BP Tidbit on Reds, Griffey, and Cubs

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But when you're talking about trading for a guy who's consistently produced for several years, there should be a lot less emphasis on what a scout may see in a brief stretch.

Dunn has not consistently produced for several years.

 

His numbers have been all over the board, actually.

 

I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.

 

You're really reaching here.

 

2004: .266/.388/.569/.957

2005: .247/.387/.540/.927

2006: .234/.365/.490/.855

2007: .263/.364/.548/.912

 

That's rock solid compared to targets like Dye, who have been all over the map, or targets like Payton who don't sniff Dunn's down year production.

[Banedon]

Dunn has not consistently produced for several years.

 

His numbers have been all over the board, actually.

 

I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.

 

2004 .266/.388/.569 OPS+ 152 HR 46

2005 .247/.387/.540 OPS+ 135 HR 40

2006 .234/.365/.490 OPS+ 110 HR 40

2007 .263/.364/.548 OPS+ 130 HR 27

 

Please point out the inconsistency. I don't see it.

 

EDIT: Damn you TT and your fast typing.

[XZero771679666304]

But when you're talking about trading for a guy who's consistently produced for several years, there should be a lot less emphasis on what a scout may see in a brief stretch.

Dunn has not consistently produced for several years.

 

His numbers have been all over the board, actually.

 

I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.

 

You're really reaching here.

 

2004: .266/.388/.569/.957

2005: .247/.387/.540/.927

2006: .234/.365/.490/.855

2007: .263/.364/.548/.912

 

That's rock solid compared to targets like Dye, who have been all over the map, or targets like Payton who don't sniff Dunn's down year production.

 

I agree that Dunn has been fairly consistent overall, he has also been a consistently poor second half player.

 

I would like him as a Cub for an entire season(s), but for a stretch run rental Dunn is a poor target, considering the price.

 

Griffey would be much better.

[Banedon]

I agree that Dunn has been fairly consistent overall, he has also been a consistently poor second half player.

 

I would like him as a Cub for an entire season(s), but for a stretch run rental Dunn is a poor target, considering the price.

 

Griffey would be much better.

 

Not to make excuses, but Dunn hasn't been on a team that has had much to play for in August and September either. And Griffey is almost always hurt toward the end of the season...in 3 years he has 31 AB's.

[XZero771679666304]

I agree that Dunn has been fairly consistent overall, he has also been a consistently poor second half player.

 

I would like him as a Cub for an entire season(s), but for a stretch run rental Dunn is a poor target, considering the price.

 

Griffey would be much better.

 

Not to make excuses, but Dunn hasn't been on a team that has had much to play for in August and September either. And Griffey is almost always hurt toward the end of the season...in 3 years he has 31 AB's.

 

That is true, but I don't think motivation is an adequate explanation. There have been plenty of players on awful teams that managed to finish their seasons strong.

[soccer10k]

Wow, that Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey just KILLED the Cubs this weekend, I'd be in a big rush to throw three good prospects Cincy's way for either one of those studs! :roll:

 

Can we get a moratorium on any and all talk relating to these two ballplayers once August 1st arrives? Please??

 

Just out of curiosity, did you want the Cubs to sign Carlos Lee in the offseason because he killed the ball at Wrigley field?

[Sosa21MVP]

Wow, that Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey just KILLED the Cubs this weekend, I'd be in a big rush to throw three good prospects Cincy's way for either one of those studs! :roll:

 

Can we get a moratorium on any and all talk relating to these two ballplayers once August 1st arrives? Please??

 

Just out of curiosity, did you want the Cubs to sign Carlos Lee in the offseason because he killed the ball at Wrigley field?

 

After reading your post all I can think about is Jeff Blauser. :?

[Banedon]

I agree that Dunn has been fairly consistent overall, he has also been a consistently poor second half player.

 

I would like him as a Cub for an entire season(s), but for a stretch run rental Dunn is a poor target, considering the price.

 

Griffey would be much better.

 

Not to make excuses, but Dunn hasn't been on a team that has had much to play for in August and September either. And Griffey is almost always hurt toward the end of the season...in 3 years he has 31 AB's.

 

That is true, but I don't think motivation is an adequate explanation. There have been plenty of players on awful teams that managed to finish their seasons strong.

 

That's true...but I thought it was worth mentioning.

[mdwilla]

If there is a three team deal in the works between the Reds/Cubs/Braves I hope the Cubs can find a way to get Renteria along with Griffey.

[BCVM22]

If there is a three team deal in the works between the Reds/Cubs/Braves I hope the Cubs can find a way to get Renteria along with Griffey.

 

That would be a coup of immense proportions for Hendry. I don't forsee it happening.

[Butterscup1679666578]

If there is a three team deal in the works between the Reds/Cubs/Braves I hope the Cubs can find a way to get Renteria along with Griffey.

 

I've heard a few people here mention of the possibility of a 3-way deal, but who would the Braves actually be going after/giving up in this? Just curious.

[Bote McBoteface]

For the record, the Reds announcers today made an interesting point. They quoted Dunn's stats against left handed pitching this year.

 

Something like .190 with 4 homers.

