Joe, I applaud your writing on both of these topics. Bradley won't win humanitarian of the year awards, but he is clearly a scapegoat here. As for reliever usage, I don't plan to hold my breath waiting for a change. The Red Sox tried it a while back and after a short-term hiccup abandoned ship. Maybe it will happen when a more enlightened media (and fan base) is ready for change... say, 15-20 years from now?

You're trying to separate everybody into layers of idiocy...I prefer to just label them all idiots and keep it at that.
Hendry shouldn't sign a rude, breakable, volatile player if he doesn't want rude, breakable, volatile players who might potentially have down years.
Bradley should keep his mouth shut and worry about his own production. After all, he's the first one publicly blaming his failures on somebody else in this story.
Piniella would have probably won the game in 9 had he kept his original closer philosophy, just because Marmol would have been available for Pujols, Holliday, and Ludwick and Gregg could have pitched to the back-end in the 9th.

Does what Bradley say deserve a suspension? Not to me (or to Joe), but that's sort of a private matter between a team and it's employees. If this was really wrong, the Union can file a grievance over it.

Is the perception of Bradley being a "bad guy" purely media-driven? I don't know. The guy was in a physical confrontation with Eric Wedge in Cleveland, and tried to attack a KC broadcaster while in Texas last year.

I empathize with Bradley because he clearly has temper problems, and I think he has gotten somewhat of a bad rap. But he's also behaved badly, and when you behave badly and play badly, you open yourself up to be both criticized and disciplined. While I agree Chicago shouldn't have signed Bradley, I think it's for BOTH performance and chemistry reasons.

I don't pretend to be able to morally classify who is a "bad guy" and who isn't, and I wouldn't want to a a person generally. But were I a baseball GM? I probably wouldn't sign Milton Bradely.

Thank you, Joe. The Cubs remind me of the Bush administration, defending our "freedoms" unless somebody tries to exercise one.

What I hate most about the reactionary mainstream sports media is the way they force everyone to talk like Crash Davis advised in "Bull Durham." If we reacted positively when somebody told the truth, people would tell the truth more often.

If he was suspended for what I just read at the link provided, everything he said is proven accurate.

If he would ilke to return to the AL to DH, Baltimore has an opening. And roughly three media members who cover the team.

One of the more comparable suspensions would be the Angels suspending Jose Guillen, though that was for on-field antics, rather than talking to the press. There wasn't two weeks of season yet, but the Angels hadn't clinched yet, and the suspension essentially extended into the post-season.

I don't know, maybe it is mission critical that you treat your fans right, in some sense of the word. Isn't that how all businesses work, you have to take care of your paying customers, above all else? Is there a higher mission for a business?

Thanks for punching my ticket on this. I was feeling as if I was the only one who thought the entire episode was wildly overblown. The cynical use of the (incestuous) relationship most clubs have with the media needs to be exposed to the light of day. Bradley may be one fiery dude, but he's not the monster he's made out to be, and not the reason for the Cubs failures.

I agree with Joe on most points, but there's one consideration he doesn't mention: Bradley simply cannot be allowed on the field after shooting off his mouth like that. The fans would verbally brutalize him until he (predictably) blew up and caused an even bigger mess.

Yeah, I have to agree that the punishment does not fit the crime here. I read the interview and it wasn't a big deal. Every single person has days when they say, "I don't really enjoy working in this environment." Hendry needed a scapegoat and, let's be honest, Bradley is a pretty easy target. I'm sure I'm not the only one within the Cubs fanbase that is more frustrated with Jim Hendry than with Milton Bradley.

Joe, you write, "Let's be very clear that this suspension would not be happening if the Cubs had continued their late charge to the fringe of the race, or if they had any kind of chance of making the postseason." Undoubtedly true -- but isn't it also true that had the Cubs been in contention, Bradley would likely not have said what he said?

Your depiction of Bradley's season [production] is far too positive. No, he shouldn't have been expected to produce at last year's clip. But to try and defend his performance this season as being valuable to the Cubs is off base.

