Adrian Gonzalez

[dew1679666265]

I'd rather have him now, too, but it's not likely that he'll be traded now, plus if he was the demand would be too high and the Cubs would have to give up too much.

 

It's entirely possible that he would cost too much and, if that's the case, then like any other trade, you don't make it. However, my point is that I'd rather give up a decent amount for Gonzalez than simply sign Dunn because Gonzo is the superior player, and by quite a bit according to WAR.

[Sammy Sofa]

But on the flip side, if you end up re-signing him you're going to have pay him much more money and give him more years than Dunn (which means you'd be paying AGon big bucks for at least a couple years past the much vaunted "prime years) on top of having had to trade a decent haul to get him in the first place. AGon is clearly the better player, but is he that much better and that much younger to warrant signing for likely at least 3 more years, significantly more money and kidney-punching the meager farm system for the foreseeable future?

[dew1679666265]

But on the flip side, if you end up re-signing him you're going to have pay him much more money and give him more years than Dunn (which means you'd be paying AGon big bucks for at least a couple years past the much vaunted "prime years) on top of having had to trade a decent haul to get him in the first place. AGon is clearly the better player, but is he that much better and that much younger to warrant signing for likely at least 3 more years, significantly more money and kidney-punching the meager farm system for the foreseeable future?

 

It depends on how much Dunn ends up signing for, how much Gonzalez wants in an extension and how big of a gut-punch trading for him is to the system. If Dunn really wants to be in Chicago and shows it by signing a 2/20 deal with a team option for a third year and the Padres demand Castro, Colvin, Archer and McNutt for Gonzo, then Dunn's a much better option. But if the Padres fall in love with a package of Colvin, J Jackson, Marmol and Bibens-Dirx and Dunn demands no less than 4/60 to sign, then Gonzo is the better option.

 

None of those scenarios are likely to happen, it mainly depends on what middle ground between those scenarios actually is the case. Keep in mind, if we traded for Gonzo and gave him a 6/120 deal, he'll be 34 when the contract runs out. If we give Dunn a 3/36 deal, he'll be 34 when the contract runs out. The biggest difference there, however, is we know we're getting a couple of the best years of Gonzalez in that trade, while we don't know that for sure with Dunn.

 

Also, we'd lose prospects getting Gonzo, but we'd also have him, say, through 2016, whereas with Dunn, we'll have him for 3 years and then have to find somebody else from 2014 to 2016. That could be a farmhand or it could be another FA if we haven't developed a first baseman by then. You'd then have to add on the cost of the player to fill those three years to truly compare to Gonzalez's six year deal.

[Cubs Fan Dan]

But on the flip side, if you end up re-signing him you're going to have pay him much more money and give him more years than Dunn (which means you'd be paying AGon big bucks for at least a couple years past the much vaunted "prime years) on top of having had to trade a decent haul to get him in the first place. AGon is clearly the better player, but is he that much better and that much younger to warrant signing for likely at least 3 more years, significantly more money and kidney-punching the meager farm system for the foreseeable future?

 

It depends on how much Dunn ends up signing for, how much Gonzalez wants in an extension and how big of a gut-punch trading for him is to the system. If Dunn really wants to be in Chicago and shows it by signing a 2/20 deal with a team option for a third year and the Padres demand Castro, Colvin, Archer and McNutt for Gonzo, then Dunn's a much better option. But if the Padres fall in love with a package of Colvin, J Jackson, Marmol and Bibens-Dirx and Dunn demands no less than 4/60 to sign, then Gonzo is the better option.

 

None of those scenarios are likely to happen, it mainly depends on what middle ground between those scenarios actually is the case. Keep in mind, if we traded for Gonzo and gave him a 6/120 deal, he'll be 34 when the contract runs out. If we give Dunn a 3/36 deal, he'll be 34 when the contract runs out. The biggest difference there, however, is we know we're getting a couple of the best years of Gonzalez in that trade, while we don't know that for sure with Dunn.

 

Also, we'd lose prospects getting Gonzo, but we'd also have him, say, through 2016, whereas with Dunn, we'll have him for 3 years and then have to find somebody else from 2014 to 2016. That could be a farmhand or it could be another FA if we haven't developed a first baseman by then. You'd then have to add on the cost of the player to fill those three years to truly compare to Gonzalez's six year deal.

 

If signing Dunn means keeping Jackson, Castro, Cashner, Archer than I am down with that. I want Agon as much as anyone but we also need to get some young cheap talent to come through our system to ever get to wear we want. I would use Colvin and others though.

[dew1679666265]

If signing Dunn means keeping Jackson, Castro, Cashner, Archer than I am down with that. I want Agon as much as anyone but we also need to get some young cheap talent to come through our system to ever get to wear we want. I would use Colvin and others though.

 

That's why I said I wouldn't include Cashner, Castro and B Jackson in a trade for Agonz – and you can include Archer in that. I'd be thrilled to base a trade around Marmol/Colvin, though, if the Padres were interested in them.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But on the flip side, if you end up re-signing him you're going to have pay him much more money and give him more years than Dunn (which means you'd be paying AGon big bucks for at least a couple years past the much vaunted "prime years) on top of having had to trade a decent haul to get him in the first place. AGon is clearly the better player, but is he that much better and that much younger to warrant signing for likely at least 3 more years, significantly more money and kidney-punching the meager farm system for the foreseeable future?

 

Depends on how much of Dunn's defensive adequacy at first base is real or not. His career WAR numbers are really held down by the 15-30 runs a year he was giving back in the outfield.