 

We already have one outfielder who is good against righties and is a little leaguer against lefties. I'd prefer not to have two of those, especially if it costs us Murton (Who may be a better option regardless)

 

I hadn't seen it quoted in any posts so far, though it probably has. Thought it was kind of interesting.

 

I think the difference is that Dunn is really good against righties, to the tune of a 1.074 OPS.

 

While that's a very good point, incase you haven't noticed, this team has no issues hitting against right handed pitching. It's the lefties that get us. If we are to add a bat before Tuesday's deadline, I would much prefer it to be somebody who mashes left handed pitching, even if their overall stats aren't as impressive as Dunn's.

[Rob]

If there is a three team deal in the works between the Reds/Cubs/Braves I hope the Cubs can find a way to get Renteria along with Griffey.

 

I've heard a few people here mention of the possibility of a 3-way deal, but who would the Braves actually be going after/giving up in this? Just curious.

 

Rumor has it that the Braves are interested in Arroyo. I'm sure they probably wouldn't do Renteria for Arroyo straight up, but I'm not sure what else it would take.

[davearm]

But when you're talking about trading for a guy who's consistently produced for several years, there should be a lot less emphasis on what a scout may see in a brief stretch.

Dunn has not consistently produced for several years.

 

His numbers have been all over the board, actually.

 

I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.

 

You're really reaching here.

 

2004: .266/.388/.569/.957

2005: .247/.387/.540/.927

2006: .234/.365/.490/.855

2007: .263/.364/.548/.912

 

That's rock solid compared to targets like Dye, who have been all over the map, or targets like Payton who don't sniff Dunn's down year production.

TT if you think I'm reaching, you really need to go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread.

 

To summarize: since he became a regular player, Dunn's played 5 Augusts, and 4 Septembers.

 

In those 9 months, he has:

1 monthly OPS of 1000

2 monthly OPSs between 800 and 850

1 of 799

1 of 700

4 below 600.

 

4 of 9 below 600! That's not good. At all.

 

Dunn being a poor late-season hitter is not just some figment of my imagination. The numbers bear it out.

[davearm]

I agree that Dunn has been fairly consistent overall, he has also been a consistently poor second half player.

 

I would like him as a Cub for an entire season(s), but for a stretch run rental Dunn is a poor target, considering the price.

 

Griffey would be much better.

 

Not to make excuses, but Dunn hasn't been on a team that has had much to play for in August and September either. And Griffey is almost always hurt toward the end of the season...in 3 years he has 31 AB's.

Dunn absolutely tanked toward the end of last year, and the Reds were in the hunt the whole way.

[Electron Blue]

But when you're talking about trading for a guy who's consistently produced for several years, there should be a lot less emphasis on what a scout may see in a brief stretch.

Dunn has not consistently produced for several years.

 

His numbers have been all over the board, actually.

 

I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.

 

You're really reaching here.

 

2004: .266/.388/.569/.957

2005: .247/.387/.540/.927

2006: .234/.365/.490/.855

2007: .263/.364/.548/.912

 

That's rock solid compared to targets like Dye, who have been all over the map, or targets like Payton who don't sniff Dunn's down year production.

TT if you think I'm reaching, you really need to go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread.

 

To summarize: since he became a regular player, Dunn's played 5 Augusts, and 4 Septembers.

 

In those 9 months, he has:

1 monthly OPS of 1000

2 monthly OPSs between 800 and 850

1 of 799

1 of 700

4 below 600.

 

4 of 9 below 600! That's not good. At all.

 

Dunn being a poor late-season hitter is not just some figment of my imagination. The numbers bear it out.

 

Maybe he gets to feeling burned out. He's been a Red his whole career - never a serious contender at this point in the year. Imagine being dropped into the middle of your first playoff hunt, playing half your games in front of ecstatic Cubs fans. Not guaranteeing that there's a significant statistical reasoning behind this, but I'd say he would feel quite invigorated if he made it to Chicago. Just my two cents.

[Sarcastic]

And as has already been pointed out, three of those awful months came in 2002 and 2003, Dunn's first full years in the majors. I still don't believe that the pattern is firmly established.

[David]

I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable.

 

Thanks for playing.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm).

 

What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games?

 

You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain."

 

Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?

 

If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But when you're talking about trading for a guy who's consistently produced for several years, there should be a lot less emphasis on what a scout may see in a brief stretch.

Dunn has not consistently produced for several years.

 

His numbers have been all over the board, actually.

 

I posted this earlier, but the closest thing to consistency Dunn has shown is that his numbers plummet in August and September.

 

You're really reaching here.

 

2004: .266/.388/.569/.957

2005: .247/.387/.540/.927

2006: .234/.365/.490/.855

2007: .263/.364/.548/.912

 

That's rock solid compared to targets like Dye, who have been all over the map, or targets like Payton who don't sniff Dunn's down year production.

TT if you think I'm reaching, you really need to go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread.

 

To summarize: since he became a regular player, Dunn's played 5 Augusts, and 4 Septembers.

 

In those 9 months, he has:

1 monthly OPS of 1000

2 monthly OPSs between 800 and 850

1 of 799

1 of 700

4 below 600.

