adam dunn

by taggartd on Jul 1, 2005 2:12 PM EDT

dodgers are said to be hot after adam dunn. They could use a power bat desperately with milton bradley out. with all the minor league talent the dodgers have this could be interesting. reds seem to need pitching prospects and the dodgers have a ton of them. just wondering which players would be most likely to be included in a trade?

Tweet Comment 42 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i dont see depo trading

broxton, billingsley, guzman, laroche and martin.

by npurcell on Jul 1, 2005 5:30 PM EDT reply actions

Dodgers Prospects

I would think that the reds would want a starting pitcher in return, and i think the dodgers should give them one. I would be willing to trade billingsley, but id rather not. I would offer jackson, broxton, tiffany, pimentel, orenduff, elbert, among a few others. I think the dodgers could get dunn for orenduff (groundball pitcher, which the reds would be interested in after the milton fiasco), tony abreu and maybe eric hull or william juarez.

by sanchez101 on Jul 1, 2005 7:27 PM EDT reply actions

yeesh...

... you won't give up anything serious for ADAM DUNN? This is a guy who hit 46 homers, in the major leagues, at the age of 24, which was last year. He's the best case scenario for virtually any prospect in baseball. It's nonsensical to refuse to trade top prospects for him, unless you just don't want him.

and boom goes the dynamite.

by dcarrano on Jul 1, 2005 8:00 PM EDT reply actions

I could see the Dodgers giving up...

quite a bit. The Reds are trying to move Casey too, so I could see James Loney, a pitcher (Chuck Tiffany maybe?), and Jayson Werth. I would hate to give up Tiffany being a SoCal guy, but there is a difference between being a fan and a GM and I think DePo would make that move. But the Reds might want more and who can blame them. Dunn is a good player who would drastically improve the Dodger lineup.

I really don't know what package they may be discussing, but dcarrano is right. When you can get a guy who is performing at the MLB level, then it is worth giving up legit prospects to get him.

by count sutton on Jul 1, 2005 8:54 PM EDT reply actions

Forget It

If the Reds want TOP prospects for Dunn, the Dodgers should pass. I would offer Navarro, Aybar, Joel Hanrahan and Derek Thompson and if that doesn't get it done, move on and see what we CAN get for that package. We're not talking about getting six pre-free agency years of Dunn. We are talking about one-and-a-half years. Dunn would be free to pull an Adrian Beltre on us and leave after 2006. The twenty-four pre-free agency years of the Dodger prospects I mentioned should help the Reds enormously. If they don't want that, fine and dandy.

Do the Dodgers have the self-discipline to stick to their "Build From Within" plan or don't they? That means avoiding the temptation to trade away your future for a short-term "quick fix." Guzman, Billingsley LaRoche, Martin, Tiffany, and even Jackson ARE our future, not one-and-a-half years of Adam Dunn. I have always known Dodger FANS don't have the cajones to stick to the plan, but our GM better be wiser than that.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 1, 2005 9:28 PM EDT reply actions

Well

Adam Dunn couldn't make up part of that "future"? A deal would give the Dodgers 1.5 years to put together a contract that would keep Dunn around for the long term.

I like prospects as much as anyone else, but it's bad to overvalue them. The Dodgers could've have Randy Johnson if they had been willing to give up Edwin Jackson. They declined, Johnson didn't come, they have no No. 1 starter and now Jackson's future is looking rather bleak. I think that whole situation should've taught the Dodgers an important lesson.

The Reds are going to laugh at any offer from the Dodgers that looks like the one you posed, because it's going to be obvious that the Dodgers are trying to fleece Cincy. The Reds shouldn't settle for less than Billingsley (preferably) or Tiffany. Dunn is going to be worth it, even with that low BA.

by mrkupe on Jul 1, 2005 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Hilarious

First of all, get your facts correct. The Diamondbacks did not demand Jackson for Randy Johnson. They wanted Jackson PLUS Billingsley PLUS Tiffany PLUS Jayson Werth. DePodesta concluded that the Diamondbacks weren't serious about trading Johnson at the deadline last year, at least within their own division.

