Jon (and I didn't read Plaschke's article so I can't comment):

mark shapiro - he of cleveland indians fame,not ESPN executive - yesterdayon ESPN radio...

and I'm paraphrasing here, but the essence is here...

'we (he/Wedge) believe that putting people together who believe in playing the game the right way, and respecting the game, does make a difference on our clubhouse and ultimately the performance of the team.'

Sees things in a new light? Does that mean we can't make any moves that will hurt character? Or just no moves at all like Evans? Or are we going to attempt Bostonification, signing Nomah and Mueller at any cost? Or is it a really strange way of saying we're dealing Bradley?

This team is making the Bradley situation worse than it is, and if we try to deal him, we will look so desperate that we might be lucky to get something valuable

like many of the people who post here, i grew up following the dodgers either before the advent of free agency or during a time when players stayed with one team for the majority of their careers. i was able to see the continuity in the franchise; players that i was familiar with slowly gave way to new players, but their tenure overlapped, so it was easy to still see the dodgers as "my" team. the last part of last season and continuing into this year was different. so many new faces. i didn't feel like this was my team anymore (it doesn't help being 1800 miles away from chavez ravine).

anyway, it was the combined decision to purchase the ondemand package and choosing to root for milton bradley that really brought me back to this team. i agree with jon that it is insensitivity, not necessarily racism, that milton has charged kent with (i must confess, i have not read all the reports, and obviously don't know if milton used the "r" word). i am a believer in chemistry, but i agree with a recent poster that it would be a shame to see the milton bradley success story play out in another city.

don't get me wrong; i definitely root for the name on the front of the jersey, but sometimes it helps to have a name on the back of the jersey to root for too. figuratively speaking, of course.

#1 -- I would argue that the Dodgers (particularly focusing on Bradley and Kent, since they seem to be the ones in question) for the most part do have players that respect the game and play it the right way. The big issue to the media seems to be how they get along with each other.

I'm not going to read Plaschke's nonsense, but I have a pretty good idea of what it says. In my opinion, this is all just a huge overreaction to a bad season, and another excuse for the media to pile on DePo. I'm 99% positive if the team were winning the Bradley/Kent incident probably wouldn't have happened at all, and most certainly wouldn't be the story it currently is.

Incidentally, I find it interesting that all the articles I've seen have been "Bradley needs to go". Why not "Kent needs to go"? I don't think either of them should go, I'm just saying.

Wow. That article is just another DePodesta hit piece. Its like 'DAMN DEPODESTA AND HIS RACIST COMPUTER FOR RUINING OUR PRECIOUS TEAM.'

4 - "Bradley needs to go" not because of anything he's done wrong (necessarily), but because his contract expires.

Jon, I'm not sure I follow this piece. It seems to me you're reading too much into McCourt's statement. He didn't say the team was losing because of character. All he said was that it was something he would take into consideration in the future.

It really breaks my heart to see everything that's going on with the Dodgers. The media seems to really be pushing this chemistry issue. Looks like they finally got to McCourt. After the 12-2 start I know the media was hating it. Now after all that's happened, It looks like they are taking the opportunity to say "I told you so". I think part of it is because they want to feel validated and competent. Plaschke really is an Idiot, he still thinks the angels win because they have heart and chemistry. When in reality it's because of Pitching and Vlad. I really hope this doesn't stop Depo from bringing in players like Drew, Bradley, and Kent. I'll take them over Alex cora, Shawn Green, and Paul LoDuca any day. I don't care what plaschke says.

6 -- I thought he was a free agent after 2006? Where can I find that kind of information?

Another Plashke hatchet job. Lack of character is not what doomed this season. People grasp for straws, looking for reasons, when things go wrong. There have been many dysfunctional clubhouses in professional sports that have gone on to win it all. Chemistry, while it cannot be completely ignored, is waaaay overrated. It is one of those unquantifiable mumbo jumbo that people attribute failure or success to when they cannot find a solid one.

6 - I guess I don't understand how the Bradley situation is evidence that the team didn't value character enough. Which is not to say that the Dodger talent or the Dodger personality this season has been perfect, but has it ever been?

I just thought the article was unfairly insulting to the entire team.

I'm beginning to think their might be truth to DePo resigning from the Dodgers.

