Say what you will about Milton Bradley, but he seems to be first player in a looong time that truly takes pride in wearing the Dodger uniform (maybe LoDuca too).

It used to be that players wanted to play for the Dodgers, as one of the top 3 organizations in baseball. When I see Milton win one in the ninth, and go crazy at home, I get the sense that he loves being a Dodger above all else.

I'm not sure I can remember another player (at least one this talented) who acts as if wearing the Blue is a culmination of a life-long dream.

Count me in as someone who genuinely likes and roots for Milton Bradley, on and off the field.

Were Milt to play for another team, I'm sure I would see his story on Sportscenter and say, "What an idiot."

Yet, baseball players are not perfect. They are people that have insecurities, fears, problems, pasts, and sometimes that spills over into baseball. The line between personal life and profession is significantly blurred over the course of a 162 game season.

In this regard I believe that Milton has done a comendable job as Milton 2.0 compared to 1.0 and although there are some glitches, I think that Milton 3.0 is going to be a fantastic ballplayer, person, and sparkplug for whatever team he plays for. Here's hoping it's the Dodgers, rational or not.

I share your sentiments about Bradley, Jon. I'm a huge fan of him; he plays his heart out on the field, and as he slowly matures, I can really see sparks of a fiery, passionate leader -- the kind the Dodgers haven't had in quite a while.

I get frustrated about his occasional outbursts... but I'm also feel that afterwards he truly does want to better himself and move past this.

If Penny gets suspended after a hearing in Chicago, it shouldn't be too much of a problem as September 1 is rolling around and somebody from the minors can be plugged in and Penny forced to rest a day. If the suspension starts after August 30, then Penny wouldn't miss a start.

This assumes that there is an inexhaustible supply of major league ready starters in the minors for the Dodgers.

I think once Bradley goes on the DL, it will be time to say hello to Mike Edwards again. The Dodgers will have need of someone who can also fill in on the infield with Izturis having back problems.

Vin was freaking me out last night. I missed the first inning of the game, so I got my Milton update in about the 3rd inning.

He was being very cryptic, talking about the strange turn of events in this situation, etc etc.

I thought for sure he was released, or suspended with some sort of "irreconcilable differences" outcome to follow.

I was actually pleased when I heard it was "only" a major knee injury.

4 - inexhaustible, and as effective as Penny

Will Carroll update above

5 - Yea did anyone read Adande's article? His article in sum was "Good thing Milton had a major knee injury to save everyone the trouble of solving a problem. Good thing the fourth best player on the team is done."

There is no way I would re-sign Bradley for 2006. Next season he will be 28 and in his 7th season in the majors. That is plenty of time for him to have matured. It is not a maturity problem with him, it is a pathology problem.

I never found Milton's antics as off-putting as other prickly personalities in the game like Albert Belle or Barry Bonds. Milton always looks like he is trying to better himself as a person, and sometimes he fails to show himself in the best light. But the struggle is there for all to see. The other two I mentioned seem to be smug in their own sense of worth and ego, and have no intentions of ever trying to better themselves as people.

As for the UTK article, how the heck does one play though a near full thickness patellor tendon tear? Perhaps it is a matter of the angle of the tear. I keep imagining Milton's tendon just barely hanging on by 20% of the intact tendon.

9 - I agree. Seems completely unnecessary to force the issue by playing. With the current injury, he should be back by ST. If he were to play and tear completely, who knows how long the recovery would take.

5
I didn't know J.A. Adande's computer can write a column with out having the word "Kobe" appear in it. I think he has it as preprogrammed function key.

CTRL+ALT+K ?

12 - Hmm, I hit those buttons, at which point my Pentium chip demanded a trade to our Miami office, who gave me two Celerons and a coffee pot in exchange.

13 hold out for a capuccino maker

Much to my surprise, this is the sixth straight Adande column that doesn't mention Kobe Bryant. His last column that mentioned him was on July 13 and it was about the Clippers.

My LA Times database counts 436 different stories by Adande that mention Kobe Bryant since February 7, 1998.

In the same period, Plaschke had only 262 Kobe columns.

Simers had 227.

the only time I mention Kobe, it is followed by beef

16
You must have a large amount of disposable income then.

17 that's one of my beefs

Quick poll: Milton, or Sheff?

Kevin

19 I'd much rather have Milton.

19 - What's the question? Who's the bigger headache, or who would I rather have on my team (actually that might be the same answer)?

Sheffield has proven much more durable in his career than Bradley.

Sheff, no doubt. One of the best 10 hitters of this generation.

