davearm2

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. Knowing what we know as of this morning, do you think Dunn will be worth his contract? Yes or no.

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? I'm asking right now, as you think about it today, do you anticipate that by the end of 2014, Dunn will have been worth $56M for 4 years? Yes or no.

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. Look as we stand here today, the Dunn signing looks like it was a mistake. Go ahead and argue against that point if you wish; I'm sure it would be quite entertaining. Ergo, the folks that didn't want the Cubs to sign Dunn turned out to be right, and the ones that did want the Cubs to sign Dunn turned out to be wrong. You can try and spin it as "lucky" or whatever, I'll just stick with "right".

Tom's just the chairman of the Cubs. The family owns the team. Of course. Nobody in the Ricketts family is being accused of doing the stuff bolded in OldStyle's post, is what I was trying to say.

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.

Hey curious what you (or anyone else) think about Matt Juengel's pro prospects. I think the consensus is that he has the bat to go far, but he has no defensive position. He's been tried a few places with poor results. If he can figure out a place to not kill his team on the field he may be a big leaguer some day. That's about what I imagined. Probably the same story as many collegiate DHs. Curious if you've ever met the kid. Reason I ask is, Matt is coming to Madison to play summer ball, and will be staying at my house while he's here. I've only spoken with him a few times over the phone but he seems like a real nice kid. We're excited for him to get here.

Seems important to note that it wasn't Ricketts who is accused of those things.

If there were more than 5 games a year on WGN anymore, I'd probably be really thrilled about this.

Lots of people are saying that Ricketts may fire Hendry in the offseason, but if his performance has been bad enough to justify firing him why trust him to make competent moves at the trade deadline? Its far too late to fire hendry before the trade deadline because teams are now setting the frame work for trades that are a couple of weeks away. It seems to me that there is little point to firing a gm after the season in which you have let him head up an important draft, pursue international free agents, and make trade deadline deals (which I think it is safe to assume that he will). Its not improbable that he is fired but if he is what was the point of letting him stay at the helm for so long? THis leads me to believe that if Hendry is still here at the trade deadline he will still be here next year in some capacity, which of course frightens me. The point of letting him stay for now is because the best replacement candidates won't be available mid-season, and keeping Hendry until October makes more sense than installing an interim GM for 3 months. EDIT: pretty much what Dew said

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).

I think the new stadium makes this totally inconceivable from Florida's perspective. They can't stick the taxpayers with a huge bill and then trade away their most marketable asset.

How do you integrate the grandstand into the triangle building? You integrate the triangle building into the grandstand, obviously. Not the other way around. As it is conceived now, the old grandstand remains intact and the triangle building abuts it. If you're tearing down the old grandstand, then you may as well integrate the two by building all of the triangle facilities into a larger grandstand. Along Clark street between Addison and Waveland, instead of this: --------------- ----- you have this: ===========

Hanley Ramirez is probably not the best example to choose for this argument. IIRC he's pretty widely regarded as a poor-to-terrible defensive SS. That's why I chose him. You chose a SS that probably shouldn't be playing SS to prove the point that Castro should stay at SS? I'm confused.

I would think the triangle building and any large-scale grandstand renovation would be mutually-exclusive options. That is to say, if you're doing the latter, then you just integrate the former into the master plan, so you've got everything under one roof, rather than two distinct new structures.

Well said. There's no great permanent replacement available right now, so the best course is to hold off until such time as one is.

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.

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.

LOL plus he still hasn't acclimated to the weather. The dude wears a jacket in the dugout even when it's 95 out.

Hanley Ramirez is probably not the best example to choose for this argument. IIRC he's pretty widely regarded as a poor-to-terrible defensive SS.

I'd be concerned about whether it's even plausible to build an entirely new grandstand structure on the same footprint of the current Wrigley. You're going to want larger concourses, bigger bathrooms, more concessions, not to mention batting cages, strength and conditioning facilities, bigger clubhouses, a better cafeteria, and on and on. Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

Yes, they do routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls. I've seen it happen on numerous occasions. In any event, resolving that point is unnecessary. You're the one who took the position that "any" fan would have done exactly what Bartman did. Now, you are conceding (as you must, of course), that lots of fans duck for cover and try to avoid it. Indeed, that's clearly what's happening with the female fan directly to Bartman's left in the pictures on page 1. At bottom, regardless whether it's characterized as "avoiding the ball" or "letting the home team try to make the catch," your position that "any" fan would have done the same thing Bartman did is asinine. Your taking things so literally is also asinine. Back on topic: earlier I said, if Bartman had been in the bathroom pissing in a trough at that moment, that ball still isn't getting to Alou's glove. Agree or disagree?

Looking at the career line seems pretty unhelpful with a guy like Soto. Like you said, he's been either tolerable or terrific (or hurt). He's never had a season that's simply good. It's always been well above or well below that. One would have to imagine that such extreme volatility would lower his value to other teams. man, you are never right. What am I wrong about? Do you disagree that Soto's production has been volatile over his 3+ years (as compared to other players)? Do you disagree that volatile production is inherently a bad thing (as compared to consistent production)? To me it's very simple. Teams will more highly value a guy that OPS's ~.800 consistently versus a guy that OPS's .900 some years and .700 other years. Now I know those aren't Soto's exact numbers, and I also realize nobody hits the same OPS number every year, but Soto is much more the latter guy than the former guy. So to point to a career OPS of ~.800 and say that's who this guy is, isn't really very accurate. In fact it's misleading.

Looking at the career line seems pretty unhelpful with a guy like Soto. Like you said, he's been either tolerable or terrific (or hurt). He's never had a season that's simply good. It's always been well above or well below that. One would have to imagine that such extreme volatility would lower his value to other teams.

Given his struggles, maybe we need to be more realistic about what he's actually worth. I thought it was telling that SI did a short article about young MLB catchers in the wake of the Posey stuff and Mauer coming back off the DL, and nowhere was Soto mentioned. Guys like Chris Iannetta and Jonathan Lucroy were, though. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1187111/index.htm

And fans of the home team do not routinely avoid interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands. Give me a break. Some fans duck for cover when a ball's headed their way, sure. But you don't "routinely" see fans evaluating the situation and making a conscious decision to back off so their team's fielder has a better play on a ball, all while the ball is actually in flight headed right at them. They either try and catch it, or try to avoid being hit by it.