View From The Bleachers

Talking Cubs Baseball Since 2003

Sunday

20

September 2009

0

COMMENTS

Milkit Badly — the final chapter. Hopefully.

Written by , Posted in General

I hate to gloat and say that I told you so, but feel free to go back to my original post on this site — and then come back. It’s okay. I’ll wait. It’s titled “Milkit Badly” and you’ll find it in the archives. Dated February 7, 2009. Go on.

{{{whistling}}}

{{{tapping feet}}}

Oh, good. You’re back. Can I get some of you Milton apologists to admit that this guy was a bad signing? That he had an absolutely crappy year? That, regardless of sample size, BABIP, Nationalized Health Care, or OBP — he didn’t get it done.

For the record, Mark DeRosa has 72 rbi’s — anyone else remember when I asked who would end up the year with more, DeRosa or Milky? I do. I took DeRosa. It’s unlikely that Milkit will catch him now…since HE’S DONE. He did get to forty, however. 40.

He’s an ingrate and a malcontent — and just like certain stats can predict baseball productivity; personality and character also have long term patterns…and this clubhouse cancer is a problem that needs to go. And now we hear from the teammates, too, that they are tired of the guy’s act.

Don’t go away mad, Milton. Just go away.

  • sherm

    by the way…Jake Fox now has more rbi’s than Milton, too. In 169 at bats. Send him to a winter league and teach him to play right field.

  • Terrelle Pryor 2

    I was never in favor of Bradley either. If I had known about this site in February, I would have given you a million thumbs up for your post. Adam Dunn would have been a waaaaay better option. A Lee-Dunn-Ramirez heart of the order looks very scary to me. Those guys would be able to afford enough Cadillacs for every person in the city of Chicago with all the home runs they would hit

  • I just got another thought after reading an old post:
    We could have brought back Felix Pie for 1/25th the cost of the grump game and gotten only slightly worse production

    Avg/OBP/Slugging/OPS
    Pie: .258/.326/.436/.762
    Bradley: .257/.378/.397/.775

  • Can I get some of you Milton apologists to admit that this guy was a bad signing?

    No.

    That he had an absolutely crappy year?

    Yes.

    That, regardless of sample size, BABIP, Nationalized Health Care, or OBP — he didn’t get it done.

    Yes.

    No one around here has ever denied that Bradley has struggled this year on the field. It is more than annoying to continue to hear the Bradley-haters pretend that the rest of us think that Bradley has been good this year. No one has said this.

  • MJ

    We Bradley “apologists” never said he was having a good year. We said he was never given a fair shake in this town. Read Paul Sullivan’s column everday and you can see that. He’s after Bradley and Zambrano at least three times a week. Even on minor things, that he attempts to turn into major catastrophes. Such is the American media today. Always looking to create drama, rather than report on it.

    Bradley has been goaded into being a issue since they day he signed, and quite honestly, some of the crap he spieled over the weekend is true. The Cubs fan base in Chicago is turning into a bunch of whiny babies, and it’s been going that way since 2005.

    Wrigley’s one big bar with a bunch of un-intelligent baseball fans. Sorry, but Brennaman was right.

  • cap’n obvious

    It’s time for a game I will call “Fun With Gray Boxes”

    Matt says:
    April 21, 2009 at 7:38 pm
    Yep, a behavioral problem from a guy that hits. He gets the job done when he’s on the field.
    Why don’t you guys keep arguing about his off the field trangressions. I don’t see how they make a difference with his OBP. Or anything else he does between the foul lines.

    WOWZERS…he gets the job done on the field. Maybe he meant a cricket field. Nice.

    Lets chase that with:

    dave l says:
    April 23, 2009 at 1:18 am
    Oh my… cancer? Really? Didn’t Boston win with Manny Ramirez?
    Clubhouse chemistry is the most overrated thing in all of old-school baseball thought.

    huh? really? what? and you base this on?

    and maybe a little:

    1. dave says:
    April 19, 2009 at 3:37 pm
    Sherm… let me introduce you to something called sample size.
    It is WAY too early to make any kind of judgment on Bradley.
    And to only look at MB’s batting average completely ignores that he HAS contributed by getting on base at a fairly decent clip, especially considering his low batting average that will not stay that low.

    well, at that point Bradley was hitting .089 or some such, so Dave was right about his batting average not staying that low.

    how about:

    1. Matt says:
    April 20, 2009 at 11:53 am
    Except he doesn’t. He’s had three incidents in which the media has replayed over and over, soe every makes him out to be a friggin’ headcase that has these issues ever other game.

    Good thing he didn’t turn out to be a headcase here.

    or:

    1. Matt says:
    April 20, 2009 at 11:53 am
    Except he doesn’t. He’s had three incidents in which the media has replayed over and over, soe every makes him out to be a friggin’ headcase that has these issues ever other game.

    let ME introduce YOU to something call off field incident and career-long malcontent sample size.

    how about:

    1. Matt says:
    April 21, 2009 at 11:44 am
    No, three incidents overblown by media attention. The media keeps on harping over them, because it’s the only story they can get out of this guy. They bring up Bartman evey chance they get, why won’t they do the same here? It’s pathetic.
    Who’s the AA middle infielder? If you’re talking about Miles, you’re dead wrong.

    still with the 3 off field issues. How about 3 this week.

    followed by this genius rebuttal:

    1. Matt says:
    April 21, 2009 at 11:45 am
    My guess is Aaron Miles, which once again shows flawed thinking.

    hahahahahahaha….

    and finally:

    1. cap’n obvious says:
    April 21, 2009 at 12:10 pm
    I know I will regret further engaging Dave and Matt, whom I am certain will take a break from slurping their Milton Bradley and Aaron Miles kool-aid to respond, even though the following facts should really shut them up about Milkit. I am just wondering, which three incidents you are referring to from the following list:
    Bradley episodes during his baseball career:
    April 1999: While playing for Montreal’s Double-A affiliate at Harrisburg, Pa., he was suspended for seven games for spitting gum at an umpire after being ejected. The ejection came for charging the mound after being hit by a pitch.
    April 2002: As a member of the Cleveland Indians, Bradley was removed from a Cleveland restaurant after he refused to leave. According to the EMS report, he was “severely intoxicated.”
    April 1, 2004: Indians manager Eric Wedge determined Bradley failed to run out a pop-up that fell for a single during an exhibition game and removed Bradley from the game. Four days later, Bradley was traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers.
    June 1, 2004: Bradley dumped a bag of baseballs near third base, delaying the game, soon after being ejected.
    Sept. 28, 2004: Bradley, playing right field at Dodger Stadium, responded to a fan who threw a bottle in his direction by walking over the stands and slam-dunking the bottle back. He was ejected and removed his jersey on his way off the field.
    Oct. 6, 2004: Bradley called Los Angeles Times writer Jason Reid, who is a black, an “Uncle Tom” after Game 1 of the Dodgers-St. Louis Cardinals Division Series in St. Louis.
    December 2004: Bradley served three days in an Ohio jail for what his agent said was the resolution of two traffic-related incidents. In one, Bradley was charged with refusing to sign a speeding ticket and then driving away. In the other, he pleaded guilty to yelling at a police officer.
    June 28-July 30, 2005: According to municipal records in Redondo Beach, Calif., police were called to Bradley’s home three times to respond to complaints of domestic violence. He wasn’t arrested.
    Aug. 20, 2005: Bradley and Dodgers teammate Jeff Kent got into heated exchange during a game after Kent accused Bradley of not hustling. Bradley said Kent, who had issues with Barry Bonds when both played for the San Francisco Giants, has difficulty dealing with black players.
    Sept. 23, 2007: As a member of the San Diego Padres, Bradley was lost for the last week of the season when he suffered a knee injury following a confrontation with first base umpire Mike Winters that resulted in Bradley being ejected. Bradley was hurt when Padres manager Bud Black wrestled him to the ground during Bradley’s argument with Winters. Major League Baseball later confirmed Winters used profane language during the argument and suspended him for the rest of the regular season and the post-season.
    AND booted from his first Wrigley Field appearance in a Cub uniform AND suspended for THAT temper tantrum.
    This is a bad guy, fellas. All this in addition to the many trips to the DL. He gets $10 million this year and next from the Cubs. Name me one other MLB player (OK, other than Sheffield)with this many meltdowns or this track record of acting like a malcontent baby…after you finish your kool-aids…

    feel free to add to the above list, A. Alienating every MLB umpire, B. Alienating every Chicago media member, C. Alienating 100 years of Cub fans.

    Thank you for reading.

  • MJ

    Nice work. Why don’t you quote things without context? Oh wait, you did.

    Not to mention that from APRIL 21st, when you guys all wanted to dump him along with Derrek Lee. Oops, seems you were all wrong on that one.

    Bradley was much better in the second half, nowhere in those

    grey boxes

    do I say he’s playing up to potential. That was all an argument on whether he was beign given a fair shake. And once again, that was in APRIL. Which speaks volumes. Four weeks into the season and all of you wanted him gone.

    Sorry, he’s right.

  • cap’n obvious

    Four weeks into the season and all of you wanted him gone.

    Actually, I never wanted him in the first place. Bad Guy.

    Bradley was much better in the second half

    No argument here, although, he was so bad in the first half this could hardly be helped.

    The context is that there were (and still are) Bradley apologists, and there were thse of us that knew this would end badly. I just wanted to point out who was who.

  • MJ

    I don’t think I ever said the Cubs and Bradley would be skipping hand and hand, to the soundtrack of Hair.

    Hendry had Bradley’s impressive numbers clouding his vision, and it looked like a good move, prompted by Lou “Sleepy” Piniella’s need for lefties. Hendry should be taked to task on this as well.

    And, once again, Bradley is right. There’s a ton of negativity. But even this “apologist” thinks he should have shut his mouth for another two weeks.

    And sherm, comparing RBI’s is a horrible stat to use. RBI’s are driven by the situation. And DeRosa is not good this year.

  • I still stand by my argument that clubhouse chemistry is highly overrated.

    Chemistry doesn’t create wins. Wins creates chemistry. No one would care about Bradley’s comments if he had performed well, and the Cubs were winning. I would much rather have a winning team where people hate each other than a losing team with everyone being lovey-dovey.

    And I still stand by my argument that it was way to early to judge Bradley’s performance, and I would argue that it is much more likely that Bradley rebounds next year than continuing to slug over 50 points below his career numbers and over 150 points below what he did in the previous two years.

    Let me be very clear, even though you all will continue to take myself and MJ out of context and pretend that we are saying things that we are not saying. Milton Bradley has simply not been good enough this year. Period. But he a) has hardly been the Cubs biggest problem (see Soto, Soriano, Fontenot, injuries, etc), b) is likely to perform better next year, and c) wins create chemistry.

    Of course, I am still waiting for the Bradley-haters to at least be consistent and hate Zambrano or Soriano also.

  • Oh… and a couple of things about your gray boxes.

    I have no idea why you are trying to rekindle old conversations that have already been discussed, ad nauseam.

    And I would argue that Bradley has hardly been a headcase. He has basically responded honestly to questions meant to provoke controversial responses. Should he just shut up? Probably, but I would hardly argue that he has been a headcase.

