samhainn77

they are the opposite of the cubs. instead of flaws being exposed in the postseason, they have special abilities that don't show up until the playoffs. that's just straight up awesome GMing from coletti And what happened to said abilites the next round vs. the Phils? The fact is, 2 years in a row, the Cubs not only got swept, but flat out embarassed by teams that were pound for pound inferior, and were quickly disposed of themselves the next round by teams that werent much better in both cases. Theres something about this team that when the time comes, they just arent ready for playoff baseball. They also lost June 28-30th. Is there also something about this team that when the time comes, they just arent ready for late June baseball?

It's pretty disingenuous to say 9 games in a row, the only hitter from 2003 on either of the 2007 or 2008 teams is Ramirez. And yes, I'd say that it's entirely possible to have 6 poor offensive games in a row, especially when you face good pitching. I don't think speed and athleticism is really the missing piece here, considering the Cubs have good speed and good athletes for the position around most of the diamond(Soto, Fontenot, and Ramirez are the exceptions that come to mind). Plus, the Rockies and Phillies aren't exactly loaded with speed and athletes all around the diamond, and the Rockies should be the textbook example that yes, it is possible to get flukishly hot or cold for a couple series at a time. If you want to say that a big left handed bat would make a nice difference in the playoffs as most (good) pitchers are right handed and the good ones can get our RH heavy lineup out, that's not a terrible argument(I'd also buy that failing to get out to a good start with the expectations of the home crowd in a short series is another factor). However, that's much easier said than done and comes with tradeoffs of health(Bradley) and/or defense(Dunn, Abreu). And most importantly, it's not indicative of some wildly flawed approach at building an offense. For years we've had crummy offenses, and now that we have a very good one we shouldn't go about making wholesale philosophical changes because we didn't do well in two playoff series. Related to the point, where's the call for a different philosophical approach to building the rotation and pen? The Cubs have only averaged 2 runs per game the last 6 playoff games, but they're also giving up 6 runs per game over that timeframe. Good point! Why aren't we cornering the market on "Big Game" pitchers and not these regular season studs? Our focus should be on Oliver Perez or Livan Hernandez! jeff weaver and david eckstein should be priorities Lol, pipe dream! With our luck Hendry will end up trading for a post-season joke like Arod.

That's not a tough one at all. Anyone with any concept of what constitutes a statistically significant sample would never draw the conclusion you have based on a handful of ballgames. Look there's nothing that Hendry (or any other GM in baseball) can do to make his team... injury-proof cold-at-the-wrong-time-proof choke-proof were-great-in-the-field-all-year-but-suddenly-cant-catch-a-cold-proof cant-find-the-plate-and-then-serves-up-a-salami-proof So in light of those basic realities, I'd sure love to see what your plan to "fix" the Cubs, and make them into an invincible postseason force looks like. 4 Jim Leyritz clones + 4 Scott Brosius clones!

It's pretty disingenuous to say 9 games in a row, the only hitter from 2003 on either of the 2007 or 2008 teams is Ramirez. And yes, I'd say that it's entirely possible to have 6 poor offensive games in a row, especially when you face good pitching. I don't think speed and athleticism is really the missing piece here, considering the Cubs have good speed and good athletes for the position around most of the diamond(Soto, Fontenot, and Ramirez are the exceptions that come to mind). Plus, the Rockies and Phillies aren't exactly loaded with speed and athletes all around the diamond, and the Rockies should be the textbook example that yes, it is possible to get flukishly hot or cold for a couple series at a time. If you want to say that a big left handed bat would make a nice difference in the playoffs as most (good) pitchers are right handed and the good ones can get our RH heavy lineup out, that's not a terrible argument(I'd also buy that failing to get out to a good start with the expectations of the home crowd in a short series is another factor). However, that's much easier said than done and comes with tradeoffs of health(Bradley) and/or defense(Dunn, Abreu). And most importantly, it's not indicative of some wildly flawed approach at building an offense. For years we've had crummy offenses, and now that we have a very good one we shouldn't go about making wholesale philosophical changes because we didn't do well in two playoff series. Related to the point, where's the call for a different philosophical approach to building the rotation and pen? The Cubs have only averaged 2 runs per game the last 6 playoff games, but they're also giving up 6 runs per game over that timeframe. Good point! Why aren't we cornering the market on "Big Game" pitchers and not these regular season studs? Our focus should be on Oliver Perez or Livan Hernandez!

