On Friday, the International Olympic Committee will vote on the host city for the 2016 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.  Chicago is one of the candidate cities, along with Madrid, Tokyo, and Rio de Janeiro.  The IOC can be a pretty inscrutable bunch sometimes, so it's hard to say with any certainty who's ahead, but most knowledgeable observers are casting Rio as a very slight favorite over Chicago, with Madrid and Tokyo lagging behind.

Hosting the Olympics could be a huge boost to the Windy City.  It'll create jobs, bring in gobs of tourists, and most importantly put the city on the world stage in a way that it never has been before.  Outside the U.S., most folks still think of Chicago as the home of Al Capone and the "Hog Butcher to the World"; there may never be a better chance to show off the 21st-century metropolis that it has become.  Additionally, preparations for the games would bring lots of long-overdue improvements to the city's transit system and generally spruce up the neglected South Side neighborhoods and parks where many events would be held.

However, playing host to such a massive event is not without its potential pitfalls.  The games will create plenty of temporary headaches for Chicago residents: traffic is sure to be awful, hotels and airline flights will be booked solid, and some local businesses may engage in Olympic-sized price-gouging.  But there are longer-term concerns, too - many past Olympics have been monetary debacles, with costs far exceeding revenues (see: Athens, Montreal) and taxpayers ultimately footing the bill.  Although games held in the U.S. have consistently turned a profit, and the IOC has called Chicago's budget achievable, there are no guarantees here; indeed, both the Vancouver 2010 and London 2012 games submitted financially sound plans but are now experiencing dramatic construction cost overruns.

So, what do you think?  Do the potential positives outweigh the potential negatives?  Should Chicago host the Olympics?  Discuss.

(Oh, and FYI: The announcement of the host city should be made late Friday morning, central time. I'm pretty sure every local TV station will be covering it live.)

Within the last 48 hours, the Cubs have:

-Agreed in principle to trade Jason Marquis to the Rockies for reliever Luis Vizcaino

-Signed utilityman Aaron Miles

-Traded Mark DeRosa to the Indians for three pitching prospects

...thus freeing up a fair bit of salary and a spot in the starting rotation, and probably also making Ronny Cedeno even more expendable, which I never even realized was possible.  Obviously this is all leading to something... so what's next?  Milton Bradley?  Jake Peavy?  Brian Roberts?  (Just kidding.)  I'll leave it to you to guess what happens next.  But remember, this is Jim Hendry we're talking about - any previously rumored signings or trades are probably red herrings.  So use your imagination!  The more ludicrous-sounding, the better...

According to the Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo, Rangers free-agent OF/DH Milton Bradley is in intense discussions with the Cubs after meeting with team officials on Sunday.  The Rays are also known to be very interested in Bradley.  (Personally, knowing how bad Bradley's knees are, I'm surprised he has any inclination to play his home games on artificial turf, but I digress.)

Bradley had a career year last season, hitting .321/.436/.563 with 22 HR and 77 RBI in 126 games for the Rangers, playing primarily as a DH.  Due to perennial injury problems (and an occaisionally tempestuous personality) he has only played more than 100 games in a season three times in his 9-year ML career.  Although he's certainly going to cash in from his performance last season, his medical history will probably keep his salary down - he's looking for something in the 4 year/$40M range, according to John Heyman, but it's doubtful that anyone's offering that kind of deal at this point.  He's only a Type B free agent, which means that whoever signs him won't give up a draft pick.

Bradley may be the best left-handed hitter available right now, and the price - probably under $10M a year, and no draft pick forfeited - seems right, but if he comes to the North Side, I sure hope he's left his bad knees somewhere else.

As this incredible 2008 season comes to a close, Cubs fans everywhere are watching with bated breath as the team's Magic Number draws close to zero, signifying a playoff berth - which would be just the sixth for the franchise in the division-play era, and would also put the Cubs in back-to-back postseasons for the first time in a century.

To mark the countdown to zero, Al has added a "Cubs Magic Number" box to the BCB main page, which honors a Cub who has worn that uniform number.  Today the magic number stands at 11, and BCB is honoring one of the best Cubs to ever wear #11, shortstop Don Kessinger.

As this historic march to the playoffs continues, which Cubs should BCB honor as the final ten "Magic Numbers"?  (Al may have already made up his mind on this, but I still think it's an interesting discussion to have.)

For reference purposes, all-time Cubs uniform numbers can be found here.  There are some good names to choose from...

It's official now - the Cubs have called up 1B-OF Micah Hoffpauir, C Koyie Hil, 3B Casey McGehee, and RHP Michael Wuertz from Iowa, and also activated RHPs Jon Lieber and Angel Guzman from the DL.  The final AAA stats for the four callups:

Hoffpauir - .362/.393/.752, 25 HR, 100 RBI in 290 AB

Hill - .275/.350/.492, 17 HR, 64 RBI in 364 AB

McGehee - .296/.345/.429, 12 HR, 92 RBI in 497 AB

Wuertz - 0-1, 3.60 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 29 K in 20 IP

Interesting that Felix Pie won't be getting the call, especially since the Cubs have only 4 true outfielders on the roster right now.  Perhaps he'll be up later in September.  One other item of note - with the additions of Hill and McGehee, the Cubs now seem to have 41 players on the 40-man roster.  So, who got bumped?  (EDIT: Seems that Chad Fox was moved to the 60-day DL, meaning he's no longer on the 40-man and is officially done for the season.)

Well, my fellow Cubs fans, once again the American League has won the All-Star Game. (Ugh.)  Which means that, once again, the AL's entrant in the World Series will have home-field advantage.  And, once again, everybody is asking the same question: is this a fair arrangement?  That's an especially pertinent question this season, as many playoff contenders - the Cubs included - are struggling to win on the road.

It's easy to call for the end of the "This Time it Counts" experiment, but then again, what's a better system?  Should baseball go back to having home field advantage alternate between the two leagues?  Or should it be determined by the two participants' won-lost record?  Maybe a steel cage death match between the two owners?  I'll leave it to you all to decide.