A Brief History Of Mariners With Clubhouse Concerns
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 18, 2009 3:06 PM PST
in Miscellaneous
160 comments
Ken Griffey Jr.: Remember the stories going around back before he was traded a decade ago? Junior, from the sounds of things, got to be a real pain. Then time passed, he aged by ten years, his career aged by fifty, and he became arguably one of the best clubhouse influences in the world.
Miguel Batista: Issues developed as a Mariner, and he never quite fit in, particularly with the 2009 team. Had no negative impact, at least off the field.
Carlos Silva: Issues developed shortly before becoming a Mariner and carried over into 2008. Appeared to have been a factor in the clubhouse mess that year, but he wasn't the biggest one, and once the team got a complete overhaul, it seemed like he didn't do anything but kiss people.
Ichiro: Ichiro kind of always did his own thing and never quite fit in from the beginning. Like everything else, his habits because a source of some resentment and frustration in 2008, but the team has been able to win with him, and 2009 saw him become a different person around his teammates through Griffey's influence.
Carl Everett: Brought in more for his fire than for his bat, Everett provided little fire, less bat, and was gone by July with nary a whimper.
Jose Guillen: Perhaps the most batshit player the Mariners have ever had, Guillen's influence on the 2007 clubhouse was considered by most parties involved to be nothing but positive, and he was very nearly brought back. Biggest controversy was his support of playing veterans over young guys down the stretch, but that was not a sentiment unique to Guillen.
-----
To be sure, the Mariners have never had a guy quite like Milton Bradley. His personality seems to be among the most volatile in the league. But what we've been able to observe in the past is that, sure enough, clubhouse issues tend to be at their most negative when you're losing and at their most positive when you're winning, and the 2010 Seattle Mariners are being built to win, and win a lot. That's what Bradley wants. He wants to play on a good team. One should note that he has been on playoff teams before, so it's not like his acquisition precludes success. He just needs to be watched, and we have the support system in place to take care of him. He says it's "surreal" that he gets to play with Junior. That can only work to our benefit.
Bradley is, of course, a constant risk to get ejected if something goes against him on the field. A Google search for '"Milton Bradley" ejected' turns up more than 10,000 results, and everyone remembers what happened to him in San Diego. But Ichiro got ejected too, and the occasional early exit from a game isn't that big of a deal. Being argumentative on the field isn't the same as being difficult off of it, and besides, given Wak's whole spiel about trying to go a whole year without getting a player or coach kicked out, that may be a thing of the past anyway. What really matters here is that, even with Bradley's history, there's no guarantee that his personality is going to be a problem in 2010. We don't have Lou Piniella and dumbass alcoholics in the bleachers. We have Don Wakamatsu and soccer moms. I mean it when I say that this is literally the best place for a player like Bradley to land, and that's why this makes me so excited.
0 recs |
160 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
We also don't have
a hyper-aggressive media corps that is waiting to pounce on every little out-of-whack nuance and magnify it into Clubhouse Cancerdom because they need to fill column inches.
Provided Baker knows what's good for him
>:(
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 18, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions
We do have Steve Kelley.
Somebody should pull MB aside and let him know that pretty much everybody in Seattle thinks he’s an ass and doesn’t listen to anything he says.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 18, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions
Jim Moore's sole reason for existing
is to keep Steve Kelley from being the biggest dolt in the Seattle-area sports media.
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 18, 2009 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
I refuse
to dignify his ridiculous self-applied handle with an acknowledgement.
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 18, 2009 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
I, on the other hand, choose to use it even when it is not appropriate.
Especially when it is not appropriate. Because by naming himself that, he is now the Go2Guy, even after that shit gets old.
He reminds me of a guy I used to work with in a call center who insisted on having his name people heard when they called in be “Desperado”. Actually, I think he took that off after around 3 calls, but he was “Desperado” to everybody for the entire time I was there. If I saw him on the street today I would still refer to him as “Desperado”, 12 years after the fact.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 18, 2009 6:59 PM PST up reply actions
He didn't name himself the Go2Guy
His editor at the Seattle PI did when the editor promoted him to a columnist. That kind of takes to wind out of all of your condescending sails.
Touchy
I wonder how you feel about Ryan Leaf?
Common misconception
Cougs hated him when he was there and still hate him now. He’s an asshole.
by Brian Floyd on Dec 18, 2009 11:37 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, I remember Leaf melting down in college a bit.
His NFL career basically ended, though, after he seemed to have lost some of the asshole edge that came with being considered not sucky by a lot of people. He had a really gross injury (IIRC he had a bone in his elbow that he had to push back into place every time he threw a pass) that he had to play through in Dallas because nobody was going to pay him to sit on an IR for the season.
The Seahawks I think took a look at him but by that point I think he just didn’t want to play with the pain anymore and retired.
For all his ‘tude, Leaf was really a guy who did not get all the chances I think that people thought he got. He was horrible in San Diego but the team around him was useless and should not have put a rookie QB into that kind of situation: horrible line, no receiving corps aside from a good tight end in Freddie Jones… Natrone Means was in there but the running game doesn’t set up the passing game nearly as much as people think it does.
Anyway, this is way off-topic I know but it does go back to an overall point I kind of want to make on this topic: problematic players are often not nearly as problematic as they seem when you take an in-depth look at their issues instead of respond to the first knee-jerk remark about them.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 9:29 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not sure Ryan Leaf is the example you want to use in order to prove what I think is a very valid point...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 19, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
He chose to keep the nickname when a sane man would say "no, that's a fucking stupid name and I will not use it."
Therefore it’s exactly the same.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
More than that, he embraced it
Whether it was his idea or not, in the public eye, he gave it to himself.
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 20, 2009 5:19 PM PST up reply actions
If the worst he does is get himself ejected a couple times, it's not a big deal
Also, you let Matthew have the top post for six minutes, that was magnanimous of you.
