qwerty Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Except Guillen came w/ far more baggage and question marks Agreed, but didn't you want him also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch and Judy Garland Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USAF_11F4H Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Milton Bradley rolls up trouble again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Socks Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Forrest Gump said it best: "Stuipid is as stupid does." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammerhead johnson Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beck72 Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 I didn't see the article or media report you're quoting from And... ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 And... ?? It means your a lier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 Well for me it is... Assisted staggering is ok... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 It means your a lier I'm waiting for that.. then I'll go find the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.