UMFan83

A little of both, he's been looking for them since he came back, but the D is almost always going to sag off him when he's behind the line until he proves he can hit that shot consistently. It's nice to see. I think VDN said he's been working on it for awhile.

It sure looks like that's the case doesn't it? I think what Tim said is mostly correct. Bonds is an extreme case and he had a lot of issues surrounding him to scare off other teams. However, Bradley has already alienated himself from a big chunk of the league and is known as baseball's biggest a-hole. Bonds kept getting deals because he was putting up awesome numbers and the fans hadn't turned on him. Albert Belle kept getting deals for the same reason until his hip gave out. Bradley is not on the level of Belle and Bonds, even when healthy. How many times is he going to piss someone off until a team trys to dump him and there are no takers? This time around, a team was so desperate to rid themselves of Bradley they took on a garbage pitcher whose contract would be the worst on the team for any team in baseball but the Cubs. What's going to happen when the Mariners tire of him? I didn't ask what MLB GMs thought, I asked what you think. Well like someone else pointed, for 16 teams it probably did. I don't know what AL teams were thinking. It was probably steroids+dark cloud surrounding bonds+he's a huge [expletive]+he's 43 I'd rather see if X player can give me similar production. If your asking me point blank if I would sign a hitter who had a 1.045 OPS in his age 42 season, despite being a huge [expletive] absolutely I would and wouldn't think twice about it. Anyways, this is getting way too far away from my original comment, which is still true, that Bradley's surley personality has not made him $1 in the sport of baseball, and it never will, where as if Kevin Millar spends 1 day on the Cubs 25 man roster he'll make infinately more for his personality than Bradley ever will. And it's a stupid argument to begin with because we are talking about 2 extreme cases, and 99.5% of the time your personality doesn't and should not play any part in determing a players value.

Tell me why they didn't sign him then? Because of steroids and the possibility of jail time? That's partially correct. Whether or not you or I believe in the effect of "chemistry" effecting a team, Bonds has been known as a complete [expletive] his entire career, and it certainly didn't aid him in getting teams to line up to sign him. And that was my point. And my point is (still) that teams are idiots if that is why they didn't sign him. I have a hard time believing that all 30 teams are run by drooling morons So you think all 30 teams passed on a player who put up a .480 OBP because they were scared he might go to jail during the season (which he still hasn't done)? Do you think Bonds's surly demeanor outweighed the fact that he would've been the best hitter on most of the teams in baseball? It sure looks like that's the case doesn't it? I think what Tim said is mostly correct. Bonds is an extreme case and he had a lot of issues surrounding him to scare off other teams. However, Bradley has already alienated himself from a big chunk of the league and is known as baseball's biggest a-hole. Bonds kept getting deals because he was putting up awesome numbers and the fans hadn't turned on him. Albert Belle kept getting deals for the same reason until his hip gave out. Bradley is not on the level of Belle and Bonds, even when healthy. How many times is he going to piss someone off until a team trys to dump him and there are no takers? This time around, a team was so desperate to rid themselves of Bradley they took on a garbage pitcher whose contract would be the worst on the team for any team in baseball but the Cubs. What's going to happen when the Mariners tire of him?

Tell me why they didn't sign him then? Because of steroids and the possibility of jail time? That's partially correct. Whether or not you or I believe in the effect of "chemistry" effecting a team, Bonds has been known as a complete [expletive] his entire career, and it certainly didn't aid him in getting teams to line up to sign him. And that was my point. And my point is (still) that teams are idiots if that is why they didn't sign him. I have a hard time believing that all 30 teams are run by drooling morons So you think all 30 teams passed on a player who put up a .480 OBP because they were scared he might go to jail during the season (which he still hasn't done)?

Tell me why they didn't sign him then? Because of steroids and the possibility of jail time? That's partially correct. Whether or not you or I believe in the effect of "chemistry" effecting a team, Bonds has been known as a complete [expletive] his entire career, and it certainly didn't aid him in getting teams to line up to sign him. And that was my point.

