Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: AdamKilgoreWP and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

To trade Adam Dunn, the Nationals need to be overwhelmed

The Nationals have listened to teams interested in trading for first baseman Adam Dunn and other coveted players, but General Manager Mike Rizzo will have high standards for what accepts in a trade, according to sources familiar with his thinking. The Nationals will need to be offered, in the words of one Nationals source, "something that overwhelms us."

The White Sox have been the most active pursuer of Dunn. The Nationals have had initial conversations with the White Sox regarding Dunn, one source said, but "I don't think it's gotten any deeper than that. Most of it seems like speculation."

Rizzo has said it will take an "extraordinary" offer for the Nationals to part with Dunn. According to a report in the Chicago Sun-Times, the White Sox would offer either Dayan Viciedo, a power-hitting first baseman from Cuba, or Daniel Hudson, a right-handed starter who is 11-4 with a 3.47 ERA this year at Class AAA and has made four big league starts. Just last night, Hudson allowed the Mariners one run over 6 2/3 innings.

In the long-term, one scout said, Hudson projects to be a No. 3 or No. 4 starter. Hudson or Vicidieo would make for a starting point for a Dunn trade, the scout said, but alone they would not be enough for Dunn and a "significant" piece would need to be added to either player to even the deal.

The White Sox have been aggressively pursuing Dunn; this weekend in Florida they had a scout present for the Nationals series against the Marlins. They covet a left-handed bat, and Dunn is tied for second in the National League in home runs, second in slugging and third in OPS.

Dunn will be a two-month rental player for any team that trades for him, but his trade value extends beyond helping a contender's playoff push. The Nationals have to consider the two compensatory picks a team would gain if they do not sign Dunn in free agency.

That's also why Rizzo, aside from his stated preference of re-signing Dunn, has not jumped at trade offers. Again, the two draft choices the Nationals will gain if they lose Dunn in free agency allows Rizzo to be patient.

"He doesn't have to do anything," one source familiar with Rizzo's thinking said. "It doesn't seem like he's out to make moves just make moves."

"Now is the time to kind of feel people out," the source added. "I imagine in the next week, I think it's going to get real cranked up."

Rizzo is taking a similar stance with other valued Nationals, Matt Capps and Josh Willingham. The Nationals control both for the 2011 season, although both will receive in arbitration. Rizzo has said Willingham "is part of the family" and he wants to sign him to a contract extension.

Rizzo's posture makes it difficult to predict what could happen in the 11 days between now and the non-waiver trade deadline. Even inside the organization, he has people guessing.

"Mike's playing everything very close to the vest," one Nats front office member said. "All of us are basically in the dark as to what's going on. I don't know exactly. I wish I did. We'd like to know more, all of us. I think he's keeping that way by design. That's just his style."

By Adam Kilgore  |  July 20, 2010; 12:47 PM ET
Categories:  Adam Dunn  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Scott Olsen's next rehab start
Next: Today's lineups

Comments

One smart hombres is Mike Rizzo.

Posted by: periculum | July 20, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Posturing. What Holliday drew last year is a good basis as to what Dunn's worth should be: three high end prospects. If that deal is out there for Dunn, Rizzo needs to take it. There are a number of free agent 1B's, including Dunn, he can sign in the off season.

This all begs the question: if Dunn is so hyper valuable to Rizzo, why does he not just do as he said he was doing since Spring Training and re-ink the guy now?

Posted by: dfh21 | July 20, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

This all begs the question: if Dunn is so hyper valuable to Rizzo, why does he not just do as he said he was doing since Spring Training and re-ink the guy now?

Posted by: dfh21 | July 20, 2010 1:03 PM

Because the Lerners probably do not want to spend $60 million over 4 years for him. It's not really up to Rizzo, it's up to ownership.

Posted by: Kev29 | July 20, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Don't trade Dunn, we'll just end up with Adam Kennedy at first base and probably hitting cleanup!

Posted by: Log711 | July 20, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Considering the team is "underwhelming," Rizzo might want to take off the leather pants he found in his office closet and get on the phone.

Posted by: DangerNat | July 20, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

periculum, I think you're right. Rizzo is playing this right. If Hudson is a #3 or 4 starter, with his current stats he fills a huge need for the Nats--a quality SP. I was not willing to believe we would be this bad after the way we started. Beyond Stassburg and Zimmermann there is nothing but hopes and dreams (some bad). Viciedo's stats are pretty good, too. But Dunn has to fetch us both guys and, as dfh21 says, maybe another. Agree with kev29, too: if the Nats were going to sign Dunn, they would have. It's hard to believe we have stumbled into Griffith and Short redux. periculum by saying Rizzo is playing this smart, you mean he is creating a market and maximizing his assets, right? You're assuming Hudson, Viciedo, and maybe even more?

