Sammy Sofa

Understood. Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS. And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly. For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug: Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point. Sorry, but this is insane. Bradley a role player? The dude led the frickin league in OBP (.436) and OPS (.999) and received MVP votes the year before the Cubs got him. And that wasn't exactly an outlier year for him. He was damn good the year before that too (.402 OBP, .947 OPS). That type of player can't put a team over the top huh? Whatever dude. Dunn and Bradley profile differently as players, and the nature of the risk inherent in each guy is markedly different (Bradley is an oft-injured nutball; Rob laid out the red flags with Dunn), but the overall risk/reward equation is remarkably similar actually. Condemning the Cubs for the Bradley deal and then turning around and lobbying for Dunn @ 4/$56 is just sheer hypocrisy, plain and simple. Well, this is pretty hilarious. Are you Hendry's drinking buddy? Can we blame you for him thinking that was a smart big splash signing and for signing him for all the wrong reasons? Dunn's "red flags" is pretty funny, too. Amazing comparison you've got going here.

Pena's awful year last year probably has a lot more to do with a BABIP that dropped 30 points from 2009 and 70 points from 2008 than anything. With an 18% LD%, there's a really good chance Pena will see a big upswing next year. Dunn, on the other hand, had a BABIP about 70 points higher than 2009, while having a LD% lower in 2010 than in 2009. The likelihood is his numbers get worse next year. Pena would have to have a pretty huge upswing and Dunn would have to have a pretty huge drop for them to meet based on the numbers they put up last year.

That's the case with anyone they could sign next year, too. Why is that a reason to not sign Dunn, but a reason to throw money at anyone else?

Yes, you're the one who made the comparison to Gonzalez after people expressed concern over Dunn's contract length and potential for decline without mentioning Gonzalez. I mentioned Gonzalez because he's been repeatedly brought up on this site as a reason not to go get Dunn and now he's being brought up as a reason as to why it's good they didn't get Dunn. I didn't "introduce" that.

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn. Why are patience and power not going to age "gracefully?" Adam Dunn simply has a lot of risk factors: - He is at the age where a player would normally start to decline. - He is a big man, which tends to make players more susceptible to back and leg injuries. - He already has a very poor contact rate. - His strikeout rate was the highest of his career in 2010. - His walk rate was the lowest of his career in 2010. - His average distance on home runs has declined in 3 straight years, and is the 2nd lowest it's been since hittracker started keeping track in 2005. - His batting average, on base percentage, and slugging percentage the last two seasons were boosted by a BABIP 30 points higher than his career average. Even just a BABIP correction could be nasty. Now imagine a drop in bat speed either due to natural causes or an injury. That's downright scary. But a drop in bat speed due to natural causes or injury can happen to anyone, including Gonzalez, who will also be coming up to "the age when a player starts to decline" and who is also a "big man." I obviously don't disagree that Dunn has his flaws, but that's why he could be had for so much less money and fewer years than someone like Gonzalez. My point is and has been that you don't wait when a player who fills such a desperate need can be had for a reasonable contract now in the idea of signing a player that you're much less likely to get, who is going to cost a lot more and will be susceptible to many of the same hypotheticals.

Pena appears to actually be in the rather drastic decline that some here seem to fear so much and he's just a stopgap that leaves a big question mark at 1B that will come up when you have other key positions becoming holes as well.

Wait, I did what? I introduced the idea that the Cubs maybe want to wait to sign Gonzalez and that's one of the reasons why they possibly passed on Dunn? *I* introduced that? How the [expletive] do you figure that? I just don't agree that Dunn "falling off a little bit" makes him a complete liability defensively if he's playing 1st. That's where you dump guys who stink it up on defense. The Cubs have desperate needs now that he filled and then some and I think signing him would have given them more financial flexibility to improve other areas as they arise in the near future than the monster contract that Gonzalez will command. I also think they had a much, much better chance of signing Dunn than they do of getting someone like Gonzalez.

They're going to almost certainly fill the Fukudome hole from within. Dempster will probably be back for 2012. And 3B they'll probably have to sign a journeyman. They won't have to spend out nearly as much money as they're losing. So they'd be building a pretty bad team around Gonzalez if they signed him.

And even if they shell out for Gonzalez, I can't imagine them having the money to fill the other holes that appear with Fukudome, Aramis and Dempster (though this hopefully won't be as dire as the other two) gone.

Of course it's a possibility. But Dunn is available now, is incredibly valuable to the Cubs and could have been had for a manageable contract. You don't pass on that in the hopes of landing a guy they have much, much, much less of a chance of signing, especially one who is going to take up even more of the dreaded later years than Dunn. I really don't give a [expletive] that Gonzalez provides better defense at first because if his bat goes then the team is fucked. It's not like they can just sit back and say, "well, it really sucks that Gonzalez's offensive production [expletive] the bed once he turned 34, but thank God his defense is still decent! The season is saved!"

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn. Right, if Dunn's bat doesn't stay the same, he's a moneysink. Gonzalez can field his position, and currently provides a 5 WAR guy that is much rarer than Dunn. Plus, Gonzalez is 3 years younger than Dunn, or 2 years younger than he is this year if you sign him after the year. It's not a comparable situation. But why is Dunn's bat so likely to significantly degrade so quickly? Nobody can explain this.

Gonzalez has some secondary skills that suggest he'll age much more gracefully than Adam Dunn. Why are patience and power not going to age "gracefully?"

