Sammy Sofa

an enlarged heart should leave some kind of evidence on a simple ekg, and can be confirmed on an echo. Not true. For something so potentially serious it's something that's often very easily missed even with an EKG.

I'm sorry, you're trying to blame the end of the 2004 season on "distractions?" And you're actually saying that the Cubs blew the 2003 season because of Bartman? Suddenly your perspective in this debate makes a LOT more sense.

Indeed.

Sounds like ADD as opposed to "chemistry."

I never said he did. I've made it clear I think Bradley's effect on the team's overall record outside of his own performance is negligible at best. I also don't think one guy has the ability to effect people as much as you're describing unless he was going out of his way to make people's lives miserable. It's simply not realistic to assume that a single player has the ability to motivate or drag down an entire team in terms of onfield performances through "chemistry" or the lack thereof.

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those [expletive]" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse? It worked for the A's in the 1970s. They had a saying, "25 guys, 25 cabs". Wasn't the Big Red Machine a little rocky, too?

It's just as valid a theory as suggesting that it is detrimental to their on-field performance given the evidence (or more accurately, the lack thereof). For all we know clubhouse conflict motitvates players to play harder/better in a "I'll show those motherfuckers" kind of way. Why is that any less realistic than suggesting that it causes them to play worse?

What massive hole in the rotation? It definitely could use another quality starter if one can be had, but it's not like the Cubs are short of options of guys who are likely to be capable starters (Silva aside).

If there had been an effort by the organization to paint Grace as a villain as they did with Sosa at the end then I'm sure he would have been happy to be out of there, too.

Something like an enlarged heart is likely to not show up in a physical unless a bodyscan is done, and even then it's no sure bet to be detected.

Right. And it makes sense that guys can have their performances impacted by off-field happenings. Guys like Dempster and Lee delaing with serious health issues with their children, of course that's going to weigh heavily on them. Lower down on the scale I can see things in the clubhouse potentially playing over onto the field if they escalate to a serious degree. Again, along the lines of guys constantly at each others' throats (literally or metaphorically) or serious rifts amongst different players or groups of players or situations where it's essentially the players vs. the coaches or the manager could easily have a serious impact on how the season goes. That said, we've seen zero indication that this was the case here. In fact, in the few players who have spoken on the issue, particuarly Theriot, have gone out of their way to emphasized hoe everyone except one person get along great, so it's not like an issue of one guy somehow fracturing the team and making everyone fight with each other. The reason I dismiss the idea that "chemistry" had any serious impact last season is because from the insiders themselves it sounds nothing more than one guy not liking anyone else and basically everyone else not liking that guy. That's not a lack of chemistry. That's one guy as the odd man out. That still leaves the entire rest of the team to get along great, which supposedly they do and act as a team. Trying to imply that one sulky guy can destroy all of that to the point that guys are playing poorly and games are being lost is ridiculous.

http://www.lancescomicworld.com/ http://www.avclub.com/chicago/articles/chicago-bears-linebacker-lance-briggs-on-comic-boo,37070/

One guy does not equal a "negative clubhouse," especially when all things seem to indicate that his "negativity" amounted to him not wanting to talk to his teammates. How does that destroy all of the chemistry that EVERYONE ELSE has with each other? And how does a negative clubhouse impact performance? Do you really think they're distracted by Milton Bradley not wanting to talk to them when it comes time for them to hit or make a play? Is a positive clubhouse environment ideal? Of course. My issue is with the idea that one guy not hanging out with everyone else has the ability to shatter everyone's confidence and attitude and cause the team to do poorly to the point they're losing games, especially when there are multiple other glaring (and much more realistic) reasons as to why the team did poorly.

So to make your point work you have to use a completely irrelevant analogy? We're not talking about a boss or someone with authority here. No, I say that because letting one person bother everyone else to the point where everyone else's onfield performances suffer despite the fact they all get along and it's only one person who is not buddy-buddy with everyone else isn't "chemistry." That's codependency on a crippling scale. Because it's a total copout. One guy not getting along with everyone else doesn't destroy a team: that just makes it a team sans one guy. Everyone else gets along? Boom, there's your team. EVERYONE ELSE IS WORKING GREAT TOGETHER AS A GROUP. Milton Bradley not being friends with everyone else shouldn't be a crippling thing. If it is, the problem extends well beyond just Milton Bradley. Besides, if chemistry has such impact, negative or positive, why didn't they turn into worldbeaters after he was gone? Why did they stay the same underwhelming, mediocre team they had been all year?

