Milton Bradley traded to Oakland - Page 3

JDOldSchool · 12-14-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyJ

RMPL, I already addressed this. The Dodgers have no idea wtf they are doing

Didn't we all kinda know that the minute they fired DePo?

ibdb · 12-14-2005, 07:47 PM

Of course, since the Mariners are now thought to be signing Carl Everett, any clubhouse gain that might have existed is likely to be offset.

On the Seahawk reference I made earlier -- One of the new President's (Ruskell) proclaimed goals was to eliminate character problems. At least three players (I forget all the names, but I think there was a LB, and OL , and Koren Robinson at WR) were released/not re-signed as part of this push. Robinson (now, appropriately enough a Viking) was due to drug and alcohol issues resulting in at least one DUI, a stint in rehab, several suspensions, missed flights, missed/late to practices, . . . He's a fantastically talented athlete -- but that didn't offset the distraction he'd become to the team. I wish he'd been a true professional -- and maybe someday he will be -- but he wasn't while he was here.

Much has been written locally about the Seahawks not collapsing this year because they are a more coherent and cohesive team. When things go wrong (dropped passes?, missed field goals?), rather than pointing fingers and playing the blame game, they've rallied together. I won't attempt to rewrite every article on the subject here, but I guarantee that you'll be hearing more about it come playoff time.

ibdb · 12-14-2005, 08:07 PM

Thought I'd do a little search of the board here on how well Everett and Bradley have been received in the past.

I liked this thread and this particular post: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...4&postcount=28

I guess one of the things I'm still having problems figuring out is how, if guys like this are so valuable, they seem to wear out their welcomes with such predictible regularity?

TonyJ · 12-14-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibdb

Thought I'd do a little search of the board here on how well Everett and Bradley have been received in the past.

Once again, this time bolded for emphasis, team chemistry in baseball has zero effect on winning games. I'll maybe even give you football, maybe, but do you think that when Dan Johnson steps in to the batters box next year he is going to be thinking "man, that Bradley is a prick"?

TonyJ · 12-14-2005, 08:28 PM

dola,

And if Everett is such a bad apple who ruins clubhouse chemistry, how in the hell did the White Sox win the World Series? God, I wish people would stop listening to sports"writers".

TonyJ · 12-14-2005, 08:31 PM

trola,

Of all those things that the post you used as support, there was not a single incident where Bradley did anything on the field that hurt his team's chance to win the game. Not one. Not even not running out a routine grounder. I've always found it puzzling that managers get so pissed about that. I think it has more to do with a manager's ego (wants to make it look like he has the team playing hard) than the ego of a player.

JDOldSchool · 12-14-2005, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ibdb

Of course, since the Mariners are now thought to be signing Carl Everett, any clubhouse gain that might have existed is likely to be offset.

The White Sox sure did ok with Everett. Sure, he sucked, but they won despite that and any stupid things he said.

Quote:

At least three players (I forget all the names, but I think there was a LB, and OL , and Koren Robinson at WR) were released/not re-signed as part of this push. Robinson (now, appropriately enough a Viking) was due to drug and alcohol issues resulting in at least one DUI, a stint in rehab, several suspensions, missed flights, missed/late to practices, . . . He's a fantastically talented athlete -- but that didn't offset the distraction he'd become to the team. I wish he'd been a true professional -- and maybe someday he will be -- but he wasn't while he was here.

Ok, now missing games because of the off-field problems is an entirely different realm. I HATE when people change the argument mid-stream when they're losing. Nobody here to going to say a 4-game drug suspension doesn't affect the team. Of course it does. But how many of those does Bradley have? Everett? Koren Robinson didn't hurt the Seahawks because he was a distraction. He hurt the Seahawks because he missed time due to his behavior (and he was just plain bad). Different. Effing. Ballpark. By the way, he's helping the Vikings win games now. I really doubt he's an entirely different person, though he may have stopped the illegal substance usage.

Quote:

I won't attempt to rewrite every article on the subject here, but I guarantee that you'll be hearing more about it come playoff time.

"If you ****ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire. Now that don't necessarily make it ****ing so!"

The point? I don't care how many writers, reporters, talking heads and other assorted assclowns say it. Pro athletes are not the mental midgets we make them out to be. They're fully capable of ignoring their dumbass teammate. Well, everyone but Donovan McNabb is. It's only a "distraction" if the team loses, because it's a convenient excuse. It's only a legitimate excuse if the player's actions actually hurt the team because he's missing games, not trying, etc.

Davey Eckstein · 12-14-2005, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UngratefulDead

Was that the year the Indians won 130 games?

Poopy!

Fixed.

Davey Eckstein · 12-14-2005, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyJ

Once again, this time bolded for emphasis, team chemistry in baseball has zero effect on winning games. I'll maybe even give you football, maybe, but do you think that when Dan Johnson steps in to the batters box next year he is going to be thinking "man, that Bradley is a prick"?

I agree with everything said in the first sentence.

darkhorse · 12-14-2005, 10:44 PM

Jonah Keri's take on the Beane haul from his ongoing chat at BB Prospectus.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ch...php?chatId=159

InBillyWeTrust (Oakland, CA): Any thoughts on the Milton Bradley deal? Looks to me like Colletti got taken in his first deal.

