dew1679666265
-
Posts
20,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by dew1679666265
-
This is twice you've been wrong about what I said. Less than $8-10 million, so something like $6-7 mil for one year. It might take as much as 8-10 for Pena, but I doubt it. And Dunn has been very consistent for the most part, I've never complained about his consistency. It's whether he can keep that up to a $14 million clip over 4 years that I'm concerned about. And there are signs that he won't.
-
Some or most of these have been mentioned previously, but I thought I'd throw them out again: In 2010, Dunn had his: lowest HR total since 2003 lowest BB rate in his career highest K rate in his career highest career BABIP in his career lowest OBP since 2003 lowest IsoD in his career lowest wOBA since 2006
-
This is what I don't get. We are stuck in a horrible position. Our major league team could possibly contend this year, but not the way they are built. And it's not like we are built for a breakout season in 2-3 years when all of our prospects are ready. So why save money unless we are planning more along the lines for 4-5 years from now? I don't see why this team can't have a breakout season within 3 years from now. We'll still have Marshall, Marmol (possibly), Soto and Castro (should be peaking or about to), Wells and Cashner on the ML team. A large number of our top prospects should be coming up or established in the majors by then as well. If we aren't a good to very good team by 2013 then more mistakes have been made personnel wise and/or a decent number of key prospects have flamed out.
-
Carlos Pena and Nick Johnson are both very likely to sign much, much cheaper deals - perhaps 1 year and less than $8-10 mil for both of them. For guys who very realistically could exceed Dunn's value, those would be very good deals. You are funny. Yeah, going by those silly little statistics is pretty funny, isn't it. I should just go by preconceived notions and reputation I guess.
-
It's not a matter of expecting or guaranteeing Nick Johnson to stay healthy, that's why you add depth as well (i.e. Chris Davis). It's not like DLee is the picture of health either. As for Pena, in the worst possible scenario for him last year he had a .324 wOBA. When his BABIP wasn't incredibly low (2009) he had a .373 wOBA. He's also younger than DLee and would be a better option.
-
DLee 2010: .340 wOBA - 2.0 WAR Nick Johnson 2009 (most recent fully healthy year): .373 wOBA - 2.5 WAR If he can stay healthy, Johnson is a much better option than DLee. He's younger, might come cheaper and is more productive when healthy. I'd be on board with adding Chris Davis, though.
-
It's definitely not going to happen getting a couple hundred PAs a year and then being shipped back to the minors. Gordon got regular playing time for two seasons - his first full year he posted a .317 wOBA and in his second year he posted a .344 wOBA. Since then, he's gotten sporadic at best playing time and still had a .321 wOBA in 2009. His IsoP has been 70-100 points every year in the majors. All he needs is consistent playing time and we could likely have him for Colvin+a little considering Dayton Moore's history. He was also a 2.1 and 2.3 WAR player his only full years - just two wins worse than Dunn's best year.
-
Carlos Pena and Nick Johnson are both very likely to sign much, much cheaper deals - perhaps 1 year and less than $8-10 mil for both of them. For guys who very realistically could exceed Dunn's value, those would be very good deals.
-
I've thrown out a whole lot of options - most have very real chances of being as good a value as Dunn - and yet you focus on two or three. Both Carlos Pena and Nick Johnson have very recent histories of being as valuable or moreso than Dunn and will cost $40-50 million less than him and don't carry the same risk he does. Alex Gordon is significantly younger and has two seasons already under his belt of having more nearly as much value as Dunn. And he'll cost about $55 million less + prospects.
-
I'm sure we could compete, but the question is would we be willing to compete. Guys like Castro and Brett Jackson are probably off limits, so we'd have to build the package around some combo of Vitters, JJax, Cashner, Archer, HJ Lee, etc. I don't know if that'd be enough to compete with a Boston offer, but I'm sure we could if we were willing to give up Castro or BJax.
