....With the trade of Adam. However, after reading some of his quotes,
I'm not sure I mind as much now. Granted, I'm reading between the lines,
but seems like he didn't have much of a desire to stay with the Reds.

"It was one of those pleasant surprises," Dunn said of the call
informing him of the deal. "Coming off of a terrible series that we had
-- and it's been a terrible month we've had in Cincinnati -- and I get a
phone call today saying I've been traded to a first-place team. As a
player, that's all you ask for."

More here:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080811&content_id=3291208&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin

--
Steve
...............................
P R O J E C T - 4 3
http://www.project-43.com/
The Future of Classic Rock
...............................
See the new Project-43 Forums
at http://project-43.com/bb

Steve M. Mann wrote:
> ...With the trade of Adam. However, after reading some of his quotes,
> I'm not sure I mind as much now. Granted, I'm reading between the lines,
> but seems like he didn't have much of a desire to stay with the Reds.
>
> "It was one of those pleasant surprises," Dunn said of the call
> informing him of the deal. "Coming off of a terrible series that we had
> -- and it's been a terrible month we've had in Cincinnati -- and I get a
> phone call today saying I've been traded to a first-place team. As a
> player, that's all you ask for."
>
> More here:
> http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080811&content_id=3291208&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin
>
.....why in the heck would a player want to play out the string on a team
like this? Loyalty to his laundry? He's got a chance to play for a first
place team.

This shows you how silly I am. I'm hoping that he went to Walt and
said..."Look Walt, I want you to trade me for whatever you can get. Come
signing time, I'll listen to your offer just as I would if you kept me
and we played out the string."

Man, hope springs eternal.

dfs

On Aug 12, 9:22 am, "Steve M. Mann" <rockermannLOOS...@steve-mann.com>
wrote:
> ...With the trade of Adam. However, after reading some of his quotes,
> I'm not sure I mind as much now. Granted, I'm reading between the lines,
> but seems like he didn't have much of a desire to stay with the Reds.
>
> "It was one of those pleasant surprises," Dunn said of the call
> informing him of the deal. "Coming off of a terrible series that we had
> -- and it's been a terrible month we've had in Cincinnati -- and I get a
> phone call today saying I've been traded to a first-place team. As a
> player, that's all you ask for."
>
> More here:http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080811&content_id=3291208&v...

Imagine that this is your life:

----
The company you work for, the only one you have ever worked for, isn't
very good. The upper management seems to have no business plan, and
the coworkers they hire to work with you are often terrible. You put
in your hours and you're generally a strong contributor, but many of
your company's shareholders endlessly complain that you don't do
enough. Despite being more consistent and reliable over the last five
years than any other employee, your shortcomings are highlighted as
much as your successes - you're even berated in public about it.
You've been well paid for your time, but you're fairly sure the
company is going to let you go at the end of the year rather than give
you a modest raise.

Two months before your contract with the company expires, you are
given an opportunity with a different firm, one that is much more
successful and seems genuinely interested in having you as an
employee. You anticipate a much better working environment, more
competent management, and a chance to shine on your career's biggest
stage - a stage your previous employer hasn't seen in 13 years. Even
though it's just for a few months, your entire work life has just been
substantially improved in nearly every way imaginable.
----

How much desire would you have to stay with your old company?

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:22:25 -0500, "Steve M. Mann"
<rockermannLOOSEIT@steve-mann.com> wrote:

>...With the trade of Adam. However, after reading some of his quotes,
>I'm not sure I mind as much now. Granted, I'm reading between the lines,
>but seems like he didn't have much of a desire to stay with the Reds.

Well, you didn't have to read between the lines when he outright said
that he was interested in staying earlier this season (not that long ago
that dreams of making the playoffs this year would have been deluding
him). You can certainly doubt that he meant it, but as I pointed out
yesterday, most of you guys were certain he was going to bolt the first
time he had a chance, and he didn't.

>"It was one of those pleasant surprises," Dunn said of the call
>informing him of the deal. "Coming off of a terrible series that we had
>-- and it's been a terrible month we've had in Cincinnati -- and I get a
>phone call today saying I've been traded to a first-place team. As a
>player, that's all you ask for."

Well, he gets to play, perhaps, in his first playoff games. He'll still
be a FA at the end of the year anyway, and he's making millions in any
case. None of that, however, means they couldn't have resigned him, and
at the very least, got something back for him equal to his worth.

For all the arm waving over The Trade with Jimbo a few years ago, that
was one where we dealt guys who "might" do something, or "might" be able
to replicate their career year highs. In this case, they dealt Dunn, who
does what he does year in and year out, is still only 28, and with who's
absence an already inconsistent lineup has now essentially been
castrated (go look at the OPS numbers of what we have left to trot out
there every night) and in return received essentially nothing.

If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done was
received equal value.

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************

Kevin McClave wrote:
> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done was
> received equal value.

We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt can
find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without knowing who is on
that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep well of talent. It's possible
that Buck is the worst player involved in the deal. If that's the case,
it starts to look a lot better.

dfs

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0400, David Short
<David.no.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:

>Kevin McClave wrote:
>> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done was
>> received equal value.
>
>We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt can
>find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without knowing who is on
>that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep well of talent. It's possible
>that Buck is the worst player involved in the deal. If that's the case,
>it starts to look a lot better.

How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not guys who
emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more legitimate
prospects at the time of the deal?

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************

Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Kevin McClave
<kmcclave@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>?

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0400, David Short
> <David.no.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>
>>Kevin McClave wrote:
>>> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done
>>> was received equal value.
>>
>>We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt
>>can find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without
>>knowing who is on that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep
>>well of talent. It's possible that Buck is the worst player
>>involved in the deal. If that's the case, it starts to look a
>>lot better.
>
> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not
> guys who emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more
> legitimate prospects at the time of the deal?

Quoting the Enquirer here:

The Reds could have kept Dunn for the rest of the year and
gotten draft picks had he left the team as a free agent.

But in order for that to happen, the Reds would have had to
offer Dunn arbitration. In that instance, Dunn could have
accepted the Reds' offer and he would have been back on the
roster, and eligible for a big one-year contract.

Miller said the Dunn trade to Arizona was preferable because the
Reds got the players they wanted.

