CubsWin

Agreed. I mentioned the corner OF thing in the post you responded to. I believe he tried to do something about it. He recognizes that there is a need to address, but he has clearly failed to adequately address it. No doubt Baker has his shortcomings. They have been put on display a lot recently. But, believe or not, he also has his strengths, as we saw in '03, a year that few predicted the Cubs would come within 5 outs of the WS. When the Cubs are healthy, I believe Baker's style helps teams stay loose, get on a roll and minimize losing streaks. But his ability to use less than optimal personnel properly, among many other things, is a big downfall, IMO. Hendry may not stress OBP/patience as much as you would like him to, but it is difficult to build a solid argument that says he doesn't value them at all. All he has done since becoming GM is acquire guys who's OBP are better than their predecessor's. He has drafted both projectable, toolsy guys and college OBP guys. How many times did the Cubs draft Sam Fuld before they finally signed him? In almost every story written about Pie, they say he needs to improve his plate discipline and that he is going to spend more time in the minors despite the Cubs gaping hole in RF. So, to say he hasn't done much about OBP/patience is inaccurate, IMO.

I would agree with all of this. He's made some good trades. His signings have been questionable. You shouldn't have been surprised And I would add that we still have to look at the overall picture, and not just rate certain trades, signings or other moves. And I find it hard to say the overall job has been anything but disappointing. And I would agree with all of that except to say that the overall job has been disappointing with extenuating circumstances. A GM cannot be held accountable for everything that happens on a baseball team. The game itself is fraught with freak happenings, inches here or there, balls landing on a chalk line, umpires making bad calls. It happens, and sometimes it happens in streaks. Was Patterson supposed to pull an el foldo like he did last season? Was Hendry supposed to see that coming? Was Hendry supposed to see Prior getting hit by a line drive? Was Hendry supposed to see Baker using Dempster in the rotation to start the season? Was he supposed to see Dubois tanking like he did? What about the injuries to and the poor performances from the bullpen? Should/Could Hendry have signed better players in RF and LF last season? Absolutely. Did he blow it by leaving the Cubs hoping that Burnitz and Dubois would get the job done? Yes. But thats not what had the Cubs finish under .500, is it? Have the overall results been disappointing the past two seasons? Of course, but you'd have to admit that there have been a lot of things that have happened that were not easily foreseen.

Opting for Greg Maddux over Vlad Guerrero was a horrible idea and message board geeks everywhere knew it even at the time. A lot of things have gone wrong in the past few years but that Maddux contract is the one that sticks out in my mind. While it is unfair and inaccurate to say that Hendry chose Maddux over Guerrero, I agree that the Maddux signing was a questionable one. I felt that the money could have much better spent and that Maddux's contract sent Clement packing. In the post that kicked off this tangent, I openly admitted that Hendry's record in signing meaningful FAs was sorely lacking. It was a very balanced post in my opinion simply defending the one area of Hendry's performance that has been quite good, his trades, while acknowledging his shortcomings. I am surprised it spawned a couple of pages of Hendry criticism and the requisite defending of him, but I probably shouldn't be.