We never should have signed Kent. Even without knowing how the team was going to break down throughout the year, this team was still too "young" for a Kent to co-exist upon. Maybe nobody else wanted him at the price he signed for?

23 - Not to mention exponentially more productive.

I like Milton, but this is really no contest.

Sheff's the better player, but he comes with even more baggage than Milton.

24 on the other hand, a veteran like Kent can teach young players by example as to work ethic, approach to the game, etc

BTW, I'm sure "Kobe" was in the initial draft of Adande's column, but some at the Times must have edited out. At least that's what J.A. will say!

27 A veteran-not-like-Kent could do that, methought. A veteran-like-Kent seems to work alongside other veterans. The Mets, say, would have been a better fit for him.

But, thinking about it as I type this, I'm not sure anyone save for the Astros and Dodgers actually had a need for him to play 2B. And didn't we sign him to play 3B? ;-)

Somebody refresh my memory, but didn't most of the trouble with Sheffield start only after the Dodgers didn't give him a long term contract? Didn't he want to retire in LA (granted, at the time)?

He's abrasive, but maybe that contract would've been a bargain.

As far as MB, for some reason Depo didn't convince me when he said he hopes Bradley is on the team next year. To me it sounds like they are tired of it. In a way, I am too... I don't want to have to worry next season when and what kind of meltdown is going to happen.

I'm with #1 above - I hope Bradley stays.
But we still need an OF next year, either way.

And a first baseman.
And probably someone to replace Kent.
And a third baseman.
And some relief help.
And another starter.

And yet we still might win the division this year.

29 I think you may be underestimating the importance of Kent's work ethic

I too would like to see Milton fulfill his potential as a Dodger. But how many injury risks can you have on one team? Of the three OFs who were supposed to play the bulk of the innings this year -- Drew, Milton, Werth -- all have spent significant time on the DL.

One injury risk in the outfield (Drew) is enough for me thanks.

And a first baseman. - Meet Hee Seop Choi.
And probably someone to replace Kent. - I'm not trading our MVP, are you?
And a third baseman. - Patience, help is on the way.
And some relief help. - Things will look much better when Gagne is back to settle the bullpen down.
And another starter. - Ditto from 3B.

Jon, I'd forgotten about the Bertken story. I can't believe it's been 10 years. I'm sorry he was a friend of yours. I knew his wife slightly when she worked for the Santa Monica Outlook. That column brought out parts of the story I hadn't remembered. It sounds like the crew was horrible and not too sympathetic to Louise. I'm sure that was typical of the charter industry. Thanks for the link to the story. It's never easy to lose a friend.

I see Bradley and Drew staying, and Werth leaving, and hopefully his replacement is able to play a few days in a row without getting a boo-boo...

Who knows, maybe we are due for a change of luch finally, and maybe Cruz Jr becomes half of what he used to be...

Personally, I still like Repko, and remember when Tracy let him play a few days in a row, he seemed to start hitting. As long as he remembers to catch with two hands, he is an excellent defensive outfielder.

32 - I personally would like playing with Jeff Kent for that reason. But looking at the Dodgers' makeup of odd personalities and other possible fractions - Lowe, Bradley, Drew, Phillips, high number of non-English speakers, et. al. - Kent's work-ethic act seems out of another team's clubhouse.

The Kent signing is an unmitigated success. Whatever his clubhouse problems might be, the 2005 team would be a true disaster without him.

I honestly don't know how you can compare Sheffield and Bradley.

35 - Louise was a wonderful person too. I'm sorry to say I've lost touch with her.

Let's not forget that Depo will take advantage of any inefficiencies he finds in the market or on the team. MB is a relatively cheap, young and talented outfielder and his injury/personality stigma will only help lower his value. I'm pretty sure he will be a Dodger next year.

And as much as people use the term "injury-risk" everyone is an injury risk. That term doesn't apply until someone is having chronic problems with the SAME injury. Unless i'm mistaken Bradley has never had this knee problem before and Drew getting struck with a ball on the wrist is purely luck. The other way someone is an injury risk is if they are chronically sitting because of pain and I think MB and Drew have both proved they are willing to play with pain if they can.

Because these injuries are not recurring it's just as likely, luck wise for MB and Drew to both play 140+ games next season. Add one FA outfielder and that's pretty impressive outfield, especially at the steal we'll pay Bradley.

I guess I just don't believe in judging a player on their number of injuries, only on chronic reccurring ones. As much as we talk statistically here, isn't it possible that Drew and Bradley might have their injuries clustered over the first part of their careers and could just as easily play until 40 with no more major injuries?

