Roch: AM isn't putting on a show for the fans by making offers he secretly hopes are turned down

[e16bball]

The thread seems to have turned from the original point, but I have to ask where folks are getting this supposed 3/45M offer that the Nats made and Dunn turned down. Everything I've read in the papers down here in DC today indicates that their final offer was 3/35M. Boswell, for example, from yesterday's Post indicated this.

There are arguments to be made either way about whether 4/40 or 3/35 is the better deal, and I don't think he would have accepted our deal over theirs given how he enjoyed playing there, but at the least it's not an INSULT. Particularly given that the extra year was a big sticking point for Dunn in talks with the Nationals.

It's not a deal they meant to "blow him away" with, and I think it's clear that they only wanted Dunn if they could get him on a deal that protected them from some of the huge risks he presents. But I really don't think a moderate offer to a player in which you have moderate interest is an indication that you're not serious about improving. It means that you don't think giving out a larger deal is something that will improve you in the long run.

I'm frustrated with the fact that the Orioles don't EVER seem to think giving out the largest contract to a coveted player is something that will improve them, to be sure, but in an isolated context like this, the 4/40 offer is really not something to break out the pitchforks over.

[sbauer]

The thread seems to have turned from the original point, but I have to ask where folks are getting this supposed 3/45M offer that the Nats made and Dunn turned down. Everything I've read in the papers down here in DC today indicates that their final offer was 3/35M. Boswell, for example, from yesterday's Post indicated this.

There are arguments to be made either wa about whether 4/40 or 3/35 is the better deal, and I don't think he would have accepted our deal over theirs given how he enjoyed playing there, but at the least it's not an INSULT. Particularly given that the extra year was a big sticking point for Dunn in talks with the Nationals.

The Nationals offered 3/35 and he turned it down. What do the Orioles do? Offer 4/40. Why even do that? That's clearly not going to get it done. It was a poor offer. There's no other way around it. If you don't want him, fine. If you don't think he's worth much more to you than something he already turned down, then don't make an offer. It's an embarrassing offer, whether you wanted him or not.

[tennOsfan]

If Dunn's bat isn't worth 4/56, I'm not sure whose is, especially if he's willing to DH.

4/40 is a joke, and it isn't even debatable.

[SrMeowMeow]

The thread seems to have turned from the original point, but I have to ask where folks are getting this supposed 3/45M offer that the Nats made and Dunn turned down. Everything I've read in the papers down here in DC today indicates that their final offer was 3/35M. Boswell, for example, from yesterday's Post indicated this.

There are arguments to be made either way about whether 4/40 or 3/35 is the better deal, and I don't think he would have accepted our deal over theirs given how he enjoyed playing there, but at the least it's not an INSULT. Particularly given that the extra year was a big sticking point for Dunn in talks with the Nationals.

It's not a deal they meant to "blow him away" with, and I think it's clear that they only wanted Dunn if they could get him on a deal that protected them from some of the huge risks he presents. But I really don't think a moderate offer to a player in which you have moderate interest is an indication that you're not serious about improving. It means that you don't think giving out a larger deal is something that will improve you in the long run.

I'm frustrated with the fact that the Orioles don't EVER seem to think giving out the largest contract to a coveted player is something that will improve them, to be sure, but in an isolated context like this, the 4/40 offer is really not something to break out the pitchforks over.

If it was 3/35 instead of 3/45, the context is a little better. 4/40 is still stupid for a host of other reasons, though.

[mefogus]

If it was 3/35 instead of 3/45, the context is a little better. 4/40 is still stupid for a host of other reasons, though.

So should we start another thread about those various other reasons then?

:F

[TradeAngelos]

If Dunn's bat isn't worth 4/56, I'm not sure whose is, especially if he's willing to DH.

4/40 is a joke, and it isn't even debatable.

A week ago how many people you think could you find on this board that would hear 4/40 and not burst out laughing? Matter of fact let's expand that to anyone who follows baseball on a regular basis across the country.

Zero.

It is so far off the mark it is comical.

[TonySoprano]

If it was 3/35 instead of 3/45, the context is a little better. 4/40 is still stupid for a host of other reasons, though.

Wow, for an extra $5M, he would owe us another year of service. Not to mention, again, that $10M per is less than what he made in 2010. No amount of spin will ever convince me that it wasn't a low ball bid. Either it was intentional or a stupid read of the market. Pick your poison.

[e16bball]

The Nationals offered 3/35 and he turned it down. What do the Orioles do? Offer 4/40. Why even do that? That's clearly not going to get it done. It was a poor offer. There's no other way around it. If you don't want him, fine. If you don't think he's worth much more to you than something he already turned down, then don't make an offer. It's an embarrassing offer, whether you wanted him or not.