Posted by: fpcsteve | July 20, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Because the Lerners probably do not want to spend $60 million over 4 years for him. It's not really up to Rizzo, it's up to ownership.

Posted by: Kev29 | July 20, 2010 1:11 PM
_________________________________________________________

Bingo!

Posted by: Section505203 | July 20, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Swiss chees does not have as meany holes as the Nats.

No catcher in the waiting(Norris is still hurt and Bryce is not signed)

Dunn is not a first baseman and can't hit with men on.

NO 2nd baseman

Error Desmond can't play SS (firts might be a better spot for him that way he does not have to throw the ball.)

Zimm is Zimm sometimes he lacks that buldog mentality.

One starting pitcher and a dozen broke D**kes.

Willingham is a Zimm clone a guy we love but can't carry a team.

A CF who 0 of 5 tools in his tool box.

A RF who is the man crush of the year.

A bench that even the 67 Mets would not have on thier team.

A bullpen that is over hyped and over worked our best pitcher (Storen) should be a starter.

A manager and bench coaches who sould be coaching the leisure world bingo team.

One player of value in AAA (Martis)

A and AA looks promising, but two to three years away.

All theses holes and Rizzo wants the world.


Posted by: hansenjo | July 20, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Rizzo is the GM. He speaks for ownership. He has been saying since late March that the club was all about re-signing Dunn.

I get that the Lerners have shrot arms to go with their deep pockets and all. But to say you want to keep the guy, and after he performs well, is uninjured, the market to keep him has not shifted in some radical way making it not doable, etc., it is pretty crappy of management to just not negotiate with the guy when they said they would. Dunn must be steamed.

Posted by: dfh21 | July 20, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Sorry fellas,
My spelling gets an Error.

Posted by: hansenjo | July 20, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Hudson, Flowers and Bellamy! Get 'er Dunn!

Posted by: Section314 | July 20, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

X minus 11 days and counting down for Dunn, and maybe others. The headline is nothing the fans haven't been aware of since mid-June, but Ken Williams is a GM who has gone "all-in" in the past.

Adam Dunn may well be on his farewell tour with the Nationals; The remaining fanbase could be looking at Viciedo/Morse at 1B for 2010 & beyond, and the resultant "hole" in the lineup, simply because the Lerners' can't yet be convinced that anyone is worth more than $12M/yr. This just makes me angry.

Posted by: BinM | July 20, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

hans, no offense, but spelling is not your worst problem there.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | July 20, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

BinM, I generally agree with you, and would add another point: subbing Viciedo and Morse for Dunn adds two righthanded hitters to Zim and Willingham. That means our top power threat from the left side is Bernadina (and, of course, Willie Harris!). Lopsided?

I think Viciedo is an intriguing guy and it could be an interesting trade, depending on who the other guy (or guys) is (or are, yeesh, that got complicated).

But shouldn't we ask a question? Why are the White Sox so anxious to get a guy we think isn't worth keeping? Do they see something we don't?

Posted by: baltova1 | July 20, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

I bet he even knows what "begging the question" really means...
*******
One smart hombres is Mike Rizzo.
Posted by: periculum | July 20, 2010 12:57 PM

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | July 20, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"Dunn is not a first baseman and can't hit with men on."
"Zimm sometimes he lacks that buldog mentality. "

Spelling is the least of your problems.

Dunn's career OPS with runners on base: .908
Dunn's career OPS with bases empty: .902

And yeah, we definitely need a player with a "bulldog mentality" who fields fewer balls at third and gets on base less and gets fewer hits, doubles, and homeruns.

Posted by: cassander | July 20, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Dunn is one of the top five offensive players in the league, maybe one of the top 3. That's why the Sox want him. I continue to fear Nats management is going to do a Soriano, talk about the possibility of signing and then just take the draft picks, put Morse (or Marrerro) at first, continue counting the dollars. Hope I am wrong.

Posted by: markfromark | July 20, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

I know there are bigger issues out there, but can we please bury the "Drew Storen should be a starter" push? He hasn't started a game since high school. At Stanford, he was a fulltime reliever, just like he was in the minors and with the Nats. He hasn't exactly stunk at it. Face it, he's a reliever and a good one.

Posted by: baltova1 | July 20, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Zim should bark every once in a while out there. That should help.

Posted by: baltova1 | July 20, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

I was going to suggest he could wear one of those spiked collars, but that image started going in all the wrong directions.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | July 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The Nationals have a truckload of pitchers who "profile" as #3-#5 starters (Lannan, Stammen, Zimmermann, Marquis, Hernandez, Martin, Atilano, Olsen, Wang, Chico, Detwiler, Thompson, Jaime, etc.) on the roster or in the system.