I'll bet that it will eventually emerge that there is more to Bradley's misconduct than the interview. Agreed that the punishment seems excessive, but I think we should expect more behind-the-scenes insubordination will turn out to be involved. It's certainly been building. (But who knows?) Also, I assume this is a PAID suspension. They don't want him around anymore, but surely they can't justify taking a million dollars of salary away for that interview. Can the union file a grievance over a PAID suspension (assuming there were no incentive clauses for playing time)?

Does Bradley get a bad rap? Probably. But is a GM ever obligated to play a player? No. If you sit Albert Pujols, you're an idiot and your fans will be after your hide. And ultimately, it's all about what the fans want, because the fans drive the money. Clearly, Hendry has made the decision that he can do more good by attempting to salvage fan goodwill this season than the marginal increase in winning percentage he'd get by playing Bradley.

He did contribute to the offense but certainly not to the level they could have hoped. He has been miscast as an RBI man when he should be cast as an OBP man. Bat him 1 or 2 and be done with it. To think he can't get along in Chicago, one of the most friendly towns in the majors and adoring of their successful players, makes it seem like he did not want it to work once the first boo was heard. Banks, Williams, Lee, Jenkins all have had great support in the city and from the fans through good and bad. MB truly needed to look in the mirror to see why he is unhappy as a Cub. I don't think he should have been suspended either.

Assuming this is a paid suspension, where is the punishment? He gets to sit out the denouement of a another disappointing Cubs season. He has all but guaranteed his ticket out of Wrigley, something he apparently already wants. There was no need for the suspension either. With expanded September rosters, the team could have just had him sit on the bench for the last two weeks, not getting an AB.

...and in the meantime the Hendry era continues apace, with the impending need to eat much of the $20 million or so owed Bradley, which is only one of a number of horrific Hendry contracts that will encumber the team into mediocrity in the coming years.

Bradley hasn't produced as expected but the Cubs got one heck of a lot more our of him than they got out of Soriano and for less money.

Hendry is the guy that screwed the pooch here. To think the volatile Bradley was going to produce at last year's level while playing everyday was just insane. The guy's age and injury history had to be major red flags.

I rarely side with the MLBPA, but I can't believe that if they file a grievous this suspension will voided in a hurry. They won't have to play him but they will have to pay him.

BTW, if you want to unload Bradley ship him to the Royals for Jose Guillen. We will even throw in Kyle Fransworth.

I'd like to start a rumour of Bradley being shipped to Toronto (minor media presence, smaller fan presence) for Vernon Wells in an exchange of bad contracts. If necessary, the Jays would also take on Aaron Miles and his bad contract as a replacement for the soon-to-be-departed John McDonald.

When Hendry says "the only negativity is his own production," I don't think, unless there's more specific context I'm missing, that he's referring to Bradley's baseball "production." I think he's just suggesting that Bradley has helped to produce the negativity he thinks he's getting, by being surly with the fans and media from day one. I'm assuming Milton isn't familiar with the expression "garbage in, garbage out" or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - it is exceedingly rich to hear this guy whine about not having a "stable, healthy environment" when he's one of the most negative, combustible, standoffish players in the game. There's a reason he's been traded four times and hasn't stayed anywhere more than two seasons. Sure, none of this should come as a surprise, but nevertheless to hear Bradley scatter the blame over everyone in the city *but* himself is just a joke.

Whether the "punishment" fits the "crime" is debatable, I guess. But who needs it? Bradley torpedoed every bridge he may have had in that clubhouse, and he's not going to help them make the playoffs at this point. I say good riddance.

Players are paid to entertain. Part of entertaining is winning games, but in lieu of that, do you want to pay a player who might be turning potential fans away from the game?

I do agree with Joe that Hendry made a mistake with signing Bradley, but I also think the suspension is legitimate.

This isn't Milton's first time ripping the fans or the Cubs either. Throughout his career, he's blamed the umpires, blamed race, blamed everything else for his lot in life. He still hasn't learned that he has to be accountable for some things.