  • One more thing:

    DeRosa: .253/.323/.434 OPS: .757
    Bradley: .257/.378/.397 OPS: .775

    Too bad the Cubs didn’t have DeRosa, eh?

    UPDATE: Some more context… DeRosa has had 339 runners on base this year to drive in. Bradley has had 289. DeRosa has been better with RISP this year (762 OPS vs 701 OPS), as Bradley has really struggled in those situations. But RBI numbers are extremely situational dependent.

    When people throw stats out there, I really wish they understood what the numbers said and didn’t say.

  • sherm

    I was merely pointing out that when I asked you who would end the season with the greater total of runs batted in, you chose badly, er, Bradley.

    DeRosa has had a pretty bad season, been banged up and so on. He’s also managed to be a good teammate, and help a team win a division. And he drove in more runs. I know you guys hate that stat, but I still think driving in runs is important. Apparently, so does everyone else because it’s still one of the three triple crown categories.

  • What they ought to do is an RBI percentage of sorts. Like calculate how many RBI chances each player had when they batted and then divide the number of RBIs they had over the # of chances they had to get a ribbie

  • DeRosa has … help[ed] a team win a division.

    That is arguable. He has actually been awful with the Cardinals (.229/.296/.403 OPS:.699).

    know you guys hate that stat, but I still think driving in runs is important.

    I think it is important too. But I hate it as an individual stat because it doesn’t tell us much. It is almost entirely dependent on having other people to drive in.

    Apparently, so does everyone else because it’s still one of the three triple crown categories.

    Ah yes, and that is how we should decide what statistic is important or valuable. If it is part of an antiquated idea in baseball tradition. Batting average is also part of the triple crown, and it is MUCH less valuable than either OBP or SLUG.

    What they ought to do is an RBI percentage of sorts.

    They do do this. You just won’t see it on the back of a baseball card.

  • MJ

    Dave beat me to it. DeRosa’s stats are terrible as a Cardinal. And those 72 RBI’s? Only 22 of them are with St. Louis, so you could say he hasn’t really done anything to help the Cards win. I’d say Matt Holliday was the pick up that put them over the top. Not, DeRosa.

  • Hell… Julio Lugo has been significantly better than DeRosa as a Cardinal (sample size warning, but here is his line: .294/.366/.487 OPS: .853).

    I don’t hear any of you crying for Julio Lugo.

  • Kris

    Of course, I am still waiting for the Bradley-haters to at least be consistent and hate Zambrano or Soriano also.

    I’m in total agreement with you on that one and on the fact that we’ve had bigger issues than Bradley (Soriano, Zambrano, Soto, and Ramirez’s injury w/out a backup plan).

    Bradley has not been a detriment in RF, unlike his couter-part in LF and our “Ace” pitcher. Has his batting been pretty weak? Yep. Should he have kept his mouth shut in the last few weeks? Yep. Did the media and the fans goad him into feeling the way he feels and then speaking about it? Yep.

    Fans should be livid with Zambrano, but you rarely hear that here. There’s been some grousing about Soto and Soriano, but nothing compared to the scathing hatred of Bradley.

  • MJ

    Seriously. Our “ace” is 8-6. Good grief.

    I hear the Rays are looking to trade Upton or Crawford. Milton should fit in down there.

  • Seymour Butts

    Lets shift to “So now what” gear.
    What are the odds on Bradley being a Cub in 2010? They would be zero if he weren’t owed about 266 Escalades (at 75K each, by the way nice caddy reference earlier Terrelle)over the next 2 years. You know, if you look at it that way, maybe he can be dumped after all. It doesn’t bother me to dump that many Cadillacs, so whats the big deal if it is cash. Trade him to the Gnats, eat his contract, and find the guy we were looking for last off season.
    I guess I’d put the odds of Milkit as a Cub about 10% next year.

  • A brilliant proposal Seymour. Except how do we sucker the Nats into giving us Dunn. If they can pull it off, you ought to change your SN from Seymour Butts to Seymour Escalades

  • rob

    Today Bruce Miles (the guy who did the interview that got Milton suspended) said that it is 100 % that he will not return. I tend to agree. I think he is being made a scape goat. At the same time he is able to be made the scape goat because of things he has said. If he doesn’t criticize the fans, or say that he is playing harder than everyone else on the field, or say that negativity is why the team hasn’t won in 100 years he is not suspended and it doesn’t look like Hendry is maing him the fall guy.

  • http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2009/09/bradley-not-with-cubs-hendry-will-address-team.html

    From the other Cub quotes in the aboved referenced article on Bradley I believe it to be obvious that Bradley was a clubhouse cancer from day one in spring training which is the exact reason many of us did not want him as a Cub. We felt character mattered, not just numbers. Those of you that argued that character and chemistry does not matter are wrong in this case. Everyone on a team doesn’t have to be friends but there needs to be mutual respect and it is obvious that Bradley doesn’t earn that respect, not from this Cub team and not from his many other previous teams.

    Capn’ obvious get’s an A plus on his research piece, outstanding work. Now even after Bradley’s own teamates condemn him to be his own problem and a problem in the clubhouse the sabermaticians still want to argue he is a worthy Cub. This is such idealogical stubborness one must wonder about the sabermatician’s ability to understand anything outside of numbers.

    Not to mention that from APRIL 21st, when you guys all wanted to dump him along with Derrek Lee. Oops, seems you were all wrong on that one.

    I for one admitted that I was wrong in wanting to trade Dlee, and had we traded him it would have been a mistake. I can remember reading others who have said similar things about being wrong about Dlee.

