Sammy Sofa

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.

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.

Because a ton of players have used PED's over the decades and everyone freakin' loved the Steroid Era when it was going down?

Well if a Cubs' player and an internet poster are expressing opposing views on the nature of the Cubs' clubhouse, there is indeed a credibility issue to consider. Not really. Look how many guys are on the active roster. Apparently only one of those guys was not liked in the clubhouse. We're really supposed to believe that unless EVERYONE in the clubhouse gets along that the team will falter? Please. Unless there's some secret gestlat isht going down that's a load of crap. If some people didn't like Bradley, fine, but stop roundabout blaming the end result of the season on that. It actually only makes the rest of the team look bad too since they're apparently that weak emotionally/mentally/whatever if one guy is a sulky jerk.

Like even beyond Avatar-obvious.

Not necessarily. Defects often can go undetected unless invasive examination occurs.

So does it suddenly become much more likely that the Bears will look into re-signing Ogunleye?

I think I'm mixing up the NFL with the NHL because even if the Bears got a comp pick it wouldn't be until the 3rd round at the earliest.

Theriot apparently continues to believe the baseball game happens in the clubhouse rather than on the field. He can probably just shut up now. He got his wish, Bradley is gone. While I don't believe clubhouse chemistry plays a huge role in a teams success on the filed, I do believe there's a little truth to it. Too many players talk about it for there to be nothing to it. And if a majority of players believe in it then that there gives it some significance. Apparently there's something to the entire team being a bunch of wimps if they don't like one guy in the clubhouse and they allow it to effect their play.

I could be wrong. I thought something like this would fall under the comp pick system.

I believe the Bears will get a compensatory 2nd round pick.

What the eff.

No.

I don't think it's "hate" to think he should hit #6 if Soriano and Soto are performing more along the lines that we hope they will. Hell, if Byrd is doing well I don't have a problem with him hitting #2 and Fukudome hitting #6 instead.

If Soriano returned to form I'd put him back at #1, move Fukudome to #2 and drop Theriot down to #7 or #8. Keeping Soriano at #6 if he's able to bounce back to anything resembling his usual self is nuts.

This is true, and definitely something I realized as soon as I read this idea. Still, it doesn't excuse the initial stupidity.