Re: Rosenthal: Multiple teams after Bradley

[ConstableRabbit]

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

 

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided.

 

 

Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions.

 

If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him.

This is correct. I don't understand how people are saying it's not, unless their argument is that Bradley's attitude somehow made his teammates play worse -- a completely indefensible argument in itself.

[Backtobanks]

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

 

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided.

 

 

Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions.

 

If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him.

 

They don't have to trade him, but they are going to trade him for all the reasons that have been mentioned numerous times before. I believe he has to be traded because he has burned all the bridges with the Cubs and there's no turning back according to everything I have read and heard. My posts are based on the assumption that he will be traded and what kind of return we can get for him. I agree with many of you that Bradley, considering only his baseball skills, is probably better than whoever his replacement will be. Unfortunately you can't seperate Bradley the baseball player from Bradley the public relations nightmare.

[Sammys Boombox]

People still think Bradley will be on this team?

 

If the Cubs do not discipline Bradley, no matter what he does, and he refuses to play or doesn't show up for games/practices can they claim a breach of contract and not pay him? Maybe OleMiss could answer this.

[Backtobanks]

People still think Bradley will be on this team?

 

If the Cubs do not discipline Bradley, no matter what he does, and he refuses to play or doesn't show up for games/practices can they claim a breach of contract and not pay him? Maybe OleMiss could answer this.

 

First, Bradley may be crazy, but he's not stupid. I'm sure he wouldn't refuse to play or show up for games or practices. Also, I'm sure he could claim he injured if he didn't want to play (he certainly could claim a mental illness which would be hard to dispute). In any case, the Cubs would have to have a pretty solid case or else the union would jump all over them.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I would love for the Cubs to keep Bradley... but at this point I just don't know if it's possible. It seems like he has burned all his bridges with his teammates and the fans... and it seems like he doesn't wanna be here. Actually, it really seems like he was trying as hard as he could to get traded. So maybe keeping him isn't an option.

[CUBZ99]

I would love for the Cubs to keep Bradley... but at this point I just don't know if it's possible. It seems like he has burned all his bridges with his teammates and the fans... and it seems like he doesn't wanna be here. Actually, it really seems like he was trying as hard as he could to get traded. So maybe keeping him isn't an option.

 

Agreed.

Edited October 24, 2009 by CUBZ99

[Guest]

I would love for the Cubs to keep Bradley... but at this point I just don't know if it's possible. It seems like he has burned all his bridges with his teammates and the fans... and it seems like he doesn't wanna be here. Actually, it really seems like he was trying as hard as he could to get traded. So maybe keeping him isn't an option.

 

Stop making sense if your going to post in this thread.

I wish people would quit this nonsense.

[davearm2]

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

 

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided.

 

 

Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions.

 

If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him.

This is correct. I don't understand how people are saying it's not, unless their argument is that Bradley's attitude somehow made his teammates play worse -- a completely indefensible argument in itself.

It's not a completely indefensible argument. It's just one that doesn't have a tidy statistical proof to convince folks.

 

As Albert Einstein said, not everything that counts can be counted.

[Guest]

As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley.

 

I don't know what variables has to do with it. But Bradley has nothing to do with the 2009 struggles. He was a disappointment, but a pretty decent player and probably better that whatever they plan on replacing him with. So not only do they have to get some old banged up dudes healthy, hope they stay healthy, and hope that some declines were flukey, they would have to do all that and hope to offset the decline from what Bradley provided.

 

 

Backtobanks, to clarify, you believe there is a very limited market for Bradley and the Cubs will likely have to resort to some combination of eating salary/accepting marginal return (a reasonable opinion that I happen to share), but you also believe they have to trade him? I'm not sure how you reconcile those two opinions.

 

If the market isn't there, they don't have to trade him.

This is correct. I don't understand how people are saying it's not, unless their argument is that Bradley's attitude somehow made his teammates play worse -- a completely indefensible argument in itself.

It's not a completely indefensible argument. It's just one that doesn't have a tidy statistical proof to convince folks.

 

As Albert Einstein said, not everything that counts can be counted.

Einstein wasn't talking about baseball when he said that, either.

[loukycub]

But a player's performance on the field can be quantified, and that's all that should matter.

 

barry bonds thinks you should be his new agent.

 

it seems clear to me you take a corporatist like view of your favorite teams. you don't care how they act, just as long as they bring you wins. i take a community(?) like view where i want my team to win but i also don't want my team to act like jerks to embarrass the organization with their behavior.

 

bradley would have been just fine if he had been a soulless, emotionless, cliche spouting automaton baseball player this season and i think the most the fans would have been saying about him is that we overpaid for a player in a power hitting position touted as the great left hand bat sought after.