How many other LH hitting players do they currently have that "profile" for 40HR/100+RBI/.900OPS annually? ...(crickets)... How often have the Lerners' actually agreed to (and signed) a contract that averages over $10M/yr, let alone the $16-20M/year that a free-agent 1B will cost in the off-season? ...(more crickets)...

I rest my case.


Posted by: BinM | July 20, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

"This all begs the question: if Dunn is so hyper valuable to Rizzo, why does he not just do as he said he was doing since Spring Training and re-ink the guy now?"

Very simple. Rizzo does not have to do anything now. He has time. Dunn won't become a FA until fall, so he can't even think about going anywhere until then. Rizzo and Dunn's agent are negotiating, you can bet on that. Right now Rizzo holds the cards, he can declare Dunn's value no matter how exorbitant Dunn's agent's demands are. Maybe something will happen between now and the FA deadline, Dunn's agent reduces his demands and Dunn signs. If not, though, then the market will determine Dunn's value and Rizzo can pay what he has to to re-sign him. There's no indication that he's not prepared to do just that. But if he does have to overpay to get Dunn back, what's the reason he has to do it NOW?

Posted by: nunof1 | July 20, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I was going to suggest he could wear one of those spiked collars, but that image started going in all the wrong directions.

Posted by: Sec3mysofa | July 20, 2010 2:03 PM

First of all, you're assuming he doesn't already do that. Second, that would be a great addition to the silver Elvis wig. Finally, i remember the news coverage about the construction of the stadium pointed out they were displacing a couple of gay strip clubs. They could probably find a collar there now, if they looked carefully.

Posted by: baltova1 | July 20, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: markfromark | July 20, 2010 1:58 PM

Dunn isnt even a top 20 offensive player. I like the guy, but he is far from clutch. If they can trade him for some prospects than great. If not he can always be resigned. Im glad Rizzo is not giving the guy away. Viciedo is a third basemen. Bowden always gets killed around here, but arent you glad he didnt overpay for Soriano the way the Cubs did. If he cant get Beckham he shouldnt deal Dunn.

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | July 20, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Has this become a "Lerners Are Cheap" thread?

As for Rizzo, I'm not sure what his marching orders are. He shouldn't require permission form Pops Lerner each time he wants to spend $20. Rizzo, Kasten and the Lerners need to set "ballpark" budgets a few years out and once those budgets are agreed upon, then just let Rizzo build the team.

Personally, if this isn't the case, and I was Rizzo, I'd have to consider quitting. If management doesn't put you in a position to succeed, there's no reason to keep the position. I think if Rizzo was unemployed, he'd be sought after by other MLB clubs.

Posted by: comish4lif | July 20, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

That means our top power threat from the left side is Bernadina (and, of course, Willie Harris!). Lopsided?
Posted by: baltova1 | July 20, 2010 1:52 PM
---------------
Beyond lopsided; Nearly non-existent. Bernadina is probably a 15HR/65-80RBI player at his peak. Burgess comes close to those numbers, but is another RF at POT (2-yrs out, at least).
Nobody currently in the Nationals' system can come close to the kind of power numbers that Dunn posts. Harper has the potential, but he's unsigned and a long way off, imo.

Posted by: BinM | July 20, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Ben over at MASN made a good point about the Dunn negotiations.

Suppose Dunn wants a 4 year $60 million contract. Seems reasonable enough for one of the premier power hitters in the game, especially when Ryan Howard just signed for 5 years and $125 million. But in that 4th year, Dunn will be 34 years old, making at least $15 million (maybe more if they try to backload the contract) and he will have 10-5 rights, making it very difficult to trade him.

The Nats would have the same problem they are having with Christian Guzman now, because he would be an aging veteran with an expensive contract and (presumably) declining defensive skills.

If Dunn is asking for a 4-year deal, Rizzo might be pushing to keep it at 3 years, which could be a sticking point in the negotiations. Would Dunn go for a 3-year deal with a team option for the 4th? That would give Rizzo a little more wiggle room down the road.

Posted by: SpashCity | July 20, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Any chance that hansenjo is Ladson?

Posted by: flotsam3 | July 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"Finally, i remember the news coverage about the construction of the stadium pointed out they were displacing a couple of gay strip clubs"

Even better, the mecca of transgendered burlesque clubs (please note the great use of "mecca" metaphorically) was right where the ballpark was. Not just the city's go-to place, the nation's.

"Dunn isnt even a top 20 offensive player."