Its obvious DePo and Tracy dont get along. DePo gives Tracy players, and then Tracy wont play them. DePo's players arent a scrappy, bunt, SB's type of team. Yet Tracy continues to play them like that. There's one disconnect.

Then from the article it appears McCourt doesnt have DePo's back when it comes to player acquisition.

This situation is getting worse. I knew something was up when Tracy wasnt fired earlier in the year for all his mess ups.

Its obviously Frank McCourt's fault. DePo's hands are truely tied.

I just, I don't know, grrrr.

*

One thing I really don't get is all the fuss about this should have been handled privately. Sure, Bradley could have measured his comments to the press more, but the team is closely covered by skilled reporters -- not everything can just be kept in the clubhouse. And, maybe some consider this a character defect, but I just think there's an unrealistic standard at work here. It's not possible to always hold your tongue; sometimes people just can't keep from saying something that's on their mind. Even when they know they shouldn't. It just happens. Deal with it.

*

Man, Plaschke still drives me nuts. "Maybe they would also be a jillion games under .500, but at least they wouldn't be imploding." Um, right.

Finally, I think the piece has a very odd tone to it. McCourt's answers to what Plaschke describes as his question are often sort of glancing or offpoint. I'm sure this is part due to the fact that McCourt would not comment directly on Bradley or Kent, but it means that much of the article consists of Plaschke inferring McCourt's views from vague or glancing statements. Given Plaschke's biases, that makes the piece a pretty problematic vehicle for figuring out what McCourt really thinks. (For example, does he really agree that Bradley trivialized Jackie Robinson? The juxtaposition of Plaschke's "question" and McCourt's "no racism in the clubhouse" "answer" suggests he does, but the caveat re no direct comments on Bradley suggests he wouldn't have expressed a view.)

11 I was thinking the exact opposite, actually. I think McCourt is just paying lip service to this character deal, because he and Depo know that this is just a red herring that shouldn't be taken seriously, and wouldn't be taken seriously if the team were winning. In the last three games, the linup has been pretty much what everyone here has been saying it should be if Depo took charge. I get the sense that the Dodgers have packed it in this season, and are eager to find out who should be starting next season. And, if the Dodgers make it to the playoffs this year, it will be by playing the players of the future.

I think we may be making too much of this article. McCourt saying he now values "character" more can mean plenty of different things, which in a substantive sense may mean not very much at all. And it's not like Plaschke's an unbiased source--who knows how many quotes he cherrypicked.

DePo still has has 3 years left on that contract. We'll see how it goes...

I for one want Milton to stay. I really do think he's more to "blame" for all this uproar in the press than anyone else, but it's not that big an issue to me. It's certainly not as important as the fact that he looks to be as fragile as Drew.

WWSH

13 -- I hope you are right.

After watching his personality-as-afterthought philosophy collapse like a thrown clubhouse chair, will DePodesta finally realize that you can't just build a team from double clicks? - Plaschke

This guy has a career as professional sportswriter?

The article was long on hyperbole and short on any attempt at objectivity... my guess is that McCourt is quoted grossly out of context.

Does anybody really believe that following is paraphrase of a Plaschke question followed by a quotable answer:

No matter what sort of cool numbers are spit from Paul DePodesta's computer?

"I think Paul, for some of the reasons I experienced, now sees things in a different light," said McCourt.

What an idiot...

11 - My feeling is that Tracy is already gone to Cincy. This season will be blamed on injuries, Depo's laptop, blah blah blah.

Tracy gets to opt out of his contract, take more money to go home to Cincy and be close to his family, and leave LA with his head up as a martyr.

Depo gets what he wants, without a big messy confrontation. Then he can hire who he wants, be it Jerry Royster or...?

I wouldn't mind Tracy going and Milton staying, if the chips could somehow be arranged that way, but at this point, who knows what will happen. The media is so jaundiced as to be useless, and McCourt's authority as owner makes everything so unpredictable. The best solution IMO is for Tracy to go of his own will to Cincy, citing family reasons, but who knows what Tracy really wants?

WWSH

Sorry, but I'll post my comments that I posted in the wee hours of the morning in a different thread, but it seems to be in line with what most poeple have alredy written.

Was anyone interested in the "character" issue until Bradley blew up?

Most fans were just disappointed that the team was playing poorly.