[Halman]

But a player's performance on the field can be quantified, and that's all that should matter.

 

barry bonds thinks you should be his new agent.

 

 

agreed, Barry Bonds was the reason the giants never won a title while he was there. Nothing to do with the fact that they were trotting mediocrities and washed up vets at almost every other position he when he was there.

[loukycub]

now having read the entire thread from start to finish (my above post i made when i got to that point in this thread) i'd like to say to the retain bradley crowd that professional sports decision making that relies purely on stats exist inside an xbox, ps3, or wii. i will submit that milton bradley is a decent baseball player and that he puts up nice numbers. however i also believe that when you sign a player, you sign all of the player, the good and the bad. and if an organization believes that a player's bad outweighs a player's good, then the player is not going to be gotten rid of at the first best opportunity.

 

milton has not only burned bridges, he nuked them and burned the blueprints to make new ones. the players implicitly stated that they didn't want his attitude around anymore. the fans clearly don't care for his attitude. he acts that getting booed by the home crowd is the worst thing in the world, even if its deserved by stupid play and going 0-6 by strikeout. he doesn't have the mindset to survive playing in chicago. the best thing for him is to move on someplace else where the press is much more friendly and the pressure from the fanbase is much much less.

[CP_414]

now having read the entire thread from start to finish (my above post i made when i got to that point in this thread) i'd like to say to the retain bradley crowd that professional sports decision making that relies purely on stats exist inside an xbox, ps3, or wii. i will submit that milton bradley is a decent baseball player and that he puts up nice numbers. however i also believe that when you sign a player, you sign all of the player, the good and the bad. and if an organization believes that a player's bad outweighs a player's good, then the player is not going to be gotten rid of at the first best opportunity.

 

milton has not only burned bridges, he nuked them and burned the blueprints to make new ones. the players implicitly stated that they didn't want his attitude around anymore. the fans clearly don't care for his attitude. he acts that getting booed by the home crowd is the worst thing in the world, even if its deserved by stupid play and going 0-6 by strikeout. he doesn't have the mindset to survive playing in chicago. the best thing for him is to move on someplace else where the press is much more friendly and the pressure from the fanbase is much much less.

 

Yeah guys, stats are for video games! Show me stat that measures heart! Milton Bradley is a nuclear terrorist. I guess he had 6 strikeout games, too. He doen't have the mindset for Chicago, even though he was excellent at Wrighley this year. That doesn't matter though, because even Ryan Theriot doesn't like him! How can anyone not get along with a guy as awesome as Ryan Theriot?????? Sam Fuld for RF in 2010!!! He seems like a great guy!

[Halman]

now having read the entire thread from start to finish (my above post i made when i got to that point in this thread) i'd like to say to the retain bradley crowd that professional sports decision making that relies purely on stats exist inside an xbox, ps3, or wii. i will submit that milton bradley is a decent baseball player and that he puts up nice numbers. however i also believe that when you sign a player, you sign all of the player, the good and the bad. and if an organization believes that a player's bad outweighs a player's good, then the player is not going to be gotten rid of at the first best opportunity.

 

milton has not only burned bridges, he nuked them and burned the blueprints to make new ones. the players implicitly stated that they didn't want his attitude around anymore. the fans clearly don't care for his attitude. he acts that getting booed by the home crowd is the worst thing in the world, even if its deserved by stupid play and going 0-6 by strikeout. he doesn't have the mindset to survive playing in chicago. the best thing for him is to move on someplace else where the press is much more friendly and the pressure from the fanbase is much much less.

 

Yeah guys, stats are for video games! Show me stat that measures heart! Milton Bradley is a nuclear terrorist. I guess he had 6 strikeout games, too. He doen't have the mindset for Chicago, even though he was excellent at Wrighley this year. That doesn't matter though, because even Ryan Theriot doesn't like him! How can anyone not get along with a guy as awesome as Ryan Theriot?????? Sam Fuld for RF in 2010!!! He seems like a great guy!

 

Hopefully, they can trade Lee and pick up Darin Erstad to play 1B and David Eckstein to play 2B.

[Rob]

now having read the entire thread from start to finish (my above post i made when i got to that point in this thread) i'd like to say to the retain bradley crowd that professional sports decision making that relies purely on stats exist inside an xbox, ps3, or wii. i will submit that milton bradley is a decent baseball player and that he puts up nice numbers. however i also believe that when you sign a player, you sign all of the player, the good and the bad. and if an organization believes that a player's bad outweighs a player's good, then the player is not going to be gotten rid of at the first best opportunity.

