It wasn't that long ago that there was an open debate over which Chicago baseball player had the most disastrous contract: Dunn and his four-year, $56 million pact or Alfonso Soriano and the eight-year, $136 million contract the Cubs handed out.
I don't think it ever merited that much debate. Soriano made more per year on a contract twice as long. And now with the benefit of more hindsight as both contracts are nearly off the books there's this to consider -- the Sox got exactly what they should have expected from Dunn when they signed him.
How would this contract look if Dunn's career performance looked like this the last four years?
Year 1: .229/.363/.435
Year 2: .219/.320/.442
Year 3: .204/.333/.468
Year 4: .159/.292/.277
Coming off a .260/.356/.537 batting line in Washington the year before, this looks like a hitter who lost a chunk of batting average and power but was still a decent hitter the first season. Year 2 is a disappointment with the power still missing and some of the strike zone control now gone along with it. The third year looks like a rebound with the power coming back, even though all of the on-base percentage didn't. The final year looks like the end of the line for a designated hitter who can't make contact, can't hit for power and can't get on base as a result.
Should the Sox or anyone else have expected more from a 31-year-old slugger who even in his prime struggled to make contact? That looks like a completely typical aging pattern for Dunn's type of player.
The only peculiar thing about that career arc is that it's the opposite of how Dunn's year-to-year performance in a Sox uniform played out.
Obviously there are circumstances around these numbers to account for. This year might be Dunn's best year with the Sox, despite being three years older. Of course, this is also the first year the Sox have acknowledged Dunn's struggles against left-handed pitchers and have aggressively limited his exposure to them. And if Dunn had really batted .159 with no power in the final year of his contract, there's probably no way he'd have gotten nearly 500 plate appearances to try to right the ship.
The Sox would have benefited in this alternate universe where Dunn's seasons are reversed. The 2011 season, when the team was as close as three games back for the division lead as late as July 30, perhaps unfolds differently if Dunn and Alex Rios aren't both posting disastrous seasons.
Dunn wouldn't have been as good as he actually was in 2012, so maybe that Sox team spends more of the season chasing rather than leading before falling off in the end. In the backwards timeline, Dunn has a resurgent season that probably can't save the 2013 team that is forced to rebuild, but maybe he's dealt for better talent than he's likely to fetch in the real world this week and the Sox avoid the disastrous final year and a half of his contract.
None of that happened because baseball is a funny game that doesn't care about typical aging and performance patterns. As it is, this isn't the end of the road for Dunn's career. He should draw some interest on the trade market, and if he's willing to accept that teams will want to platoon him to keep him away from lefties, he can probably play for several more years, likely making at least $5 million per year doing it.
If the Sox do say goodbye to Dunn this week, they shouldn't feel like they got cheated.
What team would trade for this two-dimensional (HR / Strikeout) monstrosity? Adam Dunn is a BUM. Up until the 1970's a player like Dunn wouldn't have made the minor leagues.
ReplyDeleteDunn could arguably be considered an upgrade at 1B for a team like Milwaukee, which has been playing Mark Reynolds and Lyle Overbay at that position all year. Check the numbers on those guys. They're not good.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest reason Dunn is hard to trade is money. Even now, with just one-third of a season left on his deal, he is owed about $5 million. The Sox would have to eat at least a portion of that money to move him, and the return would likely be nothing more than an organizational player.
Some team might take Dunn on if the Sox were willing to eat some money, but perhaps the Sox would rather not do that.
As for what went on pre-1970, I don't think it much matters at this point. But, Hawk Harrelson was in the big leagues then, and his career batting average wasn't unlike Dunn's.