Fantastic sample size! Why didn't you just use their horrible record in opening day games? Or day before all star break?

Oh my Lord...I had never seen this before. I didn't think I could dislike Marty more than I already do.

I just wanted to jump in here and point out one thing. One thing Adam Dunn does really really well is hit homeruns. If I were his manager I would never ask him to cut down on his swing so he can bloop single. That is for people like Theriot, who had like 1 homerun all year last year. I mean someone pointed out earlier the situation that maybe Dunn could swing at a few more 3-0. 3-1 pitches that are borderline that he currently now takes for a walk. He said he swings at 12 and puts 10 into play, which would be really nice because maybe 1-4 more runs score, but he makes 2 more outs. He effectively raises his avg, but lowers his OBP and it makes him LOOK better because his RBI's are up and his avg is up, but it makes him a worse hitter. Also what is the trade off or asking him to shorten his swing? How many homeruns would he miss out on? I mean if Dusty had been successful making him do that sac bunt last year, he would have only had 39 homeruns and 3 less RBI's. The point of this entire argument has to be that Dunn isn't the type of hitter you like, contrary to the fact that he is a highly productive hitter, and that you are a Dusty Baker type baseball fan and simply want to see guys do things the "right way" and don't care as much about wins and losses. Because the stats are basically proving you wrong over and over and over again, no matter how you keep spinning it. Oh, and this is what I was talking about earlier with the failed sac bunt/launching a 3 run homer. With the Reds trailing by one run in the ninth inning Saturday, Adam Dunn's initial intention with runners on first and second and one out was to bunt his teammates into scoring position. After two unsuccessful sacrifice attempts, a frustrated Dunn chose to swing away. Dunn's backup plan sailed 449 feet into the right-field Sun Deck for a three-run walk-off home run... Adam Dunn, batting seventh, with (I believe) 2 sac bunts in his career, asked to bunt in the bottom of the ninth with Paul Bako and the pitcher's spot behind him. (courtesy of FJM) Ok, so I can get my point through thick skulls such as this, I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I've made my points over and over again, but let's sum it up by going for a simulated scenario. Adam Dunn signs with the Cubs. A base runner gets to third base with Dunn coming to the plate with two outs. What does Scarey want Dunn to do? HIT A FRIGGIN HOME RUN!!!!! What would Scarey accept as alternatives? 1. Hit a triple (lol) or a double. 2. Hit a single. . . . . . . 3. Draw walk. Dunn gets two strikes against him. What does Scarey want Dunn to do? MAKE CONTACT FIRST!!!!! Now, if you disagree with that than that's just how the world works. People disagree. However, if you want to try to make me out to be some kind of Dusty Baker worshiping lunatic, please throw your slander elsewhere. I hated Baker's approach with his hitters. Piniella's approach is all about getting runs in. I'm not asking for sac bunts in the 1st inning or swinging for a single on the first pitch, but I think striking out with runners in scoring position is as bad as it gets much like Lou. I don't care what nonsense you guys wanna make up about Dunn's swing angle, if a guy is striking out in 25% of his plate appearances with RISP, he can make strides towards trying to put the ball in play with two strikes. Besides the points that a few others made...I don't think it the point has been addressed that "MAKING CONTACT FIRST" is not always ideal, especially if it comes at the cost of forcing an extremely disciplined hitter to change his approach and flail weakly at any and every pitch. In your arbitrary, cherry picked scenario you are trading a chance for a HR, Double, Walk, Single for a slightly higher chance (this point is debatable, but I'll concede it for the sake of the bigger argument) at a single (bloop, seeing eye, or otherwise) or error. If you're willing to make that trade - fine. But what if my arbitrary, cherry picked scenario of bases loaded, 1 out, 2-2 count comes up. Now how ideal is it to "MAKE CONTACT FIRST"? We saw about 1 million rallies killed last year from DLee "contacting" into a DP. Outs by contact are not always better than a strikeout, especially if you are playing the risk vs reward game.

