Baffling suggests that there was absolutely no downside to signing Dunn, which of course there was. Hindsight is of course 20/20, but Jim puts value on defense, and like the above poster said, Dunn is an awful defender that would be moving from LF to RF. So in that respect, its somewhat excusable that he didn't go for Dunn. there is far greater downside to milton bradley than adan dunn and let's not act like jim has assembled some great defending team either Those are both true. I can't pretend like I agree with Jim's thinking, I just try to see his logic behind moves, and this was likely his with regards to Dunn. He thought Bradley had more upside and figured that the Cubs were good enough to win during the sporatic periods that Bradley was injured, so long as he was healthy come playoff time. His whole concept of left handed hitters was with the playoffs in mind. Otherwise, there is just no logic in saying that the team that scored the second most runs in baseball last year has a glaring need to lefthanders in the lineup. Of course you'd have to ignore the fact that it's idiotic to make moves in January that you hope will help you win a few games in October, not April-September.