-
Because management might spend the savings poorly isn't a reason to advocate them signing a bad deal. Much like the DeRosa trade was good even though they made the mistake of signing Aaron Miles because of it, advocating signing Dunn primarily because they might use those savings on Bobby Jenkins and Kevin Millwood isn't correct.
-
Very true, but we're likely to get Pena on a one-year, bounce back deal - or at most a two year deal. There's no way he's approaching Dunn type money after the year he just had. He'd be a nice stopgap while we either pursue Gonzalez/Fielder or figure out what else we're going to do. There's a chance Vitters is ready to play first in a couple of years and Pena can fill that length of time adequately. That said, I've said before I really like the idea of Nick Johnson and a backup. Maybe Chris Davis, or if you hate him insert another name. You get the upside that's better than Dunn, with the very cheap cost of an injury-prone guy. My pipe dream is still Gordon, but as with most pipe dreams, that isn't happening.
-
I'd be fine with either Pena or a Johnson/Davis duo. If Johnson can stay healthy, he's the best option of anybody, Dunn included. Pena is likely to bounce back to be only a little less valuable than Dunn and at a significantly lower cost and commitment.
-
Just to throw it out again: Dunn's 2010 WAR (highest of his career): 3.9 Pena's 2009 WAR (not close to a career year for him): 2.8 – 2008 WAR (career year): 4.0
-
I'm not conceding a season. I'm advocating not overpaying an old player and instead giving a smaller contract to a player who is of similar value to the overpaid one. That's a smart financial decision. I'm not concerned about the first couple of years, it's the mid 30s that concern me and that's likely when this team will be peaking.
-
You're acting as if there's a 10 win difference between Dunn and the other options. If Pena returns just to 2009 level, we're looking at a 2 win difference between the two. That's simply not that much and certainly isn't worth three extra years and $40-50 million more. If it was Dunn or Hoffpauir, I could understand. But Pena, Johnson and Gordon simply aren't that much worse than Dunn.
-
It's not going cheap. It's making smart financial decisions. Overpaying for an old player who will only marginally help more than the other options is not a good financial decision. Pena, Johnson, Gordon can provide similar value for a significantly smaller cost and commitment.
-
This team will have problems contending for the playoffs because there's not enough talent and too many injury questions on this team, not just because a couple of guys are overpaid. Signing Adam Dunn alone isn't enough to change that and there just aren't enough good options out there to fix this team this year. Now maybe we invest $56 million into a 31 year old player, win 83 games and miss the playoffs by 2 games. And that's the best year we get out of that 31 year old player. Conversely, we potentially can spend $10 mil to fill first base and win 81 games. How is that 31 year old player a good investment for this team?
-
I think that's the biggest positive a first baseman can make defensively. With a SS like Dunston or super young Castro, it can be a big help, I think. If you have Omar Vizquel, Rey Ordonez and Adrian Beltre around the infield, though, it's not as big a help because your infield defense is really good (but the offense is horrid).
-
I disagree with both, as has been outlined multiple times on here.
-
I agree, though I think Webb's only concern is health. When he's been healthy, he's been very good. I don't know that there's anything to fix really (unless he's been hurt because of something mechanical).
-
If Dunn stays the same and Pena returns to 2009 numbers (not close to his best year) you're looking at about a 1 win difference between the two. If Dunn declines at all next year and Pena returns to 2009 level, they're about the same. And we'd be paying Dunn about $40-50 million more than we would be Pena.
-
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? Because we're investing a whole lot more money in Dunn and tying up first base with a guy who will likely be in decline when this team is able to be really good again. If we go with Johnson/Davis/Gordon or Carlos Pena, we'll be able to reassess next year and potentially bring in or have a guy who could be at his best when this team is back on the rise.
-
Brett Jackson replacing Fukudome, Dempster returning or Chris Archer/JJax/Cashner taking his place and a solid journeyman at third (or Vitters potentially) doesn't sound like a bad team to me. It'll be better in 2013 than 2012, but that team, combined with Gonzalez, could be pretty good.
-
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.