I couldn't possibly disagree with this more. Devaluing BA to the point of nothingness is just plain stupid. But hey, maybe we can just walk our way around the bases all day, that'd be fun. Batting average has its merits, but not on its own. Take this for example: Both Dunn and Justin Morneau have 10 at bats with a runner on third (completely hypothetical). In 5 of those 10, Dunn hits a home run. The other five he strikes out. Morneau, on the other hand, hits a single in 8 of those 10 ABs. The other two he strikes out. In this example, Dunn has a batting average of .500 and Morneau has a BA of .800. Who is more productive solely on that stat? Morneau. Problem is, Dunn actually created 10 runs, whereas Morneau created just 8 - therefore Dunn truly was more productive even with the lower batting average. That's why it's extremely important to not just look at how often a player gets a hit (what batting average shows), but what kind of hits those are (what slugging percentage and OPS show). When somebody can start including all variables in stats, I'll listen. Until then, what? You'll account for no variables and trust your eyes? Wayne Krivsky says it's a combination of eyes, tarot cards, names out of a hat, and RBI.

I guess I just take issue with the fact that you guys here seem to think that GMs, people who get paid millions of dollars for their expertise and have moved up through a system of professionals, are wrong and you're right. That they undervalue a guy like Adam Dunn and you have the correct value figured out. Did you ever stop to think that maybe it's not the GMs undervaluing Dunn, but you guys over valuing Dunn? Just stop and think about it as a possibility for a second. Lol, you certainly have some interesting arguments. This reminds me of the Mr. Show skit: More many than = smarter than. "Way to go, Einstein!" That show was awesome.

Morneau is an above avg. defender at 1B, which is an underrated defensive position, IMO. It's odd to try and use one of the best hitters in the AL to try and show how limited the value is of Dunn. I can't believe how bad of a hitter Morneau is.... Who's better him or Pujols? Please stop avoiding the question. I didn't ask you to compare the two for value. You guys are claiming that OBP and HRs are without a doubt under every circumstance the best possible stats to go by. I just showed you a guy, Morneau, that had a worse OBP and less HRs then Dunn. All I'm asking for is your judgment on who had a better offensive year. Is that a reason to be a wise guy about it? Who on earth claimed OBP and HRs are the best possible stats to go by? Do you know how OPS is calculated? HRs are only part of SLG. Ok, do you want to shift it over to slugging? The only reason I was bringing up HRs was because I made a statement earlier: And people were amused by the statement. So I was trying to make the argument that HRs doen't always make the best production... and Morneau proves that. Unless you've decided that Dunn had the better season, then we can continue with the "HRs =/= production" argument. If you concede the point, then I'll move on to slugging (which, btw, Dunn had a better slugging%... do you still think Morneau had the better offensive season?). Look guys, Dunn is a productive player. However, he gets a lot of his production from 1/2 run homers and fails again and again to get runners in when they're in scoring position. All I'm saying is, don't expect him to come through for you in a big situation unless you need a walk (which, I concede, there's many occasions where you need a walk). My main point here is OBP and SLG doesn't always trump everything. If it did, then people would be telling me that Dunn had the better season in 2008... which obviously people here have said otherwise. EDIT: Typed in the middle of a quote. Clearly I won't concede that point. 4 bases in 1 PA is production...but so is 3, 2, and 1. Yes dunn had a higher OBP and SLG than morneau, but after you adjust for park and league, Morneau gets the edge. WTF, I just realized how much time I am putting in to this...you know what? You just keep lookin at conventional stats. As long as you aren't the GM of the Cubs, I don't care.

Now you're just being silly :rotfl: I don't understand why this is silly. My point has been that Dunn is vastly undervalued by GMs and people in general, a point which you kind of proved (thanks!). Morneau had a marginally better offensive year than Dunn last year after you adjust for parks and league. Morneau could easy pursue 8/160 as Tiexiera set the mark...Dunn will be lucky to crack the 3/27 mark. So for less than half the cost, you could get damn near the same production...no brainer. This is why you have people hoping he joins the team. Not because we think HRs are the end all be all...but because not everyone has caught on to the fact that BA, Ks, and RBI are a piss poor way to judge a hitter.

