At last, BCB readers have had the influence over Cubs management that we have long sought. There have been numerous readers here who have sung the praises of Micah Hoffpauir. But Lou Piniella took his cue from BCB readers Clutche and cubswynn, who have been the most adamant Hoffpauir supporters on this site, and has named the hottest spring training hitter on the club, Micah Hoffpauir, as the Cubs' starting first baseman. Said Lou: "The BCB readers are right. Micah's leading everyone in RBI's. Why shouldn't he start?"

D-Lee

To make room for Hoffpauir in the starting lineup, Jim Hendry took my suggestion from last October 22 (and to think, so many of you laughed at me when I suggested this) and, after several weeks' worth of secret negotiations carried out at the Paradise Bakery in Scottsdale (the very same location where Nomar Garciaparra himself, the subject of one of Hendry's biggest deals, was spotted buying bagels and coffee during spring training in 2005), Hendry convinced San Francisco GM Brian Sabean to take the two remaining years on Derrek Lee's contract in exchange for pitcher Matt Cain.

M-Cain

"We love Derrek, but after Sean Marshall's performance yesterday, we felt we needed some more depth in the starting rotation," said Hendry. "Sean can go to Iowa and keep Jeff Samardzija company."

BCB reader ballhawk said he'd miss Lee and all the balls he hit onto Waveland during batting practice, but that Cain's 19 HR allowed in 2008 "showed promise".

Negotiations with D-Lee to get him to waive his no-trade clause were complicated. They involved a supply of ice cream sundaes for his six-year-old daughter Jada for as long as Derrek plays for the Giants, and a promise that she could meet Dora the Explorer when Dora's live tour comes to a city near where the Giants are playing. Lee said he'd miss Cubs fans, as he's become one of the most popular Cubs, but said, "I'll be closer to my home in Sacramento. Plus, I can hit cleanup for the Giants -- I mean, come on. Bengie Molina hitting cleanup?"

Both players will report to their new clubs for action this afternoon. That is, unless they look at the calendar and realize what day today is.

That's the top of today's dead-tree edition of the Chicago Tribune.

Inside are two articles, one by two business section reporters, covering what changes might be made to the ballpark and other possibilities for new revenue, and one by Paul Sullivan discussing the possible changes that might occur to the team itself.

Sullivan mentions something that I've long speculated about:

Mark McGuire, the Cubs' executive vice president of business operations and a team employee since Tribune Co. bought the team in 1981, believes the new owner might bring in more people rather than get rid of those already in place. McGuire told fans at the Cubs Convention last week that the team has one of the smallest front offices in baseball.

I think that's one of the first things you'll see -- beefing up the existing full-time, year-round staff, including both the non-baseball and baseball operations departments. The scouting staff needs help, and I think you would all be surprised at how small the ticket department is, considering how many tickets the Cubs sell.

A lot of the rest of Sullivan's article consists of things we've discussed here, ranging from some guy who pitches for the San Diego Padres to the idea that the team may pitch for more night games (or, at the very least, having the right to play some Friday night games after road trips, which makes sense to me).

The article in the business section discusses ways that the Cubs could generate additional revenue. Many of these things have also been discussed on this site, including the "Triangle Building" that may finally get built:

There also is renewed interest in Tribune Co.'s shelved idea to construct a triangular-shaped building that would include stores and restaurants along Clark Street and create a pedestrian walkway outside Wrigley, similar to Yawkey Way outside Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox.

On game days, Yawkey Way is closed to traffic, and ticket-holders enter it, and the ballpark, through turnstiles. The setup, and wide mix of vendors, is similar to Eutaw Street outside Baltimore's Camden Yards, where the Orioles play, and enables the teams to profit from pregame spending.

Before Yawkey Way, fans were spending pregame dollars in the neighborhood of Fenway, but they weren't coming in.

