Bradley still running his mouth

[Backtobanks]

The bottom line is that:

1. Hendry made a mistake in signing Bradley.

2. Bradley wasn't the reason the Cubs didn't win the NL Central.

3. Bradley didn't meet expectations on the field and complicated matters by criticizing the front office, team mates, fans, and the media.

4. The chances of the Cubs making the playoffs center around other issues (health, rebound seasons, etc.) more than Bradley-Byrd.

 

Trading Bradley for Silva is a bad deal for the Cubs, but add on Byrd (with cash from the deal) and I think the Cubs come out ahead. I think Byrd's numbers will easily surpass Bradley's 2009 numbers.

[rocket]

Do you feel it's appropriate to question any decision Jim Hendry makes? Obviously, none of us are going to have the same access to information that he does since he's on the inside? Should we swallow down each [expletive] sandwich cause he knows stuff we don't?

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous.

 

This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics.

 

It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.

 

almost all posters here realized bradley had to go. the 2 issues with the whole situation are:

 

1. bradley for silva is a bad, bad trade.

2. the idiot cubs fans blaming the 2009 cubs on bradley, and glossing over the fact that fontenot, soto, and soriano contributed to the 2009 cubs sucking a hell of a lot more than milton bradley did.

[davearm2]

The bottom line is that:

1. Hendry made a mistake in signing Bradley.

2. Bradley wasn't the reason the Cubs didn't win the NL Central.

3. Bradley didn't meet expectations on the field and complicated matters by criticizing the front office, team mates, fans, and the media.

4. The chances of the Cubs making the playoffs center around other issues (health, rebound seasons, etc.) more than Bradley-Byrd.

 

Trading Bradley for Silva is a bad deal for the Cubs, but add on Byrd (with cash from the deal) and I think the Cubs come out ahead. I think Byrd's numbers will easily surpass Bradley's 2009 numbers.

The Cubs rolled the dice on a high-risk, high-reward player, and lost. It's really that simple.

 

It's open to debate whether the Cubs should have taken that gamble in the first place.

 

What seems silly to me to debate is how the aftermath should have been handled, for the reasons I've stated already.

[Soul]

When he makes comments like that, it makes me feel better about him being gone.

 

It just didn't work out, and I'm ready to move on. Apparently Milton never moves on.

[davearm2]

 

almost all posters here realized bradley had to go. the 2 issues with the whole situation are:

 

1. bradley for silva is a bad, bad trade.

2. the idiot cubs fans blaming the 2009 cubs on bradley, and glossing over the fact that fontenot, soto, and soriano contributed to the 2009 cubs sucking a hell of a lot more than milton bradley did.

I disagree that almost all posters here realized Bradley had to go. The most vocal ones think he should have been kept, fences mended, suck it up guys, etc.

 

Bradley for Silva is a bad, bad trade from a purely statistical perspective, sure, but it ignores all of the other factors in play. Which other GMs obviously didn't.

[Andy]

Bradley for Silva is a bad trade regardless of the other factors in play. The Cubs literally would've been better off just eating Bradley's money rather than taking on a WORSE contract with a WORSE player.

[davearm2]

Bradley for Silva is a bad trade regardless of the other factors in play. The Cubs literally would've been better off just eating Bradley's money rather than taking on a WORSE contract with a WORSE player.

Wrong. The Cubs can release Silva and come out millions ahead. And that may very well be what they do at the end of ST.

[David]

Bradley for Silva is a bad trade regardless of the other factors in play. The Cubs literally would've been better off just eating Bradley's money rather than taking on a WORSE contract with a WORSE player.

 

 

Didn't they save money on the deal?

[CubColtPacer]

Bradley for Silva is a bad trade regardless of the other factors in play. The Cubs literally would've been better off just eating Bradley's money rather than taking on a WORSE contract with a WORSE player.

 

The Cubs did save money by trading him instead of releasing him. Silva's contract is for more money than Bradley's but the Mariners are paying for part of his contract so the Cubs are actually paying less money to Silva than they would have to Bradley.

[SouthSideRyan]

When he makes comments like that, it makes me feel better about him being gone.

 

It just didn't work out, and I'm ready to move on.

 

Are you sure?

[SouthSideRyan]

Do you feel it's appropriate to question any decision Jim Hendry makes? Obviously, none of us are going to have the same access to information that he does since he's on the inside? Should we swallow down each [expletive] sandwich cause he knows stuff we don't?

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous.

 

This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics.

 

It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.

 

Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing.

[Andy]

Bradley for Silva is a bad trade regardless of the other factors in play. The Cubs literally would've been better off just eating Bradley's money rather than taking on a WORSE contract with a WORSE player.

 

The Cubs did save money by trading him instead of releasing him. Silva's contract is for more money than Bradley's but the Mariners are paying for part of his contract so the Cubs are actually paying less money to Silva than they would have to Bradley.

I stand corrected. I still hate the trade.

[woodchip2153]

Do you feel it's appropriate to question any decision Jim Hendry makes? Obviously, none of us are going to have the same access to information that he does since he's on the inside? Should we swallow down each [expletive] sandwich cause he knows stuff we don't?

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous.

 

This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics.

 

It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.

 

Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing.

 

Can you provide statistics that bad clubhouse chemistry doesn't have a negative effect on a team?

 

I'm of the opinion that clubhouse chemistry has a minimal overall effect, and there is a lot of variance in how it effects different players. That's just my opinion though. Just because something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Can you provide statistics that bad clubhouse chemistry doesn't have a negative effect on a team?

