Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82407:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:11 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 06:11 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-->
That's how I feel.
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82409:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:15 PM:name=bz)-->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?
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Everyone knew it was a gamble to sign him. But the gamble was that he'd play 130 games, and that would appease us of his dickishness. No one expected him to be relatively healthy and not perform. No one calculated that as part of the risk.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82411:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:15 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Mar 11 2010, 08:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82407:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:11 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 06:11 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-->
That's how I feel.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You guys are talking about a totally different point (with which I do not necessarily disagree).
Posts: 7,162
Threads: 138
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82412:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:17 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 06:17 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-->
If he had an .850 OPS, I think there's a much better chance he's still in a Cubs uniform, regardless of what he said about our fans and organization.
@TheBlogfines
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
The lack of production thing is clearly horseshit...though Bradley did fail to produce every time he went on the DL with a hangnail.
I thought Hendry was just clumsily grasping for an answer to why Bradley triggers such disdain...other than due to racism. For whatever reason, Hendry won't call Bradley out for being a headcase, a whiner and an asshole. But everyone knows that a.) he is, b.) that's why Lou called him a piece of shit, c.) why Hendry suspended him d.) why Hendry dumped him and e.) why by the end of the season, Mariners fans will have had a belly full of him.
Hendry admits signing him was a mistake. He can't unring that bell. He can't protect his legacy from that mistake. I don't think that's what motivated those comments. I just think he said something that can't be supported because he isn't willing to say what we all know and say.
Bradley needs to look in the mirror and see that he needs to grow the hell up, not that he needs to take more BP.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--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.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82413:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:17 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Everyone knew it was a gamble to sign him. But the gamble was that he'd play 130 games, and that would appease his dickishness. No one expected him to be relatively healthy and not perform. No one calculated that as part of the risk.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes or no: you're saying the primary reason the Cubs had to dump him was because he "didn't perform"?
EDIT: I get what you're really saying. You're saying it was both douchiness and performance. But I'm saying Hendry's quotes - all of them - only focus on performance. And that's wildly, wildly misleading.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
I can't be the only one who finds it insulting that Hendry expects us to believe that he signed a guy for 3 years and $30 million, and because the guy "didn't perform" to the tune of a .775 OPS, you've absolutely got to dump him for Carlos Silva.
We all know that's just false. And it pisses me off.
He was dumped because he was an asshole. End of story.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82418:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:19 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82413:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:17 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Everyone knew it was a gamble to sign him. But the gamble was that he'd play 130 games, and that would appease his dickishness. No one expected him to be relatively healthy and not perform. No one calculated that as part of the risk.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes or no: you're saying the primary reason the Cubs had to dump him was because he "didn't perform"?
EDIT: I get what you're really saying. You're saying it was both douchiness and performance. But I'm saying Hendry's quotes - all of them - only focus on performance. And that's wildly, wildly misleading.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any respectable boss doesn't bash an employee. If he wanted to be Ozzie Guillen and grab a mic spouting such and such about Bradley being a dickhead closet racist who couldn't hit a fat woman with a truck and who cries when he stubs his cooter on a tampon he could have. But in an attempt to save face while being classy he took the higher road. I wish he wouldn't have because it would have been high comedy, but let's get real here.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82418:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:19 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82413:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:17 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Mar 11 2010, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Everyone knew it was a gamble to sign him. But the gamble was that he'd play 130 games, and that would appease his dickishness. No one expected him to be relatively healthy and not perform. No one calculated that as part of the risk.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So yes or no: you're saying the primary reason the Cubs had to dump him was because he "didn't perform"?
EDIT: I get what you're really saying. You're saying it was both douchiness and performance. But I'm saying Hendry's quotes - all of them - only focus on performance. And that's wildly, wildly misleading.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that Hendry's quotes paint an erroneous picture. I'm just not agreeing with the reason you deduce for his saying them.
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82406:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:10 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82405:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:07 PM:name=Fella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 11 2010, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know, I don't think it really matters what he said I guess. He said what he needed to say to clear the air and still tried to save face. I didn't really get the vibe that he was insisting he traded him *only* for lack of production. More that his lack of production is what caused the negativity. I know that's not what the exact quote says, but I don't think the way he said it was a big deal.
I have been hard on Hendry the last couple of years, and to be honest, I don't know how he still has a job after EVERY move he made last season imploded, but I respect the way he has handled Bradley. He admitted his mistake and tired to fix it as best as he could after the mistake was made.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But he DIDN'T admit his mistake, Fella. That's what really pisses me off. His mistake was signing a guy with OBVIOUS character problems, and then when those character problems were the REASON the guy didn't work out, he is forced to trade him.
The only "mistake" Hendry now admits to is signing a guy who "didn't produce." Hendry's mistake was far, far worse than that. Signing a guy who sucks is a mistake that EVERY GM makes every year. Signing Milton Bradley to a multi-year, big money deal? That's a mistake that only ONE GM has ever made.
Getting hot under the collar.... I apologize....
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can understand where you are coming from, but in previous interviews Hendry has said "signing Bradley was a mistake, I take responsibility, blah blah blah" I'm still pretty sure Hendry now knows Bradley is a psycho and that it was a big mistake to sign him. Like I said before, I'm just not getting the same vibe from him that you are.
