Bradley Suspended for the Rest of the Season

[Cubswin11]

The thing is we won 83 [expletive] games, sure that isn't great, but is sure as [expletive] isn't bad. People in the media, and some on here, are acting like it's 2006 all over again. I don't know if I should be angry or happy with the season we just had? But if 83 wins starts to become the norm for Cubs fans to get angry at the team with, sign me up.

[CyHawk_Cub]

[shrug] I still like Bradley as a baseball player. I don't plan to invite him to dinner w/ me & my gf, so his eccentricities don't matter to me. I also don't mind him calling out the fans, sometimes it is deserved. It's a shame the Cubs will likely have to endure 2010 w/ a lesser RF'er.

[WilcoFan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team.

[Guest]

The thing is we won 83 [expletive] games, sure that isn't great, but is sure as [expletive] isn't bad. People in the media, and some on here, are acting like it's 2006 all over again. I don't know if I should be angry or happy with the season we just had? But if 83 wins starts to become the norm for Cubs fans to get angry at the team with, sign me up.

 

If the Cubs payroll was 50m, I suppose I could see a reason to celebrate an 83 win season.

 

But when you spend like a top 5 salary team, the fans should expect top 5 talent results.

 

I'd be curious to see a list of the power rankings of all the teams when you factor in money spent on the team. I'd bet the Cubs would rank in the bottom 5 of the entire major leagues.

 

For example, if the Cubs spent 130m and won 83 games, I would rank that as worse than an Cincinnati team that spent 73m and won 78 games.

[flyseye]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team.

 

Anyone who has ever managed anything knows that an employee like Bradley can be very disruptive to the entire workforce. Some seem to forget that baseball players are simply employees, just like at any other business.

 

As a manager, when an employee gets totally out of control, you really have no alternative other than to dismiss them. If you do not take control of the situation, you will loose all respect from the other employees. I dislike Jim Hendry, but he did what needed to be done in this situation. I fault him for signing him in the first place, but not for how he handled an employee who had obviously crossed the line. The Cubs can win without Milton Bradley.

[CUBZ99]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

What bothers me are the people that continue to believe this game is played on their Xbox 360 and the players are robots or machines that will not be affected by any outside influences other than the 3 hours of the players play a baseball game.

 

Many people on here would agree or at least be willing to be open to the suggestion that Dempster was dealing with family issues and it may have had an effect on his pitching during that time. Most of us on the board will have no idea how bad of an influence that Bradley was in the clubhouse. We won't know what type of drama he caused on road trips or on an everyday basis, etc. It is possible that he was a perfect gentleman and maybe the rest of the Cubs that are complaining about him are thin skinned or overly sensitive. Either way, it was never going to work out for him in Chicago. It is always easier for us to sit and criticize the GM or players but based on ALL of the media reports and players/coaches involved that Bradley made the entire team and the coaches/management believe that they would be better off without him. Yet, some people still continue to play ostrich and pretend nothing happened.

[Cubswin11]

The thing is we won 83 [expletive] games, sure that isn't great, but is sure as [expletive] isn't bad. People in the media, and some on here, are acting like it's 2006 all over again. I don't know if I should be angry or happy with the season we just had? But if 83 wins starts to become the norm for Cubs fans to get angry at the team with, sign me up.

 

If the Cubs payroll was 50m, I suppose I could see a reason to celebrate an 83 win season.

 

But when you spend like a top 5 salary team, the fans should expect top 5 talent results.

 

I'd be curious to see a list of the power rankings of all the teams when you factor in money spent on the team. I'd bet the Cubs would rank in the bottom 5 of the entire major leagues.

 

For example, if the Cubs spent 130m and won 83 games, I would rank that as worse than an Cincinnati team that spent 73m and won 78 games.

I am not saying that it's acceptable or something to celebrate, but if it 83 wins becomes a measuring stick for a "bad" season for the Cubs, then I think we are going in the right direction.

[loukycub]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

*sigh*

 

university of louisville football.

 

our coach sucks. he cannot coach at this level. he needs to go for the future of this program. but do you honestly think i am actively hoping for my team to lose every game? you must be crazy.

 

it is possible for some fans to not root for or cheer for people on their team and still root for the team. i don't like bradley as a person or as a player because from my eye he hasn't done much of anything to help his teams win anything significant. but i didn't root AGAINST him. that's stupid. while he's wearing the uniform of my favorite team, my reaction to him is neutral until he does something stupid (like not knowing how many outs there are) or until he does something actually productive (like getting an extra base hit or driving in runs) then my reaction will change in that direction until the next game where it returns to neutral. i didn't cheer for him until he did something but i never cheered against him. i wanted him to do well because it helps my favorite baseball team win baseball games.

