Dunn to the White Sox (p. 12)

[dew1679666265]

This is laughable. This recurring idea that Dunn is going to fall off a cliff after the next two seasons keeps getting spat out like it's fact. Gonzalez would be 33 just 3 years after the Cubs would sign him as a FA; why is he such a lock to perform at that age? You're talking like they're night and day offensively and health-wise when they're not, and you're advocating paying someone much more money and giving them more years using that logic.

 

Dunn may not fall off a cliff, but he'll likely be in decline and it's likely to come right at the time this team is really getting better. Like I said, if he doesn't decline in his ages 33-34 years, then I'm wrong. But it's a risk and it's one I don't think is worth taking when his best years will come during our worst years.

 

As for Gonzalez, if he's really good for 3 years, they'll come just as this team should be getting really good and by the time he starts to really decline, Soriano's hefty contract will be off the books. That's a much better situation than Dunn's.

 

Had we signed Dunn, I wouldn't hate it. But there's plenty of reason why this isn't a terrible non-move by the Cubs.

[jersey cubs fan]

But it's a risk and it's one I don't think is worth taking when his best years will come during our worst years.

 

This is dumb. The Cubs just had their worst year. They were terrible. They have no impact bats in their system and are in dire need of them ASAP. They can win a division in 2011 without a hell of a lot of effort. But this paranoid absurdity about Dunn not being as good at 34 than he will be at 32, like every freaking other player in baseball and just like the ones you are advocating makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Sammy Sofa]

No, there's not. You're hinging this on the idea that consistently valuable players tend to be terrible once they hit 33 or 34. When a player is producing at a very high level a natural decline isn't the end of the world, especially if they're only signed to a 4-year-contract that ends when they're 35. Gonzalez is going to want a Soriano-type deal, both when it comes to money and length and it's going to take him well past the ages you're convinced are like cancer for good ballplayers and he's going to cost a lot more. The Cubs have dire needs NOW that Dunn fills and they can compete NOW if they get him and he's going to cost much less in years and money. You don't wait when you have that kind of opportunity.

 

Let's just start with why you think Dunn seriously declining by age 33 is such a significant risk. What about him makes you think that?

[jersey cubs fan]

As for Gonzalez, if he's really good for 3 years, they'll come just as this team should be getting really good and by the time he starts to really decline, Soriano's hefty contract will be off the books. That's a much better situation than Dunn's.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about assuming when exactly the Cubs are going to become really good. It's a stupid assertion to make. This isn't the Rays poised to have a breakout year. You don't plan a team to get better three years from now.

[Rob]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

[Guest]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

 

Right, if Dunn's bat doesn't stay the same, he's a moneysink. Gonzalez can field his position, and currently provides a 5 WAR guy that is much rarer than Dunn. Plus, Gonzalez is 3 years younger than Dunn, or 2 years younger than he is this year if you sign him after the year. It's not a comparable situation.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

 

Why are patience and power not going to age "gracefully?"

[Sammy Sofa]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

 

Right, if Dunn's bat doesn't stay the same, he's a moneysink. Gonzalez can field his position, and currently provides a 5 WAR guy that is much rarer than Dunn. Plus, Gonzalez is 3 years younger than Dunn, or 2 years younger than he is this year if you sign him after the year. It's not a comparable situation.

 

But why is Dunn's bat so likely to significantly degrade so quickly? Nobody can explain this.

[Guest]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

 

Right, if Dunn's bat doesn't stay the same, he's a moneysink. Gonzalez can field his position, and currently provides a 5 WAR guy that is much rarer than Dunn. Plus, Gonzalez is 3 years younger than Dunn, or 2 years younger than he is this year if you sign him after the year. It's not a comparable situation.

 

But why is Dunn's bat so likely to significantly degrade so quickly? Nobody can explain this.

 

The point is that he has no margin for error. He provides nothing but the bat, and a lesser bat than someone like Gonzalez at that. I don't think anyone is saying that Dunn is going to turn into a stiff in 2 years. But to be worth that money, he can't have much of any decline, and a quick look at his age comparables at BR shows that's definitely a possibility. There's no comparison to potential contracts with Gonzalez, who is 2 years younger, a better hitter, and provides value beyond the bat.

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course it's a possibility. But Dunn is available now, is incredibly valuable to the Cubs and could have been had for a manageable contract. You don't pass on that in the hopes of landing a guy they have much, much, much less of a chance of signing, especially one who is going to take up even more of the dreaded later years than Dunn. I really don't give a [expletive] that Gonzalez provides better defense at first because if his bat goes then the team is fucked. It's not like they can just sit back and say, "well, it really sucks that Gonzalez's offensive production [expletive] the bed once he turned 34, but thank God his defense is still decent! The season is saved!"

[javy knows my name]

I wish we'd stop excusing not signing Dunn because it means we're going to sign Adrian Gonzalez. What about anything the Ricketts have done or said since taking the helm suggest that they'd be ready to spend that kind of dough in a year? We have been systematically lowering payroll with not even a whisper of a big-name acquisition. I don't know how anyone could have thought we'd pay Dunn this year, and I'm even more stymied that anyone thinks we're gonna pay Gonzalez next year.