Not that big of a deal
Yeah, it’s important to remember that we’re talking about a generally likeable guy who has an on the field temper problem. I think there was one incident in Cleveland after he was traded to LA where he had a run in with the cops, but we’re not talking about Lawrence Phillips here.
"We don't have...dumbass alcoholics in the bleachers."
For a second I was worried, but then I remembered that a rarely sit in the bleachers.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
a rarely = I rarely
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
by appleshampoo on Dec 18, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
I get pretty trashed at baseball games
,but the only time I get out of hand is when there are Boston fans around. Also, my wife keeps me from doing anything too stupid.
Racer X. You have to love those amarillo hops.
p.s. fuck you angels
I think the point was that we're pretty smart
not that we’re sober.
I feel like they are gonna kick me out of Safeco
whenever I taunt a player even if he’s on the other team.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 19, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions
Bradley, on his admiration for Griffey:
“I made my first error as a Montreal Expo on a ball Griffey hit to me at Olympic Stadium back in the day. Him and Barry Larkin really razzed me about it the next day because it hit me in my back pocket. So, Barry Larkin was walking around with a glove sticking out of his back pocket. They were making fun of me. I remember all that stuff as a rookie. I’ve never been so glad to be made fun of.’’
You said: " We don't have Lou Piniella and dumbass alcoholics in the bleachers."
OK, I get the alcoholics in the bleachers part. But for the most part, Lou Piniella defended Bradley and put him in the lineup every day. I just don’t get why Lou Piniella isn’t good to Bradley. He got tired of his act late in the season and called Bradley a piece of shit. But for the most part, he turned his eyes away and left Bradley alone. The problems Bradley had in Chicago is 100% Milton Bradley’s fault, not anyone else’s fault.
What do you think explains Bradley's largely calm stint in Texas? Or Oakland?
What caused him to flip out in Chicago, in your mind?
Haven't his biggest issues come in big cities like Chicago and LA?
I really think he’s gonna be okay here given the nature of the fans that fill the stadium, the small media corp, and group of guys we have assembled.
I don’t care if he gets tossed a couple times for arguing with the umps, or charging the mound. I actually like guys like that. As long as he doesn’t attack fans or fight with teammates then he’ll be fine.
Not sure about that
He also had major issues in Cleveland. Granted, that was before anyone realized how difficult he can be.
I do agree tho that Seattle is about as good a fit as he’s likely to see.
No, it wasn't
They knew how difficult he could be back in his minor-league days in the Expos system; it was commented on more than once.
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 19, 2009 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
As long as we're psychoanalyzing Milton Bradley,
I’d also like to point out that the expectations of him should be a lot lower here. In Chicago he was a big free-agent signing on an overexposed club. Here he’s they guy we traded Silva for.
by FlaskInSafeco on Dec 18, 2009 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
Plus Cubs fans are like
the smallest kid in an abusive family. They’ve been getting beaten for so long they’ve forgotten how to act like normal human beings. The Century of Failure has created its own momentum of shit flowing downhill.
Among Oakland fans, it is widely believed
that Frank Thomas was a calming influence on Milton Bradley during his stint with the A’s. Ron Washington was also frequently cited. Both were gone in 2007, hence Bradley’s self-destruct that year.
The idea seems to be that Bradley responds well to tough love from a guy whom he respects who is tough enough to kick his ass when needed. Not sure if it’s a necessary requirement that that guy be black, but probably. Whether this is actually true, I don’t know, but that was a common belief during his tenure with Oakland.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
by iglew on Dec 18, 2009 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
While in Texas
Bradlley seemed pretty tight with Ron Washington, and had a pretty good time with Ian Kinsler, Mike Young, and Josh Hamilton (the tarp slides at Shea, and the 08 AllStar HR Derby). I think he wants to be liked and trusted – Wash seemed to do that.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Dec 19, 2009 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, no offense, but at that point,
if my manager called me a piece of shit, I’d probably lose it, deck the guy, and retire until I’m released or my contract runs out.
Bradley's response to Piniella calling him a piece of shit was apparently: "I have too much respect for you to respond to that"
Which seems rather well-adjusted, actually.
He's full of smart responses
Does he regret signing with the Cubs?
"I don’t regret anything," he replied. "I regret there are idiots in the world. That’s what I regret."
This is going to make our team more awesome
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 19, 2009 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
I hope him and Ichiro become friends.
2009 Safeco Field Record: 6-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 10-4
How could you tell?
“This is Lou Pinalla I put Fasaro in the lineup that Milton Broadley is a piece of shit.”
by Johnny Slick on Dec 18, 2009 5:48 PM PST up reply actions
Being depressed doesn't seem contagious
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 18, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
Actually it might be.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=4539059&page=1
angels fan in seattle
by Eyebrows on Dec 18, 2009 3:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I bet Milton Bradley's father could beat the holy crap out of Ian Snell's father.
What're ya gonna do with those pies, boys?
Hopefully sucking isn't
Sometimes it seems like it is.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 19, 2009 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
So is this one of those few trades that the degree of awesomeness can changed based on results?
It seems like with someone like clubhouse chemistry, we can’t evaluate it, so results are the only way to tell how awesome this trade ends up being.
I mean, it’s awesome, but the degree of awesomenss depends on how his attitude translates as a Mariner, or how that affects his play and the play of others, and there really isn’t a way to know until it happens.
...and now I'm here
But even here...
…I think the M’s hedged their bets. They have a manager who can likely handle this kind of thing. And they have a player in Jr. that has the best probability of keeping him in line.
With that sort of hedging, I think a team should gamble.
No, I guarantee we won this deal, because we got a skilled player for a sunk cost.
What I’m saying more is that normally we evaluate trades at the time using projections, expected contributions, etc. But with Milton Bradley, his biggest weakness – clubhouse rapport – is one that cannot be quantified, yet probably has some sort of absolute value. Since it can’t be quantified, we don’t know what it will do when he gets here, so all we have to go on are the results.
