Wouldn't Dunn Look Nice in Leftfield?

[BigbadB]

[but if the new management shows a commitment to righting the ship, that might persuade Dunn to stick around. If not, then I totally agree that the smart thing to do is trade Dunn now and get as much future talent for him as possible.

[/i]

 

Stick around for what? Dunn stands to make more than 10m a year, and Cincinnati isn't a team that will be able to give that to him. If I was Dunn, and after seeing what the free agent market looks like for 2007, I would most definitely test the market.

[BigbadB]

We could have had Giles, but passed.

[/url]

 

It's comments like this that always leave me scratching my head.

 

You don't know that.

 

And it's comments like this that always leave me scratching my head.

 

You don't know whether they did or didn't. But, we have direct words from Jim Hendry that state he would NOT get into a bidding war for Giles.

 

Good thing, too. I'm much happier they outbid everyone for Mr. Jacque Jones?

[bmkhawk]

It doesn't matter what I do or don't know. That isn't at issue.

 

I said Vance didn't know that the Cubs could have had Giles.

 

And he doesn't.

 

And neither do you.

 

Nobody on this board does.

 

So, it's pointless to make such an accusation against Hendry when one doesn't know it to be true. Why on earth would my comment pointing out that Vance didn't know for certain what he was proclaiming to be fact leave you scratching your head?

Edited February 10, 2006 by bmkhawk

[bmkhawk]

edit

[UBlink]

As long as that horse isn't moving, I might as well chime in that a distinction can and should be made between "not getting into a bidding war" and "not interested".

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

It doesn't matter what I do or don't know. That isn't at issue.

 

I said Vance didn't know that the Cubs could have had Giles.

 

And he doesn't.

 

And neither do you.

 

Nobody on this board does.

 

So, it's pointless to make such an accusation against Hendry when one doesn't know it to be true. Why on earth would my comment pointing out that Vance didn't know for certain what he was proclaiming to be fact leave you scratching your head?

 

and my statement of such wasn't meant to be an indictment on Cubs management, but was simply done to show hoe rare and difficult it is to acquire an impact hitter. By saying we could've had Giles, I was more making a concession that there was one hitter in that class that we could have acquired, but for the most part they are unavailable most of the time.

[goonys evil twin]

It doesn't matter what I do or don't know. That isn't at issue.

 

I said Vance didn't know that the Cubs could have had Giles.

 

And he doesn't.

 

And neither do you.

 

Nobody on this board does.

 

So, it's pointless to make such an accusation against Hendry when one doesn't know it to be true. Why on earth would my comment pointing out that Vance didn't know for certain what he was proclaiming to be fact leave you scratching your head?

 

If this ridiculous level of scrutiny was placed on every post we wouldn't have anything to write about.

 

We do know they could have had Giles, simply by realizing they are a major league baseball team with money to spend and Brian Giles was a major league baseball player who was a free agent. And we know Hendry spoke out against the idea of pursuing Giles.

[bmkhawk]

I think that there is quite obviously more to the discussion than what you just set forward Goony. The way that Vince said his statement implies that Giles likely would have been a Cub had Hendry simply tried to get him...that is the obvious implication to his statement. But, no one knows if Giles was ever going to leave San Diego. Everything else he did on the market could have just been posturing to get the deal (which he did) from SD that he wanted all along.

 

It's not ridiculous scrutinization. It's asking for less hyperbole. Something you also asked for just a week ago.

[CubfaninCA]

Probability of getting Giles - .001%.

Make Mark Cuban owner 10%.

Move the Cubs to Long Beach w/ Cuban as owner 35%.

 

:o

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think that there is quite obviously more to the discussion than what you just set forward Goony. The way that Vince said his statement implies that Giles likely would have been a Cub had Hendry simply tried to get him...that is the obvious implication to his statement. But, no one knows if Giles was ever going to leave San Diego. Everything else he did on the market could have just been posturing to get the deal (which he did) from SD that he wanted all along.

 

It's not ridiculous scrutinization. It's asking for less hyperbole. Something you also asked for just a week ago.

 

That wasn't what I implied at all. In the context of the discussion, I was implying, well not so much more like directly stating, that 900 OPS+ OFers are rare and hard to acquire. I was thowing out the caveat that we could have had Giles, but passed. That wasn't any more than saying we didn't make an effort to get him, which is true. Whether that effort would have netted him, means little in the argument I was making.

