dew1679666265

I think we will see an improvement next year, but there has also been talk of dropping payroll for next year, maybe significantly. It's not even so much room to make improvements, however, as it is who do we target? Cliff Lee will probably be vastly more than I want to pay him (likely Halladay type money) and there's really just not that much else out there. Trades might change things a bit, however. If the plan is to contend next year no matter what, then sign Dunn. If the plan is to determine a little better what we've got in some of these young players and be a little more clear on what holes we have and what the young players can give us, then go after a Carlos Pena or a AAAA upside guy (Kila) and dip into a likely stronger FA class in a year.

We will get more years and production out of Gonzalez from 2012 on. He'll be 30 to start the 2012 season, while Dunn will be 32. It may be a bit of an assumption, but it's really likely I'm right about that. It's not that I don't want us to try to compete next year, it's that I don't think there's a smart, realistic way to put together a really good team. We could go throw money at Dunn and Cliff Lee, but both are probably going to get more than they should - especially Lee. There might be some trade possibilities and if Hendry can go get Billy Butler or somebody, that'd be better than any of the FA options this year or next. I don't see that as happening, though. I think there's too many question marks on this team to be able to work with this free agent market and put together a 90+ win team. I think we can get back into the 80-85 range without signing Dunn, however (sign Pena to a 1-year deal, for instance).

I'd absolutely be fine with Dunn on a reasonable contract and if he signs one with the Cubs, I'll be quite happy. With the weak FA class and the likelihood that his value around the league has increased with the move to first, I don't think it's likely, though. Like I said before, though, Gonzalez isn't the only option in the 2012 class. Swisher may well become available and he'd be a good pickup as well, possibly as good as Dunn or close to it.

What's my assumption? The logic in passing on Dunn is that I'm hesitant to give a four year, big money contract to a guy who will be 32 before we likely will be competitive again. I was a huge Dunn supporter 2 years ago when we signed Milton Bradley, but I don't know that potentially overpaying for Dunn now would make a lot of sense when there very possibly could be better options available a year later, when we'll actually (from my point of view) be competitive again.

If the goal is to compete next year, then Dunn is the better option. My point of view is that we simply have too many questions and not enough options in free agency this offseason to compete next year. In signing Lee and Dunn, we're investing $12-15 mil a year in Dunn and probably $20+ mil a year in Lee while we still have major question marks at third, right, left and the bullpen. I'm more in favor of filling holes with stopgaps in the offseason and seeing what we've got in Castro for another year, Cashner (hopefully as a starter), J Jackson and Colvin for another year and perhaps even Brett Jackson without feeling like we have to shuttle them back and forth. We'll then have a better idea of what we need at the 2011 deadline and the 2012 offseason and, maybe, can fill holes more efficiently. Also, if we pass on Dunn this year and miss on Gonzalez in 2012 (or if he doesn't become available), Nick Swisher may be available that year as well. He has a $10.25 mil team option, but it's unlikely to be picked up if the Yankees make a play for Gonzalez or Fielder that offseason. Swisher has a similar WAR to Dunn this year, had a much higher WAR last year, is younger and probably cheaper than Dunn. I'd argue Swisher could be a better option than Dunn at this point as well.

No he can't. If a 1B isn't hitting he's not providing value. Defense matters at first base, just not nearly as much as most other positions. Doesn't make a lick of a difference when trying to claim a 1B that can't hit can provide value. If the Cubs have a high priced 1B that can't hit, it's gonna suck regardless of his glove. I didn't say "can't hit," I said if the bat falters a bit. If both hitters drop from .900 OPS guys to .820-.850 OPS guys, Gonzalez is more valuable because he's much better defensively than Dunn. We'd also get at least a year or two more high end production out of Gonzalez than Dunn.

Wouldn't it make sense, then, to pursue the guy who's going to be the most productive once we get competitive? Dunn will be 32 in 2012, which is probably the next time we'll be competitive, while Gonzalez will be 30 that year. We might get 1-2 seasons of production from Dunn once we get competitive again, compared to 3-4 out of Gonzalez.

No he can't. If a 1B isn't hitting he's not providing value. Defense matters at first base, just not nearly as much as most other positions.

As do I. I had Gonzalez being 29 when he signs in 2012 the first time I added it up and then had to figure up Dunn's age 2-3 times to make sure I was right. The age alone isn't enough, I agree. However, the age + Dunn very possibly getting close to his demands because of a really weak FA market + double the WAR + Gonzalez signing in a year we'll likely be competitive is enough for me to consider holding out for him. I'd hope the Cubs get involved in the Dunn bidding, however, and see if they can get him for some sort of deal like the Nationals got. I just don't think that's very likely.

I would actually like a better explanation of it myself. I've heard a number of times that he isn't the type of hitter who ages well, but I don't know specifically why. The patience makes me think he would, but on the other hand, the tendency to either slug or K otherwise makes me think he wouldn't. His BB% has dropped this year, however, from 18.7 in 2008 to 17.4 in 2009 to 11.4 this year. His K% is also the highest it's been in his career (by a little bit) at 35.3%. One big part, I think, is Dunn has nothing to fall back on if his offense falters a bit. He's still mediocre defensively at first, whereas Gonzalez can still provide solid value with the glove if his bat dips a bit later in the contract.

