If the Cubs were sellers right now

[Sammy Sofa]

Exactly. This guy keeps acting like I'm dancing around an obvious answer when there isn't one. He wants this boiled down to people already being declared right or wrong when we're 2.5 months into Dunn's current contract.

 

My "prediction" is exactly along the lines of what MSG T is spelling out; no, Dunn will likely not be worth the precise dollar amount he's being paid, but I do think he will be worth the contract.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn?

 

Part of me does, yes, because I tend to lean towards not letting an impact player pass you by when they fill multiple glaring needs on your team. That said, I can't answer that definitively until after this offseason at the very earliest. Sample size, I know, but his .282 .410 .651 1.061 line at Wrigley in 293 PA is sure pretty to look at.

[MSG T]

Exactly. This guy keeps acting like I'm dancing around an obvious answer when there isn't one. He wants this boiled down to people already being declared right or wrong when we're 2.5 months into Dunn's current contract.

 

My "prediction" is exactly along the lines of what MSG T is spelling out; no, Dunn will likely not be worth the precise dollar amount he's being paid, but I do think he will be worth the contract.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn?

 

Part of me does, yes, because I tend to lean towards not letting an impact player pass you by when they fill multiple glaring needs on your team. That said, I can't answer that definitively until after this offseason at the very earliest. Sample size, I know, but his .282 .410 .651 1.061 line at Wrigley in 293 PA is sure pretty to look at.

 

I know what you're saying, but... this always reminds of when Harry would see the numbers some guy put up in Wrigley and wish the Cubs would sign him. Ignoring that the guy was 0-14 against Maddux, 2-13 against Sutcliffe and 19-23 w/8 HR against the rest of the crappy staff.

 

Not a bash directed at your post, just something funny I used to think in the late 80's - early 90's.

[davearm2]

Exactly. This guy keeps acting like I'm dancing around an obvious answer when there isn't one. He wants this boiled down to people already being declared right or wrong when we're 2.5 months into Dunn's current contract.

 

My "prediction" is exactly along the lines of what MSG T is spelling out; no, Dunn will likely not be worth the precise dollar amount he's being paid, but I do think he will be worth the contract.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn?

 

Part of me does, yes, because I tend to lean towards not letting an impact player pass you by when they fill multiple glaring needs on your team. That said, I can't answer that definitively until after this offseason at the very earliest. Sample size, I know, but his .282 .410 .651 1.061 line at Wrigley in 293 PA is sure pretty to look at.

You don't get to wait until after this offseason. You go off of the info and data in front of you today, and make a decision that you'll have to live with for 4 years.

 

That's what I meant when I made that comment about the environment in which GMs operate.

 

I'd have a hard time believing anyone who'd say that, as we sit here today, they'd want Dunn for 4/56.

 

So by extension, that means they'd be glad the Cubs didn't sign him.

 

And by further extension, that would make the folks that didn't want to sign him to begin with right.

Edited June 23, 2011 by davearm2

[Sammy Sofa]

Exactly. This guy keeps acting like I'm dancing around an obvious answer when there isn't one. He wants this boiled down to people already being declared right or wrong when we're 2.5 months into Dunn's current contract.

 

My "prediction" is exactly along the lines of what MSG T is spelling out; no, Dunn will likely not be worth the precise dollar amount he's being paid, but I do think he will be worth the contract.

Do you wish the Cubs had signed Dunn?

 

Part of me does, yes, because I tend to lean towards not letting an impact player pass you by when they fill multiple glaring needs on your team. That said, I can't answer that definitively until after this offseason at the very earliest. Sample size, I know, but his .282 .410 .651 1.061 line at Wrigley in 293 PA is sure pretty to look at.

 

I know what you're saying, but... this always reminds of when Harry would see the numbers some guy put up in Wrigley and wish the Cubs would sign him. Ignoring that the guy was 0-14 against Maddux, 2-13 against Sutcliffe and 19-23 w/8 HR against the rest of the crappy staff.