Were we all in love with the winning personality of Shawn Green? Didn't we like Adrian Beltre because he hit 48 home runs? We liked Steve Finley because he hit a home run to beat the Giants. We liked Jose Lima because he won a playoff game. We liked Eric Gagne because he got lots of saves and struck out a lot of people.

So if Bradley had been jettisoned at the end of the 2004 season and the Dodgers had Steve Finley batting .220 all year, we'd all be happier?

Really?

Really?

What sort of thinking is that?

Did you know that "Lo Duca" is Italian for "epitome of all that is right" and Bradley is an English word meaning "evil man who must be exiled"?

When Leo Durocher talked about nice guys being in seventh place (he didn't say last), he was managing the Dodgers at the time.

19 - "Character/chemistry" is a 3-game winning streak.

16 - Uh, "What an idiot..." is of course in reference to Plaschke not McCourt.

There was just nothing redeeming or informative in the article. The only use I can see for it is Plaschke stroking his own ego; that, or as toilet paper to anybody else.

I've been reading this site daily for more than a year... love the commentary. Rarely contribute, but love reading.

Today... wow. I've read frequently the hate spewed out against plaschke. Living in the NYC area now, I don't read the LA Times often, so I didn't pay much attention. I read today's article. I'm not sure I've read such a biased, unfair article in mainstream media before. And that comes from someone exposed to the NY Post and Daily News every day. This makes them look like wallflowers. What a poor article.

A couple of comments. First, Jon - agree with your assessment, that this is an insult to the team in general. Essentially written to make it look like the whole team is without character.

Second, I'm surprised that McCourt, who blames Bradley for making his issues public in the media, has essentially done the same thing with DePo. Not sure if this was just Plaschke's creative editing, or if McCourt really meant it to come across this way, but boy, he looks like he just made DePo the ultimate fallguy for all of this. Sad.

The person McCourt needs to fire is his son or whomever it was in his family he hired to do PR for the team. Sad, sad, sad. And poor, poor, poor form for any journalist to spit out this kind of article. I find al franken and rush limbaugh to both be more fair of their assessments and less insidious in how the portray things as this thing.

Good thing Plaschke isn't a political writer...

I read this article and thought, "there are all kinds of arguments one can make showing how Plaschke's assumptions are flawed and how he ignores all the great personnel decisions, especially the decisions of omission (like not re-signing Beltre) that DePodesta has made." But then I remembered that this is Plaschke, and thought, "Plaschke writes stupid column. In other news, sky remains blue."

If I was Paul and read McCourt's statements:

I would resign Immediatly.

Talk about bad Character!

Sorry, but you all have it all wrong, and have not understood Plaschke's article.

What he was saying was Bradley, he's such a character, he cracks me up!

Remember when:
Steve Henson in the March 30, 2005 L.A. Times:

Jeff Kent planted the seed, mentioning to Milton Bradley that a players-only meeting might be beneficial. Bradley made it happen, closing the clubhouse doors Tuesday and speaking about leadership, chemistry and breaking spring training with a unified purpose.

The Dodgers have so many new players that Bradley, in his second year, is almost an elder statesman. Among regulars, only shortstop Cesar Izturis has been with the team longer.

"Sometimes you can sense something in the air," Bradley said. "We've had a quiet clubhouse. That's OK. Every team has its own identity. But it seemed to Jeff and I that we all needed to make sure we were on the same page before we went to Los Angeles."

Jayson Werth, who like Bradley is in his second season with the team, spoke next. Then Eric Gagne, the senior Dodger, had something to say. Finally, Kent stepped forward and talked about what he believes is necessary to win.

"It's important for us to communicate with one another, for anybody to feel comfortable talking if they have something to say," Bradley said. "We made it clear to younger and newer guys that anybody can say anything. Don't be shy."

"It's important for us to communicate with one another, for anybody to feel comfortable talking if they have something to say," Bradley said. "We made it clear to younger and newer guys that anybody can say anything. Don't be shy. Oh, except when you have something to say to me..."

While I have no original insights into Plaschke's column to offer, and I can't see straight enough to make them even if I had them, I can't help but register somewhere -- and there's no better place than here -- how much it disgusts me. Ugh.

It's telling that TJ Simers has written about this issue with more class than Plaschke, and Simer's whole shtick is to have no class.

19 Plaschke's point is exactly that. Even if last years team collectively laid an egg, it would've brought a smile to his face because they would've had character. They would be loveable losers instead of the grungy, grumpy crew we got now.

