dew1679666265

You have no idea what you are talking about assuming when exactly the Cubs are going to become really good. It's a stupid assertion to make. This isn't the Rays poised to have a breakout year. You don't plan a team to get better three years from now. I don't like the way the Cubs have been built, but the fact is we're too old and injury prone to be a good bet to contend for the next year or two. Sure, if we sign Dunn we have a better chance at the playoffs, but the chances still aren't that good – and we're tying up $56 mil over 4 years on a guy who's likely going to decline. It's a desperation move and not financially smart. Over the next couple of years (2012 and on) we have a wealth of high upside young players coming through the system (B Jackson, Archer, Cashner, Vitters, JJax, etc) and young players on the ML squad who should be breaking out over the next couple of years (Castro, maybe Dewitt). There's plenty of reason to think we'll be a much, much better team in 2013 and 2014 than we will be this year. Is that the way you should build a team? No, but it's the reality this team faces and Adam Dunn alone won't be enough to change that.

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. My opinion that we shouldn't have signed Dunn has nothing to do with Gonzalez. I'd like to see us sign Gonzalez for the reasons I've outlined, but my lack of interest in Dunn is based on the reasons I and others have outlined. There is very little chance this team is any more than a borderline playoff team with or without Adam Dunn. That's not worth $56 mil over 4 years to a 31 year old player.

Dunn may not fall off a cliff, but he'll likely be in decline and it's likely to come right at the time this team is really getting better. Like I said, if he doesn't decline in his ages 33-34 years, then I'm wrong. But it's a risk and it's one I don't think is worth taking when his best years will come during our worst years. As for Gonzalez, if he's really good for 3 years, they'll come just as this team should be getting really good and by the time he starts to really decline, Soriano's hefty contract will be off the books. That's a much better situation than Dunn's. Had we signed Dunn, I wouldn't hate it. But there's plenty of reason why this isn't a terrible non-move by the Cubs.

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. Note the word in bold - not terrified. Terrified was Mojo's word and it's not an accurate description of my opinion. My biggest problem with Dunn is that the time he's likely to struggle the most is the time when we'll be peaking. His best years will be when we're a borderline playoff team. If he does age well and doesn't struggle the last two years of his deal, then it would be a good contract and I'm wrong. But it's a risk that I don't think is worth it for this team in the current position.

Dunn is a proven asset who could be worth only 1-2 wins over the other options and will cost $40-50 million more over 3 more years. And he'd be coming to a team that may not even be a playoff team with him. It's simply not worth the investment. And he's not robbing a bank. He's a good player, but not the right addition in our position. It's a desperation move hoping to catch lightning in a bottle for a year or two. After that, there's a better than average chance he declines quite a bit for two years. I'm not arguing against Dunn as a player, I'm arguing against him in our situation when his best years will likely be our worst.

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.

4/56 for a 31 year old player isn't all that small a deal. It's not 10/160 or anything, but it's a significant portion of a budget, especially when a team is already saddled with close to $20 mil a year with one terrible contract (Soriano).

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?

That is not a good call at all. That's terrible ownership. My guess is Hendry just didn't want to spend the portion of his budget on Dunn. But if Ricketts didn't authorize it then he's a much worse owner than I suspected. He's a much worse owner than you suspected because he doesn't want to chance having two bad contracts for a year or two in exchange for going from a mediocre team to a slightly less mediocre team? Like I said, with Dunn next year we're a borderline playoff team. If Ricketts didn't deem that worthy of paying him $28 million his age 33 and 34 years, I'm fine with that. If we were a better team right now, I'd have a different view but potentially saddling ourselves with a bad contract for an old player just isn't a good idea in our position - especially with Soriano already on the books.

Bradley and Dunn are two very different players. By signing Bradley, there was a very good chance we wouldn't have him for significant portions of every year of his deal. It was very possible (and this is why I argued against him at the time) that we wouldn't get any value out of him if he stayed injured all the time. With Dunn, there are no injury concerns and I'm pretty confident he'll give good to great value the first couple years of the deal. If we were already a good team and looking to be great, trading two good to very good years of Dunn for, potentially, two bad years is a good trade. With Bradley, there was a very realistic chance we wouldn't have gotten one full good year out of him - that's why signing him as the "last piece of the puzzle" is a bad idea. I was in favor of signing Dunn that offseason, for what it's worth.