Your sentiment isn't in the wrong place, necessarily, but this here is a verifiable ranking. He most certainly is in the top 5 this year, whether one wants to believe he belongs there long-term or not.

Posted by: Section506 | July 20, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

What's the big issue with extending Dunn's contract until he's 34? There's no guarantee he'll be deteriorating by then. Baseball Reference lists 10 guys as being similar to Dunn at age 29:

Darryl Strawberry: did fade but there were other factors
Jose Canseco: hit 34 HR's and drove in 95 at 34, but, um, there were other factors
Rocky Colavito: faded before 34, but that was 45 years ago
Reggie Jackson: hit .300 with a league-leading 41 HR's and 111 RBIs at 34.
Harmon Killebrew: 41 HRs and 113 RBIs at 34.
Sammy Sosa: 40 HRs and 103 RBIs at 34 (see Jose Canseco)
Troy Glaus: turns 34 next year but having big comeback year this year.
Ralph Kiner: retired at 32 with a bad back.
Barry Bonds: 34 HRs and 83 RBIs in only 102 games (see Jose Canseco)
Boog Powell: 9 HRs and 33 RBIs at 34.

There's no pattern of decline at 34 there.

Posted by: baltova1 | July 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Sorry for the redux but this is relevent

Apparently Rizzo has the Bowden complex already written into his memory stack!

According to the SunTimes the ChiSox GM put together an impressive package of AA prospects and a few ready for primetime AAA'rs for Rizzo to chew on, but...Cousin Mikie said he wants Carlos Quentin and Gordon Beckham. ChiSox say no dice..., we are in a pennent race and we need our 2nd basemen and our RF.

Moral of the story...., typical Nats "brain trust". We'll dangle Dunn out there, ask for the moon to see if someone bites, let him walk in Oct and get a supplemental pick in the Jun 2011 draft.

ITS THE SCRIPT PEOPLE, HAVEN'T WE ALL SEEN THIS MOVIE BEFORE?

Posted by: TippyCanoe | July 20, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Dunn's value is about what Holiday's was last year: 2.5 months of solid production and two 1st round choices. Rizzo needs to get that level of value, and the White Sox don't have it.

Posted by: deMille_Ondefloss | July 20, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I think someone brought this up the other day. Isnt Dunn more trade worthy w/his current contract since teams might not be looking to aquire his long term contract? So, wouldnt it be smarter for the Nats NOT to sign him until after the trade deadline? (same w/Josh)
They can sit tight for 11 days and see what the best deal is and if they dont like it the sign him after the trade deadline. No need for them to be rushing to sign him.
(Just hope they dont wait until the end of the season cus then I think we would lose him for lousy compensation picks)

Posted by: doh88 | July 20, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The Nationals are morons from the top down. If they were serious about Dunn, they'd sign him. Now. If they don't trade him, he's going to walk. Period. Then the Nats can crow some more about getting (big whoop) a couple supplemental draft picks, and the constant "rebuilding" will go on.

Idiots. Fools. Chicago nor anyone else are going to meet the Nats ridiculous demands. Washington is going to lose Dunn in the fall for sure, as he'll sign with a REAL baseball team with a real future and one that isn't an embarrassing joke. They might as well trade him, and get something. The offense sucks anyway even with him in the lineup.

Posted by: jollyroger2 | July 20, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Rizzo isn't saying anything because he knows his office has blabbermouths who will compromise the Nat's leverage just so they can see their quote in the paper.

Bravo Mike. Frustrate the beejeepus out of all of 'em.

Posted by: dand187 | July 20, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Dunn's max value is as a DH in the AL. Trade him now.

Posted by: hz9604 | July 20, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

If the hanging point on Dunn is $15M at age 34, then the team could just front-load the contract. I think it may go deeper than that; Perhaps the Lerners' are currently unwilling to pay more than $12M/year (what they owe Dunn for 2010) for ANY player, and are equally unwilling to offer a contract longer than three years to anyone over the age of 30. The thought of a 4-year contract at $15-16M/yr to a 30yo player just has too many red flags for them to handle.

Posted by: BinM | July 20, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I have been a staunch "Keep Dunn!" guy since last season, but I'm beginning to see things a bit differently.

The Nationals aren't as close to contention as I had thought, so why keep him if we are going to continue to lose 90 games a season?

Mike Morse would be an adequeate replacement for the rest of this season, and by next season, the Nationals will have enough quality pitching (Strasburg, Lannan, Marquis, Wang, Zimmermann, Olsen et. al.) that one well-placed free agent signing in addition to two solid prospects from the White Sox should be enough.

I don't want the two draft picks in next season's draft for Dunn; the team just can't afford to wait 3-5 years for Dunn's replacement's to blossom.

