Yes, the media undoubtedly will allow their personal feelings toward a player to color their coverage. But I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case with Milton Bradley. He is clearly a very difficult person to deal with which is why despite only playing 10 seasons, he is now on his 8th team and has been traded 5 times. Furthermore, two teams, including his most recent one, got so sick of him that they made it abundantly clear that he was not going to play for them despite still being under contract. The longest he has ever been with the same team was two and a half years with Cleveland, and by the end of that time they badly wanted him gone. It's seems very clear that he wears out his welcome very fast and therefor it is hard to imagine that the media has been on balance unfair to him.
Now, I don't think he is so bad that it is impossible for him to succeed with any team, and the M's just might make it work. But make no mistake, it will be a truly special situation, and if he does end up getting through these next two years without blowing up, it won't in any way prove that he had got a raw deal in the past. He is what he is, and the M's didn't trade for him because they thought his personality problems were overblown, but because they think they can finally create the right environment for him.
Cool Papa Bell begs to differ on our Milton Bradley sales pitch. As usual, he raises fair points...
.
=== CPB ===
Your reasoning seems to be that because sportswriters dislike Bedard due to their own childish petulance, the criticism of Bradley must be because of the writer's bias and prejudice. I don't see how that follows. The two players are completely different people, and the complaints from the media are similiarly different.
As you've pointed out, Bedard is a quiet warrior who maintains his composure no matter what calls he gets from the umpires. He hasn't gotten into confrontations with any umpires, fans or coaches and I haven't ever heard of him having a problem with any teammates. The writers' irritation with him doesn't stem from how he treats people in general, just them. Thus their grudge is entirely personal.
Bradley, on the other hand, is extremely explosive and one of the most volatile players in the sports history. He not only has gotten into physical altercations with numerous people not on his team, but he clearly isn't someone any organization wants in their clubhouse for very long seeing as how he has been kicked from one team to another, including twice being traded simply because his current org wanted nothing to do with him. In the quote you provide, that is what the sportswriter is saying. He is not arguing that Milton has a "weak mind", nor is he ticked that Bradley doesn't give good interviews. Rather the point is Bradley does not get along with other people well over any extended period of time. That seems entirely fair and accurate. Do you doubt that?
.
=== Dr D ===
I'm not claiming a syllogism here. (As a rule, CPB excepted, sabermetricians think too much in terms of Vulcan logic. The counterpoint above tactfully charges "invalid logic".)
I'm not writing a QED; I'm just baseball-chatting about a syndrome I've observed for 35 years. Where writers dislike/misunderstand a player, they'll assign other negative attributes wherever feasible.
This dates back to Ted Williams who couldn't get the Red Sox a pennant, to Wilt Chamberlain who didn't have what it took when the chips were down, etc.
..............
I agree that Bedard and Bradley are different animals. I agree that complaints about Bradley go to other areas, in addition to his "emotional instability." I agree that sick plate discipline doesn't prove that Bradley might not be a spoiled brat. Consider Barry Bonds.
...............
I understand the basic points that (1) you see Bradley to be an actual problem in the clubhouse and (2) that the writers, in this particular chat, didn't directly remark on Bradley's weakness of mind. Fair points.
But. In how many (other) articles have we read that Milton Bradley is emotionally unstable? The point is implicit in the roundtable when he is, once again, accused of being useless to the Rangers going forward.
In the big picture, writers try to chase Bradley out of town, using lots of reasons, such as (1) he's emotionally unstable, (2) the Ranger writer's assertion that Bradley would have wrecked the clubhouse, and (3) anything else that is at hand.
Why would Bradley have wrecked the clubhouse? Emotional instability. Weak-mindedness and immaturity.
Once you ask the players and managers, they're a lot more positive about Bradley's presence than the writers are, no?
................
Bedard and Bradley have it in common that the writers don't like them, so will write that they can't help the team, typically because of issues that go to each man's character.
It's possible that Bradley does wreck clubhouses and that he is emotionally unstable outside the batter's box. That specific case wouldn't speak to the broader syndrome, IMHO.
I've read an awful lot about Milton Bradley as a weak and childish man. I thought I'd point out just how strong-minded and adult he is, at least in one aspect of his life.
..................
Q: The point is Bradley does not get along with other people well over any extended period of time. That seems entirely fair and accurate. Do you doubt that?
A: Would cheerfully agree that this is open to question.
Two minor counterpoints: from what I understand, he left the Rangers because of money. And Jack Zduriencik seems less concerned about Bradley's inability to get along with people than we do. Zduriencik's endorsement matters.
But, yeah. Bradley has a long history of bad acting. It's possible that he's an incorrigible. It doesn't look that way to me, but respect the fact that it does look that way to you.
By June, we'll be able to form our own opinions, as was the case with Carl Everett.
Cheers,
Jeff
Comments
The Silva Context makes any Bradley downside moot. If he's a bust, you just release him as a sunk cost. Huge upside however as a MOTO hitter. Don't really care much what writers think about him. Even the local Bedard/media flap is pretty tame compared to other markets, so I don't expect much problem with MB.
is the situation in Chicago, no doubt. He *was* under contract, a big one, and he just wasn't coming back. And Lou Piniella is a star's manager.