 

I'm of the opinion that clubhouse chemistry has a minimal overall effect, and there is a lot of variance in how it effects different players. That's just my opinion though. Just because something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Logical fallacy of false burden of proof.

[davearm2]

Do you feel it's appropriate to question any decision Jim Hendry makes? Obviously, none of us are going to have the same access to information that he does since he's on the inside? Should we swallow down each [expletive] sandwich cause he knows stuff we don't?

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous.

 

This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics.

 

It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.

 

Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing.

As I said, what we're discussing here can't be boiled down to statistics, as much as we may wish it could.

 

"Not everything that counts, can be counted" -- Albert Einstein

 

Let me ask you this. Can Jackie Robinson's impact on baseball be determined by statistics?

[Sammy Sofa]

Let me ask you this. Can Jackie Robinson's impact on baseball be determined by statistics?

 

On the game of baseball itself? Very easily. On society as a whole? Not so much.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"Not everything that counts, can be counted" -- Albert Einstein

 

Wasn't he referring to quantum mechanics, a subject on which he turned out to be wildly wrong?

[woodchip2153]

Can you provide statistics that bad clubhouse chemistry doesn't have a negative effect on a team?

 

I'm of the opinion that clubhouse chemistry has a minimal overall effect, and there is a lot of variance in how it effects different players. That's just my opinion though. Just because something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Logical fallacy of false burden of proof.

 

I should mention that I think if there is a negative effect to bad chemistry that it's probably worth a win or less in baseball in even the most extreme conditions. So even an average player would be worth the bad chemistry on the field. Obviously a GM has to consider the PR and stuff too, though.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would like to propose a board rule that any discussion of Milton Bradley is banned this season.

 

 

 

It's just pointless.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I would like to propose a board rule that any discussion of Milton Bradley is banned this season.

 

 

 

It's just pointless.

 

As opposed to all the productive, important discussions on the board? Especially during spring training?

[CUBZ99]

Can you provide statistics that bad clubhouse chemistry doesn't have a negative effect on a team?

 

I'm of the opinion that clubhouse chemistry has a minimal overall effect, and there is a lot of variance in how it effects different players. That's just my opinion though. Just because something can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Logical fallacy of false burden of proof.

 

I should mention that I think if there is a negative effect to bad chemistry that it's probably worth a win or less in baseball in even the most extreme conditions. So even an average player would be worth the bad chemistry on the field. Obviously a GM has to consider the PR and stuff too, though.

 

Now we just need to figure how how much of an effect that a city (Chicago) has on a player (Bradley) and to what extent that player (Bradley) who has hurt by the city in turn had on the baseball team, and how many wins it cost that team. :mrgreen:

[jersey cubs fan]

I would like to propose a board rule that any discussion of Milton Bradley is banned this season.

 

 

 

It's just pointless.

 

As opposed to all the productive, important discussions on the board? Especially during spring training?

 

Well it's not the offseason anymore, and this discussion never goes anywhere. There's plenty to talk about in spring training.

[SouthSideRyan]

Do you feel it's appropriate to question any decision Jim Hendry makes? Obviously, none of us are going to have the same access to information that he does since he's on the inside? Should we swallow down each [expletive] sandwich cause he knows stuff we don't?

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous.

 

This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics.

 

It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.

 

Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing.

As I said, what we're discussing here can't be boiled down to statistics, as much as we may wish it could.

 

"Not everything that counts, can be counted" -- Albert Einstein

 

Let me ask you this. Can Jackie Robinson's impact on baseball be determined by statistics?

 

So if the bad chemistry of Bradley isn't shown in the on-field performance, where is it on display? And why should I care?

[jersey cubs fan]

So if the bad chemistry of Bradley isn't shown in the on-field performance, where is it on display? And why should I care?

 

It is displayed on the heart monitor attached to Ryan Theriot, who just can't take any more negativity, the poor little fella.

[davearm2]

Do you feel it's appropriate to question any decision Jim Hendry makes? Obviously, none of us are going to have the same access to information that he does since he's on the inside? Should we swallow down each [expletive] sandwich cause he knows stuff we don't?

Of course it's appropriate. Don't be ridiculous.

 

This specific situation is very far outside the norm though, and at its core involves issues that a) we're not privy to, and b) can't be boiled down to statistics.

 

It doesn't fit neatly into the sabermetric box where you input OPS and WHIP and UZR and WARP and whatnot, and out comes your standard format thumbsup/thumbsdown answer. But nevertheless that's how some here have chosen to analyze it.

 

Statistics are the record of what has happened on the field. As I've been asking for the past 6 months or so, I'm looking for somebody anywhere to show me how the statistics show how Bradley hurt the team on the field(beyond his own sub-par season) Nobody has given me an answer to that. I don't give a [expletive] if Ryan Theriot's feelings are hurt if he's producing.

As I said, what we're discussing here can't be boiled down to statistics, as much as we may wish it could.

 

"Not everything that counts, can be counted" -- Albert Einstein

 

Let me ask you this. Can Jackie Robinson's impact on baseball be determined by statistics?

 

So if the bad chemistry of Bradley isn't shown in the on-field performance, where is it on display? And why should I care?

That's not what I said.

 

The idea would be, the bad chemistry of Bradley impacts on-field performance in ways that can't be measured easily, if at all. That's obviously much different than there being no impact.