Dunn to the White Sox (p. 12)

[Sammy Sofa]

There is very little chance this team is any more than a borderline playoff team with or without Adam Dunn.

 

That's the case with anyone they could sign next year, too. Why is that a reason to not sign Dunn, but a reason to throw money at anyone else?

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

 

Pena would have to have a pretty huge upswing and Dunn would have to have a pretty huge drop for them to meet based on the numbers they put up last year.

[dew1679666265]

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

 

Brett Jackson replacing Fukudome, Dempster returning or Chris Archer/JJax/Cashner taking his place and a solid journeyman at third (or Vitters potentially) doesn't sound like a bad team to me. It'll be better in 2013 than 2012, but that team, combined with Gonzalez, could be pretty good.

[dew1679666265]

There is very little chance this team is any more than a borderline playoff team with or without Adam Dunn.

 

That's the case with anyone they could sign next year, too. Why is that a reason to not sign Dunn, but a reason to throw money at anyone else?

 

Because we're investing a whole lot more money in Dunn and tying up first base with a guy who will likely be in decline when this team is able to be really good again. If we go with Johnson/Davis/Gordon or Carlos Pena, we'll be able to reassess next year and potentially bring in or have a guy who could be at his best when this team is back on the rise.

[dew1679666265]

Pena would have to have a pretty huge upswing and Dunn would have to have a pretty huge drop for them to meet based on the numbers they put up last year.

 

If Dunn stays the same and Pena returns to 2009 numbers (not close to his best year) you're looking at about a 1 win difference between the two. If Dunn declines at all next year and Pena returns to 2009 level, they're about the same.

 

And we'd be paying Dunn about $40-50 million more than we would be Pena.

[davearm2]

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.

Sorry, but this is insane. Bradley a role player? The dude led the frickin league in OBP (.436) and OPS (.999) and received MVP votes the year before the Cubs got him. And that wasn't exactly an outlier year for him. He was damn good the year before that too (.402 OBP, .947 OPS).

 

That type of player can't put a team over the top huh? Whatever dude.

 

Dunn and Bradley profile differently as players, and the nature of the risk inherent in each guy is markedly different (Bradley is an oft-injured nutball; Rob laid out the red flags with Dunn), but the overall risk/reward equation is remarkably similar actually.

 

Condemning the Cubs for the Bradley deal and then turning around and lobbying for Dunn @ 4/$56 is just sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[javy knows my name]

Please stop. You're making a fool of yourself

[Sammy Sofa]

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.

Sorry, but this is insane. Bradley a role player? The dude led the frickin league in OBP (.436) and OPS (.999) and received MVP votes the year before the Cubs got him. And that wasn't exactly an outlier year for him. He was damn good the year before that too (.402 OBP, .947 OPS).

 

That type of player can't put a team over the top huh? Whatever dude.

 

Dunn and Bradley profile differently as players, and the nature of the risk inherent in each guy is markedly different (Bradley is an oft-injured nutball; Rob laid out the red flags with Dunn), but the overall risk/reward equation is remarkably similar actually.

 

Condemning the Cubs for the Bradley deal and then turning around and lobbying for Dunn @ 4/$56 is just sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple.

 

Well, this is pretty hilarious. Are you Hendry's drinking buddy? Can we blame you for him thinking that was a smart big splash signing and for signing him for all the wrong reasons? Dunn's "red flags" is pretty funny, too. Amazing comparison you've got going here.

[David]

Calling Bradley a role player (does that even exist in baseball outside of like relief pitching and lefty pinch hitters?) after the years he had just prior to our signing him was pretty weird.

[J.R.]

Africa was stupid, and the lack of action on Dunn is absolutely inexcusable.

[Sammy Sofa]

Calling Bradley a role player (does that even exist in baseball outside of like relief pitching and lefty pinch hitters?) after the years he had just prior to our signing him was pretty weird.

 

Hey, it's obvious that the Cubs wanted the Bradley from those two years (though looking to the first year is a stretch since he played, what, less than half the season?)..but banking on him being that player on an NL team with his injury history and making him the cornerstone of their off season was pretty stupid. They should have been signing him in the hopes that he'd be a good #2 hitter when healthy and instead went nuts like they were signing a #4-5 hitter who could anchor the lineup. The odds simply were not in their favor with what they were expecting/wanting out of that.

[dew1679666265]

Africa was stupid, and the lack of action on Dunn is absolutely inexcusable.

 

I disagree with both, as has been outlined multiple times on here.

[David]

Personally, I'm in the don't waste money and years on Dunn while we're still trying to get out of this contract mess camp... I'd rather take a shot at next year's guys and go with a serviceable stopgap for this year. Especially given Dunn's age and bad and likely to decline defense.

 

I've definitely come around in terms of thinking that defense at least kinda matters (granted, it's 1B).

 

e.g. i'm in dew's camp.

[davearm2]

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.

Sorry, but this is insane. Bradley a role player? The dude led the frickin league in OBP (.436) and OPS (.999) and received MVP votes the year before the Cubs got him. And that wasn't exactly an outlier year for him. He was damn good the year before that too (.402 OBP, .947 OPS).

 

That type of player can't put a team over the top huh? Whatever dude.

 

Dunn and Bradley profile differently as players, and the nature of the risk inherent in each guy is markedly different (Bradley is an oft-injured nutball; Rob laid out the red flags with Dunn), but the overall risk/reward equation is remarkably similar actually.

 

Condemning the Cubs for the Bradley deal and then turning around and lobbying for Dunn @ 4/$56 is just sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple.