    So the difference in the intelectual honesty between the saber’s and the bigger picture character matters people is obvious and stark.

    No one owner, GM, player or fan is always right. Baseball is an intricate game which has so many facets that one way of figuring it won’t always work because baseball is played by human beings that are imperfect within themselves. The imperfections within those human beings is dynamic, always changing as they grow or regress as human beings. One needs to be much more than a statistician to understand that and incorporate those features of human behavior into a players performance or a teams performance. Bradley is an obvious study of a physchological mess inwhich he is his own worst enemy.

    I still stand by my argument that clubhouse chemistry is highly overrated.

    Chemistry doesn’t create wins. Wins creates chemistry. No one would care about Bradley’s comments if he had performed well, and the Cubs were winning. I would much rather have a winning team where people hate each other than a losing team with everyone being lovey-dovey.

    And I still stand by my argument that it was way to early to judge Bradley’s performance, and I would argue that it is much more likely that Bradley rebounds next year than continuing to slug over 50 points below his career numbers and over 150 points below what he did in the previous two years.

    To hope or assume Bradley will post better numbers next year because of past numbers is simply just that, an assumption or a blind hope in the numbers. Not to factor in that Bradley was given his supposed phychological life boat in a lucrative gauranteed 2-3 year deal and absolutley alienated everyone within the organization that has given him this wonderous opportunity is to deny any acknowledgement of how phychologically injured he is as a person.

    The baseball world now knows Bradley is more trouble than his numbers are worth. He has burned another bridge. Most likely the Cubs will trade him and eat the majority of his contract and Bradley will live out his contract in a small market where the media and fans don’t expect much.

    When replying please add [sic] when appropriate, that is important for people to know.

  • MJ

    One, congrats on taking Paul Sullivan seriously. He, along with Phil Rogers are the two reason I cancelled our Tribune subscription. Total crap writing, those two guys write more about player personalities than they do about the games on the field. Crap writing, for a crap paper.

    Capn’ obvious get’s an A plus on his research piece, outstanding work.

    Really? Copy and paste from one comment section back on April 21?

    So the difference in the intelectual honesty between the saber’s and the bigger picture character matters people is obvious and stark.

    Once again, I have to enlighten you newbies to VFTB that I am NOT a sabermatric guy. I’ve written about many times. I go with my gut. The numbers are just there to sway my decisions or way of thinking, from time to time.

    Clubhouse chemistry is overrated. I’ve played on teams with terrible chemistry and we won. I’ve played on teams with awesome chemistry and we were terrible. It’s a media/fan myth, something to make sense of why what should be a superior team is losing.

    I can remember reading others who have said similar things about being wrong about Dlee.

    I went back to try and find those a week or so ago, and to be honest, no one even mentions him since he started hitting. It’s like people suddenly “forget” about what was said.

    To hope or assume Bradley will post better numbers next year because of past numbers is simply just that, an assumption or a blind hope in the numbers.

    But you should. His career numbers have shown that. Just like all of you doubted DLee. He’s proven you wrong. Baseball has a funny way of evening things out. One bad year, equals a good year somewhere else down the line.

    I’m not condoning Milton in any of this. He should have kept his mouth shut, but there’s more to this than just Milton. Hendry and Lou should be getting some serious heat, as well. This is beginning to look familiar, like the Sosa deal where they found a scapegoat for the season’s failures. This move puts the Cubs in a real bad place. How do even trade a guy that’s had a bad year, then you suspend him for behavior? You eat his contract. Which is just awful. Then again, Mr. Hendry seems to accel at dumping contracts this year, yet couldn’t keep club house good guys like Wood and DeRosa due to to much money.

    Hendry should be suspended, then fired. Case closed.

  • Those of you that argued that character and chemistry does not matter are wrong in this case.

    Not necessarily. You have no way to prove that the alleged poor chemistry has had anything to do with the poor performance of the team. Do you really believe that Bradley’s presence caused Soriano to suck? Or Soto? Fontenot? Or cause ARam to get hurt? Or cause almost every member of the starting rotation to miss starts due to injury? Come on.

    Again… if the Cubs were winning, no one would care about Bradley’s comments.

    Now even after Bradley’s own teamates condemn him to be his own problem and a problem in the clubhouse the sabermaticians still want to argue he is a worthy Cub.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. You can be your own problem, and a problem in the clubhouse, and still be a “worthy” player. See Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Ty Cobb, etc.

    One needs to be much more than a statistician to understand that and incorporate those features of human behavior into a players performance or a teams performance.

    You are impossible to discuss this stuff with. You turn everything into an anti-stats argument, even when it isn’t applicable. You truly are incapable of reading what people say. No one has said that Bradley doesn’t have issues. No one has ever said that he may hurt team “chemistry.” What we, or at least I, have said is that chemistry is overrated, and if the Cubs were winning and Bradley was performing, no one would care.

    AND… and I would never say that a player is a robot that isn’t impacted by outside circumstances, not would I say that baseball is not impacted by human behavior. I don’t even know where you get this stuff. You come into these conversations with an extreme anti-statistic bias, and that bias obviously creates an inability to actually read and understand what people are saying, rather than what you think that they are saying.

    To hope or assume Bradley will post better numbers next year because of past numbers is simply just that, an assumption or a blind hope in the numbers.

    I never said that I assume, or even hope, that Bradley would put up better numbers, did I? Are you incapable to actually dealing with what people say, rather than making things up? I said that it is LIKELY that Bradley performs better. I never said that I hope or assume that Bradley will be better. I am saying that there is strong historical evidence that would say that Bradley will be better next year than he was this year.

    The baseball world now knows Bradley is more trouble than his numbers are worth.