Jonah Keri: Bradley and Antonio Perez for Andre Ethier...

Ethier's numbers last year look pretty nice. But he was 23 and hitting in the Texas League and didn't even slug .500. Meanwhile Bradley-Kotsay-Payton is the defensive outfield in baseball. I don't think Payton's offense will repeat itself in '06, but I see Bradley's production landing somewhere between his monster 2003 and his very solid 2005. Straight up I already love the trade for Oakland. Throw in Antonio Perez, who's just 26, cheap, decent bat and versatile, and I think the A's just added 5-7 wins to their team for a good-not-great outfield prospect.

More trades, fewer free agent singings. Why...don't...more...teams...try this?

Mike Donlin · 12-14-2005, 11:29 PM

Geez, this seems rather lopsided. What are the odds that Ethier turns into Bradley? Leave alone Bradley and a capable backup infielder.

I know, Tony J, I know, the dodgers don't know....

JDOldSchool · 12-14-2005, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkhorse

More trades, fewer free agent singings. Why...don't...more...teams...try this?

Because paying $13 million a year for Rafael Furcal might draw a few more people to the park because "the team is showing they want to win." Beane cares about winning, not giving the impression he wants to win. There's the difference. (No, Beane's not the only one, but he's the topic of conversation here)

BadluckinOOTP · 12-14-2005, 11:38 PM

I think the best Either can get will be '04 Kotsayish numbers. Which isn't bad at all...but I don't think he'll reach that peak.

darkhorse · 12-14-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonah Keri

More trades, fewer free agent singings. Why...don't...more...teams...try this?

I first read this typo as "singeings" and had a good chuckle.

darkhorse · 12-14-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadluckinOOTP

I think the best Either can get will be '04 Kotsayish numbers. Which isn't bad at all...but I don't think he'll reach that peak.

And, he won't have Kotsay's value as a CF.

EagleEye_0 · 12-15-2005, 12:45 AM

Awful trade. I dont mind the Furcal and Mueller signings, but ugg for this one.

JDOldSchool · 12-15-2005, 01:54 AM

This post also appears on The Sports Blog (link in sig). I'm rather proud of it, so I'm reposting it here:

Sorry! This Boggles my mind.

I think I have to pull out my Ouija board and ask the spirits why all these baseball dopes think it's such a huge Risk for Billy Beane to trade for a guy who has been nothing but Trouble in the past. I wish these people would get a Clue! The man can hit the ball and he can play some excellent defense. And think of it this way, with the current market for starting pitchers and center fielders is it any wonder that Beane has created a Monopoly with 3 center fielders and, like, 42 starting pitchers?

A's fans, how can you have such a poor Memory? Guess Who has made a ton of "bad" trades that turned out to be genius moves. That's right, Billy Beane has. On my Life, I'm willing to say that this trade will be Yahtzee for the Oakland Athletics. Ok, that last one was a stretch.

UngratefulDead · 12-15-2005, 02:42 AM

When you really think about it, isn't Rafael Furcal a far riskier signing, being as how he could miss some serious time if he gets another DUI?

mikev · 12-15-2005, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UngratefulDead

When you really think about it, isn't Rafael Furcal a far riskier signing, being as how he could miss some serious time if he gets another DUI?

I think it's riskier because... he's never hit .300
I think it's riskier because... his career OBP is .350
I think it's riskier because... he K's more than BB's (I know, most players do, but still.. he's supposed to be "premier")
I think it's riskier because... LA already had a good-to-above-average SS in Izturis and had way more pressing needs.

I could go on, but it would eventually lead to me laughing at the idiocy of Ned.

ibdb · 12-15-2005, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

The White Sox sure did ok with Everett. Sure, he sucked, but they won despite that and any stupid things he said.

Ok, now missing games because of the off-field problems is an entirely different realm. I HATE when people change the argument mid-stream when they're losing. Nobody here to going to say a 4-game drug suspension doesn't affect the team. Of course it does. But how many of those does Bradley have? Everett? . . .

It's only a legitimate excuse if the player's actions actually hurt the team because he's missing games, not trying, etc.

I agree with your first statement. None of the White Sox fans seem to have any regrets about seeing Everett go. I'd go with them winning despite his presence.

On the Seahawks and Robinson -- You asked me what character issues the Seahawks had. I answered you with one clear example. I don't care if the player is an idiot on the field or off -- it can still have an impact.

And you're right -- clearly Bradley was never suspended from the minors for 10 games for spitting on an ump, and Everett was never suspended from the majors for 10 games for bumping an ump twice, and Bradley was never suspended for going after a fan in the stands or a reporter in the clubhouse, and Everett was never suspended for missing a workout and getting into a shouting match with his manager. . .

Oh wait, those are cases where these guys' behaviors would actually hurt their teams because they were missing games, so those must not count.

