SouthSideRyan

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available? I didn't say that now, did I? What I was saying before you attempted to put words in my mouth is that there might be discussion about Bradley now, but that's because the GM's around the league don't really have much else to discuss since a bunch of FA's can't be spoken to until they file for free agency. Bradley will probably still be a Cub when the free agent filing day comes. And once that day comes, he will become a forgotten man. I doubt that. He might go on the back burner, but as soon as guys start signing, teams left on the outside in those deals will go right back to thinking about Bradley. I think the general level of interest will remain relatively constant. As for this statement: I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays pooorly. I'm sure he'd love the players to all be good spokespeople for the team, however, wins are what sells tickets and drives ratings. When the team struggles, those things decline. And that is the last thing he wants. I am hoping that is what behind his insistence that the Cubs don't pay Bradley to perform somewhere else. As I stated before, there's lots of variables in baseball. I would think the last thing a new owner wants is a team that plays poorly and a player that causes problems with fans, team mates, authority, and the media. That describes the 2009 Cubs and getting rid of Bradley removes the bolded and underlined part of that sentence. If the Cubs stay relatively healthy in 2010, they will be contenders in the NL Central without Bradley. And if they stay relatively healthy in 2010 they would be contenders with Bradley. And if they don't, they'll be losers without Bradley, and fans will only show up to boo the team. I'm not really following here.

Could just be: Cause a Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans? A non-winning Cubs team definitely is. The recent string of sell-outs is no guarantee, and it has not been a very longterm trend. As recently as 1999/2000/2001 it was extremely easy to get tickets. In late 98 it started to get tough, but it wasn't like it's been recently. The "unprecedented" level of success coupled with the fans dying need to be there to see it happen led to tickets sales going through the roof, regular shmoes making real money selling their tickets on the open market and it all fed off of itself. But people took a bath this year. Tickets were going for well below face on stubhub, and there were loads of empty seats. The tickets were sold by the team (for the most part, there were tickets available for every late game directly from the cubs), but without bodies in the seats beer/food/merchandise sales did not happen. This started to happen in 2005/2006 after Wood/Prior fell apart, Sosa left and the team played like crap. They had to resort to a franchise busting contract for a huge name in Soriano to renew interest and guarantee sales. But if the Cubs remain stuck in mediocrity or fall back to the crap they were, ticket sales will decline, and the ratings will not be there. They need to be competitive to keep the money stream flowing. And Bradley's attitude has nothing to do with it. Fans are going to go if the team is good, and they'll stay away if they're bad.

The bottom line is that the Chicago Cubs are a business and the last thing a new owner would want is a player that insults the fans, the city, his team mates, authority, and the media. Cause a good Cubs team is in danger of not drawing fans?

Nitpick, Northwestern beat ND at ND. Ron Powlus tripped over the center's leg on the 2 pt conversion that would've tied it up. The Chicago game was Powlus's first where Beano Cook famously predicted 2 Heismans after he threw 5 TDs.

You think teams showing interest in Bradley don't realize there are going to be free agents available?

I can sorta concede this point, but the quotes from the players never seemed to imply that they were miserable, I took it as more "what the hell is wrong with this guy. Why isn't he happy here?" I don't think Milton necessarily made his teammates miserable, he was just a jerk that they tuned out by midseason. I don't see Bradley's presence affecting future free agents coming on. First off, we don't really have a spot (or probably the cash)to sign anyone this offseason unless we dump Bradley, so we're looking at the 2011 offseason following either Bradley continuing his issues leading to his dumping in that offseason, OR we're looking at a reformed Bradley and players won't care about coming here. And even with that said, I find it hard to believe a free agent is going to turn down top dollar because Milton Bradley is on the team.

without looking it up, my guess is Bradley's production was probably just as good if not better than the production the Cub's had in RF in 2008. Again this is just me thinking, but my guess is the Cub's lost 15 games of production in SP, C, 2b,3b,LF,CF and bench. Right. Things didn't stay the same. C, 2B, 3B, LF, and CF all put up noticeably worse offensive production. SP was due to inevitable regression from Dempster and Harden, along with inevitable regression of team health. C was due to inevitable regression from Soto, along with some bad luck on BIP, injury, and not a true spring training. 2B was due to inevitable regression from Fontenot, along with the loss of DeRosa 3b was due to injury, along with the loss of Derosa LF was due to injury (I hope) CF was due to the loss of Edmonds. I'm just not seeing how Bradley hurt the performance of the club, beyond the fact that he was a bit of a disappointment performance wise.

And I'm pretty sure Air Force was better back then than they are now.

I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has? I completely see your point, but not everything can be quantified. But a player's performance on the field can be quantified, and that's all that should matter.

Utah is a solid program. As a MSU fan I accept your apology for ragging on MSU about their sheduling. Also you should check out the ND scheduling during the Holtz years. They played some very good teams, but there was plenty of Army Navy and other crap sprinkled in I don't think you can rag on Holtz's scheduling for playing 3 gimmes when he was regularly taking on top 5 teams in addition to the standard Big 10s/USCs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102103794.html?sid=ST2009102104357 NCAA considering outlawing hiring of friends, family, coaches to positions in order to recruit a kid. Seems like a no-brainer, I'm sure this will not pass.

Just like everywhere else Calipari has been...or every other coach at Kentucky. The money will be repaid, nobody will question where the money came from, and Wall will miss a couple games against SW Baptist and Elon. Morningstar at KU has charges dropped in his DUI case as long as he doesn't get in any trouble the next 12 months.

Oooh, I just got a little hard at the idea of the Raiders taking Tebow in the 1st round.

Scioscia is a redass. He'll never take Bradley. I have to keep asking, why does this matter unless it's affecting play on the field? Has there been any indication that it has?

Bradford would have to really impress at the combine to pass Clausen for me. I'm biased, but I think he's the clear #1

If you don't mind taking Vernon Wells with him.

More importantly, what is BacktoBanks reporting?

Bradford could lose an arm and still be drafted.

The division's gotten worse since an 83 win team won it?

I only saw it live, but I can't believe that A-Rod wasn't safe at home. It didn't really seem close.

ANYBODY??

My favorite Buzz moment is him losing his mind on Sciambi's radio show and Sciambi essentially calling him a clueless moron and hanging up. Loooove me some Boog

Jaramillo emphasizes a power stroke. I know it's irrational, but I'm sick of seeing guys being pigeonholed as Vince Coleman because they're fast.

What happened the year before that? Some juggernaut won it all right? Maybe this shows something about playoff baseball.

Not true. I can't find the DMN blog article, but Rudy made 425k or so and was only offered a 3% cost of living increase on a one year deal. The Rangers felt the message had gotten stale and wanted a new voice. It was the Seinfeld "nonvitation" as the DMN described it. Well the Bruce Levine article on ESPNChicago had him making $650,000 last year, which is about what I had heard he made somewhere else.