I guess that 20-15 start was mostly smoke and mirrors (the injuries didn't help).

Mike Rizzo needs to say, "Okay, I've got more starting pitching for 2011 than I can handle, so I'm good there. I'll trade the excess and a prospect or two to fill the holes in the everyday lineup and sign one solid free agent.

With that pitching staff, a slightly-above-average offense will bring the team close to a .500 record.

But, sadly, it looks like 2010 is ready to be written off. No reason to trot Adam Kennedy, Cristian Guzman, et. al. every day in hopes of a ten-game winning streak.

Just not going to happen.

I guess the good news is that the official "write off the season" declaration came in July this year, and not in April like it did in 2010.

But with a starting '11 rotation of Stephen Strasburg, Jordan Zimmermann, Ross Detwiler, Jason Marquis and either Chien-Ming Wang, Livan, Scott Olsen, J.D. Martin filling in the 5th spot, this could be a special team.

So trade Dunn and Capps and keep Willingham.

That's a future I could live with.

Posted by: rushfari | July 20, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Not signing Dunn to a longer contract this year could also have been a ploy to drive up his trade value. Trading him could be good because we could get something of value in return, Dunn could go to a contending team and we could try to resign him in the off season. Keeping him has advantages as well. We would keep his bat in our lineup, we could still make a play to resign him or we could gain 2 extra picks if we lost him in the offseason and then still go out and try to sign all star Adrian Gonzalez. I really like Dunn but that last option kind of has me drooling. We have to start adding some talent around Strasburg or he'll be gone. Good thing is with Stras here and Bryce on the way we probably have a better chance to sign a top free agent.

Posted by: MaxnDC | July 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

The Nats have two HOF players. In Pudge, we can rejoice in his great career, and watch his last years. Dunn is right in the middle of his career. If you double his numbers, you get HOF. Do you think a prospect who the Nats would get in return for Dunn in a trade will be HOF?

If the Nats do not want to pay Dunn, the best way to play this from a PR standpoint is to let him finish the season. By staying in close contact with Dunn's agent, they can just miss on Dunn. This can be arranged, and the effort will look sincere.

Or the Nats could forget the BS and sign Dunn. That's an option too!

Posted by: EdDC | July 20, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm also beginning to believe that Ted Lerner is Nosferatu - has anyone ever seen him at a day game?

Posted by: BinM | July 20, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jollyroger2 | July 20, 2010 2:43 PM

Dunn was available two years ago and the Nats had the best offer for him. Why do you think this year is going to be any different? The only diffence is that he is over 30 now which will bring his numbers down a bit. Whether Dunn gets traded or not, there is a good chance he may be back next year. The fact that some believe the Nats should give up Dunn for a marginal prospect for fear they wont get anything back is the most idiotic thing ive heard. The Rangers were adamant about not including Smoak in any deal. What happened? He now plays for the Mariners. So before you post here calling people idiots, know what you are talking about.

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | July 20, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Storen is ready to close now. I'm surprised the Nats aren't actively shopping Capps as that would make the most sense. He's under contract for next year, and will break the bank in arbitration. His value will never be higher, and the Nats should trade him before he reverts to his career average (high) WHIP. I would imagine that the Phillies would overpay for him, and their system is loaded. Heck if they got Capps and a minor leaguer for Dominic Brown, they should do that deal ASAP. I'm hoping that they don't trade Dunn, but the Nats can afford to wait and see if someone offers a knockout deal since the compensatory picks would be first rounders.

Posted by: orangeskin | July 20, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Nats management is a bunch of idots, and I know what I am talking about (STH since day 1).

Posted by: dfh21 | July 20, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

@jollyroger2 -- hz9604 hit it on the head in regard to Dunn's value, and that's Rizzo's leverage. Dunn can sign with a "real" baseball team in the fall, but it would almost certainly be as a DH in the AL. That isn't what he wants. So Rizzo sets a high trade price that isn't met. He then can use that as a gauge of Dunn's value to justify a smaller contract. Dunn gets to accept or take a DH job. Tough call...

Posted by: DavidandDonald1 | July 20, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

How are not more people agreeing with rushfari and, at least to some extent, hansenjo?

This team has so many holes, and it has great chance to fill at least one of them in exchange for two months of Dunn (who would be replaced by Morse in the lineup, which would tell us a lot about Morse's value from now to September).

Two draft picks are great, but, as someone said, we can't wait that long. Zim will be gone in three years if nothing happens fast. At some point you simply have to try to go for it and not make moves that improve you at the most basic level. So getting Hudson plus a couple of minor prospects here is clearly preferable to having two extra picks.

