flyseye

If it wasn't for all those screaming line drives hit right at people....

Yes. LOL. Finley would have sent Milton packing in May.

it certainly helped them on their deep playoff run to the world series. oh wait... how many $10 million talent, $.10 head guys help teams win on average? i'll bet that number isn't very high. Talent trumps chemistry in 99 cases out of 100. As I said earlier in this thread, the 1970's A's dynasty routinely got into fistfights in the locker room, but it didn't affect the on-field product. However, in a case like Milton Bradley's, Hendry did the right thing, and I wouldn't be sad if he was traded. A guy that extreme can bring down a team in a hurry if he isn't stopped. There's a reason he's been on 7 teams in 10 seasons. Sorry, too many errors in your first couple of sentences to let this slide. First, there are statistical exceptions to almost everything. How many teams suffered because of bad team chemistry ? You cannot answer that because nobody knows. Picking one team to try and prove a point in this case proves nothing other than it is POSSIBLE for it to happen. Which brings us to point two. the 70's A's did not " routinely " get into clubhouse fistfights, I only recall one episode where Odom and Fingers got into a fight after the regular season ended. There was some tension between the players and the front office regarding money, however. Still,I do not see how this compares to having a player like Bradley who seems to piss and moan day after day, insults the fans and the city he plays in, and, it would appear, has no respect for his manager, or his coaches. All you have shown is that players who do not always get along every day, on a fantastic team sporting three future hall of fame members, CAN win it all. You have done nothing to show that having a malcontent player like Bradley on your team is not often detrimental. The big question is would the 70's A's have been as good a team with Milton Bradley on it.

The fans already booed him every step he took. The status quo was unacceptable. They couldn't just have Milton repeatedly insulting the organization and the fans, refusing to play and fighting with personel. It's a perfectly valid suspension and it's laughable that you think otherwise. Every team knew the Cubs/Milton relationship was growing sour, the fact that Hendry acknowledged it with a suspension is meaningless. Guys can't be given all the rope they want. At some point in time, you have to call them out. He didn't screw up a damn thing. Bradley could walk through Wrigley after every home game and personally flip off each and every single fan and I couldn't care less, just so long as he doesn't hurt himself walking up and down those stairs. He's paid for his production on the field. Likewise, Hendry isn't paid to have the happiest team in the league. Hendry's entire job consists of getting the best team out on the field. This suspension is counterproductive to that end. And for what? What possible gain is there to be had from this? It's not even as if Bradley was breaking any laws... oh, which reminds me. Players have not been suspended this long for beating on their wives. In what world is this punishment remotely fair or justifiable? Punishment ?? In what world is suspending a player with full pay, who was not playing anyway, and made it clear he did not want to, at least with the Cubs, considered punishment. Bradley acted like a child. Hendry decided to treat him like one.

I was stuck in Springfield, MO last week and had to listen to the Cards announcers during the Cubs/Cards game. Jim Edmonds stopped by the booth, and they had a pretty interesting interview with him. He spoke highly of his time with the Cubs, and regarding Zambrano said that while Zambrano " lets his emotions get the best of him " while on the field, that off the field he was a really nice guy. He said Zambrano apologized to him " 150 times " for drilling him with a pitch once. I realize this means little regarding the Bradley situation, but I found it interesting.

I would. Somebody will trade a bag of baseballs for him if the Cubs pay most of his contract, and Hendry would do that if the alternative were to release him, get nothing, and still have to pay all of his contract above the minimum. We will see I guess. Somebody might give him a shot next year, but I dont see Bradley changing. My guess is that he is pretty much done.

I would not be the least bit surprised if Milton Bradley's baseball career was over.

Making contact is a real good way to drive in runs. For some. Not for Milton Bradley. That makes no sense. If you read my original post, it would make sense. The guy has never gotten more than 67 RBI in his career until last year. I did read your post, and it is wrong. You stated that Bradley is not a big run producer because he is a "contact" hitter, when in fact the only way to drive in runs outside of a bases loaded walk is to make contact. His career numbers are down across the board because he was injured so often, not because he is a contact hitter.

