By this time most of you know “Milton Bradley”:http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4245 is now a free agent. Let’s leave it that way. He’s a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Let it be somewhere else.
I think you got it 100% wrong. He’s in walk year and would play his butt off for 3 months to get some $$$ next year.
From your lips to Minaya’s ears John!
i gotta admit,i was intrigued,especially for just half a season or whatever it is. But theres baggage,and then theres BAGGAGE. Throw in the fact that at his age hes probably more phsyically fragile than moises alou,and its just not worth it. I wouldnt hate the move if it happend,but again,im not sure the risk is worth the reward
Is he a free agent or was he just DFA’d?
Would you rather have Ricky Ledee than Bradley?
To Benny: I’d rather have neither. But, Ledee is less of a headache. Bradley is sour milk. You don’t want to take a sip. – JD
He was DFA’d. Anyone who’d rather have Ledee must like losing.
Half the Mets team is built on risks, so why wouldn’t one almost free risk hurt. The Mets could DFA him just like the A’s did.
To Mel: Teams don’t lose because of role players like Ledee. Teams lose with clubhouse cancers such as Bradley. -JD
Its tempting but I have reservations about him. He’s like Carl Everett. He’s just one of those guys who just needs the tiniest thing to set him off and then its him against the world.
I agree with you Mel. This guy would be on his best behavior for the rest of the season to try and get a contract for next year. Now he would be a TERRIBLE signing to a long term deal. But as a rental he’s be great, because he’d be trying to prove something.
To Mel and JR (RE: Bradley’s behavior)
The problem with Bradley is his idea of good behavior and everybody else’s idea are two different things. I’m not saying he’d be Pacman Jones, but he’s gone off the deep end everywhere he has been and will implode here. I wouldn’t bet he’d be good for three or four months.
Don;t know about him. As others’ say he is fragile but has good numbers.
You also have to consider the team dynamic. Last year they had great chemistry. This year quotes from the players say something is missing.
Do we want him here?
To Dave: No. This year’s chemistry has changed, and not for the better. It is more fragile and Bradley will not help. – JD
So why do you think the chemistry has changed? Could it be Pedro?
Sudden-death elimination tends to destroy chemistry because it doesn’t allow for the team to re-group and heal as a unit; instead, they’re out the door the next day without ever really coming to grips with how they lost.
Milton Bradley has been on the DL 5 times over the past 2 years, WOWZERS!
I love Milton Bradley and would LOVE him on the team but why bother? he won’t be playing anyway.
why do you love him? His current team cut him loose because either he can’t produce or he hurts the team in other ways.
Other teams of his felt the same.
John—Regarding your comment “Clubs lose with clubhouse cancers such as Bradley,” I’m interested in your perspective on Jim Leyland’s remarks yesterday. Seems like he doesn’t think it’s nearly as important as you do:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I know thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s always been big with some people Ã¢â‚¬â€ clubhouse chemistry,Ã¢â‚¬? Leyland said. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the most overblown thing in the world. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all bull. When I was in Pittsburgh, we had fights in the clubhouse. Did it matter? We still won three division titles. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve had teams that went out to dinner together and chapel together and they couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t win a freakinÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ game.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s big in the media, Ã¢â‚¬ËœOh, heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s great in the clubhouse.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Let me tell you something: I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t give a [hoot] what heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like in the clubhouse. I care what heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s like in the batterÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s box, on the mound, or shortstop, or centerfield. People are different. Personalities are different. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s OK.Ã¢â‚¬?
Comments are closed