Indisputable? Hardly. The economics of the Ramirez and Lee deals can't be ignored. They were components of the deals that factored in what the Pirates and Marlins could demand in return. As such, its hard to see how Hendry can receive all the credit and the "Jason and the Argonauts Golden Fleece Award". As far as Nomar goes, he was a complete bust for the Cubs, in part, because Hendry waived the Cubs' right to require a physical. Instead, Hendry merely took Boston's reports and knew he was getting damaged goods by acknowledging that Nomar wouldn't be playing with regularity. As for Murton, he was a throw in, thanks to Theo Epstein's insistence when the Expos demanded Harris. Grudz and Karros turned out much better than I expected. I give Hendry credit for that. Other than Grudz/Karros, I hardly see an objective "fleecing" being had in each of these other instances. Clearly you are entitled to your opinion, JC. On many other opinions we might agree, but on this one I fail to see how you have put forth a solid argument. Every point you raised is easy to poke holes in. If you are arguing that the Pirates and Marlins unwillingness to pay Ramirez and Lee makes these trades any less of a fleecing, then ask yourself how would you feel if the Cardinals or Astros had acquired them for next to nothing? The Rolen trade was economically motivated. People on this board have expressed anger at Cubs management for missing out on that one. Sounds like a double standard to me. Also ask yourself, if the Cubs were in a position where they had to trade someone of value and youth because they couldn't afford to pay them, would you be happy with complete flops like Hill or Choi in return? Would you call that a good trade? No, you'd probably say the Cubs got fleeced. How could they trade away someone of value like Lee and not get anything good in return? This "Murton was a throw in" comment defies all logic and holds no water. Are we to believe that Hendry wasn't demanding something more than just Nomar? That he would have been fine taking only Nomar in that trade but that the Red Sox insisted that the Cubs take Murton as well? A "throw in"? Please. Obviously, Hendry wanted more. The Red Sox may have offered up Murton, but ultimately it had to have been Hendry's judgement to take him or ask for someone else. Clearly, Hendry felt Murton was a good enough prospect to get the deal done. It was widely reported that Hendry was the mastermind of that 4-team deal. No one disputes that. And as far as getting a former AL MVP for AGon, Jones, and some other guys being called a complete waste, you should ask yourself the following question. Would you be saying the same thing if Nomar had only missed his average of 30-35 games in '05? You can't blame Hendry for the amount of games Nomar missed or the type of injury he suffered, but yet, you still are. Trading for and resigning Nomar was a gamble and one that I think was well worth taking. Whether or not that gamble pays off or not says nothing about the soundness of the decision to take that gamble.

I thought Hill played some 3B also? I'd rather see him backing up Ramirez than Mabry. Gary Gaetti he is not. How ironic would that be? Hill backing up Ramirez... :lol: Man I love it when Hendry fleeces other teams. If only he could do it more often.... Granted, the Cubs could use some more fleecings since he can't seem to sign a meaningful FA, but how much more often can you expect one GM to fleece another? Hundley for Grudz and Karros? Fleeced. Hill and garbage for Ramirez? Fleeced. Choi for Lee? Fleeced. Jones and not much else for Nomar and Murton? Fleeced. Honorable mention goes to Miller for Barrett. Hawkins for Williams. Hairston Jr. for Sosa. Each of those has the possibility of becoming a fleecing, but aren't there yet. He got burned on the Willis for Clement deal, but I can't call that a fleecing because no one saw Willis coming and Clement was pretty good, a whole heck of a lot better than Hundley or Hill or Choi or... Four indisputable fleecings in just 3 1/2 years. Is there any other GM out there who can come close to that?

This is what happens so often on boards like these. To my recollection, Hendry never said nor was quoted as saying that Hill or Pie were "untradeable" as you are now claiming. What did happen was that he was consistently turning down offers that were including them. There is a huge difference. We don't know who was included in those offers. If the trades that Hendry was turning down were for people like Pierre, Huff, Lugo, etc., then I have no problem with Hendry not trading away Hill and Pie for guys like that. If someone can find me the quote where Hendry said he wouldn't trade Pie or Hill for anyone, then I will happily take it all back and eat my helping of crow. It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken. But I seriously doubt he ever said that. I dont think i would be the first to claim this. I remember hearing Hendry on the radio tallking about the winter meetings a while back and he said something to the effect of 'every deal starts with hill and pie and those dont go much further'. Now my recollection to that radio interview awhile back could be a bit shady and he probably never used the word 'untradeable' but the dude clearly made the perception they wouldnt be traded unless the deal was really good. To me when you say names publicly and express difficulty doing those deals involving players your are putting up a barrier to get deals done whether you use the word untradeable or not. If im the only one dreaming this happened, ill take it all back. Yeah, man, I'm not certain either. I was just drawing the line on the use of the word "untradeable" because once that rumor gets accepted as fact (which can happen very easily on a message board), then people start criticizing Hendry for things that he has never actually said or done when there is plenty of stuff that he actually has said and done that is already worthy of criticism. I believe Hendry would trade Hill or Pie if the right deal came along. As to whether he overvalues them, there is plenty of evidence on both sides for a healthy debate. I guess only time will tell.