Again, it's obviously not an offer tailored towards blowing him away. It's probably not even an offer they expected him to take. But it's MORE money than he was previously offered over 1 more year...a year that was apparently valuable to him.

It's also fairly close to the value most reasonable people would expect Dunn to have over the next 4 seasons as a DH or a likely butcher 1B. I've already said that I would have been willing to go 3/40M for Dunn, so clearly I would have been willing to go higher. But I'm not embarrassed by the fact that they made an offer that would have doubled the contract he signed two seasons ago in the middle of his prime.

[SrMeowMeow]

A week ago how many people you think could you find on this board that would hear 4/40 and not burst out laughing? Matter of fact let's expand that to anyone who follows baseball on a regular basis across the country.

Zero.

It is so far off the mark it is comical.

This is pretty accurate...4/40 was completely unrealistic. I don't mind caution and patience, but this was just a pointless offer at best, an insulting and obvious misread at worst.

[SrMeowMeow]

Again, it's obviously not an offer tailored towards blowing him away. It's probably not even an offer they expected him to take. But it's MORE money than he was previously offered over 1 more year...a year that was apparently valuable to him.

It's also fairly close to the value most reasonable people would expect Dunn to have over the next 4 seasons as a DH or a likely butcher 1B. I've already said that I would have been willing to go 3/40M for Dunn, so clearly I would have been willing to go higher. But I'm not embarrassed by the fact that they made an offer that would have doubled the contract he signed two seasons ago in the middle of his prime.

Using the total value of the contract like that is misleading. Five years at 4M a year would have "matched" the contract he signed two seasons ago, too.

Dunn would be taking a 15% pay cut coming off of yet another consistently excellent season, gave up his demand to play the field, and was being asked to join one of the least attractive teams in baseball. It was a stupid offer.

[Big Keys Fan]

Wow, for an extra $5M, he would owe us another year of service. Not to mention, again, that $10M per is less than what he made in 2010. No amount of spin will ever convince me that it wasn't a low ball bid. Either it was intentional or a stupid read of the market. Pick your poison.

OK a couple of things here that interest me with everyone's perspective on Dunn. Correct me if I am wrong but the O's need and are I search of RH bats right? In a business since if I have a need and I find something close to what I need but not exactly what I need. Why would I over extend my resources to get something nice but doesn't fit my requirements? So in this case from what I have read there were only 3 teams bidding and one went way above the others in both $$$ and years. Seems to fit the profile of a luxury and not a necessity unless that luxury comes at a discount.

Also, not sure why but the Nats had him for 2 years and outside SS and RZ he was othrer face of the franchise and helped instill faith in an otherwise impatient fan base (like baltimore). Why didn't they offer a 4th year or even match CHW yearly amount with less duration? My assumption is that they saw something that made them not want to have him making 15+@37 years old. They certainly would know more than any of us.

I do agree that we need to probably over pay for a FA but he was not the one and raise or no raise an average of 10/yr is to much for a bat. There are maybe 10-15 players in all the MLB that deserve 15+/yr and they play both offense and defense. Overall, my belief is AM and the FO gave what they felt was a fair offer for a DH, regardless of his demands this where he will end up by the end of next season FT, think Jim Thome with a worse glove.

[SrMeowMeow]

OK a couple of things here that interest me with everyone's perspective on Dunn. Correct me if I am wrong but the O's need and are I search of RH bats right? In a business since if I have a need and I find something close to what I need but not exactly what I need. Why would I over extend my resources to get something nice but doesn't fit my requirements? So in this case from what I have read there were only 3 teams bidding and one went way above the others in both $$$ and years. Seems to fit the profile of a luxury and not a necessity unless that luxury comes at a discount.

Also, not sure why but the Nats had him for 2 years and outside SS and RZ he was othrer face of the franchise and helped instill faith in an otherwise impatient fan base (like baltimore). Why didn't they offer a 4th year or even match CHW yearly amount with less duration? My assumption is that they saw something that made them not want to have him making 15+@37 years old. They certainly would know more than any of us.

I do agree that we need to probably over pay for a FA but he was not the one and raise or no raise an average of 10/yr is to much for a bat. There are maybe 10-15 players in all the MLB that deserve 15+/yr and they play both offense and defense. Overall, my belief is AM and the FO gave what they felt was a fair offer for a DH, regardless of his demands this where he will end up by the end of next season FT, think Jim Thome with a worse glove.

I'm not saying Dunn was the perfect fit. I'm saying why bid at all if you're going to make such a pointlessly insignificant offer?

[e16bball]

Using the total value of the contract like that is misleading. Five years at 4M a year would have "matched" the contract he signed two seasons ago, too.

