Milton Bradley Traded To Mariners For Carlos Silva

[CUBZ99]

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.

 

You show me a player that said this and I will agree with you.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

You show me a player that said this and I will agree with you.

 

People seemed to infer something along those lines from comments that came out after Bradley was suspended.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

I'm curious to know how exactly you think the play on the field was affected. I know you can't put a number on it and that's not what I'm asking, but do you think it affected the players' focus or their preparation?

 

Like I mentioned before, lack of chemistry can have a major impact on the connection between a quarterback and wide receiver or between two players in basketball, but I'm not sure how baseball players are impacted when they don't have any interaction with Bradley on the field of play. I can definitely see the potential detriment a negative player would have on wooing potential free agent acquisitions or the ability to get hometown discounts from other players, but I just don't know how chemistry can impact the play on the field in baseball.

[Hunter]

When I pitched in High School, the only player on the team I didn't want to piss off was the catcher. Catchers are sneaky little bastards who will make you pay.

[Guest]

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.

 

I would agree that Bradley's presence in the clubhouse can have an impact on the team, but probably only on Bradley himself. If he feels like the rest of the team is upset with him, I could see how that could affect his production. Focus is extremely important, and you can't allow anything to disrupt your focus. If Bradley goes up to the plate and has "will Derrek Lee put something in my drink" on his mind instead of "let's see if I can recognize the pitch the moment it leaves his hand" moments before the pitch, I can definitely see how the lack of focus could affect Bradley. However, I don't see anyone else on the team thinking of Milton while it's their own turn at the plate.

 

I also don't expect an announcer to say "Fontenot missed the relay, it's likely caused by the fact he's not happy with the way Bradley has been behaving the last few weeks.

 

As far as the team commenting about it being better that Bradley was suspended, I would imagine that they probably felt that way as a way for Bradley to get ahold of himself and realize he's not doing anything to help the team by behaving in a manner that is upsetting management, media, the fans and possibly his teammates. Not necessarily that they hate him and want him gone.

 

As mentioned before, several players get held to the fire at one point during their careers. Sure, Bradley is first in line, jumping up and down with his hand up each time the media wants to gripe about someone. Why, I'm not sure. But if his family, his agent, his close friends, his teammates and his bosses can't help him, maybe it really is a mental thing that he does need help with. Pay for some counseling and help him resolve it. He's already tossed millions of dollars in endorsements out the window, why let him throw his next multimillion dollar contract out the window, too?

 

Help the man to help himself. Piniella left Bradley out to dry on his very first confrontation in a game this past year. 3 very questionable pitches. It's as if the ump was challenging him to say something. Sure enough, Milton gets a quick boot and then a few game suspension over a supposed hat bump. Piniella sat on his butt and did nothing. Welcome to the Cubs, Milton Bradley!

[CubColtPacer]

I'm sure Bradley has had plenty of counseling previously in his career. It's not going to suddenly magically fix him in one offseason. Don't you think the Indians or the Dodgers probably tried that option before getting rid of a talented player?

 

I'm not sure there has been one season in his career where Bradley didn't have some sort of incident that made his club look bad. Some years have been better than others, but they all have had their troubles. The Cubs can either bring him back and live with the PR hits that he will inevitably cause in order to hopefully get his potential production or they decide it's not worth it.

 

But I don't quite get the work with him and hope the attitude gets better argument. It's been going on for 10 years now. Several organizations have tried to fix him and many have ended up dumping him just because he cannot keep himself away from trouble over a full major league season. The Cubs situation isn't even the low point of his career-it's probably only the 4th or 5th worst.

 

Could the Cubs bring Bradley back and get away with it? Possibly. Could the fans learn to live with him? If he hits like he did with Texas, the fans will certainly give him a little more leeway. Is he going to do something that hurts whatever team he is with off the field in 2010? Almost certainly yes, and the pressure cooker in Chicago makes it almost certain that he'll have multiple incidents next year.

 

If his production is worth likely making some fans very angry and also making Chicago a slightly less desirable place to play than before, then keeping him is the right move. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not. But we know what we have with Bradley, and as far as off the field goes 2009 was not a particularly bad year for him so it's not going to improve. His play on the field would hopefully improve and win some of the fans over, but it definitely would be rocky at times with Bradley even if the Cubs were winning.

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

It may be a really stupid idea with no support, but it looks like the overwhelming majority of GMs and managers must think that Bradley will negatively affect their teams performance. Looking at the rumors, it looks like there might be 3 teams slightly interested at bargain-basement prices for a pretty good player whose only negative is that he's a total jerk who causes problems in the clubhouse. Maybe those GMs and managers know more than the rest of us about how a clubhouse cancer affects team performance.

[Guest]

I'm sure Bradley has had plenty of counseling previously in his career. It's not going to suddenly magically fix him in one offseason. Don't you think the Indians or the Dodgers probably tried that option before getting rid of a talented player?

