Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Remember when the A's "stole" Bradley from the Dodgers, giving up Grade B prospect Andre Ethier? Apparently they felt so guilty about their thievery they've decided to let other teams reap the enormous rewards of having Milton Bradley on their roster. How generous of the A's. Or maybe it was because Bradley missed 117 games in the last two years and was generally mediocre when he did play. You decide.

Question for Bauxites: Is Bradley worth a roster spot? Is Elijah Dukes? I've said this before, and so have others, but if you're going to have as many issues as Bradley -- in addition to his propensity to get hurt -- you'd better be Barry Bonds. And Bradley's not Barry Bonds.

Other opinions?

A's designate Bradley for assignment | 16 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Jordan - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 02:55 PM EDT (#170288) #

I'd give Bradley some consideration, because he's not a bad guy -- massively difficult anger management issues that lead to unacceptable behaviour, yes, but not, I think, a cancerous personality. And he has shown an ability to master his emotions as he's matured -- being in a clubhouse with presences like Wells, Thomas, Halladay and Glaus sure couldn't hurt. But frankly, the real question with Bradley is whether he can stay healthy long enough to perform, and the jury's definitely out there. And of course, assuming Reed Johnson comes back on time and can play well, the Jays have no place for him, and Bradley is a guy who wants to play every single day. Not a good match right now.

Dukes is where Bradley was five years ago, and is in deeper trouble. I'd let someone else take on that challenge.

Ryan Day - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:08 PM EDT (#170294) #

I'd say he'd make a good fourth outfielder, and his broken body might appreciate playing 3-4 times a week, but he seems unlikely to accept that role.

On the other hand, he might make good insurance in case Reed Johnson takes a while to get up to speed - you never know what you're going to get out of a guy with a back injury. And if in a month both guys are healthy and playing well, you've got a decent trade chip; at the worst, you release him and only pay a few bucks.

Ron - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:16 PM EDT (#170298) #
If signing Bradley prevents Matt Stairs from ever playing the OF again, than yes I would sign him. Bradley is in the prime of his career and it's a contract year. Once Johnson comes back, Lind could be sent down to AAA.

This is a high upside, low risk signing. If by some chance Bradley stinks it up, I would just release him.

Gitz - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:35 PM EDT (#170306) #
Low risk? Certainly. High upside? Absolutely not. Bradley is 29 and has an OPS+ of 106. There's no upside here. Forgetting for a moment the attitude concerns, the question becomes whether you want to carry on OF who, unless he plays center field -- and I believe the Jays have 118 million reasons why they don't need a CF -- will not provide enough offense since he'll be playing a corner outfield position.
Mick Doherty - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:37 PM EDT (#170308) #

I love the fact that Ethier is at .272/6/29 in 60-some games for LAD while Bradley, outhitting him at .292, is at just two homers and seven RBI in 19 games for OAK. Bradley hit .276/4/52 last year while Ethier hit .308/11/55 in 2006 ... Antonio Perez, the other guy who went from LAD to OAK in the deal hit .102 in spot duty last year and is not with OAK this season.

Think Billy Beane would like a do-over on that one?

Pistol - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT (#170309) #
Bradley is 29 and has an OPS+ of 106

That's a little misleading as it's weighed down by his awful start to his career.  The last 4 years he's been 151, 108, 121, and 115.

What's the story here?  He played last night for the first time in a couple weeks and now he's gone.

I can't imagine the Jays being interested with Johnson coming back soon (and even if he wasn't).
Mike Green - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:47 PM EDT (#170310) #
It is worth having Milton Bradley on the roster for his name alone.   I can' t wait for David "Fisher" Price to make his major league debut.

Bradley's OPS+ during his time in Oakland was 118.  Normally, one doesn't release players like that who play centerfield unless the off-field issues are pretty serious.  Gary Sheffield had issues when he was in 20s, but was quite a bit better than Bradley. Same with Dick Allen. 

Gitz - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#170311) #
Apparently Bradley was miffed about "being healthy" on Tuesday and not playing, but that doesn't seem so unusual. We'd all be miffed about that, if it was true.

The problem is that we don't know if Bradley was really healthy. When he came back from the DL just three weeks ago, he played two games and went right back on the DL. I suppose that could have happened again yesterday.

Meantime Susan Slusser, a San Francisco Chronicle beat write, quotes the Dreaded Unnamed Source that Bradley was not in the A's future plans, and the club suspected -- rightly so -- that he would not take kindly to playing two days a week. I dunno. When you're being passed over because of Chris Snelling (who makes Bradley look durable) and Bobby Kielty and Jack Cust, well, that's not a good sign. I suspect there's something else at play here, that Milton said some choice things that simply couldn't be over-looked. Because for as much as a PITA as he was, he's a better option than Snelling or Kielty, and probably Cust, too.

I just don't think Bradley is worth the headache. The A's made the playoff last year in spite of him, and if they can make it this year it would be for the same reason.

Squiggy - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 07:34 PM EDT (#170328) #
Pass. All indications are that Bradley is an idiot, and besides the Jays have no real need for him positionally, or Dukes for that matter.