Maybe the punishment was a bit too harsh, but I also can't think of any people who treated their teammates, their manager, the umpires fan base this way this frequently. Even Barry Bonds, Albert Belle, Carl Everett, weren't this bad.

So, I'm not sure if the punishment necessarily fits the crime, but in a lost season, I think it's better to sit him than to risk some kind of public physical incident.

I posted this as a reply, but it's probably worth being a stand-alone comment:

This is from the piece on ESPN.com:

"However, the Cubs have yet to issue a formal notice of the suspension to either Bradley, his agents or the union...Bradley hasn't yet been informed whether the suspension is with or without pay. He also hasn't been told what the specific basis for the suspension was."
(http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4492909)

So the Cubs have not formally communicated what the suspension is for, whether it's paid or unpaid. Doesn't that say a lot about the organization?

I think the the real point is how teams use the media and in turn allow them to influence decision making making. It was true in Boston before Dan Duquette distanced himself from the Boston media and prepped Theo and and boys for 2004 and Pat Gillick did the same in Philadelphia for 2008. This was especially so by getting Dallas Green to shut up about pushing the best players away (i.e. Scott Rolen).

pretty much every player on the team supported hendry's decision. it seems his poor attitude goes far deeper than just one interview.

Remember also that Lee Elia was let go for his classic tirade against Cubs fans.

As far as scapegoats go, Bradley wasn't the worst player on the Cubs but outperforming most of that weak lineup is akin to damning with faint praise. Besides, if a manager can be scapegoated (Cecil Cooper), surely a player can be. It might be wrong in a moral sense but it's also a business. Bleacher bums get called a lot of things but I don't think they will be as eager to pay money for a right field ticket if they get lumped into the racist category.

"I'd like to ask one question: Who the hell has ever been suspended for two weeks for what they said to the media? "

John Rocker.

@adman71 - good historical footnote there, but I hope that wasn't meant to be a justifying precedent. The most hateful thing Bradley said about anyone here was that "it's a negative environment".

This was a cowardly, pandering act by a perennially inept and disingenuous GM. He needed a whipping boy to distract from his general Sabeanesque lack of plan, and the tempermental Milton showed up right on time. The sad thing is the insipid mainstream sports media will no doubt applaud Hendry for "running a tight ship", "putting the fans first", or some other emptyheaded cliche here. Codependent indeed.

I hope the union sues Hendry's rear off.

Just another point that people have been poking at but deserves more emphasis I think. After this move Bradley clearly has to be traded, and Hendry by reacting to it this way to the interview both made that a neccesity and torpedoed his value all in one. Not only did he reenforce Bradley's reputation as a bad egg, hurting his value, but he let everyone in the league know that Bradley will be moved this Winter, hurting it even further. So regardless of whether there are other things going on behind the scenes or how seriously Hendry was offended by this interview he made a horrible baseball decision for a purely PR move, and if I'm a cubs fan that's the last thing I want.

BP along with most of the media has consistently misrepresented Bradley's contract as 3 years in length when in fact the third year was an option year which the team could forego under cetrain circumstances.

Those circumstances themselves have been reported differently at various times through the year but currently COT's contract site has

2011 may become $12M club option with $2M buyout if:

Bradley has more than 75 days on DL in 2009, or

Bradley is on DL at end of 2009 season with specific injury and not on active roster by 4/15/2010

The term 'specific injury' isn't defined but there is an angle to this story that IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE CUB'S INTEREST TO DL BRADLEY INSTEAD OF SUSPEND HIM.

