Monday, June 25, 2007

The Case Against Krivsky

Joe Sheehan outlined some potential Adam Dunn trade destinations for Baseball Prospectus and also what Krivsky hopes to get for Dunn:
To his discredit, Krivsky is again largely focused on adding a reliever, in particularly a closer, in a Dunn deal. For a team that may not win 120 games between now and Opening Day 2009, it’s a ridiculous approach. A closer, even a very good one, isn’t going to make a difference to this team, and it’s a role that can be filled accidentally when the Reds are ready to contend. Krivsky needs to stop worrying about filling a low-value roster role and focus on getting the most talent, at any position, he can get.

First, let me say I am against any trade involving Adam Dunn; it's simply too big of a risk to try to get fair value for a 28 year old masher, especially with our current GM. But for Krivsky to say he's hoping to get a CLOSER in a Dunn deal is insane. Yes, the Reds pen has cost us games this year, but does any rational human being (this might eliminate Wayne) think a closer will net us more wins than Dunn could alone with his bat? And even if he does succeed in getting a closer who pitches well for the rest of the year, how long will that last? Closer is the most volatile position in baseball (and seemingly easiest to fill with a quad-A player). Back to Sheehan:

Wayne Krivsky blew up what was a fringe wild-card contender by overpaying badly for relievers Bill Bray and Gary Majewski. Sending away Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez killed the team’s strength, its offense, while providing absolutely no gains anywhere else.

Allow me to step inside Wayne's head for a bit.

I really blew it last year trading away solid bats for bullpen help, thinking our team was thisclose to contending. I might as well roll the dice on another proven-bat-for-unproven-relievers trade. It can't possibly blow up in my face again. Right? Right?

Okay, enough of that. Not nearly as fun as I thought it would be. But to answer your question Wayne, yes, YES, 1000 times YES, you can (and will) blow it again. Keep Adam Dunn.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Jonah Keri = not an idiot

One of the major problems I have with most (if not all) Reds fans is their belief that Adam Dunn is not a valuable player because he strikes out way too much. They base their anti-Dunn argument on his strikeout totals and his sub-par defense in left field. Of course by doing so they completely neglect his 40+ homer potential and yearly .900+ OPS, not to mention the fact that Dunn is only 28 years old and likely entering his prime offensive years. Here's to hoping that other MLB general managers are swayed by Dunn's strikeout totals and choose not to make fair offers for Adam Dunn. [Of course, in Wayne Krivsky's case, a fair deal usually means a grossly lopsided deal where the Reds get screwed.] Dunn could (SHOULD) be our foundation for the next 8 years.

Jonah Keri recently addressed Adam Dunn's strengths in an article for ESPN. Specifically he discussed another one of the common Dunn gripes, that he is not "clutch."

After I defended Dunn on air, I got a bunch of angry e-mails from other Reds fans, listing Dunn's supposedly numerous faults, the biggest one being his complete inability to drive runners home, especially in "clutch" situations.

Here are Dunn's averages over the past three seasons:
Situation: AVG/OBP/SLG

All: .249/.380/.533

Scoring position: .236/.434/.538

Scoring position, 2 out: .249/.460/.534

If there's an overarching pattern, I'm not seeing it. Strip out intentional walks and Dunn's the same hitter with or without runners in scoring position...Dunn is one of the best hitters in the game, period.

Again, Jonah Keri = not an idiot. Most Reds fans = idiots.