Perhaps his personality has given him motivation to work hard and prove wrong all his detractors (be they real or imaginary)? How many players have earned money on the field due to their personalities? I bet Bonds is really pissed at himself that he could've made more money if he just would've smiled more. Yeah as long as Bonds continued to hit HRs at a high rate, he outperformed the public hatred of himself. As soon as his knees went and he could longer play the field adequately, the Giants chose not to resign him and the rest of the league avoided him like the plague, even teams in the AL who could put him in as a DH and watch him produce. As soon as Milton Bradley's God given talent starts deteriorating, he'll quickly be thrown to the curb, much earlier than a player who isn't a selfish jackass because most teams don't want that crap infesting their team unless he's going to produce quite well for him. He's certainly not going to be able to hang around when he's 38 showing up to Spring Trainings because of his personality. I doubt he'd make it past this contract if he doesn't hit all that much better than he did with the Cubs last year. The point was, his personality has done him no favors in his career. All it has done is burned bridges with almost every person he has encountered in his career. To say "I'm not going to change my attitude because it got me this far" is implying that his attitude is actually aiding his career or his life in general and although I'm no insider with intricate knowledge of Bradley, from afar it's pretty obvious that it couldn't be farther from the truth.

I generally agree. I think it's hard to agree with him that "everything went our way" in the last decade - the Prior disaster and the booted DP ball were killers. But the article wasn't bad. WHAT ABOUT BARTMAN!?!?!?!?!!?!!?!? /stereotypical Cub hater who assumes we obsess over that name when the only time we think about him is when fans of other teams bring him up. But seriously, everything going out way doesn't include Lowell's basket HR in G1 of the NLCS, Victor Diaz with 2 outs in the 9th with a 3 run lead, in general the offense collpasing the last week of 2004 season, Derrick Lee's brutal wrist injury coming off a 46 HR monster season that seemed to take 2-3 years to fully recover from, potential HOF pitcher's career derailed with random, sometimes freak, injuries, Ted Lilly's glove throw in the 07 NLDS/Chris Young in the series, Loney's Grand Slam in 08 after just barely getting a piece of a foul tip that would have ended the inning a few pitches before, every member of the Cubs IF making an error in a 2 inning span, etc etc. Some of that is just bad play, some of it is bad breaks, all of it happens to other teams (well almost all of it), but by far all of it amounts to hearing the statement "the Cubs got all the breaks this decade" and laughing at how ridiculous it is.

But that's not what he said, he called it the golden age of Cubs baseball. Golden age is specifically defined as "a time period when some activity or skill was at its peak". Maybe I'm being too technical but like TT said, my biggest gripe is about the fact that he's assuming that even with the Cubs resources we are headed for a down decade and will wish we were back in the "golden age" of Cardinals and White Sox winning championships while the Cubs suffer epic collapses or whatever. I don't know, Leitch rarely has anything nice to say about the Cubs, and I read this as a passive agressive way to rip on the Cubs.

Yeah, that's the philosphy to go through life with! And it's gotten you so far. it has gotten him far. extremely far. he not only made it to the majors, but he is getting paid tens of millions of dollars to play a sport. Did you not read the rest of my post? His attitude and personality has gotten him nowhere. His luck of being uniquely skilled in skill set that is rewarded hansomly. I suppose hard work is a positive trait that helped him get to where he is today as anyone who has had to play baseball has had to work hard to get there. But all the hard work in the world wouldn't have mattered if he didn't have god given ability to play the game. Show me one instance where his attitude and personality helped him get even $1, because that's what were talking about. Bradley said he's not changing anything about his personality, specifically his behavior towards umpires in this instance because it's gotten him this far.

What do you mean by that?

Yeah, that's the philosphy to go through life with! And it's gotten you so far. If God hadn't given you moderate ability to be skilled at doing something that both pays a lot of money and is in an industry where you can sometimes be completely intolerable and still be a net benefit to your employers, you'd be a worthless bum. Well Milty, your talent will only get you a few more years in this game. You selfish and destructive behavior will have to carry you the rest of the way. Still feel the same way about never changing?

Personally I don't mind his writing. I don't expect anything insiteful, but it usually keeps my attention. That said, as I remarked before, I expected a Will Leitch article about the Chicago Cubs to be horrible, but the article was at least interesting enough to discuss, IMO.

