Sammy Sofa

Sure it's fair. The Cubs have a hole at 1B, in the lineup, and Dunn was one of the best choices out there to fill it. Now let's see if the Cubs can scrape together production from that position and in the lineup (let's assume he would have hit 3rd or 4th; for clarity's sake we'll look at where Aramis isn't next year between those two slots) that outdoes Dunn. Shouldn't be too hard, what with all of his red flags and age and big fat bank accounts and stuff and junk.

Because relievers and closers typically don't have long careers of success and tend to fall off of a cliff. The Cubs damn well better be listening to offers for Marmol or including him in any offers they make to try and bring in an impact player.

Fielder will be traded to the Yankees this year. Don't hold your breath waiting for him.

Given the going contracts we've even just seen thus far the Dunn signing was not a bad deal for the White Sox. And your expectations for the Cubs are fascinating. You seem convinced the team is going to be good in a few years, you're still bring up Fielder and Gonzalez like either has a realistic chance of ending up on this team given who else is going to be interested in them and now you're talking like Vitters is going to play 1st?

Let me put it this way; I will guarantee that Dunn outproduces the collective hot mess that the Cubs trot out at 1st base over the next 4 years. If he doesn't then ban me. I hope I end up banned. But I know I won't.

I want Dunn because he's been so consistently valuable over the course of an almost 10-year-career. Hafner was underwhelming after three good seasons largely due to injury issues. Again, the Cubs cannot afford (ironic, yes) to be so picky over a contract like the one Dunn got. They just can't. I just don't see why anyone thinks going with a rotating cast of 1st basemen every season or two for the foreseeable future is a good idea.

Of course Dunn COULD be a disaster for the Sox. Odds seem to be that he'll be productive for them for the duration of the contract even with natural decline factored in. The bottom line to me is that the Cubs seem to have next to no chance to get someone like Fielder or Gonzalez so why not go hard after the guy with a proven track record who you can have for a reasonable contract and only 4 years who is likely to provide an offensive anchor for your lineup while you shed other contracts and hope that some more prospects start working out? Now they just have another serious hole to fill to add on to the other ones coming up soon. The Cubs are not in the position to let guys like this get away and they're not in the position to trade away their better prospects to get guys like Gonzalez and Fielder like teams like the Red Sox and Yankees likely will do. It's great that we want to the Cubs to wait to spend their money on the mythical player who's just right age-wise and who is without any major flaws and blah-blah-blah but they're clearly not in the shape to do that. I appreciate that people are arguing against Dunn, but the basic point is I think they need to lock up 1B for the next few years and here was guy who is a proven LH power threat who likely would have continued to produce at a high level for 4 years. The Cubs don't have the luxury of letting someone like that pass by.

Oh, this is delicious.

[expletive] it. I'm just sit back and laugh at the people wondering why 1st base is such a gaping hole for the foreseeable future.

Hey, it's obvious that the Cubs wanted the Bradley from those two years (though looking to the first year is a stretch since he played, what, less than half the season?)..but banking on him being that player on an NL team with his injury history and making him the cornerstone of their off season was pretty stupid. They should have been signing him in the hopes that he'd be a good #2 hitter when healthy and instead went nuts like they were signing a #4-5 hitter who could anchor the lineup. The odds simply were not in their favor with what they were expecting/wanting out of that.

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.