Coverage of that angle might have been more informative that blowharding about the press again.

thank you, mr sheehan. Great article. People really need to take a step back and look at things for what they are rather than by the landscape created by people that need to make a buck in a dying industry. Bradley's a turd, by and large, but how in the world can Hendry act tough now after saying after having dinner with Bradley in the offseason he knew instantly that he was the Cubs' guy? Hendry knows his job is at stake here, and i just hope that Mr. Ricketts is smart enough to see through his crap. Bradley can't come back, and that's almost unfortunate. He would have been much more productive in his second and third years of that contract.

also, this whole notion of "salvage fan goodwill" is what has enabled Cubs' fans. They got Sosa run out of town. They ran Baker out (though i can't complain about that), they could be blamed at least in part for Corey Patterson, they ran a productive Jacque Jones out of town... the list could go on forever. But as long as Hendry lives to salvage fan goodwill the Cubs will continue to be a laughing stock. Sometimes, in fact more often than not, the customer is not right. Sometimes the customer doesn't understand what's best for him. The customer is ultimately concerned with championships, and so long as Hendry is more concerned with PR than WS, well, you end up with 100 years of ineptitude.

Hey now, for those still interested in this thread. Someone on Neyer's blog said that Bradley refused to pinch hit on Sunday and fought (verbally surely) with Von Joshua. That IS reason for suspension. Why is no one talking about it if it's true? That's another issue in a sense, but we're looking for reasons here.

Let's try to get some confirmation. I'm not interested in rumor mongering but a lot of character issues would seem to be at stake. I also am a longtime Bradley apologist, because I think he's a smart guy who hates the media bs and the type of thinking/reactions it engenders.

I don't think anything Milton Bradley said in that interview was suspendable. But it was probably just a tipping point. It's entirely possible that Milton was told to stop talking about the fans the other ten times he was quoted similarly all year, and blatantly disregarded that, again. It's entirely possible that his relationship with the manager is beyond salvage, and Hendry is taking the bullet for his manager. Milton Bradley is not the entire reason this team will score 160+ runs less than last year, but he is part of the reason. Along with Soriano, who also got booed alot but never cried to the media about it. Along with Geovany Soto. And a sinkhole at 2b, until baker was picked up. And Ramirez' injury. The suspension is an obvious overreaction by a team that has a history of it (at least it's a player and not the announcers this time). As a cub fan, it's exhausting to watch this kind of scapegoating, know it's inevitable, and realize that eating milton bradley's contract doesn't make them a better team. Now eating Aaron miles' contract, THAT would be progress.

I don't know exactly where this fits in the discussion, but on Fox's broadcast of last Saturday's Cubs-Cardinals game, Mark Grace and the play-by-play man (I don't recall his name) were talking about how disappointing Bradley has been this season.

One of them mentioned that he led the AL in OPS last year at .999 and that the Cubs would have been happy if he'd given them a .777 number this year. Too bad they didn't do their homework before making that comment, because Bradley's 2009 OPS is .775.

The Chicago press was down on Bradley from the day he signed. Talk radio was riduculing him long before any games were played. His past problems were prominently mentioned but they did not even acknowledge his 1.000 OPS last year.

Bradley was right about one thing - there was a mike in his face everyday - as they press fought over each other to get THE BLOWUP.

Kudos to the Daily Herald for getting the story even if it did take the one writer who Bradley trusted to betray him.

Did Bradley play like %$&@ for the first 2 months? Certainly.

Did Bradley made some dumb comments and do stupid things? Yes.

But please don't defend the press on this one. They were out to play a game of GOTCHA from the word go and the prize was Bradley's scalp while the collateral winnings were numerous print stories and endless radio hours.

Game over.

Thanks for addressing this, Joe. At the risk of Cub overdose, I would look forward to seeing a parallel piece on the damage done to the fortunes of the 2009 Cubs as a result of the horrible play and huge contract by Soriano. Soriano probably played with more indifference this season than even Bradley, and he was allowed to check himself out on the season early because of injury. Let's not put the blame on Bradley for this one. I give him credit for being passionate. I can't fault him for being disappointed and speaking out about his experience as a Cub. Sadly, Cub fans, stirred up by the local press, were all over Bradley only two weeks into the season after he got off to a slow start. This was not a perfect match for the Cubs, but Hendry has now made it an even worse situation by using Bradley as his scapegoat. Forget about billy goats Cubs fans. This is the real curse of the Cubs.
It's amazing what Hendry has done to destroy the near future of the Cubs, without any payoff. It’s time for the new owners to look for a new GM.