 

Not a bash directed at your post, just something funny I used to think in the late 80's - early 90's.

 

Oh, definitely. In no way should that line be seen as "proof" that they should have signed him or that he would be killing it as a Cub right now.

[Sammy Sofa]

You don't get to wait until after this offseason. You go off of the info and data in front of you today, and make a decision that you'll have to live with for 4 years.

 

That's what I meant when I made that comment about the environment in which GMs operate.

 

I'd have a hard time believing anyone who'd say that, as we sit here today, they'd want Dunn for 4/56.

 

Wait, what? Nobody would sign Dunn for anywhere near what he got RIGHT NOW based on how he's playing RIGHT NOW. But he wasn't signed RIGHT NOW; he was signed in the offseason, and nothing in the available information leading up to them indicated he would be this bad barring major injury. It indicated the exact opposite, in fact, that he would almost certainly be worth his contract. His performance thus far is a left turn that nobody predicted, but it also doesn't make his contract "good" or "bad" yet since he still has 3.5 seasons left on it and we don't know how he'll perform. He very easily could turn it around and end up producing like he used to, in which case it's a good contract. He could also bottom out inexplicably and it turns out to be a bust. We don't know right now, and those are the gambles that GM's take. We can't definitively say that signing Pena was a better option yet because we're in the middle of a predicted series of events that won't demonstrate if the Cubs 1B decisions were smart ones until next season. Sure, Pena could easily outperform Dunn this year, but so what? Then what if Dunn rebounds and is highly productive for three seasons while the Cubs' plans for Fielder or Pujols go bust?

 

No, I don't want Dunn for 4/56 based on how he's playing RIGHT NOW, but based on him only being 31 and his history going into this season I'm confident that he'll end up being very valuable to the Sox as a player and that I'd wish the Cubs had signed him if the Fielder/Pujols options don't pan out.

[Guest]

Adam Dunn's cumulative WAR the last 5+ seasons is 9.4 by both BR and Fangraphs. He is not an impact player any more, especially in the instance of him having to come to the Cubs and playing defense every day.

[Sammy Sofa]

Adam Dunn's cumulative WAR the last 5+ seasons is 9.4 by both BR and Fangraphs. He is not an impact player any more, especially in the instance of him having to come to the Cubs and playing defense every day.

 

Fair enough.

[davearm2]

You don't get to wait until after this offseason. You go off of the info and data in front of you today, and make a decision that you'll have to live with for 4 years.

 

That's what I meant when I made that comment about the environment in which GMs operate.

 

I'd have a hard time believing anyone who'd say that, as we sit here today, they'd want Dunn for 4/56.

 

Wait, what? Nobody would sign Dunn for anywhere near what he got RIGHT NOW based on how he's playing RIGHT NOW. But he wasn't signed RIGHT NOW; he was signed in the offseason, and nothing in the available information leading up to them indicated he would be this bad barring major injury. It indicated the exact opposite, in fact, that he would almost certainly be worth his contract. His performance thus far is a left turn that nobody predicted, but it also doesn't make his contract "good" or "bad" yet since he still has 3.5 seasons left on it and we don't know how he'll perform. He very easily could turn it around and end up producing like he used to, in which case it's a good contract. He could also bottom out inexplicably and it turns out to be a bust. We don't know right now, and those are the gambles that GM's take. We can't definitively say that signing Pena was a better option yet because we're in the middle of a predicted series of events that won't demonstrate if the Cubs 1B decisions were smart ones until next season. Sure, Pena could easily outperform Dunn this year, but so what? Then what if Dunn rebounds and is highly productive for three seasons while the Cubs' plans for Fielder or Pujols go bust?

 

No, I don't want Dunn for 4/56 based on how he's playing RIGHT NOW, but based on him only being 31 and his history going into this season I'm confident that he'll end up being very valuable to the Sox as a player and that I'd wish the Cubs had signed him if the Fielder/Pujols options don't pan out.

Last offseason you wanted the Cubs to sign Dunn, correct?