This is what happens so often on boards like these. To my recollection, Hendry never said nor was quoted as saying that Hill or Pie were "untradeable" as you are now claiming. What did happen was that he was consistently turning down offers that were including them. There is a huge difference. We don't know who was included in those offers. If the trades that Hendry was turning down were for people like Pierre, Huff, Lugo, etc., then I have no problem with Hendry not trading away Hill and Pie for guys like that. If someone can find me the quote where Hendry said he wouldn't trade Pie or Hill for anyone, then I will happily take it all back and eat my helping of crow. It wouldn't be the first time I was mistaken. But I seriously doubt he ever said that.

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed. So what you are saying is that no one really knows for sure? I'm just trying to find out what the hard evidence on this report is because some people seem to be saying that it is a fact that Hendry would not have traded Hill for Dunn and others are treating it like its an off handed comment made by Miles that has no basis in fact. This was based on an actual quote, from Jim Hendry, sometime in the middle of the season - I could maybe find a link, but I'm lazy. It was some interview, and they were talking about the possibility of trading with the Reds. I believe they were specifically talking about Rich Hill as a trading chip, and if he would be traded for Austin Kearns or something, to which Hendry replied, "I wouldn't trade Hill for Dunn straight up." There was never an actual trade proposed, but it was still something Hendry actually said. That's strange because that is completely different from the memory I had. Granted, my memory was a little fuzzy, thus all the questions I've been asking, but what I remember was that this rumor came from a thread on this site in which someone reported, perhaps Miles himself, that they had overheard conversations in the Wrigley press box. Perhaps that was in addition to this article you mentioned. Its still mysterious to me, but maybe a little less so thanks to you, MPrior.

No surprises here, especially on Corey. Wow, did he get lit...

There's no reason it has to be one or the other. It could be Hendry's actual valuation of Hill compared to Dunn even if the trade offer was not discussed. So what you are saying is that no one really knows for sure? I'm just trying to find out what the hard evidence on this report is because some people seem to be saying that it is a fact that Hendry would not have traded Hill for Dunn and others are treating it like its an off handed comment made by Miles that has no basis in fact.

I agree. I always thought that Marshall was higher on the prospect list than Hill when he was healthy. Its good to see him healthy again. Did anyone ever confirm that ridiculous rumor that Hendry wouldn't have traded Hill for Dunn? The way it was reported on this sight seemed pretty thin at the time. Did it somehow gain legitimacy over time? I don't think it was ever an actual deal, Bruce Miles used it as an example of how the Cubs valued Hill(or devalued Dunn, probably a little of both). That was the context I intended when I used it earlier in the thread. So Miles wasn't reporting an actual decline of a trade by Hendry, he was simply trying to make a point by giving an extreme example?

I agree. I always thought that Marshall was higher on the prospect list than Hill when he was healthy. Its good to see him healthy again. Did anyone ever confirm that ridiculous rumor that Hendry wouldn't have traded Hill for Dunn? The way it was reported on this sight seemed pretty thin at the time. Did it somehow gain legitimacy over time?

Didn't all rookie leagues get folded after last year? Isn't that why the Cubs are talking about promoting Veal and Holliman to Daytona because Peoria will be loaded with pitchers that otherwise would have been at Boise this year? In that case, all teams will be a lot more aggressive with promoting HS players to Short Season this year.

