Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[Sammy Sofa]

if you added 01 barry bonds to our team last year we would have won 100 games

 

HEY DOESN'T CARE HE'D RATHER HAVE 100 MORE YEARS OF LOSING YOU LOSER DUH

[Ballgame64]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

[17 Seconds]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know.

 

yeah, before you know it these clowns are going to say that the game is also based on whoever scores more runs.

 

ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous.

[Rob]

The more I think about it the Cubs could do worse than keeping Bradley. There's nothing of consequence that'll result from a trade of Bradley, the Cubs have made it known they've got to trade him and they're going to screw the Cubs over.

 

I think the best thing they could do is to decide to keep Bradley, then immediately get the PR wheels turning and try to mend fences between Bradley and the fans.

 

Really! That clown hates us (Cubs fans) and the city of Chicago. Screw him! I have a disdain for him like no other. In fact, I have never hated another player more in my time of watching professional sports.

 

The time he hit a home run and then mocked the cheering fans, as to say, "keeping talking" makes my blood boil. I would take another hundred years of losing just to see this clown not wearing a Cubs uniform ever again. (ok, maybe that's a bit extreme) But none the less, Bradley is a clueless, joke of a human being that needs to be removed from this team at ANY cost! Point blank! I don't care if he puts up 01' Barry Bonds like numbers, this team won't win with him. Thankfully the people that don't mind keeping him, aren't the people making decisions for the Cubs this year. He will be gone!

 

You and I couldn't agree less, but at least you admit that the driving force behind your decision is your selfish desire to simply be rid of him, despite the consequences to the team. You have a right to that opinion.

[Hall7810]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

David Kaplan...is that you?

[dew1679666265]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players.

 

It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.

[davearm2]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players.

 

It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.

He never said to ignore stats.

 

What he said was, to act like stats are the only thing that matters is silly. And he's exactly right. On some level intangible factors like Bradley's personality and clubhouse influence have to enter the equation. You seem to agree with this, but many here apparently do not.

[dew1679666265]

He never said to ignore stats.

 

What he said was, to act like stats are the only thing that matters is silly. And he's exactly right. On some level intangible factors like Bradley's personality and clubhouse influence have to enter the equation. You seem to agree with this, but many here apparently do not.

 

Stats should be 95% of what you use to evaluate a player, though. Intangibles should be considered, but not moreso or even closely as much as statistics.

[jersey cubs fan]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players.

 

It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.

He never said to ignore stats.

 

What he said was, to act like stats are the only thing that matters is silly. And he's exactly right. On some level intangible factors like Bradley's personality and clubhouse influence have to enter the equation. You seem to agree with this, but many here apparently do not.

 

He implied it very strongly. He said the better OPS doesn't determine the winner and implied that what fans care about stats matters. Fans are stupid. Fans more concerned with appearances than stats are stupid. Bradley's attitude didn't force Soriano to suck or Ramirez to get injured, and that is why the team struggled. It wasn't chemistry or personality or any such nonsense. There is no argument. The Cubs lost last year because their stats stunks, and their stats stunk mostly because Soriano sucked and Ramirez missed too much time. Scapegoating Bradley's attitude is just ignorant.

[Little Slide Rooter]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players.

 

It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.

 

I dont know, Aaron Miles and Joey Gathright both seem like nice enough guys. Maybe that should be the '09-'10 off season goal. Nice guys. screw productivity.

[inari]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players.

 

It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.

 

Technically you couldn't know if they were a profitable company simply by looking at their profits, right? I'm not good at economics, but don't you have to look at their profit margin as opposed to simply their profits?

 

That was unnecessary.

Edited November 30, 2009 by inari

[davearm2]

has any player who ops'd .892 at home in wrigley been more maligned?

 

This kind of quote makes me laugh. When games are won or lost based on which team has a better ops, let me know. Do you think fans care about OPS when Bradley throws the ball into the stands with one out? Do they care about OPS when he turns and throws the ball over the cut off man's head allowing a runner to take an extra base? Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through time and time again?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at stats, but to act like they are the only thing that matters is silly. Bill James himself has said the player's personality and ability to get along with teammates is a very important part of the evaluation process. Sometimes you just have to watch the game and realize the guy is not as good as his numbers might be. Say whatever you want, but in the month of June when Ramirez was out, Bradley had 77 plate appearances and drove in 3 runs. To say he is productive is generous.