 

i'll bet you rooted and cheered for aaron miles and neal cotts as well, just because they were wearing cub uniforms.

 

what is extremely dishonest is just looking at stats as a reason to justify a person being on the team. stats help but stats should not be the determining factor. anyone else want to guess why barry bonds has not been on an active major league roster the last couple of seasons?

[SouthSideRyan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team.

 

I think what we're waiting for is one shred of evidence that Bradley's mere presence made the team worse, and nobody seems to have that for us other than to say he's been on a lot of teams.

[SouthSideRyan]

what is extremely dishonest is just looking at stats as a reason to justify a person being on the team. stats help but stats should not be the determining factor. anyone else want to guess why barry bonds has not been on an active major league roster the last couple of seasons?

 

Because he's been blackballed by the commissioner due to steroids.

[Tarver]

I'd say the displeasure with Hendry's performance is completely rational. What's irrational is some folks acceptance of mediocre results and piss-poor management.

[WilcoFan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team.

 

I think what we're waiting for is one shred of evidence that Bradley's mere presence made the team worse, and nobody seems to have that for us other than to say he's been on a lot of teams.

 

1. Step One: Create a finite and irrational set of terms on which a discussion must occur

2. Step Two: Demand Evidence

3. Step Three: Ignore evidence provided by other side by declaring any evidence that doesn't fit within a ridiculous set of terms (see Step One) to "not be evidence."

4. Step Four: Profit!

[ELCABALLO45]

what is extremely dishonest is just looking at stats as a reason to justify a person being on the team. stats help but stats should not be the determining factor. anyone else want to guess why barry bonds has not been on an active major league roster the last couple of seasons?

 

Because he's been blackballed by the commissioner due to steroids.

 

Manny Ramirez

Gary Sheffield

Alex Rodriguez

ect...

 

All still can find a job in MLB.

[Rob]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

What bothers me are the people that continue to believe this game is played on their Xbox 360 and the players are robots or machines that will not be affected by any outside influences other than the 3 hours of the players play a baseball game.

 

Where have I ever said anything of the sort? I'm saying that people need some sort of proof to back up their claims... especially the over the top ones by people like back2banks who have suggested that his performance on the field was totally wiped out by his negative attitude.

 

If there's one thing I really truly pride myself on, it's the fact that I'm willing to look over all the evidence and admit when I'm wrong. All I've gotten to this point is flawed anecdotal evidence comparing baseball players to a bunch of white collar guys working in an office, or simply saying that Bradley keeps getting moved. There hasn't been a single person here who has been able to even prove that pissing off all the players in the locker room wasn't helpful, let alone that it actively detracted from the performance of the team. Has anybody linked to anything from a sports psychologist suggesting happy players play better than pissed off ones? No. Has anybody compared offensive performance of players on the same team as Bradley in years where he was there and years where he wasn't? No. Has anybody done anything at all to back up their opinion with fact? No. People are simply making up crap as they go along.

 

Until people offer some degree of proof that his attitude impacted the performance of the team, the only rational thing to do is assume it made no noticeable impact at all.

[Sammy Sofa]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team.

 

I think what we're waiting for is one shred of evidence that Bradley's mere presence made the team worse, and nobody seems to have that for us other than to say he's been on a lot of teams.

 

1. Step One: Create a finite and irrational set of terms on which a discussion must occur

2. Step Two: Demand Evidence

3. Step Three: Ignore evidence provided by other side by declaring any evidence that doesn't fit within a ridiculous set of terms (see Step One) to "not be evidence."

4. Step Four: Profit!

 

What evidence has been presented that shows that Bradley's negative effect on the chemistry and the attitude of the team actually cost them games?

[Backtobanks]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

What bothers me are the people that continue to believe this game is played on their Xbox 360 and the players are robots or machines that will not be affected by any outside influences other than the 3 hours of the players play a baseball game.

 

Where have I ever said anything of the sort? I'm saying that people need some sort of proof to back up their claims... especially the over the top ones by people like back2banks who have suggested that his performance on the field was totally wiped out by his negative attitude.If there's one thing I really truly pride myself on, it's the fact that I'm willing to look over all the evidence and admit when I'm wrong. All I've gotten to this point is flawed anecdotal evidence comparing baseball players to a bunch of white collar guys working in an office, or simply saying that Bradley keeps getting moved. There hasn't been a single person here who has been able to even prove that pissing off all the players in the locker room wasn't helpful, let alone that it actively detracted from the performance of the team. Has anybody linked to anything from a sports psychologist suggesting happy players play better than pissed off ones? No. Has anybody compared offensive performance of players on the same team as Bradley in years where he was there and years where he wasn't? No. Has anybody done anything at all to back up their opinion with fact? No. People are simply making up crap as they go along.