We won this trade, hands down. But whether this was one of the greatest trades ever or just a great trade seems like it has a lot to do with the value we can’t quantify.
...and now I'm here
Doesn't really matter that we can't quantify them
Z made this deal based on an assortment of information that, in part, allowed him to assess some probability that Bradley would fit in. If he’s an awful fit, then that means Z used bad information.
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 19, 2009 2:45 PM PST up reply actions
But wouldn't that mean that "how good the trade was at the time" would change?
That’s basically what I’m asking here. This type of trade, where the risk is an unknown, seems like one of the few trades where you might need to judge its level of success retroactively.
I mean this more of a discussion topic, of course. The “levels” being “best trade ever” to “Hey, this was a pretty awesome trade.” But I still think it’s interesting.
...and now I'm here
Just so I’m clear, the unknown you’re talking about are that:
1. Do bad attitudes have a substantial effect on a team’s total performance?
2. Is MB actually as bad as the media have presented him as?
3. If MB is actually that bad, can Seattle (lax media, Griffey, Wak, Safeco instead of Wrigley fans) temper him?
All three of those unknowns would have to go against the Mariners for the team to hit the "clubhouse cancer" downside of the trade. I assume Z thought the risk of all that happening to be low enough for the acquisition to be worth it and grabbed Bradley while he could. There’s no metrics that can measure the risk of a "clubhouse cancer," so it’s all up to personal opinion. How good of a deal you think this is probably depends on how high you think that risk is. The results of the Milton Bradley/Mariners experiment won’t tell us the actual amount of risk involved, just what actually happened in this one situation. If you think the risk is worth it now, then one incident probably shouldn’t sway you much, because we shouldn’t be drawing conclusions about a ‘clubhouse cancer’ effect from just the results of the Bradley/Mariners relationship.
by ChristopherA on Dec 20, 2009 12:55 AM PST up reply actions
That is not the question, as I have already repeated multiple times
The question is whether the results of said temper/personality/effect on the clubhouse can allow us to judge how good a trade was retroactively. When judging trades, we are supposed to take what we know and apply it to the success of the trade, and then anything that happens happens. If Milton Bradley badly hurts himself tomorrow, and Carlos Silva learns to control an incredible knuckleball and becomes an ace, it doesn’t matter, because the moment the trade went down, from the metrics we knew at the time, we won the trade, and everything else that happens is merely chance.
But in this case, there is something we know – namely, that he has a history of a massive temper that effects his value to other teams. We know that. What we don’t know is what that value is, because there is currently no way to measure it. It could exist, it could not exist. It could be high, it could be low. Unlike with something like injury risk, which we can quantify by simply projecting a number of plate appearances for the player based on previous year to year performance, this is a risk that we have absolutely no way of knowing. So when we evaluate this trade based on what we can, we can easily say that we won this deal, but because we have no idea how to calculate what its effect is – or even if there is one at all – then we have no way of putting this information into the value of the trade.
Let me put it another way – an extreme way that I don’t believe, so don’t try to go all crazy on this example. If someday we could calculate clubhouse chemistry, and we found that Milton Bradley’s presence caused the entire team to lose somewhere between 5 to 7 wins, then this was no longer a good trade. In fact, we would have had more value keeping Silva on the team.
The problem is that we can’t quantify it – we don’t even know if there is anything to quantify, but we know that there is something there – a giant statistical hole that we can’t fill. All we can do is wait and see how it plays out, and then try to see what happens. It’s a bad way to analyze, but there are no other options.
And though I feel like I shouldn’t need to repeat this again, I will. We won this deal, because there is no way that anyone is ever going to be -5 WAR in clubhouse chemistry. If it exists, which is questionable in itself, it would probably be extremely minute, and the risk is easily worth the reward. But in a general sense, this is a trade that I feel we can’t ultimately judge until we know how that aspect plays out. It’ll either be an “Awesome Trade” or a “HOLY SHIT THAT WAS AWESOME” trade, but we can’t really know until that giant statistical hole is filled, and we won’t know how to fill it until it’s played out.
...and now I'm here
I like this example I already wrote more.
So here.
...and now I'm here
"..his biggest weakness"
How about not hitting? He was hitting some woeful average with the Cubs, struck out in a crucial situation to end a game, got razzed by fans. That’s when the “blow ups” began. If he gets off to a slow start, he may “lose his cool” as happened with the Cubs and Pinella. The guy is hard on himself, and can self-destruct when he is not doing well.
He is injury prone…another weakness. Always pulling muscles.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Dec 19, 2009 6:21 PM PST up reply actions
Okay...
I’m going to respond to your post in a condescending numbered list.
1) Really? You’re making a point about what his batting average was on Lookout Landing? Do you know nothing about this site?
2) You are an A’s fan that voted that your least favorite Mariner is Matt Tuiasosopo. I’m skeptical you have even heard of him until today, much less dislike him, and why you’d vote for him on a Mariner blog is … well… I don’t even know.
3) Do you really think I don’t know that he’s injury prone? I mean, did you think this would somehow come as a shock?
4) At what point did you think pulling out a random sentence and making a weird, baseless analysis out of it would make your comment either warranted or appreciated. I can do that too, ready?
“…can self-destruct.”
REALLY? You think he’s an actual bomb? You think he can just explode at any moment killing thousands like a terrorist? What are you talking about? If anything, his outbursts are purely emotional, and he’s certainly not going to explode randomly, possibly murdering innocent people in his wake. Besides, if he did self destruct, we probably wouldn’t have to cover the remainder of his contract.
5) No shit.
6) See 5.
7) So you’re argument against his aggressive personality is that he’s only aggressive when someone does something to upset him. Brilliant.
8) I still don’t understand your argument. You’re saying his emotion is NOT his biggest weakness, because after only a little bit of struggling with batting average (of all things) fans started razzing him and he got upset, which caused huge problems. So… you’re saying his emotion is not his biggest weakness, because his biggest weakness is his emotional response to problems with his poor performance.
