A League of Her Own

Considering Milty

49377836.jpg

Photo courtesy Chicago Tribune.

It's been a dew days since we've talked about Milty, and rightly so. I know I needed a break from the debate, and I'm sure everyone else did, too. Honestly, if you asked me last Tuesday, I probably would have been willing to give Milty away for a good, sturdy infield rake.

But time heals all wounds, and a few days apart has given me some perspective on Milty and his role on this team. Actually, what gave me a whole lot of perpective was the rumor that a Milty-for-Aaron-Rowand deal was in the works. Like a girlfriend who dumps her boyfriend and wants him back the minute he starts dating someone else, suddenly I was way jealous of a certain team from a certain city north of the one named after a whale's vagina.

While I am all too familiar with the "type" of players Hendry likes to pick off over the winter (or off the waiver wire, or hanging around Yakzie's after the game), I really feel that bringing Aaron Rowand into this organization would beg the question: How many scrappy players are too many?

While I understand that, at this moment, the Cubs' realtionship with Milty might seem irreparable, let's all just take one giant step back, okay?

Let's look at some numbers:

Rowand.jpg

Um. . .ow.

Aaron Rowand: Age 32 Bats: R

2009: .262/.318/.426/.744  15 HRs 63 RBIs

Career: .280/.339/.449/.789

In 2007, Rowand got a 5-year, $60 million contract from the Giants.    

Famous for Sam Fuld-esque face plants into the wall, his "warrior metality" in the locker room, looking like he would be more at place in a NASCAR pit crew than in a major-league dugout. Still considered "tainted" by White Sox cooties. On the plus side, it would really honk off the South Siders if we got him. He's their DeRosa.

The second rumor that had me holding my tummy and running for the 7-Up was the Milton Bradley-for-Pat Burrell rumor:

Pat Burrell: Age 32, Bats: Right

2009: .225/.322/.374/.696 14 HRs 62 RBIs

Career: .255/.363/.476/.840

In 2009, Burrell got a 2-year deal for $16 million to be the Rays DH.

Famous for this:

 

pat_burrell1lsweaty.jpg

Seriously. No.

Now let's look at Milty's numbers: Age: 31 Bats: B

2009: .257/.378/.397/.775 12 HRs 40 RBIs

Career: .277/.371/.450/.821

Not to belabor the obvious, but the idea of getting either Burrell or Rowand for Milty makes me violently ill. It's clear who the far superior baseball player is, and both Rowand and Burrell have contracts even more ridiculous than Milty's. 

Obviously, I'm not in the clubhouse, and I don't know how Milty's teammates would react to having him back in the lockerroom next season, but let me suggest that we consider counseling, medication, trust-falls, team-building exercises, hypnosis, whatever it takes to avoid letting one of the best hitters in baseball go for players the caliber of either Rowand or Burrell.

It's one thing to be upset and want to move Milty at any cost. But once the anger subsides, and you look at what "moving him at any cost" really looks like, it's a little harder to take. Is there any doubt that, from a purey baseball perspective, that this is a better team with Milton than without him?

I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I'm one of those people who believes that team chemistry does play SOME role in a team's success. More to the point, I guess I believe that one person can make life so miserable for a team that they can't concentrate on playing baseball to the degree that they should. As the flamers will attest, this is based on my history of playing team sports and not on any empirical evidence. If I'm Hendry, I call DLee, Dempster, Zambrano, and Ramirez into my office and ask if they can get past all of this. If they can, I'm not moving Bradley.

If they can't, THEN, and only then, I start looking at moving him. 

Here's to hoping Hendry considers ALL his options before making any moves. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommended

[?]

Recent Posts

Subscribe

Leave a comment

72 Comments

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

Ha. And so in lies the problem. This is what some Cubs fans will come to find out next year. Those who want Milton gone will see next year that they may have been better off keeping him. It's why the Red Sox held on to Manny for so long ... when it comes down to it, the guy can still play. He just picked a bad year to have one of his worst seasons. It's not going to happen twice in a row, I believe.