 

The Ricketts had an opportunity to upgrade the club significantly at an incredibly weak position on the ML club and the system in general. They didn't take it because they haven't felt pressure to spend money yet and are content with mediocrity, at least for next year. Anyone thinking they're gearing up to pay Gonzalez the world is just fooling themselves.

[Sammy Sofa]

And even if they shell out for Gonzalez, I can't imagine them having the money to fill the other holes that appear with Fukudome, Aramis and Dempster (though this hopefully won't be as dire as the other two) gone.

[CubColtPacer]

And even if they shell out for Gonzalez, I can't imagine them having the money to fill the other holes that appear with Fukudome, Aramis and Dempster (though this hopefully won't be as dire as the other two) gone.

 

They're going to almost certainly fill the Fukudome hole from within. Dempster will probably be back for 2012. And 3B they'll probably have to sign a journeyman. They won't have to spend out nearly as much money as they're losing.

[Sammy Sofa]

And even if they shell out for Gonzalez, I can't imagine them having the money to fill the other holes that appear with Fukudome, Aramis and Dempster (though this hopefully won't be as dire as the other two) gone.

 

They're going to almost certainly fill the Fukudome hole from within. Dempster will probably be back for 2012. And 3B they'll probably have to sign a journeyman. They won't have to spend out nearly as much money as they're losing.

 

So they'd be building a pretty bad team around Gonzalez if they signed him.

[Guest]

Of course it's a possibility. But Dunn is available now, is incredibly valuable to the Cubs and could have been had for a manageable contract. You don't pass on that in the hopes of landing a guy they have much, much, much less of a chance of signing, especially one who is going to take up even more of the dreaded later years than Dunn. I really don't give a [expletive] that Gonzalez provides better defense at first because if his bat goes then the team is [expletive]. It's not like they can just sit back and say, "well, it really sucks that Gonzalez's offensive production [expletive] the bed once he turned 34, but thank God his defense is still decent! The season is saved!"

 

You're the one who introduced the Gonzalez strawman, I'm pointing out why it's a bad comparison.

 

Like I said in my first post, I'm not upset that we didn't give Dunn that contract, because it carries a good bit of risk if his bat doesn't stay the same(read: "falls off even a little bit", not: "he falls off the map"). That doesn't mean they still don't have to fill 1B or that I won't blame the front office if they can't fill 1B, but I can't conjure the vitriol to condemn them at the beginning of December.

 

EDIT: I think you're also overestimating the gap between Dunn and some of the lesser alternatives. Like SSR mentioned somewhere, there's less cost certainty, but getting 2+ WAR out of an option like Pena(to use him as an example) is not farfetched at all, and makes the hand-wringing over Dunn even more premature.

[Guest]

I wish we'd stop excusing not signing Dunn because it means we're going to sign Adrian Gonzalez. What about anything the Ricketts have done or said since taking the helm suggest that they'd be ready to spend that kind of dough in a year? We have been systematically lowering payroll with not even a whisper of a big-name acquisition. I don't know how anyone could have thought we'd pay Dunn this year, and I'm even more stymied that anyone thinks we're gonna pay Gonzalez next year.

 

The Ricketts had an opportunity to upgrade the club significantly at an incredibly weak position on the ML club and the system in general. They didn't take it because they haven't felt pressure to spend money yet and are content with mediocrity, at least for next year. Anyone thinking they're gearing up to pay Gonzalez the world is just fooling themselves.

I concur.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait, I did what? I introduced the idea that the Cubs maybe want to wait to sign Gonzalez and that's one of the reasons why they possibly passed on Dunn? *I* introduced that? How the [expletive] do you figure that?

 

I just don't agree that Dunn "falling off a little bit" makes him a complete liability defensively if he's playing 1st. That's where you dump guys who stink it up on defense. The Cubs have desperate needs now that he filled and then some and I think signing him would have given them more financial flexibility to improve other areas as they arise in the near future than the monster contract that Gonzalez will command. I also think they had a much, much better chance of signing Dunn than they do of getting someone like Gonzalez.

[Rob]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

 

Why are patience and power not going to age "gracefully?"

 

Adam Dunn simply has a lot of risk factors:

 

- He is at the age where a player would normally start to decline.

- He is a big man, which tends to make players more susceptible to back and leg injuries.

- He already has a very poor contact rate.

- His strikeout rate was the highest of his career in 2010.

- His walk rate was the lowest of his career in 2010.

- His average distance on home runs has declined in 3 straight years, and is the 2nd lowest it's been since hittracker started keeping track in 2005.

- His batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage the last two seasons were boosted by a BABIP 30 points higher than his career average.

 

Even just a BABIP correction could be nasty. Now imagine a drop in bat speed either due to natural causes or an injury. That's downright scary.

[Sammy Sofa]

EDIT: I think you're also overestimating the gap between Dunn and some of the lesser alternatives. Like SSR mentioned somewhere, there's less cost certainty, but getting 2+ WAR out of an option like Pena(to use him as an example) is not farfetched at all, and makes the hand-wringing over Dunn even more premature.