You are SO correct that the Randy Johnson Trade That Never Was should have taught the Dodgers a lesson. A huge lesson. It is just not the lesson you think. I.E., look at Randy Johnson now. He is C-R-A-P. The Dodgers would have been stupid to trade Edwin Jackson ALONE for Randy Johnson. Jackson's future is about fifty times brighter than Johnson's. Note, I am talking about Johnson's "future," not his career as a whole. Why is Jackson's future so much brighter? Because Johnson is 20 freaking years older than Jackson, that's why. Don't you get it? Johnson's value is all about what he did in his PAST. He is going to the Hall of Fame on the basis of that. He was WAY over-valued because of that. But how does that help the Yankees now? Answer: it doesn't.

The Dodgers' top prospects are going to be great players who will be cheap for six years each. What Dunn has done for the Reds up till now cannot benefit the Dodgers. All the Dodgers would get is one-quarter of Dunn's pre-free agency years. That is not worth six full years of a single one of the Dodgers' best prospects as far as I am concerned.

If you think the Reds would laugh at the offer I prososed, fine, screw the Reds, and like I said, the Dodgers can take their package of expendable prospects elsewhere and see what they can get for them. And Billingsley and Tiffany will definitely not be traded. Part of the reason the Dodgers want to make a trade is to avoid the coming 40-man roster crunch. The Dodgers say they have too many prospects who need to be protected from the next Rule 5 draft and they want to unload some of those players. Neither Billingsley nor Tiffany need to be protected on the 40-man roster till after 2006.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 2, 2005 12:20 AM EDT reply actions

Ouch!

It sounds like I hit at something personal, and if I did then I'm sorry for that.

As I recall, the deal-breaker was that the Dbacks wanted Edwin Jackson, and the Dodgers did not want to give him up. I have no means to know for sure, but I would assume that this would mean that Billingsley + Tiffany + Werth were considered acceptable losses for Unit.

Randy Johnson, despite what the media claims, is NOT crap. After tonight his ERA is 4.24, which I think is very reasonable given the switch to the AL East. In the NL his ERA would likely be in the low-mid 3s. In Dodger Stadium, I wouldn't be surprised if he had an ERA under 3. The Dodgers would be VERY lucky to have him, and especially lucky to have spent next to nothing in actual major leaguers to have acquired him.

At this point, Edwin Jackson has a long way to go to even have one year that could equal something out of Jason Johnson's career, let alone RANDY Johnson's career (or Randy Johnson's current year, even). Predicting greatness for a guy who's passable at best in Double A is a bit much for me.

The Dodgers top prospects are most likely not all going to be 'great players'. I think they might get one to three really good, All Star caliber guys, and several other solid but not great guys. That might make for a solid, competitive and quite possibly winning team, but I don't think it's reasonable to predict that in 5 years the Dodgers will be fielding a 120 win team completely made up of homegrown All Stars.

by mrkupe on Jul 2, 2005 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Not to flame, but...

MrKupe - Don't worry about him. Once in a blue moon, Canuck makes some valid points, but a serious fault with trying to discuss anything with him is that he comes from the Dick Chaney school of debate - He's right, if you prove him wrong then he's still right, and if everyone in the world thinks he's wrong, then he just disappears till it blows over. I've been dealing with this clown on another board for about 2 years now, and while he does make the occasional good point, he'll argue and wholeheartedly believe that any Dodgers' prospect is better than any other team's prospect. The Dodgers, to me, are in the strange spot of both having the best farm system AND the most overrated farm system, but certain people don't grasp well when a prospect's stock has fallen, or when a position is overstocked enough that a team can afford to get rid of a premier prospect for a premier major leaguer.

