Dunn Is Done With Free Agency
Adam Dunn signed a two year $20M deal with the Nationals. Initially this article was going to be Dunn done with Nationals, but it appeared Dunn was tired of waiting on Manny to sign with a team. If Manny had signed with the Dodgers that would have limited the options for Adam Dunn and pushed the Nationals offer to the top of the list. If Manny had signed elsewhere, it would have allowed Dunn to possibly fill the void in LA and absorb some of the dollars slotted for Manny. With Bobby Abreu reaching a one year deal with the Angels, the dominos began to fall into place for corner outfielders.
Dunn had been sitting on an offer from the Nats for some time. In a down economy and a depressed free agent market the Nationals decided to go bargain shopping and let the price drop on remaining free agents. Maybe a little dumb luck from the Capitals front office decisions rubbed off on the Nationals. Luckily for Nationals fans, the rest of the league played right into Washington's hands.
Bowden's connection from the Reds organization did help sign Dunn. The Nationals almost lost Dunn if not for the stars to align properly in free agency. They don't seem to understand the perceived "stink" on this club. As the line goes in "Who Shot Liberty Valance", "when the legend becomes fact...print the legend." When the perceived stench on a team is real or imaginary then it exists and the team should understand that formulating a free agent spending strategy like a contending organization with plenty of cash is flawed. Contenders can dictate to the market, while bottom feeders need to pay above market prices to sign players.
The Nationals haven't adapted from the Teixeira episode. Washington made a very fair offer to Teixeira, but in the end the prize of free agency chose a comparable deal on a contender (Yankees). When a team is so bad and in such dire need of top talent it must over spend slightly in the initial phase of the rebuilding process. One top player will in turn help sign another player as eventually losing turns into winning making it easier to sign players.
The two year deal signed by Dunn benefits him more than the Nationals. Adam Dunn received the top dollar offer in a bad market. The short term deal also allows him to plunge into a better market two years from now while still in his prime and maybe land on a better team.
The Nationals farm system fell back into the bottom third of MLB as rated by Baseball America. It takes time to develop players. It took so long to sign Dunn and a lot of luck in the market too. It seems like a very short window for the Nationals to sign many marquee players and develop enough young talent of their own for Dunn to re-sign two years from now. In the interim, it appears the Nationals have their first marquee player since Soriano and someone for the fans to watch...for at least two years. Neither the Nationals nor Dunn probably received everything they were looking for this free agent period, but both have made the best of the situation and appear to be satisfied.
Comments
Wow going old school on the movie reference!
I'm fine with the Dunn signing, but I'd still like pitching. I won't comment further on that, as we've beat that to death.
I disagree about free agents going to bad teams. Marquee players will always want to go to the better team. Think about it. Is Albert Haynesworth going to sign with the Detroit Lions because they offer $1M more per year than say the NY Giants? He might take a lower deal from NY to avoid the Lions. Now if the Lions offered a 30% premium there may be movement there. I guess it's what your definition of "slight" is.
Posted by: Big Money Tony
|
February 12, 2009 12:28 PM
You raise a valid point. Please allow me to clarify this below. My stance is adding more dollars per year on a long term contract has a cumulative impact along the total. Over the course of a five to seven year contract that could accumulate to a sizable amount over the fair market value.
The NFL is a little different when it comes to free agency. In the NHL & NBA this situation does occur more frequently. Some players play for money and others a title. It also depends who has more of their career left and who has only a year or two in the gas tank left.
In large part any comparable offer by a contender will be ahead of a losing club.
Hayneworth isn't a good example. It's not apples to apples and oranges to oranges as we say in the financial world. Only few teams have the cap space in the NFL to afford his lucrative future contract and out of that group not everyone will make an offer.
I'd steer away from the "always" and it's also not the case. It's a mixed bag. No one thought Teixeira was a done deal to go to a contender because of mitigating circumstances and not knowing all of the parties involved with a real gage on the value of the offer. Many analysts stated that it was possible form him to go to Balt./DC to live closer to home and for the money and that's not uncommon. It depends on the individual. All I was stating was that two offers at the same amount between a well below .500 team and a contender will most likely yield the contender the winner. It takes more money to sway the direction some. It's all the .500 team can offer at that point.
Posted by: The Sports Freak | February 12, 2009 12:55 PM
Tony, you mentioned you'd like to see some pitching added to the team. Well check what's out there and offer some thoughts...be specific. No one can argue that they don't want pitching. Most of MLB would like better pitching. Would you like Ben Sheets? After his surgery, maybe he'll be available to play post all-star break.
Be realistic as to what's there. We'd all like to hit the lottery and be mega rich. Sometimes you have to take what's there and this year it's not a heavy load on pitchers unless you have some magic beans that will grow an ace for the Nats.
Posted by: The Sports Freak | February 12, 2009 1:00 PM
The Nats got Adam Dunn for only money. The Lerners have lots of money. so the team was able to increase its talent base and is only on the hook for two years.
The Nats should deal an outfielder for pitching. Pena is worthless, Kearns is probably worthless unless he shows himself healthy in spring training (Johnson is in same boat).
If Kearns is healthy and Nats are willing to contribute money I could see them getting a fifth starter back (someone like Zach Duke).
Posted by: ECBucs | February 13, 2009 11:28 AM
True, I used always in the wrong context. What I should say is that they always consider a contender vs. a last place team given similar salaries. Which is why I used 30% premium as an example.
Haynesworth may not be the best example. Obviously there is also the home town discount theory, indoor or outdoor facility, age and overall atmosphere of the team/city.
As to specific pitchers, I still offer up Glavine. Better than most pitchers on our team. While not ideal to build the team on, he could give the younger ones some good direction for years to come.
Posted by: Big Money Tony
|
February 13, 2009 3:12 PM
This is the second time you've mentioned signing Glavine and I completely disagree.
I caught a game early last season where Glavine bare broke 80 MPH. He pitched mostly in the 70s. I began yelling out how slow he was pitching throughout. Finally the Nationals adjusted to a very slow pitching Glavine.
At this point it's better to see what younger talent can force their way onto the roster and learn how to pitch and win. If the staff is so bad by the end of spring training that no one steps up and an available Glavine enterest the equation then that's not a good thing.
Posted by: The Sports Freak | February 15, 2009 10:31 PM