Adam Dunn
by SoxAcumen on May 28, 2009 1:57 PM EDT
119 comments
Speculation is that the Nationals are going to start selling and Adam Dunn, Kearns and Johnson are available. Watching the WBC this season I finally got to see Adam Dunn play. Ill be the first to admit from what most people say about this guy I was pleasantly surprised to find out he is not just a beer league softball power hitter, but a solid hitter with a great approach. Yes, I admit his fielding is suspect, but as a pure DH he has the potential to be very productive at Fenway. IF, Papi is finished (not willing to say he is done just yet) the Red Sox do not need a 1B, they need a DH.
Is Adam Dunn someone the Red Sox should consider? If so what would it take to get him away from the Nationals?
0 recs |
119 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Yes
that would be awesome…the Youk-Dunn combo is fantastic. The only thing is I heard that Dunn is not interested in the AL because he still likes playing the field, despite his shortcomings. Either way, the guys plate approach would fit in nicely with the Sox and damn anyone that wants to bring up his Ks
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 28, 2009 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
His K's have gone way down recently though.
Maybe he’s learned the patient way. If so, he could learn that he’s a DH and not a fielder.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 29, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been saying since Johnson was brought up that Dunn was preferable .
Too bad we couldn’t find $8mm to sign him this offseason. . .
by USG on May 28, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why didn't we sign him?
Theo had an obsession with Lugo, maybe he has an equally irrational hate of Dunn?
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 29, 2009 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or because we had a DH that had just posted an .850 OPS…
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've kept an eye on him the past few years.
As a DBack’s fan I was ecstatic when we got him last year but he just failed to really produce for us at the end. He seems to be a hot hitter at the beginning of the year but after about May his production seems to drop by a whole lot. If you have to give up a lot for him I wouldn’t do it, which I suspect the Nats would want a top prospect for him.
by Pyromnc on May 28, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dunn did pretty damn well or you guys last year. .889 OPS is nothing to sneeze at, especially when it's got a .417 OBP contribuiting to it.
by USG on May 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We got him to drive in runs.
He did squat with people on base.
by Pyromnc on May 28, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
26 RBI in 44 games.
That prorates to 96 RBI in a full season. He has a career high of 106. He seems to have performed for you guys almost exactly as he had for his whole career.
by BTLove on May 28, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
RBIs are about as stupid as wins and losses. Sure, you can look at a team’s run differential and deduce how “good” they “really” were. But it’s not going to affect how many games they actually won.
Similarly, you can look at his WOBA or WPA or AARP to figure out how many runs a player may be “worth”, or you can see how many runs he’s actually produced in the context of his lineup over the course of his season.
They still have to play the games.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 29, 2009 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
come on Tommy
you know better than this. RBIs are not a good way to measure how someone produces in the clutch. What if you play on a crappy team and rarely come up with the bases juiced? Given that we can look at so many other things, there is no real reason to look at rbis. It is not a stupid as w-l for a pitcher, but it is not so useful.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously, everything is in context.
Maybe a “better” stat would account for the RBI chances one has. But RBIs matter. Man on third, one out. You do your job, you get the number. You don’t, you apparently play SS for the Red Sox.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 29, 2009 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why not
just look and see what your results have been in such situations instead of a single number that could be arrived at in a zillion different ways and that actually doesn’t tell you directly how you did in such situations?
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that's just it.
I just don’t see the logic in ignoring what one’s results have actually been in such situations, for the sake of a calculation that shows how one does in ALL situations irregardless of the situation, and ascribing the results (i.e., the runs scored) to luck.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 30, 2009 3:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what you want to know about a player.
If you want to know how many times his AB’s resulted in a player crossing the plate, then RBI’s are great. The problems is that this tells you very little about how good a player is and little about how much he has helped his team. Is an run when up 10 in the 8th worth the same as a run when tied in the bottom of the twelfth? According to RBI, they are equal. If you want a stat that is context dependent, use WPA. It shows how much the player has helped his team.
Why cling to these stats that are less descriptive than ones we currently have? Because they have been “on the scoreboard” for all these years? because they were on the back of a baseball card? or just because they are easy to understand? None of these reasons are good, but I’m afraid too many people cling to these stats for exactly these reasons. What I have never understood is why people who do not like “stats” actually use stats, but they use the less descriptive ones (RBI, AVG, W-L). Does not make sense.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RBIs, WPA, and fangraphs "clutch" are all descriptive statistics.
And they are all some combination of BABIP and happenstance. WPA is just as arbitrary as the other two, only it’s new and therefore somehow better, I guess.
To me, the assertion that traditional measurements such as RBIs are meaningless sounds like scientology.
I’m drunk, and I’m hopping on a plane early AM. See you next week.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 30, 2009 3:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you
sound drunk ;). It is not so complicated: player X plays for good offensive team A and racks up 120 RBIs. Goes to bad team B as a FA. Hits great and racks up 95RBIs. So, what does the # mean?
