Sammy Sofa

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.

WEAK LINK.

Howard is a monster.

That is not part of the list, jerkface.

Sandberg is out of the organization.

The Dodgers signed Jon Garland The Cardinals picked up Theriot.

I never understand why people are so quick to pin Dunn as a player who is going to fall off of a cliff as he gets older, especially just 3 seasons from now.

Grosssssss.

Good. I'm glad he'll be [expletive] sucking for a rival.

All I remember is hating the Marquis signing, hating the money Soriano was getting but loving that the Cubs had him and going "zah?!?!?" over the DeRosa signing.

So four quotes prove that more people were opposed to Lilly's signing than were for it?

It's really getting annoying how many ways the Cubs will find to spend Dunn's money on mediocrity. They don't need Hudson, they don't need Webb and if they sign Dunn they don't need Pena. THIS ISN'T COMPLICATED, CUBS.

Real life Uribe is so meh, yet he's killing it for me right now in The Show. Go figure.

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005. Not "big losses" so much as games that they "should" win after looking good. I know that's by no means a sure thing, but these are really the only Bears games that I get nervous over. I get nervous over games they should win much more than games you'd expect them to lose. Yup.

I understand the concern, but I'm not sure about your comparison to other Lovie teams. The closest thing to it would have to be the 2008 season when they won three in a row to get to 9-6 but failed to beat Houston in the final game to finish 9-7. Other than that though, they either didn't win big games in the first place, 2005/2007/2009, were really good and suffered no big losses 2006, or did about as good as they could anyway 2005. Not "big losses" so much as games that they "should" win after looking good. I know that's by no means a sure thing, but these are really the only Bears games that I get nervous over.

It makes me nervous because it seems like they blow these types of games way too often under Lovie's regime: they win a big game/bunch of games, finally start getting some hype and it's like everyone takes the week off because they assume they're going to roll on a "lesser" team and then it blows up in their face.