That got me to thinking - have the Jays ever taken a chance on one of these "character issues" type of players? I recall back in the 80's they shipped out the likes of Damaso Garcia (something to do with Stieb, IIRC), maybe Junior Felix too(?) for transgressions of some sort, but I cannot recall them having taken on one of these from another team. Am I forgetting anyone?

Craig B - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 07:35 PM EDT (#170329) #

Wow, some A's fans have short memories.  While the other A's were getting their lame, lukewarm asses swept by the Tigers in last year's ALCS, Milton Bradley was playing his heart out.  The A's scored nine runs in that series and Bradley scored or drove in seven of them; he had 5 RBI, four runs, hit .500 and slugged .944.

Maybe (just, just maybe) Beane's critics are right... the A's don't win playoff series because they are unwilling to employ the kinds of players who win playoff series.  I know it's a bit of a stretch, but I do think Bradley's combative, kiss-my-ass personality gives him a competitive edge when the competition gets tougher.

(Also, Bradley hit 14 homers last year, not 4 but I suspect that's a typo).

When you're being passed over because of Chris Snelling (who makes Bradley look durable) and Bobby Kielty and Jack Cust, well, that's not a good sign.

Well, Snelling's got a ton of talent - maybe not MB talent, but talent.  Kielty and Cust are just agreeable guys who don't mind sitting on the bench since they both know they are lucky to be in the majors.  I doubt Kielty and Cust are in the A's plans either.

And all that being said, would I want Bradley on the Jays?  I honestly do not think he fits the team personality-wise, and I don't think you can open a fulltime role for him that makes sense, so no.

Gitz - Thursday, June 21 2007 @ 11:12 PM EDT (#170331) #
Alas, my memory is very good, and not merely about Milton Bradley's contributions to the A's.

If you'll note, I didn't mention Bradley's performance in the playoffs. I merely posited that they made the playoffs in spite of him, which has nothing to do with how he did once they got there. Meanwhile, the A's, circa 2007, without Barry Zito and Frank Thomas -- and, oh, by the way, Milton Bradley most of the time, are chugging along at seven games above .500. However, I do think you may have a point that Bradley is the kind of player who can raise his game during tighter competition. At least, you would have a point except that would mean that Bradley has The Dreaded Intangibles, and that's not possible, because those don't exist, right?

Snelling? Tons of talent? Maybe he once did, but to say that he has "tons" of talent, now, after 14,000 operations, is more glib than to claim that he's had 14,000 operations. I challenge anyone to eclipse that hyperbole!

Lefty - Friday, June 22 2007 @ 12:18 AM EDT (#170332) #

To me the question is whether you can get him without giving much of anything in a trade. I'm sure there will be quite a few teams lining up for his services when or if he clears waivers.

The second factor is whether the team itself believe's it has a chance to gain a wildcard berth. If the front office doen't believe they have a shot there's no sense even speculating.

However, as a fan I'd love to see them take a shot at this guy. Bradley is a player with something to prove, clearly he is motivated by adversity. I''d love to see them take a fly on him considering there's money burning a hloe in Ricciardi's pocket.

koanhead - Friday, June 22 2007 @ 10:49 AM EDT (#170347) #
Milton Bradley? I'd take him for the Jays in a minute and sign him to a four year contract immediately if he'd go for it. He'd immediately be at least the third best hitter in the lineup, and a case could be made (though I'll not bother trying to make it) that he'd be the team's best defensive outfielder. Having Bradley around would likely allow the Jays to sell high on "Sparkplug" Johnson (possibly even landing someone who could play shortstop and actually have a productive plate appearance at least twice a week -- which is not really a lot to ask, is it?), and to send Adam Lind back down for the seasoning he needs. It could also allow the Jays to cut bait on the Big Hurt's silly contract after this season, if not before.
VBF - Friday, June 22 2007 @ 12:25 PM EDT (#170354) #
I think the Toronto nightlife is the last thing Elijah Dukes needs right now. I usually don't buy into the whole image thing, but in this particular case, having a player who has been publicly known as a dangerous person, who time after time has been a social parasite, is not someone who should represent this team.

Especially when you have leaders on the team doing alot in the Toronto community trying to stop the exact thing that Elijah Dukes contributes to.

He might show a Willingness To Help, but he certainly won't Make Major Memories Happen, or Be A Team Player.

Ryan Day - Friday, June 22 2007 @ 01:03 PM EDT (#170357) #
I think lumping Bradley and Dukes together is doing Bradley a disservice. From all I've read, he's pretty much an ass (or "intense competitor", if you prefer), but Dukes looks to be in a completely different category.
Magpie - Sunday, June 24 2007 @ 11:22 PM EDT (#170542) #
but if you're going to have as many issues as Bradley -- in addition to his propensity to get hurt -- you'd better be Barry Bonds.

Or, at the very least, Albert Belle. Like Bradley, Belle had some serious anger management issues (but Bradley's appear to be worse.) Unlike Bradley, Belle was about as durable as a ballplayer can possibly be. Furthermore, Belle was more or less the best damn hitter in baseball. Which always counts for a lot - it went a long way for Ted Williams before him, as well.
A's designate Bradley for assignment | 16 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.