Saturday, February 20, 2010

Mike Rizzo, Impartial Judge

Via Nats Journal:

Rizzo, on the importance of signing Adam Dunn to a long-term deal: "It's important for me because he's one of my favorite players on the team. I love the guy. There aren't many 40-home run, 100-RBI guys running around out there. He fits in with this club. He's a very unique leader, I call him. He leads in kind of a quirky way, but leads nonetheless. He's always open to helping the younger players. And you know, look at it this way: Several years down the road, if he continues at the pace he's at, we're gonna be talking about Hall of Famer Adam Dunn."
 Jesus Christ.

I'm as big an Adam Dunn fanboy as there is.  Check the archives; I think I was calling for the Nats to TRADE FOR DUN!!!1! sometime in October '99.  But the time to extend Dunn was before last season, when they could've locked him up at a discounted rate for a few more years.

I'm not sure it makes much sense to commit to Dunn for too much longer given his age and his defensive ability (where the best-case scenario is that he'll be below average at 1B instead of 'nuclear holocaust').  Finding a decent 1B is not a terribly difficult thing to do.  Dunn, thanks to his defense, ("defense," rather) isn't $10MM more per year better than someone like Russ Branyan, who signed for peanuts with Manny Acta in Cleveland.  That's to say that the team would likely be better off (think in terms of net runs scored/allowed) with a $2MM stopgap 1B and a $10 MM pitcher than the other way around, especially given the team's needs and scarcity of quality pitching.

But I do love the idea of Adam Dunn: Hall of Famer.  Used to be that the traditionalists hated him for the strikeouts and the statheads pointed out his offense.  Lately, the statheads have been ripping his defense, pointing out that it negates most of his offense value.  With no traditional defenders, and no stathead defenders, who's exactly going to be carrying the "Dunn for HOF" banner?  Well, besides the Rizzo parade...


  • OK, Chris, he's not Mark Teixeira at first base. But, oh thank goodness, he's not PLoD either. I actually thought at the end of last year that Dunn had better movement and had better hands than Stick Johnson at first. Plus, he's obviously more durable. I think the guy gets points for playing 158-160 games every year. So let's raise the rent on those tenants at Reston Town Center and White Flint, Lerners, and sign the guy.

    By Anonymous Sunshine_Bobby_Carpenter_is_Too_Pessimistic_for_Me, at 2/21/2010 12:20 AM  

  • He's the closest we'll get to a Frank Howard. While we lose like the Senators, let us enjoy a few mammoth home runs.

    Pay the man.

    By Anonymous nattydread, at 2/21/2010 6:03 AM  

  • There is a large contingent of national writers (not "Nationals" writers- that is a tiny contingent) who believe the Nats need to trade Dunn to the American League. My first thought from Rizzo's comments is that this is just not going to happen. I actually considered it remotely possible when Russell Branyan was out there. However, I guess that it's also possible that you talk about a player being a future HOF'er more when you are trying to get better trade value for him. What good does it do to give such wild compliments just before you are going to negotiate salary and a contract extension?

    By Blogger Positively Half St., at 2/21/2010 8:36 AM  

  • Adam Dunn himself has said that he doesn't want to be a DH. He wants to play the field.

    Mike Rizzo has said that he likes Adam Dunn a lot and he wants to give him a contract extension.

    Why does anyone even pay attention to baseball writers and other randoms who keep insisting that Dunn will be traded to an AL team at the deadline?

    By Blogger An Briosca Mor, at 2/21/2010 11:15 AM  

  • ABM-It's supply and demand.
    A team that is looking for that little bit extra in a wild-card race is likely to over-value his offensive production, just as much as we will likely be 20 games out in July and be far more interested in prospects than an aging slugger who can't field. It's kind of a win-win for both teams, which is why you see deals like that go down late in the season.

    By Blogger Rob B, at 2/21/2010 12:29 PM  

  • Yeah, because the Reds got so much for him two years ago.

    By Blogger Chris Needham, at 2/21/2010 1:20 PM  

  • Your sarcasm hurts.

    By Anonymous ntr Micah Owings, at 2/21/2010 1:39 PM  

  • Chris-
    Judging by your past comments about Krivsky I would find it hard to believe you don't agree that a different GM could have done better.

    By Blogger Rob B, at 2/21/2010 2:40 PM  

  • ABM-It's supply and demand.

    If Dunn doesn't want to DH (which he doesn't) and Rizzo doesn't want to get rid of him (which he doesn't) then there's no supply. Doesn't matter what the demand is. Why is that so hard to understand?

    By Blogger An Briosca Mor, at 2/21/2010 2:40 PM  

  • ABM-
    Dunn may not want to DH now, and Rizzo may not want to get rid of him before spring training, but my response to your earlier comment was about the trade deadline. You're telling me that if we're on pace to lose 90+ again, and a team that needs a hired gun for three months to possibly get to the World Series makes a serious offer, they won't both feel differently?

    By Blogger Rob B, at 2/21/2010 7:44 PM  

  • Dunn will be extended before the trade deadline. Bank on it.

    And even if he's not, don't count on him being traded. See Soriano, A.

    By Blogger An Briosca Mor, at 2/21/2010 8:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home