 

]b]milton has not only burned bridges, he nuked them and burned the blueprints to make new ones.[/b] the players implicitly stated that they didn't want his attitude around anymore. the fans clearly don't care for his attitude. he acts that getting booed by the home crowd is the worst thing in the world, even if its deserved by stupid play and going 0-6 by strikeout. he doesn't have the mindset to survive playing in chicago. the best thing for him is to move on someplace else where the press is much more friendly and the pressure from the fanbase is much much less.

 

This kind of sentiment is beyond absurd.

 

He nuked bridges and burned blueprints? Just what exactly did he do? Did he beat his wife? Kill somebody while driving intoxicated? Is he raping the other players dogs?

 

No. He's just a bit of a dick. If he made a nice little apology in the locker room and meant a word of it, the team would forgive him in a second.

 

And for god's sake, please stop the "you'd only think that from playing video games" argument. Most of the people making the argument that he can still stay are some of the more passionate fans on this board, the ones that watch every single game (which is another bad argument to make, but probably neutralizes the stupid video game thing).

[CUBZ99]

now having read the entire thread from start to finish (my above post i made when i got to that point in this thread) i'd like to say to the retain bradley crowd that professional sports decision making that relies purely on stats exist inside an xbox, ps3, or wii. i will submit that milton bradley is a decent baseball player and that he puts up nice numbers. however i also believe that when you sign a player, you sign all of the player, the good and the bad. and if an organization believes that a player's bad outweighs a player's good, then the player is not going to be gotten rid of at the first best opportunity.

 

]b]milton has not only burned bridges, he nuked them and burned the blueprints to make new ones.[/b] the players implicitly stated that they didn't want his attitude around anymore. the fans clearly don't care for his attitude. he acts that getting booed by the home crowd is the worst thing in the world, even if its deserved by stupid play and going 0-6 by strikeout. he doesn't have the mindset to survive playing in chicago. the best thing for him is to move on someplace else where the press is much more friendly and the pressure from the fanbase is much much less.

 

This kind of sentiment is beyond absurd.

 

He nuked bridges and burned blueprints? Just what exactly did he do? Did he beat his wife? Kill somebody while driving intoxicated? Is he raping the other players dogs?

 

No. He's just a bit of a dick. If he made a nice little apology in the locker room and meant a word of it, the team would forgive him in a second.

 

And for god's sake, please stop the "you'd only think that from playing video games" argument. Most of the people making the argument that he can still stay are some of the more passionate fans on this board, the ones that watch every single game (which is another bad argument to make, but probably neutralizes the stupid video game thing).

 

To truly believe that Bradley will come back, is to adapt Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief. The video game analogy is pretty close. Most of the people arguing that Bradley can stay completely discount the human aspect of the game. Players and management aren't robots, they can't help but be affected by outside stimuli to some degree. Every bit of evidence that has been printed or reported states that Bradley has burned his bridges beyond repair. The problem is, that most of the stat gurus can't quantify the impact his actions have on the team so they severely discount it. In the end, they can continually hide behind the "well we can't prove it so it doesn't exist" argument.

 

And to address the bolded part, it is a ridiculous argument. Aaron Miles may be one of the most passionate players on the Cubs, that does not make him a good player, any more than it makes a passionate poster correct.

[Tim M]

I think the "Keep Bradley" crowd is underestimating how disliked he was on the Cubs. This is obviously an assumption on my part but I think many of the problems Bradley had were behind the scenes. When Lou suspended him for smashing the gatorade machine he hinted that it was one of numerous transgressions. It appears to be a situation where he absolutely has to be shipped out.

[Rob]

To truly believe that Bradley will come back, is to adapt Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief. The video game analogy is pretty close. Most of the people arguing that Bradley can stay completely discount the human aspect of the game. Players and management aren't robots, they can't help but be affected by outside stimuli to some degree. Every bit of evidence that has been printed or reported states that Bradley has burned his bridges beyond repair. The problem is, that most of the stat geeks can't quantify the impact his actions have on the team so they severely discount it. In the end, they can continually hide behind the "well we can't prove it so it doesn't exist" argument.

 

And to address the bolded part, it is a ridiculous argument. Aaron Miles may be one of the most passionate players on the Cubs, that does not make him a good player, any more than it makes a passionate poster correct.

 

You didn't actually respond to anything I posted.

 

The issues of whether or not the human aspect makes a difference is a contributing factor to the question of "should we keep him?". It has no value in determining whether or not we are able to, which was the crux of my post. Asserting that he has "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" would seemingly imply that there is no possible way he can make a return... and that's simply not the case at all. He hasn't done a thing that the team cannot forgive him for. There are plenty of players in MLB who have done much worse things and their teammates have forgiven them. Hell, Zambrano has done worse things by actually assaulting a teammate and he's still on the team.

 

You can say you don't think it's a good idea to bring him back. And I'm sure you can make an argument for it like you tried to above. But when people here are asserting the he burned bridges to the point that there's no way he can possibly return to the team, they're quite wrong.