    Make a bet? If this is true, Bradley won’t be playing baseball next year. I am willing to bet you that he will be playing somewhere, whether that is on the Cubs or elsewhere.

  • This one deserves its own comment:

    So the difference in the intelectual honesty between the saber’s and the bigger picture character matters people is obvious and stark.

    Because it is complete and utter bullshit (excuse my language Joe). Intellectual honesty? Really? Because I have a different opinion than you?

    Please point out just one example of how I have been intellectually dishonest. Just one.

    You constantly create straw man arguments to argue against. You constantly refuse to deal with what I am actually saying. You constantly pretend that I am arguing things that I don’t believe and have never said. And it is me who is being intellectually dishonest?

    You have to be kidding me. It makes me think that you don’t even know what “intellectual dishonesty” means.

  • rob

    I am just wondering, what do Bradley’s career numbers tell us about whether or not he will be a head case? Or whether or not he will blow up and do goofy things that cost your team? Or whether or not he will pop a cork and get into it with umpires, or managers, or teammates, or even fans and announcers?
    I ask conversationally, and not confrontationally, what did Bradly say during the Miles interview the other day that was right? (It was stated earlier that a lot of what he said was right.) He said that the team has not won in 100 years because of negativity. I would say it is because of sucking. He says that he was playing harder than everyone else on the field. I would disagree with this on many fronts. He says that this place is only about being negative. I think if you’re positive and smile a lot and hit a home run every now and then the crowd loves you. Look at Soriano and how many Soriano jerseys are around. Look at how fast the boos turn to cheers for that guy. I think this is a positive place unless you’re a jerk.

  • MJ

    Look at Soriano and how many Soriano jerseys are around. Look at how fast the boos turn to cheers for that guy.

    I went to game a few weeks ago, and Soriano K’ed three times. HE was being cheered as much that third at bat, as he was the first one. WHY?????

  • what do Bradley’s career numbers tell us about whether or not he will be a head case?

    Not much. But no one is arguing that they do. At all.

    Look at Soriano and how many Soriano jerseys are around. Look at how fast the boos turn to cheers for that guy. I think this is a positive place unless you’re a jerk.

    I have said for a long time that Cubs fans are pretty stupid. Their praise for Soriano is Exhibit A for this. Their love for people like Ryan Theriot is Exhibit B.

    Soriano has been a very bad baseball player this year. Very bad. One of, if not THE, worst regular players in baseball. And I would argue that he has not been a team player. He refused to sit down when he was injured, arguably hurting his team in the process. He has a history of being selfish. He rarely, if ever, hustles. He plays with poor fundamentals. I could go on. Yet somehow most Cubs fans love the guy, because he did some good things in previous years amidst the bad baseball.

    Milton Bradley came in struggled early, and the fans turned on him. He has always hustled and played hard; he hustles in the outfield, he runs out ground balls and pop-ups, he gates on base a lot, etc. Yet Cubs fans hate him because he says stupid things.

  • Seymour Butts

    I was one who wanted Milton to work out, and thought it a reasonable chance to take, given his career numbers and the fact that players almost universally like to become Cubs. Well, I was wrong and so was Jim Hendry. DoDO Occurs (shit happens). Not all gambles pay off, and a few get disastrous. Give me Jim Hendry any day over the line of Pirate GMs that don’t even try.
    Did that one move cost the Cubs the season?, I’m not sure, but in hindsight, maybe. It’s awfully rare that team mates don’t have your back, but what is in the papers and online today from current Cub players speaks volumes. I thought I was going to have to wait until Fantasy camp to get the real story, and it may still be that way, but there is no denying Boardgame was a bad thing for the team we all love.
    About the only good thing you can say about him is that he tried to play ball on the field, (I agree with Dave here) but it’s apparent he will be elsewhere next year regardless of cost, because he would not play ball with his own team mates.

    I just had to add this unrelated note, my spellchecker came up with “irregardless” for regardless. Somebody shoot me.

  • Kris

    Capn’ obvious get’s an A plus on his research piece, outstanding work.

    If cut and paste is research. Same with pulling quotes out of context. Yet Dave gets slammed daily for using the grey box and leaving quotes in their context.

    So the difference in the intelectual honesty between the saber’s and the bigger picture character matters people is obvious and stark.

    What about those of us who believe the both character and stats matter? I think chemistry does matter, but not all the time and it isn’t the end-all be-all of a team. I believe past stats are a good indicator of what may happen in the future. But am I unintelligent for not agreeing 100% with you, Doc?

    When replying please add [sic] when appropriate, that is important for people to know.

    Why do so many of your posts have to have little digs towards others? Perhaps I’m being a hypocrite for this personal comment, but really–I’m SO sick of those little snarky comments.

  • Dennis Rodman once said chemistry is a class you take in high school or college. I agree with him

  • What are the odds on Bradley being a Cub in 2010? They would be zero if he weren’t owed about 266 Escalades (at 75K each)over the next 2 years. You know, if you look at it that way, maybe he can be dumped after all. It doesn’t bother me to dump that many Cadillacs

    I like this idea. We should call it the Cadillac index or something. Instead of figuring out how much a player is being paid, calculate how Cadillacs he’s worth. Like the MLB minimum salary is 5 1/3 Cadillacs

  • rob

    My point is that Bradley is Bradley. There are no numbers to prove he will be a headcase, but we do know he is batting 1.000 when it comes to doing this with every team and every place he has been. I don’t know why Hendry thought it would be different. Of course you expect that his offensive numbers from the past will repeat themselves here. It shouldn’t surprise us that the “character” issues would repeat themselves also.