If his injury history continues, he'd be a giant waste of that $8m, especially since he'd be coming into a logjam. This argument against acquiring a better 2B because the Cubs already have three of them doesn't hold up. Logjam? If Vidro is healthy, he's clearly the best 2B on the team. If he is healthy, he is starting. What logjam? Do you mean depth? What better time to acquire a player with Vidro's injury history than when you have great depth at that position to cover for him if he got injured again. Who would you rather have backing up the OF, Grissom or Hairston? I know, I know, neither, right? But given the choice, I would much rather have Hairston due to his ability to get on base, his relative youth and defensive range. If Hendry did trade for Vidro and kept Walker, Hairston would likely move Grissom out of the picture and Walker would be the best left-handed power bat the Cubs have had coming off the bench in years. Who would you rather have to step in for Lee in case of injury, Mabry or Walker? Vidro would also provide a great hitter in the two hole. Pierre Vidro Lee Ramirez Jones Murton Barrett Cedeno is better offensively and defensively than with Walker playing 2B and hitting in the two hole. The bench also improves... Blanco - C Walker - 2B, 1B Perez - SS, 2B Mabry - 3B, 1B, OF Hairston - OF, 2B with a possible 6th spot if Baker goes with a 6-man pen (Grissom, Sing, Restovich?). That bench would give any manager a lot of options to play the optimal match-up against the pitcher and would provide some decent insurance against injury. And as far as the money is concerned, let them spend it. They're roughly 10 million under budget give or take. Money is rarely much of a concern at the trade deadline because there are only two months of salary left to pay. And in case Hendry trades for a really good but expensive position player, the Cubs have some big salaries coming off the books next season (Maddux, Wood, etc.) which will allow them to keep such a player without needing to be under budget at the deadline. So how is trading for Vidro a bad idea? Because the past 2 seasons he's played in 110 and 87 games, respectively, and is coming off of a series of knee injuries, and makes $8m. If the Cubs can get him for the equivalent of Walker's salary, and for a small prospect cost, fine-then it's an appropriate risk/reward level. But if we're taking on all $8m, I'd just as soon save that money in case an impact player becomes available. As good of a player as Vidro was/might still be, he's not the impact player this offense needs. You either disagreed with and ignored or simply ignored the bolded section in my previous post. In any case, the issues raised in it were not addressed in your response. But at least you dropped the "logjam" portion of your argument. No one really knows except for people close to Hendry what the Cubs payroll budget really is. Here is what we do know. They set a record for ticket sales last month. They have approx. 1800 more seats to sell each game this year with some of them being premium priced seats in the RF bleachers. They have sold naming rights to the bleachers which will bring in more revenue. Last season's was around 95 million IIRC, so it would make sense for this season to be more with all the added revenue streams. Given the rate of growth over the last several years, it would be logical to put the Cubs payroll limit at around 100 million not including the new revenue streams. Right now, I have the current players costing the Tribune around 93 million. If the new revenue raises the budget limit to 105, then acquiring Vidro at full salary won't matter much. If Hendry is able to acquire a top-notch RFer at the deadline, he will only have to pay his salary for the last two months of the year. And if that player has a contract extending beyond '06, the 20 million gained from the loss of Maddux and Wood will easily allow for it. It is important to remember that Vidro is an improvement offensively and devensively over Walker and Hairston. I agree that Vidro is an injury risk and that there is a good chance he will miss playing time again this season. How much playing time is yet to be seen. Just because he missed 70 games last season, doesn't mean that he is guaranteed to do so again this year. But if he did, the Cubs would have plenty of depth to cover for him at the 2B position and may well have plenty of money left over to acquire an expensive contract at the deadline. Should Hendry do his best to acquire him at less than his full salary? Of course. I'm not advocating trading for him at full price, just that if it came to that, I think Hendry should still get him so long as the personnel he is trading away is downgraded to match the taking on of Vidro's full salary. So, once again, I ask how is trading for Vidro a bad idea?

How is trading for Nomar a bad idea? It wasn't. It was a great gamble to take. I take it you disagree?