Your point about things like “clutch” makes no sense. They are all statistics that use concrete numbers, just like RBIs is/does. A concrete measurement of how a player hits in high leverage situations (concretely defined) relative to the average is arbitrary? Only in the sense that you have to define high leverage. In fact you can tune the definition and see how the quantity changes. This is how science is done my friend, it is not arbitrary. Now, RBIs tell you how many runs you batted in, with the arbitrary definition of what “batted in” means. The point you are missing is not about the definition, but what it tells you. Is WL record a meaningful indicator of a pitcher’s ability?
You are missing the point. WL and RBIs are oh so important because they tell us about runs and wins, the most important things there are. But they don’t tell us how those nice things were arrived at. If you want to know that, you have to look elsewhere. There is nothing wrong with RBIs, but as an absolute number they are not the most helpful way to assess the performance and ability of a player.
by Buzzy on May 30, 2009 7:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"A concrete measurement of how a player hits in high leverage situations (concretely defined) relative to the average is arbitrary?"
Yes.
Because to the scientologists™, it’s all random. A guy hits just as well or just as poorly whether or not the situational leverage is high. That his balls happen to drop when the leverage is high is pure chance. Same with whether there happens to be a guy on third base when he comes up. It’s all arbitrary.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 30, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
??
What do you mean? The jury is out on if certain players hit better in high leverage situations or not. But that is compelely beside the point. Looking at something like “clutch” over many samples and players will allow you to know. Looking at RBIs will not. This is so obvious that I know you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
by Buzzy on May 30, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I posted bascially the exact same thing before about "clutch"
Stat heads do not say that they know that clutch does not exist, they simply say that they do not know that it does exist either. Bill James says he does not know whether clutch is an innate ability or not.
I would say the traditionalists are more like Scientologists. They believe in these things like “clutch” or “grit” without any proof that they actually exist. Stat people simply say they do not know.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 30, 2009 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
the say “here is the best thing you can look at to see” and that is not RBIs. See, Tommy, you are the Scientologist!
by Buzzy on May 30, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope we aren't offending any Scientologists.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 30, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats are easy to look at but when you watch him perform day in and day out
he wasn’t that good. Sure he got the walks and strikeouts like I expected him to but he didn’t produce in key situations.
by Pyromnc on May 28, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
.929 OPS with RISP
Including a .418 OBP, which meant he wasn’t making the outs.
If you didn’t have anyone to put behind him, that’s your team’s problem, not his.
Though to be fair to you and the DBacks, Dunn did have a horrible August.
by USG on May 28, 2009 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, why rely on “facts” and “evidence” to support your arguments? Stupid me.
by BTLove on May 28, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dunn was brought in to produce.
He may have produced but it was at times that it really didn’t matter. I guess you can’t really expect someone to do it all but when you trade one of you more promising players and a couple other miner leaguers that could be good in the future for a guy, than those expectations go up more. He had 15 RBI in September that is good but he failed to produce in several of our key losses, like the LA series and SF series between Sep 5-10. He also failed to produce in the SL series between the 22-25. In those 10 key games he had 34 ABS he had 6 hits with 2 of those being homers and only had 2 RBI. The only thing good out of those 10 games he gave us was his 9 walks.
by Pyromnc on May 28, 2009 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has never driven in many runs.
He is a career .248 hitter. This hurts his RBI numbers. However, he can get on base as well as anyone in the game. If you guys expected Manny Ramirez to be coming to town, you were obviously disappointed. He was, however, the best hitter on your team last year (although he gives up most of that value in the field.)
Also, lets all remember that you guys were not a good baseball team last year. You had a great start, but after April you were 62-72. During the time Dunn was there, you were a .500 team. The reason you did not make the playoffs is not Adam Dunn, it is that the DBacks were bad at baseball. They had the 9th best record in the NL last year. Terrible.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 28, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 BTLove
-1000000000 for Pyro
Seriously, put him behind a Jacoby, Pedroia Youk, Drew, Bay string and you don’t think the sacred RBIs would flow in
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 28, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget that "good start" was against the rest of the NL West.
I called that collapse really early.
by USG on May 28, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We brought Adam Dunn in because our offense was terrible.
Our pitching was great, although they did struggle in crucial situation in the end, but still we were expecting clutchness out of Dunn. We didn’t expect a Manny Ramirez because Dunn is no where near the caliber player Ramirez is but I was expecting someone that could get it done in the 9th when we are down with runners on base. And yes that record was terrible for a team to win a division but 3 games was all we needed and in several games that really mattered, Dunn failed to produce.
Obviousley he would help your guy’s team, since Big Papi is struggling, but I said I wouldn’t trade for him if you had to give up a lot for him and it seems that a lot of you agree with that statement on this post.
by Pyromnc on May 29, 2009 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RBI RBI RBI
Not producing in key losses blah blah blah.