9) What?
10) In a thread that has many comments about how you should not try to present an argument that sounds snotty for no apparent reason, I can’t see how you thought it would be a good idea to put a random thing in quotations and then make a snotty comment.
I don’t mind people from other teams commenting on Lookout Landing, but try to first phrase your argument in a way that doesn’t sound dickish, and make sure your argument is something that is not widely known by everyone in here.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 19, 2009 6:37 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
If he's from Oakland, he knows the Tuiasosopos all too well.
Just sayin’.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 6:43 PM PST up reply actions
I'm getting tired of people from other teams coming onto this website trying to explain things to me I already know
and doing so in a manner that is both pointless and not conducive to good conversation. We get it, you don’t like Bradley. If you spent 5 minutes on this site you’d see that everything you’ve already said has been discussed in great detail. Leave us alone unless you are either going to contribute something new or provide your opinion in a constructive way.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 19, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm from another team now?
I may be new but I have been a Mariners fan since I was old enough to accept losing, which is my entire life. Well, not the whole thing literally because I was 3 when they were formed and don’t really remember them so well until around 1982 or so but even so. I don’t know where you’re getting other-teamness here.
I’m sorry that you don’t like my posts because to be honest, I liked the last one that you put up. I imagine I’ll get better. Perhaps in the meantime you ought not to dwell on the stupid things that I say.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 6:59 PM PST up reply actions
I was not talking about you.
...and now I'm here
Okay, never mind then.
I am sensitive like Milton Bradley.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 7:35 PM PST up reply actions
I caught that too, lol...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 19, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions
Please refrain from chatspeak on Lookout Landing.
Thanks!
...and now I'm here
My bad.
Is “heh heh” allowed?
That’s actually closer to the reaction I had.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 19, 2009 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
At least we're getting some kind of result for this trade.
We either get a solid hitter who’s happy with the situation or a poor hitter who’s malcontent (and varying degrees of somewhere in between) for an extra $3 million a year.
What do we get with Carlos Silva? He sucked when he was angry and he sucked when he was happy. Even with Bradley’s downside I don’t think he can drag down the entire clubhouse. At worst he’s a disruption that will stick out like a sore thumb. In other words, basically an angry Yuni. As we’ve seen in 2008, creating bad chemistry is a team effort.
Not entirely my point, but yes.
One can imagine, though, that (assumign clubhouse chemistry has an effect in this case) that it can be quantified, but we don’t know how yet, and we may never know. Here’s a better example:
Say you’re trading for a player, and you have access to their AVG and OBP, but stats for slugging, home runs, triples and doubles don’t exist. Say his average is .375 and OBP is .475. You can look at that and know you’re getting a really good player, because at minimum the guy has an .850 OPS – AT MINIMUM . But because you can’t calculate slugging, you will have no idea if you just got Barry Bonds 2.0, or simply the greatest singles hitter in the history of baseball. It’s still a great acquisition regardless, but how great it is is still unclear. However, when they play in 2010, you’ll see how many doubles, triples and home runs they get, and you’ll know how good a hitter he really was, and then you’ll also be able to say with confidence how great a trade it was. If he slugs .700, it was the greatest trade of all time. If he slugs .375, it was a really good trade, but certainly not the greatest.
It’s essentially the same thing in this case. Under the assumption that there is a “clubhouse chemistry” factor, (which we can’t necessarily make but whatever), we have absolutely no way of quantifying it. So all we can do is sit and wait to see what ends up happening and kind of backtrack whether or not this was a really really good trade or a great trade. Overall the differences may not be that huge, but in general we try to analyze a trade only with what we know when it happens, and unfortunately in this case there is some type of gaping hole in information that we can’t quantify. So all we can really do is see what happens and then give greater weight to the trade retroactively, yeah?
...and now I'm here
Carl Everett does not believe dinosaurs exist.
Milton Bradley at least has not publicly declared that they don’t. I think that is one big difference. I think Carl Everett might have been the inspiration for Tracy Morgan’s character on 30 Rock.
Milton Bradley is just a piece of Jack Z's motherfucking boat!
by Wilder. on Dec 18, 2009 6:43 PM PST reply actions 28 recs
I was going to post...
but now it’s pointless because no one will read it.
We traded away the dolphin to Detroit last year for Luke French and Mauricio Robles
He’d tried to make a return to Seattle but was then utterly crushed by Kenji Johjima
This is almost as awesome as the Strasburg .gif
rec this, people
by seattlebruin on Dec 21, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
*the "this is what I believe" .gif
you know what I meant
by seattlebruin on Dec 21, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
I think what they're going for
is the Rasheed Wallace-to-Detroit effect.
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 18, 2009 6:51 PM PST reply actions
No offense, Jeff, but you’re just in denial here. Bradley has had chance after chance after chance, and he always finds a way to cause a problem and cast himself as the victim. Those other guys you mentioned don’t even belong in the same conversation with him. We are talking about a guy who, while he may be a great guy “at heart” — whatever the hell that means — has anger management problems to the extent that he’s been charged with at least one felony. That has absolutely nothing to do with Lou Piniella, Chicago drunks, or the fact that Griffey used to be a little moody now and then.
He can be a hell of a player when healthy, and yes, there is some chance he can have a productive season without injury or incident. Some chance, but certainly not a good chance. Realistically, the M’s have traded one liability for another, but this is still a good trade, because at least you go the liability with the most upside.
by Jay on Dec 18, 2009 10:19 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
It's almost as though all of this was addressed just 3 or 4 posts ago.
...and now I'm here
From like... 8 inches below this post on the front page:
Most important thing about this whole deal: the M’s are trading a guy who’s expensive and worthless and getting a guy who’s expensive and talented. Milton Bradley may not work out here, but Carlos Silva was guaranteed to provide nothing for the next two years. Bradley has upside. A lot of it. Jack has found a way to turn Silva’s albatross of a contract into something that could help the team considerably. That’s amazing. That’s amazing! By spending ~nothing, we’ve just improved by anywhere from zero to like three or four wins.