  • rob

    I agree Dave, about fans cheering Soriano, and that is the point. Bradley calls the place negative and others have argued that it has been this way since he got here…people want him to fail. I don’t thin that’s true. Soriano shows that sometimes on field play doesn’t matter when the fans like you. I think this is ridiculous to watch…but it makes me say that the negativity of this place that Milton refers to has been brought on mostly by Milton himself…and not just because of his poor performance.

  • Seymour Butts

    You know none of this explains why Miles was allowed to pinch hit last night.

  • There are no numbers to prove he will be a headcase, but we do know he is batting 1.000 when it comes to doing this with every team and every place he has been.

    FWIW, this isn’t true. He wasn’t a so-called “headcase” last year in Texas. Texas, from what I understand, was actually quite happy with him but decided that they couldn’t afford him/had other internal options.

  • Dave S

    You guys are such Phonies: If he hit like Sosa you would have ignored his actions just like you did with Sammy Slugger for 10 years. Character? Come on look at the jerks that have been allowed to play hear. It is an attitude thing. You think Zimbrano isn’t a club house cancer?

  • You know none of this explains why Miles was allowed to pinch hit last night.

    Lou is trying to tank the season to get a higher draft pick? That would explain that continual presence of Miles as a pinch hitter and Bobby “I sucked in the minors at 2b for 10 years so I play left in the bigs” Scales.

  • cap’n obvious

    For the record, I think stats tell quite a bit of the story, I just don’t like some of the sabermetrics like BABIP that really tell nothing.

    As far as chemistry is concerned, I think the for the Cubs it is more important than most other MLB teams, due to teh close proximity in the clubhouse, and the 100 year drought. If Bradley acts like an ass in the clubhouse for, say, the Giants, everyone in that clubhouse can just move across the room a la Barry Bonds.

    There was no research, as Matt points out, it was from 2 or 3 days I vividly remembered in April where Dave and Matt’s club was defending the Bradley signing.

    The Aron Miles stuff was just a bonus. Can we at LEAST agree that you were wrong about him, Matt? Or will you be arguing for him to be the opening day 2B next season?

    Derosa’s numbers have been pretty bad this year…is amazing he’s had that many RISP hitting behind Pujols and Holliday, as they seem to drive in everyone every time they are at the dish.

  • cap’n obvious

    oh, and if you scour the archives, you’d find a great many instances of me criticizing Soriano and Zambrano…

  • Make a bet? If this is true, Bradley won’t be playing baseball next year. I am willing to bet you that he will be playing somewhere, whether that is on the Cubs or elsewhere.

    If this is true then the Cubs will eat part or all of his contract to get him out of the organization. I am willing to bet he will not be playing for the Cubs while the Cubs pay all or a portion of his contract. No one will trade for him straight up and assume the liability of his contract. Like I said, he will be playing in a small market with the Cubs paying a portion of his contract if he plays at all.

    How much would you like to bet that Bradley will not be playing for the Cubs next year and the Cubs will pay a portion or all of his contract for him to leave?

    I think a small market team would take a chance on him if they aren’t paying for him. He will not get another big contract from any other team at this point in his career. Value shoppers are all that will be interested in Bradley, no top shelf for Milton, he will be in the closeout aisle until he leaves the game. The sooner the better.

    So how much? [sic]

  • lizzie

    I am NOT a Bradley fan (nor Soriano nor Zambrano). No matter how I’m feeling about my job or co-workers or environment on any given day, I know enough to keep my mouth shut about it. All for 1/100th of Milton’s salary.

    But, I completely agree that he is now going to become the poster boy for the Cubs’ bad season and that really worries me. If everyone who matters thinks Bradley was the cause of all the woes this season it is unlikely that anything will be done to address the real issues. And that makes the outlook for next season as unfortunate as this season has been.

  • MJ

    The Aron Miles stuff was just a bonus. Can we at LEAST agree that you were wrong about him, Matt? Or will you be arguing for him to be the opening day 2B next season?

    Where have I ever said I liked Aaron Miles? Your beloved leader sherm was the one that liked that signing. Not me.

  • cap’n obvious

    1. Matt says:
    April 21, 2009 at 11:44 am
    No, three incidents overblown by media attention. The media keeps on harping over them, because it’s the only story they can get out of this guy. They bring up Bartman evey chance they get, why won’t they do the same here? It’s pathetic.
    Who’s the AA middle infielder? If you’re talking about Miles, you’re dead wrong.

    1. Matt says:
    April 21, 2009 at 11:45 am
    My guess is Aaron Miles, which once again shows flawed thinking.

  • cap’n obvious

    and I am Sherm’s leader. He is beloved, however.

  • MJ

    Curious. I don’t see any of those quotes you used on April 21st posts.

  • Lizzie- Bradley is not the only reason for the Cubs poor year, I am sure Hendry and Ricketts understand that. Making Bradley jetsam is just the start to a new year. Putting Zambrano on a treadmill wouldn’t be a bad thing to do also.

    Did anyone catch the ESPN broadcast Sunday night in which they were talking about the Cubs making Fox a 2b man. What a dream that would be.

  • Putting Zambrano on a treadmill wouldn’t be a bad thing to do also.

    It would also be a good idea if Soto was taken off the munchies

  • rob

    FWIW, this isn’t true. He wasn’t a so-called “headcase” last year in Texas. Texas, from what I understand, was actually quite happy with him but decided that they couldn’t afford him/had other internal options.

    In Texas he went into the visiting team’s announce booth because he didn’t like what they said about him and he wanted to confront the announcers. Who does that?

  • rob

    First grey box ever.

  • Doc Raker

    What about those of us who believe the both character and stats matter? I think chemistry does matter, but not all the time and it isn’t the end-all be-all of a team. I believe past stats are a good indicator of what may happen in the future. But am I unintelligent for not agreeing 100% with you, Doc?