 

Stats are how you judge how productive a player is. If we ignore stats, what do we look at to consider a player's production? Simply saying he missed a cutoff man a few times or he made a boneheaded mistake once is not not enough to make the decision that he's not a productive player. I don't have a problem with you saying his inter-clubhouse relationships should be considered, but if you don't take stats very heavily into the equation, you don't have much to go on in evaluating players.

 

It's like looking at Wal-Mart's profits and saying that doesn't show it's a profitable company.

He never said to ignore stats.

 

What he said was, to act like stats are the only thing that matters is silly. And he's exactly right. On some level intangible factors like Bradley's personality and clubhouse influence have to enter the equation. You seem to agree with this, but many here apparently do not.

 

He implied it very strongly. He said the better OPS doesn't determine the winner and implied that what fans care about stats matters. Fans are stupid. Fans more concerned with appearances than stats are stupid. Bradley's attitude didn't force Soriano to suck or Ramirez to get injured, and that is why the team struggled. It wasn't chemistry or personality or any such nonsense. There is no argument. The Cubs lost last year because their stats stunks, and their stats stunk mostly because Soriano sucked and Ramirez missed too much time. Scapegoating Bradley's attitude is just ignorant.

None of us can boil down the impact of Bradley's attitude on the Cubs' won-loss record to a number.

 

What's ignorant is to assume that impact is zero.

 

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

[dew1679666265]

Technically you couldn't no if they were a profitable company simply by looking at their profits, right? I'm not good at economics, but don't you have to look at their profit margin as opposed to simply their profits?

 

That was unnecessary.

 

You are correct. Looking at pure profit would be like looking at RBIs, while looking at profit margin would be like looking at OPS.

 

Thanks for correcting me.

[dew1679666265]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

I don't know that it has as much effect in baseball (a team game based on individual performances) as it does in, say, football. In football, if the QB doesn't have good chemistry with his WRs, they won't be as crisp working together as a QB that has great chemisty with his receivers (look at Peyton with Reggie Wayne, for instance).

 

In baseball, though, a first baseman not liking his left fielder isn't going to have a huge negative impact on whether or not the first baseman can field his position or hit the ball when at the plate. The positions where chemistry probably means the most in baseball are probably the battery relationships. A catcher liking his pitcher and knowing what he likes to throw and doesn't like to throw will likely mean a decent amount.

[Guest]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

Are you kidding me? Attempting to decipher what you just said about these guys being human beings rather than robots, all I can conclude is that Bradley must have peed in their Cheerios, slept with their daughters, raped their mothers and pillaged the rest of their families.

 

Come on, dude. Every one of these guys has been the scapegoat at one point or another.

 

Whether we want to really point blame is really a moot point. Who really cares. The horrible season that was 2009 is over now. Sit down, hash out what went wrong on the field and off, figure out a way to fix the problems and resolve them before the opening pitch in 2010.

 

As far as major league baseball being a tense and stressful atmosphere, it should only be that way when focusing on your own abilities being better than the guy who wants to replace you, not what anyone else on the team is or isn't doing.

 

Bradley made some mistakes. So did Hendry. So did Piniella. So did everyone else on the team at one point or another. Some mistakes were worse than others, but it's time to just forgive and forget.

 

Out of curiosity, how much is Bradley running his mouth right now? It seems awful quiet right now. Maybe he's already going to counseling and going door to door with his teammates with the possibility that the Cubs won't find a new home for him. Even if they do, I'm sure Bradley recognizes he has to make some changes if he wants to extend his million dollar career beyond his current contract.

 

No one died. No one went to jail. This is not a situation where there really is only one solution. Trading him for pennies on the dollar is an even bigger mistake than any mistakes that were made in the 2009 season, and that includes signing Bradley in the first place.

 

If they can't get equal talent in return for what they are giving up in terms of production and money, then spend part of the money they were going to send to some other team and use it in counseling to get everyone back on the same page.

 

I'm quite certain if the Cubs came out and won 10-15 games in a row to start the season, the stress levels will magically reduce to controllable levels.