Stop talking about random circumstantial BS and “how he made you feel”.
by USG on May 28, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feelings are valid.
I know personally I’m more affected by what happens in high leverage situations. If a guy often blows it in the big situations – when the opposing team usually has their better pitchers throwing – I take it with me.
It’s not fantasy baseball.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 28, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that it pretty much has to be treated that way.
Baseball is a game, ultimately, of individual production. Just because a guy’s hits randomly fall in when there aren’t guys on base instead of when there are doesn’t make him bad. And in this case his OBP-mentality is being used against him because walks don’t bring the runs. This is the sort of thinking that the Red Sox organization has applied so well to bring us two championships and a hell of a lot of future promise.
Clutch is a pretty bad concept. Either it doesn’t exist and some people are just lucky (or, y’know, produce consistently and are therefore bound to get more big hits…), or they’re slacking off in low-pressure ABs.
by USG on May 28, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would it make it better if Fangraphs said it rather than me?
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment.
How it’s calculated: WPA / pLI – WPA/LI
Why you should care: Unlike tradition clutch statistics (close & late), Clutch is a much more comprehensive statistic taking into account all situations that may or may not have been high leverage. Additionally, instead of comparing a player to the rest of the field, it compares a player to himself. A player who hits .300 in high leverage situations when he’s an overall .300 hitter is not considered Clutch.
Papi over is career is at 1.90 (scroll down), meaning he has on balance performed better in high leverage situations.
Cap’n Jetes is at 2.92.
Dunn is at -1.24.
Arod is at -8.91.
The knock on Arod has always been that he piles on stats when it doesn’t matter, and that he rarely comes through when the game is on the line. At least that’s how people perceive it to be. Sure, maybe it is bad luck that his balls aren’t dropping when it matters. But that doesn’t mean that people’s feelings are misguided. On the contrary, the numbers confirm the general sentiment, at least in the cases of Arod and, to a lesser extent, Dunn.
Feelings matter.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 28, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really it wouldn't.
That’s just Fangraphs trying to measure EVERYTHING. They’re not saying it has any statistical importance as far as predicting future production.
by USG on May 28, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matches with common perception of those players though.
Which means it’s either designed to do that, or it’s a pretty good indicator of ice water levels in blood content.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 29, 2009 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point about being clutch is:
That obviously there are some players who put up better numbers in certain years in those “clutch” situations. However, it is very rare to find someone who does this year after year. Every year there has to be someone who is best close and late. However, I do not think that anyone has proven to be good at this consistently throughout their career.
For example, the numbers you posted for Ortiz, Jeter, A-Rod and Dunn are totals for their careers, not averages. Of Jeter’s 15 years in the league, in 8 of them he has underperformed in high leverage situations. In fact, of the 2.92, 2.33 came in 2006, a truly great year for Jeter. So even Jeter has not been consistently clutch throughout his career. (He also is -.83 in the post-season, for what its worth, and I think that should count more).
Alex Rodriguez has had some terribly “unclutch years”, but in some years he actually has been “clutch.” Did he forget how to be clutch in some years? was his blood not as cold in those year? maybe he had a better sports psychologist? why does it differ so much year to year? Probably because of random variation. (Also, I’d like to add that A-Rod has been “clutch” in the postseason, according to this stat)
So judging from all of this, its obvious that certain players perform better in certain situations, but does this mean they will do the same next year? or the year after? almost certainly it does not.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's pretty much what I'm saying.
Clutch is a mostly random thing which can only be really negative. I’m sure some players DO freeze up when it comes to the big moment, but I don’t buy into the idea that some people perform BETTER in high-pressure situations. What I think probably happens is that, if anything, pitchers pitch worse, and these naturally good players are better suited to take advantage of sloppy pitching. For instance, runners on, out of the stretch, divided attention, or falling into the “freeze up” category mentioned above. But if we’re gonna call that clutch than let’s call Manny clutch because he got #500 off that rookie in his first ML appearance last year when the pitcher could only be thinking “Oh shit, that’s Manny Ramirez”.
