Sammy Sofa

.262/.354/.458 career for a catcher (even including his "bad" 2009 and 2011 so far). In other words, not lousy. Given that the position is a weak around baseball, I would think that he would fetch a decent return. He's 100% expendable in my book provided we get decent return. Jesus [expletive] Christ. "100% expendable?" Congratulations, you've just created a hole at catcher to go with the one in the starting rotation, RF, 1B, 2B and 3B. Anything else we want to add on there?

This might happen. Then they're even more stupid than we feared.

No, but they have a ton of money coming off the books next year and can fill holes via FA. If you can get something for Rammy right now, go for it. Or if someone is dumb enough to eat most of Soriano's contract, do it in a heartbeat. Re-stock the farm and sign who you need. Trading players with expiring contracts isn't the same as "blowing a team up." "Blwoing a team up" means you're moving guys like Marmol and Zambrano and Soto as well. And nobody is taking Soriano unless the Cubs pick up most of the tab. Then I was not clear as to what I wanted. I'm open to trading anyone on the team, save for Castro, and if you trade Soto, Garza, or Marmol you'd better get a haul in return. Anyone else on the team can be had for a fair price. But that's setting the team back even further. Why would they spend money on big FA after creating gaping holes in addition to the ones they already have to deal with by moving the likes of Garza, Soto or Marmol?

No, but they have a ton of money coming off the books next year and can fill holes via FA. If you can get something for Rammy right now, go for it. Or if someone is dumb enough to eat most of Soriano's contract, do it in a heartbeat. Re-stock the farm and sign who you need. Trading players with expiring contracts isn't the same as "blowing a team up." "Blwoing a team up" means you're moving guys like Marmol and Zambrano and Soto as well. And nobody is taking Soriano unless the Cubs pick up most of the tab.

"Blowing a team up" is typically resigning yourself to several years of being a really, really bad team. The Cubs don't have to do that.

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.

Quade has already demonstrated a willingness to play just about anyone at 1B, irrespective of experience. Baker (30.1 inning ML, 3 G MiL experience prior to 2011), Colvin (no prior experience) and LeMahieu (no prior experience) have already combined to field 92.0 innings at 1B. I don't think the prospect of lacking a legitimate option at the position will dissuade them from dealing Pena. Long term, I agree that they need to address 1B. Short term, it appears Quade will plug in anyone with a glove. No, I mean "remotely close" in terms of actually being any good (outside of Baker against lefties). That's why I can see the Cubs not moving him if the return isn't that good since as bad as the team is I think they're terrified of projecting the image that they've completely given up.

Because Pena hasn't been consistent, and his good years haven't been elite(2007 excepted). There's just not much separating him from several other shorter-term options available to fill 1B in the offseason. If I can trade Carlos Pena in July and still potentially bring him back, aces for me, I like the guy. But if I can add value to the organization by trading him and still get Pena's value elsewhere for next year, then why not trade him? I think the key is adding value to the organization. If nobody is offering anything beyond middling prospects I can see the Cubs holding on to him since they don't have anyone else even remotely close to take over 1B for the rest of the season. That said, I think Pena can net more than that. Because if you can replace him easily for 2012, but apply the savings of not paying him to signing overslots from the draft, why not do it? If trading Pena and having a different Pena next year means that I can sign Maples & crew, then it's a big win. Hey, I don't have a problem trading Pena, but I can see why the Cubs wouldn't do it.

If they want Baker, more power to them. Reed Johnson might be a good target as well. However, we might consider offering Marlon Byrd as well. Actually, Baker is someone they might want to hold on to given the question marks about both 2B and 3B next year.

Because Pena hasn't been consistent, and his good years haven't been elite(2007 excepted). There's just not much separating him from several other shorter-term options available to fill 1B in the offseason. If I can trade Carlos Pena in July and still potentially bring him back, aces for me, I like the guy. But if I can add value to the organization by trading him and still get Pena's value elsewhere for next year, then why not trade him? I think the key is adding value to the organization. If nobody is offering anything beyond middling prospects I can see the Cubs holding on to him since they don't have anyone else even remotely close to take over 1B for the rest of the season. That said, I think Pena can net more than that.

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.