It’s important, again, to emphasize Bradley’s downside. He’s injury-prone. He’s coming off a down year. And, most notably, he’s known to be a bit of a malcontent. There is no guarantee that this works out well, and if Bradley blows up, it could very well damage the team. But as for talent, he’s a good find, and as for personality, there’s no more supportive atmosphere than the one the Mariners seem to have built for themselves. If Bradley goes sour, that’s a real problem. But if the M’s and Wakamatsu handle this well, then there’s no telling how much Bradley could produce. Bradley’s range of possible outcomes is much broader than Silva’s, and dips into the red, but because of all the potential good (and because we could just, y’know, cut him if he sucks), this is nothing short of a remarkable deal.
Please also use a subject line.
...and now I'm here
as for the "substance" of your comment
Regardless of any other posts, this one specifically is attempting to minimize or wish away the chance that Bradley will be a problem. It is a fantasy to think that the Seattle Mariners organization will be so dramatically different of an environment from his other teams that it substantially impacts the chance he’ll continue to have problems. Impacts, yes. Substantially, no. Guess what, it’s still a major league ballclub, and Seattle may not be Boston, but it’s not Peoria, either.
There’s no point trying to figure out if ejections always signify deeper problems. In Bradley’s case, we know that they do. But hey, it’s not like you’re the first fanbase to have this fantasy — you’re the seventh. And you’ll be posting on the eighth one’s blog someday, probably prior to 2012.
And you're minimizing
the previous post acknowledging the the potential problems. Again, the key point is that there’s no downside here. If he ends up being a disaster, the team will simply cut him and they’ll be no worse off than they were before.
He wasn't fine in Oakland.
Can’t speak about Texas. But the assertion that he was “fine” in Oakland is just blatantly false. “Fine” relationships do not have chair-throwing incidents.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Sure they do
They just end up on Jerry Springer.
Anyway, Oakland is noted for its chair-throwing injuries.
Milton was just trying to fit in.
by wandergeist on Dec 20, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not saying it's the fault of any one person or another
Just that the relationship was not fine. It takes two to tango.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
He was fine in 2006. Not fine in 2007.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
So he was fine when you were good and not when you were bad
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 21, 2009 9:10 AM PST up reply actions
Yes, exactly. And also
when Frank Thomas and Ron Washington were around but not when they weren’t. Even when he did leave Oakland it was a minor spat and not a gigantic bomb like in Chicago. He became disgruntled and started complaining about things, and thus was promptly let go. Bradley said bad things about Beane, but I can’t recall Beane or anyone else among the A’s saying bad things about Bradley.
My guess is he’ll be good for you for as long as you’re winning and there are plenty of black people around, which means at least a year.
"Starbucks doesn’t change its logo just because it no longer serves naked mermaids in Fremont." —Librocrat
"this (post) specifically is attempting to minimize or wish away the chance that Bradley will be a problem"
Actually, no. This post specifically goes over previous players with clubhouse concerns and doesn’t attempt to minimize anything. Everybody knows that Milton Bradley comes with a truckload of luggage, but to a lesser extent so did some of the other players listed. That’s the point. No one is pretending that there’s no chance that Bradley won’t be a problem.
As for the "substance" of your comment.
Your “point” is that you “think” there is little chance of him succeeding here. But even if he doesn’t do anything, we win, and as for your "belief’ that Jeff is in denial, had you looked just a few posts lower you will have seen plenty of warning about how Milton Bradley may do all of nothing for this team do to his behavioral problems. This post is a completely separate illustration. Usually it’s a good idea to avoid using condescending quotation marks or refer to someone as being "in denial’ unless you are positive your opinion is two of warranted, valued and/or accurate. Your thoughts on this are fine, but your presentation of your points and the accuracy of your belief (that anyone here thinks he’s about to skip on over all happy and giddy like a little school girl) can be proven inaccurate simply by looking at the other posts on this page, or the comments therein. Please try to present your comments without personal insults or quotation marks that imply you somehow know more than others. Thanks, and <3.
...and now I'm here
by CapSea on Dec 19, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
In fairness, reading is difficult
and the post is several paragraphs long. Really, anything after paragraph 3 may as well be a recipe for fondue for all the good it’s going to do to have it up there. Why do you think so many sportswriters write in one-sentence paragraphs? It’s not because they are autistic. Not only.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 6:20 PM PST up reply actions
I actually kinda like a guy who has the balls to walk around a club with a "Fuck Eric Wedge" shirt.
All Hail Zduriencik!
I agree
At least it will be interesting. I think we were all a little bored after a guy like Jose Guillen left.
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 19, 2009 1:05 AM PST up reply actions
incidentally
Lost in all of this, I think this was a very good trade. There is a small chance that Bradley will be relatively healthy, won’t get arrested, and won’t get into too many fights with fans and teammates. His upside is significantly higher than Silva’s, and when healthy, he’s going to be a well above average defender to plug into LF, which the Mariners have the luxury of doing.
I just don’t think it’s a good idea or necessary to indulge in fantasies that minimize his behavioral issues. They are very real, and they are probably going to be a problem this season. He and his contract are, like Silva’s, a net liability, not a net asset. What that means, however, is that Jack Z paid less than nothing to acquire this player, and considering the price, it’s a damned good pickup.
There is NO DOWNSIDE to this
who cares if Bradley is terrible? The only way this doesn’t work is if he actively injures one of our good players before being cut
by seattlebruin on Dec 19, 2009 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
I'd love to see Bradley go after someone only to have Ichiro appear out of nowhere and stab him through the throat.
This deal would be completely worth seeing that happen.
Say it with me: Washington Capitals. Capitals.