"We felt this was a good deal," Miller said. "We got three
quality players."

"Miller" being Reds assistant general manager Bob Miller ... my
read on this is, the Reds already know who the PTBNL's are, they
just can't release that information yet. For whatever reason.

--
Cheers,
--Jeff
Let's Go Orange!

"Orange J. Dood" <no_this_isnt@my_email.com> wrote
> Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Kevin McClave
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0400, David Short
>>>Kevin McClave wrote:
>>>> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done
>>>> was received equal value.
>>>
>>>We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt
>>>can find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without
>>>knowing who is on that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep
>>>well of talent. It's possible that Buck is the worst player
>>>involved in the deal. If that's the case, it starts to look a
>>>lot better.
>>
>> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not
>> guys who emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more
>> legitimate prospects at the time of the deal?

I honestly don't have a clue about the answer to this question.

> Quoting the Enquirer here:
>
> The Reds could have kept Dunn for the rest of the year and
> gotten draft picks had he left the team as a free agent.
>
> But in order for that to happen, the Reds would have had to
> offer Dunn arbitration. In that instance, Dunn could have
> accepted the Reds' offer and he would have been back on the
> roster, and eligible for a big one-year contract.

I was worried about that with Aurillia. I think it would be far less likely
that Dunn would have accepted a single year arbitration contract when he
could have negotiated on the free agent market as the best hitter available.
My take is the reds didn't want draft picks because they didn't want to risk
having to pay a signing bonus. Remember the reds have not signed this year's
top pick and are in danger of losing him. (They aren't alone in this. It's
almost the industry standard.)

> Miller said the Dunn trade to Arizona was preferable because the
> Reds got the players they wanted.
>
> "We felt this was a good deal," Miller said. "We got three
> quality players."
>
> "Miller" being Reds assistant general manager Bob Miller ... my
> read on this is, the Reds already know who the PTBNL's are, they
> just can't release that information yet. For whatever reason.

Yeah. The best scenareo for the home nine is that they have a couple lists
of maybe three players each and they get to select which ones they want at
the end of the year.

There is even some rumor that guys on the 40 man roster could be involved,
but having them as PTBNL is one way around forcing the diamondbacks to put
good young players through waivers at a time when they would be claimed for
sure.

On the other hand, they could have just aquired crap. At this point, we just
don't know.

dfs

On Aug 12, 5:34 pm, Kevin McClave <kmccl...@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0400, David Short
>
> <David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
> >Kevin McClave wrote:
> >> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done was
> >> received equal value.
>
> >We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt can
> >find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without knowing who is on
> >that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep well of talent. It's possible
> >that Buck is the worst player involved in the deal. If that's the case,
> >it starts to look a lot better.
>
> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not guys who
> emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more legitimate
> prospects at the time of the deal?
>

I dont know the answer to this. But one trade I do remember when the
PTBNL was shockingly good was in 1983 when Len Barker was traded from
the Indians to the Braves for a no-name and 2 PTBNL. After the season,
the Braves sent Brett Butler, who was already an established MLB
player, and Brook Jacoby, a top prospect, to the Indians. I was a
teenager at the time and I remember scratching my head over that one.
Barker simply wasnt all that good before or after the trade.

Anyway, the rumour mill says were getting Micah Owings.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:51:58 -0700 (PDT), tmbowman25@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Aug 12, 5:34 pm, Kevin McClave <kmccl...@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0400, David Short
>>
>> <David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>> >Kevin McClave wrote:
>> >> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done was
>> >> received equal value.
>>
>> >We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt can
>> >find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without knowing who is on
>> >that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep well of talent. It's possible
>> >that Buck is the worst player involved in the deal. If that's the case,
>> >it starts to look a lot better.
>>
>> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not guys who
>> emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more legitimate
>> prospects at the time of the deal?
>
>I dont know the answer to this. But one trade I do remember when the
>PTBNL was shockingly good was in 1983 when Len Barker was traded from
>the Indians to the Braves for a no-name and 2 PTBNL. After the season,
>the Braves sent Brett Butler, who was already an established MLB
>player, and Brook Jacoby, a top prospect, to the Indians. I was a
>teenager at the time and I remember scratching my head over that one.
>Barker simply wasnt all that good before or after the trade.

Interesting. I suppose it's possible that they are going to get someone
the D-backs are actually using in the Majors right now (see Lewis,
Mark).

> Anyway, the rumour mill says were getting Micah Owings.

Who, they also say, is having shoulder issues and might be shut down.

I haven't checked out his numbers.

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************

On Aug 13, 8:39 am, Kevin McClave <kmccl...@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:51:58 -0700 (PDT), tmbowma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >On Aug 12, 5:34 pm, Kevin McClave <kmccl...@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:24:56 -0400, David Short
>
> >> <David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
> >> >Kevin McClave wrote:
> >> >> If they wanted to trade him, the worst they should have done was
> >> >> received equal value.
>
> >> >We can only hope the PTBNL list contains some gold and that Walt can
> >> >find it. It's impossible to evaluate this deal without knowing who is on
> >> >that list. The diamondbacks DO have a deep well of talent. It's possible
> >> >that Buck is the worst player involved in the deal. If that's the case,
> >> >it starts to look a lot better.
>
> >> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not guys who
> >> emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more legitimate
> >> prospects at the time of the deal?
>
> >I dont know the answer to this. But one trade I do remember when the
> >PTBNL was shockingly good was in 1983 when Len Barker was traded from
> >the Indians to the Braves for a no-name and 2 PTBNL. After the season,
> >the Braves sent Brett Butler, who was already an established MLB
> >player, and Brook Jacoby, a top prospect, to the Indians. I was a
> >teenager at the time and I remember scratching my head over that one.
> >Barker simply wasnt all that good before or after the trade.
>
> Interesting. I suppose it's possible that they are going to get someone
> the D-backs are actually using in the Majors right now (see Lewis,
> Mark).

Can't be according to Neyer's Transaction Primer

http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/1999/0908/46397.html

(Owings is OK by this because he was in the minors at the time
of the trade)
>
> > Anyway, the rumour mill says were getting Micah Owings.
>
> Who, they also say, is having shoulder issues and might be shut down.
>
> I haven't checked out his numbers.