"People didn't pass through the turnstile until right before the game," said Janet Marie Smith, senior vice president of planning and development for the Red Sox and architect behind the renovation of Fenway and development of Oriole Park at Camden Yards. "In order to stay competitive, we've got to make money."

Similar efforts at Wrigley, which has protected status as an official city landmark and must retain its traditional look, might aid the ballpark but could come at the expense of neighborhood street vendors, restaurants and bars.

"There are a lot of people who make money on the Cubs that are not paying the players," Ganis said. "There is no other team in baseball that has the number of businesses piggybacking on the team that the Cubs do. Increase the pie, but the Cubs have to get a bigger slice."

I wouldn't expect any existing streets to be closed; the pedestrian area they're talking about would probably be created in the area which is now parking for Cubs players and office staff (those people would then park in the triangle building itself).

Some of the other ideas discussed in that article include a Cubs TV network, which I would expect to happen as soon as the economy improves and they can get it carried on cable and satellite nationwide; adding a larger stadium club, and extending the upper deck. And for those of you gnashing your teeth over the possibility of the Cubs selling naming rights to Wrigley Field:

Other revenue-generating opportunities have potential but also may have to wait. The notion of selling some version of naming rights at Wrigley is off the table, sources said.

Finally, an old friend of Tom Ricketts, who used to live with him in that apartment across from the ballpark, says we've got the right guy:

Curt Conklin once lived with Tom Ricketts in an apartment just outside Wrigley Field, and the two were regulars at Cubs games. He knows Ricketts wasn't just a fan, but could recite Rick Sutcliffe's 1984 statistics (20-6, 3.64 ERA).

"The success of his life is that he has done this (built his company) 100 percent on his own," said Conklin, a day after it was announced Tribune Co. selected the family's bid for exclusive negotiations. Without being a meddler, Ricketts' drive and decision-making ability would be good for the team, he said.

"He's really smart, he really loves baseball and he really loves the Cubs," said Conklin, who worked at the Ricketts' family company, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., and for InCapital LLC, which Tom Ricketts founded.

Sounds perfect to me. We are about to embark on a new Cubs era, where "one of us" is in charge.

In this morning's Tribune, Fred Mitchell reports that Lou Piniella hasn't settled on a closer yet:

"Let them compete," Piniella said during the Cubs Convention. "I feel comfortable with Marmol, no question. But we traded for this other young man, and he was a closer over (with the Florida Marlins) with success. Give him a chance too."

To which I say, excellent! Carlos Marmol has the best stuff in the Cubs' bullpen. Many teams have taken that "best stuff" guy and made him their closer. But often, closers come into games in low-leverage situations: ninth inning, three-run lead, bases empty. Most major league pitchers can get three outs and pile up saves in those situations. Often, the tougher situations come in the 7th or 8th innings, with games tied or only a one-run lead and runners in scoring position. Last year, Kevin Gregg, while closing for the Marlins, walked 37 batters in 68.2 innings. Marmol walked 41 in 87.1 innings, and 14 of those 41 walks came in that inexplicably bad 15-game stretch between June 19 and July 24 when he allowed 11 earned runs in 12.2 innings and his season ERA jumped from 2.09 to 3.40. After that he settled down and from July 26 to the end of the season, a span covering 30 appearances and 31.2 innings, he walked only 12, struck out 39 and posted a 1.42 ERA.

photo via i2.cdn.turner.com

Meanwhile, Gregg had eight saves (out of his season total of 29) where he issued at least one walk. Before several September games in which he was used in situations where the Marlins were either behind or well ahead, he was used in the 8th inning only three times all year (the only times he posted a save of longer than one inning, and once where the Marlins were well behind and it appears Fredi Gonzalez just wanted to give him some work). He did get better about the walks in the second half of the year (27 before the All-Star break, 10 after, but then, he made 46 of his 72 appearances before the break). I'm just not convinced that putting Gregg in setup situations where he might come into a tie game with the bases loaded in the 8th inning -- where a walk puts you behind -- is the best use for a guy like him without pinpoint control.