 

And now: are you glad they did not?

 

Some folks will answer "yes" to the first question, and some "no". But I would hope everyone would answer "yes" to the second question.

[Sammy Sofa]

Last offseason you wanted the Cubs to sign Dunn, correct?

 

And now: are you glad they did not?

 

Some folks will answer "yes" to the first question, and some "no". But I would hope everyone would answer "yes" to the second question.

 

Of course, right now at this moment I am glad they didn't sign Dunn for the first 2.5 months of this season. Will I be happy 6 months from now that they didn't sign Dunn? 9 months? A year? I don't know. Not having Dunn at this moment being a good thing doesn't mean it'll be a good thing down the line.

[Rob]

I just skimmed through the Dunn signing thread from this offseason. It was fun.

[Backtobanks]

I love how people defend Hendry by pointing out players that he acquired that don't completely suck. I mean the team is 30-44, 7 games back of the freaking 4th place Pirates, but their new first baseman has 14 HR (and a 790 OPS). How dare you people complain about Hendry.

I didn't take that as defense of Hendry. He hasn't gotten it done and it's time for him to go.

 

IMO it was a dig at the "wannabe GMs" and their notion that if the Cubs were only smart enough to sign A and B, and trade X and Y for Z, bam they'd be awesome. Well Adam Dunn was last year's 'step A' signing.

 

Point being, if you think you could/would do better, think again. Any of us would make lots of mistakes in that job (albeit probably different ones).

 

Not signing Dunn wasn't a "smart move." It turned out to be a lucky move.

 

The majority of moves or non-moves a GM makes end up being more lucky than "smart". The problem that I have had over the years with critics of Hendry is that every good move (or non-move) he makes is labeled luck, while his bad moves (or non-moves) are considered incompetence.

[Sammy Sofa]

The majority of moves or non-moves a GM makes end up being more lucky than "smart". The problem that I have had over the years with critics of Hendry is that every good move (or non-move) he makes is labeled luck, while his bad moves (or non-moves) are considered incompetence.

 

What does that have to do with the Dunn signing? There's absolutely no evidence that he passed on Dunn based on anything to do with his downturn so far. It appears he couldn't do it due to money restrictions and Prince/Pujols (and at the time, maybe, A-Gon) looming on the horizon. Not signing Dunn seems to be the very epitome of "good" timing/luck for Hendry.

[jersey cubs fan]

The majority of moves or non-moves a GM makes end up being more lucky than "smart". The problem that I have had over the years with critics of Hendry is that every good move (or non-move) he makes is labeled luck, while his bad moves (or non-moves) are considered incompetence.

 

The problem I have with this nonsensical insistence on giving Hendry credit for good moves is that the team is freaking awful and that is all that matters. A professional baseball person with a payroll that dwarfs the competition would have to try to not make any good moves. His job isn't to make a few good moves. His job is to build a team that wins the majority of its games, and not just 50.1%.

[Exile on Waveland]

Look as we stand here today, the Dunn signing looks like it was a mistake. Go ahead and argue against that point if you wish; I'm sure it would be quite entertaining.

 

Ergo, the folks that didn't want the Cubs to sign Dunn turned out to be right, and the ones that did want the Cubs to sign Dunn turned out to be wrong. You can try and spin it as "lucky" or whatever, I'll just stick with "right".

 

At this point, I'm thrilled the Cubs did not sign Dunn. I've also, as far as I remember, only ever been lukewarm on Dunn anyway. I think Dunn showed some personal warning signs of decline -- in addition to his "old man skills" that don't age as well -- that would logically persuade one to be against signing him for a comparative deal.

 

However, I cannot abide the logic of your second paragraph. A decision that is correct in hindsight doesn't inherently mean the decision was correct contemporarily. Some nexus most exist between the reasoning and outcome. For example, say that Prince Fielder miraculously decided he wanted to live in Chicago next year and told the Cubs he'd sign for two years at $10 million per season. The obviously correct decision would be to sign Fielder. One contrarian, though, somewhere someplace, doesn't like Fielder's face and is against the deal. He is obviously incorrect. In the offseason, Fielder gets hit by a car and never plays baseball again. Regardless, the contrarian wasn't "right" even though Fielder never earns his $20 million.