Evidence against: Ron Washington and the Rangers wanting Bradley back, by several accounts and direct quotes, and the Rangers' beat writer stating that they didn't.
Evidence for your view: the number of teams he's not only left, but been kicked off of.
Evidence against: Zduriencik's decision. Z and Wak are very concerned about chemistry issues, and their judgment weighs heavily.
But yeah. Shortly we'll form our own opinions.
He's just issuing a "whoa hoh there Dr D" on my charge of media bias against Bradley. He doesn't see it, where I did (and do).
I don't see how that at this stage of his career there is any doubt about what kind of person he is. He's been on 7 different teams, and on only one did he live up to his abilities and not create a stir. He's run himself out of at least two cities and has had numerous huge blowups in public (and who knows how many in private) so it shouldn't be controversial to say that he is train wreck waiting to happen. Again, it is possible, if everything goes right, for him to stay on the rails but that doesn't mean he isn't a very unstable person. Jack Z's acquisition of Bradley is a testament to the faith he has in the clubhouse he has built, not an indictment of the coverage of Bradley. It's also quite likely to be a reflection of how desperate the team is for offense as well as how onerous the Silva contract was. It's not as if the lineup was deep and the M's signed him as a free agent. Once it became clear re-signing Branyan wasn't an option, Z was probably scrambling for a real hitter and being able to dump a bad contract in the process would have made anyone appealing.
What am I missing that would make me believe he isn't a stick of dynamite that could explode at any moment? Why should I believe that the image he has in baseball is the result of unfair reporting and not the result of his consistent, well documented actions (bumping umpires, throwing bottles at fans, being excommunicated from teams, etc.)? Does a single good season which is like a blip in his career balance out the rest of his track record of blowing up and alienating teammates and coaches?
Given the current situation, I think Bradley has a 70 or 80% chance of getting through 2010 without being a cancer, and there will be a 20 or 30% chance he'll be fine in 2011 if Griffey retires. That means there is a 50-50 chance that he won't be a distraction during the next two years. What I am saying is that if the coin lands 'heads' and he keeps his temper in check, it won't mean that he isn't any less volatile than he appeared to be before the team acquired him or that other teams should feel comfortable signing him. He would still be a huge risk for any other org and more likely to explode publicly than to be a good soldier.
As could Randy Johnson, Manny Ramirez, Albert Belle, Carl Everett, Pedro Martinez, Barry Bonds, Delmon Young, Kenny Rogers, Kevin Brown, Jose Guillen, and a lot of guys.
Milton Bradley is not in the least unusual for having been on a lot of teams, nor for being high-maintenance.
Nobody is saying that Bradley's public persona is an illusion. You and I are talking past each other.
................
What I'm questioning, is (1) whether Bradley is as unpopular with his teammates as writers claim he is, and (2) whether Bradley is therefore useless in a pennant race, as writers claim he is. The Rangers' writer said, "good thing he didn't come back to Texas. He'd have hurt the ballclub."
That is a huge stretch on the writer's part. And it's the same thing that people wrote about Bedard. Writers campaign against players they dislike, by arguing the players will hurt the ballclub. I don't care for that.
Tell ya what CPB. Google some quotes by Bradley's teammates and managers. Isolate to those and tell me what you find.
I might not disagree with that.
I think the odds are 3:1, 4:1, 5:1 on, that Bradley synch's well with the clubhouse in 2010. And he could easily OPS 900.
If that occurs, I'd say it's 3:2 or 2:1 on, that Bradley works well under Wok in 2011 as well. He's getting older and this is one of his last chances. Everett and Guillen played here without problems.
...........
So what's the big deal? He melts down, you powerflush him.
We are disagreeing on what type of person Bradley is. You think he is a typical high-maintenance athlete, I think he is an absolutely explosive person who is almost guraranteed to cause serious trouble anywhere he goes, including getting into physical altercations. I do not think he is like Pedro or Manny or most of the other guys you list. Those guy may be prickly, but they weren't consistently bumping umpires, attacking fans and getting run out of town. The only guys who might be in the same category of instability are Belle, Guillen and Everett (and Guillen got kicked off the Angels despite being one of their very best hitters).
If it's true that the Rangers genuinely wanted him back, then the sports writer's characterization of Bradley's stay there would be wrong. But he only played there a single year out of 10 seasons, and almost all his other experiences with ball clubs point to him being very flammable. Why does that one season with the Rangers exactly balance out all the other times he's erupted so that there is uncertainty about how hot-headed he is?
"Google some quotes by Bradley's teammates and managers."
Why? He got kicked off both the Indians and the Cubs. That speaks for itself. Obviously Eric Wedge and Lou Piniella thought he was a serious problem.
I like the move a lot because of the special set of circumstances that the M's find themselves in this offseason. However, I would not recommend most other teams committing to him for more than one year. Evidently, that is the consensus view because the best player the Cubs could get for him was Carlos Silva.