There's no doubt in my mind that Marmol can handle the closer role -- he did so effectively while Kerry Wood was on the DL in midseason 2008, and he has the stuff and the right mindset for it. But would holding out Marmol for the ninth inning only mean that Gregg, setting him up, would have blown the lead and there wouldn't be anything for Marmol to save?

Kevin Gregg is probably a one-year Cub; he'll be a free agent after 2009, and that gives Cub relievers like Jeff Samardzija and Angel Guzman one more season to be eased into a setup role for Marmol, who could take over as closer in 2010. For now, I think the best use of Lou Piniella's bullpen would be for Gregg to close, after Marmol has put out the fires in the 7th or 8th inning.

Jake Peavy.

There, I said it.

JakePeavyJakePeavyJakePeavyJAKEPEAVY!

You don't need me to recap the story about why Peavy, one of the best pitchers in the NL and a former Cy Young Award winner, is on the trading block. You also don't need me to recap the endless trade rumors posted here and elsewhere over the last three months. One reason I didn't post much about those rumors is that I got tired of hearing updates seemingly every time Kevin Towers went to the bathroom. Farting out new trade rumors is pretty unseemly from a general manager and we can, I think, all be happy that Jim Hendry doesn't conduct business that way. For example, we all knew Felix Pie was on the trading block. But before yesterday's trade announcement, had you heard any specific rumors of Felix-to-Baltimore? Or that Garrett Olson was on Hendry's radar? There were some brief mentions at MLBTR last November, but nothing came of it till yesterday, and you didn't hear breathless updates every day. That is, I think, a much better way to do business.

Some of you think that because I've scoffed at some of the more ridiculous rumors, that I don't want Jake Peavy as a Cub. That's silly -- who wouldn't want such a pitcher? I do have some concerns: he's had some arm trouble in the last year (been there, done that), doesn't pitch quite as well outside of the pitcher's paradise that is Petco Park (2.77 ERA at home, 3.80 on the road, and 34 more HR allowed on the road than at home in almost 100 fewer innings), and has a contract that could turn into an albatross even for a deep-pocketed new owner.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Peavy, who will turn 28 in May, would be a fine addition to the Cubs' already excellent starting rotation. So why am I bringing this up now?

Because it seems pretty clear that yesterday's trade of Pie to the Orioles for Garrett Olson and Henry Williamson could be part of an overall off-season strategy by Jim Hendry to eventually land Peavy, whether it be now or during spring training or at the trading deadline.

As noted above, Olson was a player that Kevin Towers had expressed some interest in. Hendry is now dealing from a position of a little more strength. He has a pitcher Towers could want; he's got a shortstop (Ronny Cedeno) Towers can use, and perhaps one or more of the pitchers acquired in the Mark DeRosa deal from Cleveland could be put into this deal.

Many of you have suggested Josh Vitters could or should be part of a Peavy trade, but I wouldn't do that -- for this simple reason: you don't have to. If the Padres really do have to get rid of Peavy's contract -- this article implies they do -- Hendry is, again, in a position of strength. If there's no Peavy deal, he has an extra lefthanded body to compete for the fifth spot in the rotation in Olson.

The link above suggests that Vitters is a necessary part of a Peavy trade, but it might be able to get done for Cedeno, Olson, Kevin Hart and another prospect or two, perhaps Jeff Stevens, the "major-league-ready" pitcher obtained from Cleveland. This would give San Diego three players with major league experience, and one (Stevens) who could step in to San Diego's 2009 bullpen. Heck, send 'em Rich Hill, too.