However, I'll have to agree with Canuck to the extent that some of the proposals here seem a bit steep for the Dodgers. Also, why exactly would the Reds want James Loney, Joel Guzman or Andy Laroche with Edwin Encarnacion and Joey Votto waiting in the wings? To me, a Werth, Tiffany, Ohrenduff package sounds fairly balanced for give and take.

by Brickhaus on Jul 2, 2005 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions

So Mature

You don't want to flame anybody, but you'll call me a "clown"? LOL Very mature and oh so intelligent. I have disagreed with you in the past and you have made me roll my eyes with some of your statements, but I have not been so unkind in either talking about you or thinking of you.

You can entertain the delusion that you have "proven" me wrong if you like, but I have just found that we end up talking at cross-purposes. There is not much point in continuing a discussion at a certain point. In assessing player value, the facts and criteria I care about are not the same that you, and quite a few other people of the stathead persuasion, value. On another board, when we got into an argument over whether Jon Papelbon is a better pitching prospect than Jonathan Broxton, I thought the fact that both performed very well in the same league with power stuff while Broxton was nearly four years younger made it clear who was the better prospect. Then you come back with your line about who is the "safer" prospect. Since potential is more important to me than "safety" issues, what more do we have to talk about? In general, sabermetrics people are more concerned about safefy issues while scouting types care about ceilings and how much room for improvement there is based on age. That is just the way it is. To scouts, the younger a player is -- pitcher or position player -- when he accomplishes something, the better. The younger a pitcher is, the more statheads doubt him because of injury risks. The two positions are completely opposite to each other. Should one just argue endlessly when we're not talking the same language, so to speak?

by CanuckDodger on Jul 3, 2005 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions

What an Absurd Misstatement

Sorry to intrude on a private squabble, but this:

"To scouts, the younger a player is -- pitcher or position player -- when he accomplishes something, the better. The younger a pitcher is, the more statheads doubt him because of injury risks."

is ridiculous, and makes you appear as if you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Go ahead and shoot your mouth off, like it might kill the silence.

by ESiegrist on Jul 3, 2005 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Your Offer

The Brewers will give you Geoff Jenkins for that package.

Any takers?...Hello?...Anybody there?...DAMN, nothing! Oh well, I guess we're stuck with an $8 million dollar player that can't hit his weight.

by andy 5 on Jul 2, 2005 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Speaking of C-R-A-P

"Hey Edwin! Pickup on Aisle 14!"

by Con on Jul 4, 2005 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions

are you talking about edwin jackson?

if so, i think thats not really accurate. hes been pitching a lot better in AA so far- away from vegas.

by npurcell on Jul 4, 2005 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions

Yawn

Yeah, that 1 earned run Edwin gave up in 6 innings today (6 K's) really shows how crappy Jackson is, at the same age as the college juniors just drafted who are now trying to keep their heads above water in Short-A ball or lower.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 4, 2005 3:58 AM EDT up reply actions

Aisle 14 Edwin!

I see Edwin was traded a few weeks ago. How come Dunn isn't a Dodger? haha

by Con on Feb 4, 2006 7:47 PM EST up reply actions

Nonsense

I did not care for your post. That's all. You did not offend me personally.

Anyway, Johnson has been pounded silly by Tampa Bay -- Tampa Bay! -- this season. I have seen him pitch. He is not the same guy he was even last year, and why should he be? Not every pitcher can do what Roger Clemens is doing into his 40's.

Interestingly enough, the Dodgers' current Double A affiliate -- the Jacksonville Suns -- was Randy Johnson's Double A team back in the '80's. The Double A Randy Johnson walked 128 batter in 140 innings back then, and he was 23 years old at that time. Needless to say, the 19-year-old Edwin Jackson was a far better pitcher than the 23-year-old Randy Johnson. For all his recent struggles, Jackson has another two years to go before he is as old as the Randy Johnson who, frankly, sucked. Plenty of time to get himself straigtened out. Jackson will be an excellent major leaguer.