by USG on May 29, 2009 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bill James says,
that none of us know. That some players finish their careers with “clutch” stats. Does that mean that they have an innate “clutch” ability or is it random variation? James says that he doesn’t know and neither do any of us. I’m fine with that answer; basically, that this question is unanswerable.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the sloppy pitching argument
wouldn’t teams tend to have their better pitcher in for high leverage situations? It’s easier to pile on stats versus say Jeff Karstens, during a blowout, than it is versus Mariano.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 29, 2009 8:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense. But there are a lot of high leverage innings in the 7th or 8th when a lot of teams do not have anyone good.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
I’m not suggesting using the numbers as a indicator of future success (nor, for that matter, was Pyro). I’m talking about about the bad taste in your mouth watching someone fail repeatedly when it matters most. Or “feelings.” Maybe the failure is random happenstance, an aberration, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 29, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The argument with Pyro’s feelings (and most peoples) is that they were just plain wrong. Adam Dunn, according to the FG’s clutch stat, actually performed well in high leverage situations. Feelings are real, they just are not as accurate as facts.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
-.22 on the season?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 29, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant for the DBacks last year.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
.14
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would be nice
He is definitely the sort of hitter we could use at DH right now, Bay/Youk and Dunn becoming the new Manny and Ortiz. If we could get him at a reasonable price, say MDC and Bard or Bowden and sign him to a long term deal then we should. We’d need to trim some BP and SPs after this season anyway.
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on May 28, 2009 4:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't do Delcarmen and Bowden for Dunn
by Schulz on May 28, 2009 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd do MDC and Bard.
But I’d prefer Masterson and Bard – save at least one flamethrower for this season.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 29, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to trade Bard
I don’t see us keeping Paps past his being under team control, and I think having at least one potentially elite, high-strikeout power reliever is a must.
by USG on May 29, 2009 2:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Id rather have
MDC over Bard. MDC has 2ndary pitches and proven he can pitch in big game situations. No offense to Bard, he might have great potential, but all i have seen from him is the fastball.
See i think the same thing about Paps: if he asks for 15-20 million, i think the Red Sox let him walk and then MDC or Bard becomes the replacement.
by SoxAcumen on May 29, 2009 5:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MDC doesn't have closer-level stuff.
Bard potentially does.
by USG on May 29, 2009 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, MDC has great stuff
He has three pitches. Many place him just behind Beckett, of all Sox’ pitchers, in terms of stuff. All a closer needs is one excellent pitch (Rivera) or two very good pitches (every other good closer).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 7:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
MDC
has amazing 2ndary stuff. His circle change and curveball are excellent. Not to disrespect Bard but he really only has his fastball, currently.
MDC can close for 5-10 teams in MLB if he was not a Red Sox.
by SoxAcumen on May 29, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd agree with that
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I don't think Manny can ever close for the Red Sox.
I think Bard eventually can.
For as good as his secondary pitches can look, they fall apart on him a LOT. He walks guys, he gives up 3-0 counts, he gives up meatballs. He’s not in the least consistent, and that’s what you really need out of a closer is consistency. I think Bard will bring that to the table in the future because he’s the same type of pitcher Papelbon is—or at least was—an overpowering fastball that he can paint with 1 real secondary pitch that can fool guys. Bard hasn’t brought the Slider out much on the big-league level, but it’s there, and it was working well in AAA. Give him some time to mature and he’ll come out well ahead of MDC.
by USG on May 29, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The issue
as always, is what we would have to give up. I don’t want to give up starting pitching prospects, at least not valued ones. That includes Bowden. Despite Bowden’s funky mechanics, he has been so so effective at a high level at a young age. This is no Ian Kennedy (a guy who could rack up stats since he was a college pitcher), and Peter Bendix has a nice article that basically states that by FIP, Bowden was the best pitcher in all of the minor leagues last year. I don’t want to give up Bard with the prospect of Paps being gone sooner rather than later. Thus, there is not much.
The reason I saw logic in the Nick Johnson deal is that he would come much cheaper. Sure he is riskier and not as good offensively. Dunn is a very good offensive player. But in some sense he would also be a “rental” type-he is owed 10 Mil next year and is making 10mil this year. He is very one dimensional (would have to really be the DH) and will be 30 in November. 6-6 240 guys don’t usually age gracefully at the plate. So what we are looking at is an expensive DH for a few years who will likely be declining in porduction quite soon.
Don’t get me wrong-I would magically like Dunn in our lineup right now. But considering what he would cost in terms of players and to a smaller degree cash, the inflexible nature of his play, and his greater chance for a quick decline, I am not sold.
by Buzzy on May 28, 2009 5:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also,
my memory is that the Nats obnoxiously overvalue their own guys. I think it was the Chad Cordero rumors where they were demanding some absurd package to get a trade done and ended up just keeping the guy and getting nothing.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 28, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Soriano, right?
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on May 28, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You got it.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 2:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
total botch on the Nats part
there was no chance they were keeping him, why not unload for talent
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way am I gonna support giving up Bowden.
But they were keen on Delcarmen. The question is what kind of prospect package we’d have to include. After our Pawtucket boys, we don’t have many pitchers who’re at all mature. The closest I can think of is Felix. And I dunno how valuable he really is.
What about a 3-way trade with a team that needs Penny? We’ll toss in Delcarmen or someone, they’ll contribute a prospect, get Penny, and the Nats send Dunn our way for Delcarmen + maybe Reddick and Felix and some other young guy.
by USG on May 28, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not likely
The Nats aren’t just going to dump Dunn. They’ll want something good for him.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 28, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh, the Nats aren't in a good bargaining position.
