Dunn to the White Sox (p. 12)

[davell]

As much as I question Rickett's moves so far, not signing Dunn could wind up being smart. But only if we DO go get A-GON or Fielder. Or Pujols somehow. With Dunn, this upcoming team COULD contend for the division, but it's likely that we'd be relying on playoff "luck factor" to actually make noise. Possible, but not likely, if you ask me. Still, I certainly see the reasoning behind anyone saying "hey, if we have a shot at the playoffs, may as well go for it".......

 

However, if Ricketts' is smart(I don't think he is) and is actually just waiting to see this 40+ mill fall off the books and then goes out and spends it on A-GON and an ace, the missing out on Dunn is definitely acceptable. We'd have a better longterm outlook with one of the guys I just mentioned, than with Dunn.

 

Bottom line is this: We won't know whether not signing Dunn is acceptable until these other shoes drop. That said, I'm preparing to be pissed off in about a year or so.

 

Unless the Cubs were the Yankees there is no justification for thinking one second that they can just decide a year out they want a guy and go get him. You play the cards you are dealt, you don't pretend you know what the hands are going to look like in a year.

 

And Ricketts better not be playing a part in any of that decision making.

 

 

Ricketts has the biggest part of the decision making whether we like it or not. Because he's the one that's writing the checks at the end of the day. If he doesn't have room in the payroll to add one of these guys, he's already MADE the decision for anyone else involved. Which is why I at least hold out SOME hope that with all the money dropping off next year, we'll be bigtime players for one of these guys.

 

Not to mention the idea that it's basically a foregone conclusion that both A-GON and Fielder will be with different teams by the time 2012 rolls around. Whether it's by trade or it's by FA, the Cubs will have their shot at acquiring one of those two, even if they never get a shot at Pujols.

[XZero771679666304]

Comparing Dunn to Bradley is ridiculous. Milton was a talented guy with durability and character issues out the wazoo coming off by far the best season of his career. The guy never managed 150 games in any season, only coming anywhere near once. His career OPS is .100 lower than Dunn's, and was coming off a year that was clearly an outlier at the time the Cubs signed him. That's not even mentioning that in the 2008 season used as the basis to sign him, Bradley OPSed .200 higher from the right side, when the reason he was signed was to add a LH bat. And in 2009, he performed better from the right side as well. That trend goes back a few years as well.

 

Adam Dunn is a player who has his faults (particularly that he is an awful fielder), but hasn't played fewer than 152 games, hit fewer than 38 homers or OPSed lower than .855 (most often at or above .900) in seven consecutive seasons.

 

Dunn is nowhere near the risk Bradley was from a performance, durability or character standpoint. The signing of Bradley, based on an outlier of a season and flawed logic, was a high risk move. Adam Dunn is the picture of consistency, and in a worst case scenario of aging gives you more than Bradley without the headaches.

 

Having said that, I wouldn't give Dunn four years at his age, but I certainly think it would be a far more prudent move than giving Bradley the contract Hendry did. Calling them similar moves based on gossamer parallels is silly.

[dew1679666265]

You can make that crybaby scenario with any signing. The point is you try to win. You don't concede a season.

 

I'm not conceding a season. I'm advocating not overpaying an old player and instead giving a smaller contract to a player who is of similar value to the overpaid one. That's a smart financial decision.

 

Your nonsense about 31 year olds is crazy. I hate old players, but lower 30's are only scary for guy who already suck, catchers and middle infielders.

 

I'm not concerned about the first couple of years, it's the mid 30s that concern me and that's likely when this team will be peaking.

[italianocubsfan7]

because adam dunn is the difference between the cubs being decent and bad, while the hope is that bradley was the difference between being very good and world champion.

Understood.

 

Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS.

 

And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly.

 

For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug:

 

Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point.