Some will laud Rowand as being a "clubhouse guy." Which is fine, except that A. This still hasn't been statistically proven as something that helps a team and B. As Julie stated, it's not like his contract is any better.

In the end, I agree. No on Burrell and a big NO on Rowand. Unfortunately, there's little doubt in my mind that Milton has been run out of town. I would bet on "Brothers" to become a top-rated TV show before I imagine seeing Bradley in Cubs pinstripes next year.

flyball said:

user-pic

Milton Bradley and Manny Ramirez? really, thats your argument?

now I wanted Manny traded somewhere far away from New England more than pretty much anyone, mostly because I was sick of the yearly stories, but he's better than Bradley, brought more to the Red Sox, and shockingly was less of a distraction to at least the fans (thankfully Schilling shouldered most of that, which he loved and the fans loved him for)

also Manny was whiny about having to play with a hangnail, not about the city of the fans, and Francona has a doctorate in keeping egos happy and still getting production, Lou, well, I like him as the Cubs manager, but he's a very different manager than Francona

oh, and did I mention the team that surrounded Manny? World Series trophies make fans forgive and forget a lot

as for the bet, 2 and a Half Men is a hit show, never underestimate people

thisyearcub said:

user-pic

No. I'm not arguing that they are on the same level, it's near the same situation though big picture-wise. There are some players worth keeping despite their antics. Manny Ramirez happens to be one. So does, in my mind, Milton Bradley.

I'm not saying letting go of Bradley means the Cubs aren't going to win the World Series. Basically, what it boils down to is barring a trade for someone like Carl Crawford, the Cubs are going to be worse off without Bradley next year.

But their clubhouse will be happier, which is what I guess some want. I'd like to win though.

Doc said:

user-pic

Look, are we just going to ignore the fact that for some reason, 1/2 of our team just flat out sucked this year. I blame that on clubhouse chemistry. Look, Bradley wasn't the only reason there wasn't good chemistry this year. But the minus of adding Bradley, and the minus of subtracting Wood, DeRosa and Blanco all add up to a clubhouse that just didn't gel.

So, if we bring in some players that aren't quite as good as Bradley, but those players have a good attitude which might boost the production out of players like Fontenot, Soto, Soriano, Fukudome, Dempster, Marmol...etc..., then I'm all for it. Because, the truth is, as much as we'd like to change a lot of stuff on this team, it just ain't going to happen.

The Cubs are likely to get one new outfielder to player, I'm assuming, center field. I honestly don't think they'll get a second baseman (or infielder), though I wish they would move Theriot to short and get a new shortstop. Outside of some bench players, we're stuck.

And I think that might actually be good enough to get to the playoffs next year.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

But HOW do you know it's clubhouse chemistry? Prove that this thing people have come up with has a causal relation to the result. Don't beg the question; address WHY you blame chemistry, and prove that you aren't just pulling it out of your butt.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I think what's going on is that those of us who have experienced chemistry issues on our own sports teams growing up are assuming that chemistry plays a role in pro sports, too. I don't know if it does or if it doesn't. Certainly, no one has been able to prove that it does empirically.

I do think, though, that having Milton in the lockker room might have had some effect on the team, given the comments by some of the veteran players and Bruce Miles' observation that the team seems much looser since he's gone.

But I would never claim that's the absolute truth, because I dont know.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

It may or may not. I couldn't say. There's not yet been a causal relation established between these intangible things and their concrete results. So why concern ourselves with something unquantifiable to such an extent.

It's one thing to get that there indeed are intangibles. It's another to outright blame something no one can be sure about or even know exists for so much concrete data as a lost season. You may as well blame curses or The Office or Vishnu.

I don't doubt he had an effect. I SERIOUSLY doubt Derrek Lee is thinking about that jerk Milton while he's trying to hit a ball. It's presumptuous and arrogant, imho, to assume we know what professional players are thinking.

So, yeah I agree with you. Good player is probably better than good feelings. Because we at least KNOW it's the case.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

It might be, but I don't think it's arrogant to analogize your own experiences to what pro athletes must be going through. I think that's just human nature. . . to try to figure out what people are thinking based on your own life experiences.