Morneau is an above avg. defender at 1B, which is an underrated defensive position, IMO. It's odd to try and use one of the best hitters in the AL to try and show how limited the value is of Dunn. I can't believe how bad of a hitter Morneau is.... Who's better him or Pujols? Please stop avoiding the question. I didn't ask you to compare the two for value. You guys are claiming that OBP and HRs are without a doubt under every circumstance the best possible stats to go by. I just showed you a guy, Morneau, that had a worse OBP and less HRs then Dunn. All I'm asking for is your judgment on who had a better offensive year. Is that a reason to be a wise guy about it? Who on earth claimed OBP and HRs are the best possible stats to go by? Do you know how OPS is calculated? HRs are only part of SLG.

While we're on the subject, could you please tell me who you think was a better player in 2008? Adam Dunn or Justin Morneau? I'm not just talking about how important they were for their respective teams. I want to know in a vacuum, who played better last year, Dunn or Morneau? Dunn had 40 HRs, 100 RBI, 79 R and posted a .236/.386/.513 line Morneau had 23 HRs, 129 RBI, 97 R, and posted a .300/.374/.499 line Please, just tell me who was better and what your justification was? I would love to hear what any of you guys think here and really want to understand your side of it. I don't care that Morneau isn't in the Cubs plans, I simply want to know which you think was better offensively last year. Better Player? Morneau More Productive at the plate? Morneau with an OPS+ of 137 but not by as much as I'm sure you think. Now ask me which one I would try to sign as a free agent assuming they were to both unsigned this year.

Just so you know, Dunn's career average with RISP is actually .225, not .241. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=dunnad01&year=00 And... hi! I know who you are :D Thanks, that's slightly more useful than number of RBIs on Wednesdays. Can you grab that stat for me? It might be useful since the we need to know who steps up their game on Wednesdays and who suffers from the dreaded Hump-day jitters. Devaluing the ability to drive runs in when the best possibility is presented is silly. I won't say more then that. No, Theriot does not drive in runs the way an elite offensive player like Aramis Ramirez or Derrek Lee does. Again, you're trying to base your argument on trivializing my argument. That to me tells me you got nothin. This seems to be sort of common around here. Stick to the topic of discussion rather then trying to slander me please. Wins are mostly dependent on what your team can do for you offensively with a small emphasis on how well a pitcher can pitch and how well his defense fields for the pitcher. I would never judge a pitcher solely on wins, however there is a correlation between how good a pitcher is and how many wins he accumulates over his career. Anyway, I know you weren't really curious what I thought about wins. You were just hoping I would say they're important or imply that I think they're important so you can trivialize me and my argument. Nice try though. There is a huge difference between wins for a starting pitcher and being able to drive in runners in scoring position. If you guys can't understand that... then I don't know what to say. I guess all you can ask for is we somehow sign Dunn. Then you can hope for a walk when DLee is standing on third with two outs... cause Dunn has proven over the time of his career that he is 1.5 times more likely to strike out in that situation compared to actually getting a hit and scoring the run. Unless you think he'll magically change and be more likely to drive in the run then strike out... I guess that can always happen. I can't wait to see the giant BB signs in the outfield when Dunn walks to the plate with the winning run at third with 2 outs. No, I was actually curious. I like to understand why people think the way they think. The fact that you can understand that Wins are team stats but think RBIs measure individual contribution certainly baffles me. You've made your points - Avg, RsBI, and not striking out are the most important...also some people try harder or have the innate skill (or whatever your argument is for RISP)to get hits when a runner is at 2nd or 3rd. I really don't think your argument needs to be trivialized. You have your opinions, I have mine...When in Rome.

I'd jump off a clif. That's ok I guess...but could you jump over a car first? THAT would be impressive.

Not the hold-up... more like the straw that broke the camel's back. There probably wasn't any one player that Hendry refused to put in, he just refused to put them all in. Yeah, I think this is pretty likely. I, myself, was starting to get worried. From the rumors it just sounded like Towers was going to push the issue until Hendry said no or gave up everything worth any remote value.

I think price is the point of the Dunn argument. His production is undervalued (likely costs less) because a lot of GMs still put the bulk of their stock in BA, avg w/ RISP, and RBI. The first stat doesn't tell much of the story, the next is nearly totally dependant on the first stat and not on the magical skill of "clutch", and the 3rd stat very much depends on how good the players in front of him are. Just out of curiosity for AZCub, scarey, and whoever else wants to chime in...how important, in your opinion, are Wins for a starting pitcher?