And what stuns me is that most here seem to assume that it's a lot more likely to retain Dunn if we don't trade him. He is clearly not happy about how the past few weeks have played out, and an extension would cost us more than it would cost other teams who might try to sign him in the offseason. If someone pays as much as we offer, he'll be somewhere else.
And while I'd like to have him back at a reasonable price (and not for more than three years), you can get some pretty good value for $15 million/year.

Bottom line, if it's accurate what the White Sox have offered, it would be very irresponsible not to trade him.

Posted by: amo36 | July 20, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I'm eager to read exactly what the impressive package of AA players the Chisox put together consists of! Can TippyCanoe or amo36 offer up names? Wouldn't surprise me if the Sun-Times finds them more impressive than any of us would.

Maybe dfh21 can let us know whether or not management is being idiotic by rejecting that player package.

Posted by: Section314 | July 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Just because the Sun-Times says that Kenny Williams has put together " impressive package of AA prospects and a few ready for primetime AAA'rs" - doesn't mean that Rizzo or anyone else would find the "impressive" or "ready for primetime."

According to Baseball America, the ChiSox best prospect is Jared Mitchell, who is in A-ball this year with a .417 OBP (Nice) and no homers and 5 steals. Their second best prospect is catcher Tyler Flowers who has 16 AAA home runs and a .228 batting average and 98 whiffs. If the Nats can convert him back to 1B (he played 92 games at 1B in A-ball), maybe he could replace Dunn. Hudson is the third best.

As for trading Dunn, in general, I'd be OK, but this team has no prospects ready to take his place, and I have doubts that the Lerners/Kasten/Rizzo can send free agent money on a replacement. So, resign Dunn and continue to fill in around him and improve the product on the field.

Posted by: comish4lif | July 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

EdDC: "Dunn is right in the middle of his career. If you double his numbers, you get HOF."

That's for sure. You double his current .252 lifetime BA and .906 OPS and they wouldn't just give him a plaque in Cooperstown - they'd build an entire new wing.

Posted by: gilbertbp | July 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Cousin Mikie said he wants Carlos Quentin and Gordon Beckham. ChiSox say no dice..., we are in a pennent race and we need our 2nd basemen and our RF.

Posted by: TippyCanoe | July 20, 2010 2:36 PM

You're still wrong there, Tip. The Sun-Times source claims that Rizzo wants Beckham *OR* Quentin. Not *AND* - as in both. Read the article...

http://blogs.suntimes.com/whitesox/2010/07/sox_have_made_pitch_for_dunn_-.html

"That means that Rizzo is still fixated on getting Gordon Beckham or Carlos Quentin, two players on the current big-league roster that Williams has refused to move."

You're overplaying and overstating your "Rizzo is asking for too much" hand.

Posted by: Kev29 | July 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

It is a tough spot to be in

If the Nats want to try and compete next year, Dunn needs to be a part of it all. If not, we have a TERRIBLE hole to fill which we cant right now.

Posted by: Bious | July 20, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Dunn isnt even a top 20 offensive player.

I believe this assertion is entirely unsupported by statistics, and rests on the sum amount of anguish generated by watching him strike out with runners in scoring position. Which is what "clutch" refers to.

Posted by: markfromark | July 20, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

They'll have to be overwhelmed, huh? Well, it will be pretty overwhelming when Dunn leaves as free agent. Just how much leverage do these nitwits imagine they have?

Dunn is hitting way above his career average. He will never be more attractive than he is now. Hudson is in only his third professional season. His total minor league numbers are 30-13, with a 2.93 ERA. He's 25-9 the last two years, including 13-4 at the AAA level, with 132Ks in 117.1 innings.

Obviously, you don't trade Dunn even up for him, but given his looming free agency, you're in no position to ask for a heck of a lot more. The Nats are desperate for a young catcher, and the Sox have a pretty decent prospect named Tyson Flowers. He put up excellent numbers in Double-A last year, and while his average this year in Triple-A is a disappointing .228, he does have 16 home runs. Throw him in with one other decent position prospect (Brent Morel assuming he can play either SS or 2B) and you have what's probably a good deal.

Posted by: Fairfax6 | July 20, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

EdDC: "Dunn is right in the middle of his career. If you double his numbers, you get HOF."

That's for sure. You double his current .252 lifetime BA and .906 OPS and they wouldn't just give him a plaque in Cooperstown - they'd build an entire new wing.

Posted by: gilbertbp | July 20, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey, gilbertbp:

Yes he had some early years with batting averages in the .230's and one at .215. His average is coming up though in recent years. You have to like the nice trend.

