Originally Posted by lpneck
I'm not trying to be mean, but this makes zero sense. In a hypothetical world where salaries are not relevant, why would I trade for a player who is literally the worst player in MLB and give you a player who is better?
That's how bad Dunn is- you can't even trade him to a pretend team who doesn't have to pay salaries.
I'm not talking about salaries meaning nothing across the league. I'm thinking about one owner, our owner, just not giving a crap about getting some kind of value for Dunn, but instead, getting a player that would actually perform. I guess I got the idea from the thread about Ventura having the power to bench Dunn. Would an owner have the guts to disregard money for maybe a half a season and just play players who are actually performing? As for another team taking Dunn, if he was cheap enough any team would take him in a second. Like I said, it's very little risk and possibility of a big upside. That's the point I'm trying to make. He's still here because of what he used to do and how much money he makes. If a rookie making the minimum was batting .100, he'd probably be gone and never make it back to the majors.