Preserved In All His Greatness - R.I.P. The Reignman 1989 to 1997
Denial?
My point all along is that, if Bradley has to end up anywhere, Seattle’s the best place. He’s a risk and I have acknowledged as much several times, but it’s important to understand that Seattle is a very different place from, say, Chicago or LA, and given that he wasn’t an issue in Texas or Oakland, there’s plenty reason to be optimistic.
Bradley blowing up is not an inevitability, and I think those familiar with the Mariners understand that we have the support system in place to reduce the impact of any negative event. Bradley’s here. If he stays happy, great. If he gets mad, then Wak and Griffey and everyone will work on it. If he gets back to happy, great. If he stays mad, then we evaluate the consequences. If they’re irrelevant, fine. If they’re bad, he gets cut.
by Jeff Sullivan on Dec 19, 2009 3:01 PM PST up reply actions
Apparently you're in denial
If you don’t claim this is a terrible deal from top to bottom and there’s zero, ZERO, chance Bradley will contribute anything at all to the team. In fact, you have to swear that Bradley will single-handedly ensure that not only are the M’s worse in 2010 than they were in 2009, but will leave such a psychic wound that the team will be mired in Bavasiesque futility for years to come. If you don’t, you’re in denial.
At least, that seems to be the threshold applied by these folks.
by wandergeist on Dec 20, 2009 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
Apparently I'm not the only one who can't read
It’s funny that half of the responses I’ve gotten here accuse me of not being able to read, and the other half claim that I said this was a bad deal.
I have said more than once that this was a good deal.
Because Bradley has tremendous upside as a player.
Because they paid less than nothing to get him.
Because it’s hard to imagine how the deck could be more stacked in favor of his succeeding than it is in Seattle, with this specific Mariners roster.
It’s a good deal, in spite of the fact that Bradley probably (not definitely) will not produce much, and probably (not definitely) will have some kind of behavioral incident and very possibly more than one, over the next two seasons.
It’s a good deal.
for whatever it's worth
I’ve had this same discussion on LGT. Indians fans tend to lump in guys like Brandon Phillips with Bradley. Phillips was vain and unresponsive to coaching, and he didn’t get along with Eric Wedge. This is not even remotely in the same league with Bradley. It is an insult to Phillips — not that I even care about Phillips — and everyone you listed in this article to even act like they belong in the same subject with Bradley.
Bradley has severe emotional problems and is lucky not to be in prison, based on his history of assaults and attempted assaults.
Think about the people you know. One guy might have kind of a lousy attitude, maybe you’re not eager to work with him, room with him, be in a band with him, whatever.
Then there’s this other guy, who is violent. He gets into fights, often in your proximity, risking injury to you and everyone else around. When you go out without him, there’s a zero percent chance someone is getting arrested. When you go out with him, it’s more like 15%.
In real life, you would never confuse those two guys as being similar. They are not remotely similar. Bradley is not some guy you know who’s kind of lame. He’s Begbie in Trainspotting. As fans, we tend to blur personality issues together. In this case, that becomes a total misconception of who the person is and what it means for your team.
Honestly, I’m not here to shit in your ice cream. As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s a good deal for Seattle. Just keep in mind, whatever Jack Z or anyone else is saying publicly, among club officials, trust me, they are thinking only one thing: “This is probably not going to end well.”
I think you are misunderstanding the hostility.
The reason that your statements and the statements of other SBN site members have been piled on is because everyone here has already considered this over and over again. Fans of other teams keep coming over here and explaining things as though they are an expert and we are the unknowing masses, but the truth is that this is an extremely intelligent community, and as an intelligent community, we often don’t take well to people trying to explain things to us as though they have some authority when the thoughts they are explaining are things we already considered. Unlike most SBN blogs (not speaking to yours or any one in particular, because I have not checked it out), we weed out the non-analytical, unscientific, arguably unintelligent (arguably, of course – at least lacking in baseball intelligence) members fairly quickly, and when someone from another site comes to this one and tells us what we should know, it’s like someone going to your site and explaining that no matter what you may think, 2 + 2 equals 4. It’s like a community college psychology professor giving a forced Psych 101 lecture to University level researchers.
Your opinion isn’t irrelevant, and most of us have no problem with you relaying your thoughts, but you should do so in a manner that doesn’t assume we haven’t already considered it, since we have – all of us have. And the very few times that we don’t, the writers of this site almost always have a post in a matter of a couple of hours that set us straight. This is a highly intelligent community, and chances are we have considered these things already. We don’t want to turn anyone’s thoughts away, but they should be shared in a manner that recognizes this site’s intelligence and the likelihood that what’s being said isn’t new.
...and now I'm here
Well actually I think the reason for the hostility was the opening line
No offense, Jeff, but you’re just in denial here.
No offence, Jay, but that made you come across as massively douchetacular.
My explanation was longer.
...and now I'm here
funny thing is
LL culture is very similar to LGT, although the specific memes, rules, etc. are a little different, the overall culture is very similar.
I don’t think I ever challenged anyone’s intellect. I think I was questioning how well the various factors were being considered. Obviously everyone here knows that Bradley has had behavioral problems, but of course there is a tendency to downplay stuff like that. Not to put these guys all in the same bucket, but the Indians acquired Jason Michaels after he punched a cop, drafted Lonnie Chisenhall after he was caught stealing computers from a lab, and signed Carl Pavano after he was Carl Pavano for four years in New York.
In each case, the tendency for hometown fans is to look for ways to minimize or rationalize the bad parts of what has gone before. You can beat your chests about your intellect all you want, but for all the focus on intelligence, I can’t see that the LL community has fallen prey to these particular tendencies even one iota less than the typical, dumbass sports community would. Smart people are fans, too, and we all want to see and hope for the best in our players.
Right, but there is still an issue of presentation.