 

You're wrong. The Cubs may have "kicked the tires" on Dunn, but they never actively pursued him. Berkman and Pena are the options for them at 1B this winter, so stop living in a fantasy world. Secondly, the Cubs aren't "just [one] Dunn away from being competitive ... ." This team seriously lacks leadership both on and off the field. While Dunn may have provided some home runs, there weren't leadership qualities there, as there is with other players the Cubs are pursuing (i.e. Berkman, Kerry Wood, Brandon Webb). Besides, did the team get anywhere by hitting solo home run after solo home run last year? No.

[XZero771679666304]

Going cheap today will not make them better tomorrow.

 

You're acting as if there's a 10 win difference between Dunn and the other options. If Pena returns just to 2009 level, we're looking at a 2 win difference between the two. That's simply not that much and certainly isn't worth three extra years and $40-50 million more.

 

If it was Dunn or Hoffpauir, I could understand. But Pena, Johnson and Gordon simply aren't that much worse than Dunn.

 

 

Yeah, I don't think Pena is a bad option, especially if it's one year. Even at 2009 levels he's a good pickup.

[XZero771679666304]

because adam dunn is the difference between the cubs being decent and bad, while the hope is that bradley was the difference between being very good and world champion.

Understood.

 

Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS.

 

And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly.

 

For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug:

 

Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point.

 

You're wrong. The Cubs may have "kicked the tires" on Dunn, but they never actively pursued him. Berkman and Pena are the options for them at 1B this winter, so stop living in a fantasy world. Secondly, the Cubs aren't "just [one] Dunn away from being competitive ... ." This team seriously lacks leadership both on and off the field. While Dunn may have provided some home runs, there weren't leadership qualities there, as there is with other players the Cubs are pursuing (i.e. Berkman, Kerry Wood, Brandon Webb). Besides, did the team get anywhere by hitting solo home run after solo home run last year? No.

 

The Cubs are one big bat and bullpen arm from being competitive in 2011, IMO. Don't look at 2010 as if it were the status quo. A lot of stuff went really, weirdly wrong last year, and Lou made things worse.

 

The Cubs didn't have a great team by any stretch, but it wasn't nearly as bad as the results made it look.

[dew1679666265]

Just to throw it out again:

 

Dunn's 2010 WAR (highest of his career): 3.9

Pena's 2009 WAR (not close to a career year for him): 2.8 – 2008 WAR (career year): 4.0

[dew1679666265]

Yeah, I don't think Pena is a bad option, especially if it's one year. Even at 2009 levels he's a good pickup.

 

I'd be fine with either Pena or a Johnson/Davis duo. If Johnson can stay healthy, he's the best option of anybody, Dunn included. Pena is likely to bounce back to be only a little less valuable than Dunn and at a significantly lower cost and commitment.

[CubColtPacer]

because adam dunn is the difference between the cubs being decent and bad, while the hope is that bradley was the difference between being very good and world champion.

Understood.

 

Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS.

 

And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly.

 

For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug:

 

Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point.

 

You're wrong. The Cubs may have "kicked the tires" on Dunn, but they never actively pursued him. Berkman and Pena are the options for them at 1B this winter, so stop living in a fantasy world. Secondly, the Cubs aren't "just [one] Dunn away from being competitive ... ." This team seriously lacks leadership both on and off the field. While Dunn may have provided some home runs, there weren't leadership qualities there, as there is with other players the Cubs are pursuing (i.e. Berkman, Kerry Wood, Brandon Webb). Besides, did the team get anywhere by hitting solo home run after solo home run last year? No.

 

The Cubs were one of only 2 teams in the NL last year to hit more home runs with runners on than solo shots (and most of the teams weren't even close). They had a huge lack of solo home runs last year not the other way around.

[TruffleShuffle]

Terrified? That's kind of crazy. The guy has patience and power. Those things tend to last. He may struggled in his mid-30's, but if you are terrified of paying Dunn at 34 you have to be terrified of paying pretty much any free agent in baseball.

 

actually this is the type of player you're supposed to avoid as they get older. bill james described these (walks, power) as "old player skills" and found that players who got by on "old player skills" stayed productive for significantly less time than players who got by on "young player skills" (speed, batting average). i guess the idea behind it being that the old player skills guys already have pretty marginal athleticism, so aging a little bit may rob them of a lot of their productivity.