But anyway, please name one guy with at least 676 HR (double his current # at age 30) and has at least a .383 OBP who is not in the HOF. Just one please. And take as long as you like to look it up.

I will be patient waiting for your answer.

Posted by: EdDC | July 20, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"But anyway, please name one guy with at least 676 HR (double his current # at age 30) and has at least a .383 OBP who is not in the HOF. Just one please. And take as long as you like to look it up."

Barry Bonds.

Yeah, I know, he's not eligible yet. Still, there is one. And given the steroid thing, he may never be.

Posted by: Fairfax6 | July 20, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: markfromark | July 20, 2010 3:35 PM

Dunn is tied for fourth in HRs, 24th in RBIs, and were not going to talk about his average. How does that make him a top 5 offensive player?

Posted by: KingJoffeJoffer | July 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Dunn's average at .286 is fine, while his OBP is consistently good. And I amend my question: name one guy who has hit 676 HR who is eligible to have been voted into the HOF who didn't get in.

And why does he have to be top 5 to be good enough to be a Nat? The Nats are a last place loser team! You need better hitters and pitchers to get out of this rut; you do not need to subtract the very few you have.

You guys writing in saying Dunn is no big deal must be Ted Lerner's accountants. Let's just get bargains only, like Adam Kennedy and Nyjer Morgan. If you have to pay market value for a player, well, then you can always find great replacements like Mike Morse.

Posted by: EdDC | July 20, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Orangeskin -- I'm totally on board with trading Capps, but there is NO chance we could get Dominic Brown. In a one for one deal, I think only Zimm and Strasburg could get Brown. See the trade value rankings at Fangraphs for a good understanding of just how valuable Brown is...

I have also been staunchly pro-Dunn, and still am, but I am beginning to see some of the value to trading him. Letting him walk is the absolute worst scenario. If the Nats can sign him to a 4 year deal, it would be great -- doing everything to maintain the 3-5 of Zimm-Dunn-Hammer, with development of Bernadina and Desmond over the next couple years would lead to a capable offense. Weakness at C is fine.

I think Dunn tends to be criminally undervalued and for that, the Nats will not be able to "win" a trade that sends him away. The best move would be to listen to offers through the 31st, but extend him shortly thereafter.

Posted by: OldNumber3 | July 20, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I checked and since my last post, Nats management: still idiots. (If it takes you 4 years to hire an MLB caliber scouting unit when trying to build a club from the minors up, you're forever an idiot.)

The price for Dunn should be something in the range of what the Cards paid for Holliday last year, if the Nats get an offer for him in the range of 3 high prospects, they have to take it. Or if they can get Bumgarner/Sanchez and a midlevel prospect from SF, they have to take it. And I think they have to move Livo, and should move Capps. Club has holes all over the place and they could really add some pieces and still have the ability to be players in the FA waters to make the club legit for 2011.

I'd prefer to have Dunn stay, but the club is not likely to keep him. He'll get 4/60+, maybe much more (he is the same age as Ryan Howard with a similar skill set -- not impossible to imagine him getting say 60-65% of Howard money), from some NL club. Cubs maybe. Anyway, I can't see Ted Lerner stroking a check that big for anybody.

Posted by: dfh21 | July 20, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

If they had inked Dunn for four years instead of two, do you have any idea what they would have gotten for him in a deadline trade this year? They could have shot the moon, but instead they have to hope that someone will gamble that Dunn will re-sign with them. In other words, a whole lot less than they would have gotten, because if he's traded, he's as good as gone for the next 5 years. Cheep bastids.

Posted by: Brue | July 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Get all they can for him, shoot for close to ready prospects who will be with Strasburg over the next six years.

Posted by: Nemo24601 | July 20, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

I agree with many -- come August 1st, Dunn needs to either be signed to a long-term deal or traded.

There is no other acceptable option.

Posted by: rushfari | July 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

How does that make him a top 5 offensive player?

2d in slugging, 3d in OPS.

Posted by: markfromark | July 20, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

If they had inked Dunn for four years instead of two, do you have any idea what they would have gotten for him in a deadline trade this year?

Posted by: Brue | July 20, 2010 4:39 PM

The flippant answer to that question is that he might not be playing this well if it was not a contract year. Even the nicest and best of athletes have a funny way of playing terrific ball when the cash is on the line.

Posted by: Kev29 | July 20, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see if Dunn plays out season and if Nats offer arbitration. Dunn could easily get $17 or $18 million on a one year deal and do it all over again next year.

He probably wouldn't turn down a 4 year $70 million deal but it would be a big test to see if the Lerners are willing to go that high.

Posted by: Pensfans | July 20, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

If you look up Dunn's numbers, he is a 40/100 guy every year, whether he has a contract on the line or not. Some guys play for more than just money. Dunn is one of those guys.

