It looks as if Pat Burrell will sign with the Rays for $16 million over 2 years according to Ken Rosenthal. That is significantally less than what he was projected to get. My question is, would you bring Adam Dunn back as a LF for the Reds if you can sign him to a 2 year 16 Million contract with the Reds?

If they are playing to win now, yes.

 

$8M for 40/100/100 with a high OPS is a no-brainer.

Yes. For sure.

I would!

Yes:thumb:

NKURoyal31,

 

I would like to hear why you wouldn't bring him back at that price.

If I'm the Reds, I would rather sign Dunn to a one-year deal ...

NKURoyal31,

 

I would like to hear why you wouldn't bring him back at that price.

 

First off I kind of mis read and was quick to vote no, but after thinking about it I just think Dunn is too much of a liabilty and lazy. As an outfielder he kills you with his defense which is way below average. He's not moving to first because Votto's there and when the 1st baseman they just drafted is ready i see Votto moving out to left field an him playing 1st anyway. I also dont think the chemistry would be there or itd be a very good team chemistry to bring someone in you traded away anyway.They werent winning when he was he before why would things change now? Why not let Dickerson play left? He proved at the end of the season he's better defensively and has some pop to his bat? If were moving forward with this youth movement etc Dunn doesnt fit the equation. Just totally my opinion.

First off I kind of mis read and was quick to vote no, but after thinking about it I just think Dunn is too much of a liabilty and lazy. As an outfielder he kills you with his defense which is way below average. He's not moving to first because Votto's there and when the 1st baseman they just drafted is ready i see Votto moving out to left field an him playing 1st anyway. I also dont think the chemistry would be there or itd be a very good team chemistry to bring someone in you traded away anyway.They werent winning when he was he before why would things change now? Why not let Dickerson play left? He proved at the end of the season he's better defensively and has some pop to his bat? If were moving forward with this youth movement etc Dunn doesnt fit the equation. Just totally my opinion.

 

IMO the above is short-sighted. "They weren't winning when he was here before..." Wouldn't that blame be placed somewhere other than the 40/100/100 guy? His defense, while not great, is not "far below average." Its average. "Chemistry" - its not unheard of to bring a buy back in today's game. Dunn was never a problem in the lockerroom so why would it be a chemistry problem?

 

Lets say the Reds are put together to win in 2009. They've got the pitching. They've shored up the defense in CF. They've shored up the SS position defensively. Relief pitchers are healthy and in place. For $8M you would put Dickerson in LF before the 40/100/100 guy?

IMO the above is short-sighted. "They weren't winning when he was here before..." Wouldn't that blame be placed somewhere other than the 40/100/100 guy? His defense, while not great, is not "far below average." Its average. "Chemistry" - its not unheard of to bring a buy back in today's game. Dunn was never a problem in the lockerroom so why would it be a chemistry problem?

 

Lets say the Reds are put together to win in 2009. They've got the pitching. They've shored up the defense in CF. They've shored up the SS position defensively. Relief pitchers are healthy and in place. For $8M you would put Dickerson in LF before the 40/100/100 guy?

 

They haven't done anything to the SS position unless you mean AGon coming back from injury

They haven't done anything to the SS position unless you mean AGon coming back from injury

 

It was a supposition for the sake of argument. Lets say the LF position is the only unsettled position. Now what?

IMO the above is short-sighted. "They weren't winning when he was here before..." Wouldn't that blame be placed somewhere other than the 40/100/100 guy? His defense, while not great, is not "far below average." Its average. "Chemistry" - its not unheard of to bring a buy back in today's game. Dunn was never a problem in the lockerroom so why would it be a chemistry problem?

 

Lets say the Reds are put together to win in 2009. They've got the pitching. They've shored up the defense in CF. They've shored up the SS position defensively. Relief pitchers are healthy and in place. For $8M you would put Dickerson in LF before the 40/100/100 guy?

 

How has the pitching staff been upgraded along with ss? I would rather spend that 2 yrs/18 million on another starter for this rotation. The bullpen is better than usual but I still believe they'll have their fair share of problems. And yes for 8 million dollars id love to see Dickerson in left and give him a chance, that saves us 16 million dollars we could use elsewhere. We need a power bat, which Dunn is but what changes have we made to this lineup? You honestly think bring in Taveras along with Dunn would be any different than last year? They might be a little better but not much

For the record, my guess is he'll be a Dodger.

It was a supposition for the sake of argument. Lets say the LF position is the only unsettled position. Now what?

 

Theres no argument when LF isnt the only unsettled position.

Lets say the Reds are put together to win in 2009. They've got the pitching. They've shored up the defense in CF. They've shored up the SS position defensively. Relief pitchers are healthy and in place. For $8M you would put Dickerson in LF before the 40/100/100 guy?

 

It was a supposition for the sake of argument. Lets say the LF position is the only unsettled position. Now what?

 

If they are playing to win now, yes.

 

$8M for 40/100/100 with a high OPS is a no-brainer.

 

To reiterate, a)I'm saying only if they are trying to win THIS YEAR. $8M is a bargain for him. b)For the sake of argument, lets ASSUME all is in place other than a power hitter.