA to account for. They can either give it all to one person or split it among several. I feel that if they simply replace Dunn with Votto or Bruce they are going to get 70 RC out of those 650 PA. If they choose to split those PA between Freel and Hopper they will probably get 55 - 60 RC. In no case do I see them getting only 30 RC out of those 650 PA. Which is the number they would have to get for there to be a 70 run differential. Additionally, Freel, Hopper and Bruce are all markedly better defensively. While I can't see how Votto could be any worse. The Reds need to get Dunn to agree to waive his trade clause ($$$$). Or decline his option, offer him arbitration and pray he doesn't accept it. And then either trade him pitching, or use the money save and sign pitching while also using the draft compensation picks for pitching. This team needs a healthy infusion of pitching talent a lot more than it needs Adam Dunn. I base this on two things:1)their teamm pitching is abysmal, and 2)they have major league ready hitting at AAA. Anyway, that is how I see it.texasdavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17215541522980498371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-64182520382862549182007-08-20T15:11:00.000-04:002007-08-20T15:11:00.000-04:00Hi,<BR/><BR/>Ok, let me try to recreate the math. I should note that much of the credit/blame for that section of the article goes to Joel. My bits came later in that article, and I also did a lot of editorial help with John as he tried to translate what we gave him into readable English.<BR/><BR/>Based on the data at the time, here were the current and seasonal-projected runs created by Reds offensive players:<BR/><BR/>Griffey - 68 Runs Created (115 adjust for the full season)<BR/>Dunn - 64 RC (108)<BR/>Phillips - 60 RC (101)<BR/>Hatteberg - 45 RC (76)<BR/>Hamilton - 41 RC (69)<BR/>Gonzalez - 40 RC (68)<BR/>Encarnacion - 35 RC (59)<BR/>Freel - 25 RC (42)<BR/>Ross - 22 RC (37)<BR/>Conine - 21 RC (35)<BR/>Hopper - 14 RC (24)<BR/>Valentin - 12 RC (20)<BR/><BR/>So if we lost Dunn, we assumed we had to replace his 108 runs created with a combination of Freel and Hopper (we might have used VORP instead of RC here, but since we're assuming we knew who the replacements would be, we went with RC. Also, VORP can be problematic when players are swapping positions because their VORP depends so heavily the position they're playing--especially if going from CF to LF. We wanted to avoid that extra variable, just focusing on the raw offense, so we went with RC).<BR/><BR/>In a best-case scenario, we assumed that Freel would return to his old self and create 60 runs (+18 more than projected this year), while Hopper would double his output to 48 (+24 more than projected). That earns the Reds a total of 42 additional runs over what was projected at the time for this season, or <B>66 fewer than Dunn is expected to produce. </B><BR/><BR/>So that's where the estimate of ~70 runs came from. Granted, you probably should take away another 15-20 of those runs to account for replacing Dunn's defense with Hopper/Freel/Hamilton's defense in left. And there are all sorts of other methodologies/assumptions that one can bring to bear on this issue. But at least you can see the basis for the math now, I hope. :)<BR/><BR/>Does that help?<BR/>-JustinJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07697776280178146413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23241716.post-37133231993098586762007-08-20T10:35:00.000-04:002007-08-20T10:35:00.000-04:00Hi,<BR/><BR/>These numbers don't make any sense to me. How does he figure there is a 70 run difference between keeping Dunn and not keeping Dunn (130 runs needed to reach 90 wins versus 60 runs)?<BR/>The way I figure it is that there will be about a 25 run difference.<BR/>This is how I arrived at that figure. First, assume the Reds don't have AD in 2008. Second, assume that they merely replace Adam Dunn with another player. Third, assume that all the other players (Freel, Hamilton, etc.) get the same number of plate appearances, as a group, in 2008 as they did in 2007. Further assume they have the exact same level of productivity. That would make the only variable in the equation the 650 or so PA that Adam Dunn will have in 2007. Even if the Reds replaced that with a replacement level player they are only going to be down about 50 runs. (Assuming AD ends the 2007 season with a VORP of +50) Now the Reds have two players at AAA who are, IMO, ready for the majors - Votto and Bruce. I feel strongly that either of these players, if plugged into Dunn's spot, will hit at a substantially better than replacement level. Votto's defense is a question mark, but there is no doubt that Bruce is a much better defender than Adam Dunn. So how does this author come up with the 70 run differential? I must be slow, because I certainly don't follow his logic at all.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>Davetexasdavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17215541522980498371noreply@blogger.com