Started off well. 4-0 with a 3.48 ERA and a 28/9 K/BB
(.195/.276/.363)

Since then the league's hit .279/.362/.459. He's also hit
8 guys in his last 63 2/3 innings in the majors and 4
in his two minor league starts (11 innings). No idea what
that's about but it sure is weird. I suspect he simply
can't control one of his pitches. Supposedly he's
changed his arm angle.

"David Short" <David.no.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message
news:g7s3tb$jc7$1@posting.glorb.com...
> Steve M. Mann wrote:
>> ...With the trade of Adam. However, after reading some of his quotes,
>> I'm not sure I mind as much now. Granted, I'm reading between the lines,
>> but seems like he didn't have much of a desire to stay with the Reds.
>>
>> "It was one of those pleasant surprises," Dunn said of the call
>> informing him of the deal. "Coming off of a terrible series that we had
>> -- and it's been a terrible month we've had in Cincinnati -- and I get a
>> phone call today saying I've been traded to a first-place team. As a
>> player, that's all you ask for."
>>
>> More here:
>> http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080811&content_id=3291208&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin&partnerId=rss_cin
>>
> ....why in the heck would a player want to play out the string on a team
> like this? Loyalty to his laundry? He's got a chance to play for a first
> place team.
>
> This shows you how silly I am. I'm hoping that he went to Walt and
> said..."Look Walt, I want you to trade me for whatever you can get. Come
> signing time, I'll listen to your offer just as I would if you kept me and
> we played out the string."
>
> Man, hope springs eternal.
>
> dfs

What I was sad to see was him saying he'd even catch if that is what the
team wanted from him ---- why the change in sentiment?

On Aug 13, 12:16 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoWay.com> wrote:
> "David Short" <David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:g7s3tb$jc7$1@posting.glorb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Steve M. Mann wrote:
> >> ...With the trade of Adam. However, after reading some of his quotes,
> >> I'm not sure I mind as much now. Granted, I'm reading between the lines,
> >> but seems like he didn't have much of a desire to stay with the Reds.
>
> >> "It was one of those pleasant surprises," Dunn said of the call
> >> informing him of the deal. "Coming off of a terrible series that we had
> >> -- and it's been a terrible month we've had in Cincinnati -- and I geta
> >> phone call today saying I've been traded to a first-place team. As a
> >> player, that's all you ask for."
>
> >> More here:
> >>http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080811&content_id=3291208&v...
>
> > ....why in the heck would a player want to play out the string on a team
> > like this? Loyalty to his laundry? He's got a chance to play for a first
> > place team.
>
> > This shows you how silly I am. I'm hoping that he went to Walt and
> > said..."Look Walt, I want you to trade me for whatever you can get. Come
> > signing time, I'll listen to your offer just as I would if you kept me and
> > we played out the string."
>
> > Man, hope springs eternal.
>
> > dfs
>
> What I was sad to see was him saying he'd even catch if that is what the
> team wanted from him ----  why the change in sentiment?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe he's been more willing to change, but management never really
asked because they've each been a pussy?

David Short wrote:
>> Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Kevin McClave
>>> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not
>>> guys who emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more
>>> legitimate prospects at the time of the deal?
>
> I honestly don't have a clue about the answer to this question.

And it looks like this may be one of those cases.
The third player was named today.
A AAA catcher who played all over the diamond this year.

Hal McCoy says...
"Wilkin Castillo, 24, is listed as a catcher, but in recent times with
Arizona's Class AAA Tucson he has played shortstop, third base and left
field."

"In 104 games this season he has hit .254 with six home runs and 47 RBIs
for Tucson. He will join the Reds' Triple-A club in Louisville."

If I have to sort them...I'll go Owens, Buck, Castillo. It looks to me
like this one's career had just stalled.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:57:48 -0400, David Short
<David.no.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:

>David Short wrote:
>>> Who lives in a pineapple under the sea, Kevin McClave
>>>> How often have PTBNL later been the best players in a deal? Not
>>>> guys who emerged beyond expectation, but guys who were the more
>>>> legitimate prospects at the time of the deal?
>>
>> I honestly don't have a clue about the answer to this question.
>
>And it looks like this may be one of those cases.

Where the best prospect or prospects are the PTBNL?

>The third player was named today.
>A AAA catcher who played all over the diamond this year.

Why was he not named initially, and yet only a few days after the deal?
Was it that they were still negotiating from a short list or something?
That doesn't seem wise if the big guy you traded away is already there.
No bargaining power.

>Hal McCoy says...
>"Wilkin Castillo, 24, is listed as a catcher, but in recent times with
>Arizona's Class AAA Tucson he has played shortstop, third base and left
>field."
>
>"In 104 games this season he has hit .254 with six home runs and 47 RBIs
>for Tucson. He will join the Reds' Triple-A club in Louisville."
>
>If I have to sort them...I'll go Owens, Buck, Castillo. It looks to me
>like this one's career had just stalled.

So, it doesn't sound like you';re saying that this is a case where the
players to be named were the true prospects and the first guy we hear
about is the worst player?

Is this a deal to get even mildly optimistic about? Is it a salary dump?
What is it, exactly? Because I'm not feeling any better knowing the
PTBNL than I did before I knew them. Two sore armed pitchers and a guy
who doesn't have a position and doesn't really hit?

Unless someone can convince me otherwise, this is *exactly* the scenario
I've always feared.

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************

Kevin McClave wrote:
> Is this a deal to get even mildly optimistic about?

What they got from the Diamondbacks is probably better, cheaper and
closer to the majors than the two draft picks they would have recieved
for letting Dunn walk.

>Is it a salary dump?

Partially. You and I don't know what was said and by whom. If Dunn
really expects to sign a $200 million dollar contract as Arroyo
supposedly said in the reds locker room, than the reds were not going to
re-sign him.

With Junior gone and the reds on an 0-12 jag, Dunn might have gone to
the front office and said..."look get me out of here. I'll still listen
to free agent offers from you guys, but I'm sick and tired of the bull
that's constantly flung." or he could have said..."You ain't signin me."

We just don't know.