Sure, they have a product, but the rest of the league knows they aren’t gonna go anywhere while they still have him so they need to get SOMETHING for him.
An offer of Delcarmen, Reddick, Felix, and another prospect from somewhere else isn’t too bad. If the Nats think they’re getting top value on him they should think again. Just look at what Johan Santana went for.
by USG on May 28, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Twins had to move Santana
Dunn is signed through 2010. Also, Minnesota took a lesser package because they wanted to move Santana out of the AL.
The Sox aren’t in a great position. If Papi continues to struggle, everyone in baseball will know they need a bat. Teams will ask more from the Sox because they have lots to trade.
Another thing to note, Dunn will make $12 million next year. Papi is due $12.5 million in 2010. Since Ortiz is unmovable, that means the Sox would be paying $24.5 for their DH position if they acquire Dunn. I can’t see Theo doing that.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 28, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing
According to Gordon Edes of Yahoo Sports:
With David Ortiz slumping, the Red Sox also have demonstrated some interest in Johnson, though it cooled when the Nationals asked for prime pitching prospect Michael Bowden in return.
If the Nats wanted Bowden for Johnson, I wonder what they’ll ask for Dunn?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 28, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the money "saved" from not picking up Manny's options
Less Bay’s salary, at least for this year. Next year, too, if Bay can be signed for the rest of the money that the Sox were throwing at Teixeira (or thereabouts).
by lone1c on May 28, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not how it works
The Sox don’t have an infinite payroll. They aren’t the MFY. Here are the Red Sox team payrolls since 2002, when the current owners took over the team:
2009 $121,745,999
2008 $133,390,035
2007 $143,026,214
2006 $120,099,824
2005 $123,505,125
2004 $127,298,500
2003 $99,946,500
2002 $108,366,060
There’s a clear trend there. Ideally, the Sox would like to keep payroll between $120-125 million. They’ll add in the short term (players acquired at the deadline, etc.), and then shed the player via free agency and cash in on draft picks. But, they aren’t going to grossly overpay for a “non-skilled” position like DH—especially when Ortiz is already making $12.5 million.
The FO was trying to shed Manny’s salary for years. While they wanted Teixeira, had they signed him (for less than the MFY paid), they would have shed contracts elsewhere (Lowell, etc.). Thus, you can’t consider Manny and Teix “found money.”
The Sox’ payroll is between $121 and $122 million. At most, they have $8-10 million they might add. Even with the salaries they’ve cut since last year—Manny, Schilling, Tek (pay cut), Timlin, etc.—they’ve only pared $11 million in payroll. They have a number of arbitration eligible players (RamRam, Oki, and MDC come to mind), and re-signing Bay is a priority. Couple that with increases to Pedroia and Youk and there is less room than you might think.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 28, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I double counted the "Manny money"
I forgot that the stream that was going to one Manuel Aristide Ramirez would have been diverted to Mark Teixeira instead. When that fell through, much of it got “passed on” to Pedroia, Lester, and Youk.
by lone1c on May 29, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mauer
Plus we need to be able to put some money away for when Joe Mauer becomes a FA after the twins refuse to pay him what we can fingers crossed
"We are not normal, We are Legends. People will tell their kids about us." - Deon Butler before Ohio State Game 2008.
by Rogue Nine on May 29, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The amount that Ortiz makes should not be factored into the equation.
If the Sox decide that Ortiz is no longer an everyday player, then we have to consider his contract a sunk cost (like Lugo). Obviously the team will look at the total payroll, but they ought to look at it exactly as that: a total payroll that has already been committed. They cannot change the amount that we owe David Ortiz. At this point we just have to move forward and maximize the production we can get for every dollar spent. If that means putting money into a DH who can hit better than .630 OPS, then that is where the money has to go.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have to factor it, the Red Sox will
Because it counts toward their total payroll. The amount of money paid to Lugo, for example, means the Sox are far more likely to go with a player like Lowrie (who makes league minimum). If the Sox were to pay Papi and Dunn, they’d have to pare salary elsewhere.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 7:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that they have to consider total payroll, not Ortiz’s payroll specifically. If Ortiz does not show any signs of life all season, they will have to spend money to upgrade his spot. It will most likely be the most efficient use of the money, even if Papi is already getting paid $12 mill.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Ortiz's contract needs to be considered money wasted
Assuming he doesn’t come back. Yeah, right.