But I agree with you. I do think there are intangibles, but I have no idea to what extent they played a role in this situation, if at all.

flyball said:

user-pic

I honestly don't care if Bradley is back next season or not, but unless something changes he's going to be just as miserable playing in Chicago as this season.

If he has a great season the fans will probably ignore much of this last season, he'll be the toast of the town and everyone will be unicorns and rainbows, but if he doesn't the whole situation is just going to get worse. At some point real life has to take precedent over baseball and the people with say should figure out what is best for the individuals that actually have to live with the situation

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

this is why i'm suggesting yoga, pilates, and mediation, with massive doses of counseling and mood-stabilizers. give him his own little section of the dugout. give him earplugs to wear during the game.

i do NOT WANT Aaron Rowamnd or Pat Burrell.

Aisle424 said:

user-pic

Burrell by himself wouldn't be the end of the world since his stupid contract runs out after next year and probably only has about $8 million left on it. BUT, I have a feeling that the Cubs would get Burrell AND a decent portion of Bradley's salary, which would mean they would be paying Milton to hit in the middle of an absolutely stacked lineup (and one they could potentially cross in the playoffs) so no to that..

On dealing for Rowand, no, no, no, no, no, no, a thousand times no. That man is, at best, an average player who keeps getting hurt and his best baseball just has to be behind him. On top of that, he is still owed over $40 million of that contract. He made $9.6 million each of the first 2 years. 3 years and $40 million to a guy to replace Milton Bradley's 2 years and $21 million. Baseball-reference.com lists guess who as one of the players most similar to Aaron Rowand? Milton Bradley. Same production (maybe) at twice the price. Awesome.

Ricketts should kill Hendry with his cell phone before he allows either one of those deals to go down.

Aisle424 said:

user-pic

For some reason, I went back in time and thought Burrell was still on the Phillies, but since they's still be paying him to play for another team and have Pat Burrell's uselessness, the answer is still no.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Right--that's what I'm thinking. We get a crappy player AND at least half of Milton's salary. I'd rather spend $10 million on gettng Milty ECT or something.

Doc said:

user-pic

Honestly, I'd rather pay Milton $10 million the next two years to just stay home. Forget getting anyone in return.

flyball said:

user-pic

I could be convinced of that

whats the likelihood that Bradley is willing to do anything to change the relationship with the team, and whats the likelihood the team will do anything?

does he even want to come back? what happens if he doesn't?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

give me an hour alone in a room with him, we can get all this straightened out.

Carl Heartscubs Gierhan said:

user-pic

Hug it out. Then we could all go to yoga and pilates classes together this winter.

Doc said:

user-pic

Um...honestly, I think that's what happened to Jim Hendry last winter.

And it all fell apart during the season. This guy cannot handle the pressure playing in this city and for this team.

millertime said:

user-pic

We could buy him some weed.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

he can just get it from Geo.

millertime said:

user-pic

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

Maim said:

user-pic

That's what I've always thought! Like, if I ran into him somewhere I'd sit his ass down and give him a good stern talking-to until he got it.

Dmband said:

user-pic

NO NO NO!!!

No. Bradley can not and will not be back next year. Come on guys! Anyone who is rooting for a game to end so he can go home?

Not to mention, Rowands numbers are very similar to Milty's, he had more RBI's on a team with no where near the hitters we have, and his defense is A HUGE UPGRADE.

Im not a big fan of Rowand, but it sure beats a good, sturdy, infield rake (very funny by the way).

millertime said:

user-pic

Yes Yes Yes Dave Matthews Band!

Yes. I know the quote about Bradley rooting for the game to be over might raise some eyebrows at first glance, but Milton always says things like that. I'm not going to say it wasn't a dumb thing to say, but Milton says a lot of dumb things. Ozzie Guillen called someone a fag, and he somehow got to keep his job. So maybe we can cut Bradley some slack on that comment, and just chalk it up to Bradley getting worked up and saying something dumb. That's what I do with every comment Bradley makes, and it makes having him on this team much easier.