> What is it, exactly? Because I'm not feeling any better knowing the
> PTBNL than I did before I knew them. Two sore armed pitchers and a guy
> who doesn't have a position and doesn't really hit?

It was a great deal from the D-backs perspective. Both Buck and Owens
are on the short list of best reds minor league pitcher. Owens has
certainly outpitched Bailey.

> Unless someone can convince me otherwise, this is *exactly* the scenario
> I've always feared.

As I warned above, I don't know, but I think it was the reds
acknowledging that they were not going to be able to pay the freight to
keep Adam Dunn in town.

dfs

On Aug 15, 8:41 am, David Short
<David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
> Kevin McClave wrote:
> > Is this a deal to get even mildly optimistic about?
>
> What they got from the Diamondbacks is probably better, cheaper and
> closer to the majors than the two draft picks they would have recieved
> for letting Dunn walk.
>

Micah Owings isnt a bad return at all, especially if he can overcome
his current injury. He's not going to be a #1, but we're at least
talking about a pitcher of which another organization thought highly.

assuming next year:

Harang
Volquez
Cueto
Arroyo
Owings

with Bailey and Thompson at AAA.

If healthy, thats sure to be one of the better rotations in the
league. With Cordero, Bray, and Burton carrying the pen, the pitching
seems to be in place. Also, this gives Walt room to deal Arroyo and
Bailey this winter.

But i'm getting way ahead of things here. We dont know for sure that
Micah is the guy. I'm guilty of already reaching for next years kool-
aid.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 09:17:38 -0700 (PDT), tmbowman25@yahoo.com wrote:

>On Aug 15, 8:41 am, David Short
><David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>> Kevin McClave wrote:
>> > Is this a deal to get even mildly optimistic about?
>>
>> What they got from the Diamondbacks is probably better, cheaper and
>> closer to the majors than the two draft picks they would have recieved
>> for letting Dunn walk.
>>
>
> Micah Owings isnt a bad return at all, especially if he can overcome
>his current injury. He's not going to be a #1, but we're at least
>talking about a pitcher of which another organization thought highly.

Like Gary Majewski?

I said to Chuck that I wasn't intending to pick on him before remarking
on one of his comments today, and I'll say the same to you...but having
said that, how fucked up is this organization where a legitimate fan can
say with a straight face that a pitcher acquired in trade for your best
offensive weapon "isn't a bad return at all, especially if he can
overcome his current injury." WHA?! Why are they trading for guys who
need to overcome an injury at all...especially for a player of Dunn's
caliber?

> But i'm getting way ahead of things here. We dont know for sure that
>Micah is the guy. I'm guilty of already reaching for next years kool-
>aid.

If he's hurt, he's the guy!

********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:41:49 -0400, David Short
<David.no.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:

>Kevin McClave wrote:
>> Is this a deal to get even mildly optimistic about?
>
>What they got from the Diamondbacks is probably better, cheaper and
>closer to the majors than the two draft picks they would have recieved
>for letting Dunn walk.

So, I'll take that as a "no?"

>>Is it a salary dump?
>
>Partially. You and I don't know what was said and by whom. If Dunn
>really expects to sign a $200 million dollar contract as Arroyo
>supposedly said in the reds locker room, than the reds were not going to
>re-sign him.
>
>With Junior gone and the reds on an 0-12 jag, Dunn might have gone to
>the front office and said..."look get me out of here. I'll still listen
>to free agent offers from you guys, but I'm sick and tired of the bull
>that's constantly flung." or he could have said..."You ain't signin me."
>
>We just don't know.

No, we don't. And you'll notice that I haven't complained once that they
traded Dunn, only that they got jack in return.

>> What is it, exactly? Because I'm not feeling any better knowing the
>> PTBNL than I did before I knew them. Two sore armed pitchers and a guy
>> who doesn't have a position and doesn't really hit?
>
>It was a great deal from the D-backs perspective.

Obviously.

>Both Buck and Owens
>are on the short list of best reds minor league pitcher. Owens has
>certainly outpitched Bailey.

Well...you know just as much about circuses as I do, David...


>> Unless someone can convince me otherwise, this is *exactly* the scenario
>> I've always feared.
>
>As I warned above, I don't know, but I think it was the reds
>acknowledging that they were not going to be able to pay the freight to
>keep Adam Dunn in town.

And that is entirely *not* the point. If you're going to trade him, get
equal value in return. I think it is pretty clear they didn't. They may
fall ass backwards in to something, but that will be luck, not a good
transaction.

********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************

"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com>
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:41:49 -0400, David Short
>>As I warned above, I don't know, but I think it was the reds
>>acknowledging that they were not going to be able to pay the freight to
>>keep Adam Dunn in town.
>
> And that is entirely *not* the point. If you're going to trade him, get
> equal value in return. I think it is pretty clear they didn't. They may
> fall ass backwards in to something, but that will be luck, not a good
> transaction.

.....equal value? How much is 45 games of Adam Dunn worth?

I mean...if you've made the decision that you can't (aren't gonna) resign
him (and we don't know exactly when the decision was made) then you have two
courses open to you. You can either keep him and ride him as far into your
season as you think he can carry you, or you can trade him. Now, I think it
was pretty much common public knowledge that with the no-trade clause in his
contract the reds couldn't trade Dunn till July. At that point, rightly or
wrongly they didn't want to mail in the season. The team goes 0-12 and they
decide to deal him. Exactly what do they have to deal? 45 games of Adam
Dunn. Not his whole future. And whoever gets those 45 games gets a couple of
draft picks where they can pick up somebody like Chris Valakia...AFTER
meeting the kids signing demands (Case in point, This is the last day the
reds have to sign that firstbaseman out of Miami, Yonder Alonso...as I write
this they have 30 minutes to finalize the deal. Apparently it's gonna cost
the reds 5 million to get this kid to sign)

So....Is 45 games of Adam Dunn and those two (potentially very expensive
draft picks) worth a low A ball starter who was very well thought of out of
college, an intrigueing player who may become a decent starter and may end
up being an every day hitter, AND a young left handed hitting catcher that
is athletic enough to play shortstop? ...

