 |
|
|
| |
« Fogg Leaning Toward Rockies | Main | Mariners Eyeing Bobby Abreu »
Big Unit Vs. Garland
Nick Piecoro of the Arizona Republic explains that the Diamondbacks' Randy Johnson vs. Jon Garland decision was not as clear-cut as many (myself included) made it out to be.
Piecoro walks through Arizona's timeline. At one point in November, they expected to receive (and budgeted for) first-round picks as compensation for Adam Dunn, Orlando Hudson, and Juan Cruz. They wisely changed their minds on Dunn on December 1st, and the Hudson/Cruz market has developed slowly. Along the way, several million dollars were added to the team's starting pitcher budget.
Still, Piecoro guesses that the Diamondbacks preferred Garland to Johnson and didn't want Johnson back that badly.
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
How was it wise for the Dbacks to change their minds and not offer Dunn arbitration? As of a week ago he was still seeking a 4 year deal for 56 MM. What in the world would lead you to believe he would have accepted Arizona's offer of arbitration?
Posted by: nixa37 | January 30, 2009 at 09:27 AM
Piecoro nails it. I think all parties have what they want. AZ has a more dependable pitcher (albeit with a good deal less upside) and a grouch out of the clubhouse (made up of a lot of young players who froze up when he was on the mound). RJ got his cash and a new start.
Posted by: qudjy1 | January 30, 2009 at 09:27 AM
Dunn would take 1 year, and 14M right now in a heartbeat - at least thats my opinion - and AZ would be screwed budgetwise. They couldnt afford to chance it.
Posted by: qudjy1 | January 30, 2009 at 09:28 AM
Dunn may "seek" 4/56 - but no one is giving it.
Posted by: qudjy1 | January 30, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Right, but the deadline to accept arbitration was a couple weeks ago and at that point Dunn was convinced he'd get a better deal than he would through arbitration. He would have declined by the deadline, and he would currently be in the same situation as someone like Jason Varitek.
Posted by: nixa37 | January 30, 2009 at 09:43 AM
Exactly, at that point in time, Dunn would definitely have declined arbitration - as Bobby Abreu would have. It was pretty clear offering arbitration to either player would have been a good choice for their respective teams.
Posted by: kswissreject | January 30, 2009 at 09:53 AM
If Dunn was offered arbitration, he would have had to accept or decline on December 7th.
Considering it's January 30th and his expectations are still set for a big money multi-year deal, the odds of him accepting arbitration were probably incredibly close to 0.
The same logic also applies to Bobby Abreu.
Posted by: yanksfan | January 30, 2009 at 09:54 AM
I'd say that even if there was a 20% chance of Dunn accepting arb, they made the right call not offering. And the D'Backs would have a better gauge of that than we would.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | January 30, 2009 at 09:59 AM
Incredibly close to zero, I do not agree. We don't know which agents would've been able to read the market better than Boras did for Varitek or Landis did for Garland. At the time I would've said the Yanks/DBacks should've offered arb. But now I think they were right, especially Arizona. The DBacks paying Dunn $15 mil would've just demolished their offseason.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | January 30, 2009 at 10:01 AM
I agree with Tim.
Posted by: qudjy1 | January 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Tim, you've posted stories recently that Abreu is only now lowering his demands and considering 1 year deals. You've also posted that Dunn is still looking for a big money deal multi-year deal. I would take that as clear indications that Abreu and Dunn completely misread the market.
Do you think that the stories you've posted on their demands have all been inaccurate? If you think they're wrong, I'll defer to your opinion, as you dig deeper into this stuff than any of us readers do. But if you believe the stories are accurate, I don't see how you could say Dunn or Abreu would have considered accepting arbitration.
Posted by: yanksfan | January 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM
The point is there was always a CHANCE that dunn could have accepted it. The economy was rapidly deteriorating at the time that their decisions were to made. AZ couldnt risk destroying thier roster construction for a draft pick (as much as it stinks to lose it)
Posted by: qudjy1 | January 30, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I believe it's accurate that journalists were told those things about Dunn/Abreu's demands. I also believe that there was at least a 10% chance (yes I am lowering the acceptable percentage) of that information being inaccurate, definitely. I believe that with every rumor.
As I said, the leaked information about those players' intentions will never be as good as the info the D'Backs had. They did not want to risk Dunn accepting and it was the right choice.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | January 30, 2009 at 10:55 AM
I'm sorry Tim, but I just disagree with you on this one. This was Dunn's first opportunity at free agency and it seems his agent has still yet to temper his expectations and convince him he may have to settle for a 1 year deal. It seems outrageous to me that his agent would have been able to convince him over a month ago that accepting arbitration was his best option, no matter how well his agent was able to read the situation. Given what has happened to the market since, the Dbacks choice to not offer arbitration doesn't seem as dumb as it did at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that the chances of Dunn actually accepting were minuscule.
Posted by: nixa37 | January 30, 2009 at 11:20 AM
I have to agree with nixa on this one.
If Dunn has been this brash with the market, there is no way he accepts arbitration. None.
Posted by: melonis rex | January 30, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Imagine how low Dunns value would be if a team had to give up a A draft pick too.
Posted by: qudjy1 | January 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I don't think having to give up a draft pick to sign Dunn would be nearly as big of a deal as it is with someone like Varitek or Cruz, because Dunn is basically guaranteed to be a type A again next year, meaning you could offer him arbitration (when you'd be working off of a reduced salary as a starting point) and get a pick if he declines and signs elsewhere.
Posted by: nixa37 | January 30, 2009 at 01:02 PM
As I said, the leaked information about those players' intentions will never be as good as the info the D'Backs had. They did not want to risk Dunn accepting and it was the right choice.
Adam Dunn openly said that he "LOVED" Arizona. There was much more than just a little chance Dunn would have accepted. The D-Backs organization decided they weren't even going to consider offering Dunn arb in the two or three days of the off season. They would know more than rumor mills.
Posted by: Serg Rush | January 30, 2009 at 01:19 PM
I agree with Nixa and Melonis. Dunn doesn't accept arbitration, I don't think there is a chance of it. Even if he did, the D'backs really couldn't have flipped him somewhere? They could have just gave him away for free and been in the same position they are now. If Dunn is worth trading multiple pieces for at the deadline, then how is he not worth offering a one year deal to at market value when a draft pick is at stake? Even though I think there is almost no chance he would have accepted it. Would there really be no team willing to take on Dunn for 1/13? He is a guaranteed .380/.500 guy and he hits 40 bombs every year.
Posted by: nrmax88 | January 30, 2009 at 04:45 PM
"AZ has a more dependable pitcher (albeit with a good deal less upside) and a grouch out of the clubhouse (made up of a lot of young players who froze up when he was on the mound). RJ got his cash and a new start."
From the start of the off-season, Arizona wanted Randy Johnson to come back to Arizona. The whole Jon Garland to Arizona talks didn't go on until at least late December. And how is Randy Johnson a grouch? From what I've heard, he's supposed to be a good clubhouse guy who connects to the younger people on the club. You're probably just mad that he decided to sign against Arizona and ended up signing with the Giants. Also, Randy Johnson still is a better pitcher then Jon Garland.
Posted by: It's Giant's Time! | January 30, 2009 at 07:05 PM