Also, given the attempt to sign $20mm Tex, I’d say 140 mill is just fine for the organization.
by USG on May 29, 2009 2:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Judging by the past
I’d say a total payroll of about $130 million or so is their absolute limit. Also, it’s important to remember the economy stinks right now, so it’s fairly easy to assume the team will make less money this year. Don’t forget, the Sox ownership still has to pay off their debt from when they bought the team.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The biggest shame of all
Is how rapidly Ortiz went from an irresistible force to being an unmovable object.
by lone1c on May 28, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Considering that the Nats are going to need a small island to sign Strasburg, we could offer them a lot of money.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 29, 2009 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing...
its not just Strasburg, they have the #10 pick as well and all of a sudden Dunn’s $8 million becomes a positive for teams looking to deal for him.
Nats are going to get prospects for Johnson, most likely from the Mets. Maybe the Sox can get Dunn for just MDC/Bard + one other non-Bowden/Buchholz prospect and the Sox take Dunn’s contract or even send the money needed to sign Strasburg or the #10 pick. Speculation is that Strasburg is asking for $30-40 Million.
Obviously Lars is not in any deal.
If the Sox could pull this off, the lineup would be pretty formidable:
1. Ells
2. DP
3. Youk
4. Dunn
5. Bay
6. Drew
7. Lowell
8. Tek
9. Lowrie
with Lars being Lowell’s replacement and the BP looking like RamRam, Okie, either MDC or Bard, Paps and Saito and Bowden or Buchholz becoming the long man like the ole days.
by SoxAcumen on May 29, 2009 5:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to Edes
The Nats asked for Bowden when the Sox inquired about Nick Johnson. That’s why Johnson isn’t in Boston. They’ll ask for Bowden, at least, for Dunn.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 7:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope..
We’re just going to get frenchie and his first pitch swinging at bats
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 28, 2009 7:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I will be PISSED we get Franceour
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 28, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guys, Guys
I think that Drug’s is right on the money here-so I want to repeat some of this:
a)The Sox are not going to pay 24 million to carry the DH spot. They simply will not do that. Forget “sunk” money. First, the philosophy of the team is “younger, cheaper, more athletic.” Dunn is none of that. They will carry a rental and even overpay in the short term if they will get something back (eg draft picks), but a player like Dunn, as good as his offense is, is not at all what the team wants. Look at payrolls around the league. nearly all have dropped in this economy. The Sox have dropped theirs by 20 mil since 2007. There is a reason for this. First the economy sitnks. Second, it allows for the ability to target truely needed chips (which the Sox obviously felt Tex was) and to sign guys like Petey, Lester and Youk longer term. Down the road the Sox are looking to do that with (hopefully) other young guys (Ells, Buch…)
b)As I mentioned Dunn is not a long term solution for anything. He is also likely of the Sexon, Cecil Fielder class. His production will likely be gone in 2 years.
c)In a lot of ways (but not all of course) Johnson fits more. At least he can field and a Youk/Johnson combo in the infield is probably better than a Lowell/Youk one. Of course Dunn is a better offensive producer and is more sturdy, but…
d)He will cost a lot more. As Drug’s points out, it is reasonable to conclude that in fact the deal discussed was not MDC for Johnson-it was at least Bowden for Johnson. If so, what would the deal be for Dunn? Bowden MDC for Dunn? BowdenBard for Dunn? Forget it.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 10:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Don't think the trade would happen
But if money and trading prospects weren’t an issue, I think Dunn would be a good fit in the lineup
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pujols would be better
:-)
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
can we have both?
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I liked the MDC for Johnson rumor, but I do not like the Bowden for Johnson, like you said. The Nats mighh be too hard to deal with, considering the Soriano debacle a few years ago.
However, I still do not think the amount Ortiz is making should/will factor into the decision. By your logic, the Sox will only play someone at DH that makes very little money? I think this is hard to believe. If they can get good value on a DH (like Dunn, who is signed for only this year and next) they will spend the money no matter how much has already been spent on Ortiz. If that is the best use of the money, they will pare payroll elsewhere. When the Sox signed Lugo, they were still paying Renteria a bunch of money. Best case is we can get someone cheap and young, but Dunn (or someone like him) might be the perfect hold-over until Lars figures it out. Its just hard for me to believe this team will play much longer without a DH that can hit.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course you like the MDC for Johnson rumor
That’s probably what the Sox offered. Washington wanted Bowden, and the discussion ended there.
The simple fact is the Sox aren’t in a position of strength. Couple that with a pretty good system, and you can pretty much guarantee that teams will expect Boston to overpay. The Sox won’t do that, unless they panic. The only true panic move Theo made was Meredith and Bard for Mirabelli—and he has said publically that he regretted the move. The chances of the Sox panicking—especially if Tampa and Toronto continue to struggle—are pretty slim. Sox fans and the media in New England may panic because the MFY are playing well, but the FO won’t.
Also, $12 million for a DH in this market is pretty steep. Look at what other sluggers got this off-season.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont agree Buzzy
Johnson is a potential injury risk. He is not a need as a 1B. Dunn is much better than Sexon, I think you will even admit that. He is under contract for 3 more years. Dunn is only 29. Johnson is basically a band-aid for 1 year and then he is gone, which means you have the same problem at the end of the season. And there are not as many teams currently interested in Dunn.