It's not like your trading Jason Bay who is signed to a deal and the other
team gets to keep him. It's 45 games of Adam Dunn and you have one team you
can negotiate with. They left themselves with very little leverage. You can
blame them for that. If they were not gonna be serious about resigning Dunn,
then they should have dealt him the second his no-trade clause kicked out.

dfs
\

"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in \
> I said to Chuck that I wasn't intending to pick on him before remarking
> on one of his comments today, and I'll say the same to you...but having
> said that, how fucked up is this organization where a legitimate fan can
> say with a straight face that a pitcher acquired in trade for your best
> offensive weapon "isn't a bad return at all, especially if he can
> overcome his current injury." WHA?! Why are they trading for guys who
> need to overcome an injury at all...especially for a player of Dunn's
> caliber?
Because they control 4 years of Owen, and 6+ years of the other 2 guys
instead of 45 games of Adam Dunn on a team that's gonna lose 90+ games.

dfs

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:40:47 -0400, "David Short"
<David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in \
>>
>> I said to Chuck that I wasn't intending to pick on him before remarking
>> on one of his comments today, and I'll say the same to you...but having
>> said that, how fucked up is this organization where a legitimate fan can
>> say with a straight face that a pitcher acquired in trade for your best
>> offensive weapon "isn't a bad return at all, especially if he can
>> overcome his current injury." WHA?! Why are they trading for guys who
>> need to overcome an injury at all...especially for a player of Dunn's
>> caliber?
>
>Because they control 4 years of Owen, and 6+ years of the other 2 guys
>instead of 45 games of Adam Dunn on a team that's gonna lose 90+ games.

Are you really missing my point that badly, David? I think I've been
pretty clear about it, and you seem to be reading something I haven't
written at all.

I will say again, I am not and have not complained that they traded
Dunn. My complaint has been that they did not get equal value in return.

So, what does control of lesser valued talent have to do with what I've
been complaining about? Why are they trading for injured pitchers
(again!)? Two of them in one deal. One coming back from an arm injury
and one with one now.

That's OK with you? You don't understand my frustration with that? You
don't agree that this franchise has so skewed our view of things that
some of us can actually try and put lipstick on this pig and say that it
"isn't a bad return at all, especially if he can overcome his current
injury?" The fact that anyone could say that and have it be seen as
reasonable pisses me off, actually...that this organization has brought
us to that being somehow acceptable.

********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:38:53 -0400, "David Short"
<David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com>
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:41:49 -0400, David Short
>>>As I warned above, I don't know, but I think it was the reds
>>>acknowledging that they were not going to be able to pay the freight to
>>>keep Adam Dunn in town.
>>
>> And that is entirely *not* the point. If you're going to trade him, get
>> equal value in return. I think it is pretty clear they didn't. They may
>> fall ass backwards in to something, but that will be luck, not a good
>> transaction.
>
>....equal value? How much is 45 games of Adam Dunn worth?
>
>I mean...if you've made the decision that you can't (aren't gonna) resign
>him (and we don't know exactly when the decision was made) then you have two
>courses open to you. You can either keep him and ride him as far into your
>season as you think he can carry you, or you can trade him. Now, I think it
>was pretty much common public knowledge that with the no-trade clause in his
>contract the reds couldn't trade Dunn till July. At that point, rightly or
>wrongly they didn't want to mail in the season. The team goes 0-12 and they
>decide to deal him. Exactly what do they have to deal? 45 games of Adam
>Dunn. Not his whole future. And whoever gets those 45 games gets a couple of
>draft picks where they can pick up somebody like Chris Valakia...AFTER
>meeting the kids signing demands (Case in point, This is the last day the
>reds have to sign that firstbaseman out of Miami, Yonder Alonso...as I write
>this they have 30 minutes to finalize the deal. Apparently it's gonna cost
>the reds 5 million to get this kid to sign)
>
>So....Is 45 games of Adam Dunn and those two (potentially very expensive
>draft picks) worth a low A ball starter who was very well thought of out of
>college, an intrigueing player who may become a decent starter and may end
>up being an every day hitter, AND a young left handed hitting catcher that
>is athletic enough to play shortstop? ...
>
>It's not like your trading Jason Bay who is signed to a deal and the other
>team gets to keep him. It's 45 games of Adam Dunn and you have one team you
>can negotiate with. They left themselves with very little leverage. You can
>blame them for that. If they were not gonna be serious about resigning Dunn,
>then they should have dealt him the second his no-trade clause kicked out.

That last point and mine are not mutually exclusive and I suspect the
change in GMs had an effect there. I think Krivsky would have re-signed
him.

Teams rent players every year to try and get themselves in to the
playoffs or put themselves over the top and win it all. Your "its only
45 games" point really doesn't matter, because it's obviously a given in
this case.

So, you still haven't come out and said it. You seem to be arguing with
me in this thread, but the only direct opinion I recall you making
about the trade (unless the info we have is incorrect, of course) is
that it was a good deal for *Arizona*. Initially I got the sense you
also didn't think too highly of it.

Do *you* like this deal or not?

********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"Courage, the footstool of the Virtues, upon
which they stand." ~Robert Louis Stevenson
********************************************************************

"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ihjca45a91vhkghb4gnc1ptblhk3a3lg2g@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:40:47 -0400, "David Short"
> <David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:
>
>>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in \
>>>
>>> I said to Chuck that I wasn't intending to pick on him before remarking
>>> on one of his comments today, and I'll say the same to you...but having
>>> said that, how fucked up is this organization where a legitimate fan can
>>> say with a straight face that a pitcher acquired in trade for your best
>>> offensive weapon "isn't a bad return at all, especially if he can
>>> overcome his current injury." WHA?! Why are they trading for guys who
>>> need to overcome an injury at all...especially for a player of Dunn's
>>> caliber?
>>
>>Because they control 4 years of Owen, and 6+ years of the other 2 guys
>>instead of 45 games of Adam Dunn on a team that's gonna lose 90+ games.
>
> Are you really missing my point that badly, David? I think I've been
> pretty clear about it, and you seem to be reading something I haven't
> written at all.
>
> I will say again, I am not and have not complained that they traded
> Dunn. My complaint has been that they did not get equal value in return.
>
> So, what does control of lesser valued talent have to do with what I've
> been complaining about? Why are they trading for injured pitchers
> (again!)? Two of them in one deal. One coming back from an arm injury
> and one with one now.

because in addition to the talent involved you have to factor in the length
of time you control the player, the amount the player is due to be paid (and
remember I have nothing against paying talent) and where your team is in the
success cycle.