Just so you know, Dunn's career average with RISP is actually .225, not .241. http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?n1=dunnad01&year=00 And... hi! I know who you are :D Thanks, that's slightly more useful than number of RBIs on Wednesdays. Can you grab that stat for me? It might be useful since the we need to know who steps up their game on Wednesdays and who suffers from the dreaded Hump-day jitters.

If your point is that nobody here knows anything for sure, then I guess I'll concede. We'll just see how this thing unravels. But a flyout gives you a chance of extending the inning? I don't get that. Are you talking about guys getting bloop hits and finding holes because they make contact? Yes. This is the basis for virtually every Cub player since Lou has arrived. Make sure to make contact first in a two strike count. It gives them an opportunity for a bloop hit, an erratic ground ball that finds a hole, or every once in a while an infield hit or error. I'm not saying any player should count on getting on base that way, but I know for sure it gives you a tremendously better chance than making an out at the plate and that this approach has a significant effect on a players results. I don't understand how putting the ball in play is only helpful in determining how good a player might end up and cannot help a player like Dunn. Disagree. In Dunn's case, I can only assume it's a matter of baseball smarts. The guy fails to score runners in scoring position and strikes out in that situation A LOT. If he were to try to make contact first, who knows? Maybe he hits a bloop that scores a guy from second more often. Maybe he gets a sac fly now and then. Maybe he fouls off pitches until he gets a good one to hit. His strikeouts have nothing to do with plate discipline and I know it. I honestly don't care how many home runs the guy hits. I only care about production. 40 HRs is pretty, I can't deny, but look at a guy like Justin Morneau. He only hit 23 HRs. But, he drove in 29 more RBIs then Dunn did. Why? I can't tell you for sure, but I can guess it has at least a little bit to do with the fact that he struck out 80 times less then Dunn did. I'm not saying all of his production is from cutting down his swing, but I think it had a big effect on it. RBIs? Really?

I don't think you can argue that high OBP players don't get paid anymore. Dunn is not getting attention on the market like many older players are. Backtobanks made a great point about how you people seem to think too many GMs in baseball are incapable of running their position... but there's a reason they're there right? And there has to be a reason Dunn isn't really on the top of anyone's list, right? Not true. On average a good batter is going to do worse when a good pitcher is throwing the ball, I can't argue that. But Soriano has disappeared during the last two post seasons. Not just bad, but horrid: .343 OPS in 2007 and .142 OPS in 2008. He was absolutely taken advantage of. quote] Ok, you make a great point, Soriano isn't nearly the hitter that Dunn is - I agree with you. Maybe we should look into picking up this Dunn fellow. All kidding a side, we're talking about 6 games. Arod had some terrible stretches, as have many other hitters in and out of the playoffs. It's not a great idea to base your argument on a sample size like this.

