To answer NOTLD: I think Dunn really does make our team that much more watchable, at least in my mind. Last year's team was painful to watch. The 2007 team, while somewhat devoid of long-term pieces to the club, was rather exciting and had a lot of interesting and worthwhile games. They didn't have the lifeless feel of the 2008 squad.
So imagine something a little better than the 2007 team, except you have: A) a big-bopping slugger who's a threat to hit one out of the park any time he steps up to the plate (this is mostly superficial, but you have to admit it makes things more interesting), B) a team that's mostly competitive yet filled with a lot of youngsters who might be around for the long haul.
To me, that's a really intriguing prospect. Seeing Zimmermann, Balester, Mock, etc. is already exciting enough, but it's a great bonus if they're part of a team that doesn't suck rocks.
I don't take satisfaction in a last place team or as some around here call it "settling." 2006 was a perfect example. We had the Princess go 40/40 that year. He added "excitement" and made this team "watchable", but at the end of the season, that really didn't matter. We still naged and whined about having a last place team...which is going to happen again at the end of the 09' season if we are in last place, Dunn or no Dunn.
I really think people are putting too much exaggeration on the watchability factor. Everyone on this board knows they will be tuning in via TV, radio, MLB.com, or WNFF Gameday threads. The self-gratification excuse of "watchability" is a poor gameplan for building any sort of team, especially if your dealing in secondhand guys with short term contracts. There is really no point to it, so why do it?
So basically, what it is comparable to is it would like buying a brand new red Corvette, but the corvette has no speed so what's the point? Just to look cool?