The Dodgers' top prospects are going to be stars. I don't care if you disagree (that sounds impolite, but I am just stating the fact). Your opinion certainly makes it easy to understand why you think some of the Dodgers' top prospects should be squandered on the likes of Dunn, who is a somewhat flawed player whose power numbers are helped considerably by his home park. The prospect Adam Dunn at age 20 was inferior to the present Joel Guzman, playing two levels below Guzman at age 20 for starters. Guzman made Double A at age 19, while Dunn had yet to even reach high A before he was 21.)

by CanuckDodger on Jul 2, 2005 3:41 AM EDT reply actions

What are you talking about???

Adam Dunn was a big time prospect and your age analysis for him is rediculous and laughable. He practically skipped AA and AAA (about 1/3 a season for each). He was in the majors for good at 21 and hit 19 homeruns, 43 RBI, 53 Runs, with a .949 OPS as a 21 year old in the majors in 66 games in their old ballpark. He is one of the odds on favorites to hit the most homers over the next DECADE.

by LizardKing51 @ Minor League Ball on Jul 2, 2005 6:29 AM EDT up reply actions

Brother...

I made a statement about Dunn at age 20. Why are you trying to contradict me by talking about him at age 21? At age 20 Dunn performed at a lower level of competition and with inferior results than Guzman produced playing at high A and Double A at 19 even. Dunn was never a Top 10 prospect on BA's lists. Guzman came into this year ranked #5.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 3, 2005 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions

And by the way

Guzman has already played more games in the minors than Dunn did.

Dunn's minor league career spanned about 3 full years, 343 games, and 1208 at bats. His minor league numbers also dwarf Guzman's in about every category.

Guzman's minor league career is at the 3 year mark, 380 games, and 1425 at bats and is still in AA. You can't fault Dunn for starting his minor league career at 18 (I guess that's too old in your book) instead of Guzman who skipped his childhood to play professional ball.

Guzman is the inferior one any way you slice it.

by LizardKing51 @ Minor League Ball on Jul 2, 2005 6:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Age Matters

I use age as the benchmark, which is what the scouting community cares about. I don't care about games played. Nobody does.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 3, 2005 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm having fun with this comparison

In about the same amount of career minor league at bats I will list the categories that each guy leads the other guy in comparison.

Dunn betters Guzman in runs, hits, doubles, homers, RBI, steals, walks, batting average, OB%, slugging, and OPS.

Guzman betters Dunn in at bats, games played, caught stealing, strikeouts, and triples.

by LizardKing51 @ Minor League Ball on Jul 2, 2005 6:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Response

Yes, Johnson has gotten hit hard in 2-3 starts. He's also been dominant or close enough in a bunch of other starts, despite some velocity fluctuations. He might not be the Randy Johnson of two or three years ago, but Pedro Martinez is not the pitcher he was at that time either, and he's considered to be doing just fine (in a National League park where almost anybody should be at least decent). The Dodgers are 4.5 games back in the NL West - if they had Johnson rather than their No. 5, they'd be right there if not in first place outright.

Randy had a 3.73 ERA at Jacksonville, with a 128/163 BB/K ratio there and a 100/143 H/IP ratio. I wouldn't say he "sucked" by any means there, but I guess one can make their own analysis of the stats.

Guzman was signed as a 16 year old for 2.25 million, Dunn was drafted out of college, so it doesn't really surprise me that Guzman got to Double A faster.

I will concede that Dunn's numbers are clearly aided by his home park (be hard not to argue that one). Even still, we're still talking about a guy who's hitting tons of homers when he hasn't reached his peak years of power production, and who is getting on base plenty despite the low BA. I wouldn't sell the farm for him, but asking teams to ignore the potential gold in your minor league system in exchange for an All Star caliber player and to instead settle for mid-level guys with very average potential and/or major questions just isn't going to work. We already saw how that went with Randy.

by mrkupe on Jul 2, 2005 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions

No

Dunn was not drafted out of college, he was drafted out of a Texas high school in the 2nd round of the 1998 draft.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 3, 2005 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions

I Don't Understand Some Of Youse People

We're not talking about Gary Sheffield here. It's Adam Dunn. A sabermetric/Three True Outcome poster boy who's still a few seasons away from his prime. Yeah, he'll get expensive in a couple of years. So what? He's one of the players who's already established that he's worth it.

