- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Wrong. Dunn was a better option than both.
Wrong. Dunn was a better option than both.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,852
- Liked Posts:
- 9,047
He is talking about Bradley being bad in the field and you wanted Dunn? HAha Dunn would have led the league in errors playing right in Wrigley.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
If you are going to sign a bad fielder you might as well sign the consistently much better bat who hasn't been a complete malcontent his entire career. Dunn was the best LH bat available. I don't recall the part of your post I highlighted saying anything about "gloves".
On top of all this, Dunn would have cost 10 million dollars less.
- Joined:
- Oct 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,076
- Liked Posts:
- 579
- Location:
- The open road
Pretty ironic isn't it? Got stuck with both stiffs
sent from mars home of Ian Stewarts baseball skills using tapatalk
KBisBack!
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,497
- Liked Posts:
- 1,424
Fucking trolls.
Crybabies whine about Bradley's defense and then suggest Adam Dunn as the solution??
Really??
Troll on losers.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Where did I ever complain about Bradley's defense?
KBisBack!
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,497
- Liked Posts:
- 1,424
Troll on.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
KBisBack!
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,497
- Liked Posts:
- 1,424
Anything further is waste for everyone
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
Agreed. I hope you're banned.
Boobaby1
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 2,236
- Liked Posts:
- 1,180
There is a reason why he would have been 10 million less. Of course, playing RF in Wrigley has no bearing for a Toby Keith look-a-like, does it?
A GM should factor everything when making a decision. Speed, arm, defense, power, SO's OBP, Avg., etc.. The two best candidates that year with that criteria were Ibanez and Bradley.
- Joined:
- Oct 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,076
- Liked Posts:
- 579
- Location:
- The open road
He's not even trolling. You misquote me in the last thread and still can't read. Dunn was the better bat and signed for LESS than Bradley. He never mentioned defense at all. Bradley blew on defense, so did Dunn so why not pick up the more consistent and bigger bat for less then a one hit wonder with mental problems? Pretty simple to understand.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
That wasn't part of the statement made.
Unless I wasn't made aware that Dunn would have used his bat to play defense.
Boobaby1
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 18, 2013
- Posts:
- 2,236
- Liked Posts:
- 1,180
So you would simply take the best bat if you were GM, playing right field in one of the toughest places in baseball to play mostly day games simply because he was 10 million less?
- Joined:
- Oct 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,076
- Liked Posts:
- 579
- Location:
- The open road
Over Milton fucking Bradley? Yes. The dude was a fucking headcase. Nobody except for Jim beat my brain Hendry thought that Bradley would do as well over the course of 3 years as he did the year before he signed. Dunn on the other hand was a solid bat who would give you 30-100 seasons every year.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
I'm not sure you're able to follow this.
Someone said: Milton Bradley was the best LH bat available in FA that year.
I respond that he wasn't. Dunn was.
That's objectively true. That doesn't mean I'd sign Dunn end all be all. I'm correcting a mistake.
In order of the LH batting OF'er to sign taking all things into account Bradley would have been my last choice amongst the 3 of Ibanez, Dunn, and Bradley.
On top of this, I think Hendry was the only GM offering Bradley a multiyear deal.
Last edited:
KBisBack!
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,497
- Liked Posts:
- 1,424
Bradley only ended up costing the Cubs less than $8M I believe.
His salary was $5M for 2009 with a $3M bonus if I remember correctly.
The Cubs then actually got money from Seattle as well as Silva for the deal, so Bradley ended up costing the Cubs less than $8M for one season and yet people still want to whine about how 'bad' it was for the Cubs.
The Cubs were still within 2 games of first until August 8 when the wheels fell off.
The last two seasons the Cubs had no chance on Opening Day.
And somehow this is better?
KBisBack!
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 1,497
- Liked Posts:
- 1,424
I do.
It is the multiple times you have cried and ran to tell the teacher by attempting to give me negative reputation feedback like a 3rd grade tattle tale.
No wonder you are willrust get along so well. He was the whiny little crybaby over on CBS.
- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
I'm not sure you understand how reputation works. It's not tattling to anyone.
- Joined:
- Oct 18, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,076
- Liked Posts:
- 579
- Location:
- The open road
Do you realize we paid him to produce .257 with 12 home runs and 40 RBIs boned headed mistakes and back story we didn't need? And Carlos Silva? Seriously? Do you remember how that one ended? Only reason we got paid was because Silva was expensive and fucking sucked.