 

I'm not sure there has been one season in his career where Bradley didn't have some sort of incident that made his club look bad. Some years have been better than others, but they all have had their troubles. The Cubs can either bring him back and live with the PR hits that he will inevitably cause in order to hopefully get his potential production or they decide it's not worth it.

 

But I don't quite get the work with him and hope the attitude gets better argument. It's been going on for 10 years now. Several organizations have tried to fix him and many have ended up dumping him just because he cannot keep himself away from trouble over a full major league season. The Cubs situation isn't even the low point of his career-it's probably only the 4th or 5th worst.

 

Could the Cubs bring Bradley back and get away with it? Possibly. Could the fans learn to live with him? If he hits like he did with Texas, the fans will certainly give him a little more leeway. Is he going to do something that hurts whatever team he is with off the field in 2010? Almost certainly yes, and the pressure cooker in Chicago makes it almost certain that he'll have multiple incidents next year.

 

If his production is worth likely making some fans very angry and also making Chicago a slightly less desirable place to play than before, then keeping him is the right move. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not. But we know what we have with Bradley, and as far as off the field goes 2009 was not a particularly bad year for him so it's not going to improve. His play on the field would hopefully improve and win some of the fans over, but it definitely would be rocky at times with Bradley even if the Cubs were winning.

 

I agree with a lot of this. The part that I get hung up on, is the fact that Bradley basically has no trade value at all at this point. You can argue that it was probably wrong to sign him in the first place. But, it isn't necessarily going to make it right to just give him to some other team while taking back some of their dead weight.

 

I just don't think the psyche of Milton's teammates are really as damaged as people are describing. I guess, as a teammate, I might have supported an end of season suspension for Milton in response to his act getting old. But, I don't see throwing 2010 out the window (where everyone suffers) in order to further illustrate the point that Milton's act was old in 2009.

 

Michael Vick is quarterbacking occasionally for the Eagles, and they are winning games. This guy killed puppies, for cryin' out loud.

 

There may not be a way to fix Milton. You may be right about that. But, I also don't believe that placing him in solitary confinement for the rest of his Cub days resolves anything either.

 

They liked him enough to give him a 3 year contract less than 365 days ago. It's up to both sides to honor the contract.

[CUBZ99]

I'm sure Bradley has had plenty of counseling previously in his career. It's not going to suddenly magically fix him in one offseason. Don't you think the Indians or the Dodgers probably tried that option before getting rid of a talented player?

 

I'm not sure there has been one season in his career where Bradley didn't have some sort of incident that made his club look bad. Some years have been better than others, but they all have had their troubles. The Cubs can either bring him back and live with the PR hits that he will inevitably cause in order to hopefully get his potential production or they decide it's not worth it.

 

But I don't quite get the work with him and hope the attitude gets better argument. It's been going on for 10 years now. Several organizations have tried to fix him and many have ended up dumping him just because he cannot keep himself away from trouble over a full major league season. The Cubs situation isn't even the low point of his career-it's probably only the 4th or 5th worst.

 

Could the Cubs bring Bradley back and get away with it? Possibly. Could the fans learn to live with him? If he hits like he did with Texas, the fans will certainly give him a little more leeway. Is he going to do something that hurts whatever team he is with off the field in 2010? Almost certainly yes, and the pressure cooker in Chicago makes it almost certain that he'll have multiple incidents next year.

 

If his production is worth likely making some fans very angry and also making Chicago a slightly less desirable place to play than before, then keeping him is the right move. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not. But we know what we have with Bradley, and as far as off the field goes 2009 was not a particularly bad year for him so it's not going to improve. His play on the field would hopefully improve and win some of the fans over, but it definitely would be rocky at times with Bradley even if the Cubs were winning.

 

I agree with a lot of this. The part that I get hung up on, is the fact that Bradley basically has no trade value at all at this point. You can argue that it was probably wrong to sign him in the first place. But, it isn't necessarily going to make it right to just give him to some other team while taking back some of their dead weight.

 

I just don't think the psyche of Milton's teammates are really as damaged as people are describing. I guess, as a teammate, I might have supported an end of season suspension for Milton in response to his act getting old. But, I don't see throwing 2010 out the window (where everyone suffers) in order to further illustrate the point that Milton's act was old in 2009.

 

Michael Vick is quarterbacking occasionally for the Eagles, and they are winning games. This guy killed puppies, for cryin' out loud.

 

There may not be a way to fix Milton. You may be right about that. But, I also don't believe that placing him in solitary confinement for the rest of his Cub days resolves anything either.

 

They liked him enough to give him a 3 year contract less than 365 days ago. It's up to both sides to honor the contract.

 

CCP makes some very valid points. I would much rather see Bradley in RF next year, rather than trading him for someone else's garbage and paying the remainder of his contract. As much as we tend to bash Bradley, his upside is much greater than his value on the trade market. However, I think you would have to be on crack to believe that things could miraculously get better between himself and the players/organization if he stays.