I realize everybody here loves prospects (otherwise you wouldn't be here), but you people thinking that there are five or six kids that should be considered untouchable in a Dunn deal are delusional. If all it costs the Dodgers, say, Tiffany and a couple of other solid prospects to get him, that is an absolute steal for LA. Even Tiffany and Martin isn't too much to pay.

The Dodgers are not a rebuilding club. If they start thinking like one, though, they soon will be.

Go ahead and shoot your mouth off, like it might kill the silence.

by ESiegrist on Jul 2, 2005 10:08 AM EDT reply actions

I agree

the only dodger prospect that i would come close to calling "untouchable" would be billingsley, and only because you shouldnt have to trade youre best pitching prospect when you have many other, very tradable, prospects behind him. Although if a beckett/sheets/santana caliber starter was available via trade, i would give up billingsley. The dodgers SHOULD trade at least one of their pitching prospects. The real lesson the dodgers should consider is the rumored jackson to CHW for konerko or carlos lee after the 2003 season. Looking back they probably should have done it, and considering the randomness of pitchers development you cant be afraid of making a pedro martinez-for-delino deshields mistake, turn your prospects for value while they still have some.

by sanchez101 on Jul 2, 2005 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions

if i had to choose

i would hold onto billingsley, martin and laroche.

that it, if i had to choose 3 to keep.

by npurcell on Jul 2, 2005 5:43 PM EDT reply actions

if the reds are holding out for billingsley

then the dodgers should not do the deal. it may seem billingsley has been erratic this year, but its quite the opposite. billingsley has been flat out dominant.. except when he has facing the montgomery bears (you know, the team with dukes and young and some older career minor league sluggers).

his statline against montgomery:
3GS 10.2IP 23H 19ER 6BB 15K 5HR 16.76 ERA

his statline against the rest of the souther league:
12GS 69.2IP 49H 21ER 21BB 77K 3HR 2.73 ERA

so basically if you look closely at billingsleys numbers, he has been dominating the southern league but for some reason, the darn bears always gets him. i havent seent his type of ownage by one team in the minors in a while.

by npurcell on Jul 3, 2005 12:07 AM EDT reply actions

Nic e Dialog

I'm with Canuck on this one. Dunn is a solid home run hitter and OBP machine but he has some flaws. He would have to play LF for the Dodgers and he is just a terrible OF. Now if he was several years away from FA then I'd be trading our big prospects for him but since he's only a 1 1/2 away I'm not so inclined to send the big boys. But lets get real with what the Red's need and what we have.
The best Red's prospect is a 3b so the Red's will not be interested in LaRoche.
The Red's best young player is their SS so they probably aren't going to be interested in Guzman.
They could use help at 2nd base only because Freel is so injury prone because of his style of play but I don't see Aybar or D Young being bigger upgrades then the guy they released in Jiminez though they might be interested so let's put Aybar or D Young on the possible list.
1st base they seem to have a decent prospect.
They sure could use a catcher so either Navarro or Martin should be added to the list. I like Martin much more then Navarro and I think either one will become a solid (not star) player in the Major Leagues.
The Red's already have to many outfielders since I'm going to assume they will bring up Kearns if they trade Dunn leaving them with Griffey/Pena/Kearns as the starting OF. They could use some backup.
And we all know they could use some serious help in the rotation and bullpen.

As Canuck stated we won't be trading Billingsly or Tiffany because they don't need to protected next year.
So let's try a mix of a position player, a catcher, a starting pitcher, some bullpen help.

D Thompson, Broxton(gotta give up something good), Martin, + (D Young or Aybar or A Perez).

Were going up 2 great prospects in Broxton and Martin, one pitcher who can help them right now, and a middle infield prospect. This looks like a lot of talent to me for 1 1/2 years of Adam Dunn but because the Dodgers have so many prospects I'd do this deal.