 

And please, when I say in the post itself that something is a horrible argument for certain things, don't go ahead and assume that I wanted you to respond to it as if I meant it for that. The "watching games" is simply a way to refute "all you stats geeks do is play video games." Nothing more. I said that in the previous post, but apparently that was lost on you.

[flyseye]

Albert Einstein's entire quote was:

 

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

 

I can not think of a quote that more accurately describes the Bradley situation. The video game analogy is also accurate, anyone who thinks otherwise has obviously never managed anything.

 

There is plenty of evidence, including some first hand from Bruce Miles, to indicate Bradley upset, disrespected,was insubordinate, or just plain rude to the fans, his hitting coach and manager, the other players, and the sports writers. I can't prove that these distractions cost the cubs any wins, just as those Bradley supporters can prove that they did not. I can, however, state from experience that distractions of the magnitude of those caused by Milton Bradley can be detrimental to achieving the task at hand. Of that there is no doubt to anyone in management of any kind.

[CUBZ99]

You can say you don't think it's a good idea to bring him back. And I'm sure you can make an argument for it like you tried to above. But when people here are asserting the he burned bridges to the point that there's no way he can possibly return to the team, they're quite wrong.

 

I think it would be a great idea to bring Bradley back next year (rather than get nothing), but I don't have to play with him or be around him for 3/4 of the year. His statement about "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" , although greatly exaggerated is probably closer to the truth, than any chance that Bradley returns.

[Halman]

 

There is plenty of evidence, including some first hand from Bruce Miles, to indicate Bradley upset, disrespected,was insubordinate, or just plain rude to the fans.

 

plays world's smallest violin for the great fans :roll:.

 

Some of us don't want to trade Bradley for pennies on the dollar and have to either hope Sam Fuld/Ty Colvin becomes a adquete baseball player immediately or Jeremy Hermida turns into Jayson Werth redux at roughly 7.5-10 mill per (once you factor in Bradley's salary).

 

But it has to be the fact I play too much Xbox. :roll:

[flyseye]

 

There is plenty of evidence, including some first hand from Bruce Miles, to indicate Bradley upset, disrespected,was insubordinate, or just plain rude to the fans.

 

plays world's smallest violin for the great fans :roll:.

 

Some of us don't want to trade Bradley for pennies on the dollar and have to either hope Sam Fuld/Ty Colvin becomes a adquete baseball player immediately or Jeremy Hermida turns into Jayson Werth redux at roughly 7.5-10 mill per (once you factor in Bradley's salary).

 

But it has to be the fact I play too much Xbox. :roll:

 

Sorry, I really was not aware those were the only available choices. Please, when you are done playing Xbox, name your sources for your insider observations.

 

I will skip the rolling eye emoticons as a good faith showing of maturity.

 

Oh, and if you are going to quote me please do not add periods where there were none. Heck, you might even want to include the entire sentence, but that would have wrecked your entire, really clever little violin thing.

[Tim M]

 

There is plenty of evidence, including some first hand from Bruce Miles, to indicate Bradley upset, disrespected,was insubordinate, or just plain rude to the fans.

 

plays world's smallest violin for the great fans :roll:.

 

Some of us don't want to trade Bradley for pennies on the dollar and have to either hope Sam Fuld/Ty Colvin becomes a adquete baseball player immediately or Jeremy Hermida turns into Jayson Werth redux at roughly 7.5-10 mill per (once you factor in Bradley's salary).

 

But it has to be the fact I play too much Xbox. :roll:

 

Is that really much worse than bringing bringing back Bradley? He was a below average fielder, hitter, baserunner, and apparently a pain in the ass as well. Bradley just isn't anywhere near the asset some here are making him out to be.

[inari]

I said this on 312sports so I'll say it here too; I have on very good authority that the chances of Bradley being back are 0%. I'm not dropping names, and I'm not someone who typically has some source within the Cubs. But I did get this info from such a source. There is zero chance Bradley is back. Zilch. We can speculate about it but the chances of Bradley returning are as high as the chances the Cubs win the World Series in a couple of weeks.

[Monco]

The biggest problem was that the team was bad. The Bradley finger pointing escalated in late August when they were around 10 games out. If they were 3 up at the time, nothing would have been said. They needed a scapegoat, and his personality set him up for the role. Who makes the better scapegoat, the hot headed new guy or the happy go lucky left fielder that the team has bent over backward for from day one? I wonder how many of the whispers of Bradley being a disruption came out of left field to deflect attention from others...

 

If they trade him and play well,or keep him and play poorly, it will look like its his fault. If they keep him and play well, all will be forgiven, Winning solves a lot of problems.