 

so, in my opinion, the issue of Giles is of little importance. The fact he may have intended to return to SD all along further emphasizes that you go balls to the wall to get one of these guys when they become available.

 

Therefore....if it costs Pie, Guzman or Marmol, and Marshall or Gallagher to get Dunn, you swallow hard and pay the piper, because getting a 900+ OPS OF is hard to do, especially one on the right side of 27.

[BigbadB]

IEverything else he did on the market could have just been posturing to get the deal (which he did) from SD that he wanted all along.

 

Who had more money to spend on free agents this offseason than the Cubs? The Cubs had somewhere in upwards of 40m to spend. Would it have been in the best interest of Brian Giles and his agent to posture to get the best deal possible, but exclude the Cubs and all their cash to get that good deal?

 

Not only did Hendry state he wouldn't get into a bidding war for Giles, but he also seemed more intent to settle the lead off spot than land a big bat. He also showed some concern about Giles age.

 

Most everything lends towards Hendry not being interested than Giles not being interested.

[bmkhawk]

Therefore....if it costs Pie, Guzman or Marmol, and Marshall or Gallagher to get Dunn, you swallow hard and pay the piper, because getting a 900+ OPS OF is hard to do, especially one on the right side of 27.

 

Well, if nothing else, I agree with you that such a package is one that the Cubs should offer the Reds to get Dunn if that's what it takes.

 

However...I don't think that Dunn will ever be a Cub via trade. It all depends on, like you said earlier, if their new GM wants to forgoe the next couple of years in order to collect young talent that will allow the Reds to make a big push in the near future (kind of like what the Marlins did) AND if he would deal him intra-division. While I hope it happens, I doubt it. Even if it did happen, that would leave the Cubs with an extra outfielder, and a whole other situation to deal with. It would be great if Jones were part of the deal, but I don't see why the Reds would do that unless the Cubs overwhelmed them with young talent.

Edited February 10, 2006 by bmkhawk

[CubfaninCA]

IEverything else he did on the market could have just been posturing to get the deal (which he did) from SD that he wanted all along.

 

Who had more money to spend on free agents this offseason than the Cubs? The Cubs had somewhere in upwards of 40m to spend. Would it have been in the best interest of Brian Giles and his agent to posture to get the best deal possible, but exclude the Cubs and all their cash to get that good deal?

 

Not only did Hendry state he wouldn't get into a bidding war for Giles, but he also seemed more intent to settle the lead off spot than land a big bat. He also showed some concern about Giles age.

 

Most everything lends towards Hendry not being interested than Giles not being interested.

 

The Yankees always have more money available than anyone and Giles wasn't signing a 1 year deal.

[goonys evil twin]

I think that there is quite obviously more to the discussion than what you just set forward Goony. The way that Vince said his statement implies that Giles likely would have been a Cub had Hendry simply tried to get him...that is the obvious implication to his statement. But, no one knows if Giles was ever going to leave San Diego. Everything else he did on the market could have just been posturing to get the deal (which he did) from SD that he wanted all along.

 

It's not ridiculous scrutinization. It's asking for less hyperbole. Something you also asked for just a week ago.

 

Nobody said it would have been as simple as just showing interest. Obviously you would have had to bid aggressively, and really show the guy you wanted him on the team. That's how teams get guys who otherwise may not show interest in going there.

 

The only hyperbolic part of this discussion are the people who say the Cubs wouldn't have had any chance at getting Giles.

[bmkhawk]

Not only did Hendry state he wouldn't get into a bidding war for Giles

 

Maybe I am just a bit hazy here, but can I see this quote please? I don't remember it.

 

but he also seemed more intent to settle the lead off spot than land a big bat.

 

Based on the fact that he pursued Furcal and Pierre out of the gates, or is there something else I am missing?

 

He also showed some concern about Giles age.

 

Again, is there some sort of quote where he said this? I don't remember seeing it.

[Neuby]

Guys Giles took less money to stay in san diego deal. This is like saying we should get into the bidding for Clemens because we have the money , he wants to play in Texas somewhere or Boston or New York.

[BigbadB]

The Yankees always have more money available than anyone and Giles wasn't signing a 1 year deal.

 

And joining the Yankees would have meant switching leagues and playing CF. The Yankees seemed like they were only posturing Giles to drive up his price. They didn't seem all that serious about Giles, and defensively, it was probably a good idea that they didn't.

 

Never said a word about 1 year. The going rate appeared to be 3 years for Giles.