[Outshined_One]

There's always the option of waiting on Bradley and dealing him before the deadline next season. He could put up good enough numbers and be far enough through his contract that a team in contention would be happy to take him in exchange for better players than what they'd trade now.

[Shilzzz]

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.

 

1) Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through again and again? I would say that people should care about whether the guys who are OPSing less than Bradley are the ones to be asked that question, because those were the players who, by your logic, failed to come through time and time and time again.

 

2) I want to make a sarcastic joke about maybe we should field 9 David Eckstein's, but instead i'll humor what i think you were trying to say. Yes, personality matters. But i think the real question is to what degree. You can't be foolish enough to think that David Eckstein in all his gritty glory is going to make the team more productive by adding personality and spunk to that sub .650 OPS, but what is the real breaking point? No matter what kind of strawman argument you throw out, you can't just shove aside the home OPS of Bradley. If you, alongside other Cub fans, wish to be ignorant and always root off of pure emotion without critically analyzing what you are boo-ing, you have every right to. But your kind of logic is what gives Cub fans a bad rep.

 

3) The fact that you used RBI to argue your point goes to show mine.

 

4) Speaking of Aramis, do you by any chance remember the days when the media didn't have a target like Bradley and jawed on and on about how Ramirez watches his homeruns and doesn't hustle? I think those 77 at bats when he was gone should have shown everyone just what that lack in hustle and showboating means to the productivity of the lineup.

[davearm2]

I'm sure Bradley has had plenty of counseling previously in his career. It's not going to suddenly magically fix him in one offseason. Don't you think the Indians or the Dodgers probably tried that option before getting rid of a talented player?

 

I'm not sure there has been one season in his career where Bradley didn't have some sort of incident that made his club look bad. Some years have been better than others, but they all have had their troubles. The Cubs can either bring him back and live with the PR hits that he will inevitably cause in order to hopefully get his potential production or they decide it's not worth it.

 

But I don't quite get the work with him and hope the attitude gets better argument. It's been going on for 10 years now. Several organizations have tried to fix him and many have ended up dumping him just because he cannot keep himself away from trouble over a full major league season. The Cubs situation isn't even the low point of his career-it's probably only the 4th or 5th worst.

 

Could the Cubs bring Bradley back and get away with it? Possibly. Could the fans learn to live with him? If he hits like he did with Texas, the fans will certainly give him a little more leeway. Is he going to do something that hurts whatever team he is with off the field in 2010? Almost certainly yes, and the pressure cooker in Chicago makes it almost certain that he'll have multiple incidents next year.

 

If his production is worth likely making some fans very angry and also making Chicago a slightly less desirable place to play than before, then keeping him is the right move. I'm not sure if it's worth it or not. But we know what we have with Bradley, and as far as off the field goes 2009 was not a particularly bad year for him so it's not going to improve. His play on the field would hopefully improve and win some of the fans over, but it definitely would be rocky at times with Bradley even if the Cubs were winning.

Extremely well said, as usual CCP.

 

Whatever ideas folks have for mending this relationship, you can be sure have been tried before, and probably over and over. Let's not pretend that getting Bradley in counseling is some novel approach that nobody's ever though of before.

 

At this point Bradley is what he is, and to expect him to change is foolish. So at the end of the day the analysis is, does the good outweigh the bad? Unless someone posting here has spent significant time in the Cubs' clubhouse, then they're not really aware of how bad the bad is, and thus they can't speak to the question from an informed perspective.

 

What we do know is, the Cubs' people that do have that firsthand knowledge of the situation have concluded that the bad outweighs the good. I'm not sure how anyone posting here can say they're wrong.

[SouthSideRyan]

Hasn't virtually every player asked said they'd welcome Bradley back if he wants to. Doesn't sound like they're too worried about him being a miserable person affecting their play. (Primarily because it hasn't and it wouldn't.)

[inari]

Hasn't virtually every player asked said they'd welcome Bradley back if he wants to. Doesn't sound like they're too worried about him being a miserable person affecting their play. (Primarily because it hasn't and it wouldn't.)

 

I'm not sure I can envision a scenario where a player would state he wouldn't welcome a player back.

[Ballgame64]

1) Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through again and again? I would say that people should care about whether the guys who are OPSing less than Bradley are the ones to be asked that question, because those were the players who, by your logic, failed to come through time and time and time again.

 

2) I want to make a sarcastic joke about maybe we should field 9 David Eckstein's, but instead i'll humor what i think you were trying to say. Yes, personality matters. But i think the real question is to what degree. You can't be foolish enough to think that David Eckstein in all his gritty glory is going to make the team more productive by adding personality and spunk to that sub .650 OPS, but what is the real breaking point? No matter what kind of strawman argument you throw out, you can't just shove aside the home OPS of Bradley. If you, alongside other Cub fans, wish to be ignorant and always root off of pure emotion without critically analyzing what you are boo-ing, you have every right to. But your kind of logic is what gives Cub fans a bad rep.

