Sammy Sofa

If he stays hot through July it shouldn't be a problem, but that is still up for debate. And you have to get more than the mediocrity they've gotten for some other veteran dumps in recent years. I just don't see the point in acquiring more filler for the system. If they can get a potential impact player, terrific. If he was blocking somebody there could be motivation for moving him for the sake of moving him, but he's not even close to blocking somebody already in the system. I can see gooney's point. I think the Cubs can get a good return for him if he keeps things up until the deadline, but if the deal isn't there then why do it just to do it?

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.

Fair enough.

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.

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.

You can't see getting much for a guy on pace to hit 30 HR who plays excellent defense and has a good OBP? He's 33. What do you see the return being? He strikes out a ton and has a low average. That common for a power hitting like Pena but do you think teams will give up much for him? He has a good OBP, can clobber the [expletive] out of the ball (and is), hits LH, plays excellent defense and is only signed through this year. That's going to be appealing to any team in the race that needs help at 1B or DH.

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.

Hey man, you can shop someone like Soto when you have a player like Hill.

Probably. Hopefully not, since that likely means they didn't get Pujols or Fielder, or they got one of them while Dunn rebounded back to classic Dunn and the Cubs' signing turned into an absolute disaster right off the bat and never got better.

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.

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million? Because these are the conditions under which GMs make free agent decisions. Wait, what? GM's make their decisions only if they can definitely know if a player is going to be worth all of (or exceed) the contract being offered? I have no idea, and it would be stupid to claim otherwise. Yes, I think he will likely be worth within the acceptable vicinity of his contract, but I don't know. He could just flame out and it's a complete bust. There's always an inherent risk along those lines. Look at it this way: I think it's all but impossible that either Pujols or Fielder will be worth the full amount or exceed the value of the contracts they'll get after this offseason. Unless a team develops the player through their farm system they're going to have to almost overpay for an impact player, so making it this black and white thing of "do you think they'll be worth their contract, yes or no and no other considerations" just seems like a gigantic oversimplification. Look at it this way: say Dunn just sucks through the entire year. But then for the next 3 years he comes back strong and is an offensive force to be reckoned with. Is the contract a bust because of the one bad year?

Why would I answer definitively yes or no when I don't know? What if I said no, but ultimately based on his production he was worth something like $48 million?

You're conflating this with the idea that people who didn't want him have been proven right. Those are two very different things. Yes, the Cubs were lucky in hindsight they didn't sign Dunn (so far) and so far it's been a mistake for the Sox, but for different reasons than what anyone was arguing against him with here (and it's not like we can write him off as being done). Absolutely nobody predicted he would be this wretched in his age 31 season. Nobody. It's like if I said you were going to die after today and then a year from now the Space Shuttle crashes into your home and then me claiming that it made me some kind of all-seeing prognosticator. So if Dunn comes back next year (or even the second half of the season) as a monster again they're suddenly not right? How do you not see the pitfalls of declaring anyone right or wrong over this two and a half months into the first season of his contract?

Yeah, the article is poorly written in that it seemingly assumes for the first half that the readers know that Joe Ricketts isn't the COO.

Hendry's best move this year. So much for all of the wannabe GMs here who were begging for Adam Dunn. You're kidding, right? You're going to sit there and pretend that ANYONE predicted that Dunn would fall off a cliff this season? Many folks argued that signing Dunn would be a mistake, given his age, skillset, price, years, etc. Being right about that doesn't require that one correctly predicted he would fall off a cliff this season. Actually it does. If someone was arguing they didn't want him for a long term deal because they thought he was going to decline too dramatically down the line they're not right when he inexplicably slumps this badly for half a season at only age 31. Basically anyone claiming they were "right" about Dunn based on what he's done with the Sox so far is delusional and would essentially be making the same caliber of argument if they claimed his appendix surgery proved them "right," too. Nobody here, not a one, was predicting what's happened so far.

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.

Hendry's best move this year. So much for all of the wannabe GMs here who were begging for Adam Dunn. You're kidding, right? You're going to sit there and pretend that ANYONE predicted that Dunn would fall off a cliff this season?

Of course there's zero chance Quade was gonna use Soto.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

Awesome news. I love watching a Cubs TV broadcast and actually having a good play by play guy handling things. Here's hoping he's here for a long time after this deal.

Except you didn't come across as agreeing with anything with how you responded. Yeah, it's semantics, but you obviously posed your response as a rebuttal instead of any kind of agreement or added concern. If you can't tell the difference, fine, I understand. Even if you thought I was only disagreeing there was no reason to be an [expletive] in your response. Sure there is. You're the king of the "OH MY GOD, SOMEONE MIGHT BE DEFENDING HENDRY!!!" brigade.

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground. At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible. I guess it's not clear to me how building the triangle building is going to open up the space needed to expand and add modern player facilities underneath the 3rd base grandstands. If somehow it does, then great. Well, on it's own it's not going to do much outside of expanding the commercial areas. For it to truly work they need to do the grandstand renovation that needs to be done and the Ricketts obviously want to do.

Except you didn't come across as agreeing with anything with how you responded. Yeah, it's semantics, but you obviously posed your response as a rebuttal instead of any kind of agreement or added concern. If you can't tell the difference, fine, I understand.

It's like the days are creeping by. I need to dump Dunn like a tumor.

Probably, but man, I always think that would be an amazing spot for a new stadium.