 

I'd almost bet that if the Cubs won 120 games last year, that Bradley wouldn't have been the target of all the abuse that he received, either. So, let's put more of the blame where it really belongs, and that's on the GM who allowed this team to be as bad as they were in 2009.

[jersey cubs fan]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support.

[inari]

Technically you couldn't no if they were a profitable company simply by looking at their profits, right? I'm not good at economics, but don't you have to look at their profit margin as opposed to simply their profits?

 

That was unnecessary.

 

You are correct. Looking at pure profit would be like looking at RBIs, while looking at profit margin would be like looking at OPS.

 

Thanks for correcting me.

 

Sorry to be nit picky. And I can't believe I spelled "know" wrong.

[dew1679666265]

Technically you couldn't no if they were a profitable company simply by looking at their profits, right? I'm not good at economics, but don't you have to look at their profit margin as opposed to simply their profits?

 

That was unnecessary.

 

You are correct. Looking at pure profit would be like looking at RBIs, while looking at profit margin would be like looking at OPS.

 

Thanks for correcting me.

 

Sorry to be nit picky. And I can't believe I spelled "know" wrong.

 

Eh, wasn't that nitpicky. I used an improper, though well-meaning, analogy and you corrected it.

[woodchip2153]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support.

 

just because it's hard to quantify, doesn't mean there is no support.

 

in THT Live one of the guys estimated that mlb team values chemistry at about 2 wins, IIRC. He based this on a very small sample of players that get waived or go unsigned are usually at 2 WAR. That's just what I remember from an article written in August or September.

[CUBZ99]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support.

 

Gooney is right about one thing, until someone does a specific study directly related to baseball chemistry and productivity, some people won't believe in it, regardless of subjective data/comments from players, coaches or others involved in the game. Of course, their security blanket is the fact that there are too many variables to consider and such a study will likely never occur or be good enough for the one's who disagree. Its a great fall back to have, because he can be fairly certain that you will ever be able to prove without a doubt that team chemistry is a factor.

 

So without a study, you are left between the Gooneys who think it is a "stupid idea" to think one player would play worse because of bad chemistry, or the actual players, coaches, team management and broadcasters/reporters (who actually observe day to day activities and human behavior).

[Guest]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support.

 

Gooney is right about one thing, until someone does a specific study directly related to baseball chemistry and productivity, some people won't believe in it, regardless of subjective data/comments from players, coaches or others involved in the game. Of course, their security blanket is the fact that there are too many variables to consider and such a study will likely never occur or be good enough for the one's who disagree. Its a great fall back to have, because he can be fairly certain that you will ever be able to prove without a doubt that team chemistry is a factor.

 

So without a study, you are left between the Gooneys who think it is a "stupid idea" to think one player would play worse because of bad chemistry, or the actual players, coaches, team management and broadcasters/reporters (who actually observe day to day activities and human behavior).

 

The problem is every player can have their moment where the press rips them a new one. Heck, Zambrano has been a weekly tirade by some out there. To assume that these players are above their own teammate's occasional weaknesses or poor decision making skills and will allow who else is on the field at the time dictate how they will play is probably quite a stretch of the imagination.

 

In other words, I just don't see Derrek Lee going up the plate with the attitude that he really doesn't want to play well today because of who the manager put in RF. I'd venture to guess that the player that has that weak of a mindset probably has bigger problems than Milton Bradley.

[davearm2]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

It's actually not common sense at all. It's an assumption made with nothing to support it. It doesnt' make any sense at all to assume one player will play worse, and have worse stats, because Milton Bradley is on his team. It's a really stupid idea actually, with no support.

 

just because it's hard to quantify, doesn't mean there is no support.

 

in THT Live one of the guys estimated that mlb team values chemistry at about 2 wins, IIRC. He based this on a very small sample of players that get waived or go unsigned are usually at 2 WAR. That's just what I remember from an article written in August or September.

This is really it, right here.

 

There are those that take the position that anything that can't be quantified must not matter. If there isn't a stat for it, then it should be dismissed and ignored.

 

Then there are those that believe that many things that matter cannot be boiled down to a tidy statistic and easily translated to marginal wins.

 

And neither side can prove they're right, for the very reason that the debate exists in the first place -- because none of it can be measured and given a finite value.

 

So all we're left with is intuition and common sense. And obviously that doesn't lead everyone to the same conclusion, either.