 

3) The fact that you used RBI to argue your point goes to show mine.

 

4) Speaking of Aramis, do you by any chance remember the days when the media didn't have a target like Bradley and jawed on and on about how Ramirez watches his homeruns and doesn't hustle? I think those 77 at bats when he was gone should have shown everyone just what that lack in hustle and showboating means to the productivity of the lineup.

 

1 - I thought we were discussing Bradley and his production.

 

2 - I never said I wanted a team full of Ecksteins or Theriots or Reed Johnsons. Trust me, I don't root off of pure emotion. What I don't do is fall in love with numbers and think that is the only way to judge a player. Do you think Bradley's teammates worry about his OPS when he is a complete jerk to them and is not helping them win? There is a reason Mr. Bradley doesn't stay on a team for very long. That fact cannot be discounted and made to go away by statistical evaluation.

 

3 - While I understand OBP and OPS are important stats in judging a player, to discount RBIs seems disingenous to me. Yes, guys have to get on base and get themselves into scoring position but someone also has to drive them in. An infield hit with two outs and a guy on second improves individual stats, but if the next hitter makes an out and the team doesn't score, the infield hit really wasnt any different than an out. Don't get me wrong, I'll still take the hit but the point is that type of hit in that situation doesn't necessarily mean the hitter is productive.

 

4 - Yes, I remember those comments about Ramirez and don't agree with them. I would like to see everyone hustle but pulling a hammy or straining a quad on a routine grounder to 2nd for a guy like Ramirez isn't worth it. I watch a lot of Cardinal games and Pujols coasts as much as any player in the game on a ground ball to an infielder. I don't blame him.

 

Look, all I want is for the Cubs to win the World Series. If Bradley is the starting right fielder in the clinching game, that is fine with me.

[Shilzzz]

1) Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through again and again? I would say that people should care about whether the guys who are OPSing less than Bradley are the ones to be asked that question, because those were the players who, by your logic, failed to come through time and time and time again.

 

2) I want to make a sarcastic joke about maybe we should field 9 David Eckstein's, but instead i'll humor what i think you were trying to say. Yes, personality matters. But i think the real question is to what degree. You can't be foolish enough to think that David Eckstein in all his gritty glory is going to make the team more productive by adding personality and spunk to that sub .650 OPS, but what is the real breaking point? No matter what kind of strawman argument you throw out, you can't just shove aside the home OPS of Bradley. If you, alongside other Cub fans, wish to be ignorant and always root off of pure emotion without critically analyzing what you are boo-ing, you have every right to. But your kind of logic is what gives Cub fans a bad rep.

 

3) The fact that you used RBI to argue your point goes to show mine.

 

4) Speaking of Aramis, do you by any chance remember the days when the media didn't have a target like Bradley and jawed on and on about how Ramirez watches his homeruns and doesn't hustle? I think those 77 at bats when he was gone should have shown everyone just what that lack in hustle and showboating means to the productivity of the lineup.

 

1 - I thought we were discussing Bradley and his production.

 

2 - I never said I wanted a team full of Ecksteins or Theriots or Reed Johnsons. Trust me, I don't root off of pure emotion. What I don't do is fall in love with numbers and think that is the only way to judge a player. Do you think Bradley's teammates worry about his OPS when he is a complete jerk to them and is not helping them win? There is a reason Mr. Bradley doesn't stay on a team for very long. That fact cannot be discounted and made to go away by statistical evaluation.

 

3 - While I understand OBP and OPS are important stats in judging a player, to discount RBIs seems disingenous to me. Yes, guys have to get on base and get themselves into scoring position but someone also has to drive them in. An infield hit with two outs and a guy on second improves individual stats, but if the next hitter makes an out and the team doesn't score, the infield hit really wasnt any different than an out. Don't get me wrong, I'll still take the hit but the point is that type of hit in that situation doesn't necessarily mean the hitter is productive.

 

4 - Yes, I remember those comments about Ramirez and don't agree with them. I would like to see everyone hustle but pulling a hammy or straining a quad on a routine grounder to 2nd for a guy like Ramirez isn't worth it. I watch a lot of Cardinal games and Pujols coasts as much as any player in the game on a ground ball to an infielder. I don't blame him.

 

Look, all I want is for the Cubs to win the World Series. If Bradley is the starting right fielder in the clinching game, that is fine with me.

 

This is not a matter of falling in love with numbers, as you so casually suggest before considering the argument. It's a matter of being in love with a team and using the proper numbers to accurately digest just what happened last year, so as to have the most informed opinion of what the future holds.