Everything hinges of Papi, if he is done. If he is, Dunn is a perfect fit for Fenway and for just Bowden and Bard, two prospects we still have no idea what we are going to get from them, I think it works out well.
As for the money issue…again if Papi is done, do you believe the Red Sox will go into the 2010 season without a DH bc of money? I understand your argument DD and Buzzy, that the Sox are double paying for the DH slot, but they still will need a DH. They are going to have to pay someone or put Drew, Lowell or a minor leaguer in that position. I thinks its inevitable that the Red Sox are going to have to pay double for the position in 2010 if Papi does not come around. Its part of doing business in professional sports. Sometimes you have to eat money to gain as a franchise, ask the NY Knicks…how much money did they eat on Marbury or Allan Houston?
by SoxAcumen on May 29, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I mean
about Sexson is that big-tall doofus types start to suck around 30. Dunn will be 30 right when the season ends. Also, Johnson’s 1b skills means Youk can play 3b and Lowell can DH from time to time. Of course that makes the brittle Johnson even moreso.
What I can’t agree to is Bowden anybody. Dunn is not that good and is not cheap. That is a 20million dollar swing right there. You seem to think these are drops in the bucket, they are not. When Papi was signed, he was almost free. Name one crappy fielding one dimensional player that
makes a shit-load that you can think of Theo ever, ever signing? Theo would never trade BowdenBard-10million for Dunn. And he would be right not to. I can agree that Dunn is superior at the plate to Johnson and sturdier to boot, but that does not make that a better trade avenue.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
SoxAcumen
Sometimes you have to eat money to gain as a franchise, ask the NY Knicks…how much money did they eat on Marbury or Allan Houston?
Do we really want to cite the NY Knicks as an example of how to run a franchise?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that is my point.
the Sox will consider the overall value and factor in the money already committed to DH. DH is the easiest position to fill. The Sox can consider several routes-they can try to find a guy who is a pretty good bat but offers advantages elsewhere too. For example a guy that can play near average at a few positions, or is a decent fielder at one. What this does is allow them to cycle guys (eg Lowell) at DH. In some sense Johnson is sort of like this, as his 1b skills are pretty good (perhaps even undervalued by UZR). The problem with Dunn is that he sucks in the field, he will suck at the plate soon too. That leaves the Sox with 2 10million dollar DHs. How does that make sense? Chris Carter makes more sense in fact. He costs absolutely nothing, and likely can put up an 800 OPS. In fact, perhaps you have not considered this, but Dunn is about the only guy in the world whose OPS will not be inflated by Fenway. he is such a poor contact hitter that, ironically, the dimensions and features of Fenway are not likely to help much.
An SoxAcumen-I agree, Johnson is problematic for a variety of reasons. But if I am going to take on a problem, I don’t want it to cost too much. Dunn has a lot of downsides, and will cost a lot in several ways.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on May 29, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Carter makes more sense in fact. He costs absolutely nothing, and likely can put up an 800 OPS.
You can’t say that when the guy doesn’t have a full season under his belt…what you can say is Dunn hasn’t posted anything lower than a 819 and that was in 2003. Dunn would give us that 800 OPS if not better for this year and next year…fine if you want to say Dunn is not a contact hitter…but he is an on base machine who will send the ball flying when he does make contact. I would rather take that than hope that Carter can put up similar numbers.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You miss my point
a bit ;-). It is not that hard for Carter to put up an 800 OPS playing half his games in Fenway. In fact, by projections ZiPS projects him for the year as 806. Of course projection is not reality, but it is not a stretch at all. Of course Dunn will put up a significantly higher one. That is not my point. My point is the following question: Is 10+Million dollars+Bowden+someone else worth the 100 OPS points to you? It is not a stretch to say that the cost of elevating the team OPS by 15 points is Bowden, Bard (or someone else like MDC) +a crapload of money. That is a bad bet to me.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
got it
i get what you’re putting out there. i still stand by the fact that this trade won’t happen, mainly because the Nats will hold our current struggles at DH over our heads pushing the price up. I think we could easily fix the problem internally, where we have the options. I wouldn’t jump off a bridge if it happened, that’s all I’m saying.
My roommate’s love for Dunn has rubbed off on me and the way he played in the WBC shows how much he loves the sport it seems. I just respect the hell out of him
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that they will not factor in the money already comitted to DH.
Businesses, and teams, make decisions at the margin. They figure out the marginal cost and value of a certain commodity and then make the decision. The amount that has already been spent does not (or should not, according to economic theory) play any part in the process. The marginal value of adding a better DH is an increase in OPS from a .630 OPS and a -.8 WAR to a .900 OPS and 1.2 WAR (for Dunn). If the Sox had been playing Adam Dunn all year, they would be 2 games better than they are now. That alone is worth the extra $10M, even if you have already paid Ortiz $12M.
