CUBZ99

I think it would be a great idea to bring Bradley back next year (rather than get nothing), but I don't have to play with him or be around him for 3/4 of the year. His statement about "nuked bridges and burned the blueprints" , although greatly exaggerated is probably closer to the truth, than any chance that Bradley returns.

This kind of sentiment is beyond absurd. He nuked bridges and burned blueprints? Just what exactly did he do? Did he beat his wife? Kill somebody while driving intoxicated? Is he raping the other players dogs? No. He's just a bit of a dick. If he made a nice little apology in the locker room and meant a word of it, the team would forgive him in a second. And for god's sake, please stop the "you'd only think that from playing video games" argument. Most of the people making the argument that he can still stay are some of the more passionate fans on this board, the ones that watch every single game (which is another bad argument to make, but probably neutralizes the stupid video game thing). To truly believe that Bradley will come back, is to adapt Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief. The video game analogy is pretty close. Most of the people arguing that Bradley can stay completely discount the human aspect of the game. Players and management aren't robots, they can't help but be affected by outside stimuli to some degree. Every bit of evidence that has been printed or reported states that Bradley has burned his bridges beyond repair. The problem is, that most of the stat gurus can't quantify the impact his actions have on the team so they severely discount it. In the end, they can continually hide behind the "well we can't prove it so it doesn't exist" argument. And to address the bolded part, it is a ridiculous argument. Aaron Miles may be one of the most passionate players on the Cubs, that does not make him a good player, any more than it makes a passionate poster correct.

Hendry mentioned that Ricketts gave the authority to move quickly on Jaramillo, what is the word from Ricketts on whether Hendry is going to have payroll flexibility going in to 2010 or whether Ricketts is likely to increase payroll? Any indication in regard to what type of philosophy the organization will have under Ricketts? Invest heavily in development? Continue to make a big splash overseas? Does Bruce, personally, want to see Bradley back in a Cub uni in 2010? How is the relationship between Hendry/Crane and the Ricketts? Do you expect Hendry to have a long leash? What moves do you expect the Cubs to make over the offseason? If Brenly leaves the booth to manage, any chance that Stone comes back? (or has he burned all his bridges with the organization)

Agreed.

Not going to happen. Bruce had an blog today about why Bradley won't be back. http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2787

I agree his signing has been over-hyped, but I disagree with you regarding the importance of his hiring. Ideally, any coach that is on any given team has a goal to get the most talent out of every player that he coaches. Some coaches are able to click with certain players (Sosa and Pentland) (Rothschild and Dempster/Lilly) and make a tremendous impact on a player's career (rather perceived by the player or real). Jaramillo is well respected and often touted as the best in the business at his craft. Looking at the Cubs lineup going into 2009, many of us and many pundits had the Cubs penciled in for the playoffs. The failure of the team to make the post season was caused by multiple factors, but the fact that several offense players severely underperformed was a big factor. I don't have a problem with Hendry trying to shake it up a bit and placing the emphasis on getting better performance from the players rather than spending his way out of this mess. If Jaramillo can get Soriano's confidence back, or get Soto hitting again, help Baker have a career year, that would be extremely valuable to the club.

Seriously? You could've just left it at, "No. The two aren't necessarily related." Jaramillo is not going out of his way to keep Bradley. From Chicagosports.com

Yeah, the AFL is roughly AA caliber, so Vitters doing well is very encouraging. Although obviously you'd really like to see some more walks. Does anyone have any indication on whether Vitters hand/wrist problems are chronic or if the team is optimistic that they will resolve? It seems that whenever Vitters is healthy (I'm assuming he is healthy in the AFL after some rest) he is impressive at the plate.

and Felix Pie and Ronnie Cedeno

Gotta love the hype that Castro has generated this year. I doubt there was anyone, except maybe Wilken, that could have envisioned Castro being the teams #1 prospect at this point. And the best part is that it isn't at all a slight on the rest of the prospects in the system. Between Castro, Vitters, B. Jackson, J. Jackson, Cashner, Carpenter, LeMahieu, Flaherty, etc. there is a lot to be excited about.

I would make the deal, if the Cubs were able to ensure that Halladay was locked up for 4 or 5 years.

Nice sign by Hendry.

The upside of Vitters is definitely better and if Vitters can duplicate his Peoria numbers at higher levels he could be something special. But, Castro is sure making things interesting and I could definitely see some publications listing Castro as the Cubs #1 prospect after this year.

Now if he could just get an extra base hit or two (I know I'm greedy).

I don't see any way that would work for the casual fan base. If they wanted a hitting coach to be a big name improvement it woulda been Sandberg Getting a new hitting coach and getting rid of Bradley might though. This story has been in every paper and on CSN for over a week now, and there's talk of making him the highest paid hitting coach in the league. It is the only Cubs news that there is to talk about at this point. If Jaramillo is signed, I think it is a big move by Hendry. Sure it isn't going to automatically turn the offense into a juggernaut, but it is a step in the right direction. Also, I would rather Hendry make a move like this and believe it is a fix, than seriously overpay another free agent so the team can get more "left handed" or a legitimate "lead off guy."

That's awesome if true. Yes, if this is true, you have to love Hendry's aggressiveness. AM I the only one who will find it amusing if after millions and millions of dollars worth of overpaid outfielders, 3 million or so for a hiting coach is the final piece of the puzzle? Jaramillo is by no means the final piece of the puzzle. If this is the only move that Hendry makes in the offseason, I don't see it as a productive offseason.