 

We are talking about Bradley and his production. His production is relevant to that of his teammates, of which Bradley was in no way the biggest issue on the 2009 Cubs. Your logic just doesn't make any sense... with the train of thought you are using, if Bradley hits a double to the gap and there is a strong defensive play and Theriot is thrown out at home, the double was worthless and not productive. That simply isn't true. Look, I agree that personalities make a difference. I work for a living, just as i assume you do, and i know what it's like to work with jerks. But that does nothing to stifle my production, and actually, i become a harder worker for that. And yeah, i complain about the other guys from time to time, or will let out a sigh of relief on days on which they call in, just like some of the Cubs were said to have when Bradley was suspended. However, if Reed Johnson is worse, or if Mike Fontenot suddenly can't hit because they don't like a teammate of theirs, and their teammate has better numbers, then the problem is with the guys who all of a sudden can't perform. I don't discount RBI anymore than it should be discounted. It is no different than a starting pitcher and wins. You can't tell me that Zach Greinke in 2009 wasn't better than, say, Joe Saunders or Scott Feldman. Do better pitchers win more games than bad pitchers? By and large, yes. But do slightly above average pitchers on teams with very good offenses win more games than good pitchers on teams with bad offenses? Quite often, yes. So, then, how do we know that Greinke was a better pitcher than Joe Saunders even though they have the same amount of wins? You look at statistics. The real statistics that are independent of what other guys are doing. And those statistics say that Milton Bradley was a productive player in 2009, and suggest that he is going to be at least as productive in 2010 as whatever else they end up putting in right field.

 

And yes, it does mean that that player was productive in his at bat, and it also increased the chance of his team scoring a run, even if it didn't happen in your instance. I will take that infield hit to put runners at first and third every chance I can take over an out. You only get 27 outs in a game, it is the most important commodity in baseball. I will take a guy who gets on base at a .378 rate, because he gives his team more of a chance to score runs than someone who gets on at a lesser clip. It's quite simple, and people who cling to RBI are not giving themselves a chance to give themselves the best possible chance at understanding what it takes for his or her team to put together the best possible team to have the best possible chance to win a world series you say you want. I would take a whole team of guys who get on base like that, because you end up with at least one guy on base an inning. And whether that is a weak infield hit, or a walk, i will take it.

 

Now, obviously an extra base hit is more valuable than a single or a walk. I am not questioning that. And part of the problem in the Bradley equation is that people expected a power hitter, which Bradley has never been to the degree of expectation. I fell into the trap of thought, too, thinking he was going to hit for much more power. However, knowing what i know now, and understanding just what Bradley brings to the table as a baseball player, to trade him for something lesser just makes the Cubs chances of winning a world series that much worse. Now and in the future, as the team will be eating salary it won't be able to justify in terms of production out of the initial contract and the resulting fallout.

 

People just got caught up by the media in Chicago, who knows that their industry is going under and needs to find targets they can dirty up to sell newspapers. Did Bradley do some boneheaded things? Of course. I was screaming as loudly as anyone when he tossed the ball into the stands. Did Bradley get off to a slow start? Yeah, for sure. So all of this is going to fuel a fire, one that Bradley got caught up in and didn't help put out. BUT. If everyone, Bradley included, can kind of take a step back and look at the situation critically, I think it becomes clearly apparent that Bradley is the best fit for the Cubs right field position next year. Hendry is not going to get equal return in overall production (i am counting headaches in this) in any realistic deal involving Bradley. I could live with Millwood, but i don't think it's very likely to happen. I will not live with Burrell, however, and if you are okay with that, then get ready for 2005 and 2006 all over again. I, for one, am not ready to accept that sort of mediocrity from a team i unfortunately spend much too much time thinking about.

[Cubswin11]

1) Does anyone care about OPS when Bradley fails to come through again and again? I would say that people should care about whether the guys who are OPSing less than Bradley are the ones to be asked that question, because those were the players who, by your logic, failed to come through time and time and time again.

 

2) I want to make a sarcastic joke about maybe we should field 9 David Eckstein's, but instead i'll humor what i think you were trying to say. Yes, personality matters. But i think the real question is to what degree. You can't be foolish enough to think that David Eckstein in all his gritty glory is going to make the team more productive by adding personality and spunk to that sub .650 OPS, but what is the real breaking point? No matter what kind of strawman argument you throw out, you can't just shove aside the home OPS of Bradley. If you, alongside other Cub fans, wish to be ignorant and always root off of pure emotion without critically analyzing what you are boo-ing, you have every right to. But your kind of logic is what gives Cub fans a bad rep.

 

3) The fact that you used RBI to argue your point goes to show mine.

 

4) Speaking of Aramis, do you by any chance remember the days when the media didn't have a target like Bradley and jawed on and on about how Ramirez watches his homeruns and doesn't hustle? I think those 77 at bats when he was gone should have shown everyone just what that lack in hustle and showboating means to the productivity of the lineup.

 

1 - I thought we were discussing Bradley and his production.

