November 30, 200421 yr Except Guillen came w/ far more baggage and question marks Agreed, but didn't you want him also?
November 30, 200421 yr Author Agreed, but didn't you want him also? Not me. Guillen's issues were related to his being a baseball palyer. Bradley's issue are personal. The personal issues are easier to overlok and solve than the baseball ones
November 30, 200421 yr I think we could get Bradley for prosects. This team can't make the playoffs with 2 gaping holes in the rotation. We need Garland on the back end.
November 30, 200421 yr Not me. Guillen's issues were related to his being a baseball palyer. Bradley's issue are personal. The personal issues are easier to overlok and solve than the baseball ones I don't think the line between the two is as black and white as you think. I know we disagree on this one, but I just don't see the defined line between the two. Bradley is a ticking time bomb. Another such player that the Sox got rid of was Rocky Biddle. I'm still voicing opposition to your idea on this one Beck. Got any others we can agree on? lol
November 30, 200421 yr I'm not quite convinced that Bradley is all that great. If he were a decent guy then I'd have him but he is not the offensive player that Guillen is. I'll grant he put up a .420 obp in a limited work in 03 but he has yet to show anything more than solid power or speed. He also strikes out a lot for a guy that only hit 19 homers (granted in LA). I just don't think I'd do it. He has an Artest factor in my opinion that leads me to believe that there will be more incidents and bigger ones at that.
November 30, 200421 yr Author I don't think the line between the two is as black and white as you think. I know we disagree on this one, but I just don't see the defined line between the two. Bradley is a ticking time bomb. Another such player that the Sox got rid of was Rocky Biddle. I'm still voicing opposition to your idea on this one Beck. Got any others we can agree on? lol Is Bradley the long term answer for the Sox, where he could play for them the next 10 years? No. Could he be "defused" until Anderson and Sweeney are ready, by the end of 2006, and help the Sox win with his top of the order bat and defense, without disrupting team chemistry? Probably with the vets the Sox have now and next yr. And I'm sure there will be plenty of other guys we can agree on Rex. I'll be looking for some
November 30, 200421 yr White Sox have been focusing on solid citizen types recently with very few exceptions. That ain't Milton Bradley. Whether he might thrive and behave himself surrounded by veterans is immaterial. He has personal problems and the Sox make it a point of steering clear from guys like that the last few years.
November 30, 200421 yr White Sox have been focusing on solid citizen types recently with very few exceptions. That ain't Milton Bradley. Whether he might thrive and behave himself surrounded by veterans is immaterial. He has personal problems and the Sox make it a point of steering clear from guys like that the last few years. True, steering away from those who are already predefined asses. They appear to be in the business of creating asses now. (see: Magglio).
November 30, 200421 yr Milton Bradley rolls up trouble again I thought that I was getting ready to read about a pot bust. It turns out that dumbass Milton pretty much volunteered to go to jail. Looks like Jim Brown minus the wife-beating adventures.
November 30, 200421 yr I thought that I was getting ready to read about a pot bust. It turns out that dumbass Milton pretty much volunteered to go to jail. Looks like Jim Brown minus the wife-beating adventures. Give him time, he's young. Its all about potential
November 30, 200421 yr Author White Sox have been focusing on solid citizen types recently with very few exceptions. That ain't Milton Bradley. Whether he might thrive and behave himself surrounded by veterans is immaterial. He has personal problems and the Sox make it a point of steering clear from guys like that the last few years. Roberto and Carl had some baggage and the sox got them in '03 and '04. Albeit both were older and "over" their youthful transgressions. :rolly But the sox shouldn't overlook Bradley. They have a two yr window with the strong SP, Frank, Shingo, Marte and Lee around, and should make a play for the playoffs. The key players are all vets. After those two yrs, the sox will prob. build around Anderson, Sweeney, Fields and younger guys where a guy like Bradley wouldn't be the best guy to have in a clubhouse. The key is, I still don't see how the sox will get the talent to compete w/ Minn and Cle, without giving up Lee via trade as well as PK, and Garland. [even if the Sox signed vets like Dye, Nomar and Blanco, I see a 2nd place finish] They could make a play for Nomar on a 1 yr deal. Yet the sox need some surprises in young guys, like Crede and Harris breaking out. Crede may become "Joe Randa lite", and I know how you feel about Willie. About the only surprises could be negative ones, with Uribe and Rowand falling back to earth. Bradley might not be the guy. But, IMO, the Sox season rests on getting a leadoff or #2 hitter with the ability to hit .300 in his sleep and get on base.
November 30, 200421 yr Well, it looks like Bradley could be very available. And for less than Garland. Seems he's gotten into a bit more trouble. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1833EST0378.DTL I'd still deal for him. With his talent, hothead or not, the sox would be helped more than hurt. The sox clubhouse isn't filled with a bunch of impressionable rookies. They could handle and help Bradley. The drinking stuff scares me. Yes.. the older guys can show him the way.. but ya know what they say.. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This guy would explode on Division and Rush.. very bad things would very easily happen to him.. IMO, of course.
November 30, 200421 yr The drinking stuff scares me. Yes.. the older guys can show him the way.. but ya know what they say.. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. And in Milton's case: You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.
November 30, 200421 yr Author The drinking stuff scares me. Yes.. the older guys can show him the way.. but ya know what they say.. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This guy would explode on Division and Rush.. very bad things would very easily happen to him.. IMO, of course. I don't recall that drinking was ever said to be his problem
November 30, 200421 yr I don't recall that drinking was ever said to be his problem He had to be removed from a resturant because he was too s***faced to leave himself. That's normal.
November 30, 200421 yr Author And in Milton's case: You can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him drink. Without even knowing much about the guy, you seem pretty sure about jackass qualities. But anyone can jump on a few media reports about a sports figure and then know exactly what they're all about
November 30, 200421 yr Author He had to be removed from a resturant because he was too s***faced to leave himself. That's normal. I didn't see the article or media report you're quoting from
November 30, 200421 yr Without even knowing much about the guy, you seem pretty sure about jackass qualities. But anyone can jump on a few media reports about a sports figure and then know exactly what they're all about No.. but one can read a police report.. or watch the guy toss bottles at fans or bags of balls on the playing field and know that he's got a few screws loose. Common sense.
November 30, 200421 yr He had to be removed from a resturant because he was too s***faced to leave himself. That's normal. Well for me it is...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.