I think there's a good chance he'll be available, not that the Cubs necessarily will get him. That said, the free agent market will be much, much stronger (as it stands now) in 2012 than this offseason. Thus, there's far more alternatives for teams to spend on that year than there are this year. With a more shallow pool, you're looking at more of a likelihood that teams get desperate to make a splash and try too heavily for Dunn, whereas teams might start shying away more quickly from Gonzalez when there are numerous other upgrade opportunities available on the market. Well then the Cubs can go out and spend on other options in 2012 if they have 1B settled. Also, free agency always looks better the further out you go, because guys haven't signed their extensions yet. That's why I said "as it stands now." My biggest concern with Dunn is that he won't age well. If he does start to really decline by 2011-2012, then first base won't be settled all that well going into 2012. We won't be looking to fill it, but we very well may be getting underproduction from that spot if Dunn declines. Gonzalez at 30 in 2012 is far less likely to decline than Dunn at 32 in 2012.

Dunn will turn 31 this November (born 11/9/1979). The age isn't a huge difference, as I said, but it's a plus for Gonzalez nonetheless. And I still think the fact that we're very unlikely to be highly competitive next year for the first year of Dunn's contract, whereas we should be able to field a much more competitive team starting in 2012 and going forward.

I think there's a good chance he'll be available, not that the Cubs necessarily will get him. That said, the free agent market will be much, much stronger (as it stands now) in 2012 than this offseason. Thus, there's far more alternatives for teams to spend on that year than there are this year. With a more shallow pool, you're looking at more of a likelihood that teams get desperate to make a splash and try too heavily for Dunn, whereas teams might start shying away more quickly from Gonzalez when there are numerous other upgrade opportunities available on the market.

As has been mentioned, there will be a nearly 2 year difference between Dunn and Gonzalez when they sign. Dunn will be 31 in November, Gonzalez will be 29 in May of 2012. That's not a major gap in age, but it's pretty significant. Then you also consider Dunn may only have 2 years of high-end productivity during his contract and one of those two years will probably be in a non-competitive season (2011). You could well get 4+ high quality years out of Gonzalez when you sign him and, ideally, the Cubs are highly competitive in all those years. And Gonzalez will command more money and how much depends on whether we should focus on Dunn or Gonzalez. If Dunn asks for and gets a 4/50-60 type deal and Gonzalez gets a 6/120 (or even 8/160) deal at two years younger, is that worth it? Gonzalez has averaged more than double the WAR that Dunn has over the past four seasons and Gonzalez's worst WAR in that time frame (3.2) is nearly as good as Dunn's best (3.3) this year. Factor in that Gonzalez's production will come at a point that we'll be able to contend (unlike next year most likely) and he's far more valuable than Dunn. The biggest question is whether we'll have a realistic shot at Gonzalez and that's a very legitimate question. That's where Hendry will have to make the determination as to whether he's likely to hit the free market or not. There's ample reason to believe, however, that Gonzalez will be available and if he is, he's a much better alternative to Dunn.

The interview is great by the way Bruce!

Bruce Miles' interview with Ryne Sandberg. More to come as well on Bruce's blog.

I'm hurt. I thought this was going to be my first ever stickied thread.

LeGarrette Blount also looked really good last night, which is a great sign.

I'm excited about Verner playing well. I've not been real impressed by the Mouton/McCourty duo and Tye Hill is interesting but probably no more than a solid 3rd or 4th corner.

Young has a .667 winning percentage as a starter. But I just can't stand his awful throwing motion. No one wins a Super Bowl unless they can become a pocket passer. I don't really have a problem with his motion. His problem is more decision making than physical issues. That's why I'm glad that he's been making the correct reads most of the time this preseason, it's a positive step for the weakest part of his game. And he really hasn't been that good as a starter so far. The QB record/winning % (an overrated stat, honestly) is deceiving because he's been on so many good Titans teams. The only team you can really say he played a big part in improving is the second half of last year and even that was largely because the secondary decided to cover people. That said, Vince can definitely become a good to very good quarterback if he can improve his decision making. The throwing motion isn't that big a deal because he's shown he can make all the throws. I think he can continue to improve his decision making, but that'll be the key.

This is an interesting point. If we resign ourselves to the idea that we won't contend next year, then I'd wait for Gonzalez/Fielder and then go for Swisher as a fallback option if we miss out on them. However, if we really believe we can contend next season, then I'm more ok with overpaying for Dunn. My point of view is I don't think the free agent market matches up with what we'll need to contend without overly burdening ourselves with huge contracts to old players. Because of that, I'm more willing to wait for the better player rather than making sure to fill the hole.

Outside of the Soriano contract, he hasn't given out too many outlandishly huge contracts either. The Ramirez, Z, DLee, Kosuke, Byrd, Dempster and Marquis contracts were all equal to or below other offers reportedly out there. His main contract problem is handing out multi years to relievers.

If we're paying a reasonable price for him, I'll agree. If the bidding for him gets too high and we'll overpay for him, I'd rather wait since we're probably not going to be competitive next year anyway.

When he signed that contract the other available OFs included Bobby Abreu (.842 OPS), Pat Burrell (.874 OPS), Raul Ibanez (.837), Manny Ramirez (1.031) and Milton Bradley (.999). Other FAs that year included Teixeira, Furcal, Burnett, Lowe, Sabathia, Fuentes, K-Rod and Kerry Wood. This year's first basemen: Berkman (.779), Konerko (.971), DLee (.737), Overbay (.778) and Pena (.777). Other FAs include Beltre, Cantu, Victor Martinez, Crawford, De La Rosa, Cliff Lee, Lilly, Vazquez and Putz. The free agent class two years ago was dramatically better than this one and had many more big money players available compared to this one. Dunn is one of the premiere free agents in this class, while he was one in a crowd of many in 2009. I don't know that it's a certainty fewer teams will have interest in him, but bigger market teams almost certainly will (the Cubs for one).

If Hendry/new GM/the Ricketts can show them a plan to quickly improve the team, yes I think they would have interest in coming here. And too, there's really no reason this team should lose 90 games again next year. I don't think it'll necessarily be competitive, but there are enough resources out there to avoid a 90+ loss season.