    I never said stats don’t matter. It seems that we do agree, you seem to have misunderstood me. Stat’s, character, chemistry is all part of the bigger picture of the greatest game of baseball.

    If someone doesn’t understand how hasbro’s lack of professionalism has hurt himself, the Cubs and his past teams then they just don’t understand the bigger picture. Understanding the bigger picture in baseball or in any team sport is very helpful in understanding how to be successful in life.

  • Thank god I have gmail. If I didn’t, I would have 40+ emails from this topic flooding my inbox. Instead I have one email

  • If this is true then the Cubs will eat part or all of his contract to get him out of the organization.

    But that is not what you said. You said, very clearly, that Bradley was not worth the trouble, and everyone in baseball knew it. Now you are saying that there are teams that will be willing to take Bradley if the Cubs eat some of the contract. Which one is it?

    How much would you like to bet that Bradley will not be playing for the Cubs next year and the Cubs will pay a portion or all of his contract for him to leave?

    Why would I take that bet? I don’t think it is likely that Bradley is on the team next year, and I expect the Cubs to have to pick up some of his contract if he is traded.

    You see, you claimed something as fact that almost assuredly is not true, and I called you on it. And then you respond with some stupid bet that had nothing to do with what I said.

    I never said stats don’t matter.

    Yea… you never said they didn’t matter. You just bash them, and those that you use them, every chance you get.

    By the way… I am still waiting for that one example of where I have been “intellectually dishonest.” Can you find one for me?

  • MJ

    Dave, they misquote (or seem to fabricate quotes), use them outside of the context in which things were said. What makes you think they can find one? I’m still looking at the comments from the only post of April 21st, and none of which is being quoted is there.

    It’s bordering on slanderous.

  • MJ

    In fact, this is the only thing I wrote that day, that I will say I was wrong in:

    Hendry is not trading and certainly not releasing MB. And I don’t think you’ll ever see a GM say a player is a head case. Not sure the MLBPA would take to kindly to that.

    Everything else posted by Cap’n is not from the said date of his quotes. I’d love to know what date they are from. I’m not saying I didn’t post them, but they’re clearly being used from somewhere else, which is most certainly “intellectually dishonest.”

  • Kris

    If someone doesn’t understand how hasbro’s lack of professionalism has hurt himself, the Cubs and his past teams then they just don’t understand the bigger picture. Understanding the bigger picture in baseball or in any team sport is very helpful in understanding how to be successful in life.

    To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said that Bradley hasn’t hurt himself or, recently, the team. What at least a few of us our saying is that people expected him to be an absolutely crazy-train and are using him as a scape-goat for the team’s sub-par season.

    He has not been a total whack-job this season (look at Zambrano to get a better idea of a what a whack-job is). Despite the fact that he does not have Derrek Lee’s etiquette, Bradley is not the devil-incarnate that everyone wants to make him out to be. His fielding is fine, his batting is uncharacteristically low, and he apparently doesn’t know when to shut up. This hardly makes him the worst thing to ever come through Chicago.

    Should he be back next year? No. But in all honesty I’d say he is just a blip in the reasons this season went south quickly.

  • I am still waiting for that one example of where I have been “intellectually dishonest.”

    **crickets**

    I am just asking for one, Doc. Can you do it?

  • cap’n obvious

    No way for you to know, Dave, but Doc’s wife is in the hospital…probably will be a few days before he can get to this.

  • I truly hope Doc’s wife is okay.

  • cap’n obvious

    its nothing major…just didn’t want you to think he was ducking you. He’ll be back soon enough.

  • Kris

    Hope everything is okay with Doc’s wife!

    I’m sure we can all have another rousing debate when he returns. 🙂

  • MJ

    Too bad we can’t have these “discussions” over a beer.

    All the best to Doc and his wife!

  • Doc Raker

    The baseball world now knows Bradley is more trouble than his numbers are worth. He has burned another bridge. Most likely the Cubs will trade him and eat the majority of his contract and Bradley will live out his contract in a small market where the media and fans don’t expect much.

    Dave & MJ- That grey box is from my post on this thread #23. Talk about taking things out of context and misquoting. I cleary state that the Cubs will trade Bradley to a small market team with the Cubs paying a majority of his contract. I guess you need everything to be very literal. I should have said everyone in baseball now knows Bradley isn’t worth a big contract. A small market team that doesn’t invest big money in him can take a chance on him and cut him if he becomes a problem with the Cubs being responsible for his contract. I do not believe he will get another large contract in the future. Bradley is now relegated to ‘well take a flyer on him since it won’t cost us much’ territory [sic].

    To take just the first sentence of that paragraph and claim I said Bradley would be out of baseball is either intelectually dishonest, or you didn’t bother to read the entire paragraph and drew the wrong conclusion from the first sentence or you read the entire paragraph and just aren’t smart enough to comprehend it. Whichever it is you misunderstood. I continue the same thought in post 42. I am not changing what I say, you are misunderstanding or maybe I just don’t write as clearly as I should.

    Can I get some of you Milton apologists to admit that this guy was a bad signing?
    No.

    Dave- You won’t admit that Bradley was a bad signing? At what point is he a bad signing for you? After the Cubs trade him and eat $20M?

    Yea… you never said they didn’t matter. You just bash them, and those that you use them, every chance you get.

    I disagree with someone like yourself who only seems to take stats to matter, and don’t take much else to matter. Now, even after Bradley has proved to be a cancer, a clubhouse distraction you still don’t get it. So be it. Bradley was a bad signing and everyone but you seems to know it. It’s not that big of deal, it’s just a conversation about baseball. We disagree.