But I do agree that it is not worth the prospects.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand
I guess I wasn’t clear-the Sox do not need to focus just on the DH world. They might prefer to find a compromise player who can play in the field, and largely DH Lowell, for example. Or they may choose to solve the Papi problem internally as discussed above with Carter. Thye are smart about always having a plan (as you know) that projects into the future and factors cost. I guess I would be surprised if they dropped 10-12Mil on a DH regardless of Papi, it is not like them.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They will look at everybody.
I just made a post with like 10 or 12 guys that I think they will look at, some of whom play other positions. But, as you know, for an equivalent amount of prospects and money, the best hitter will probably be a guy that cannot play the field. Since we have a big hole at DH, it might be our best value.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good list.
I agree, but maybe we are wanting too much. I would be happy right now with an 800OPS from our DH. I know that is risky (our catcher has a seemingly unsustainable 868 and others will come down too). When factoring cost, future performance and flexibility perhaps wanting that magical 950 guy limist what is really best for the team. dunno.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It all depends on cost.
If we have to sell the farm for a .900 OPS hitter, then I agree, go with Chris Carter/Bailey/Rocco. But if it can get done for high end relief pitchers or guys in the lower minors, then I think we make a deal.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe.
As Drugs says on your thread, I think Thome makes more sense that Dunn. I think some think people have fallen in love with Dunn in a weird way. He is off to a great start, but that won’t last. Otherwise, options like Thome make more sense-he is easier to get ride of-and cheaper going forward. Also likely cheaper in terms of players. I would take Dunn for relief too-for sure. I just don’t think that will happen.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
love for Dunn
I’m leaving average out because that’s not what Dunn is and we all know there’s better stats
2004: 46 HRs, 102 RBIs, 108 BBs, .388 OBP, 569 SLG
2005: 40, 101, 108, 387, 540
2006: 40, 92, 112, 365, 490
2007: 40, 106, 101, 386, 554
2008: 40, 100, 102, 386, 513
How is falling in love with that guy and those numbers weird? 5 straight years of 40 bombs and around 100 RBIs, which would most likely be more if he was on a better than the Reds/Dbacks/Nats. Even if his hot start doesn’t last, which it will regress…you’re still looking at a lot of walks, homeruns and rbis.
If we’re sticking to the fact that it doesn’t make sense to unload the prospects or money fine, but he would be a more than productive hitter for the Red Sox in our line up.
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weird
for several reasons:
a)Career OPS+ of 131 and never exceeded 146. Thus he is a very potent offensive player. But hell, Nick Johnson’s carrer OPS+ is 126 with a high of 149. My point is that is really, really good, but if it were not for injuries, he is not really a significantly better offensive player than Johnson. Before everyone yells at me about HRs, note that Dunn played in one of the homer-friendliest parks around. Secondly there is more to life than HRs. Dunns career slugging is not overwhelming because he hits relatively few doubles and even singles.
b)Totally one dimensional, bad field.
c)Not young, especially given his “old player skill-set.”
d)Makes a crapload of money for a DH.
What I find weirdest is that he has been a big dissapointment to the fans of every team he has played for. He just is always viewed as the apathetic “big donkey” who fesses in the clutch. Now, I don’t really put any stock in that from the standpoint of what is really important. But from the standpoint of the outpouring of love here, it is most ironic.
Dunn is a real offensive weapon. I just find the love here weird. He is not that uncommon.
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fans love him from afar for one reason: HR's
People see that he has hit 40 HRs for however many years and they love him. This is a little dumb for the reasons you give above. But I’m pretty sure thats why people want the guy.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
by BTLove on May 29, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he works a count
he grinds out the at bats until he sees a pitch he’s looking for and will either hit it very far, strike out or just take his walk.
the guy knows how to get on base which as we have said is one of the main points of the game
Now I’m not saying there are not other people that I would like to see besides him, I would just prefer him over Johnson
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
im leaving work to go home
but does anyone know of a way to look at the way his K’s break down? swinging or looking? full counts? cause I think it would be interesting to see how many of his K’s were full counts where he thought walk but got hosed on a close pitch
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have definately "fallen" =) for Dunn as a hitter
After watching him in the WBC with protection, the guy can mash, but do not down grade his ability to work counts, see pitches and be a very solid DH in Fenway park.
His approach at the plate is similar to many on our current roster.
by SoxAcumen on May 29, 2009 5:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on May 29, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you see
I find this weird. Nick Johnson is a superior on base guy. He sees more pitches per plate appearence than Dunn does, by a fair bit. Thus, he works the count more. Plus what does the WBC have to do with anything? Did Dunn do something there? Either way, that is like saying “Carter had 6 HRs in spring training, I love the guy…”
by Buzzy on May 29, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
