09-23-2009, 10:33 AM
<!--quoteo(post=64130:date=Sep 23 2009, 08:52 AM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Sep 23 2009, 08:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=64125:date=Sep 23 2009, 07:39 AM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Sep 23 2009, 07:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The Reggie example is interesting, but the difference is that he was a jerkoff who produced. Bradley didn't.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's really the point, isn't it? You can accept a guy who produces if he is an asshole, but if he is an asshole and doesn't produce, he hurts the team. In that equation, the only thing changing is the players performance, NOT his personality.
Look, in 1998, from everything I have heard, the Cubs clubhouse was a DISASTER, as Grace and Sosa despised each other, and 2 distinct camps formed. They managed to do OK. Then in 1999 it all went to shit, with roughly the same personalities involved.
Yes, the Cubs look loose and relaxed right now, after getting rid of Bradley. They also won 7 of 8 the week before they shitcanned Bradley, so it's possible to play well even when you have a cancer in the clubhouse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't disagree with any of that. I generally don't buy into the "clubhouse cancer" theories. All I'm saying is that when you have a certain chemistry to your team (I'm essentially lumping the 2007-08 teams into one bucket) and then all of a sudden you throw in a douche like Bradley who brought nothing but negativity and a limp bat, remove 2 (productive) clubhouse leaders like Wood and DeRosa, and add in a few career-worst seasons and an injury or 2 or three, and it all adds up. We're actually very fortunate to have an above .500 record at this point. I'm not pinning the entire lost season on Bradley, but I just think this team would have put a lot less pressure on itself without him. The pressure was already unbearable in the playoffs, and now this just tipped the scales even more. Maybe we'd still miss the playoffs had we never signed Bradley in the first place, but at least it would have been one less daily distraction to deal with.
But that's really the point, isn't it? You can accept a guy who produces if he is an asshole, but if he is an asshole and doesn't produce, he hurts the team. In that equation, the only thing changing is the players performance, NOT his personality.
Look, in 1998, from everything I have heard, the Cubs clubhouse was a DISASTER, as Grace and Sosa despised each other, and 2 distinct camps formed. They managed to do OK. Then in 1999 it all went to shit, with roughly the same personalities involved.
Yes, the Cubs look loose and relaxed right now, after getting rid of Bradley. They also won 7 of 8 the week before they shitcanned Bradley, so it's possible to play well even when you have a cancer in the clubhouse.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't disagree with any of that. I generally don't buy into the "clubhouse cancer" theories. All I'm saying is that when you have a certain chemistry to your team (I'm essentially lumping the 2007-08 teams into one bucket) and then all of a sudden you throw in a douche like Bradley who brought nothing but negativity and a limp bat, remove 2 (productive) clubhouse leaders like Wood and DeRosa, and add in a few career-worst seasons and an injury or 2 or three, and it all adds up. We're actually very fortunate to have an above .500 record at this point. I'm not pinning the entire lost season on Bradley, but I just think this team would have put a lot less pressure on itself without him. The pressure was already unbearable in the playoffs, and now this just tipped the scales even more. Maybe we'd still miss the playoffs had we never signed Bradley in the first place, but at least it would have been one less daily distraction to deal with.