On a purely challenge basis....who got the best player......The diamondbacks
win.

A couple years ago the reds traded 16 starts of Denny Neagle for 4 very
highly thought of prospects out of the Yankee system. You and I went round
and round about that one. At the time I hated that the reds traded their
best starting pitcher even though I thought they got decent value in return.
In retrospect, both teams AND the players involved pretty much lost the
deal.

The Yankees gave Neagle a couple of starts where he looked terrible and then
stuck him at the end of the bench. Because of injuries Neagle made some post
season starts, but he didn't really help that team. Of course Neagle went on
to sign the biggest contract offered. He went to the Rockies and pretty much
watched his career disolve.

The Reds thought they were getting cornerstones for the future and then sent
Ed Yarnal to Japan for cash instead of giving him a major league start.
Torpedoed Brian Reith by changing levels and roles on him when he wasn't
really ready to do that. Watched centerfielder Jackson Melian waste away to
nothing. The big prize of Drew Henson said he wasn't playing for the reds so
the yankee's swapped him with Wily Mo who has been dissapointing fans at the
major league level for some time now.

It was a trade where everybody lost.

I think the Dunn deal was a great one for the Diamondbacks. For the stretch
drive they got a great hitter that may help put them over the top and they
got two draft picks if he leaves via free agency. From the reds point of
view, for two draft picks they got three talents that are likely equal to
anything the reds would have signed with the two draft picks plus they don't
have to pay signing bonuses.

I don't like the trade on a couple of levels...

First of all, I'm one of those nerdy stat-heads who liked Adam Dunn at the
plate. That's me, and I recognize there are a lot of folks who feel
differently. I do recognize that Dunn in the field (particularly his arm) is
a cruel joke. I like reading the quotes from Dunn. He was a funny guy and by
all accounts cared about winning and the guys around him. I miss having
players like that on the team I root for. I also recognize that with his
size it is very possible that Dunn's career will be over in a couple of
years. I think everybody reading this far knows that, but I thought I would
lay it out there.

I hate that the reds have developed a first class talent and feel they
cannot sign him to a contract. Writers have been complaining about teams
being priced out of their own players for years, but this is the first time
I feel it has happened to my team.

The alternative is that Walt Jocketty simply doesn't believe that Adam is
worth the money. I don't like EITHER explanation.

The second thing I don't like is that if they had decided that they were not
going to re-up Adam Dunn, they should not have waited till waiver time when
they only had one team to deal with. They should have done it before the
trading deadline when they had some real leverage and could have gotten a
better return.

This last bit worries me most. In both the Junior deal and the Dunn deal,
the reds front office seems very passive. After watching Jim Bowden's flurry
of activity over the years, GM's since then seem terribly passive. Instead
of shopping Junior, the reds were surprised when the White Sox approached
them and then relieved at getting anything for Junior. Likewise with Dunn,
the put him on the waiver wire and did the math about what the d-backs
offered against the draft picks. Well,....why not have shopped him earlier?
I just don't see it.

But once you accept that the trading deadline has come and gone and you
aren't going to sign Adam Dunn and your team is going no where....Yeah at
that point, they got value, but at that point the barn door should have been
shut a while ago.

dfs

"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:38:53 -0400, "David Short"
> So, you still haven't come out and said it. You seem to be arguing with
> me in this thread, but the only direct opinion I recall you making
> about the trade (unless the info we have is incorrect, of course) is
> that it was a good deal for *Arizona*. Initially I got the sense you
> also didn't think too highly of it.
>
> Do *you* like this deal or not?

I answered this elsewhere, but I'll go again.

Once you accept the reds aren't going to resign Adam Dunn and the trade
deadline had passed, the reds got value for Dunn.
If I had my druthers, I would rather they had dealt Dunn before the trading
deadling, simply because I think they could have got more and I don't feel
the illusion of trying to play 500 baseball this year was worth anything.

.....From a fan's perspective, It's a good thing. Jockety has started making
decisions and deciding what shape he wants the roster to take as he reforms
the talent he had into the baseball team he wants. There will be no Adam
Dunn watch this off season. The reds will have a chance to look at Chris
Dickerson.....in a moving forward sense, it's a good thing.

On the whole I just don't care for the direction they moved.

dfs

On Aug 15, 9:17 am, tmbowma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 15, 8:41 am, David Short
>
> <David.no.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
> > Kevin McClave wrote:
> > > Is this a deal to get even mildly optimistic about?
>
> > What they got from the Diamondbacks is probably better, cheaper and
> > closer to the majors than the two draft picks they would have recieved
> > for letting Dunn walk.
>
>  Micah Owings isnt a bad return at all, especially if he can overcome
> his current injury. He's not going to be a #1, but we're at least
> talking about a pitcher of which another organization thought highly.
>
> assuming next year:
>
> Harang
> Volquez
> Cueto
> Arroyo
> Owings
>
> with Bailey and Thompson at AAA.
>
> If healthy, thats sure to be one of the better rotations in the
> league. With Cordero, Bray, and Burton carrying the pen, the pitching
> seems to be in place. Also, this gives Walt room to deal Arroyo and
> Bailey this winter.
>
>  But i'm getting way ahead of things here. We dont know for sure that
> Micah is the guy. I'm guilty of already reaching for next years kool-
> aid.

