One More Quick Thought On Dunn
A commenter asked something I was noodling through...
It makes almost no sense for the Nats to trade for Dunn now. But then there's a chance that if they didn't, he wouldn't be a FA. The Reds have an option on him next year at $13 million. There's a chance, since they think he's the root of all evil, that they'd decline that. Who knows. Regardless, it converts into a player option if he's traded. And it'd make almost zero sense for Dunn to not turn the option down so that he could get a big money contract.
One of the arguments for the trade is that they could then let him walk (ala Soriano) for the two draft picks....
Understanding that, think about what trading for him now would mean for the Nats.
1) They'd have to pay his salary, roughly $5 million left this year
2) They'd have to give up prospects to acquire him.
3) They'd have to sign the two draft picks at a cost of about, say, $3 million (depending on where the picks were slotted)
So in that scenario, the Nats would spend $8 million or so and give up two prospects to acquire two draft picks. Does that make any sense at all? Of course not.
So the Nats options are to trade him and hope that his manlove for Austin Kearns would entice him into the fold (I dunno.... say 5/$80?). Or to hope that the Reds decline his option (so they can pick him up as a FA), or that some other team trades for him, likely making him a FA at the end of the year.
Those last two definitely seem like the best options right? They're certainly the most cost-effective ones. And if there's one thing that "The PLAN!" is about, it's cost-effectiveness!
It makes almost no sense for the Nats to trade for Dunn now. But then there's a chance that if they didn't, he wouldn't be a FA. The Reds have an option on him next year at $13 million. There's a chance, since they think he's the root of all evil, that they'd decline that. Who knows. Regardless, it converts into a player option if he's traded. And it'd make almost zero sense for Dunn to not turn the option down so that he could get a big money contract.
One of the arguments for the trade is that they could then let him walk (ala Soriano) for the two draft picks....
Understanding that, think about what trading for him now would mean for the Nats.
1) They'd have to pay his salary, roughly $5 million left this year
2) They'd have to give up prospects to acquire him.
3) They'd have to sign the two draft picks at a cost of about, say, $3 million (depending on where the picks were slotted)
So in that scenario, the Nats would spend $8 million or so and give up two prospects to acquire two draft picks. Does that make any sense at all? Of course not.
So the Nats options are to trade him and hope that his manlove for Austin Kearns would entice him into the fold (I dunno.... say 5/$80?). Or to hope that the Reds decline his option (so they can pick him up as a FA), or that some other team trades for him, likely making him a FA at the end of the year.
Those last two definitely seem like the best options right? They're certainly the most cost-effective ones. And if there's one thing that "The PLAN!" is about, it's cost-effectiveness!
posted by Chris Needham at
1:19 PM
11 Comments:
Chris, this post is like a stunning mathematical proof: its logic is elegantly original, and yet so stunning in its simplicity.
I'm hoping that Bowden and Co. have considered all this (or at least read your blog.) I don't think it would be out of the question for the Lerner$ to put up big money for one (and only one) marquee free-agent this offseason, and Bowden might be able to convince both the Lerners and Dunn that this is a good match.
By
Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 2:33 PM
I would still prefer them to sign Jones ( I like Jones), but I would be extreamly happy with Dunn. But its likely niether happen cause the Lerners are chea...Im it dosen't fit in the plan.
By
Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 2:56 PM
Chris, an additional cost of signing Dunn in the offseason is the likely forfeiture of a second round draft pick (assuming arbitration id offered*). Since the 1st rounder is more than likely exempt. While this would not prohibit such a move, it's an additional point worthy of consideration.
* I am assuming he doesn't have similar language as JD Drew had about a team not being allowed to offer him arbitration
By
Brian, at 7/25/2007 3:52 PM
Brian -- Good point. I got wrapped around trying to think of all the scenarios that I forgot that one! Granted, it's one less pick they won't not sign... ;)
natsfan7 -- I think Jones is going to be priced out of their market, even WITH his perfomance this year.
nattyfan -- I have no doubt that they've thought of all this, and done a much better job ages ago at it. ;) We rip 'em, but they're smart!
By
Chris Needham, at 7/25/2007 3:55 PM
Dont dash my dreams yet.....Maybe the Kasten connection might....maybe...
By
Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 5:07 PM
Interesting posts today Chris re: Dunn. I just wonder who we'd have to give up to acquire him via trade. What would the Reds be looking at at this point. Prospects most likely, but could we entice them with anyone from our current roster? And would Krivsky be willing to deal with Bowden again after Majewskigate?
By
Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 7:47 PM
Dunn puts up big homer numbers for the Reds because he plays in a tiny ball park in Cincy. If he doesn't hit a homer, he strikes out. He is a butcher in left field. The last thing the Nats need is another turkey from the Reds. Kearns, FLop and Wagner are quite enough.
By
Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 8:29 PM
You didn't read the previous post, did you, Anonymous? ;)
By
Chris Needham, at 7/25/2007 8:53 PM
These trades for hitters don't really seem to take too much in the way of prospects. TX is trying to peddle Texiera with a another year left till he hits FA and folks still aren't coughing up big prospects to get him yet. I bet Cinn is not being overwhelmed with quality prospects and Cinn may not offer arb because they may fear he will accept it though I wouldn't bet on that.
Doing these types of trades really isn't a bad idea. The Nats gave up nothing for a year of Soriano. Jocketty has done a great job at St Louis doing these deals. Few people could name off the top of their heads who he traded for McGwire, Edmonds, and Rolen and it sure wasn't fair value. They ended up loving St Louis and stayed. The trading team gets to keep its draft picks this way too which is pretty good if you're only losing marginal players. The thing about these trades is the team that acquires them has to be ready to step up with the cash to give out a good contract. That's good contract. The Nats weren't willing to do that with Soriano but appear to be willing to do it with Dunn. Well appear to be only in the sense that it's a rumor.
By
Anonymous, at 7/25/2007 9:13 PM
Some good points there.
I wonder what it _would_ take. Dunn isn't especially well liked because the rube fans look at his Ks and think he's a bad player, instead of noticing everything he does well.
Church, Rauch and an B arm or two might be enough to get it done? Though if Krivsky traded for another Nats reliever, they'd run him out of town on a rail! ;)
By
Chris Needham, at 7/25/2007 9:16 PM
Of topic, I know, but man I can't stand Langerhans.
First, he can't hit!
Second, he can't bunt!
Third, Nook would have caught Rollins inside the park home run.
Get rid of Langerhans. The sooner the better!
By
Expat Teacher, at 7/25/2007 10:30 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home