Again, Jake Peavy is a very good pitcher. Would his acquisition guarantee the Cubs a World Series? No, it would not. Last year's Cubs had the best 1-to-5 rotation in the National League. That got them exactly zero wins in the postseason. What it would do is push Rich Harden into the #5 spot where he could skip a start now and then, and Sean Marshall back to the bullpen where he'd be a swingman. Jim Hendry doesn't have to make this deal -- the Cubs ought to be NL Central favorites without it, and this would simply be a bonus. And, since the Padres are the ones saying they "have" to make this deal, Hendry can deal from a position of strength, and if necessary, wait the Padres out till July. Hendry appears to be approaching this offseason methodically, with a plan that might take till the end of spring training to be fulfilled.

So, as always, I counsel patience, and we, as always, await developments.

That's the first line of this article in today's Tribune business section giving some details of the three remaining bidders for the Cubs -- the Ricketts family, Marc Utay, a Chicago native who now lives in New York, and a South African native, Hersch Klaff, who now lives in the Chicago suburbs. The article isn't specific, but I assume that these bidders are all bidding for both the team and Wrigley Field.

So all have Chicago connections; here's some of what the article says about each.

Tom Ricketts:

Business style: Tom Ricketts wanted to make it on his own and never worked at Ameritrade, now TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. A market maker at the Chicago Board Options Exchange and finance executive before starting investment bank Incapital LLC.

Cubs connection: Tom Ricketts grew up watching the team on WGN. Once lived in an apartment above a bar across the street from Wrigley Field. Met his wife in the bleachers at a Cubs game.

Marc Utay:

Cubs connection: Grew up a Cubs fan in Glenview. Admires how the Boston Red Sox owners have expanded the franchise's entertainment and sports assets. His investor group includes media investor Leo Hindery, who once ran YES Network, the New York Yankees' TV channel.

Hersch Klaff:

Resume: A South African who moved to Chicago in the 1970s and made his money in real estate, buying distressed retail properties. Formed Klaff Realty LP in 1982 and amassed properties in the Loop. Bought shuttered stores from Kmart, Montgomery Ward, Albertson's and Mervyns.

Business style: Low profile. But an aggressive dealmaker who works with private-equity firms such as Lubert-Adler Real Estate Funds and Cerberus Capital Management LP.

photo via artfiles.art.com

It appears that all three of these men/groups have deep enough pockets, even in the current economic crisis, to be able to fund the Cubs to continue being among the top payrolls in baseball. The clear leader to me, and my personal favorite, would be the Ricketts group, and I think they'll wind up as the winning bidder.

Finally, for anyone who thinks that a change in ownership means that someone would come in and "clean house", think again. First, the Cubs have been one of the most successfully marketed franchises in recent sports history. Why would you dump the people who accomplished that? Second, Jim Hendry and his baseball people have shown, over the last two years when they have been given financial resources, that they can put winning teams on the field. I would expect that to continue if resources are put into baseball operations -- I would argue that the Cubs need more people in player development and scouting, and hopefully, the new owner will commit money for this. Most likely, the new owner will step back and let the existing management structure continue to do their jobs, and hopefully, continue to put the money into player payroll as has been the case the last two years.

We await developments. This could happen as soon as the owners meetings next week (although the final consummation of the sale might not happen for a few more months).

The deal, expected to be in the three-year, $30 million range, will be finalized after the two sides work through language issues and Bradley passes a physical, sources said.

We also don't yet know how that $30m is going to be split up, whether it might be another of Jim Hendry's patented backloaded contracts. For that, we'll have to wait and see.

Since I've been anti-Bradley since the rumors of his possible signing began, I thought it'd be worth a front-page post to discuss what he can -- and shouldn't -- bring to the Cubs. It's clear that the Cubs have never had a player quite like this before. When healthy, his combination of power and speed and plate discipline has been matched by few major league hitters. He led the AL last year in OBA and had a .999 OPS, higher than any 2008 Cub.

Unfortunately, about 2/3 of his 2008 games were played at DH, the results of a healing knee injury that was suffered during an altercation with umpire Mike Winters on September 23, 2007. Bradley went crazy and had to be tackled by his own manager, resulting in the knee injury. To be fair to Bradley, he was apparently baited by umpire Mike Winters, and according to this, that wasn't the first time Winters had pulled a stunt like that.