 

Well, this is pretty hilarious. Are you Hendry's drinking buddy? Can we blame you for him thinking that was a smart big splash signing and for signing him for all the wrong reasons? Dunn's "red flags" is pretty funny, too. Amazing comparison you've got going here.

You can make all the snide jokes and personal attacks you want, but the fact remains the thought process you're advocating here with Dunn is virtually the same as that the Cubs applied to Bradley two years ago.

 

If you can't (or won't) see the parallels, that's on you.

[swordsman]

Ive always been under the impression that 1B defense can be a godsend to the rest of the infield. Didn't Lee deserve at least a little credit for improving the results of balls hit to ARam when he first got here?

 

I could be wrong and just be spouting bogus "conventional wisdom" but I've always appreciated a 1B with an above average glove.

[jersey cubs fan]

Personally, I'm in the don't waste money and years on Dunn while we're still trying to get out of this contract mess camp...

 

How is that even a camp? This isn't a freaking NFL team in salary camp hell, planning a 2 year turnaround under a new regime. If you aren't improving your baseball team every year you're getting worse. They are going to spend the money anyway, why the hell would anybody want it spent on more mediocrity, the way they did 2005 and 2006? It's absolutely insane thinking to toss away 2011 because a couple current guys are overpaid. Everybody has players that are overpaid. And nobody in this [expletive] division is any freaking good. Adam Dunn wouldn't even come close to hurting the payroll situation. This team has no bats in the minors capable of making an impact. Only an irresponsible idiot would pretend they can plan ahead to signing other people's free agents years in advance. This team needs bats now. They can't freaking hit.

[Northside Blues]

The only thing they can do, at least for a SS and 3B is save bad throws. All infielders have very few bad throws over the course of the year that the 1B even has a chance of digging out of the ground, most or 5 feet over their head. The difference between a good defensive and a poor defensive guy at first (in terms of helping out the other infielders) probably comes down to two or three throws he got that someone else didn't. So, that's an average of one per person... less than a run. Derrek Lee's presence at first certainly didn't make Aramis Ramirez become much more nimble on his feet and speed them up.

[dew1679666265]

Ive always been under the impression that 1B defense can be a godsend to the rest of the infield. Didn't Lee deserve at least a little credit for improving the results of balls hit to ARam when he first got here?

 

I could be wrong and just be spouting bogus "conventional wisdom" but I've always appreciated a 1B with an above average glove.

 

I think that's the biggest positive a first baseman can make defensively. With a SS like Dunston or super young Castro, it can be a big help, I think. If you have Omar Vizquel, Rey Ordonez and Adrian Beltre around the infield, though, it's not as big a help because your infield defense is really good (but the offense is horrid).

[jersey cubs fan]

Going cheap today will not make them better tomorrow.

[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.

[dew1679666265]

How is that even a camp? This isn't a freaking NFL team in salary camp hell, planning a 2 year turnaround under a new regime. If you aren't improving your baseball team every year you're getting worse. They are going to spend the money anyway, why the hell would anybody want it spent on more mediocrity, the way they did 2005 and 2006? It's absolutely insane thinking to toss away 2011 because a couple current guys are overpaid. Everybody has players that are overpaid. And nobody in this [expletive] division is any freaking good. Adam Dunn wouldn't even come close to hurting the payroll situation. This team has no bats in the minors capable of making an impact. Only an irresponsible idiot would pretend they can plan ahead to signing other people's free agents years in advance. This team needs bats now. They can't freaking hit.

 

This team will have problems contending for the playoffs because there's not enough talent and too many injury questions on this team, not just because a couple of guys are overpaid. Signing Adam Dunn alone isn't enough to change that and there just aren't enough good options out there to fix this team this year.

 

Now maybe we invest $56 million into a 31 year old player, win 83 games and miss the playoffs by 2 games. And that's the best year we get out of that 31 year old player. Conversely, we potentially can spend $10 mil to fill first base and win 81 games. How is that 31 year old player a good investment for this team?

[jersey cubs fan]

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.

[dew1679666265]

Going cheap today will not make them better tomorrow.

 

It's not going cheap. It's making smart financial decisions. Overpaying for an old player who will only marginally help more than the other options is not a good financial decision.

 

Pena, Johnson, Gordon can provide similar value for a significantly smaller cost and commitment.

[jersey cubs fan]

How is that even a camp? This isn't a freaking NFL team in salary camp hell, planning a 2 year turnaround under a new regime. If you aren't improving your baseball team every year you're getting worse. They are going to spend the money anyway, why the hell would anybody want it spent on more mediocrity, the way they did 2005 and 2006? It's absolutely insane thinking to toss away 2011 because a couple current guys are overpaid. Everybody has players that are overpaid. And nobody in this [expletive] division is any freaking good. Adam Dunn wouldn't even come close to hurting the payroll situation. This team has no bats in the minors capable of making an impact. Only an irresponsible idiot would pretend they can plan ahead to signing other people's free agents years in advance. This team needs bats now. They can't freaking hit.

 

This team will have problems contending for the playoffs because there's not enough talent and too many injury questions on this team, not just because a couple of guys are overpaid. Signing Adam Dunn alone isn't enough to change that and there just aren't enough good options out there to fix this team this year.

 

Now maybe we invest $56 million into a 31 year old player, win 83 games and miss the playoffs by 2 games. And that's the best year we get out of that 31 year old player. Conversely, we potentially can spend $10 mil to fill first base and win 81 games. How is that 31 year old player a good investment for this team?

 

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

 

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.

[dew1679666265]

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.