As far as numbers go, Bradley is so much better than Rowand and it isn't even funny. Lets break down some of those numbers:

Rowand's OPS last 3 years: .889, .749, .744
Bradley's OPS last 3 years: .947, .999, .775

This year, Rowand is getting on base .318. Bradley? .378

Rowand has had 2 really good years in his career, and a couple highlight catches. Bradley has been a better player than him year in year out. Rowands career OPS is .788. So Bradley, in one of his worst seasons ever, is slightly worse than what Rowand will give you every year.

So I will strongly disagree with you re: Rowands numbers being close to Milty's. Also, I'm not too sure about the HUGE UPGRADE on defense. Bradley made a few bonehead plays, but under the microscope any player can look bad on defense. Bradley isn't as bad a fielder as his critics want to believe.

waxpaperbeercup said:

user-pic

this is gonna be a lightning in the bottle kind of move. hendry's gonna get a lesser player, and the cubs have to hope he has a career year. not a good situation to be in for the cubs gm.

waxpaperbeercup said:

user-pic

me thinks the the ship has sailed on him coming back. for better or worse. the veteran players can't stand him and neither can the manager. i look at 2010 as the last chance the cubs will have to compete with the lee/ramirez/z cubs. i don't want to see the cubs chance milty being a 'good boy'.

Aisle424 said:

user-pic

I don't want Milton back. If the last road trip showed anything, it showed that the team is still decent, even without a healthy Soriano in the lineup.

I just don't want to be paying Milton to play for another team AND take on the bad contract of another player that is probably a downgrade to Milton's production. I'd rather just pay him to go home, and use whatever money they would use to pay someone like Rowand and get someone better and/or cheaper than Rowand.

Does anyone know if the Cubs can just pay him and not have him on the active roster? I've said all along that is what they should do if it is at all possible.

Carl Heartscubs Gierhan said:

user-pic

The Pacers did this with Jamal Tinsley this year. He filed a grievance and finally reached a buyout settlement, but the MLBPA is a lot stronger than the NBAPA. I'm not sure the Cubs could get away with it.

Aisle424 said:

user-pic

That's what I'm afraid of. It would be worth a try though.

waxpaperbeercup said:

user-pic

i don't believe you can do that, nor do i believe the cubs should do that. something like that is not worth the backlash that it would get from the mlbpa.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

seriously. talk about FAs not wanting to play in Chicago, that would really do it.

millertime said:

user-pic

The last trip on the road showed that the Cubs can beat bad teams. They also didn't play Soriano. This does not mean the Cubs will be fine without Soriano and Bradley next season. This is an amazing use of small sample size and cherry picking stats.

The Dodgers won a lot of games without Manny this year, but please don't tell me they're a better team without him. There is no such thing as addition by subtraction in sports.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Oh, that's not true. Did you miss the Korey Patterson years? You don't think this team got a lot better when we didn't see him in the lineup every day? ;)

millertime said:

user-pic

Korey Patterson was on his way to an MVP season when the Cubs messed it up! They could have had 2 HOF outfielders in Patterson and Pie, and they blew it!

SteveCO said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Give him another chance? No way. His contempt for Cub fans is not recent, his dislike of the city blatant. His play is el crappo, yet as a primadonna who'll never learn, "Milty" the rookie mentality keeps sulking as he lives like a sheik and plays like an aging hack.

Tell ya what, "Milty": when you start playing better than some Double-A wannabe to justify that $100,000 *per game*, and start being more humble when you are playing waaaaay sub-par, then you can whine.

Until then, shut up and don't let the door hit you as pitchforks chase you from Chicago. I'm hoping mightily that a playoff team needs a DH. 'Bye.

millertime said:

user-pic

Funny thing, Bradley played much better than a "Double-A wannabe".

His OPS, a quick and dirty way to see how well he's played this year, is .775. Out of NL OF, this would put him around 1th. Below average? Yes. But this is after he was off to the worst start of his career. This has been one of his worst seasons in the majors. He had an outstanding July and August, and was in a slump when the Cubs suspended him.