No, there's not. You're hinging this on the idea that consistently valuable players tend to be terrible once they hit 33 or 34. When a player is producing at a very high level a natural decline isn't the end of the world, especially if they're only signed to a 4-year-contract that ends when they're 35. Gonzalez is going to want a Soriano-type deal, both when it comes to money and length and it's going to take him well past the ages you're convinced are like cancer for good ballplayers and he's going to cost a lot more. The Cubs have dire needs NOW that Dunn fills and they can compete NOW if they get him and he's going to cost much less in years and money. You don't wait when you have that kind of opportunity. Let's just start with why you think Dunn seriously declining by age 33 is such a significant risk. What about him makes you think that?

Sandberg chose to leave. Let's not drag down Santo by bringing Sandberg into this.

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly. Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two. Terrified? That's kind of crazy. The guy has patience and power. Those things tend to last. He may struggled in his mid-30's, but if you are terrified of paying Dunn at 34 you have to be terrified of paying pretty much any free agent in baseball. Exactly.

Different situations. Our ceiling next year is a borderline playoff team - whether we got Dunn or not. The next year would be our best shot to have a good Dunn and a good team. After that, the possibility gets much higher that we have two bad contracts hindering our upside as we should be a very competitive team. With Gonzalez, he should be very good to great for the first 2-3 years of the contract at least - which lines up right with when this roster should begin moving upward rapidly. Also, I'm not terrified of paying Dunn at 33-34 years old. I can understand why you would want him and he definitely makes us better, I just don't see the reward being higher than the risk that he tanks for a year or two. This is laughable. This recurring idea that Dunn is going to fall off a cliff after the next two seasons keeps getting spat out like it's fact. Gonzalez would be 33 just 3 years after the Cubs would sign him as a FA; why is he such a lock to perform at that age? You're talking like they're night and day offensively and health-wise when they're not, and you're advocating paying someone much more money and giving them more years using that logic.

Dunn was worth 3.9 wins last year and just over 1 win before that. Assuming he's at least a slightly below average 1st baseman as he was last year, then somewhere in the 3-win range is about what should be expected. In 2009, the last time Nick Johnson was fully healthy, he was a 2.5 win player. We can get him for next to nothing, most likely, and still have money to go get a quality backup since he's unlikely to stay healthy all year. Is 1-2 extra wins worth about $45-50 million extra for a 31 year old player? Last year in just about the worst possible scenario for Carlos Pena, he was a 1 win player. The previous two years he was a 2.8 win player and a 4.0 win player. He'll come significantly cheaper than Dunn (in both money and years) and is more likely than not to rebound to close to 2009, if not 2008. As unlikely as it is that we acquire him, Alex Gordon is a potential stud. In the only two years the Royals have felt like playing him a full season, he's been a 2.1 and 2.3 WAR player. I'd rather work a Colvin/etc trade for Gordon than sign Dunn. The risk for the other options outside of Dunn are much, much smaller than $56 mil for a 31 year old player and yet the rewards are within a win or so of Dunn. Why is it such a good idea for a team that might be a contender in a weak division to overpay for him? Because Dunn is a proven offensive asset who is relatively affordable and that's what the Cubs need right now. Not someone with potential, not a reclamation project and not even older and obviously declining players. Based on the going contracts Dunn is barely being overpaid, so quit talking like he's shamelessly robbing a bank.

Well, this is [expletive] awful. Pretty much the last thing I expected to hear when my alarm went off and started playing NPR. I remember hearing him on ESPN 1000 after Quade got the job and he sounded really, really bad and I was wondering how much of the season he'd be able to call. Very, very sad.

I can only assume that the people terrified over the idea of paying Dunn big money when he's 33 and 34 somehow expect the Cubs to magically be able to sign Adrian Gonzalez only to a 2-3 year contract when he's a FA.

Understood. Earlier dew pointed out that signing Dunn to this deal would've been "a different story" if the Cubs were better positioned to contend for the WS. And I'm saying the Cubs took that same "one player away" mindset into the Bradley situation. As we all know, that ended very poorly. For some reason that was labeled a "really, really ridiculous take." I dunno, seems spot on to me. :shrug: Because it's really, really ridiculous. Adam Dunn and Bradley are completely different in every sense of the word and Dunn IS the type of player that can put a team over the top. There was no reason for the Cubs to go into next season effectively surrendering in such a weak division, and that's what they've effectively done by not landing the one difference-maker FA they had a shot at getting on the market right now. People can spin it all they want, by any combination of dinking and dunking moves they make instead of getting Dunn isn't going to do anything except almost certainly result in a mediocre team that can't even compete in a division this weak. Your overgeneralization is a silly take on this, and the Cubs easily could have been just one player away given their competition, and Dunn is that type of player. To compare it to Bradley in any way is just absurd. The Cubs very realistically were just a Dunn away from being competitive and having a real shot given the circumstances of their division whereas Bradley was nothing but an oft-injured role player at best. You're drastically undervaluing Dunn's impact on this team to make your point.

One way or another, Kenny Williams always seems to get what he wants. You can't be [expletive] serious. Its not always good, he just seems to get what he wants. Who gives a [expletive]?

One way or another, Kenny Williams always seems to get what he wants. You can't be [expletive] serious.

Now that the White Sox have Dunn the Cubs will probably make things even worse by signing Konerko.

I really hope the tradition of Cardinals dying during the season continues.

If we were Adam Dunn away from being a dominant team that could win 90-95 and seriously challenge for the World Series, that'd be different. But with or without Dunn we're a borderline playoff team. Our chances of making the playoffs are better with him obviously, but the likely reward simply isn't worth the risk of having 1-2 years of bad Dunn + really bad Soriano. This is the rationale that seemed to be applied to the Milton Bradley signing. Just sayin' This is a really, really ridiculous take on this.