Posted by: EdDC | July 20, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

If you look up Dunn's numbers, he is a 40/100 guy every year, whether he has a contract on the line or not. Some guys play for more than just money. Dunn is one of those guys.

Posted by: EdDC | July 20, 2010 5:20 PM

Then why is he (apparently, at least money wise) worth a lot more right now than he was a year and a half ago? His batting average, slugging and OPS are at or near career highs right now. Not to mention that he's actually learned how to play a position somewhat reliably.

I was really being flippant and not doubting Dunnkey's honesty and ability... but you can't eliminate a factor like contract and how it may impact focus and results. Things certainly would be MUCH different if Dunn was in the middle of a 4 year $40 mil contract with the Nats. We certainly wouldn't be talking about him as much.

Posted by: Kev29 | July 20, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: BinM
I'm also beginning to believe that Ted Lerner is Nosferatu - has anyone ever seen him at a day game?
====================================
Whoa! guess I'd better get extra garlic on that slice of pizza the next time I'm at a nats game....

Posted by: bromisky | July 20, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Why in the world would the Nationals trade Adam Dunn for a pitcher? Their problem is they can't hit - their pitching, at least the starting pitching is fine. We need hitters. Keep Dunn and trade away a pitcher or 2 for some good hitters who can also play defense!

Posted by: remy117 | July 20, 2010 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Kev29,

I agree with you that the Nats would have been much better off had they signed Dunn for 4 yrs at $40 mil, as reports indicate they had the chance to do so. But we are talking about a different kind of ballclub than they one we got.

Posted by: EdDC | July 20, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

This is a rotten ballclub. It is also an old ballclub (8 of the 11 most used position players over the age of 30, plus their most consistent starting pitcher from day one). They desperately need young prospects. Sending Dunn to the White Sox could conceivably net the 3 young players I named in my above comment. Forget this nonsense about him being a Hall Of Famer, he'll end his career with a BA under .250, and to this point, he has yet to play on a winning ballclub. There are players with better career numbers who will never make the HOF. For example, check out Roy Seivers, who spent many years toiling for Washington's original ballclub. Had he produced the same numbers while playing for the Yankees/Dodgers/Giant/Braves (and if he'd played for those teams his numbers would undoubtedly have been better as he would have been surrounded by much better hitters than he was in DC) he might have gotten in, especially if he'd had a good World Series or two.

Barring some miracle, Dunn is gone once the season ends. Get what you can for him now and hope management chose wisely in their picking.

Posted by: Fairfax6 | July 20, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse

The chatter on talk radio surrounding Adam Dunn is incredibly depressing. I've purchased tickets for my son and me for the next game Strasburg is pitching, and hopefully Dunn will be there on the 27th to help drive in some runs. Long ago, Stan Kasten sold me on the idea of hope, the value of building a team the right way by developing players through the farm system, and that the Nationals wanted to resign Adam Dunn. Why is there so much despair surrounding this team's consistent inability to hit or play defense when many people earlier in the year sincerely believed that a winning team is just around the corner? Maybe some of us came to believe that the team was building around core players who provide leadership, both on the field and the locker room, and the Adam Dunn debacle has raised serious doubts. The game of baseball is built around hope, and where there is no hope, there is no future. The Nationals need to get 'er Dunn and pay a premium because they failed to get 'er Dunn at 4 years and $40 million when they had the chance. What kind of signal would the Nationals be sending to the fan base if they they fail to get 'er Dunn? Abandon all hope ye who enter here?

Posted by: dannykurland1 | July 21, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

I think the Nats would be stupid if they trade Adam Dunn! It's already hard enough to get fans in the seats as it is without trading fan favorites away! What would they be trading him for? Prospects? Our minor league system is full of prospects! Heck, part of our supposedly major league team consists of prospects or other team's castoffs.

Posted by: burnie4241 | July 21, 2010 9:30 AM | Report abuse

>The flippant answer to that question is that he might not be playing this well if it was not a contract year. Even the nicest and best of athletes have a funny way of playing terrific ball when the cash is on the line.

Posted by: Kev29

Uh huh. The real answer is that his numbers are only getting better as he learns how to hit. He said himself last night that he didn't have any time in the minors and he's learning how to hit the ball for power when it's off the plate. The point about signing him for four years - you can sign him for two, but then you'd have to replace 40 homers and 100 rbi's. You have to look at it from a GM's perspective - how do I replace this guy, is there anyone else out there like him? Answer is no. Unless you're talking about Adrian Gonzalez, and the day he signs with the Nats is the day I become president of the United States.

Posted by: Brue | July 21, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company