[Sammy Sofa]

[expletive] it. I'm just sit back and laugh at the people wondering why 1st base is such a gaping hole for the foreseeable future.

[TruffleShuffle]

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.

 

pena is pretty much the poster child for players who won't age gracefully. he has old player skills out the wazoo and also peaked late, and players who peak later than normal tend to turn bad pretty quickly.

[TruffleShuffle]

[expletive] it. I'm just sit back and laugh at the people wondering why 1st base is such a gaping hole for the foreseeable future.

 

right but if dunn turns into a complete turd within 2-3 years for the reasons that myself and TT and Rob have mentioned, doesn't that pretty much mean the cubs did the same thing that's gotten them into problems from 2009-11? sinking pretty big money into players who aren't worth the investment and don't provide star-level production? i want them to upgrade at 1B but not if the player is unlikely to produce to the value of the contract.

 

i like the nick johnson idea. he's undervalued and yeah he'll get hurt, but he'll hit when he's in the lineup and we have four OF. one of them (i guess colvin) can fill in there when johnson goes down.

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course Dunn COULD be a disaster for the Sox. Odds seem to be that he'll be productive for them for the duration of the contract even with natural decline factored in. The bottom line to me is that the Cubs seem to have next to no chance to get someone like Fielder or Gonzalez so why not go hard after the guy with a proven track record who you can have for a reasonable contract and only 4 years who is likely to provide an offensive anchor for your lineup while you shed other contracts and hope that some more prospects start working out? Now they just have another serious hole to fill to add on to the other ones coming up soon. The Cubs are not in the position to let guys like this get away and they're not in the position to trade away their better prospects to get guys like Gonzalez and Fielder like teams like the Red Sox and Yankees likely will do. It's great that we want to the Cubs to wait to spend their money on the mythical player who's just right age-wise and who is without any major flaws and blah-blah-blah but they're clearly not in the shape to do that. I appreciate that people are arguing against Dunn, but the basic point is I think they need to lock up 1B for the next few years and here was guy who is a proven LH power threat who likely would have continued to produce at a high level for 4 years. The Cubs don't have the luxury of letting someone like that pass by.

[TruffleShuffle]

Odds seem to be that he'll be productive for them for the duration of the contract even with natural decline factored in.

 

i don't agree with those odds. i mean, you would have looked at the travis hafner deal (4 years, $57 million) as a reasonable deal. they signed it when he was 29 and he was coming off two years where he OPS'ed over 1.000. but the contract has been a disaster.

 

i was okay with the idea of 4 years, $40m because i figured dunn would produce enough on the front end to mitigate what i expect to be a steep decline on the back end. tack another $4m per year onto the contract and i just wouldn't do it.

[Guest]

There's a dozen 1B who put up a 3+ WAR every year, and nearly half of those guys are 5+ WAR. A 3 WAR guy on the wrong side of his peak who isn't going to be in that 5+ category isn't really a "must get", especially at 14M.

[Sammy Sofa]

I want Dunn because he's been so consistently valuable over the course of an almost 10-year-career. Hafner was underwhelming after three good seasons largely due to injury issues.

 

Again, the Cubs cannot afford (ironic, yes) to be so picky over a contract like the one Dunn got. They just can't. I just don't see why anyone thinks going with a rotating cast of 1st basemen every season or two for the foreseeable future is a good idea.

[Guest]

I want Dunn because he's been so consistently valuable over the course of an almost 10-year-career. Hafner was underwhelming after three good seasons largely due to injury issues.

 

He's put up a sub-2 WAR in 3 of the last 5 seasons, his K rate has worsened every year since 2007, his BB rate has worsened every year since 2008, and he had the highest BABIP of his career last year.

[Sammy Sofa]

Let me put it this way; I will guarantee that Dunn outproduces the collective hot mess that the Cubs trot out at 1st base over the next 4 years. If he doesn't then ban me.

 

I hope I end up banned. But I know I won't.

