MASNsports.com is your online home for the latest Orioles and Nationals news, features, and commentary. And now, you can connect with MASN on every digital level. From web and social media to our new mobile alert service, MASN has got all the bases covered.
Get the latest breaking news direct to your phone with our free mobile texting service. Text "MASN" to 29292, or click the join button below!
Chicago Tribune baseball columnist Phil Rogers is hearing Adam Dunn wants a four-year, $60 million deal to stay with the Nationals.
Here's why that price could make an extension untenable, and possibly force the Nationals' hand to trade him: In the final year of that deal, Dunn would have 10-and-5 rights, meaning he'd have to give approval before the team could move him. Now, it's not a guarantee that Dunn's power will drop off as he gets into his 30s, but in the final year of that deal, he'd be 34, making $15 million and able to block a trade (he's mentioned numerous times this summer how he didn't want to be part of trade rumors this year).
So if the Nationals wanted to trade him, they'd have many of the same roadblocks that Cristian Guzman presents this year. That's why a four-year deal, to me, would seem scary for the Nationals.
I keep hearing that Guzman's 10 and 5 rights would interfere with the Nats efforts to trade him. But can anyone confirm this? If he gets paid the same either way, wouldn't Guz want to go to a contender as long as he was going to get the playing time....
Wow didn't realize that Guzzie. I thought with his salary it would be hard enough to trade him, but I am guessing it would be very hard at this point. Thanks JimBo once again.
No wonder Mike Rizzo did the "cut it" hand chop when Shenin and AK kept asking about what he planning on doing with Dunn ...
Today's lineup has Willie Harris starting in right field. After a massive offensive breakdown. Man Crush Mode (MCM) Riggleman full speed ahead to 100 losses and another #1 of #1's pick! Yeah baby!
Peric, the Nats probably won't even get a top 3 pick. I know your disappointed that the Nats can't set a major league record for dead last finishes.
Byron Kerr, Phil Wood in Cincinnati instead of Ben to eat at Skyline Chili. Man Crush Mode is everywhere it seems.
-------------------------------
Byron is filling in for Debbi during this series. Is Phil doing color?
Ben
There aren't many issues where I can't easily see the position of management/ownership when it comes to personnel... but this is a paper tiger to me.
Of course it causes you problems at the end of the contract. That is the nature of the business... but we're talking about a very specific type of player... and among those types of players (of whom there are perhaps fifteen playing now) you're paying for 90th percentile power and 40th percentile defense. The standard that Nationals ownership wants to apply is the Albert Pujols standard... Clearly Dunn isn't Pujols, and since he isn't, they are concerned about what happens in year four of the contract.
Just as Dunn isn't Pujols, he also isn't Guzman. I think when we look back at Dunn, we won't ever feel like we're stuck with anything.
Bats like Dunn's are in a lot higher demand in the AL because of the DH - a player can lose his ability to play regularly in the field, but still be able to hit. Because the AL creates demand for this kind of player, it artificially inflates the price of that same player on an NL team because players need to be able to take the field. So as a player's defensive skills and speed wane in his later years, the NL teams feel like they're not getting value for the contract. AL teams still see players with this skill set as valuable, so they're willing to pay the prices that NL teams are not. This is one way the DH ends up being a subsidy to AL teams, because it makes them more efficient in the way they manage their personnel (no double-switches), so even though they effectively have one less bench player, they need to make fewer moves. That translates into real dollars... dollars saved in the AL, and lost in the NL.
I think the way to look at this is that it is a cost of doing business... if an NL team is going to have a big bat that isn't Albert Pujols, it is going to be (unfairly) expensive... look at it as though you're deferring some of year one through three's compensation into year four.. and that compensation is just going to be more expensive because the Nats are an NL team.
Sign him.
-----------------------------------
You make some great points, here, Wigi. Thinking of the DH as a subsidy for American League teams is an interesting way to put it. I don't have a problem with signing Dunn, for the record, but there are some real concerns about players of his body type falling off quickly in their 30s, That's why I could see the Nats wanting to avoid the fourth year, and Dunn's people could be using that as a tool to force the Nationals' hand. At the very least, it would prevent this scenario -- Dunn being traded in his walk year -- from happening again.
Ben
One would think that Guzzie wouldn't block a trade to a contender, but if at age 34 Dunn still wants to play the field, he might not want the Nats to trade him to an AL team.
I wonder what Rizzo couldn't have signed Dunn for if he had really gone after it at the beginning of the season. Now, I don't Dunn at all for taking a hard line. With the year he's having, he'll find someone who will pay him that much if the Lerners won't.
Wigi that flies in the face of what Dave Nichols, Greg DiPalma, Brian Oliver and Joe Posnaski have said. Posnaski felt they should try to get 2 B level (with upside) prospects for him at the beginning of the season. The problem is in a perfect Nats Universe you would be right and they might agree with you. That Universe says that the Nats would be competitive, a playoff contender in 2011. Otherwise its a waste when you have a farm system that is bereft of athletic position players ready to ascend to the majors. Marerro IS NOT an athletic position player and he is probably the closest of the prospects at this point. Then there is the dearth of top-of-the-rotation power starters? Most in baseball feel the Nats won't compete in 2011, but they will be better. So that's 1 year of Dunn at 60 million. In 2012 he could be the same or better or he could take a dramatic decline as he hits age 32 plus. And they still might not be playoff competitive at that point.