My point is that labeling his numbers as "poor", "Sub-par", "el-crappo", or saying that Milton sucks, is completely dishonest. He hasn't been great, but he hasn't been terrible either. If you want to make arguments about his character, and how much he hates Chicago and its fans, be my guest. I disagree with the severity of his character issues and would argue that he has problems with certain media members and a small subset of fans, but at least you have some ground to stand on. Assuming that Milton is having a terrible year is just plain ignorant.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

So much Attitude! That's the best kind of analysis! Anything good on The Score right now?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

stop insulting new people, oog. or so help me, i will brain you with a club.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

In order to stay awake to finish work, I'm heading out to the coffeeshop. No 'House' spoilers!

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

He punches someone and diagnoses a rare disease.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

dammit, oog. thanks a LOT.

Max Power said:

user-pic

Was it lupus?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Look--I don't like any of our options at this point. I'm just thinking outloud about what the least bad option is.

It's not like I'd be super-excited to have him on the team next year, but as long as we're paying him, WHICH WE WILL BE, we might as well get some use out of him.

SteveCO said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

Reading some of the comments here:

The Cubs do have a new owner. I hear already pessimism that the Cubs, unlike perennial winners like the Yanks, Red Sox, Angels, Cardinals, etc., will end up with less for Bradley.

I don't get it. This guy's been delayed by the Tribune creeps for three years, and this whole season lost with it.

Doesn't anyone think this billionaire is ready to make a couple of huge splashes? It's time the Cubs landed some young superstar talent with a new owner burning to win.

Have I missed news that that this guy won't splurge?

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

I think we're convinced he won't splurge because of the difficulty in getting this deal to go through. No one know what he has to spend. I'd love to believe he's sitting on a huge pile of money, but given all the backloaded contracts we have to pay out over the next few years, I'm doubtful that the Cubs will do much this off-season.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

and not only that, the entire universe knows about our issues with Bradley. No one is going to give us anything of value for him. They know we're dealing from a position of weakness.

Aisle424 said:

user-pic

Ricketts is walking in with a debt of something like $450 million. He'll need to start paying that down quickly, and increasing an already bloated payroll is not the way to do that.

Contrary to what the Tribune thinks, the demand for tickets is not endless. At some point, people will stop paying the ever-increasing price to watch losing baseball, so I don;t know how much higher than they can pass the costs off to the fans. They are locked into crappy TV & Radio deals for at least a few years, so no extra money there.

Maybe they go ahead and rename the it Cisco Systems Park at Wrigley Field or some fool conglomeration of corporate names to get a big boost in revenue, but there would be holy hell to pay for that PR-wise, so I doubt they make that leap right after walking in the door.

I just don't see how they can realistically spend more money right now. 2010 is the last hurrah for this core and then you'll see the big contracts start to go with Lee and Lilly gone, and Fukudome being a bit more tradeable because he'll only have 1 year left.

waxpaperbeercup said:

user-pic

they can't and won't spend more money. it doesn't make business sense. they have to get this thing in line. hendry and company put this team in a real bad position with all of the backloaded deals and the no-trade contracts. he gm'd like there was no tomorrow and for that he should lose his gig.

Max Power said:

user-pic

Yeah, this really was a "World Series or bust" couple of years for Hendry.

Second place certainly beats last place, but we're still going to be sitting next to the Pirates watching the postseason. With a payroll larger than the GDP of most developing nations.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

Nope on huge splashes. He's more likely ready to cut payroll and start paying off his debt. His "huge splash" will be to send Bradley off for a "clubhouse guy," and then the Bradley gift will keep on giving when he blames Bradley's contract for why he isn't adding further payroll.

Carl Heartscubs Gierhan said:

user-pic

William Safire died, which reminds me of a brilliant little Onion piece from the way-back.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31525

SteveCO said:

default userpic local-auth auth-type-mt

"This is what some Cubs fans will come to find out next year. Those who want Milton gone will see next year that they may have been better off keeping him. It's why the Red Sox held on to Manny for so long ..."

