Hypothetical about Bradley
While we wait to find out if Milton Bradley'll actually be a Cub, some Goat Readers have been debating his value compared with, say, Adam Dunn. I don't really have time to dive into it right now, but I will point out something that Colin pointed out a few weeks back (Colin, forgive me if I am distorting your argument).
Basically, let's say that Milton Bradley lives up to his type and plays in 110 games next year, while Adam Dunn stays healthy and plays in 150.
Counting runs not scored because of superior defense along with their offensive totals, the overall production of Milton Bradley + the guy who starts the other 52 games should actually still be better than the production of Adam Dunn + the guy who starts the other 12 games. Maybe it'll be a close thing, but having the ability to hit 40 homeruns and walk 100 times will only get you so far.
Besides, answer me these two questions my friends:
1. With our without Bradley and Dunn, would you agree that the Cubs should be favored to win the NL Central and reach the playoffs?
2. If the Cubs are going to make the playoffs even without Bradley, does it matter if he's only healthy for, say, 66% of the season?
If the answer to #1 is "yes," and if the answer to #2 is "good point," then I will submit to you this...
Pound for pound, Bradley brings more to the team offensively and defensively when he's healthy. If the Cubs are projected to be playoff bound anyway, then in my opinion Bradley's health is only really important for a maximum of 17 games, starting in early October -- and he'd be more likely to contribute to the Cubs winning 11 of those 17 games than Adam Dunn.
Just a thought for y'all.