By the time the deal could get done, Jose Valentin will be back playing 3b and Edwards has shown the he can be the RH platoon mate for him.
1st - Choi/Saenz
2nd - Kentj
SS - Izzy
3b - Valentin/Edwards
RF - Werth
CF - Drew
LF - Dunn
Waiting on Milton Bradley

I'd rather see the Dodgers go this route and trade for Marte/Langerhans and give up LaRoche/A Perez/D Thompson/Ross. The Braves have shown that they will not move Jones off of 3b so they don't really have a spot for Marte. Laroche is at least a year away if not two. This gives the Dodgers a solid 3b defender and a player who is ready right now to contribute. Langerhans would help until Bradley is ready and then he can be a great 4th outfielder ready to play whenever one of the top 3 get hurt which is often. The Braves get another middle infielder to help them if they let Furcal walk and Betemit flames out, a pitcher which they need and a 3b who might be as good as Marte but is not nearly ready.

Anyway food for thought.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen.

by Phil Gurnee on Jul 3, 2005 5:19 PM EDT reply actions

I am pretty sure Canuck is wrong about 1 1/2 years

Dunn has 2 1/2 years until FA, not 1 1/2. He was a mid to late season call up in 2001, thus that doesn't count towards his 6 years pre-FA. 2002-2004 were his pre-arbitration years where he made .25M, .4M, and .445M respectively. This year is his 1st arbitration and he is getting 4.6M. That should leave the rest of this season and 2 more arbitration seasons.

For 2 years of Mark Mulder, coming off a horrible 2nd half of the season, the A's got Daric Barton, 4 years of Kiko Calero, and either 4 or 5 years of Danny Haren. I'm pretty sure it would take a lot more than that to get Dunn.

by LizardKing51 @ Minor League Ball on Jul 3, 2005 5:48 PM EDT reply actions

Well, There You Go

A Reds' fan said on another board Dunn is a free agent after 2007, so I stand corrected on that point.

Anyway, just look at that Cardinals/A's deal. Forget about Barton for a moment (a big time talent). Haren alone has been better than Mulder this year, he is 6 years from free agency, and cheap. I said at the time the Cardinals got ripped off, and that has been made more than clear for everyone to see. Now I have said before, I don't care "what it takes" to get Dunn. If the Reds want more than the Dodgers SHOULD be willing to give up, then let the Reds keep Dunn or find another sucker to pay more than Dunn is worth. It is not the obligation of the Dodgers to let the Reds' win the lottery when it comes to recycling Dunn for MORE and cheaper talent.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 3, 2005 10:37 PM EDT reply actions

I agree

It looks like the Cardinals end doesn't look good right now, unless Mulder helps them win a ring. That trade is an example though of what it takes to get a big time talent in a trade.

I agree with you that just because Dunn is worth 2 or 3 of the Dodgers better/best prospects, it doesn't mean that it would be wise for the Dodgers to make the trade. They might be better off standing pat. It really all depends on what year(s) the management wants to make a serious push for the world series.

by LizardKing51 @ Minor League Ball on Jul 3, 2005 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Dunn vs. Mulder

It's not exactly a good comparison... Dunn 2005's future looks a lot brighter than Mulder 2004's did.

The fact that the Cards seem to have overpaid for a lemon does not mean you should never trade a prospect -- which is pretty much the implication of your position.

Go ahead and shoot your mouth off, like it might kill the silence.

by ESiegrist on Jul 4, 2005 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions

ESPN (Tim K) reports....

...that the Reds and Astros are working on a deal for Dunn.

Dunn for Astacio, Nieve and Buccholz.

Is this a good deal for both teams?

The basic premise seems to be reasonable, but man would HOU take a hit on their AAA level pitching. I guess I would rather see a guy like Matt Albers thrown into the mix instead of one of the those 3 if not just to even it out amongst the organization.

by FredUD on Jul 4, 2005 12:33 PM EDT reply actions

Insanity Reigns

The Reds would be crazy to trade him for that little, and the Dodgers (or any of a dozen other teams) would be crazy not to top that offer.