It’s not uncommon (in fact, more common) for people to come here from other SBN blogs and post that our opinions are wrong and that they have some special insight that we have not considered. As such, when anyone comes here and starts anything off with “you’re in denial” or “you guys don’t know what you’re getting” it automatically becomes an unwelcome comment. We do know what we’re getting. We always know what we’re getting. We pretty much consider everything, always.
Commenting is welcome, but commenting should be limited to something productive that doesn’t assume we don’t know something, such as:
“It’ll be interesting to see what happens. I’m convinced that he had a negative impact when he was in Cleveland, and it’s hard for me to believe that the environment in Seattle is any different, but perhaps the change in environment will finally do him good. History suggests that’s unlikely, but clubhouse chemistry is something so volatile, it’s hard to know what the difference will be. Still, there is no doubt that in Cleveland he was a tremendous pain in the ass.”
In that manner, it wouldn’t be simply jumping in on a blog, suggesting we don’t know what we’re talking/thinking about. It is a productive, easy way to say the same thing that recognizes that we have probably thought of it already, while still providing your opinion on the subject. Telling us something we’ve considered in a manner that suggests we haven’t considered it is absolutely challenging our intellect.
...and now I'm here
Nothing to do with Chicago drunks?
Ben Schwartz doesn’t think so:
However, for the Bradley mess, I blame Jim Hendry. The day he signed MB, Chicago sports hacks and beat reporters attacked Bradley personally as, among other things, a "nutbag." Most disturbing to me was the argument that given Wrigley’s history of racist fans taunting their own players, Bradley would not hold up under the pressure. The total acceptance of racism as an unquestioned Given at Wrigley, and that it was only Bradley’s problem to deal with, is sick. You’d think Jim Hendry woulda fired back – defend his $30 million deal, denounce racist fans, or deny and defend the Cub fan base (well, if he seriously could do the last, which he can’t). Hendry did none of it. It set the tone for the season, of hanging the combative Mr. Bradley out to dry. Injuries, the 2-game suspension (which MLB reduced), and other gaffes and errors were left to a hateful press corps and disgruntled fans. I covered the Chi media racism angle here, here, and here. Sports on My Mind’s MODI summed much of it up here, and added some points of his own worth reading.
For Milton Bradley, 2009 was a relatively calm year: did he charge fans, announcers, or call a Cub player racist as he did the Dodgers’ Jeff Kent? Instead, Hendry stood by as Cub fans got labeled racists by the press and other ballplayers (one of whom, OF Mike Cameron, he hoped to sign in as Bradley’s replacement this winter). But Bradley finally went Too Far for Hendry by snapping back at fans who grew to hate him, saying, "And you understand why they haven’t won in 100 years here, because it’s negative." That comment and pulling himself from the line-up in the Cubs’ (by then) futile division bid brought about a temper tantrum from Hendry in the form of a 15-game suspension. The resulting message to MLB: Bradley is impossible. It damaged him as a trade option so much that Hendry sucked up the Silva deal yesterday. Nicely handled, Mr. H, it only cost the Cubs $12 mil to shut Milton Bradley up nd scapegoat for a mediocre season all-around. The press greeted Bradley’s signing by saying Wrigley fans were trash and Bradley got a 15-game suspension for finally coming to agree with them.
Hendry was named cubs GM in 2002. There’s always been drama on his watch. This is the same Hendry era that treated Sammy Sosa like a dog on his way out, no matter how much he did to turn the Cubs around in the public’s mind as a team that could win. Spin it this way – he treated Sammy like a dog no matter how much f’n money Sosa minted for the Cubs. Yeah Sosa was a pill toward the end, but he was LEAVING. Hendry’s tenure in the front office is one long class-free high-maintenance soap opera after the next: Sosa, Baker, Jones, Pierre, and Hawkins all left the Friendly Confines on bad terms (ok, Hawkins was awful). Even Greg Maddux left on bad terms on his second run with the Cubs. Of course Milton Bradley didn’t work out with Hendry. Who does?
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 19, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I have a feeling these will not get a response
because apparently there was a much longer thread ~noon where many harsh words were thrown, and that subthread has since been hidden. Oh well.
...and now I'm here
Bradley is looking more and more like a guy who will be healed by Griffey love.
Or, more seriously, the enjoyment of a town that doesn’t fucking suck. The only places I can think of that would be comparably bad for Bradley are Philadelphia and New York itself. I’m not saying Bradley will behave completely differently than he did elsewhere, but he wouldn’t be the first person to settle down in Seattle. Danny Fortson comes to mind (of course, that also brings the Sonics to mind, and that in turn brings to mind me crying).
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
This is a magnificent piece.
Thanks for posting this tidbit. It’s very eye-opening, and gives me hope that Seattle’s radically different environment will help Bradley.
Great find. Thanks. I ended up reading about 10 different pages from the link...
and I honestly hadn’t heard about ANY of the racism issues going in, so it truly was fascinating and troubling…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Dec 19, 2009 11:24 PM PST up reply actions
It's not just Griffey
By my count, the M’s now have Griffey, Hall, and Figgins plus Snell as non-hispanic African American players. That’s not a lot, but regrettably there aren’t that many in baseball anymore, and who did the Cubs have beyond Derrek Lee? It might be enough to take away a little of the “me against the world” mindset for Bradley, particularly with Griffey as the most respected guy by everybody in the clubhouse.
Moreover, while Wakamatsu might not be black like Ron Washington was, his heritage is at least a little analogous (his grandparents were thrown in a concentration camp “interred” because of their race, and while that hardly measures up to slavery in brutality it’s a lot more recent). And he’s a lot less of a hot head than Lou.
Plus we have one other secret wild card: Shannon Drayer. I’m not kidding. She seems to find the hidden humanity in even the worst-reputed players, and that can affect how the rest of the media, and by extension the fanbase, views them. Maybe it’s just because she’s tiny and a girl — though I’d rather believe it’s her obvious but rare talent for empathy and consonance that the best journalists have for their subjects — but the players seem to open up to her in ways they don’t to most other media people. And one antidote to hostility is understanding and respect.