    Thanks for the good cheer, my wife is doing well, she had surgery today and will be back in the starting line up within 48 hours. Thanks.

  • Dave & MJ- That grey box is from my post on this thread #23. Talk about taking things out of context and misquoting.

    It isn’t taking you out of context at all, or misquoting. Misquoting would be changing your quote. I clearly didn’t do that. And I didn’t take you out of context. I know that you said that the Cubs would probably trade him, but that simply doesn’t square with “The baseball world now knows Bradley is more trouble than his numbers are worth.” It is actually quite clear. If the baseball world believes that Bradley is more trouble than he is worth, than he would be out of baseball. And that is not the case.

    Now, you may have been using hyperbole. But that wasn’t clear at all.

    Dave- You won’t admit that Bradley was a bad signing? At what point is he a bad signing for you? After the Cubs trade him and eat $20M?

    Probably not. I still don’t think it was a bad signing, and I don’t think that trading him away for nothing will make it a bad signing. Instead it will make it a stupid trade. I thought, and still think, that the Bradley signing was worth the risks that came with it. And I still think that Bradley, if he were to stay on the Cubs, is likely to perform well enough to justify his contract.

    Now, even after Bradley has proved to be a cancer, a clubhouse distraction you still don’t get it.

    I get that you believe that. And I strongly disagree with you that his “cancer” or “clubhouse distractions” had anything to do with anything, and I strongly believe that had Bradley performed up to expectations, no one would have cared.

    And now that we know that your wife is fine, and you can blog, can you please show me where I have been intellectually dishonest?

  • Oh… and glad that your wife is doing well.

  • rob

    Dave, thinking about what we talked about earlier in this thread about how the crowd cheers Soriano even though he sucks, wouldn’t you say that Bradley’s attitude caused the fans to have a harsher reaction to his poor performance? And wasn’t the fan response what caused this thing to blow up further?

    I don’t think the cheering of Soriano is only about the good things he has done in the past, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that he is likeable.

  • MJ

    That’s the problem Rob, no one gave Bradley a chance, including most on this board. Just go to sherm’s post on April 21st. Heck even in spring training they wanted to sell him down the river, after he took himself out for a sore hamstring. That was the first game! Of Spring Training! How can you bad mouth a guy in the first Spring Training game?

    Bradley’s signing was strictly about his numbers, from last year, and nothing else. Hendry saw something he thought was worth the behavioral gamble. Honestly, I thought he’d fit in, as he was very quiet last year, and I was impressed by what he’d done last year too.

    Soriano is not likeable. At least not in my eyes. He’s lazy. At least Bradley hustled and showed emotion.

  • Bradley’s signing was strictly about his numbers, from last year, and nothing else. Hendry saw something he thought was worth the behavioral gamble.

    Exactly my point with one addition. The gamble was more than just behavioral, it was also a gamble on his health. His numbers in 2008 were as a DH, not an everyday position player. So the poeple who look not at just the numbers but at the bigger picture of behavior and injury had reason to be concerned about the signing.

    Heck even in spring training they wanted to sell him down the river, after he took himself out for a sore hamstring. That was the first game! Of Spring Training! How can you bad mouth a guy in the first Spring Training game?

    When you already have a concern about the guys injury history and he gets hurt in his very first spring training game, after taking a walk no less if I remember correctly, ones concerns about his signing are certainly vindicated.

    I could see a performance related 1 year contract with club options for future years to be worthy of his 2008 numbers but to gaurantee 2 years at $20M with an easily vested 3rd year at $10M to be unwise and fiscally irresponsible, maybe Hendry should run for a Congressional seat.

    So it looks like the people who had concerns about Bradley’s behavior and injuries were right.

    For those of you that still don’t believe that Bradley’s behavior or injuries are a problem as of today is to be either in total disagreement that behavior or injuries ever matter or in denial that behavior or injuries matter in this case.

    The former can only be attributed to being obtuse, denial is a form of intelectual dishonesty. If you know something to be true but deny it you are being dishonest with yourself. At some point in the future when you are away from the emotion of it all one usually realizes the denial. Like that bad girlfriend you may have had that once you broke up everyone said to you, ‘what were you thinking?’ and you know you have no good answer.

    I think the horse is dead.

  • So the poeple who look not at just the numbers but at the bigger picture of behavior and injury had reason to be concerned about the signing.

    I don’t know of anyone who only looked at the numbers and ignored the behavior and injury history. But of course it makes your argument better when you can pretend that people did that.

    For those of you that still don’t believe that Bradley’s behavior or injuries are a problem

    Please show me ONE person who said this.

    either in total disagreement that behavior or injuries ever matter or in denial that behavior or injuries matter in this case.

    Again, please point out just one example where someone said that it never matters, or that it didn’t or doesn’t matter in this case.

    The former can only be attributed to being obtuse, denial is a form of intelectual dishonesty.

    You know what? I am getting really, really tired of your straw man arguments. You know what is obtuse? Or intellectually dishonest? Making things up. Pretending that we are arguing things that we are not.

    No one here has EVER said that Bradley’s behavior or injury history was not an issue. No one has ever said anything of the sort. What some of us have said is that we believed that this on-field performance was good enough to be worth the injury and behavior risk that came along with it.

    You know what the amazing thing is about this blog? There are archives, which create a record of each thing we comment. In turn, if it is true what you claim, that Matt and I have said that Bradley’s behavior and injury history did not and do not matter, than you should be able to find an example of it. But you can’t. Because your are blatantly misrepresenting what we have said.

    So do us all a favor. Stop making things up. Stop being intellectually dishonest.