If his injury history continues, he'd be a giant waste of that $8m, especially since he'd be coming into a logjam. This argument against acquiring a better 2B because the Cubs already have three of them doesn't hold up. Logjam? If Vidro is healthy, he's clearly the best 2B on the team. If he is healthy, he is starting. What logjam? Do you mean depth? What better time to acquire a player with Vidro's injury history than when you have great depth at that position to cover for him if he got injured again. Who would you rather have backing up the OF, Grissom or Hairston? I know, I know, neither, right? But given the choice, I would much rather have Hairston due to his ability to get on base, his relative youth and defensive range. If Hendry did trade for Vidro and kept Walker, Hairston would likely move Grissom out of the picture and Walker would be the best left-handed power bat the Cubs have had coming off the bench in years. Who would you rather have to step in for Lee in case of injury, Mabry or Walker? Vidro would also provide a great hitter in the two hole. Pierre Vidro Lee Ramirez Jones Murton Barrett Cedeno is better offensively and defensively than with Walker playing 2B and hitting in the two hole. The bench also improves... Blanco - C Walker - 2B, 1B Perez - SS, 2B Mabry - 3B, 1B, OF Hairston - OF, 2B with a possible 6th spot if Baker goes with a 6-man pen (Grissom, Sing, Restovich?). That bench would give any manager a lot of options to play the optimal match-up against the pitcher and would provide some decent insurance against injury. And as far as the money is concerned, let them spend it. They're roughly 10 million under budget give or take. Money is rarely much of a concern at the trade deadline because there are only two months of salary left to pay. And in case Hendry trades for a really good but expensive position player, the Cubs have some big salaries coming off the books next season (Maddux, Wood, etc.) which will allow them to keep such a player without needing to be under budget at the deadline. So how is trading for Vidro a bad idea?

I agree that Cubs pitching as the much greater likelihood of becoming a tradeable commodity, but with players like Murton and Walker on the roster, position players could also be traded. If Murton plays well, but not great, he could be included in a trade along with surplus arms for a power-hitting RFer with Jones moving over to LF. And with players like Hairston healthy and on the roster, Walker becomes tradeable as well. Hairston's OBP is comparable to Walker's but he has better speed for a #2 hitter and is slightly better defensively. If Walker would help bring in a power-hitting, left-handed RFer, there would be little reason for Hendry not to trade him. I agree that Jones or Pierre being traded is far less likely, but if the right player becomes available, it certainly is still possible, at least after June 15th. The only scenario in which I mentioned Pierre being traded was for a lead-off hitting SS or 2B which would open a spot for Pie to play CF and provide the Cubs with the most player value. If CF is taken up by a weak-hitting lead-off guy like Pierre, Pie will have to be moved to a corner position where his hitting ability becomes a lot closer to league average and possibly even below. There was a reason why Hendry placed such importance on getting Furcal to lead-off.

Jim Hendry failed to land the big free agent fish again this off season. IMO, Brian Giles was the biggest of the big fish with others like B.J. Ryan, A.J. Burnett, Rafael Furcal and Kevin Millwood also going elsewhere. It may never be known if Hendry ever had a legitimate chance to lure Giles and others to the northside, but if things break the Cubs way this season, the players Hendry did bring in could make for some interesting trade opportunities this summer. Teams are always looking for effective and talented arms, be they starters or relievers. If the Cubs finally catch a break, they may have plenty of both to deal come this summer. If Williamson returns to his previous form, as his late-September performance showed he can, players like Michael Wuertz and Roberto Novoa can easily be traded. If Kerry Wood and Wade Miller can stay healthy and perform well, you can add Glendon Rusch and Jerome Williams to that list. If the Cubs want to keep Williams around as a replacement for Maddux in '07, Scott Williamson becomes available as Williams would move to the pen. And we haven't even mentioned Angel Guzman or Rich Hill yet. What pitchers could be traded if either one of those guys steps up? It is interesting to note that not all of the possible "breaks" have to go the Cubs way in order for Hendry to have a lot of quality arms to deal, just some of them. It is difficult to determine at this point who might be available to trade for in June or July. But I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to see Jones sliding over to LF and packaging Murton with several major league ready arms for a really good RFer. Or if Murton is going really good, trading Jones with several arms instead. Perhaps a trade for a SS could still happen mid-season with Cedeno either moving to 2B or being included in the deal. Walker could certainly still go with Hairston being fully healthy again. If they acquire a SS or 2B who is a lead-off hitter, perhaps Pierre could be dealt with Pie taking his place in CF assuming Felix continues to improve at AAA. The signing of Jones to a 3-year contract still baffles me, but the additions of Pierre, Eyre, Howry, Miller and the re-signings of Rusch and Walker have given Hendry plenty of options come June and July. Now the question is, can he turn those options into OBP and a great, power-hitting RFer before the trade deadline? And if he can, will it be too little, too late?