38 if the Dodgers are much younger next year, as they may be if the changes in the landscape of baseball as we know it are promoted from Jacksonville, his lead by example modus operandi gives the Dodgers a coach on the field...

as far as the other players you mention, Drew is in his own world, Lowe is only thinking about his next conquest, and Phillips is still running out his last single...

You would only want Sheffield if you are willing to settle for twice as much production.

Hmmm, how does this incident affect our "importance of chemistry" debate from earlier this season?

41 you may be right, but it seems to this casual observer that players who tend to have physical problems seem to keep having them, even if none of them are ever their fault

I am not sure why Jon seems so certain that DePo is going to bring in a new pitcher through trade. We have three expensive starters under contract for next year, Houlton has shown that he can outright replace Weaver, or be even better than him frankly, and Edwin Jackson and his 97 MPH fastball have spent enough time in the minors. It is time for Jackson to spend his first full season in the majors, even if it means that like Greg Maddux or Brett Myers in their first full MLB seasons he has an ERA over 6.00 (a worst-case scenario that I REALLY doubt would happen). All that Jackson needs to be a front-of-the-rotation guy is confidence (so he will stop "nibbling"), and he is not going to get that confidence any other way than pitching against major leaguers.

44 chemistry comes from success on the field...

if the Dodgers were winning, Kent's prodding is no problem...when they are losing, it is annoying

45 - I totally understand that perception because I've had it too. I'm just questioning that and suggesting that we think that way simply when injuries happen to be clustered over a couple year time span. For example if we call Drew an injury-risk and then fast forward to when he is 38 and look at his career, what will we see injry-wise? A consistent trend of injury or clusters of injuries over say 4 early years and then very few.

I don't know if any research has every been produced on this topic and I don't really have the chops but what does everyone think, especially those of you that have memories of specific players that span many more years then mine?

47 I tend to think this would've happened regardless. It seems unlikely that Bradley would've continued to brush off Kent's comments... but perhaps with more at stake, there is more effort to keep it in the clubhouse.

46 - Penny, Lowe, Perez, Houlton, Jackson? I just don't think DePodesta is going to be comfortable with that. I could be wrong.

44 - doesn't affect my feelings at all.

I'm not so sure that Milton will be back to 100% by next April. Knees can be tricky, plus there's the vaguely reported additional issue with his other knee ligament (was it the anterior?). Assuminbg he has surgery Sept. 1, to be fully ready by spring training '06 requires a 6-month recovery.

I suspect DePo is okay with Penny, Lowe and Houlton. I would imagine he would be looking for 2 other starters to fill out the rotation.

I see Jackson as trade fodder. I am rooting for him to do well in September so he gets us more in return. I see Perez going for the best we can get, but going nonetheless.

51 (cont) - recovery not just from the patellar repair, but from whatever other procedures are done to the other ligaments, if necessary.

It's funny how docile we are, accepting Milton's injury. Any other year, we'd be howling at our terrible luck for losing a starting outfielder for the season. Now, it's kind of an, "Oh. Milton's out for the year, too."

49 if things aren't going well for a person, pointers and advice make you edgier until you can't take it anymore

if things are going well, you see them as helpful and inspiring...

I can't imagine that the Dodgers aren't down and frustrated, I can't see them responding well to being prodded about now...I know at this point I wouldn't want to hear it if it was me in that situation...

I don't know, if someone other than a boss of mine comes to me and tells me that I need to do some part of my job better, I can get pretty ticked off.

Sometimes it's constructive criticism and it's hard to accept. Sometimes it's just criticism for criticism's stake. And that ticks me off.

55 you are probably right, I just enjoy ticking people off...one of the benefits of my profession

Off-topic, but the word "Schilling" currently appears 5 times on ESPN.com's hompage, with no scrolling required to see all of the instances.

55 does it matter how your day is going?

A distant cousin of the denial/acceptance issue, the last couple of days have caused me to change this season's official designation from "fun" to "not fun anymore." At the most, this is the third time in my life as a Dodger fan that a season has become "no fun." One was the 1996 Butler/Busch season. 2000 also stunk. I actually enjoyed 1992.

I've been periodically taking stock of reasons to root for this team, including Choi (never plays), Bradley (done now), this wacky division race (not really in reach any more with players still going down). Weigh that against reasons not blow this season off, constantly changing cast of characters with few really compelling stories, persistent line-up mismanagement, personal animus among players (Kent/Bradley) and two bit sideshows (Lowe/Hughes). Anyway, for me the balance has tipped in favor of "no fun." Not that I won't watch anymore. Rather that I'll look to see if something better is on.

57 ESPN = east coast bias network

59 its always fun, frustrating maybe, but always fun...winning would just be funner...

there is never anything better on...only reruns

61 Howard, we've spent a lot of time here recently talking about TV shows. How could I not conclude that I've been missing a lot of good TV by watching the Dodgers?