The Red Sox kept Manny because when Manny tried, Manny played like a Hall of Fammer.

Bradley played like a utility outfielder for the Cubs. He showed me nothing; I suspect most Cub fans think similarly.

The only thing Bradley and Manny share are selfishness and an unhealthy arrogance of superiority. Manny for the Red Sox, at least, played in superior fashion, tho not consistently. Bradley never did a thing this year but whine to cover up poor play, bad hitting.

millertime said:

user-pic

Bradley has had great seasons in the past. I think he had a down year, as did many players on the Cubs, and in all of baseball. I agree he did whine about things. Obviously I am of the opinion where I didn't care that he whined, and that fans and media contributed quite a bit to his problems. I think that judging a guy's production after 1 year of a 3 year deal doesn't make much sense. Odds are he should have a good year next year. Seems dumb to me to have him have that good year somewhere else.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

No one is arguing that Bradley is a selfish jackass. But he did play VERY well after the all-star break.

All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to consider than just whether or not we, the fans, like him.

It might be better for the team to keep him around. From a purely baseball standpoint. This is why I would love to know whether or not the players could stand to have him back in the clubhouse. If they can make nice with him, and he with them, then maybe there's a chance this could still work. But I'm not kidding about the counseling. He needs a lot of it.

millertime said:

user-pic

All they got to do is have the team watch Rocky IV.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

My big fear is that the team mishandled this whole Noble "Pure Baseball Standpoint" Experiment and will now go back to doing things to appease people who call in to The Score.

JulieDiCaro said:

user-pic

Well, I think that while a 'pure baseball standpoint' experiment is indeed noble, they should have at least taken his past history into account. I wouldn't have had such a problem with them signing Bradley if they'd had some plan for how to handle him if things blew up, which most of us knew they were bound to sooner or later.

They should have had a PR contingency plan worked out from the beginning. And exempted him from having to talk to the press.

Max Power said:

user-pic

All the offers for tickets I've received via the Cubs emails (and the fact that the waiting room was dramatically easier to get through this year) makes me think that the Ricketts will work to fill seats in any way possible. More concerts, encouraging the "world's largest beer garden" atmosphere with people who keep wondering which one is Sammy, etc. With the debtload they're facing, it's hard to blame them, even with the anger it will incite (and not just in me).

Perkins said:

user-pic

Yeah, he fucking raked in July and August. He was actually pretty good from late May until early September. He had a bad 6 weeks to start the season and then a bad week and a half to start September before all of the...unpleasantness.

millertime said:

user-pic

I think odds are, he won't come back. I just wish that some people would realize that the best way to get some value out of Bradley would be to play him next year. He would have a chance to put up better numbers, and create a better public image. Plus he would have an easier contract to move.

Maim said:

user-pic

That really does sound like the best idea on paper.

I just have questions as to whether or not it's going to be the same old shit with him that it was this year.

millertime said:

user-pic

I think it probably will, sad as that is. But even if his image doesn't get better, he should at least put up better numbers. At the least he'll be easier to move with only 1 year left, and he'd be better than any short term fix the Cubs could come up with. Whatever way you cut it, Bradley will probably be a better player than whoever replaces him. Unless we get Pujols. That would be sweet. Why haven't we explored that option yet?

Bradley for Pujols. A deal everyone can be happy with. (Pujols will play RF. He can totally do it.)

gravedigger said:

user-pic

I knew you'd come around. You're entirely too intelligent and logical for all that.

Perkins said:

user-pic

It's a bit frightening, isn't it? The real danger isn't just that they'd trade him for a lesser player, but that they'd trade him for a lesser player and still pay his contract. And when he's OPSing .900 for another team, maybe people will see the folly of trading him when he has no trade value. And there's the whole having even less payroll flexibility thing. That hurts too.

