G&T Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 QUOTE (iamshack @ May 3, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) He also picked us to win the World Series this year. There was really nothing about that article that was serious. He even said he wasn't allowed to pick the Yankees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Balta, why would a team like the Nationals take the risk that he (Dunn) accepts and they end up with a contract they don't want on their hands? Not that they have a clue what they're doing over there, but their philosophy is hard to discern....more like Dayton Moore, for every Hochevar/Moustakas/Hosmer, there's a Gathright, Crisp, J. Guillen, Bloomquist, Ankiel, Pods, Kyle Farnsworth, Juan Cruz, that's kind of a head-scratching veteran sign when they should be in total youth rebuild, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ May 3, 2010 -> 10:12 AM) It doesn't really work for losing teams. The 2003/04 White Sox were undoubtedly very talented, more than a .500 team, especially the 2003 version. You look at our starting line-ups offensively (Maggs, Thomas, Ordonez, Valentin, Konerko, etc.) back then, they were light years ahead of this current reincarnation. Catching lightning in a bottle once was like the mutual fund director who had a 1351% rate of return and crushed the S&P, causing him to think he could beat the index consistently year after year. It can't be done, everything absolutely broke perfectly in 2005, a once in a 25-50 year eventuality for the White Sox organization historically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 3, 2010 -> 02:36 PM) Balta, why would a team like the Nationals take the risk that he (Dunn) accepts and they end up with a contract they don't want on their hands? Take a look at why Dunn's name came up in this thread. Why? Because even at his current contract level, on a 1-2 year deal, he's easily movable if he accepts arbitration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) Take a look at why Dunn's name came up in this thread. Why? Because even at his current contract level, on a 1-2 year deal, he's easily movable if he accepts arbitration. What NL teams would actually put him in LF, with the renewed MLB focus on versatile, cheaper players who can defend, run and hit? I think there might be 3-4 AL teams, but it's not a risk without careful consideration being undertaken. You really think KW would take Dunn...when we could have had a much cheaper version in Jim Thome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 3, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) What NL teams would actually put him in LF, with the renewed MLB focus on versatile, cheaper players who can defend, run and hit? I think there might be 3-4 AL teams, but it's not a risk without careful consideration being undertaken. You really think KW would take Dunn...when we could have had a much cheaper version in Jim Thome? You don't have to put Dunn in LF when you can simply hide his defensive deficiencies at 1B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.