Being healthy is one thing, Wade also has to be effective. At the moment, according to Cubs.com, Miller isn't on the 40-man roster and is not expected to be fully ready to go until May at the earliest, so being healthy by the break is predictable, but working Miller into the rotation would only come after he has recaptured his previous form and there is no way to judge the likelihood of that happening right now.

No, actually I didn't forget to mention that. It was earlier in the thread so you probably missed it, but you can go back and find the post if you like. I also don't remember calling Pie a lock to do anything in the majors. I have acknowledged more than once in this thread that not trading him for Dunn would be a risky thing to do. Now that we have cleared that up, here is what I am saying. Pie could be more valuable than Dunn given his ability to play CF and play it at a gold glove level with an excellent arm and great speed on the basepaths. He is also 5-6 years younger and isn't about to become very, very expensive. The question we have yet to discuss is how likely is it for Pie to maintain an OPS above .850 in the major leagues, and if he did that, keeping in mind all of the other advantages over Dunn I just listed, would that make him a more valuable player? The answer to the 2nd question I believe is yes. The answer to the first question is the one I'm most interested in. You think his chances of being that kind of hitter are "really small". Well, he appears to have the power to maintain an OPS above .850, the question is does he have the batter's eye and plate discipline? And at the age of 21, is it too late for him to develop those abilities? Your thoughts, Cubs fans?

I have thought that both sides of this issue have good reasons to support their opinion for months now. I waver back and forth on whether I would be willing to give up on Pie before knowing more about his likelihood of fulfilling on his potential. But I still think that Pie's ability to play CF and play it incredibly well, his arm and his speed on the basepaths are going unacknowledged in this thread. These are abilities that he possesses now. We don't have to wonder if he will be able to do them at the major league level. The base running still needs some refinement, but his defense, by all accounts is there now. He is already better than Dunn at that and is able to do it at near gold glove levels in a much more impactful position (CF) than Dunn's (LF). I don't think that big difference in their games is being taken into account when you are making your argument. I understand that Pie likely will be very good defensively, but if he can't hit major league pitching, that just makes him Tom Goodwin or Corey Patterson. Pie could be very good, even great, and I hold out hope he will do this, but if trading him now nets Dunn, I'd do that deal any day of the week and twice on Sundays. As might I, as I have said twice earlier in this thread, but not Pie plus Williams plus Marshall plus Dopirak or whoever else. Isn't that unnecessary overkill? If Pie has the chance of being a better all around player than Dunn is then why would it be fair to add all of that other talent to the deal? Because Dunn is already at that level, and Pie is very unlikely to ever reach it, nevermind sustain it for several seasons. But to be equal to or better than Dunn, Pie doesn't have to match Dunn's offensive output because he can play CF and play it at a gold glove level not to mention is arm and speed on the basepaths, he is 5-6 years younger and could produce really good numbers at league minimum for several years to come. No one is suggesting that Pie will ever be the type of producer with the bat that Dunn is now. Of course that is very unlikely to happen. The question is how likely is it for Pie to fulfill his potential as a hitter and what is that ceiling? At age 20, Pie and Dunn put up very similar OPS numbers with Dunn having much better patience at the plate but with Pie producing his numbers in AA while Dunn was at High-A. Dunn's ceiling seems to be around a .950 OPS maybe higher if he can get his average up and Ks down. Is Pie's ceiling an .850 OPS? Higher? Lower? I submit that it is very difficult to tell at this point. This is a critical season for Felix.