Of course this can all sound a bit like the next girl in line to date a known domestic abuser — “This time is different; he won’t be like that with me; I can change him.” At best you go in with your eyes open and be ready to cut ties as soon as things seem to be going irretrievably south. So what it comes down to is that Bradley is still a huge risk (though with limited downside)… but hopefully he realizes the risk is probably even greater for him: if he can’t find a home in Seattle he really has no future in baseball. The Mariners are his last best chance.
by wandergeist on Dec 20, 2009 12:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
That is a fantastic article.
I don’t think Shannon Drayer is necessarily a big reason why MB might not implode in Seattle, but she’s definitely the anti-Kelley/Moore. My big pet peeve about sportswriters in general is that too often they make very complicated issues simple because a. they aren’t bright enough to grok the complicated aspects, or b. they think their readership won’t be smart enough to do so. Of those two, I guess b is the more frustrating one (with Go2Guy in particular I have a hard time believing he’s really that stupid) but even when you see an example of a, you have to wonder why his media outlet is hiring the handicapped.
You do no service to something like MB’s attitude by writing a 200-word article complete with one-sentence paragraphs about how he is a “cancer”. If you explore the issue with the readers and decide at the end he’s not worth having, that’s okay with me. I may not reach your conclusion but at least I can see your thought process.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 20, 2009 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
I won't defend Hendry
or the Cubs, the Chicago media or their fans.
Their conduct, however, doesn’t change the fact that Bradley has caused problems with aberrant behavior far more often than not.
Doesn’t change the fact that he has been, in fact, a nutbag.
Doesn’t change the fact that he will always be seen as a nutbag by the media and will rarely if ever get the benefit of the doubt from any officials of any organization, be they umpires, league executives, or law enforcement.
Until and unless Bradley accepts these facts, and commits to a discplined approach silent and humble martyrdom (as martyr apparently is his self-image), he very likely is going to continue to run into more problems. Not definite, but very likely.
Yay, now I have a reason to acknowledge that he was named after a board game company.
2009 Safeco Field Record: 6-0 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 10-4
Thank god
I was gonna be disapointed if we were missing this reference
by Edgar for Pres on Dec 19, 2009 12:33 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, so incidentally he's pretty sensitive about his name.
According to an ESPN article I am too lazy to dig up, his mom split up with his dad while she was pregnant because he was a coke addict. While she was recovering from his birth, he snuck in and named the child after himself. Milton Bradley kept the name because, well, he’s Milton Bradley and he likes to be reminded of things that piss him off. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to interpret your Monopoly/Sorry references the right way.
Just sayin’, is all.
by Johnny Slick on Dec 19, 2009 1:44 AM PST up reply actions
At some point he'll physically break and retire
by seattlebruin on Dec 19, 2009 1:39 AM PST up reply actions
Playoffs?!
"You're so beautiful. You could be a part-time model, but you'd probably still have to keep your normal job."
Best clubhouse cancer article of all time.
No kidding, we’re screwed! Screwed I tells ya! Big Mistake
Limited exposure
And he caused zero problems, and produced high OBP, OPS+, etc. Posted above, a lot of it may have been Ron Washington supported him.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Dec 19, 2009 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
Drayer had a tweet the other day about M's coaching staff, I didn't realize 3 of our coaches have worked with him.
So he’s had some issues, and he would like to move on and not talk about the past. Now if the press hounds him and he blows up it proves he’s a bad guy and it’s a big story. But then how culpable are the press? Isn’t that a negative feedback loop? Anyhow hopefully it doesn’t work out that way.
as an Indians fan
I can tell you that the Indians probably don’t regret acquiring Bradley.
He was the biggest star by far in a critical rebuilding year, 2003. Obviously you’d rather see a guy have a big year in a playoff season, but the 2002 dismantling of the Indians was traumatic, and Bradley was a rare ray of hope in the next year.
Yes, he had to be traded the next spring, and that was unfortunate. But his trade likely had some positive impact on the organizational culture, letting a very young team know that standards were going to be upheld, that nobody would have to put up with a teammate like that. Within the Indians organization, this idea has significant currency.
What’s more, look at the talent turnaround. Bradley was acquired straight up for Zach Day. He was traded 20 months later for two prospects — a relief prospect named Andrew Brown, and a five-tool CF prospect you may have heard of, Franklin Gutierrez.
Brown was later part of a trade to acquire Josh Barfield. Now there’s a trade the Indians can regret with gusto. Gutierrez of course was swapped for Luis Valbuena and young Mets reliever Joe Smith.
So in sum, the Indians start off with Zach Day, end up with Valbuena, Smith, and a piece of Barfield. And in between, they got a few seasons at minimum salary out of Bradley, Gutierrez and Barfield. On the whole, I suspect they don’t regret acquiring Bradley.
How could you forget about Al Martin?
From Wikipedia:
“Martin claimed to have played football at University of Southern California. In 2001, he compared a collision with Seattle teammate Carlos Guillén to the time he tried to tackle Michigan running back Leroy Hoard in 1986, when he was playing strong safety at Southern California. In actuality, USC and Michigan did not meet that year, and Martin was an outfielder in the Atlanta Braves’ system at the time. Furthermore, USC has no record that Martin ever attended the university.”
Oh, I haven't forgotten Al Martin.
Definitely my least favorite Mariner of 2001. I also had an irrational hate for Charles Gipson.
Al Martin is my least favorite Mariner of all time
not only did he fake going to a college, he faked attending usc. Retard.
by seattlebruin on Dec 19, 2009 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Al Martin was the reason that for the first time I heard Dave Neihaus make a snide remark.
“Al Martin is looking for that elusive 2nd hit of the season, now 1 for his first 39.”
...and now I'm here
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
- Grandstand Gems: A trio of fans got defensive on Tuesday night
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