I'm sure he'll end up getting traded anyway, but I don't think it's a sound baseball decision. Hendry painted himself into a corner with the way he handled this one. I have no doubt Bradley is an ass; I tend to assume that about most professional athletes, but if you're going to sign a player with a...checkered past, let's say, then do your best to back him in front of the media douchenozzles like Sullivan.

We've all had to work with people we don't like; I'd hope the rest of the Cubs players could get along with him on a professional level in the best interest of the team.

Perkins said:

user-pic

Also if the Cubs do end up keeping him around, they need to protect him from the media. They need to say straight up, "He's not talking to you guys. It's not something he does well. We pay him to play baseball, and he does that well. If you want someone cute and cuddly, go talk to Theriot. He fucking loves the mic."

flyball said:

user-pic

agreed on banning the media access to him (wait, I just agreed with Perkins?) Bradley handled the whole thing poorly and he needs to think before he speaks, but the Cubs are just as much to blame with a lot of the media stuff, and then when things really went to crap they just totally bailed and blamed him in an attempt to save their own reputations

everyone involved looks ridiculous and they are all trying to deflect attention away from what they did poorly, and as we've seen the Cubs PR is way better than Bradley's


Dmband said:

user-pic

I dont agree with the assessment that there is no such thing as addition by subtraction. My example would be Stephan Marbury. Milton Bradley is basically the Marbury of baseball.

You could also say TO leaving Dallas was good for the cowboys. Bradley is also the TO of baseball.

Bradley=Marbury=Owens.

I want none of them on my squad.

millertime said:

user-pic

You could say those things, but they are very difficult to prove. The Cowboys won a lot of games with T.O. and he was very productive. They have only played 3 games this season, and haven't looked great doing it.

I don't follow basketball, so I'll take your word that whatever team Marbury used to be on is doing better without him. However, this may or may not be because of Marbury leaving. The team might have aquired another player who is just as good as Marbury, or had other players become healthy and have productive seasons. Just becuase a controversial player leaves a team and the team does better is not an indication of addition by subtraction.

I agree that Marbury or Owens should not be on the Cubs next year.

Dmband said:

user-pic

The bottom line is while there is no disputing that Bradley is an exceptional talent, its a team game. You cannot underestimate the importance of that. Some good players are just bad teammates, plain and simple and thats NOT gonna change for Bradley.

oog of ulams said:

user-pic

You're right. But we also acknowledge that baseball is NOT a team game to the extent that football and basketball are.

Remember Tinker and Evers? They despised one another. Didn't seem to break up their "team" double plays now.

millertime said:

user-pic

I would dispute the fact that baseball is a team game. While players certainly work towards a similar goal (win the game), there is a difference between baseball and sports like basketball, football, and hockey. In those sports, teammates have a direct impact on each other's numbers/performance. A HB needs a good O-line to perform, and a good o-Line looks better when a HB who can actually do well is running the ball.

Baseball is based mostly on individual performance. Play is primarily dictated by only the pitcher and batter. Ryan Theriot doesn't have a better or worse batting average because of Derrek Lee. Each player on a baseball team makes no contribution to the OBP or SLG of any other player. That is why more and more people are becoming fond of stats like OPS, which is a stat that a player can individually effect. Stats like RBI's and Runs are more opportunity stats, and the player has less control over them.

There is certainly the possiblility that Bradley's poor attitude and jackassnessissity (I believe that is the correct term) may cause other players on the Cubs to perform less than their best. I don't think that this is totally untrue, but so far all evidence shows that if such a thing as team chemistry and clutch actually exist, it is so small and meaningless that it will have almost no impact on a player's performance. Generally, given enough at-bats, a player will perform to their respective career numbers. To put it a simpler way, players play. Derrek Lee might not like Bradley, but when he's in the batter's box, Lee is concerned about hitting, not having to talk to the media later about Bradley.

Leave a Comment?

Some HTML is permitted: a, strong, em

What your comment will look like:

said:

what will you say?

Most Active Pages Right Now

ChicagoNow.com on Facebook

A League of Her Own on Facebook

A League of Her Own - A Chicago Cubs Blog on Facebook