[davell]

I tend to agree with the folks who think Bradley's exploits didn't impact the team's play all that much......Baseball is too individualized for it to have made that big of an impact. Football and Basketball I could definitely see as being different, but if Bradley is standing on 2nd base with two outs, I don't think for a second that Aramis or anyone else would be thinking "hey, this guy is a jerk, I don't want him to score right now, not with ME up to bat" or Theriot thinking "hey, I better drop this relay, so Milton doesn't get an assist right here"......Just doesn't seem feasible. These guys all have jobs to do and I don't see how, being a professional and all, his antics can really affect someone else's ability to perform. Even a headcase like Z isn't going to go out there thinking about Bradley and not thinking about getting someone out that he's facing at that time.

 

It can't be quantified obviously, but I don't see it being something that's going to turn our team into anything other than whatever it is either. Not better, not worse, just gives some guys something to talk about with each other before the game is all, if they hate him that much. But, once the game starts, it's time to make due with what you've got. And if that happens to be a very talented malcontent, that makes you a better team than whatever his replacement would, I hope Hendry decides to keep him. Hell. if you keep him this year and he has a decent season, but everyone still hates him, trade him then. His value would be more and we'd have to pay less to get rid of him then anyway and it'd probably give us more flexibility as it is, moving forward.

[biittner77]

Baseball is a game of one on one matchups. Any player that says the team was bad because Bradley was a jerk has no business playing professional baseball.Lots of people in this world are jerks. What are the odds against finding 25 people that all like each other. Chemistry is a biproduct of winning or losing games- at least it is in baseball.

[davearm2]

These guys are humans, not robots, and they're together every day for 8 months a year. It's just common sense that working in a tense and stressful atmosphere with coworkers you despise, is going to generate lower productivity (stats) than working in a harmonious atmosphere with coworkers you respect and like. That concept is supported by the fact that time and again teams have chosen not to bring Bradley back for a second season. You might try opening your mind to the possibility that the various GMs and managers that have made these decisions to cut ties with Bradley might just be better able to judge this phenomenon than you are.

 

Are you kidding me? Attempting to decipher what you just said about these guys being human beings rather than robots, all I can conclude is that Bradley must have peed in their Cheerios, slept with their daughters, raped their mothers and pillaged the rest of their families.

 

Come on, dude. Every one of these guys has been the scapegoat at one point or another.

 

Whether we want to really point blame is really a moot point. Who really cares. The horrible season that was 2009 is over now. Sit down, hash out what went wrong on the field and off, figure out a way to fix the problems and resolve them before the opening pitch in 2010.

 

As far as major league baseball being a tense and stressful atmosphere, it should only be that way when focusing on your own abilities being better than the guy who wants to replace you, not what anyone else on the team is or isn't doing.

 

Bradley made some mistakes. So did Hendry. So did Piniella. So did everyone else on the team at one point or another. Some mistakes were worse than others, but it's time to just forgive and forget.

 

Out of curiosity, how much is Bradley running his mouth right now? It seems awful quiet right now. Maybe he's already going to counseling and going door to door with his teammates with the possibility that the Cubs won't find a new home for him. Even if they do, I'm sure Bradley recognizes he has to make some changes if he wants to extend his million dollar career beyond his current contract.

 

No one died. No one went to jail. This is not a situation where there really is only one solution. Trading him for pennies on the dollar is an even bigger mistake than any mistakes that were made in the 2009 season, and that includes signing Bradley in the first place.

 

If they can't get equal talent in return for what they are giving up in terms of production and money, then spend part of the money they were going to send to some other team and use it in counseling to get everyone back on the same page.

 

I'm quite certain if the Cubs came out and won 10-15 games in a row to start the season, the stress levels will magically reduce to controllable levels.

 

I'd almost bet that if the Cubs won 120 games last year, that Bradley wouldn't have been the target of all the abuse that he received, either. So, let's put more of the blame where it really belongs, and that's on the GM who allowed this team to be as bad as they were in 2009.

Hey I'm not trying to make anyone a scapegoat.

 

I'm simply arguing against the notion that Bradley's presence in the clubhouse doesn't have any impact on the rest of the team.

 

I'll be the first to admit that don't know what the magnitude of the impact is, but I feel safe in saying that it's non-zero.