It's not misleading at all. It's exactly double the value in both years and length than the package he got from the Nationals. How is that misleading? Because the Nationals chose to backload the 2009 deal?

The Nats should be embarrassed too, then, I guess...offering the guy a paycut and all. Sure, it was more per-year than they previously gave him...but it's less per-year than what he made last season, so it constitutes a paycut for him.

Dunn would be taking a 15% pay cut coming off of yet another consistently excellent season, gave up his demand to play the field, and was being asked to join one of the least attractive teams in baseball. It was a stupid offer.

This is where we disagree, I guess.

Essentially, you're saying that if the maximum contract you're willing to give a player is unlikely to be the one he chooses, you just shouldn't make an offer at all. And to do so would be "stupid."

I'm saying that if the known offer to a guy is 3/35M and, given your value of the player, you think he's worth more guaranteed money, it's not "stupid" to present an offer. Is he going to take it? Almost certainly not. I don't think there was more than a snowball's chance he would take 4/40. But if there's a case to be made that he might accept it, why not offer on the off chance you get him at value? Just don't see how it hurts to make the offer. The Nationals had no problem making an offer that wasn't even close to what he got either...it's not JUST MacPhail who thought that package was in the ballpark.

Again, this is merely a view of the Dunn situation in a vacuum. The Orioles do this so frequently that it's starting to become a reputation, which IS a problem. Making low-ball, "one percent chance he takes this offer but let's throw it out there" offers on a regular basis is not a way to be taken seriously by FAs.

[Hank Scorpio]

It's not misleading at all. It's exactly double the value in both years and length than the package he got from the Nationals. How is that misleading? Because the Nationals chose to backload the 2009 deal?

The Nats should be embarrassed too, then, I guess...offering the guy a paycut and all. Sure, it was more per-year than they previously gave him...but it's less per-year than what he made last season, so it constitutes a paycut for him.

This is where we disagree, I guess.

Essentially, you're saying that if the maximum contract you're willing to give a player is unlikely to be the one he chooses, you just shouldn't make an offer at all. And to do so would be "stupid."

I'm saying that if the known offer to a guy is 3/35M and, given your value of the player, you think he's worth more guaranteed money, it's not "stupid" to present an offer. Is he going to take it? Almost certainly not. I don't think there was more than a snowball's chance he would take 4/40. But if there's a case to be made that he might accept it, why not offer on the off chance you get him at value? Just don't see how it hurts to make the offer. The Nationals had no problem making an offer that wasn't even close to what he got either...it's not JUST MacPhail who thought that package was in the ballpark.

Again, this is merely a view of the Dunn situation in a vacuum. The Orioles do this so frequently that it's starting to become a reputation, which IS a problem. Making low-ball, "one percent chance he takes this offer but let's throw it out there" offers on a regular basis is not a way to be taken seriously by FAs.

I agree with all of this.

I'm sure at the time if MacPhail knew Dunn would end up getting 4/56, he wouldn't have bothered.

[SrMeowMeow]

It's not misleading at all. It's exactly double the value in both years and length than the package he got from the Nationals. How is that misleading? Because the Nationals chose to backload the 2009 deal?

The Nats should be embarrassed too, then, I guess...offering the guy a paycut and all. Sure, it was more per-year than they previously gave him...but it's less per-year than what he made last season, so it constitutes a paycut for him.

This is where we disagree, I guess.

Essentially, you're saying that if the maximum contract you're willing to give a player is unlikely to be the one he chooses, you just shouldn't make an offer at all. And to do so would be "stupid."

I'm saying that if the known offer to a guy is 3/35M and, given your value of the player, you think he's worth more guaranteed money, it's not "stupid" to present an offer. Is he going to take it? Almost certainly not. I don't think there was more than a snowball's chance he would take 4/40. But if there's a case to be made that he might accept it, why not offer on the off chance you get him at value? Just don't see how it hurts to make the offer. The Nationals had no problem making an offer that wasn't even close to what he got either...it's not JUST MacPhail who thought that package was in the ballpark.

Again, this is merely a view of the Dunn situation in a vacuum. The Orioles do this so frequently that it's starting to become a reputation, which IS a problem. Making low-ball, "one percent chance he takes this offer but let's throw it out there" offers on a regular basis is not a way to be taken seriously by FAs.

Man, what are you talking about? 4/40 is "double the contract" of 2/20 in only a very arbitrary sense - you make it sound like a raise when it's clearly not. And no, it doesn't make any sense to offer a little below everyone else for a free agent on the off chance they take it, because they never will. The Orioles are not the kind of team right now that might intrigue a free agent into taking a discount. It might be zero-risk, but it's also pointless.