 

Until people offer some degree of proof that his attitude impacted the performance of the team, the only rational thing to do is assume it made no noticeable impact at all.

 

Since you named me in particular, I don't think I ever said that Bradley's negative attitude wipes out everything he does on the field. What I have said is that Bradley is a good hitter, but all of his baggage has made him unwanted in the trade market unless the Cubs pay most of his contract or take a terrible contract back in return. I have had posters telling me they had "evidence" that I was wrong. Of course I'm still waiting to see any evidence that teams are lined up to take Bradley and his contract or give the Cubs something of value for him. Apparently many of the GMs must think that his negative attitude does negate his contributions on the field because I've posted that Bradley the hitter (without the drama) should be sought by at least 20 teams. Another point that I made and was discussed was that from a public relations standpoint Bradley negates most of what he adds on the field and most GMs aren't willing to take a chance on Bradley "going off" on their front office, fans, team mates, and city like he did in Chicago.

[CUBZ99]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

What bothers me are the people that continue to believe this game is played on their Xbox 360 and the players are robots or machines that will not be affected by any outside influences other than the 3 hours of the players play a baseball game.

 

Where have I ever said anything of the sort? I'm saying that people need some sort of proof to back up their claims... especially the over the top ones by people like back2banks who have suggested that his performance on the field was totally wiped out by his negative attitude.

 

If there's one thing I really truly pride myself on, it's the fact that I'm willing to look over all the evidence and admit when I'm wrong. All I've gotten to this point is flawed anecdotal evidence comparing baseball players to a bunch of white collar guys working in an office, or simply saying that Bradley keeps getting moved. There hasn't been a single person here who has been able to even prove that pissing off all the players in the locker room wasn't helpful, let alone that it actively detracted from the performance of the team. Has anybody linked to anything from a sports psychologist suggesting happy players play better than pissed off ones? No. Has anybody compared offensive performance of players on the same team as Bradley in years where he was there and years where he wasn't? No. Has anybody done anything at all to back up their opinion with fact? No. People are simply making up crap as they go along.

 

Until people offer some degree of proof that his attitude impacted the performance of the team, the only rational thing to do is assume it made no noticeable impact at all.

 

You talk about evidence, then you proceed to ignore all of the available evidence there is. Banks didn't make up the fact that almost all of the players in the clubhouse implied or out right stated that Bradley was unwanted and a negative presence on the team. Your argument is that even though all of the players, coaches, GM and media (granted these are only the people that were with him on a daily basis) state that the Club was better off without Bradley, somehow you know better because you can't explain it or quantify it into a statistic? To say that if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist...is about as closed minded as you can get. There are plenty of things in life that we are unable to quantify.

 

Hence the XBox360 comment. These players are still human beings and are affected by outside stimuli.

[CUBZ99]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

 

I wouldn't begrudge anybody here if they said, "I know Bradley makes this team better, but I dislike him so much that I'd rather see this team lose an extra couple games if it means being rid of him."

 

What bothers me are the people who are trying to rationalize their hatred of him by creating a fantasy world where he somehow negatively impacts our chances to win. They just cant stand the thought they're rooting for us to do something against the best interests of the team, and make up ridiculous claims to defend themselves. It's extremely dishonest.

 

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team.

 

I think what we're waiting for is one shred of evidence that Bradley's mere presence made the team worse, and nobody seems to have that for us other than to say he's been on a lot of teams.

 

1. Step One: Create a finite and irrational set of terms on which a discussion must occur

2. Step Two: Demand Evidence

3. Step Three: Ignore evidence provided by other side by declaring any evidence that doesn't fit within a ridiculous set of terms (see Step One) to "not be evidence."

4. Step Four: Profit!

 

What evidence has been presented that shows that Bradley's negative effect on the chemistry and the attitude of the team actually cost them games?

 

Just comments from the players, coaches, GM and media. What evidence do you have that there was no negative effect on the chemistry?

[Sammy Sofa]

Just comments from the players, coaches, GM and media. What evidence do you have that there was no negative effect on the chemistry?

 

That's not what I said: I'm asking for evidence that any kind of "bad chemistry" actually cost them games. Seems like a fat, injured and sophomore slumping Soto, injured Soriano, the offensive black hole at 2nd base until Baker showed up and Aramis missing almost half the season would clearly have had much more to do with games being lost than "chemistry" issues. I don't see how anyone could argue that they would have won more games despite all of that simple because they liked each other and got along. Good feelings don't trump critical players in horrible slumps and/or playing injured or on the DL. People want an easy answer as to why the team faltered and Bardley's made himself the obvious target with his poor behavior and stupid comments.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Sammy Sofa

[Rob]

Who is debating the chemistry was worse?