 

4 of 9 below 600! That's not good. At all.

 

Dunn being a poor late-season hitter is not just some figment of my imagination. The numbers bear it out.

 

That's not at all relevant to the point I was making. I don't understand why you're trying to steer every point made regarding Dunn to "he sucks in August in September".

 

To recap:

 

You said people should take Dunn's 0-fers as some sort of sign or reason not to get him.

 

People pointed out that basing a decision on a couple games is insane.

 

You compared that to scouts only seeing a player for a few games.

 

People pointed out the difference between scouting a player and simply looking at the boxscore from this weekend, with the addendum that players who have consistently produced like Dunn should have less emphasis placed on what a scout may see, rather than inconsistent or mediocre players like other mentioned targets Dye and Payton.

 

You said he wasn't consistent.

 

People pointed out that was the opposite of true.

 

You claim that he sucks during August and September.

 

 

It'd be better for everybody if you addressed the points being made, instead of providing vague, strawman, or flat out inaccurate counter arguments just so you could eventually repeat your point about him in August and September.

[Yestheydo]

 

Maybe he gets to feeling burned out. He's been a Red his whole career - never a serious contender at this point in the year. Imagine being dropped into the middle of your first playoff hunt, playing half your games in front of ecstatic Cubs fans. Not guaranteeing that there's a significant statistical reasoning behind this, but I'd say he would feel quite invigorated if he made it to Chicago. Just my two cents.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking last season, as I had noted his dismal Septembers around the ASB. I wondered if it would be different this time since the Reds were technically in contention. He responded with his worst numbers yet, I'm afraid. Though he did draw 20 walks in September and no one else on the team was hitting. It's possible he simply wasn't getting anything to hit but still pressed to try to make something happen. I'd love to see what he'd do in a Cubs lineup as more of a complementary player, but if it doesn't happen it may be just as well.

[davearm]

I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable.

 

Thanks for playing.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm).

 

What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games?

 

You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain."

 

Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?

 

If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

You're evading the question (perhaps wisely).

 

What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games?

 

Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?"

[Electron Blue]

 

Maybe he gets to feeling burned out. He's been a Red his whole career - never a serious contender at this point in the year. Imagine being dropped into the middle of your first playoff hunt, playing half your games in front of ecstatic Cubs fans. Not guaranteeing that there's a significant statistical reasoning behind this, but I'd say he would feel quite invigorated if he made it to Chicago. Just my two cents.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking last season, as I had noted his dismal Septembers around the ASB. I wondered if it would be different this time since the Reds were technically in contention. He responded with his worst numbers yet, I'm afraid. Though he did draw 20 walks in September and no one else on the team was hitting. It's possible he simply wasn't getting anything to hit but still pressed to try to make something happen. I'd love to see what he'd do in a Cubs lineup as more of a complementary player, but if it doesn't happen it may be just as well.

 

yeah, I'd forgotten about last year as I wrote that.

 

maybe I'm biased, but I just like to think that coming to the Chicago Cubs in a playoff race would bring out the best in a player... except maybe Jason Kendall. :(

[Rob]

I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable.

 

Thanks for playing.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm).

 

What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games?

 

You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain."

 

Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?

 

If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

You're evading the question (perhaps wisely).

 

What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games?

 

Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?"

 

What scouts see in a three game series should be weighted appropriately with all the information known about a player already. Otherwise, you do beyond idiotic things like acquiring Jason Kendall because Gary Hughes thinks he can still hit.

 

Improper weighting of the information gained is beyond idiotic, yes.

[Electron Blue]

I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable.

 

Thanks for playing.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm).

 

What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games?

 

You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain."

 

Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?

 

If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

You're evading the question (perhaps wisely).

 

What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games?

 

Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?"

 

this davearm/davhern debate is really challenging the dyslexics on the board :D

[Butterscup1679666578]

I was actually calling the fact that you'd base your decision on whether or not the Cubs should get one of them (I'd prefer Griffey, FWIW), on what they did this weekend a joke. The mere suggestion that anyone should no longer discuss or consider (or hope for) the possibility of one of them coming to the Cubs based on what they did in this series is completely and utterly laughable.

 

Thanks for playing.

Question for you davhern (not to be confused with davearm).

 

What do you think of the common practice of a team sending a scout to watch a trade target play for a few games?

 

You know, the typical stuff you hear all the time: "trade talks between the Blackjacks and the Turbos are heating up, and this weekend the Blackjacks had a scout in Mudville to watch Slugger McLain."

 

Is that little bit of standard operating procedure that basically every MLB team follows "completely and utterly laughable" too?

 

If you can't realize for yourself that basing a player acquisition decision on what is done over 3 games is beyond idiotic, I don't know what else to say.

You're evading the question (perhaps wisely).

 

What I'm asking is, what is your explanation for why MLB teams base player acquisition decisions upon what scouts observe over 3 games?

 

Is it your position that the MLB teams that engage in this activity (which seems to be all 30) are "beyond idiotic?"

 

You do realize that scouts collect observations and data over the course of many games over many months, maybe even years, right? I highly doubt anyone makes big acquisitions based on 3 lone games.