April 02, 2004

Bradley Banished

A lot of people are trashing Indians G.M. Mark Shapiro and Manager Eric Wedge for their decision to dump Milton Bradley following his latest blowup the other day. The line goes something like this: you can't afford to get rid of your best player because he's a little bit irascible or temperamental; in today's sports world, the modern manager must know how to deal with the idiosyncracies of individual players in different ways; it's just an exhibition game so what's so important about it?; you can't expect every player to hustle like he's Pete Rose; blah, blah, blah.

I think most people who are spouting that kind of a line fall into one of two categories. Either they know little of the history and track record of Milton Bradley, or they have never played team sports and have no idea how destructive to team chemistry it can be to have one player who feels he is above the rules of demeanor or professionalism, simply by virtue of his talent. The notion that a manager or a team executive should rationalize repeatedly boorish and disrespectful behavior as nothing more than a personality "quirk" to be understood and tolerated, is an idea cooked up by people who are clueless on how a "team" functions.

As most Indians fans know, this behavior is typical Bradley. An excerpt from an ESPN.com feature last summer helps to explain:

Even as Bradley blossoms into one of American League's most talented young players, a switch-hitting powderkeg who is batting .341 (third in the AL), a cloud of negativity swirls around him like the dirt on Pig Pen. He alienates opponents and teammates alike with his icy glare and smarmy strut. He runs out ground balls as indifferently as Albert Belle. Even his own hitting coach, Eddie Murray, says, "He'll bark at you for no reason at all. I don't like the way he treats people."....

...Bradley never smiles on the field -- playing instead with what he calls "my poker face," his wrath and rage festering barely beneath the surface. He is just as likely to snap at an umpire's bad call as completely ignore a teammate who says "Good morning" when he enters the clubhouse, leaving onlookers somewhere between flabbergasted and furious.

"You wonder what his problem is," one Indian says.

Most major league ballplayers making more than a million dollars a year don't have a problem with a whole lot of "festering wrath and rage". It seems to me that despite what Wedge and Shapiro say has been improvement in Bradley's behavior of late, it's reasonable for them to decide that they have finally run out of patience, and out of second, third and fourth chances.

None of Bradley's anger issues have been caused in any way by Indians ownership or teammates or coaches. Shapiro knew when he traded for him a few years ago that Bradley represented a gamble, a trade-off between immense talent and long-simmering emotional instability. Both the talent and the instability are obviously still there. But the Indians can hardly be faulted for making the decision that it's time for someone else to deal with the problems.

I admire Shapiro for deciding that having the kind of player who respects his teammates, coaches, and opponents is more important in putting together a team, than allowing one player, no matter how talented, to play by his own selfish set of rules.

Posted by dan at April 2, 2004 04:04 PM
Comments

I agree with your admiration of the Tribe front office. Especially when you're working with such a young team with a young, "unproven" manager, you can't have that kind of negativity and disrespect around. It's almost like Milton Bradley doesn't realize he's Milton Bradley. He's not Sammy Sosa; he's not A-Rod; he's not even an Omar. He's not an all-star. And even though there's apparently 8 teams interested in him, I highly doubt the tribe will be getting anyone that doesn't end up in Akron of Buffalo.

And on another note that you haven't blogged about yet . . . what's the deal with Dennis Northcut? See, this all started with Terrell Owens. The NFL handed a truckload of muscle over to players and their agents when T.O. was let out of Baltimore. He should've been forced to rot there for 3 years. Now Northcut is looked to pull the same stunt. He won't play for the Browns, nor any team that they trade him to other than the Ravens. I don't take Policy as the type of person to give in to someone trying to strong-arm him . . . at least I hope not. I think it's worth the Browns' money to keep him on the roster (and on the bench) for 3 years. He should be really productive come 2007. I'm sure 20 teams will be beating down his door trying to give him a multimillion dollar contract. Lame.

Posted by: jj at April 2, 2004 10:22 PM

In a recent post, I did comment about Northcutt, talking about the Browns lack of offensive weapons:

"The one guy who comes close to that description in recent years is Dennis Northcutt, the team's leader in catches and receiving yardage this past season. Northcutt is only with the team at the moment due to a screw-up by his agent, who failed to file the free agency paperwork on time. In one of the most classless stunts I have ever witnessed by an NFL head coach, Coach Davis slammed Northcutt in a press conference a couple weeks ago, wondering out loud to the assembled media if the NFL would allow him to use the "franchise player" tag "on a punt returner". This was before the disclosure of the free agency snafu by the agent, and so Davis was supposedly in a negotiating posture at the time with Northcutt, in an attempt to keep his best offensive threat from bolting through free agency. I guess he was going for a cheap laugh from the reporters. My opinion of Davis the coach, and Davis the man dropped significantly at that moment. And my opinion of Carmen Policy has always been that he's little more than a slick, "spin doctor" with a line of B.S. a mile long, who condescends to the fans of this great franchise, playing them for idiots."

Now in today's paper, Northcutt cites this "punt returner" statement by Davis as the reason that he vows to never again wear the Browns uniform. I agree it's ridiculous for Owens to be able to negate a trade, and in effect dictate what team he wants to play for when he didn't have free agency rights. Seems like Northcutt is trying to do the same thing now, in trying to strongarm a trade to the Ravens.

Posted by: Dan at April 3, 2004 02:36 AM

I do recall reading that blog a while back now that you mention it . . . sorry about that. I mean, there's no doubt that the Browns seemed classless in their handling of the situation, but when players can dictate where they want to go, you'll have a "Yankees" organization in every sport!!!

Posted by: jj at April 4, 2004 12:48 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?