 

I'm just askng for some proof that bad chemistry negatively impacts team performance. And it'd be swell if somebody could give an estimate of how much of a difference it makes. Nobody has offered anything of the sort to back up their opinion that his attitude hurt us.

[CUBZ99]

Just comments from the players, coaches, GM and media. What evidence do you have that there was no negative effect on the chemistry?

 

That's not what I said: I'm asking for evidence that any kind of "bad chemistry" actually cost them games. Seems like a fat, injured and sophomore slumping Soto, injured Soriano, the offensive black hole at 2nd base until Baker showed up and Aramis missing almost half the season would clearly have had much more to do with games being lost than "chemistry" issues. I don't see how anyone could argue that they would have won more games despite all of that simple because they liked each other and got along. Good feelings don't trump critical players in horrible slumps and/or playing injured or on the DL. People want an easy answer as to why the team faltered and Bardley's made himself the obvious target with his poor behavior and stupid comments.

 

Please present your proof that team chemistry has no effect on a team's win/loss record.

[Rob]

Please present your proof that team chemistry has no effect on a team's win/loss record.

 

Nobody is saying it has no effect. We're withholding judgment on the matter until some evidence is presented.

 

You are the one passing judgment. You are the one with the burden of proof.

 

If it's as obvious as you act like it is, you should have no problem finding a scientific study by a sports psychologist or even a stats guy who wants to crunch the numbers of individual players with Bradley there and without.

[Sammy Sofa]

Just comments from the players, coaches, GM and media. What evidence do you have that there was no negative effect on the chemistry?

 

That's not what I said: I'm asking for evidence that any kind of "bad chemistry" actually cost them games. Seems like a fat, injured and sophomore slumping Soto, injured Soriano, the offensive black hole at 2nd base until Baker showed up and Aramis missing almost half the season would clearly have had much more to do with games being lost than "chemistry" issues. I don't see how anyone could argue that they would have won more games despite all of that simple because they liked each other and got along. Good feelings don't trump critical players in horrible slumps and/or playing injured or on the DL. People want an easy answer as to why the team faltered and Bardley's made himself the obvious target with his poor behavior and stupid comments.

 

Please present your proof that team chemistry has no effect on a team's win/loss record.

 

I'm not saying that it doesn't for sure. Personally, I don't think it does to any significant degree. Baseball is, ultimately a sport of personal ability. The team isn't involved at the moment of truth when a pitcher has to throw his pitch or the batter is taking his swing or the defender is making his play. If baseball players are so easily swayed by their feelings for another player when that player ultimately has nothing to do with what they need to do at the exact moment they're actually being a baseball player (hitting, pitching, catching) then theoretically they're also going to effected by anything negative in their lives.

 

Obviously, some things beyond the game are going to weigh on players as we've arguably seen with players dealing with serious things like death or illness or births involving loved ones, but those are truly important things well beyond some jerk lurking out in RF. I mean, sure, something like the pitchers hating the catcher or vice versa has the real makings of being a problem, but how the hell is Milton Bradley being a jerk effecting how the other players play the game? Are they worried he's going to come out of nowhere and attack them? Are his verbal bon mots so scathing that the thought of them just makes it impossible to concentrate on the game? He's one guy. If everyone else gets along fine, how does one pissy guy shatter the "chemistry?" That's basically saying that these guys are so weak-minded that just the thought of a guy they don't like, who almost always has NOTHING to do with what they need to do as baseball players at any given moment, is going to cause them to play poorly. I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem too realistic.

[CUBZ99]

Please present your proof that team chemistry has no effect on a team's win/loss record.

Nobody is saying it has no effect. We're withholding judgment on the matter until some evidence is presented.

 

You are the one passing judgment. You are the one with the burden of proof.

 

If it's as obvious as you act like it is, you should have no problem finding a scientific study by a sports psychologist or even a stats guy who wants to crunch the numbers of individual players with Bradley there and without.

 

I'm not exactly sure why we are arguing. We both agree that it is possible that a player can have a negative effect on team chemistry, and that team chemistry may some effect on a teams W/L record.

 

The degree to which it has an impact is not material to any argument I've made. You did make laugh with your feigned "you should have no problem finding a scientific study" argument. Considering the variables that would involved with such a study, it would be completely unreliable and not trustworthy anyways.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm not exactly sure why we are arguing. We both agree that it is possible that a player can have a negative effect on team chemistry, and that team chemistry may some effect on a teams W/L record.

 

There's a difference between conceding that something is technically possible and agreeing that it's likely to occur.