I just don't see that interview as him insisting the production was the reason and NOT Bradley's attitude. That's not what it was all about. I guess I take media interviews with a grain of salt. If Hendry gets up and says, "Bradley is a douchebag asshole who ruined our season, so I traded his black ass to Seattle" Then it causes another huge media frenzy. I know that's an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. Hendry tried to answer the questions as best as he could, as PC as he could. That's all I see.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82422:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:24 PM:name=Fella)-->QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 11 2010, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82406:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:10 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82405:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:07 PM:name=Fella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 11 2010, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know, I don't think it really matters what he said I guess. He said what he needed to say to clear the air and still tried to save face. I didn't really get the vibe that he was insisting he traded him *only* for lack of production. More that his lack of production is what caused the negativity. I know that's not what the exact quote says, but I don't think the way he said it was a big deal.
I have been hard on Hendry the last couple of years, and to be honest, I don't know how he still has a job after EVERY move he made last season imploded, but I respect the way he has handled Bradley. He admitted his mistake and tired to fix it as best as he could after the mistake was made.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But he DIDN'T admit his mistake, Fella. That's what really pisses me off. His mistake was signing a guy with OBVIOUS character problems, and then when those character problems were the REASON the guy didn't work out, he is forced to trade him.
The only "mistake" Hendry now admits to is signing a guy who "didn't produce." Hendry's mistake was far, far worse than that. Signing a guy who sucks is a mistake that EVERY GM makes every year. Signing Milton Bradley to a multi-year, big money deal? That's a mistake that only ONE GM has ever made.
Getting hot under the collar.... I apologize....
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can understand where you are coming from, but in previous interviews Hendry has said "signing Bradley was a mistake, I take responsibility, blah blah blah" I'm still pretty sure Hendry now knows Bradley is a psycho and that it was a big mistake to sign him. Like I said before, I'm just not getting the same vibe from him that you are.
I just don't see that interview as him insisting the production was the reason and NOT Bradley's attitude. That's not what it was all about. I guess I take media interviews with a grain of salt. If Hendry gets up and says, "Bradley is a douchebag asshole who ruined our season, so I traded his black ass to Seattle" Then it causes another huge media frenzy. I know that's an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. Hendry tried to answer the questions as best as he could, as PC as he could. That's all I see.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. But when he suspended Bradley, he surely had all the right words, no? Bradley insulted our fans, detrimental conduct, etc.
Why suddenly is that stuff off the table? It just strikes me as highly fishy.
Posts: 1,792
Threads: 49
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82423:date=Mar 11 2010, 07:26 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 07:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82422:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:24 PM:name=Fella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 11 2010, 08:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82406:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:10 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 06:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82405:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:07 PM:name=Fella)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Fella @ Mar 11 2010, 08:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't know, I don't think it really matters what he said I guess. He said what he needed to say to clear the air and still tried to save face. I didn't really get the vibe that he was insisting he traded him *only* for lack of production. More that his lack of production is what caused the negativity. I know that's not what the exact quote says, but I don't think the way he said it was a big deal.
I have been hard on Hendry the last couple of years, and to be honest, I don't know how he still has a job after EVERY move he made last season imploded, but I respect the way he has handled Bradley. He admitted his mistake and tired to fix it as best as he could after the mistake was made.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But he DIDN'T admit his mistake, Fella. That's what really pisses me off. His mistake was signing a guy with OBVIOUS character problems, and then when those character problems were the REASON the guy didn't work out, he is forced to trade him.
The only "mistake" Hendry now admits to is signing a guy who "didn't produce." Hendry's mistake was far, far worse than that. Signing a guy who sucks is a mistake that EVERY GM makes every year. Signing Milton Bradley to a multi-year, big money deal? That's a mistake that only ONE GM has ever made.
Getting hot under the collar.... I apologize....
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can understand where you are coming from, but in previous interviews Hendry has said "signing Bradley was a mistake, I take responsibility, blah blah blah" I'm still pretty sure Hendry now knows Bradley is a psycho and that it was a big mistake to sign him. Like I said before, I'm just not getting the same vibe from him that you are.
I just don't see that interview as him insisting the production was the reason and NOT Bradley's attitude. That's not what it was all about. I guess I take media interviews with a grain of salt. If Hendry gets up and says, "Bradley is a douchebag asshole who ruined our season, so I traded his black ass to Seattle" Then it causes another huge media frenzy. I know that's an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. Hendry tried to answer the questions as best as he could, as PC as he could. That's all I see.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough. But when he suspended Bradley, he surely had all the right words, no? Bradley insulted our fans, detrimental conduct, etc.
Why suddenly is that stuff off the table? It just strikes me as highly fishy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe he doesn't feel the need to rehash what we already know?
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=82415:date=Mar 11 2010, 08:18 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Mar 11 2010, 08:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=82412:date=Mar 11 2010, 06:17 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ Mar 11 2010, 06:17 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-->
If he had an .850 OPS, I think there's a much better chance he's still in a Cubs uniform, regardless of what he said about our fans and organization.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and if he had a 1.200 OPS he'd still be here, too. That's completely beside the point that if Hendry is saying the REASON Bradley WAS IN FACT traded was because his OPS ACTUALLY WAS .775, he's totally full of shit.
The reason Bradley was traded - this Bradley, the one that had a .775 OPS - was because he was an asshole. How can you disagree?
Bradley's OPS+ was 99. He was essentially average. Better performance could have changed things, sure. But the FACT is that he was dumped, and he was NOT dumped because he was an average hitter.
|
