Okay, but would you take it if it was guaranteed to you? I think 100 games of his top level performance could be worth it to a team like the Cubs, with a very large payroll and reasonable depth. Earlier this decade, when the offense was Sammy and nobody else, you couldn't afford to have guys this brittle. But with Soriano, Ramirez, Lee and Soto, and potential for solid contributions from a few others, I think you could afford to get just 100 games (and postseason) from a guy like Bradley. The problem is, he might only give you 50-60 games, considering his past and the fact that he's on the wrong side of 30. I highly doubt he'll play much more than 300 in 3 years, so I think I'd lock that in if I could. I'm not sure if I understand the question. Is it, Bradley for 100 games with close to his best career numbers v. Bradley for whatever you could get out of him and whatever he produces? If so, I'll take the former. However, I'd rather not take him at all. I can see this ending real bad for Bradley and the Cubs, but mostly for Bradley when the fans turn on him for being who he is (an injury prone player with severe psychological problems).