[Rob]

Let me put it this way; I will guarantee that Dunn outproduces the collective hot mess that the Cubs trot out at 1st base over the next 4 years. If he doesn't then ban me.

 

I hope I end up banned. But I know I won't.

 

Well just to keep things interesting, I'll make a bet that it doesn't matter. If the difference in WAR between Adam Dunn and whoever is playing 1B for the Cubs would have covered the gap to put us in the playoffs, feel free to ban me as well.

[JoshiQ]

Let me put it this way; I will guarantee that Dunn outproduces the collective hot mess that the Cubs trot out at 1st base over the next 4 years. If he doesn't then ban me.

 

I hope I end up banned. But I know I won't.

 

Agreed. Throw me on the ban list with N&G. I suppose the argument will be that Dunn won't provide enough value over the mess we put out with to justify the extra money. But when that extra money we save will be spent on 3 year contracts to bullpen pitchers that suck and a bench player that backs up 2B I say it would be better spent to get the extra value out of Dunn.

 

I've seen the Cubs do it too much. We don't want to spend $14 million because it's a few million too much. So instead we get a player that costs $8-9 million and isn't very good, and we spend the remaining six million we saved on a 3 mil/year reliever and maybe a backup catcher.

[dew1679666265]

pena is pretty much the poster child for players who won't age gracefully. he has old player skills out the wazoo and also peaked late, and players who peak later than normal tend to turn bad pretty quickly.

 

Very true, but we're likely to get Pena on a one-year, bounce back deal - or at most a two year deal. There's no way he's approaching Dunn type money after the year he just had. He'd be a nice stopgap while we either pursue Gonzalez/Fielder or figure out what else we're going to do. There's a chance Vitters is ready to play first in a couple of years and Pena can fill that length of time adequately.

 

That said, I've said before I really like the idea of Nick Johnson and a backup. Maybe Chris Davis, or if you hate him insert another name. You get the upside that's better than Dunn, with the very cheap cost of an injury-prone guy.

 

My pipe dream is still Gordon, but as with most pipe dreams, that isn't happening.

[dew1679666265]

I've seen the Cubs do it too much. We don't want to spend $14 million because it's a few million too much. So instead we get a player that costs $8-9 million and isn't very good, and we spend the remaining six million we saved on a 3 mil/year reliever and maybe a backup catcher.

 

Because management might spend the savings poorly isn't a reason to advocate them signing a bad deal. Much like the DeRosa trade was good even though they made the mistake of signing Aaron Miles because of it, advocating signing Dunn primarily because they might use those savings on Bobby Jenkins and Kevin Millwood isn't correct.

[Sammy Sofa]

Given the going contracts we've even just seen thus far the Dunn signing was not a bad deal for the White Sox.

 

And your expectations for the Cubs are fascinating. You seem convinced the team is going to be good in a few years, you're still bring up Fielder and Gonzalez like either has a realistic chance of ending up on this team given who else is going to be interested in them and now you're talking like Vitters is going to play 1st?

[JoshiQ]

I've seen the Cubs do it too much. We don't want to spend $14 million because it's a few million too much. So instead we get a player that costs $8-9 million and isn't very good, and we spend the remaining six million we saved on a 3 mil/year reliever and maybe a backup catcher.

 

Because management might spend the savings poorly isn't a reason to advocate them signing a bad deal. Much like the DeRosa trade was good even though they made the mistake of signing Aaron Miles because of it, advocating signing Dunn primarily because they might use those savings on Bobby Jenkins and Kevin Millwood isn't correct.

 

I find it hard to believe that there are much better contracts being signed this year. In all of our fantasy worlds, sure, a player will get what he is due. Unless the player comes up through the system it's pretty hard to find a really good deal out there for a valuable player. And no, I don't mean overpay for guys like Soriano. That was horrendous. So will whatever Crawford signs for this year. The same can probably be said for Beltre. But Dunn has been extremely reliable and you know exactly what you're getting. For $14 million it's nearing the max to what I'd pay, but he was definitely the best choice as the market stands today.