You can call that passion, or you can call it stupidity. In reality, it's a little of both. It winds up being stupid when it costs your team games while you can't play. Bradley hit .313/.414/.590 in his 42 games with the Padres -- don't you think they could have used him that final week of 2007? It can be reasonably argued that Bradley's tirade may have cost the Padres a playoff spot, which they lost by one game in a tiebreaker. Maybe Bradley would have helped them win one more game that last week, had he been available, and they wouldn't have had to go to the tiebreaker. You can say all you want that "half a season of Bradley is 'better' than a full season of Abreu or Dunn", and statistically speaking, you'd be right. But Bradley can't win games for his team when he's hurt, and he has played 140 or more games in a season once in his career -- in 2004 with the Dodgers. Perhaps NOT coincidentally, that was LA's only postseason appearance between 1995 and 2008.

Teammates and managers of Bradley's have said that he wants to win so badly that he sometimes goes off the deep end, which is true -- we have seen evidence of it in several different uniforms, and the story is that he had such a bad relationship with Eric Wedge, his manager in Cleveland, that they almost had to trade him.

Passion and desire to win are great. That's something that every professional athlete should have. That said, they have to channel it in ways that go into winning on the field, not running after umpires -- even when you're right -- and not chasing after the opposing team's broadcaster when you think you've heard something you don't like (haven't we had enough of our players calling up our OWN broadcasters when they didn't like what they heard?).

You know that this is the first thing the Chicago media is going to ask him about at the press conference announcing his signing. The way he reacts to the questions will tell us a lot about how he will approach his time in Chicago. He has played in "big markets" before -- but LA's pretty laid-back, Oakland isn't really a big baseball town, and Texas doesn't have the passion for its team the way Cubs fans do.

I'd rather have had Adam Dunn or Bobby Abreu. But I'll say this: Jim Hendry has done a fine job since the end of 2006, putting together good teams that are cohesive and win, and Lou Piniella, in spite of pitcher and lineup handling that sometimes makes our heads spin, is a good leader of men. I hope he will be someone who can help channel Milton Bradley's considerable passions into winning baseball. If Lou can do that for Milton -- and if Milton can stay healthy for a full season -- then I'll be happy to say I was wrong, and I think I'll also be celebrating another Cubs division title.

Welcome to Chicago, Gameboard. You're in for a hell of a ride.

Since the reports by WGN's David Kaplan last night that the Cubs may be "close" to announcing a multi-year deal with controversial outfielder Milton Bradley, I thought, given that you all know my opposition to this move, I'd at least try to make a case as to why this might work out OK.

Milton Bradley first came on the major league radar when he was playing Double-A ball for the Harrisburg Senators in 2000, the Montreal Expos' affiliate in the Eastern League. He hit .329/.388/.526 with 12 homers in 87 games -- not too far off from his production with the Rangers in 2008, extrapolated to the 126 games he played for Texas last year. Traded to Cleveland in an ill-advised deal for the long-gone Zach Day, he never did break into the Indians' lineup full-time -- the most games he played there was 101 in 2003. A lot of that was due to injuries, and that's the first thing I worry about when it comes to Gameboard (seriously -- didn't this family know about the game company when they named him?). Here's a list of all his injuries -- and in the box below, I eliminated everything in his transaction report except injury-related missed time, beginning with his first one-year, major league deal with Cleveland:

Sep 19, 2008: Missed 2 games (left wrist injury).
Sep 16, 2008: Left wrist injury, day-to-day.
Sep 12, 2008: Missed 2 games (wrist injury).
Sep 6, 2008: Wrist injury, day-to-day.
Aug 18, 2008: Missed 2 games (illness).
Aug 16, 2008: Illness, day-to-day.
Aug 10, 2008: Missed 5 games (strained left quadriceps).
Aug 5, 2008: Strained left quadriceps, day-to-day.
Aug 4, 2008: Missed 5 games (quadricep injury).
Jul 30, 2008: Quadricep injury, day-to-day.
Jul 12, 2008: Missed 1 game (left knee injury).
Jul 11, 2008: Left knee injury, day-to-day.
Jun 24, 2008: Missed 1 game (strained left quadriceps).
Jun 22, 2008: Strained left quadriceps, day-to-day.
Jun 20, 2008: Missed 2 games (quadricep injury).
Jun 18, 2008: Quadricep injury, day-to-day.
May 31, 2008: Missed 1 game (dizziness).
May 30, 2008: Dizziness, day-to-day.
May 16, 2008: Missed 2 games (right shoulder injury).
May 13, 2008: Right shoulder injury, day-to-day.
May 2, 2008: Missed 1 game (hamstring).
May 1, 2008: Hamstring, day-to-day.
Sep 24, 2007: Torn ACL, sidelined indefinitely.
Sep 21, 2007: Missed 12 games (right oblique muscle strain).
Sep 11, 2007: Right oblique muscle strain, day-to-day.
Aug 8, 2007: Missed 4 games (hamstring).
Aug 4, 2007: Hamstring, day-to-day.
Jul 7, 2007: Missed 8 games (oblique injury).
Jul 1, 2007: Oblique injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to June 21).
Jun 20, 2007: Missed 16 games (calf injury).
Jun 8, 2007: Calf injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to June 3rd).
Jun 3, 2007: Calf injury, day-to-day.
May 30, 2007: Missed 14 games (hamstring).
May 23, 2007: Hamstring, 15-day DL (retroactive to May 15th).
May 22, 2007: Hamstring, day-to-day.
May 19, 2007: Missed 4 games (hamstring).
May 17, 2007: Hamstring, day-to-day.
May 11, 2007: Missed 15 games (hamstring).
Apr 23, 2007: Hamstring, 15-day DL.
Apr 20, 2007: Missed 6 games (hamstring).
Apr 13, 2007: Hamstring, day-to-day.
Sep 1, 2006: Missed 1 game (ankle injury).
Aug 30, 2006: Ankle injury, day-to-day.
Jul 14, 2006: Missed 20 games (shoulder injury).
Jun 20, 2006: Shoulder injury, 15-day DL.
Jun 19, 2006: Shoulder injury, day-to-day.
Jun 6, 2006: Missed 36 games (right knee injury).
May 7, 2006: Right knee injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to April 27th).
Apr 27, 2006: Right knee injury, day-to-day.
Oct 2, 2005: Missed 38 games to the end of the regular season (Torn left Patella Tendon).
Sep 2, 2005: Transferred from the 15-day DL to the 60-day DL (torn left Patella Tendon).
Aug 25, 2005: Torn left Patella Tendon, 15-day DL (retroactive to August 23rd).
Aug 23, 2005: Knee injury, day-to-day.
Jul 23, 2005: Missed 47 games (finger injury).
Jun 3, 2005: Finger injury, 15-day DL (retroactive to May 30).
May 31, 2005: Finger injury, day-to-day.
Sep 29, 2004: Suspended by the Los Angeles Dodgers for the remainder of the season.
Aug 13, 2004: Missed 1 game (hamstring).
Aug 12, 2004: Hamstring, day-to-day.
Jun 30, 2004: Missed 4 games (suspension).
Jun 3, 2004: Suspended by MLB for 4 games.
Jun 1, 2004: Missed 2 games (ankle injury).
May 31, 2004: Ankle injury, day-to-day.
May 4, 2004: Missed 3 games (ankle injury).
Apr 30, 2004: Ankle injury, day-to-day.
Aug 29, 2003: Missed 46 games to the end of the regular season (back injury).
Aug 15, 2003: Back injury, 15-day DL.
Aug 10, 2003: Back injury, day-to-day.
May 8, 2003: Missed 12 games (strained right hamstring).
Apr 26, 2003: Strained right hamstring, 15-day DL (retroactive to April 23).
Apr 23, 2003: Strained right hamstring, day-to-day.
Apr 19, 2003: Missed 1 game (hamstring).
Apr 18, 2003: Hamstring, day-to-day.
Aug 30, 2002: Missed 16 games (appendicitis).
Aug 14, 2002: Appendicitis, 15-day DL (retroactive to August 12th).
Jun 4, 2002: Missed 29 games (eye Contusion).
May 2, 2002: Eye Contusion, 15-day DL.
Apr 17, 2002: Missed 4 games (right quadricep).
Apr 11, 2002: Right quadricep, day-to-day.
Mar 1, 2002: Agreed to terms with the Cleveland Indians to a one-year contract.