 

2 - I never said I wanted a team full of Ecksteins or Theriots or Reed Johnsons. Trust me, I don't root off of pure emotion. What I don't do is fall in love with numbers and think that is the only way to judge a player. Do you think Bradley's teammates worry about his OPS when he is a complete jerk to them and is not helping them win? There is a reason Mr. Bradley doesn't stay on a team for very long. That fact cannot be discounted and made to go away by statistical evaluation.

 

3 - While I understand OBP and OPS are important stats in judging a player, to discount RBIs seems disingenous to me. Yes, guys have to get on base and get themselves into scoring position but someone also has to drive them in. An infield hit with two outs and a guy on second improves individual stats, but if the next hitter makes an out and the team doesn't score, the infield hit really wasnt any different than an out. Don't get me wrong, I'll still take the hit but the point is that type of hit in that situation doesn't necessarily mean the hitter is productive.

 

4 - Yes, I remember those comments about Ramirez and don't agree with them. I would like to see everyone hustle but pulling a hammy or straining a quad on a routine grounder to 2nd for a guy like Ramirez isn't worth it. I watch a lot of Cardinal games and Pujols coasts as much as any player in the game on a ground ball to an infielder. I don't blame him.

 

Look, all I want is for the Cubs to win the World Series. If Bradley is the starting right fielder in the clinching game, that is fine with me.

 

This is not a matter of falling in love with numbers, as you so casually suggest before considering the argument. It's a matter of being in love with a team and using the proper numbers to accurately digest just what happened last year, so as to have the most informed opinion of what the future holds.

 

We are talking about Bradley and his production. His production is relevant to that of his teammates, of which Bradley was in no way the biggest issue on the 2009 Cubs. Your logic just doesn't make any sense... with the train of thought you are using, if Bradley hits a double to the gap and there is a strong defensive play and Theriot is thrown out at home, the double was worthless and not productive. That simply isn't true. Look, I agree that personalities make a difference. I work for a living, just as i assume you do, and i know what it's like to work with jerks. But that does nothing to stifle my production, and actually, i become a harder worker for that. And yeah, i complain about the other guys from time to time, or will let out a sigh of relief on days on which they call in, just like some of the Cubs were said to have when Bradley was suspended. However, if Reed Johnson is worse, or if Mike Fontenot suddenly can't hit because they don't like a teammate of theirs, and their teammate has better numbers, then the problem is with the guys who all of a sudden can't perform. I don't discount RBI anymore than it should be discounted. It is no different than a starting pitcher and wins. You can't tell me that Zach Greinke in 2009 wasn't better than, say, Joe Saunders or Scott Feldman. Do better pitchers win more games than bad pitchers? By and large, yes. But do slightly above average pitchers on teams with very good offenses win more games than good pitchers on teams with bad offenses? Quite often, yes. So, then, how do we know that Greinke was a better pitcher than Joe Saunders even though they have the same amount of wins? You look at statistics. The real statistics that are independent of what other guys are doing. And those statistics say that Milton Bradley was a productive player in 2009, and suggest that he is going to be at least as productive in 2010 as whatever else they end up putting in right field.

 

And yes, it does mean that that player was productive in his at bat, and it also increased the chance of his team scoring a run, even if it didn't happen in your instance. I will take that infield hit to put runners at first and third every chance I can take over an out. You only get 27 outs in a game, it is the most important commodity in baseball. I will take a guy who gets on base at a .378 rate, because he gives his team more of a chance to score runs than someone who gets on at a lesser clip. It's quite simple, and people who cling to RBI are not giving themselves a chance to give themselves the best possible chance at understanding what it takes for his or her team to put together the best possible team to have the best possible chance to win a world series you say you want. I would take a whole team of guys who get on base like that, because you end up with at least one guy on base an inning. And whether that is a weak infield hit, or a walk, i will take it.

 

Now, obviously an extra base hit is more valuable than a single or a walk. I am not questioning that. And part of the problem in the Bradley equation is that people expected a power hitter, which Bradley has never been to the degree of expectation. I fell into the trap of thought, too, thinking he was going to hit for much more power. However, knowing what i know now, and understanding just what Bradley brings to the table as a baseball player, to trade him for something lesser just makes the Cubs chances of winning a world series that much worse. Now and in the future, as the team will be eating salary it won't be able to justify in terms of production out of the initial contract and the resulting fallout.

 

People just got caught up by the media in Chicago, who knows that their industry is going under and needs to find targets they can dirty up to sell newspapers. Did Bradley do some boneheaded things? Of course. I was screaming as loudly as anyone when he tossed the ball into the stands. Did Bradley get off to a slow start? Yeah, for sure. So all of this is going to fuel a fire, one that Bradley got caught up in and didn't help put out. BUT. If everyone, Bradley included, can kind of take a step back and look at the situation critically, I think it becomes clearly apparent that Bradley is the best fit for the Cubs right field position next year. Hendry is not going to get equal return in overall production (i am counting headaches in this) in any realistic deal involving Bradley. I could live with Millwood, but i don't think it's very likely to happen. I will not live with Burrell, however, and if you are okay with that, then get ready for 2005 and 2006 all over again. I, for one, am not ready to accept that sort of mediocrity from a team i unfortunately spend much too much time thinking about.