Making contact is a real good way to drive in runs. For some. Not for Milton Bradley. That makes no sense.

Making contact is a real good way to drive in runs.

If a middle of the order hitter with RISP takes two pitches that should be quite hittable, but then eventually draws a walk, is that a good at bat ?

I think the bigger question is why does everyone think the Cubs should ( and most probably would ) have to eat the bulk of a players salary that has a .394 OBP. Think about it.

Soto really has been brutal since coming back from the DL. Perhaps he is still hurt ? Anyone else remember cubstitle ?

Joe Carter, Dave Otto, Joe Morgan, Buck and McCarver, Hawk Harrelson... The whole Nats TV team can go on that list. Brutal. I had to listen to them for one of the games of the Cubs series. The Pirates' guys were horrible in the years past that I've heard them. Not that that they were particuarly obnoxious, but more in that they were just SO boring. The Mariners' broadcast team is also horrible. I would take Dave Niehaus of the Mariners over any Cubs announcer.

No offense to Olemisscub who posted the article, but what a load of crap. Totally disregarding the fact that at least one of the scant examples used by the author would hardly be considered performance enhancing ( I don't think many would champion being drunk as a performance enhancer), the author goes on to name a few players who " once took an amphetamine", or were using pain medication for an injury, in a span covering 100+ years, and tries to compare it to over 100 people who were proven to have used performance and body altering drugs in a single season. Not at all convincing in my opinion. He could have at least brought up Dock Ellis pitching while tripping on LSD or something.

??? Patterson had 7 triples in 83 games before his injury. That projects to roughly 14 for a full season.The single season record is 36. Curtis Granderson had 23 in 2007.

I don't think that is the case here at all. HCCF made a stupid comment, and that's the beginning and end of it. People thought Corey could be really good if things worked out. There's no hyperbole involved, they thought he could be really good. And it was not at all unrealistic to think that way, given his obvious skills and his immediate transition to the pro game. People debated the merits of how quickly he was called up and how he was utilized once he was called up, and some people held onto the hopes for far longer than others. But there was nothing wrong with any of that. It's just ridiculous to come on here years after the fact and claim people on this site that "instantly lift a 17/18 year old kid up onto a pedestal and crown him the next Willie Mays before he even plays a game." It's an unnecessary and completely inaccurate criticism of fans who thought and hoped a highly touted prospect could come up and perform well. Everytime a prospect fails people come out of the woodworks to make fun of or criticize those who had hopes for that prospect. Critique the paid professionals whose job it is to acquire and develop these prospects, but there's no good reason to heap scorn on fans who hoped the kid would succeed. Gooney, are you asserting that nobody on this board ever expressed any higher expectations of Corey Patterson than.... A. "could be really good if things worked out" B. "he could be really good" C. "could come up and perform well" .... because if that's your argument, then it's really you with the fuzzy memory, not hccf. That's about as disengenous an understatement of the facts as one can imagine. Do those sound like the expectations of a "highly touted prospect" !!! It's unfortunate that the posts from that period are all archived so we'll have to agree to disagree. I stand by my assertion that "some people here had unrealistically high expectations of Corey Patterson." While I don't believe anybody ever made the exact statement that hccf brought up (the next Willie Mays), I surely saw some posts back in the day that were every bit as outrageous as that one..... and yes, that is hyperbole. I am impressed Fred. Good job. To anyone who really remembers, the Patterson hype began way before this board was around. There was a group of posters from the old Cubs.com board, most of which migrated to this board when it started, who had some bizarre "Dynastic" "Nowacrat " theory. You could not say much of anything bad about the group of position players that included Patterson, Choi, Hill, Kelton, and a couple of others without a deluge of condescending posts from this group about how you were an uninformed nowacrat,or worse. Of course the entire theory went right down the crapper when these players either did not pan out in the first place, or were "ruined" by Baylor . It really is too bad some of these posts can no longer be retrieved through this site, or cubs.com. Funny how most of these posters have either disappeared, or still get testy when anyone even begins to call them on it. Patterson is a nice guy ? Ha. Make fun of Theriot all you want, but don't you dare insult the very nice Patterson. Don't know if HCCF was around in those days, but if he was, he is still down by a huge margin in the cheap shot department.