 

Pena appears to actually be in the rather drastic decline that some here seem to fear so much and he's just a stopgap that leaves a big question mark at 1B that will come up when you have other key positions becoming holes as well.

[Sammy Sofa]

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

 

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn.

 

Why are patience and power not going to age "gracefully?"

 

Adam Dunn simply has a lot of risk factors:

 

- He is at the age where a player would normally start to decline.

- He is a big man, which tends to make players more susceptible to back and leg injuries.

- He already has a very poor contact rate.

- His strikeout rate was the highest of his career in 2010.

- His walk rate was the lowest of his career in 2010.

- His average distance on home runs has declined in 3 straight years, and is the 2nd lowest it's been since hittracker started keeping track in 2005.

- His batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage the last two seasons were boosted by a BABIP 30 points higher than his career average.

 

Even just a BABIP correction could be nasty. Now imagine a drop in bat speed either due to natural causes or an injury. That's downright scary.

 

But a drop in bat speed due to natural causes or injury can happen to anyone, including Gonzalez, who will also be coming up to "the age when a player starts to decline" and who is also a "big man." I obviously don't disagree that Dunn has his flaws, but that's why he could be had for so much less money and fewer years than someone like Gonzalez. My point is and has been that you don't wait when a player who fills such a desperate need can be had for a reasonable contract now in the idea of signing a player that you're much less likely to get, who is going to cost a lot more and will be susceptible to many of the same hypotheticals.

[Guest]

Wait, I did what? I introduced the idea that the Cubs maybe want to wait to sign Gonzalez and that's one of the reasons why they possibly passed on Dunn? *I* introduced that? How the [expletive] do you figure that?

 

Yes, you're the one who made the comparison to Gonzalez after people expressed concern over Dunn's contract length and potential for decline without mentioning Gonzalez.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wait, I did what? I introduced the idea that the Cubs maybe want to wait to sign Gonzalez and that's one of the reasons why they possibly passed on Dunn? *I* introduced that? How the [expletive] do you figure that?

 

Yes, you're the one who made the comparison to Gonzalez after people expressed concern over Dunn's contract length and potential for decline without mentioning Gonzalez.

 

I mentioned Gonzalez because he's been repeatedly brought up on this site as a reason not to go get Dunn and now he's being brought up as a reason as to why it's good they didn't get Dunn. I didn't "introduce" that.

[dew1679666265]

Wait, I did what? I introduced the idea that the Cubs maybe want to wait to sign Gonzalez and that's one of the reasons why they possibly passed on Dunn? *I* introduced that? How the [expletive] do you figure that?

 

Yes, you're the one who made the comparison to Gonzalez after people expressed concern over Dunn's contract length and potential for decline without mentioning Gonzalez.

 

I mentioned Gonzalez because he's been repeatedly brought up on this site as a reason not to go get Dunn and now he's being brought up as a reason as to why it's good they didn't get Dunn. I didn't "introduce" that.

 

My opinion that we shouldn't have signed Dunn has nothing to do with Gonzalez. I'd like to see us sign Gonzalez for the reasons I've outlined, but my lack of interest in Dunn is based on the reasons I and others have outlined. There is very little chance this team is any more than a borderline playoff team with or without Adam Dunn. That's not worth $56 mil over 4 years to a 31 year old player.

[dew1679666265]

As for Gonzalez, if he's really good for 3 years, they'll come just as this team should be getting really good and by the time he starts to really decline, Soriano's hefty contract will be off the books. That's a much better situation than Dunn's.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about assuming when exactly the Cubs are going to become really good. It's a stupid assertion to make. This isn't the Rays poised to have a breakout year. You don't plan a team to get better three years from now.

 

I don't like the way the Cubs have been built, but the fact is we're too old and injury prone to be a good bet to contend for the next year or two. Sure, if we sign Dunn we have a better chance at the playoffs, but the chances still aren't that good – and we're tying up $56 mil over 4 years on a guy who's likely going to decline. It's a desperation move and not financially smart.

 

Over the next couple of years (2012 and on) we have a wealth of high upside young players coming through the system (B Jackson, Archer, Cashner, Vitters, JJax, etc) and young players on the ML squad who should be breaking out over the next couple of years (Castro, maybe Dewitt). There's plenty of reason to think we'll be a much, much better team in 2013 and 2014 than we will be this year.

 

Is that the way you should build a team? No, but it's the reality this team faces and Adam Dunn alone won't be enough to change that.

[dew1679666265]

Pena appears to actually be in the rather drastic decline that some here seem to fear so much and he's just a stopgap that leaves a big question mark at 1B that will come up when you have other key positions becoming holes as well.

 

Pena's awful year last year probably has a lot more to do with a BABIP that dropped 30 points from 2009 and 70 points from 2008 than anything. With an 18% LD%, there's a really good chance Pena will see a big upswing next year.

 

Dunn, on the other hand, had a BABIP about 70 points higher than 2009, while having a LD% lower in 2010 than in 2009. The likelihood is his numbers get worse next year.