"good TV", by definition, is an oxymoron

Oh, Howard.

thought you'd like that one...but Jon, you'll realize what a waste of time TV is when your kids grow up and you see how much time you have spent watching the boob tube

Howard...I'm with you.

No matter what season it is and no matter the won-loss record, Hollywood has never offered up anything to compete with Vin Scully and Dodger baseball. In my mind and my heart, the Dodgers win everytime.

I challenge anyone here to match my lifetime television viewing.

And I really don't think that it's affected me negatively at all.

I don't think we need to make judgments about who makes better use of their spare time than others, unless someone is using their spare time to commit crimes.

See update above: Jackson, Chad Billingsley, Greg Miller, Tony Abreu, Andy LaRoche and James Loney to play in the Arizona Fall League.

65 - nothing I can do about it now.

67 - until the kids came along, I would have said, "try me."

67 and exactly what is wrong with committing crimes??

Besides, if you were to ask my wife, watching the Dodgers and watching tv are more or less the same thing.

70 mine too

67

Talk about denial... :)

What does that mean since they are playing in the fall league? I'm just unfamiliar with it. Does it suggest the major league club is thinking that given that extra practice they might be up on the big club somtime next year? Do they decide to play or does the team, etc.?

It's unlikely that Jason Grabowski will get asked to report to the Arizona Fall League.

They Must Have Been Giants

The White Sox led the Twins 1-0 with 2 outs in the 9th and Dustin Hermanson gave up a game-tying double to Michael Ryan.

Before I'd consign Jeff Weaver to Dodger history, I'd want to know what front-line pitchers DePo expects to be able to get, and who he'll have to give up to get them. I know Weaver has been a pincushion on this board many times, but he's been consistent two years running: An inning-eater, usually a winner, wobbly in the first half, but more dominant in the second half.

Year-over-year consistency has not been the hallmark of most of the big-name starting pitchers that were acquired this season. Of the top 30 ERAs in '05, only two are pitchers who changed teams: Pedro and, way down the list, Hudson. (Penny's the only Dodger making that cut, and just barely.) True front-line pitching is so rare and much-desired, I would want to know the market before giving up on a guy who has done well for us, wants to stay, and won't cost us prospects.

Jon-
Thanks for the tip on the AFL. I found a nice visitors' guide for last year at About.com: http://tinyurl.com/96f66

- $5/game GA with no advance sales
- Home games at the Cubs HoHokam facility
- games played last year from Oct 5th to Nov 18

76 - We have one of those in Derek Lowe, and it's being (mistakenly, IMO) called one of the worst signings of the offseason.

Why would signing Weaver to an overpriced contract be any different than signing Lowe to an overpriced contract? (Though I may have just made the argument that we should pay up for him, considering I don't think the Lowe signing was a disaster).

If we can keep Weaver for not more than what Lowe is getting, I am okay with keeping him.

Then we only need to find one additional starter to go along with him, Lowe, Penny and Houlton, after we get rid of Perez.

Come to think of it, if we get rid of Perez and his $3mm per year, sign Weaver, then put a rookie in the 5 spot in the rotation, our salary structure for the starters may even be livable for the Dodgers.

79 - Weaver most likely comes with a 3 year contract (minimum) unless he accepts arbitration.

If no arby, that means we've got Lowe, Penny, and Weaver for 3 more full seasons, and OP for another 2.

Is that too much guaranteed on one staff, esp. considering the kids that should be ready in 2007?

Perez and his $3mm per year

If only that were true. He averages over $10M per year for the next two years.

I suspect one of the touted kids will be ready next year. That pitcher, with Houlton, gives us an inexpensive 40% of the starting rotation.

Thus you have them, along with 3 veterans who give us innings, we are set there.

With Gagne back, Sanchez appears to have really gotten it all of a sudden, Wunsch, Schmoll, Brazoban...the bullpen is looking pretty good too.

82 even better....leaves more on the table for Weaver if Perez is gone...

83 - I really hope that Weaver accepts arbitration, though that is becoming increasingly unlikely.

I agree, love the bullpen next year:

Gagne
Braz
Sanchez
Schmoll
Wunsch
Dessens (?)

Broxton can go back to starter, or can be the closer in Jax and be emergency fill-in for the pen.

85 yeah, the pitching for next year is really taking shape, in my opinion...

a hitter or two along with some health, 2006 looks pretty good to me

84 - Also makes it that much more difficult to trade him. We'll most likely end up having to pick up and solid chunk of salary if he goes somewhere (