Convert Owings to OF a la Ankiel. He can be a very, very good hitter.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:46:27 -0400, "David Short"
<David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:ihjca45a91vhkghb4gnc1ptblhk3a3lg2g@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:40:47 -0400, "David Short"
>> <David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote in \
>>>>
>>>> I said to Chuck that I wasn't intending to pick on him before remarking
>>>> on one of his comments today, and I'll say the same to you...but having
>>>> said that, how fucked up is this organization where a legitimate fan can
>>>> say with a straight face that a pitcher acquired in trade for your best
>>>> offensive weapon "isn't a bad return at all, especially if he can
>>>> overcome his current injury." WHA?! Why are they trading for guys who
>>>> need to overcome an injury at all...especially for a player of Dunn's
>>>> caliber?
>>>
>>>Because they control 4 years of Owen, and 6+ years of the other 2 guys
>>>instead of 45 games of Adam Dunn on a team that's gonna lose 90+ games.
>>
>> Are you really missing my point that badly, David? I think I've been
>> pretty clear about it, and you seem to be reading something I haven't
>> written at all.
>>
>> I will say again, I am not and have not complained that they traded
>> Dunn. My complaint has been that they did not get equal value in return.
>>
>> So, what does control of lesser valued talent have to do with what I've
>> been complaining about? Why are they trading for injured pitchers
>> (again!)? Two of them in one deal. One coming back from an arm injury
>> and one with one now.
>
>because in addition to the talent involved you have to factor in the length
>of time you control the player, the amount the player is due to be paid (and
>remember I have nothing against paying talent) and where your team is in the
>success cycle.
>
>On a purely challenge basis....who got the best player......The diamondbacks
>win.
>
>A couple years ago the reds traded 16 starts of Denny Neagle for 4 very
>highly thought of prospects out of the Yankee system. You and I went round
>and round about that one. At the time I hated that the reds traded their
>best starting pitcher even though I thought they got decent value in return.
>In retrospect, both teams AND the players involved pretty much lost the
>deal.
>
>The Yankees gave Neagle a couple of starts where he looked terrible and then
>stuck him at the end of the bench. Because of injuries Neagle made some post
>season starts, but he didn't really help that team. Of course Neagle went on
>to sign the biggest contract offered. He went to the Rockies and pretty much
>watched his career disolve.
>
>The Reds thought they were getting cornerstones for the future and then sent
>Ed Yarnal to Japan for cash instead of giving him a major league start.
>Torpedoed Brian Reith by changing levels and roles on him when he wasn't
>really ready to do that. Watched centerfielder Jackson Melian waste away to
>nothing. The big prize of Drew Henson said he wasn't playing for the reds so
>the yankee's swapped him with Wily Mo who has been dissapointing fans at the
>major league level for some time now.
>
>It was a trade where everybody lost.

Right, and we can look up lots of deals in retrospect that way.
Obviously I understand the vet for prospects type deal and all of its
risks. I think I alluded already to the fact that nobody has a crystal
ball. I'm obviously not expecting them to get players who are going to
help the Reds right *now*, so even the best prospects could flame out or
get catastrophically injured. I understand that and my complaints since
the deal have been made with those factors already in mind.

Injured pitchers. We apparently traded for not one, but two.

>I think the Dunn deal was a great one for the Diamondbacks. For the stretch
>drive they got a great hitter that may help put them over the top and they
>got two draft picks if he leaves via free agency. From the reds point of
>view, for two draft picks they got three talents that are likely equal to
>anything the reds would have signed with the two draft picks plus they don't
>have to pay signing bonuses.
>
>I don't like the trade on a couple of levels...
>
>First of all, I'm one of those nerdy stat-heads who liked Adam Dunn at the
>plate. That's me, and I recognize there are a lot of folks who feel
>differently. I do recognize that Dunn in the field (particularly his arm) is
>a cruel joke. I like reading the quotes from Dunn. He was a funny guy and by
>all accounts cared about winning and the guys around him. I miss having
>players like that on the team I root for. I also recognize that with his
>size it is very possible that Dunn's career will be over in a couple of
>years. I think everybody reading this far knows that, but I thought I would
>lay it out there.

You know that on most if not all of that I agree with you. If somebody
dropped by here out of the blue over the past handful of years, they
would probably think I've been a much bigger Adam Dunn fan than I
actually have been. I appreciate what he added to the team, and felt
that many people had no clue what that was, and dismissed significant
value in his game (almost always his BB/OBP) in bashing him. So, I
generally defended him in the sense that people were flat out *wrong*
about his being "Dave Kingman" or some such.

>I hate that the reds have developed a first class talent and feel they
>cannot sign him to a contract. Writers have been complaining about teams
>being priced out of their own players for years, but this is the first time
>I feel it has happened to my team.
>
>The alternative is that Walt Jocketty simply doesn't believe that Adam is
>worth the money. I don't like EITHER explanation.

I think its Jocketty. My strong hunch is that Krivsky would have
re-signed him. I believe Adam in that he wanted to stay.

>The second thing I don't like is that if they had decided that they were not
>going to re-up Adam Dunn, they should not have waited till waiver time when
>they only had one team to deal with. They should have done it before the
>trading deadline when they had some real leverage and could have gotten a
>better return.

I think I addressed this in another reply to you, but that fact is part
of my overall complaint. That is, that waiting so long helped to keep
them from getting equal value in return.

>This last bit worries me most. In both the Junior deal and the Dunn deal,
>the reds front office seems very passive. After watching Jim Bowden's flurry
>of activity over the years, GM's since then seem terribly passive. Instead
>of shopping Junior, the reds were surprised when the White Sox approached
>them and then relieved at getting anything for Junior. Likewise with Dunn,
>the put him on the waiver wire and did the math about what the d-backs
>offered against the draft picks. Well,....why not have shopped him earlier?
>I just don't see it.

And that's why I don't understand you seemingly disagreeing with me that
they didn't get equal value. You're essentially saying the same thing
yourself, or at least very pointedly pointing out one of the biggest
reasons why.

>But once you accept that the trading deadline has come and gone and you
>aren't going to sign Adam Dunn and your team is going no where....Yeah at
>that point, they got value, but at that point the barn door should have been
>shut a while ago.

The bottom line, and the only thing that matters, is that they did not
get equal value for a guy whose loss they will not overcome
(offensively).

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:53:13 -0400, "David Short"
<David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES@HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote
>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:38:53 -0400, "David Short"
>> So, you still haven't come out and said it. You seem to be arguing with
>> me in this thread, but the only direct opinion I recall you making
>> about the trade (unless the info we have is incorrect, of course) is
>> that it was a good deal for *Arizona*. Initially I got the sense you
>> also didn't think too highly of it.
>>
>> Do *you* like this deal or not?
>
>I answered this elsewhere, but I'll go again.
>
>Once you accept the reds aren't going to resign Adam Dunn and the trade
>deadline had passed, the reds got value for Dunn.