OK, I left two short suspensions in that list, one by his team (the Dodgers), one MLB suspension. That's a reeeeeaaallly long list of injury-missed time, wouldn't you say? In between those injuries, Bradley has produced, particularly last year, when he put up a 163 OPS+ and led the AL in on-base percentage with .438. That's something that I found appealing when I put the case for Adam Dunn on this site last week -- and if Bradley, who has shown good plate discipline since he became a major league regular several years ago, could keep that up as a Cub, that makes him a fine addition to a lineup that exhibited that sort of patience last year, partly, I would argue, due to the influence of Kosuke Fukudome, who led the team in walks with 81 even while slumping the whole second half.

Bradley drew 80 walks while missing 36 games. If we knew he could stay healthy for the entire season -- something he has not done in the last six years -- I'd say he'd be worth the signing, even with the rest of the baggage he brings. You can't ignore this baggage; the smiling photo above sometimes turns into this:

via cache.daylife.com

And this:

via msnbcmedia.msn.com

And this:

via math.berkeley.edu

via www.rotorob.com

via graphics.boston.com

via i.a.cnn.net

I'm trying not to make that big a deal out of these incidents. But they cannot help. In some cases (the San Diego incident) they have led to injury -- the knee injury that he suffered that day had to rob him of much of his speed (he stole only five bases in 2008 and played only 19 games in right field, the position the Cubs would want him to play). It's the injuries more than the anger that I worry about. If you're going to pay a free agent like this the money he's going to be asking for (likely in the 3-year, $30 million range), you've got to make certain that you're going to get fulltime production out of him. What's the point of paying that much money and having him out for a third of the season? That would mean that someone like Joey Gathright is going to get far more at-bats than any of us would like.

By many accounts, Bradley has been a good teammate and well-liked in the clubhouses he has inhabited. That's a positive thing; if he can be just "one of the guys", and keep the temper under control, and avoid that long list of injuries -- there is no doubt that when healthy, he can and does produce. I realize that this "case for" doesn't really read that way, and I'm still leery of the Cubs signing him. I still think there may be better alternatives, including Dunn and Bobby Abreu (who has played 150 or more games for 11 straight years). If the Cubs do sign him, I'll be rooting for him to stay healthy, calm and productive.

This Daily Yomiuri article (don't bother unless you can read Japanese) says that former Rangers reliever Akinori Otsuka, who had elbow surgery a year ago, is going to work out for all 30 teams in Arizona next month.

Here's a bit more detailed analysis, including suggestions that the Padres (for whom he pitched in 2004 and 2005) and the Mariners (he apparently has great respect for Don Wakamatsu, their new manager) might be front-runners for his services.

He's 37. He's been out of baseball for a year. But he was an effective reliever from 2004-2007. He was a teammate of Kosuke Fukudome's at Chunichi in 2003, so they have at least a professional relationship. Given his age and his injury history, he'd probably not be very expensive.

Worth a flyer if the Cubs could pry him away from San Diego or Seattle? I'd say yes.

What say the rest of you?