In the end its not about the 1 player its about the plan and the priorities. This ownership does not want to replenish the farm and field a playoff competitive team simultaneously like Boston. They want to build it from the ground up, signing a small number of key free agents to make and keep the team competitive. By signing Dunn and not getting prospects you may retard progress not promote it. Let's face it Cliff Lee would be much more valuable to this team than Dunn. Do you think ownership will sign him?
Whose doing the MCM at MASN, John Angelos?
Byron is spelling Debbi, silly. Didn't see Phil Wood was there, but he's probably doing a report on the Red Stockings or how Walter Johnson stroke out all Reds batters in an exhibition interleague game.
Okay lets take some inventory here. Over in Metsville Jayson Bay is smelling up the joint, don't think for a minute that the "Nats Brain Trust" doesn't look at comparables to determine net worth. Players are no different then any other commodity to a business owner. There is no way ADUNN gets 60M for 4 years from this crowd. Frankly it wouldn't bother me in the least, thats a hell of a lot of cash to dole out to someone who will regress to the mean and maybe even below as he ages. Trade him now and get back something that meets the need.
OBTW gotta love Rigglemens vision, batting in the 7 hole is none other then the well below the Mendoza line "Willie Harris". You stay classy Jim, everyone deserves 3 innings and at least one at bat!
Why can't Ben spell Debbi. He does have a better hair cut and hopefully he would ask better questions?
-------------------------------------
You had me worried there for a second -- I thought you meant I misspelled Debbi's name. I was pretty sure I didn't, but I had to go back and check. :-)
And Debbi's haircut is most certainly better than mine.
Ben
Peric, you want the broadcast to go younger. I believe Kids Run the Show Day is coming up pretty soon, always seems to be a Sunday in August.
I don't have any reservations about Dunn's offensive production when he's 33 or 34. My reservations lay on his defense. In a three- or four-year deal, are the Nationals going to go to spring training in year three or four of that contract and realize that they're paying big dollars to a DH in the National League?
For the first time in a long time, Dunn was playing one position this year rather than shifting between first and left field and right field. It seems to have helped, because according to UZR, Dunn is just 0.6 runs below average at first this year. It's a small sample size (you really shouldn't look at just three and a half months of UZR), but it's interesting contrast to his career average of 17.3 runs below average per 150 games. Is Dunn's apparently vastly improved defense at first base a mirage or sign of more things to come? Because since Dunn is a greatly improved defender, it also means his value is greatly increased, as well (1.2 WAR last year as opposed to 3.0 WAR through three and a half months this season).
So if Dunn is really improved into an average first baseman in the long run, then the value is definitely there to re-sign him to a three or four year deal, but like Ben said, I'd be a little wary of that fourth year and the no-movement clause. But Dunn's power and on-base ability will be there throughout the duration of the contract, for sure. Dunn's 40-homer ability and .550+ slugging percentage potential is extremely attractive now that power is a bit diminished in the game. The real question, to me, is his defense.
Luke
I think I meant Ben's haircut was better than Phil Wood's and Byron Kerr's. Some guy's wife on the WAPo Shenin chat kept complaining about Wood's haircut. Had to be there Ben ... Maddy I think you were there?
How much money is enough? Particularly in hard economic times? Dunn himself made mention of that when he signed with the Nats. Max three years, 45 million, NO no-trade clause. Prefer the 2 years if I were
management.
Wigi, its not that easy. $15 million is a lot of $$$ and naturally increases everyone's salaries from Nieves to Zimm. I don't think the Nats brass were impressed by his first month when he had his homerless drought. He's a fan favorite, not quite that Nieves cult-like figure, but has a following nonetheless. He's worth $15 million if he's has satsifactory defense and hits 45 homers. He's not if he hits 25 homers or less and can't get to the hard balls. I would give him $12-13 million over three years, include an option, incentives pushing it to $15 million or more, and a partial no-trade clause (which StanK won't do).
"[A] perfect Nats Universe"
-->Sounds like a novel or film, I like it.
"Let's face it Cliff Lee would be much more valuable to this team than Dunn. Do you think ownership will sign him?"
-->Yes he would be more valuable... I think ownership would TRY to sign him based on TRYING to sign Texieria. But more likely he wouldn't want to come here after his Seattle experiment. He wants to be on a contending team.
Yes, I was there- me, you, Section 222(I believe), and others were representing the Goose Gang in the chat. Not too many Phil Wood haircut fans in that chat.
No-trade clauses are resereved for a handful of players and I don't think Dunn is in this class. StanK will never go for that.
---------------------------
Kasten is vehemently opposed to no-trade clauses; says he's never given one in any sport. Dunn won't break that mold. I think Peric was talking about 10-and-5 rights.
Ben
As pointed out on WNFF.
Why does it matter about paying Dunn 15 million at age 34?
They were offereing Teixeira 23 million a year for his 34-37 age seasons... so Dunn at 15 million should not be a stumbling block, period.
---------------------------------
First, I think there's less concern about a player like Teixeira breaking down than a player like Dunn. And second, the bigger concern, in my mind, is the ability to block a trade. For an immobile player (in multiple senses of the word) that's a fair amount of money to lock up.
Ben