With the market being established by the contracts of Martinez and Huff, it really is a good deal for the Sox. There's only a 2-3 mil diff between Dunn and them and the production difference is likely far greater than the dollar diff equates to. In an open market, the extra 2 mil will bring a marginal reliever/utility glove. It's a better deal for an AL team than an NL team, I think. They can play Dunn at DH some (a lot later in the contract, I'd say) and negate some of the negative impact of his defense and prolong his likely productivity.

You're quickly becoming my favorite NSBB novelty acct. "Grr...Ricketts...grumble...grumble..." I can't remember the last time I criticized the Family before yesterday. The Africa trip comes to mind immediately. I really don't see what's to complain about Ricketts here. If he didn't authorize Hendry paying a 31 year old $14 mil a year for 4 years,then that's a pretty good call. If Hendry just decided to go another route other than paying $56 mil for a 31 year old then Ricketts wasn't involved at all.

First off, Johnson (when healthy, that's a key) is a much, much better player than any of the guys you mentioned. He consistently puts up an OBP over .400. He's a useful player if you have some depth. Which brings me to my next point - why not go for both? Sign Johnson to something like a 1/5 deal (money is flexible, I just used that amount to have a number) and then trade Chirinos for Chris Davis? Or Colvin/etc for Gordon? Start Johnson and when he inevitably gets hurt, you have Gordon or Davis to fill in (though I'd probably start Gordon at first if we got him, though with signing Nick Johnson, Gordon could also serve as third base depth as well).

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.

Two years ago he was an outfielder and his defense was horrific. It was pretty public that teams (including the Cubs) were shying away from him because of that awful defense. Now, he's an average to below average defensive first baseman and teams aren't as scared of him negating his offensive value with terrible defense. Plus, it's possible there was some agreement that he'd be willing to play DH later in the contract. Two years ago, he was completely opposed to the idea.

I don't like the idea of signing a bad contract just to sign somebody. We do have a hole at first base, but giving out too many years and too much money to Dunn is not the answer. I'd much rather see us give a good contract to Nick Johnson and re-asses next year than to be saddled with another contract that could go bad for us while Soriano is still on the books.

Even if we do trade one of Chirinos/Castillo, we still have the other to be the backup catcher - and he'll probably be more productive than Koyie. And that leaves us Clevenger (I believe) to be the AAA catcher and ML depth if one of Soto or the backup go down. Also, we can pretty easily find a better catcher (at least offensively) on the FA market.

There's probably not room on the roster for him. Assuming we keep Fukudome, we have him, Soriano, Byrd and Colvin and also have Baker who can play the corners and hits lefties hard. If we sold high on Colvin or if we trade Fuku, I could see some interest. But our outfield is pretty full already.

But TCU joined a major conference for 2012, shouldn't that make them eligible to play for the national title? In 2012, yes. In 2010, no.

Exactly.

Since the schools (allegedly) didn't agree to provde aid/assistance/etc. then Cecil couldn't agree to receive benefits. By soliciting aren't you agreeing to do it if offered? I guess it's a technicality loophole if they simply don't want to rule him ineligible (which I'm sure they don't), but it's pretty weak.

Hopefully they don't mean this only in leadership terms and, instead, mean that he'll be getting some starts at first to give Pujols days off. I thought it meant he would be spotting Pujols in the weight room. Can Theriot lift "a lot" of actual weight? Maybe once he gets on Albert's "vitamin" regimen. Theriot's grit does more than "vitamins" anyday.

Shouldn't this make Cam Newton ineligible by SEC rules?

This wouldn't surprise me at all.

Hopefully they don't mean this only in leadership terms and, instead, mean that he'll be getting some starts at first to give Pujols days off. I thought it meant he would be spotting Pujols in the weight room. Can Theriot lift "a lot" of actual weight?