That's awesome if true. Yes, if this is true, you have to love Hendry's aggressiveness.

But Hendry is the biggest idiot ever for firing Perry and Von Joshua? *I'm an idiot for putting Clines. :oops:

It is too bad that Hendry gave Shark a no trade clause. It seems like he is the type of prospect that scouts love because of the velocity and potential, but he has yet to show any signs of putting it all together. I'm amazed to see that he was ranked at all on this list, and wonder if his ranking was due to the lack of top talent or his tools. Either way, while there is still some shine, it would be nice to maximize his value and get something in return.

Nobody is saying it has no effect. We're withholding judgment on the matter until some evidence is presented. You are the one passing judgment. You are the one with the burden of proof. If it's as obvious as you act like it is, you should have no problem finding a scientific study by a sports psychologist or even a stats guy who wants to crunch the numbers of individual players with Bradley there and without. I'm not exactly sure why we are arguing. We both agree that it is possible that a player can have a negative effect on team chemistry, and that team chemistry may some effect on a teams W/L record. The degree to which it has an impact is not material to any argument I've made. You did make laugh with your feigned "you should have no problem finding a scientific study" argument. Considering the variables that would involved with such a study, it would be completely unreliable and not trustworthy anyways.

That's not what I said: I'm asking for evidence that any kind of "bad chemistry" actually cost them games. Seems like a fat, injured and sophomore slumping Soto, injured Soriano, the offensive black hole at 2nd base until Baker showed up and Aramis missing almost half the season would clearly have had much more to do with games being lost than "chemistry" issues. I don't see how anyone could argue that they would have won more games despite all of that simple because they liked each other and got along. Good feelings don't trump critical players in horrible slumps and/or playing injured or on the DL. People want an easy answer as to why the team faltered and Bardley's made himself the obvious target with his poor behavior and stupid comments. Please present your proof that team chemistry has no effect on a team's win/loss record.

Well thought out post. :D

Almost as dishonest as those who, due to either an irrational hatred of the general manager, a strident and close-minded adherence to neo-sabermetric principles (without examining the evidence), or just a general contrarian attitude, refuse to admit that his behavior had any negative impact on the team. I think what we're waiting for is one shred of evidence that Bradley's mere presence made the team worse, and nobody seems to have that for us other than to say he's been on a lot of teams. 1. Step One: Create a finite and irrational set of terms on which a discussion must occur 2. Step Two: Demand Evidence 3. Step Three: Ignore evidence provided by other side by declaring any evidence that doesn't fit within a ridiculous set of terms (see Step One) to "not be evidence." 4. Step Four: Profit! What evidence has been presented that shows that Bradley's negative effect on the chemistry and the attitude of the team actually cost them games? Just comments from the players, coaches, GM and media. What evidence do you have that there was no negative effect on the chemistry?

What bothers me are the people that continue to believe this game is played on their Xbox 360 and the players are robots or machines that will not be affected by any outside influences other than the 3 hours of the players play a baseball game. Where have I ever said anything of the sort? I'm saying that people need some sort of proof to back up their claims... especially the over the top ones by people like back2banks who have suggested that his performance on the field was totally wiped out by his negative attitude. If there's one thing I really truly pride myself on, it's the fact that I'm willing to look over all the evidence and admit when I'm wrong. All I've gotten to this point is flawed anecdotal evidence comparing baseball players to a bunch of white collar guys working in an office, or simply saying that Bradley keeps getting moved. There hasn't been a single person here who has been able to even prove that pissing off all the players in the locker room wasn't helpful, let alone that it actively detracted from the performance of the team. Has anybody linked to anything from a sports psychologist suggesting happy players play better than pissed off ones? No. Has anybody compared offensive performance of players on the same team as Bradley in years where he was there and years where he wasn't? No. Has anybody done anything at all to back up their opinion with fact? No. People are simply making up crap as they go along. Until people offer some degree of proof that his attitude impacted the performance of the team, the only rational thing to do is assume it made no noticeable impact at all. You talk about evidence, then you proceed to ignore all of the available evidence there is. Banks didn't make up the fact that almost all of the players in the clubhouse implied or out right stated that Bradley was unwanted and a negative presence on the team. Your argument is that even though all of the players, coaches, GM and media (granted these are only the people that were with him on a daily basis) state that the Club was better off without Bradley, somehow you know better because you can't explain it or quantify it into a statistic? To say that if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist...is about as closed minded as you can get. There are plenty of things in life that we are unable to quantify. Hence the XBox360 comment. These players are still human beings and are affected by outside stimuli.

What is your definition of a good GM then? Everyone seems to want to pick up on irrelevant little mistakes by Banks (like Beane not writing Moneyball), instead of addressing the argument. I don't blame them, it is much easier to mock someone and take the attention away from the valid points they make, rather than disputing them. You are right, Beane has a lower payroll. But, you seem to be implying that as long as you are in a small market team it is ok to lose season after season. I disagree with the premise that small market team GM is automatically given a pass. In last three years, Hendry run teams have made it to the playoffs 2 of 3 times or 66.667% of the time. Beane run teams have made it 0 of 3 times or 0% of the time. Yet somehow Hendry is a terrible GM and Beane is a good GM? There seems to be a disconnect. Do you measure a good GM by wins? Playoff appearances? Surely you would agree that even small market teams have to have some sort of criteria by which to gauge effectiveness.