I disagree with that pretty strongly. I think from the Diamondbacks
perspective, they were in fairly desperate need of an offensive shot in
the arm, and they are actually playing for something this season. We
shouldn't assume that the Reds had nothing with which to bargain and
were just desperate to get rid of Dunn...well, we can assume they
behaved that way, but did they need to.

>If I had my druthers, I would rather they had dealt Dunn before the trading
>deadling, simply because I think they could have got more and I don't feel
>the illusion of trying to play 500 baseball this year was worth anything.

I agree with that, and that adds to my frustration.

>....From a fan's perspective, It's a good thing. Jockety has started making
>decisions and deciding what shape he wants the roster to take as he reforms
>the talent he had into the baseball team he wants. There will be no Adam
>Dunn watch this off season. The reds will have a chance to look at Chris
>Dickerson.....in a moving forward sense, it's a good thing.
>
>On the whole I just don't care for the direction they move.

Adam Dunn is only 28 years old.

Thanks for your elaboration.

******************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"To justify himself, each relies on
the other's crime." ~Albert Camus
******************************************************************

"Kevin McClave" <kmcclave@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:53:13 -0400, "David Short"
>>
>>Once you accept the reds aren't going to resign Adam Dunn and the trade
>>deadline had passed, the reds got value for Dunn.
>
> I disagree with that pretty strongly. I think from the Diamondbacks
> perspective, they were in fairly desperate need of an offensive shot in
> the arm, and they are actually playing for something this season. We
> shouldn't assume that the Reds had nothing with which to bargain and
> were just desperate to get rid of Dunn...well, we can assume they
> behaved that way, but did they need to.

But....are you argueing with the conditions? Or the fact that the conditions
help determine the value?

As of last week what was Adam Dunn's value to the reds? Now...remember that
you have conceeded that the reds were not going to resign him and that the
only team you can negotiate with is the team that claimed him on
waivers....those are the conditions....Under those conditions what was Adam
Dunn worth to the reds?

Nobody is going out to the ballpark to "see Adam Dunn" (We can argue the
wisdom about that, but his effect on attendance is not a major plus) Frankly
the net loss in tickets sales this year is probably made up by not having to
pay Adam Dunn. It gives me no pleasure to write that, but it's probably
true. Let's call the financials a wash.

Say it's 5 wins this year and the two draft picks when he leaves. That five
wins is a ton, but we can be generous, because the reds weren't going
anywhere. In keeping Dunn they lose 89 instead of 94.
So are Owens, Buck and Sneezy worth that?

Yeah...they're worth more than the draft picks. They're closer to the
majors. They have not cratered as prospects and you aren't responsible for
their signing bonuses. You control Buck and Sneezy for 6 years and you've
got Owens for next year and his arbitration years. Given the scouting the
reds have that's worth two draft picks next June.

The fact that Dunn is gone and the reds can now start working on next year's
team is probably about as valuable to the organization as the extra 5 wins
would have been this year. This year was over back in June.

I honestly don't see your complaint about value. Now, if you want to argue
the reds shouldn't have let those conditions come to pass....well, sure then
I can argree with you, but that's another thread.

dfs

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:40:32 -0400, "David Short"
<David.No.Short@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclave@SPAM666twcny.rr.com>
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 08:53:13 -0400, "David Short"
>>>
>>>Once you accept the reds aren't going to resign Adam Dunn and the trade
>>>deadline had passed, the reds got value for Dunn.
>>
>> I disagree with that pretty strongly. I think from the Diamondbacks
>> perspective, they were in fairly desperate need of an offensive shot in
>> the arm, and they are actually playing for something this season. We
>> shouldn't assume that the Reds had nothing with which to bargain and
>> were just desperate to get rid of Dunn...well, we can assume they
>> behaved that way, but did they need to.
>
>But....are you argueing with the conditions? Or the fact that the conditions
>help determine the value?
>
>As of last week what was Adam Dunn's value to the reds? Now...remember that
>you have conceeded that the reds were not going to resign him and that the
>only team you can negotiate with is the team that claimed him on
>waivers....those are the conditions....Under those conditions what was Adam
>Dunn worth to the reds?
>
>Nobody is going out to the ballpark to "see Adam Dunn" (We can argue the
>wisdom about that, but his effect on attendance is not a major plus) Frankly
>the net loss in tickets sales this year is probably made up by not having to
>pay Adam Dunn. It gives me no pleasure to write that, but it's probably
>true. Let's call the financials a wash.
>
>Say it's 5 wins this year and the two draft picks when he leaves. That five
>wins is a ton, but we can be generous, because the reds weren't going
>anywhere. In keeping Dunn they lose 89 instead of 94.
>So are Owens, Buck and Sneezy worth that?
>
>Yeah...they're worth more than the draft picks. They're closer to the
>majors. They have not cratered as prospects and you aren't responsible for
>their signing bonuses. You control Buck and Sneezy for 6 years and you've
>got Owens for next year and his arbitration years. Given the scouting the
>reds have that's worth two draft picks next June.
>
>The fact that Dunn is gone and the reds can now start working on next year's
>team is probably about as valuable to the organization as the extra 5 wins
>would have been this year. This year was over back in June.
>
>I honestly don't see your complaint about value. Now, if you want to argue
>the reds shouldn't have let those conditions come to pass....well, sure then
>I can argree with you, but that's another thread.

It's really not.

*********************************************************************
Kevin McClave

"All of us might wish at times that we lived in a more
tranquil world, but we don't. And if our times are
difficult and perplexing, so are they challenging and
filled with opportunity." ~ Robert F. Kennedy
*********************************************************************

On Aug 18, 2:40 pm, "David Short"
<David.No.Sh...@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:

>
> Say it's 5 wins this year and the two draft picks when he leaves. That five
> wins is a ton,

You might lose 5 games downgrading from Barry Bonds _in his prime_

Dunn's a good player but there's no way it'll cost the Reds close to
that much.

And as a side point, best I can tell random wins in the 70s are worth
chump change (to be clear, I'm agreeing with you that there's no
short term economic argument for keeping Dunn)