I think it would be a great idea to bring Bradley back next year (rather than get nothing), but I don't have to play with him or be around him for 3/4 of the year. His statement about "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" , although greatly exaggerated is probably closer to the truth, than any chance that Bradley returns. I'm not debating that at all. Really, I'm just nitpicking some sloppy logic from people. Will we keep him? No. The front office seems to have decided (for right or wrong) that he's too much of a distraction and we need to get him the hell out of here. But how some people make the jump in logic from we wont keep him to we can't keep him, is beyond me. If the front office had decided it was the best course of action to keep him around and try to salvage some value from the contract, things could have been glossed over in the clubhouse fairly easily, at least to start the year. Players get into fistfights with each other, use steroids, beat their wives, etc... and the situations are "handled" easily enough with an apology. And there is nothing from any of our players to indicate that if Milton came out the first day of spring training and said, "I'm sorry folks. I was an [expletive]. I'm in therapy now," that they'd tell him to get the hell away.