Tell us what you really think, ;)

[gflore34]

This may be a rather simplistic view but, all of this Bradley bad clubhouse/chemistry [expletive] becomes relevant when you're losing. Same thing with the Bears, if they were 10 - 1, Urlacher would be wishing to have Cutler' children.

[jersey cubs fan]

This may be a rather simplistic view but, all of this Bradley bad clubhouse/chemistry [expletive] becomes relevant when you're losing. Same thing with the Bears, if they were 10 - 1, Urlacher would be wishing to have Cutler' children.

 

It becomes a topic, I wouldn't say it becomes relevant.

 

 

And I would think Urlacher is done with children.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Strong Possibility Of Bradley-Burrell Swap?

By Tim Dierkes [December 2 at 9:06am CST]

A Milton Bradley-Pat Burrell swap is still a "strong possibility," according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Sherman notes that since Burrell is owed $9MM over one year and Bradley $21MM over two, the Cubs would have to eat good money (he guesses $6MM) to make the trade work.

 

There is no question that the Cubs would have to flip Burrell in this scenario. Sherman speculates that they could offer him to the Mets for Luis Castillo, a player the Cubs wouldn't mind adding. Sherman says, "It is hard to find a baseball official who actually thinks the Mets are going to land either Jason Bay or Matt Holliday," though ESPN's Buster Olney found one today in regard to Holliday.

 

My guess is that the Cubs would prefer to get a more usable piece than Burrell for Bradley. Acquiring Burrell increases uncertainty and drags out the process. Acquiring another bad contract more directly, someone they can use in center field, the rotation, or second base, would be ideal.

 

3 way deal or not, it sure looks like Luis Castillo rears his head once again. So basically, we'll swap Bradley For Burrell, trade Burrell+prospects for Castillo and dish out a few more mil for Marlon Byrd. Or else, just swap Bradley for Burrell, send Burrell to an AL team for mid level prospects and then over pay for Castillo and sign Byrd. In either case, Bravo Hendry. Bravo.

 

In this scenerio, Id be a lot happier just keeping Burrell and bringing in a defensive sub late in games as needed.

[SouthSideRyan]

This may be a rather simplistic view but, all of this Bradley bad clubhouse/chemistry [expletive] becomes relevant when you're losing. Same thing with the Bears, if they were 10 - 1, Urlacher would be wishing to have Cutler' children.

 

It becomes a topic, I wouldn't say it becomes relevant.

 

 

And I would think Urlacher is done with children.

 

The Hinsdale Oasis is only so big.

[Little Slide Rooter]

This may be a rather simplistic view but, all of this Bradley bad clubhouse/chemistry [expletive] becomes relevant when you're losing. Same thing with the Bears, if they were 10 - 1, Urlacher would be wishing to have Cutler' children.

 

It becomes a topic, I wouldn't say it becomes relevant.

 

 

And I would think Urlacher is done with children.

 

The Hinsdale Oasis is only so big.

 

I can understand it in the NFL and NBA where everyone on the field or floor has to work as a unit, but in baseball, I dont see how the teams like or dislike for Bradley should have any effect on their play. Hes all the way in right field, so if yur plsying 1st or 3rd base, it shouldnt effect you. The closest guy to him on the field doesnt even speak english, so I dont see how he could be bothered. The concept of a clubhouse cancer never made much sense to me. Whether you work as a fry cook at White Castle or an investment banker for Goldman Sachs, your bound to work with guys you dont like. So you dont hang out with them after work and get over it.

[Backtobanks]

Strong Possibility Of Bradley-Burrell Swap?

By Tim Dierkes [December 2 at 9:06am CST]

A Milton Bradley-Pat Burrell swap is still a "strong possibility," according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Sherman notes that since Burrell is owed $9MM over one year and Bradley $21MM over two, the Cubs would have to eat good money (he guesses $6MM) to make the trade work.

 

There is no question that the Cubs would have to flip Burrell in this scenario. Sherman speculates that they could offer him to the Mets for Luis Castillo, a player the Cubs wouldn't mind adding. Sherman says, "It is hard to find a baseball official who actually thinks the Mets are going to land either Jason Bay or Matt Holliday," though ESPN's Buster Olney found one today in regard to Holliday.

 

My guess is that the Cubs would prefer to get a more usable piece than Burrell for Bradley. Acquiring Burrell increases uncertainty and drags out the process. Acquiring another bad contract more directly, someone they can use in center field, the rotation, or second base, would be ideal.