What the hell is this? So because they both strike out and hit home runs that means they're the same? Give me a break. Soriano swings at everything. Dunn swings at strikes. There is a huge difference. To imply that they are the same player offensively is pretty ignorant. Pitchers would have their way with him? I assume you're saying they would throw him junk and he'd hack at everything and get himself out like Soriano. That is simply not true, seeing as how he is a walk machine. Dunn strikes out because he swings hard, he doesn't strike out because he swings at junk. What a weak comparison. Incorrect, and that's already been proven false. Ha. Yeah, just keep talking about numbers that actually prove that he's a good hitter. "Yeah guy, just keep talking about Pujols' average, his slugging, his ability to put the ball in play, his patience, his ability to cure cancer. Blah blah blah. I know what I see with my eyes, and that guy is a bum" Either that or people here tend to choose the option of proof/logic instead of selective memory. As if you couldn't make yourself look any worse, you end your post with this Ricciardi gem. Seriously, did you just say that? What evidence do you have, other than what some loud,mputh GM said? By the way, did you know that a few days later Ricciardi admitted that he was just pissed at the callers and that he hadn't really heard anything about Dunn not loving the game? I guess not. So not only are you bringing up an irrelevant point, but it's completely inaccurate as well. Good job. You make a full post full of outdated and inaccurate assumptions and hyperbole, then you go and prove how little you know about a player by saying something like that. The bottom line is that if you don't want a guy because he has a poor average w/RISP, then you need to open your mind a little bit and actually learn about what is valuable. Nice post, you spent a lot more time crafting a post that will fall on deaf ears than I did. For reference, Cubsclapp, do you know who has a higher Career OPS+ than Sosa, Utley, Henderson, Yaz, Magz, and is tied or within 1 of Carew, Winfield, Clemente, Boggs, and Palmeiro? I'll give you a hint! He is huge, the most underrated player in baseball, and his name is Adam Dunn! I realize you probably think OPS+ is worthless, but this illustrates how much of a bargain Dunn would be for us. First let me say that I'm not a Dunn fan. That being said, some of you act like he's the second coming of Babe Ruth. Contrary to what many posters believe, most GMs aren't idiots, so when there's a lot of reluctance to signing Dunn there must be something to it. There was a thread quite awhile ago that argued whether Dunn was a great hitter. My point is that Dunn can be called a great slugger, but certainly not a great hitter (or player). Putting his name in the same sentence as players like Yaz, Clemente, and Winfield only supports how some statistics will prove anything you want them to prove. The DH was designed specifically for players like Dunn. If I was acting like Dunn is the 2nd coming of Babe Ruth, I would have said something like "Dunn's OPS+ is comparable to that of Babe Ruth AND they are defensive clones!" The statistics are not cherry picked to say anything. They illustrate that conventional statistics are not really a good measure of offensive capability. Not once in my argument did I say Dunn was a better overall player. I essentially said that if you measure Dunn's ability to not make outs in combination with his ability to hit for power, he is comparably offensively to Players X,Y,Z. Just because they are not what you expect to see, does not mean they are wrong or twisted for my argument. I also disagree with the thought that Dunn is just a slugger. His discipline at the plate and understanding of the strikezone are a huge part of his value. If he swung at 12 extra 3-1 or 3-0 pitches off the plate instead of taking the walk and got 10 extra basehits, raising his average significantly but lowering his OBP overall - would he be a better hitter?

What the hell is this? So because they both strike out and hit home runs that means they're the same? Give me a break. Soriano swings at everything. Dunn swings at strikes. There is a huge difference. To imply that they are the same player offensively is pretty ignorant. Pitchers would have their way with him? I assume you're saying they would throw him junk and he'd hack at everything and get himself out like Soriano. That is simply not true, seeing as how he is a walk machine. Dunn strikes out because he swings hard, he doesn't strike out because he swings at junk. What a weak comparison. Incorrect, and that's already been proven false. Ha. Yeah, just keep talking about numbers that actually prove that he's a good hitter. "Yeah guy, just keep talking about Pujols' average, his slugging, his ability to put the ball in play, his patience, his ability to cure cancer. Blah blah blah. I know what I see with my eyes, and that guy is a bum" Either that or people here tend to choose the option of proof/logic instead of selective memory. As if you couldn't make yourself look any worse, you end your post with this Ricciardi gem. Seriously, did you just say that? What evidence do you have, other than what some loud,mputh GM said? By the way, did you know that a few days later Ricciardi admitted that he was just pissed at the callers and that he hadn't really heard anything about Dunn not loving the game? I guess not. So not only are you bringing up an irrelevant point, but it's completely inaccurate as well. Good job. You make a full post full of outdated and inaccurate assumptions and hyperbole, then you go and prove how little you know about a player by saying something like that. The bottom line is that if you don't want a guy because he has a poor average w/RISP, then you need to open your mind a little bit and actually learn about what is valuable. Nice post, you spent a lot more time crafting a post that will fall on deaf ears than I did. For reference, Cubsclapp, do you know who has a higher Career OPS+ than Sosa, Utley, Henderson, Yaz, Magz, and is tied or within 1 of Carew, Winfield, Clemente, Boggs, and Palmeiro? I'll give you a hint! He is huge, the most underrated player in baseball, and his name is Adam Dunn! I realize you probably think OPS+ is worthless, but this illustrates how much of a bargain Dunn would be for us.

Holy hyperbole! I'm not sure how you can compare Soriano and Dunn. You would struggle to find two people with more divergent approaches at the plate. Opinions like yours are the reason I think it is important for us to sign Dunn for multiple years. The over-emphasis on Avg, Ks, and "Clutch" stats by "Baseball People" shrinks his price tag...but in reality (in my opinion) he is an absolute monster at the plate that trades a few hits for walks every year.

Anyone else still intrigued by some of the names being thrown around for Dero?

In a good way?