 

I'm just pointing out all the evidence that suggests Hendry wasn't all that interested in Giles. Evidence can be pointed out that Giles had no interest in playing for the Cubs. It's pretty much been beaten to death. Fact of the matter is, none of us really knows, but does that mean I should automatically assume that Giles had no interest in playing for the Cubs when there is plenty of evidence that suggests that, just maybe, Hendry had no interest in going after Giles? Because you do?

 

I can respect your opinion on Giles availability. Why do you constantly question mine?

[bmkhawk]

The only hyperbolic part of this discussion are the people who say the Cubs wouldn't have had any chance at getting Giles.

 

Who in this thread said that the cubs had no chance of getting Giles?

 

If Jack says A=B.

 

And Bill says "Jack, you don't know that for certain."

 

Said statement by Bill does not mean that Bill is saying that A can never equal B.

 

I freely admit that I don't know for certain that the Cubs could have gotten Giles or not. Like I said before, no one knows that.

[goonys evil twin]

The only hyperbolic part of this discussion are the people who say the Cubs wouldn't have had any chance at getting Giles.

 

Who in this thread said that the cubs had no chance of getting Giles?

 

 

Probability of getting Giles - .001%.

Make Mark Cuban owner 10%.

Move the Cubs to Long Beach w/ Cuban as owner 35%.

 

:o

[BigbadB]

Not only did Hendry state he wouldn't get into a bidding war for Giles

 

Maybe I am just a bit hazy here, but can I see this quote please? I don't remember it.

 

but he also seemed more intent to settle the lead off spot than land a big bat.

 

Based on the fact that he pursued Furcal and Pierre out of the gates, or is there something else I am missing?

 

He also showed some concern about Giles age.

 

Again, is there some sort of quote where he said this? I don't remember seeing it.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to go hunting for old newspaper articles quoting Hendry and his comments about Giles. Bruce Miles mentioned the age thing, and I really don't recall whether Bruce was speculating or was quoting an actual comment by Hendry, therefore no disrespect to the messenger.

 

I saw the "bidding war" comment on ESPN Insider Rumor Central. Hendry basically stated he would not get into a bidding war for Giles. I saw it. If you wish to doubt me, feel free. I don't make stuff up, however. I don't think I have ever given anyone any reason to believe I make stuff up.

[CubfaninCA]

The Yankees always have more money available than anyone and Giles wasn't signing a 1 year deal.

 

And joining the Yankees would have meant switching leagues and playing CF. The Yankees seemed like they were only posturing Giles to drive up his price. They didn't seem all that serious about Giles, and defensively, it was probably a good idea that they didn't.

 

Never said a word about 1 year. The going rate appeared to be 3 years for Giles.

 

I'm just pointing out all the evidence that suggests Hendry wasn't all that interested in Giles. Evidence can be pointed out that Giles had no interest in playing for the Cubs. It's pretty much been beaten to death. Fact of the matter is, none of us really knows, but does that mean I should automatically assume that Giles had no interest in playing for the Cubs when there is plenty of evidence that suggests that, just maybe, Hendry had no interest in going after Giles? Because you do?

 

I can respect your opinion on Giles availability. Why do you constantly question mine?

 

Only posturing Giles to up his price?? I'm not following that???

 

The Cubs may have had lots of money this upcoming year, but what about years 2 & 3?? Hence why I questioned you..

[CubfaninCA]

The only hyperbolic part of this discussion are the people who say the Cubs wouldn't have had any chance at getting Giles.

 

Who in this thread said that the cubs had no chance of getting Giles?

 

 

Probability of getting Giles - .001%.

Make Mark Cuban owner 10%.

Move the Cubs to Long Beach w/ Cuban as owner 35%.

 

:o

 

.001 = chance

[BigbadB]

I think the Yankees motivation on Giles was to drive his price up in case Boston made a run at him. While the Yankees do pay top dollar for players, Giles just wasn't a good fit for them. An outfield with Giles in CF would have been ugly, especially anothe year or two down the road. Boston was a team that expressed interest, so it made sense for the Yankees to get in on the bidding just to drive up the price for othe teams.

 

Legitimate question regarding Giles (the one year contract question). Maddux would be off the books, so there's 9m. Not giving Neifi 2.5m or Rusch 3m would have been almost another 6m. Not giving Jacque Jones 5m for the next 3 years would have been a given. Pie taking over in CF when Pierre and his 6m left in 2007 was a possibility. If Wood isn't retained, there's another 12m. Granted, other players would have to be brought in and along with raises to Prior and Zambrano and the like, I think Giles was affordable for the next 3 years. Especially if Cedeno, Murton and Pie worked out. In fact, with Giles, I think the team could still be quite good offensively if Murton and Cedeno struggle in their first year.