It's meaingless in the context of these guys playing. How does Milton Bradley being a jerk have ANY bearing of another player stepping into the batter's box and trying to get a hit or throwing a pitch or making a play in the field? Here, I'll answer for you: NONE AT ALL. My point is that the issue of Bradley liking everyone else or everyone liking Bradley is meaningless when it comes time to play. Milton Bradley isn't going to run up and yell nasty things at them or punch them in the throat when it's time to make a play or hit. In the grand scheme of things it IS meaningless if only one guy out of a large group is a jerk and everyone else gets along. Explain to me how ONE guy is sabotaging EVERYONE else and causing them to lose games with his "lack of chemistry." Spare me the nonsense of "pity" because I'm practical and wouldn't try to explain away bad work performance by me and the people around me because we didn't like one guy in the entire workspace and everyone else got along great.

So what does it "mean?" Is he saying that it effects onfield performance if one person is a jerk yet everyone else gets along? If you think so, do you agree with that? Of course not, because such a thing would be absurd. That's hardly the reason why many assume that it is largely meaningless rhetoric. That's also not saying it's impossible for clubhouse chemistry to effect a team. If guys are attacking each other in the clubhouse left and right and there are huge rifts and divisons between the players and/or coaches where people are screaming at each other and flipping [expletive] around I think it would a be a safe bet it would somehow effect the season. That said, I have serious doubts that one guy, who apparently didn't get along with everyone because he was a sulky and sullen jerk, has enough impact to actually effect the onfield performance of the entire team when everyone else apparently gets along great. That's a ridiculous conclusion. I'm simply examining it with common sense. I've yet to see an argument that can explain how one Milton Bradley can detrimentally effect the entire Cubs roster when they're playing the gamewhen they keep saying that everyone gets along so well. It's an absurd conclusion and it's absurd to think the word of a pro athlete is some kind of proof that needs to overcome. What, are we supposed to take their word that their individual rituals for good luck actually work simply because they decide that they do? Of course not. Ryan Theriot is just paying lip service and blaming an easy target to curry favor with the dumb fans because if he came out and explained that the Cubs sucked because guys were hurt and the offense in general except for Lee underperformed it wouldn't nearly be as popular.

BRING SAMMY HOME!!!!

Who said these things? Not me. And not Theriot, to my knowledge. Then it's meaningless. If it's "chemistry" then that implies that it has some kind of cause and effect in terms of some or even all of the players' performances. If not, then it's just everyone not liking one guy (and/or vice-versa) and that's it and it's irrelevant. If there's no impact on performance then it should amount to "tough [expletive], you don't always get to like everyone you work with" and comments like Theriot's are irrelevant and unnecessary. As it stands, it's definitely been all but explicitly stated that Bradley's presence and attitude had a detrimental effect on the team's performance and that's why he had to go so therefore that is the clear context of Theriot's comments. You don't just bench and then trade someone and then have other players trying to diplomatically justify what happened when someone is simply being a jerk.

Because a ton of players have used PED's over the decades and everyone freakin' loved the Steroid Era when it was going down? so you mean to tell me that if Sosa admitted to steroid use and showed up at the Cubs Convention two weeks later, he should receive love and adulation from all in attendance? Wouldn't bother me if he did. If I was there I'd be one of the ones cheering him on. If someone wants to look down on it, whatever, fine, but it shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people still love these players. When the Sosa flag was offered as a Bingo prize, nearly the entire place (1,500?) erupted in Boo's. Not apples to apples of course (stands to reason more ardendt supporters would show for an appearance), but it was a very strong negative reaction. I would assume those boo's would be there even if the steroids thing wasn't an issue given how he ended up leaving the Cubs and the bat corking. It's not like McGwire left St. Louis under the same circumstances. He retired there as a beloved player.

So you fully buy into the idea that single person negates the clubhouse chemistry of everyone else in the clubhouse even if everyone except that one person people get along? And not only that, but to the point that that one person actually disrupts their play and causes them to lose games? I'll wait to see if you can actually back up your point with an argument beyond "he's a baseball player and you're not."

That's what I thought.

I think it has much less to do with being generally jaded and much more specifically with a very lackluster 2009 and little changes to the team. The convention between 2008 and 2009 was still much more exciting despite how the season ended up.

So how does it "matter?" How does a "positive thing" or a "negative thing" impact the season? And again, how does ONE player offset or negate the "chemistry" of everyone else? What does it matter in the long run if one player is a jerk when everyone else gets along? That would be like making an excuse for an office that does poorly because there's someone there that doesn't get along with everyone else while everyone else gets along fine.

I think part of is the obvious nature of how the Cubs aren't doing much this offseason. If there was more money to spend and a new GM it would likely be much more exciting.

To me it potentially does because how could you possibly gauge such a ridiculous intangible? And especially with a year like last year's. Is Theriot saying that Bradley in the clubhouse impacted the team more or less than Soto's crappy 2nd year? More or less than Soriano playing injured? More or less than Armais missing almost half the season? Would clubhouse issues have been a factor at all if none of those other things occured? Probably not. It seems like these stories seem to only show up when a team does poorly. It reeks of excuse-making, especially when there are so many other obvious reasons why the season went badly.