No one is suggesting that trading Dunn for Pie would be for defensive purposes. Are you suggesting that Pie can't hit? Certainly the chances of Pie being an above average hitter are much greater than the chances of him being a complete flop, right? How does the sentence, "a gold glove caliber fielder who can't hit is worthless" apply to this discussion? What I am suggesting is that a left-fielder with a .930-.950 OPS and not much else who is about to become very expensive pales in comparison to a gold glove caliber center-fielder with a .860-.890 OPS with great speed on the base paths who is 5-6 years younger and still has many seasons at or near league minimum. It is absolutely accurate to say that Pie may not ever become the player I described above. It is also absolutely accurate to say that he may. It would be great to have a discussion/debate about the chances of Pie fulfilling on his potential. Remember, at age 20, Pie put up an OPS of .903 in 240 ABs against AA pitching. At the same age, Dunn had an OPS of .897 in 420 ABs against High-A pitching. I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence that Pie will be as good or better than Dunn with the bat. No way. Only that this is one piece of statistical evidence that shows that it is possible. Dunn exploded the following year. Pie would have to take it to the next level as well. But if he can refine his batting eye, what are we looking at?

Agreed, exactly what I've been saying. Stick Pie in RF and its a lot easier to trade him for a player like Dunn. But even if Pierre is signed long term, he can still be traded. It is Pie's ability to provide gold glove CF and hit for a .850 or higher OPS with great speed on the base paths that makes me wonder if dealing him now before really understanding what the Cubs have might be a really bad idea. I understand Dunn's value. I agree completely that he is a special hitter. I understand the logic that says go get the sure thing and risk giving up the unproven player that could turn out to be better all around. I'm just not so willing to pull the trigger quite yet. Having Pie at league minimum for four years would allow the Cubs to sign Dunn or someone like him as a free agent. And I'm certainly not willing to give up Williams and others in the process. If Pie puts up numbers like he did last season this year at AAA, he could be for real.

I have thought that both sides of this issue have good reasons to support their opinion for months now. I waver back and forth on whether I would be willing to give up on Pie before knowing more about his likelihood of fulfilling on his potential. But I still think that Pie's ability to play CF and play it incredibly well, his arm and his speed on the basepaths are going unacknowledged in this thread. These are abilities that he possesses now. We don't have to wonder if he will be able to do them at the major league level. The base running still needs some refinement, but his defense, by all accounts is there now. He is already better than Dunn at that and is able to do it at near gold glove levels in a much more impactful position (CF) than Dunn's (LF). I don't think that big difference in their games is being taken into account when you are making your argument. I understand that Pie likely will be very good defensively, but if he can't hit major league pitching, that just makes him Tom Goodwin or Corey Patterson. Pie could be very good, even great, and I hold out hope he will do this, but if trading him now nets Dunn, I'd do that deal any day of the week and twice on Sundays. As might I, as I have said twice earlier in this thread, but not Pie plus Williams plus Marshall plus Dopirak or whoever else. Isn't that unnecessary overkill? If Pie has the chance of being a better all around player than Dunn is then why would it be fair to add all of that other talent to the deal?

I have thought that both sides of this issue have good reasons to support their opinion for months now. I waver back and forth on whether I would be willing to give up on Pie before knowing more about his likelihood of fulfilling on his potential. But I still think that Pie's ability to play CF and play it incredibly well, his arm and his speed on the basepaths are going unacknowledged in this thread. These are abilities that he possesses now. We don't have to wonder if he will be able to do them at the major league level. The base running still needs some refinement, but his defense, by all accounts is there now. He is already better than Dunn at that and is able to do it at near gold glove levels in a much more impactful position (CF) than Dunn's (LF). I don't think that big difference in their games is being taken into account when you are making your argument.