 

3 way deal or not, it sure looks like Luis Castillo rears his head once again. So basically, we'll swap Bradley For Burrell, trade Burrell+prospects for Castillo and dish out a few more mil for Marlon Byrd. Or else, just swap Bradley for Burrell, send Burrell to an AL team for mid level prospects and then over pay for Castillo and sign Byrd. In either case, Bravo Hendry. Bravo.

 

In this scenerio, Id be a lot happier just keeping Burrell and bringing in a defensive sub late in games as needed.

 

It looks like getting Castillo is the best of the bad options. Burrell and Guillen are totally useless for the Cubs because they're DHs, so it's a matter of flipping them to the AL. I keep hoping for Hendry to pull a rabbit out of his hat, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. So much for "lots of teams interested in Bradley" discussion we had awhile ago.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Strong Possibility Of Bradley-Burrell Swap?

By Tim Dierkes [December 2 at 9:06am CST]

A Milton Bradley-Pat Burrell swap is still a "strong possibility," according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Sherman notes that since Burrell is owed $9MM over one year and Bradley $21MM over two, the Cubs would have to eat good money (he guesses $6MM) to make the trade work.

 

There is no question that the Cubs would have to flip Burrell in this scenario. Sherman speculates that they could offer him to the Mets for Luis Castillo, a player the Cubs wouldn't mind adding. Sherman says, "It is hard to find a baseball official who actually thinks the Mets are going to land either Jason Bay or Matt Holliday," though ESPN's Buster Olney found one today in regard to Holliday.

 

My guess is that the Cubs would prefer to get a more usable piece than Burrell for Bradley. Acquiring Burrell increases uncertainty and drags out the process. Acquiring another bad contract more directly, someone they can use in center field, the rotation, or second base, would be ideal.

 

3 way deal or not, it sure looks like Luis Castillo rears his head once again. So basically, we'll swap Bradley For Burrell, trade Burrell+prospects for Castillo and dish out a few more mil for Marlon Byrd. Or else, just swap Bradley for Burrell, send Burrell to an AL team for mid level prospects and then over pay for Castillo and sign Byrd. In either case, Bravo Hendry. Bravo.

 

In this scenerio, Id be a lot happier just keeping Burrell and bringing in a defensive sub late in games as needed.

 

It looks like getting Castillo is the best of the bad options. Burrell and Guillen are totally useless for the Cubs because they're DHs, so it's a matter of flipping them to the AL. I keep hoping for Hendry to pull a rabbit out of his hat, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. So much for "lots of teams interested in Bradley" discussion we had awhile ago.

 

I think the fine print under the lots of teams interested in Bradley rumor was that they were interested if they could get him for next to nothing with the Cubs eating the majority of the contract.

[Backtobanks]

Strong Possibility Of Bradley-Burrell Swap?

By Tim Dierkes [December 2 at 9:06am CST]

A Milton Bradley-Pat Burrell swap is still a "strong possibility," according to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Sherman notes that since Burrell is owed $9MM over one year and Bradley $21MM over two, the Cubs would have to eat good money (he guesses $6MM) to make the trade work.

 

There is no question that the Cubs would have to flip Burrell in this scenario. Sherman speculates that they could offer him to the Mets for Luis Castillo, a player the Cubs wouldn't mind adding. Sherman says, "It is hard to find a baseball official who actually thinks the Mets are going to land either Jason Bay or Matt Holliday," though ESPN's Buster Olney found one today in regard to Holliday.

 

My guess is that the Cubs would prefer to get a more usable piece than Burrell for Bradley. Acquiring Burrell increases uncertainty and drags out the process. Acquiring another bad contract more directly, someone they can use in center field, the rotation, or second base, would be ideal.

 

3 way deal or not, it sure looks like Luis Castillo rears his head once again. So basically, we'll swap Bradley For Burrell, trade Burrell+prospects for Castillo and dish out a few more mil for Marlon Byrd. Or else, just swap Bradley for Burrell, send Burrell to an AL team for mid level prospects and then over pay for Castillo and sign Byrd. In either case, Bravo Hendry. Bravo.

 

In this scenerio, Id be a lot happier just keeping Burrell and bringing in a defensive sub late in games as needed.

 

It looks like getting Castillo is the best of the bad options. Burrell and Guillen are totally useless for the Cubs because they're DHs, so it's a matter of flipping them to the AL. I keep hoping for Hendry to pull a rabbit out of his hat, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. So much for "lots of teams interested in Bradley" discussion we had awhile ago.

 

I think the fine print under the lots of teams interested in Bradley rumor was that they were interested if they could get him for next to nothing with the Cubs eating the majority of the contract.

 

That's the point I kept making in that thread while posters kept insisting that Hendry could get all of these "interested" teams bidding against each other to drive the price up. It has become obvious that nobody wants Bradley unless they can give us a terrible contract or get him for next-to-nothing and have us pay most of his contract. All of the discussion about Bradley's attitude affecting a team seems to be answered by the fact nobody wants a good ML hitter being sold at bargain-basement prices.