If anything, the fact that he was marketing himself as an outfielder who could play first would have made him MORE attractive two years ago, wouldn’t it?

I’d love Dunn to be a Cub, but I don’t want to sign him for four years and $60 million. I could probably live with three years and $45 million, but that fourth year makes him too expensive. What anyone could live with is highly subjective, admittedly.

Without looking at money, Dunn is the best available free agent option to fit the Cubs needs at first base. But is he $53 million better than Lance Berkman — who is said to be available for one year, $7 million?

There are those on BCB who don’t want to invest in someone like Dunn because they don’t see the point of spending money on a doomed 2011 team. While I can see the logic of that point, I’m more concerned with what Dunn would be, and what a drag he might become, in 2013-14. This is a guy who is not a good defender, and that won’t improve as he ages. More than that, I’ve read where he has the type of physique that won’t age well.

Given that Dunn got two years, $20 million after 2008, I’m holding out hope that his price will fall dramatically and the Cubs can pounce on a more palatable deal — similar to what happened with Bobby Abreu two years ago. Generally, I like the Cubs’ wait-and-see approach this offseason, because there’s less of a chance they’ll overpay relative to the market.

Adam Dunn is a good, not great, baseball player who would be fun to watch at Wrigley. But the Cubs aren’t likely to sign him this offseason because they’ve already given too many long-term deals to good, not great players.