 

If it was me, I wouldn't have spent all that cash on Howry and Eyre. I would have traded farm surplus for MacDougal and Affeldt in KC. Big savings there also. Bullpen guys are completely unpredictable. As good as Eyre and Howry were last year, there is no guarantee they will be that good again this year. It's hard to find consistent bullpen guys outside of the top closers. Paying big money for them has burned the Cubs before (Remlinger, Hawkins). Yes, used improperly is part of the problem. But, that problem is still patrolling the dugout this year.

 

KC would have pounced on Mitre, Nolasco and Pinto for those two relievers. CF still needed to be addressed, and I would have focused my energy on getting Bradley. Yes, Bradley is another guy who didn't appear to be available to the Cubs as the Dodgers didn't appear to want to deal with Hendry. Why is that, exactly? Dusty flies out to LA to meet with Bradley and that's the end of it? What happened there? I suppose Dusty could have been less than impressed with his meeting with Bradley, but I can't imagine it.

[Neuby]

I think the Yankees motivation on Giles was to drive his price up in case Boston made a run at him. While the Yankees do pay top dollar for players, Giles just wasn't a good fit for them. An outfield with Giles in CF would have been ugly, especially anothe year or two down the road. Boston was a team that expressed interest, so it made sense for the Yankees to get in on the bidding just to drive up the price for othe teams.

 

Legitimate question regarding Giles (the one year contract question). Maddux would be off the books, so there's 9m. Not giving Neifi 2.5m or Rusch 3m would have been almost another 6m. Not giving Jacque Jones 5m for the next 3 years would have been a given. Pie taking over in CF when Pierre and his 6m left in 2007 was a possibility. If Wood isn't retained, there's another 12m. Granted, other players would have to be brought in and along with raises to Prior and Zambrano and the like, I think Giles was affordable for the next 3 years. Especially if Cedeno, Murton and Pie worked out. In fact, with Giles, I think the team could still be quite good offensively if Murton and Cedeno struggle in their first year.

 

If it was me, I wouldn't have spent all that cash on Howry and Eyre. I would have traded farm surplus for MacDougal and Affeldt in KC. Big savings there also. Bullpen guys are completely unpredictable. As good as Eyre and Howry were last year, there is no guarantee they will be that good again this year. It's hard to find consistent bullpen guys outside of the top closers. Paying big money for them has burned the Cubs before (Remlinger, Hawkins). Yes, used improperly is part of the problem. But, that problem is still patrolling the dugout this year.

 

KC would have pounced on Mitre, Nolasco and Pinto for those two relievers. CF still needed to be addressed, and I would have focused my energy on getting Bradley. Yes, Bradley is another guy who didn't appear to be available to the Cubs as the Dodgers didn't appear to want to deal with Hendry. Why is that, exactly? Dusty flies out to LA to meet with Bradley and that's the end of it? What happened there? I suppose Dusty could have been less than impressed with his meeting with Bradley, but I can't imagine it.

 

The Dodgers new GM didn't want to deal with the Cubs because of sour grapes with Baker or Hendry I can't remember. Depo arragnged the meeting with Baker and Bradley he was fired before a deal could be put together .

If Hendry had traded Mitre, Nolasco, Pinto for two relivers this board would have had a meltdown. We traded for one of the top leadoff men in the game when he's at his best and we might still have overpaid. I would have done a Walker for Mcdougal or Alfedt if KC hadn't gotten Grudz and the Cubs found a hitter who could replace Walker elsewhere

[BigbadB]

Hairston and Walker were decent enough options to lead off. Hairston was coming off of injuries last year, so there is an expected improvement in OBP from him over last year. Walker's OBP is, was and can be just as good, if not better than Pierre. I don't know what Pierre's problem was last year, but if he duplicates that same OBP while getting caught stealing as often as he does, I don't think he's that great of an investment.

 

I think it's just another added problem if Hendry has ruined relationships with other teams. It probably wouldn't be that big of a deal if everything else was right with Cubs management. But, tack on this problem on top of everything else, and I'll be screaming for a regime change if this team doesn't have a good season.

 

It's a shame, because I really was on board with Hendry in 2003. I have liked some of his moves since 2003, but I'm at the point that I don't believe his organizational philosophies are going to get this organization where it should be.