I was pretty disappointed...

On Aug 15, 9:17 am, tmbowma....RemoveThis@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Aug 15, 8:41 am, David Short
>
> <David.no.Sh....RemoveThis@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.
 >> Stay informed about: I was pretty disappointed... 

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

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM DIES.RemoveThis@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
******************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: I was pretty disappointed... 

"Kevin McClave" <kmcclave.DeleteThis@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
 >> Stay informed about: I was pretty disappointed... 

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

>"Kevin McClave" <kmcclave.RemoveThis@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
*********************************************************************
 >> Stay informed about: I was pretty disappointed... 

On Aug 18, 2:40 pm, "David Short"
<David.No.Sh....TakeThisOut@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)
 >> Stay informed about: I was pretty disappointed...