Comments on: Marlins Reel in Nick Johnson

By: Will

Will — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 04:17:11 +0000

It’s wrong to use Dunn’s OF defensive metrics from 2001 to determine his defensive capabilities. Over the past three years, he’s never posted a UZR/150 better than -20 in any position in the OF. At 1B, he’s probably worse, but because of a small sample size it’s hard to tell for sure.

Either way, Dunn destroys almost all his value just by playing defense. It doesn’t matter where he plays. The only way to get any value whatsoever out of Dunn is to put him in the DH spot.

By: lap

lap — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 01:24:21 +0000

“and the Marlins (!) acted as buyers at the trade deadline.”

Not to be “that guy” but the marlins have never been sellers during the deadline, and have always if anything been buyers.

Last year they nearly had Manny but still ended up with Arthur Rhodes

06-07 was nothing but they also weren’t sellers.

in ’05 they traded for a RP also in Ron Villone

’04 was Lo Duca

’03 was Urbina

so in 4 out of the 6 years that the FO has been in charge, they have bought in July.

I understand you’re not being offensive and what not, but I’m sure you can also understand that being a Marlins fan it does get annoying with all the overbearing things said about the team.

By: Travis L

Travis L — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:15:25 +0000

Can we please stop the bandwagon to move Dunn to 1B, and assume it’s a cure-all? By Fangraphs numbers, his UZR / 150 for 1B is -14.0, and for the OF it’s -13.7. By these measurements, he’s about as bad at first as the OF, and will cost the same number of runs. Given positional adjustments, he’s more valuable in the OF than in the IF.

What I’d like to know is why some AL clubs don’t replace their horrible DHs by with a guy like Dunn. Read any article somewhere recently that showed that the average AL DH is producing at a shockingly low offensive level. Some major upgrade waiting to happen WRT Dunn.

By: Joe R

Joe R — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:44:31 +0000

Even though he’s more of a 3-4 WAR when you don’t put the NL-style gun to his head and make him field.

By: Will

Will — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:18:16 +0000

The Nats FO view Dunn as a guy who brings fans to the game, when there is little other that could be considered a draw on the Nats. Can’t say I agree, but that’s their view.
It seems like they’ll hold onto Dunn until next July, then field some offers. Remember, no one was willing to pay Dunn anywhere near the 2/$20mil that the Nats were offering in March, so it’s unlikely a team would be anxious to pick up his remaining $12mil. However, next year at this time, only having to commit $3-4mil to Dunn will look much more appealing.

Then if no teams bite, the Nats will still get Type A FA compensation, when Dunn inevitably moves to the AL. Not bad for a 1.5-2 WAR player.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:07:27 +0000

Joe, it may just be that Rizzo felt no one was offering proper value on his other hitters like Dunn and Willingham. He’s said that he doesn’t feel the team needs a full scale rebuild at this point. If Dunn can find a way to be just below average at first base, that will probably help to improve a defense that’s been one of the Nats’ big problems this year (not to mention help his trade value). Willingham/Morgan/Dukes will save a lot of runs compared to Dunn/Dukes/Willingham or whatever alignment Manny Acta ran out. For months, the Nats have been using a rotation with four rookies and one sophmore (John Lannan), which could see great improvements with the experience they’re getting this season, not to mention the possible addition of Strasburg. They need a bullpen before they have any hope, but those can be built quickly if done right. Bottom line, there’s no need to blow up the Nats Huntington-style.

By: Joe R

Joe R — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:04:42 +0000

And I’m probably being a nitpicking asshole, but don’t forget last season the Marlins possibly could’ve had Manny Ramirez if they didn’t try to snake an extra $2,000,000 out of the Red Sox. Hill’s doing a good job down there in Miami, save that Willingham deal.

By: Erik Manning

Erik Manning — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:45:31 +0000

I stand corrected. Thanks!

By: pm

pm — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:28:31 +0000

Erik, The Marlins are not paying for Johnson’s 2.2 Million salary. They are only paying a prorated minimum of 142,000 while the Nats are on the hook for the rest meaning the Marlins basically got him for free.

By: Joe R

Joe R — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:13:09 +0000

And by the way, since Emilio Bonifacio is mentioned here:
For a good laugh, check out Jon Heyman’s article on Bonifacio after his unbelievably flukey week 1 where he pretty much praised the Marlins for acquiring him at the expense of Josh Willingham. Wonder if he’s eating those words now (or just moving on to the next high-BABIP fluke like he always does):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_heyman/04/13/bonifacio/index.html