12-14-2005, 08:28 PM	#45
TonyJ Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Gassin' Kurds Posts: 2,019	dola, And if Everett is such a bad apple who ruins clubhouse chemistry, how in the hell did the White Sox win the World Series? God, I wish people would stop listening to sports"writers". __________________ My Podcasts: Talk Democratic Dysfunction Name Two Bands with Andy and Andy Last edited by TonyJ; 12-14-2005 at 08:32 PM.

12-14-2005, 08:31 PM	#46
TonyJ Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Gassin' Kurds Posts: 2,019	trola, Of all those things that the post you used as support, there was not a single incident where Bradley did anything on the field that hurt his team's chance to win the game. Not one. Not even not running out a routine grounder. I've always found it puzzling that managers get so pissed about that. I think it has more to do with a manager's ego (wants to make it look like he has the team playing hard) than the ego of a player. __________________ My Podcasts: Talk Democratic Dysfunction Name Two Bands with Andy and Andy

12-14-2005, 10:44 PM	#50
darkhorse Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: fort worth, tx Posts: 10,850	Jonah Keri's take on the Beane haul from his ongoing chat at BB Prospectus. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ch...php?chatId=159 InBillyWeTrust (Oakland, CA): Any thoughts on the Milton Bradley deal? Looks to me like Colletti got taken in his first deal. Jonah Keri: Bradley and Antonio Perez for Andre Ethier... Ethier's numbers last year look pretty nice. But he was 23 and hitting in the Texas League and didn't even slug .500. Meanwhile Bradley-Kotsay-Payton is the defensive outfield in baseball. I don't think Payton's offense will repeat itself in '06, but I see Bradley's production landing somewhere between his monster 2003 and his very solid 2005. Straight up I already love the trade for Oakland. Throw in Antonio Perez, who's just 26, cheap, decent bat and versatile, and I think the A's just added 5-7 wins to their team for a good-not-great outfield prospect. More trades, fewer free agent singings. Why...don't...more...teams...try this? __________________ "The Human Torch was denied a bank loan."

12-14-2005, 07:47 PM	#42
ibdb Minors (Single A) Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 99	Of course, since the Mariners are now thought to be signing Carl Everett, any clubhouse gain that might have existed is likely to be offset. On the Seahawk reference I made earlier -- One of the new President's (Ruskell) proclaimed goals was to eliminate character problems. At least three players (I forget all the names, but I think there was a LB, and OL , and Koren Robinson at WR) were released/not re-signed as part of this push. Robinson (now, appropriately enough a Viking) was due to drug and alcohol issues resulting in at least one DUI, a stint in rehab, several suspensions, missed flights, missed/late to practices, . . . He's a fantastically talented athlete -- but that didn't offset the distraction he'd become to the team. I wish he'd been a true professional -- and maybe someday he will be -- but he wasn't while he was here. Much has been written locally about the Seahawks not collapsing this year because they are a more coherent and cohesive team. When things go wrong (dropped passes?, missed field goals?), rather than pointing fingers and playing the blame game, they've rallied together. I won't attempt to rewrite every article on the subject here, but I guarantee that you'll be hearing more about it come playoff time.

12-14-2005, 08:07 PM	#43
ibdb Minors (Single A) Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 99	Thought I'd do a little search of the board here on how well Everett and Bradley have been received in the past. I liked this thread and this particular post: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...4&postcount=28 I guess one of the things I'm still having problems figuring out is how, if guys like this are so valuable, they seem to wear out their welcomes with such predictible regularity?

12-14-2005, 11:29 PM	#51
Mike Donlin All Star Reserve Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Life, friends, is boring. Posts: 840	Geez, this seems rather lopsided. What are the odds that Ethier turns into Bradley? Leave alone Bradley and a capable backup infielder. I know, Tony J, I know, the dodgers don't know....

12-14-2005, 11:38 PM	#53
BadluckinOOTP All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: OKC Posts: 1,534	I think the best Either can get will be '04 Kotsayish numbers. Which isn't bad at all...but I don't think he'll reach that peak.

12-15-2005, 12:45 AM	#56
EagleEye_0 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,426	Awful trade. I dont mind the Furcal and Mueller signings, but ugg for this one.

12-15-2005, 01:54 AM	#57
JDOldSchool Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 4,023	This post also appears on The Sports Blog (link in sig). I'm rather proud of it, so I'm reposting it here: Sorry! This Boggles my mind. I think I have to pull out my Ouija board and ask the spirits why all these baseball dopes think it's such a huge Risk for Billy Beane to trade for a guy who has been nothing but Trouble in the past. I wish these people would get a Clue! The man can hit the ball and he can play some excellent defense. And think of it this way, with the current market for starting pitchers and center fielders is it any wonder that Beane has created a Monopoly with 3 center fielders and, like, 42 starting pitchers? A's fans, how can you have such a poor Memory? Guess Who has made a ton of "bad" trades that turned out to be genius moves. That's right, Billy Beane has. On my Life, I'm willing to say that this trade will be Yahtzee for the Oakland Athletics. Ok, that last one was a stretch.

12-15-2005, 02:42 AM	#58
UngratefulDead Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: Bay Area Posts: 3,415	When you really think about it, isn't Rafael Furcal a far riskier signing, being as how he could miss some serious time if he gets another DUI?