Bradley traded??

[bz]

<!--quoteo(post=82412:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:17 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82409:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:15 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82408:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:13 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 07:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82407:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:11 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 08:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82404:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:00 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 07:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82403:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:51 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 07:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82394:date=Mar 11 2010, 05:11 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 05:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Here's my take, for what it's worth: http://www.bleachernation.com/2010/03/11/t...milton-bradley/

It focuses on Hendry, not Bradley.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yea, I don't agree with any of that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

So you believe that Jim Hendry traded Milton Bradley because of his "lack of production"?

I'd love to hear you back that up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bottom line...he didn't perform. If he would have hit .321/.436/.563 he would have got a pass on his dickishness. People wouldn't boo him because he was raking, and he wouldn't have needed to find ways to justify his non-performance...the fans, the media, the city, the other voices in his head. If Reggie Jackson performed to 2/3rds of his expectations he would have been booed out of New York. He would have said awful things about the fans and the city. But because he did live up to expectations all of the sideshow was mostly avoided. He was still a dick and a bad team mate, but he hit well which is what he is paid to do. Bradley didn't hit, he got booed, the media went after him, his team couldn't justify or write off his poor personality, and the whole thing spiraled out of control. If he hit he would have been just an asshole who played well. He didn't hit, and we see what happened.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But beez, we both know that's not why he was traded. Are you telling me that if he had been an angel, but had put up "only" a .775 OPS (with a .378 OBP), Hendry would have dumped him for Carlos Silva?

Of course not. Bradley was dumped because he was a horrible teammate and a headcase douche. And that's a red flag that Hendry KNEW about when he signed him.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It's because he sucked and was a douchebag. I thought that inference by Hendry was obvious.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I don't think it was obvious at all, and maybe that's why we disagree. I think Hendry is making it all about the performance.

And hello, GM's don't dump guys for Carlos Silva because they "only" had a .775 OPS and a .378 OBP. Is that really such a far out there point that I'm making?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It's a fair observation. I just think you're reading into it too much.