Oh yeah, I'm not saying the Cubs are definite contenders, or that they are built for the long term. Those are some of the biggest concerns I share. The most ridiculous part in that article was the part talking about how this is the best decade the Cubs have had, and that we should expect several down years now. I mean there were many many happy moments for the Cubs in the 00's. There were moments of joy, moments of success, moments of swagger. But there were just as many agonizing moments for the Cubs this decade. We saw 5 seperate painful collpases from high expectations this year (twice in reg. season (01 and 04), twice in DS (07,08), and once in LCS (03). We watched our two biggest arch rivals win the World Series only 2-3 years after our biggest shot at winning ended in a historic collapse. We watched the 2 teams who were within 40 years of a similar World Series drought as us win it all and see decades of demons erased. We watched as the ownership finally started to turn into a big market team and spend the money to compete with other large market teams, only to see that money spent without an apparent plan and seeminly in a way that puts us in a significant financial bind to start this season. We saw a celebrated Cub of the late 80s/early 90's, a sort of "less talented Mr. Cub" of a new generation (I know I am reaaaaally stretching here) mutually part ways with the Cubs and win a WS with an expansion team. Speaking of which, the decade saw 7 teams who had either 1) Never been to the World Series before, 2) Hadn't been to a World Series for at least 40 years, or 3) Were an expansion team that had been around for less than 8 years at the start of the decade make the World Series while the Cubs still sat on the sidelines. I am starting to sound like a misery ridden Cubs fan so I'll stop, but it's been anything but a golden decade for the Cubs.

Interesting read http://deadspin.com/5498446/chicago-cubs-this-is-the-golden-age?skyline=true&s=i In my mind Leitch, huge Cards fan/Cubs hater, is trying to antagonize his rival's fanbase with this article. Basically his point is, the 2000's was the "golden age" for Cubs fans, and that everything went right for the Cubs this decade and they should have won a World Series during that time, but the cards didn't fall that way. Now they should expect a big decline based on the payroll being maxed out and our core being aging and ready for a slide. He suggests the Cubs only chance this year would be in the rest of the NL Central collapses and and they emulate the 2006 Cardinals team by luckily winning a WS past the peak of that incarnation of the team.

I think Colorado may fall completely out and Calgary/Detroit may be the 8th seed. I watched some of the Sharks/Oilers game and oh my, Sharks are completely lost right now. What exactly is failing for them right now? Just a bit of everything or one specific area?

According to the Trib, it's gonna happen... The article talks about how he made one little adjustment and it's been working well for him (suuure...). He credits the turnaround to Greg Maddux. Oh and also he's said he's had a couple of bad years since his mother wasn't around to be there with him, and the good news is his mother is flying from Venezuela very soon. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/ct-spt-0322-cubs-chicago--20100321,0,5010525.story Honestly, whatever. I personally wouldn't have made the move, but if he kills us for a couple of starts in April, most likely the Cubs will pull the plug when Lilly returns anyways.

So I see the Coyotes won again and are now tied with us for #1 seed, albeit with 2 extra games.

I agree, there's no way the Cardinals would have signed Holliday to that contract if they didn't expect to break the bank to resign Pujols. But who knows what to expect. What if Carp has another serious injury and has to miss most of the year, what if Holliday doesn't live up to the expectations and drops a few more liners off his nuts? What if a lot of stuff that could go wrong does for the Cards and Pujols assesses the situation and realizes that the Cards aren't going to be title contenders in the short term due to the amount of money they would have to pay him and the other players for what he believes to be a non-title core. Don't get me wrong Pujols has said all the right things about the Cardinals in his career and over the recent years. Nothing he has said would suggest that he would do anything but stay there. But you can't talk in absolutes when you were talking about megastars like Pujols, who worry about things like legacy at this stage of their careers. Yes he has a title, but if he doesn't think staying with the Cardinals is going to keep him in the spotlight in October for the rest of his career, who knows where his mind wanders to.

No doubt, but you can't dismiss the fact that for the first time in like 10 games, the Bulls played a sub-.500 team.

How many times have the Hawks blown a 2+ goal lead in the last 10 games?

Win in Chicago and take the home and home or die.

I am not mad with the point given up IF we can take the SO.

Remember me bragging about my bracket last night? Yeah 2 of my final 4 are gone including one of my championship game participants.

Wow talk about taking a horrible shot and getting bailed out.