Booing members of other teams might be justified sometimes, but booing members of your own team who are giving 100% is childish, and just shows how watered down the Cubs fanbase is now.

Name them. Me Tree IMB Rocket TT SSR Sulley Raisin Tim 1908 Wolf Seth Vance NPC Beertown Butters Banedon JR Snood Jersey abuck anze e2s mojo swordsman nilodnayr laura biittner jon chocolatemilk fred No Rob ?

Don't know a name, but I am guessing it wasn't you. Good day.

Sure. First off I never said, or even insinuated that Lou, or Dusty, or any other manager never made a mistake. I simply said that the notion that anyone on this, or any other message board, or any drunk at the end of any bar, can regularly make better decisions than a professional MLB manager is pretty far fetched. And I also take extreme exception to the notion that Lou Piniella would be better off getting statistical advise from anyone on this board above those who already give him advise. Now, to answer your question, you seem to be forgetting that at the time you are referring to, many posters thought that Patterson was the second coming of Christ. So I don't think many around here were doing much second guessing about that. As far as Neifi was concerned, it turned out to be a poor decision. Much like signing Milton Bradley will probably turn out to be a poor one. So what. You think that pointing out one thing negative negates all of the other decisions a manager or GM makes ? You think this proves that any Tom, Dick, or Harry could have regularly done better ? A broken clock is right twice a day. Just because in hindsight you get one now and then proves nothing to me about anyones day to day managerial/statistical skills. Hope I answered your question.

Those stupid, stupid Cubs. I am firing off a letter today informing them that if they would simply hire Rob from NSBB, that Lou would suddenly become a much better manager. Ohhh...yeah...the classic "just a message board poster" attack. I think it's been around since the dawn of the internet. It's great when you have no other way to argue a losing point. Drop the argument and attack the "message board poster" aspect. Well done. Banedon, I guess I must of upset you because I called him on EXACTLY what he said.As a matter of fact he continues to say it. So why the heck don't you all write the Cubs and tell them how much better off Lou would be if he listened to Rob from NSBB ? Why don't you see if Bruce Miles will write a column about it ? Heck, why doesn't somebody just do a front page article on this site about it ?If you really think it is a true statement, there should be no problem, should there? If, on the other hand, you do not think it is a statement worth backing, you have no business ragging on me about it. Unless of course you know it is a ridiculous statement, and you just think I am being mean to him. Perhaps you feel sorry for him ? If the latter is the case, I commend you for your loyalty to your fellow poster, and I will let it drop, and I apologize. But to say I attacked the poster is pure BS, and you know it.

Those stupid, stupid Cubs. I am firing off a letter today informing them that if they would simply hire Rob from NSBB, that Lou would suddenly become a much better manager.

Once again a lame argument. I never said Lou was perfect. I realize that in hindsight it is easy for many to second guess him.It takes no brains to figure this out. The painfully obvious point you seem to be oblivious of is that even with your hindsight and second guessing, you are only assuming that the decisions some of you would make would have worked out better, as of course they never happened beyond your fantasies. You really think that EVERYONE in baseball is so stupid that they keep paying millions to educated baseball people to be managers, when all they really need is some bozo from a message board ? Have you really ever put any real thought into this bizarre theory? Obviously not.

Please tell me you are joking. Why? The whole "they played so they know better" line is a bunch of bull-puckey. I have no doubt that Lou is probably better at managing a 25 man clubhouse, practices, and all the other crap that a manager has to do than any of us in here probably could. But when it comes to in-game moves, I can think of 5-10 guys here off the top of my head I'd rather have making moves than lou. Actually your first line is pure bull-puckey, because I never said or insinuated any such thing. Pure fabrication on your part. To assume that anyone on here knows any more about statistics than Lou, or anyone on the Cubs coaching staffs is just plain laughable. And to say that Lou is PROBABLY better at managing a 25 man clubhouse than anyone on here is even more laughable. In fact, if i were you, I would be embarrassed. This is really too far out there to even argue any further. Believe what you want. I can always use the laugh.