Go ahead and shoot your mouth off, like it might kill the silence.

by ESiegrist on Jul 4, 2005 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions

The next smart thing Kurkjian reports

will be the first in about 3 years. Ther Reds would never make that deal. If they do, they are now the KC Royals. This is fromt he same guy who said Vinny Castilla should be an All Star last year with his stellar .500 Road OPS. I like him, but some of the things he says are just ludicrous.

Propsects for proven MLB players is most likely always a good move.

2 Dodger starters for Dunn would be a solid move for both teams.

by So Cal Bob on Jul 5, 2005 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Hardly

Giving up prospects for proven MLB players usually bites the team that gave up the prospects in the ass. See Mulder-for-Haren-and-Barton (plus Calero) deal referenced above, to cite just one example.

The Dodgers are not trading for Dunn, thank God. 2005 is unsalvageable, and the Dodgers are not going to be parting with any of their top prospects. Dunn is ridiculously over-rated anyway -- especially by statheads, who are of course the people who tend to flock to John Sickels' board.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 5, 2005 1:13 PM EDT reply actions

Really?

Isn't the goal to win a World Series? At least that's what I thought they play for. If the Cards win and Mulder still contributes possibly getting wins in the playoffs and World Series, then the deal is VERY GOOD in STL's eyes. You are way too premature making that assumption.

About the only trade for prospect(s) mentioned is Baggs for Andersen where it was lopsided afterwards. You could argue Alexander for Smoltz too, but they are few and far between. Do you want to ask KC's view of the Beltran deal last year?

I'll stick to my original premise that it's better to have proven MLB players that taking a chance on a prospect. And Dunn is a well above average player today with MVP-type capabilities down the road.

by So Cal Bob on Jul 5, 2005 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions

i actually think

dunn is underrated by most baseball people.

by npurcell on Jul 5, 2005 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

What?

I think you're still stinging from the pedro martinez for delino deshields deal. There are a few times that trading a prospect for a veteran turns out badly, but many more times it turns out just the opposite. For example, the carlos beltran, curt shilling, scott rolen, and jim edmonds trades come to mind. Pedro Martinez himself was traded to boston for Pavano, who's first full season came in 2003 for a different organization. Dont forget milton bradley as well. The key to getting the most out of your farm system is to keep the guys that will become good, AND trade the duds before other people realize it. How many pitching prospects have the braves traded in the last ten-fifteen years?

by sanchez101 on Jul 5, 2005 6:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Obviously

"The key to getting the most out of your farm system is to keep the guys that will become good, AND trade the duds before other people realize it."

Of course I agree with that. If DePo wants to make another deal like the Steve Finley deal where we give up "prospects" like Koyie Hill and Reggie Abercrombie, let him go right ahead. Those are not the kinds of prospect deals we are talking about in this discussion over Dunn. We are talking about giving up REAL prospects -- the likes of Billingsley, Guzman, LaRoche. I believe all three of those guys are going to be MLB stars, and the Dodgers can have them collectively for 18 pre-free agency years if they don't do something stupid. Trade one or more of them for 2.5 pre-free agency years of Adam Dunn? No way. That is just helping the Reds recycle talent.

by CanuckDodger on Jul 6, 2005 3:16 AM EDT reply actions

Yes, but ...

I agree that billingsley, guzman, and laroche are 10 five (if not top 3) at their positions. But looking back at any top prospect list (baseball america posts past lists on their website) and you see things like this:

Ruben Mateo ranked #6
Jon Rauch ranked #4
Carlos Pena ranked #5

Drew Henson ranked #10, ahead of teixiera

Jessie Foppert ranked #5
Edwin Jackson ranked #4

Kazuo Matsui ranked #7
Few (if any) prospects are sure things, even the elite ones. If the dodgers trade billingsley for dunn (which i wouldnt like to see) but then billinsgley falls apart in AAA, or blows out his arm, its like getting a very good player for free. Pretty much every great team has aquired at least one key player via trade.

by sanchez101 on Jul 6, 2005 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions