More Gotham Rumors

by JD Arney on Nov 20, 2006 4:48 AM EST in News

Jeremy Bonderman

The Gotham Baseball guy sent me an email after the last Reds rumor he wrote was posted here, and he's apparently an experienced writer with a decent contact list. He's got something new up on the Reds:

Tigers' GM Dave Dombrowski's asking price for Jeremy Bonderman remains high, and most teams are now moving on to less expensive options. It's now looking as if he'll stay put. However, Detroit is still interested in Adam Dunn, but for a fraction of what Cincinnati GM Wayne Krivsky is demanding Bonderman) or a similar top of the rotation starter) in any return. According to team insiders, Krivsky was one of the GMs pestering the Marlins about Dontrelle Willis last week.

Who knows if this is true obviously (even writers with good contacts get it wrong sometimes), but it's really disturbing if true. It would mean that Krivsky really doesn't get that the offense is going to be a problem next season.

At this point if Adam Dunn is traded I could easily see the Reds losing 90+ games. There's nothing in the system to replace his bat, and the Reds don't seem to be going after any hitters so far this offseason. Carlos Lee would make a ton of sense for the Reds, but I haven't seen even a suggestion from the Cincinnati media that the Reds might want to look at him, let alone an actual rumor.

Lot of time left, and like I said I don't really hate the Gonzalez signing, but I'm losing faith in Wayne Krivsky more and more and more as the days pass. He may very well be putting this team into a Pittsburgh Pirates like depth, and it's never easy for a major league team to extricate itself from that sort of situation.

If Krivsky turns out to be wrong with everything he's done since last July (and early returns don't look good) then it might be many, many years before the Reds are good again. Because Krivsky is betting big on his philosophy, and win you bet big you have a lot to lose.

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting.

If Krivsky is going to trade Dunn, then the return absolutely has to be a top-notch starting pitcher. Krivsky takes a lot of heat for acquiring the Stantons and Cormiers of the world, so I'm OK that apparently he's thinking Willis, Bonderman and the like for Dunn.

Krivsky often gets zinged, too, because we don't hear the Reds rumored in relation to the signing of/trade for a certain player or players. Krivsky, though, keeps his dealings as close to the vest as anyone in all of baseball. We might wake up one morning and discover he's signed Carlos Lee. While it's more likely that we'll awaken to discover he's signed another middle reliever, I can't help but figure something bigger is about to come.

Although, in this market, I'm not at all uncomfortable with lesser, even much lesser, signings if it means not paying $4 billion a year for Soriano.

We became accustomed to ten rumors a day and a deal or two a week with Bowden. Admittedly, it's fun to speculate on this and mull over that as the rumors come fast and furious. I kind of like Krivsky's approach, though, in that he doesn't tell everything he knows. Maybe it's the ex-sports writer in me, who knew that 95 percent of the rumors I chased were going to lead to positively nothing.

I still think this is, and will continue to be, a fun offseason.

by Thundering Turtle on Nov 20, 2006 7:44 AM EST reply actions

But it's for pitching!

I'm with the Turtle - if you trade him, do it for top-shelf pitching. If you can get a #1 pitcher for Dunn, see ya big guy. Loved to have ya, hope you cut down on the called third strikes for your own benefit.

Last time I checked, the Reds weren't getting anywhere with their bat-heavy lineup. Sure, you don't want to trade away all the hitters, but having two effective starters wasn't getting it done.

by joeberk on Nov 20, 2006 8:20 AM EST reply actions

good pitching

Arroyo 146 ERA+ (35 starts)
Harang 128 (35)
Milton 93 (26)
Ramirez 90 (19)
Claussen 78 (14)
Lohse 105 (11)
(140)

That was an above average starting rotation. It's hard to believe because it's been so long. Say it with me, "The Reds had an above average rotation." That's not to say Bonderman wouldn't help (remember Homer is coming too). But you'd be improving in the margins rather than where the team really sucked.

Post-Trade the Reds were second to last in the league in runs scored. Now trade the best bat for a starting pitcher. It could get historically bad on offense. I know "Reds weren't getting anywhere with their bat-heavy lineup" but they certainly weren't losing because they had good hitters.

Because the offense fell apart midseason I think a lot of Reds fans (and possible management) don't realize how much that will be the problem. I think 2007 is going to be a wakeup call.

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 9:12 AM EST up reply actions

buckle in for a long season...

*If Dunn, BP or EE get hurt. Why?

Junior is certain to miss games, as is Freel. C, 2B and 1B had career years, which may/will be tough to duplicate.

This is going to be a really, really low scoring team as it is currently assembled.

Courtney for President, 2008

by ohiobobcat on Nov 20, 2006 9:19 AM EST up reply actions

The Reds had an above average rotation

There I said. It felt good. Very good.

I'm not so sure if we're just improving at the margins though by adding another starting pitcher. If we were to add Willis or Bonderman in place of Claussen/Ramirez that's an improvement of around 1.5 runs in their starts, not to mention the extra inning or two that they might pitch. That's a significant improvement in those 30-35 games.

To be clear though, I am not advocating trading Dunn. This offense will suuuuck (4 U's) if Dunn is gone. Take him out of the lineup without a significant addition and we're looking at barely reaching 700 runs scored on the season. That means the pitching/defense would need to shave 175 runs allowed off of last season in order to get close to 90 wins. So basically, it's not going to happen.

by Slyde on Nov 20, 2006 10:04 AM EST up reply actions

just for comparison

Here's the Mets and Cardinals

Glavine 113 (32)
Trachsel 87 (30)
Pedro 96 (23)
Hernandez 106 (20)
Maine 120 (15)
(120)

Marquis 73 (33)
Carpenter 143 (32)
Suppan 107 (32)
Mulder 62 (17)
Reyes 87 (17)
Weaver 85 (15)
Ponson 84 (13)
(159)

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 10:40 AM EST up reply actions

Hmm

How could the Mets have won with a comparable starting staff to the Reds? It couldn't have been all of those big boppers in their lineup could it? Granted the Reds can't match their payroll, but having a similar pitching staff with a much weaker lineup isn't a way to build a winner, if you ask me.

Interesting that Weaver is a hero and Ponson was cut even though they were pretty close in performance during the season. That's the beauty of the small playoff sample size.

by Slyde on Nov 20, 2006 11:27 AM EST up reply actions

Not just boppers in the lineup.

But that sure helped.

It also helped that their bullpen was 20 times better than the Reds' bullpen, even with Guillermo J. (for Juice) Mota in there.

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Nov 20, 2006 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

Reds had an above average rotation

Yes! That is why we should focus on getting another bat rather than a starting pitcher! I think the Reds should start Bailey off slow so we can have him for July. That's about the time when the rotation seemed to get tired, so Homer would inject new life into it. Is there anyone who denies that Bailey will put on a Cincinnati uniform at some point this year?

The problem never was with the rotation, but with the bullpen. And then it was the bullpen and the offense. Fix the offense, cross fingers in hope that Bray comes into his own, and prepare to wear your red caps all the way to October!

winter is boooooooring

by Daedalus on Nov 21, 2006 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

If Dunn were traded for Willis or Bonderman

I don't think the Reds would lose 90 games. They'd probably be more like the 2006 Astros. I'm assuming that they would find a center or left fielder that is a somewhat above average hitter. The Reds wouldn't have a Lance Berkman in their lineup, but I think they would have a better collective lineup (I admit that I could be wrong having not really looked at Houston's lineup).

A starting rotation of
Willis/Bonderman
Harang
Arroyo
Milton
Lohse/Bailey

would be formidable. They won't win anything in 2007, but they could be in great shape for 2008.

by Slyde on Nov 20, 2006 8:25 AM EST reply actions

I sincerely hope that all of us

are eating crow instead of turkey for thanksgiving next year. I think about everyone (including myself) have bashed pretty hard on Krivsky. Much of it may well be deserved. The way the market is right now, smaller teams have to be creative to sign free agents or acqurie people thru trade.

Find me on MySpace- http://www.myspace.com/mixfmkyle

by MixFMKyle on Nov 20, 2006 9:08 AM EST reply actions

small window(2008)

I'm convinced Dunn is here for the start of the '07 season. He might be moved at the trading deadline, but I dont anticipate Kriv moving his bellcow. He's still young and productive, and a sure bet for 155 games played.

2008 Good
*Bailey, Bruce and Votto
*EE in prime, along with BP

2008 Iffy
*Junior still able to contribute?
*Drew Stubbs in the majors?
*One more year of Arroyo, before deal expires
*Is Harang signed long-term, or did he test FA?

2008 Concerns
*no young catchers in pipeline
*few power arms in pipeline
*Is Narron still around?

Courtney for President, 2008

by ohiobobcat on Nov 20, 2006 9:13 AM EST reply actions

Gotham Baseball

The guys over at baseballthinkfactory (who care a hell of a lot more about NY baseball than I do) are pretty universal in opinion about Gotham Baseball. Evidently, the guy is always wrong.

by sidnancy on Nov 20, 2006 9:14 AM EST reply actions

Suppose the Reds do Dunn for #1 starter

Any chance that Krivsky might then trade starting pitching for a bat? As was pointed out, starting pitching is not only a strength, there's actually a little bit of depth. What about picking up Willis or Bonderman, then dealing Arroyo for an impact bat?

I'm not really advocating this course of action. I still like Big Adam Dunn, and have since I watched him as a Dragon. But obviously we're no longer the thumpers that we used to be, and if you're gonna move Dunn, you'd have to do something else to replace offense. Preferably someone under 30, with power (AT LEAST 30-35 HR), and a high OBP.

by Brendanukkah on Nov 20, 2006 10:07 AM EST reply actions

That bat-heavy offense

Astros manager Phil Garner put it best - the old Reds were a "high risk high return" team - they were heavy with bats, but when the bats died, the team died. They were susceptible to above average pitching and better, but feasted on below average pitching, built up impressive stats on that alone, but lost too many games.

Dunn is resplaceable - he's not a clutch hitter, hits for low average, and his most attractive stat besides home runs is walks. Without that, he's high risk low return. He's slump prone. The Reds have offesnive problems - I don't think Dunn is the answer. I trust Krivsky is looking for answers as we sit.

by Billingsfan on Nov 20, 2006 10:19 AM EST reply actions

Two thoughts

1. Everyone gets shut down by above average pitching. That's why it's called above average pitching. They were "susceptible to above average pitching" because they could never count on the pitching staff to match that above average pitcher. In 2005, when the Reds led the league in runs scored, they were 6-61 (.091 PCT) in games when the offense scored under 4 runs. Compare that to Houston who was 20-55 (.267) when they scored fewer than 4 runs because their pitching staff could win those games. On the other side of that, the Reds were 41-8 (.837) when the pitching staff gave up fewer than 4 runs while the Astros were 68-20 (.773). When the pitching staff did it's job, the Reds won. The problem wasn't the offense but that the pitching staff didn't do it's job enough.

My point is that pointing to the strong offense and saying that the Reds couldn't win with it is inappropriate. What they couldn't win with is a lousy pitching staff. I understand that the Reds had to give up some of that offense to improve the pitching/defense, but they've already done that. There isn't enough offense left to give up. If Dunn were traded for pitching without adding a significant bat too, we will be talking next off-season about how the Reds can't win with good pitching.

2. Dunn has led the Reds high scoring offense in runs and RBIs for 3 straight seasons. I think he is more than you give him credit for. And if he is replaceable, can you name someone that they could realistically replace him with for just $10 million a year?

by Slyde on Nov 20, 2006 11:06 AM EST up reply actions

Dunn

Aesthetically some people will never like Dunn. It's harder to defend him after last season's regress, but these arguments are tired.

hits for low average

Get over yourself.

his most attractive stat besides home runs is walks

So he hits for power, and gets on base. Are those the two most important skills for a batter, or are they just two really good skills for a batter to have?

he's not a clutch hitter

If by clutch hitter you mean someone who hits significantly better... oh I give up. ewquinn, you're going to have to take this one from now on.

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

If NYers complain about ARod's performance...

it's only natural we'd complain about Dunn's.

His value is driven by his high OBP. Unfortunately, a lot of that is drawn from BB. I say unfortunately because BB are simply not as valuable as hits. Hits drive in RISP. BB do not. (unless the bases are loaded) ...but it is still a man on base.

That said, in order for Dunn to be maximized, we need other guys to drive him in too. Preferably, he'd bat before EdE or someone with a high SLG/high AVG to double him over or in. Follow that up with a high contact hitter who either SFs or singles.

We at worst need 3 GOOD bats to do the job. Dunn can't do it himself. That's why he is a problem for many.

To tell the truth, unless Krivsky gets another good bat, we may be better off without him. (and going in another offensive direction, I mean)

by iamwallaman on Nov 20, 2006 11:48 AM EST up reply actions

re

Dunn is our best bat now, by a good measure. This worries me. When he's on a cold streak the offense will really suck and he'll hear about it. I don't agree that we'd be better off going in another direction because he's our only bat. Yes, he'd be better with more compliments, but even alone he's an offensive force (homers) that the lineup would miss.

Some people complained about Dunn a couple years ago when we had the best offense in the league. I don't think people's problems with him now are because he's our only bat.

And you could defend any stupidity with "well NYers complained about Arod." That doesn't make anything ok.

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 12:37 PM EST up reply actions

The ARod complaint is silly

Hence the comparison. :)

Dunn is our offense as long as Griff declines and EdE is developing. I just simply don't think we can get the most out of him in that current role. That doesn't remove his overall effectiveness... it just dampens it.

My point is that if we plan on keeping Dunn, we need to maximize his potential. Otherwise, we're not being efficient with our limited funds.

by iamwallaman on Nov 20, 2006 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

I'll agree with that

I don't think we are being efficient with our limited funds--paying for infield defense with flyball pitchers, 2 million dollar Juan Castro backup...

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

OK, let's suppose

Krivsky trades Dunn for a top-level SP. How does he replace, or come close to replacing, the offense?

Sign Jose Guillen? Hurt most of last season, but in 2005 playing in Washington's cavern, Guillen posted 24-76-.283 .338 .479. He'll be 31 years old this season. Head case, for sure, but can hit, can hit for decent power and has a RF arm.

Sign David Dellucci? His 13-39-.292 as a PT player last year isn't overwhelming, but in 435 at bats in 2005, he went 29-65-.251 .367 .513. He'll be 33 this year and can play RF or LF.

Sign Aubrey Huff? He went 21-66-.267 .344 .469 last year and will be 30. He's not popular in the clubhouse, but is versatile, yet appears to be declining.

Then there's always the training-room-roll of the dice on a Trot Nixon or Cliff Floyd.

If it's me, Guillen appears the better of the options presented. If it's a choice between having A) Dunn or B) having a No. 1 SP and Jose Guillen, I lean toward B. This from a guy who likes Adam Dunn.

by Thundering Turtle on Nov 20, 2006 11:57 AM EST reply actions

If I had to

I'd platoon Delucci and Jose Cruz Jr.

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

Unfortunately

Dunn is not worth a #1 pitcher; because of his year last year, and his contract situation, he probably is "worth" a #3, at best. It would be exactly the worst possible time to trade Dunn.

As for Guillen...uh, no. His career OPS+ is only 98 (which might be OK if he was a slick fielding CF or 2B, but not as an average RF); he'll be 31, yet he's only played 5 full seasons (out of 10 in the league); Anahiem suspended him for the last week of '04 for insubordination. Why do you think next year will be his 7th organization in 9 years?

Dellucci has never been a full-time player (he's had enough PA to qualify for any awards once); he's really best suited as a platoon player (career OPS vs. RH: .827; vs. LH: .587).

by sidnancy on Nov 20, 2006 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

If you think about the legitimate #1s out there, and think about whether you would trade any of them straight-up for Dunn right now, it becomes pretty obvious:

Roy Oswalt. No way the Astros do that.
Chris Carpenter. No way.
Johan Santana. Doesn't even pass the giggle test.
Carlos Zambrano. No way.
Brandon Webb. No way.
Roy Halladay. Got to be kidding.
John Smoltz. Nope.
Mike Mussina. Nope.
Mark Prior. Nope.
Barry Zito. No way.
The right to negotiate with Matsuzaka. No way on even that.

Heck. I don't think the Reds would even trade themselves Harang or Arroyo right now for Dunn straight-up.

So everyone is dreaming if they think that Dunn will net a #1. I think equivalent value right now would be a low #2 or high #3.

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Nov 20, 2006 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

good point

I think we've been conditioned by the mantra over the years "Dunn for a starter... Dunn for a starter..." It makes one forget that we don't have a pressing need for a starter anymore. What we really need is offense.

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 1:39 PM EST up reply actions

Sssssshhhh!!!!

Don't give Krivsky any ideas, or he might think he can now trade Dunn for middle relief.

Sometimes the best trade is The Trade never made.

Keep repeating after me..."Dunn for #1 starter. Dunn for #1 starter..."

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Nov 20, 2006 1:45 PM EST up reply actions

You said earlier

"I think equivalent value right now would be a low #2 or high #3."

It doesn't matter what his equivalent is though. What matters is that Krivsky is asking for a #1 and I think that is great. Dunn doesn't need to be traded. He's not hurting the team, in fact quite the opposite. If Krivsky continues to hold out for a number 1 or a high 2, then the Reds will get a damn good pitcher. If no one wants to give a top notch pitcher up, then we get to keep Dunn. As long as Krivsky holds his ground, the Reds win either way.

by Slyde on Nov 20, 2006 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

i wholeheartedly agree

In my dream world, the Reds trade Dunn for Bonderman, then they sign Juan Pierre and Carlos Lee. What am I smoking?

by greg456 on Nov 20, 2006 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly my point.

As long as Krivsky prices himself out of the market, we get to keep Dunn.

Dunn for #1...Dunn for #1...

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Nov 20, 2006 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

Kriv so far

I am (very) cautiously optimistic about this off season. It appears to be that the Reds are going to be either A) spending a lot this off season or B) screwed. I say this b/c of the Gonzo signing. $5M for a defensive player, that's what good teams would do, b/c they'd also be willing to spend $12M on Schmidt. If Kriv is shelling out that kind of money just to fix the shortstop problem, I feel fairly confident that payroll isn't going to be a huge hurdle this offseason. The Cincy coverage from the local media sux, all we get is some guys pure speculation "The Reds won't sign Zito or spend more than 75M b/c I, a sportswriter, have conjectured it."

Now, if I'm wrong and Krivsky has a tight budget, then the Reds are screwed b/c $5M for a guy to play shortstop w/ no offense at all, blows.

I think we would be much better off if Kriv kept Dunn and signed a good starter. Surely, a good bat would come cheaper in trade than a number 1 starter would, then we'd have our pitching and offense and the team would be shaping up nicely for next year.

by JCH888 on Nov 20, 2006 12:09 PM EST reply actions

Willis stock is low

I dont think it would take Dunn for that deal. and I think he will make a comeback, if the price is right, go for it.

GO REDS!

by ewquinn on Nov 20, 2006 12:25 PM EST reply actions

Why do you think Willis' stock is low?

by Red Menace on Nov 20, 2006 12:41 PM EST up reply actions

Dontrelle's high on the hog

Meche is going to get $8M. Lohse should get $5M. Dontrelle is younger and better than both.

The kid is alright...

Courtney for President, 2008

by ohiobobcat on Nov 20, 2006 2:11 PM EST up reply actions

JEREMY BONDERMAN IS NOT A NUMBER ONE STARTER

HE ISN'T EVEN A GOOD NUMBER TWO STARTER.

The man has a career ERA+ of 93. It was just 111 last year. Yes, he has the stuff to be pretty close to an ace-quality starter, but he hasn't come anywhere near putting that together and he's been in the league for 4 years. I wouldn't give Dunn for him.

by Geki on Nov 20, 2006 3:19 PM EST reply actions

Why don't you yell louder so we can hear you

He is better than Aaron Harang circa 2004 and is 3 years younger than Harang at that point. I think he was brought up too soon because the Tigers didn't have anything to lose and that's why his career numbers are down. I think he is about to make that leap to elite starter based on how he has positively progressed every season in the majors. He may not be a number one right now, but he will be.

by Slyde on Nov 20, 2006 3:32 PM EST up reply actions