Thursday, February 12, 2009

Why Didn't The Reds Bring Back Dunn?

Adam Dunn just signed a two year, $20 million deal with the Washington Nationals. This, I think, redefines reasonable. But it's also somewhat maddening. If two years at ten million a pop is all it takes to lock down 40 HRs, 100 RBI and 100 BBs then why didn't the Reds secure his services (or even consider it)? Look, I wrote a bunch of words back in August basically begging Bob Castellini not to re-sign Dunn, but that was only because I thought it would take a minimum of five years and $60 million to do so. My point was that he would likely be an overpaid disaster for the last two years of his contract, and a small-to-mid-market team like the Redlegs can't take that hit. But his current deal? That's nothing. What's the worst that could happen? I mean, Eric Milton's three-year deal was bad, but at least it was only three years, you know? Ask Giants fans how they feel about having Barry Zito for the next five years...

Maybe the budget didn't have another $10 million available, or maybe they just wanted to move forward without Ol' Dunner, but I find it hard to believe that his stick wouldn't improve a lineup comprised of eight question marks (I'm looking right at you, Brandon Phillips).

End of words.

-Brad Spieser (


Daniel Phillips said...

I can't believe they didn't bring him back. There are so many players that teams can get at such a huge discount. I just hope that in two years, my Astros will get rid of Lee, Tejada, Kaz and all of the other overpayed talent and go after Dunn. I think the Astros have the worst rotation in baseball. Oswalt and 4 guys that can't win 8 games.