[davearm2]

Holy strawman, Batman!

[davell]

Jersey has it absolutely correct: You don't judge Hendry on an individual move that was good or bad. You judge him as a whole; Which is manning a team in a division where he's got significant financial advantages and hasn't taken advantage of them well enough for the majority.

[Exile on Waveland]

It's not a strawman, it's reductio ad absurdum.

 

Just because Dunn has stunk so far does not innately mean everyone that didn't want to sign him is/was right (unless someone had a rational argument that Dunn was going to be terrible starting immediately in 2011, which I doubt such argument could possibly exist). Because Dunn's struggles are almost totally inexplicable, there is no nexus between the reasoning against signing Dunn (age/salary/old man skills/defense/whatever) and Dunn's unpredictable tank job (due to . . .????).

[Little Slide Rooter]

-Justin Morneau is out until mid August with neck surgery. I wonder if they see themselves an contenders enough to go after Fukudome or Pena. I say Fukudome because at this point, Michael Cuddyer is on the top of their depth chart for both RF and 1B, and hed probably get really tired manning both.

 

-Shin Soo Choo suffered a broken thumb last night, and with LaPorta on the DL as well, they could also use Pena or Fukudome. Most people dont take them seriously, but they are still in 1st, ot maybe theyre tied for 1st, I cant be sure.

[TruffleShuffle]

-Justin Morneau is out until mid August with neck surgery. I wonder if they see themselves an contenders enough to go after Fukudome or Pena. I say Fukudome because at this point, Michael Cuddyer is on the top of their depth chart for both RF and 1B, and hed probably get really tired manning both.

 

-Shin Soo Choo suffered a broken thumb last night, and with LaPorta on the DL as well, they could also use Pena or Fukudome. Most people dont take them seriously, but they are still in 1st, ot maybe theyre tied for 1st, I cant be sure.

 

you can't be sure if the Indians are tied for first or have sole possession of first? Seems to me that's the type of thing that would be pretty easy to be sure about.

[Little Slide Rooter]

-Justin Morneau is out until mid August with neck surgery. I wonder if they see themselves an contenders enough to go after Fukudome or Pena. I say Fukudome because at this point, Michael Cuddyer is on the top of their depth chart for both RF and 1B, and hed probably get really tired manning both.

 

-Shin Soo Choo suffered a broken thumb last night, and with LaPorta on the DL as well, they could also use Pena or Fukudome. Most people dont take them seriously, but they are still in 1st, ot maybe theyre tied for 1st, I cant be sure.

 

you can't be sure if the Indians are tied for first or have sole possession of first? Seems to me that's the type of thing that would be pretty easy to be sure about.

 

Seems to change everyday in that sickly division.

[Little Slide Rooter]

MLBTR says that the Red Sox are looking for help in RF. Fukudome anyone?

[XZero771679666304]

MLBTR says that the Red Sox are looking for help in RF. Fukudome anyone?

 

I've always thought he'd fit in well there.

[questionmarkgrace]

MLBTR says that the Red Sox are looking for help in RF. Fukudome anyone?

 

I thought they were looking for someone who could hit lefties though? maybe i'm wrong too lazy to check right now

[Little Slide Rooter]

MLBTR says that the Red Sox are looking for help in RF. Fukudome anyone?

 

I thought they were looking for someone who could hit lefties though? maybe i'm wrong too lazy to check right now

 

We have one of those for sale too.

[XZero771679666304]

MLBTR says that the Red Sox are looking for help in RF. Fukudome anyone?

 

I thought they were looking for someone who could hit lefties though? maybe i'm wrong too lazy to check right now

 

We have one of those for sale too.

 

We could sell them a whole platoon.