Another point: McCourt is drawing praise because he gave Plaschke the interview and agreed with him. That's all.

What an awful column. What a terrible disservice to anyone interested in the Dodgers.

27 - Given that earlier comment by Bradley, when the season wasnt' such a total washout, this whole thing smacks of frustration from a year when nothing went right.

To borrow from Mudhoney - "It's all overblown."

By the way, this doesn't add up to me:

Last year's team was fun and had character and we wanted to root for them.

Bradley has horrible character flaws that will force the Dodgers to get rid of him.

Uh, wasn't Bradley part of last year's team, too?

30 exactly what I said yesterday...when a team is winning, they have chemistry and character...and when they are losing, bickering and name-calling

Despite all of our comments, the LA Times Sports section on Saturday will run 5-10 letters all in support of Plaschke's stance and zero in opposition to it.

The Sports Department doesn't tend to run letters where people oppose one of the columnist's positions with the exception of Simers, who is the Designated Antagonist.

31 Logic has never been one of Plaschke's strong points.

Being outraged at a moronic Plaschke column isn't entirely unlike being mad at Circuit City because the video game you bought for your kid contained material 'not suitable for children.'

Caveat emptor.

33 Well, we are the Depodesta Trekkies, after all. Who would listen to us?

36 I believe the term these days is DePodesta Trekkers

34 Indeed.

Colin Cowherd is talking about the Plaschke article right now.

31 - A major part.

Plaschke's boys:
Green - quiet guy, little emotion on the field.
LoDuca - emotional pulse of the team, but often surly and irritable.

All that is wrong with the Dodgers:
Drew - quiet guy, little emotion on the field.
Bradley - emotional pulse of the team, but often surly and irritable.

39 - Can you let us know what he says? Sometimes he is spot-on with stuff like this, but I have a feeling he's going to say "see, this is what you get..."

It had been such a nice summer since Plaschke had been on vacation. I was enjoying my miserable Dodgers season in my own way.

Now my ability to revel in my own misery has been ruined.

Curses!

Milton Bradley is a person who gets in trouble a lot, and I think that one thing he's learned throughout his life is that when he's in trouble, if he levels a charge or racism, or accuses a black person who criticizes him of lacking racial solidarity, people back off a step. Trouble doesn't go away, but for a moment the pressure is eased, and he gets room to breathe. So for Milton Bradley, accusations of racism have become a habit. He's a wonderfully talented player, and I wish the Dodgers could take advantage of that talent without the baggage, but I think you have to say that the Dodgers have given him his chance and now that chance is over.

That notwithstanding, Bill Plaschke is an idiot.

41 he is very supportive of McCourt equating his admissions to that of an alcoholic, the first step is admitting you have a problem...he seems to like McCourt and DePodesta...

he believes no one likes Jeff Kent or JD Drew...

he says he doesn't understand why, but chemistry is important to a team...

McCourt and DePodesta have everything to lose, Bradley and Kent have nothing to lose in this matter...Bradley and Kent are just passing thru, while McCourt and DePodesta have an image to maintain for the Dodgers in the community...

22"Good thing Plaschke isn't a political writer..."

That's exactly what Plaschke is. He covers the Dodgers like the Times covers City Hall or the state Legislature. It's all about the who's-up/who's down gossip, and precious little about anything that's truly meaningful.

I read this morning's column as a declaration of war by the Times against DePodesta, and also as a declaration of war against the whole blog community focused around baseball: DT and its posters, 6-4-2, Firejimtracy.com, etc. Plaschke is lifting his leg on the whole concept of evaluating players by meaningful performance measures, and suggesting instead that a baseball team should be chosen by the players' ability to charm reporters.

The attempt to boost Tracy in his column is another joke. Any objective sports columnist in any other town would say Tracy has lost control of the Dodger clubhouse. If JT really told Bradley and Kent to stop talking to media about this, and they ignored him, that's because they don't respect him, and they don't believe in him.

Obviously, the owner's PR guy has told him he should dump Bradley. I think that's a mistake not just on a baseball level, but on a PR level. I don't think this city's African American community is going to appreciate a native Angeleno who is active in the community being abandoned. Yeah, he popped off and he was stupid to do so. But he could have been asked to apologize and that would be the end of it.

Finally: Sutton v. Garvey anyone? Hello? Is chemistry really that important? A new book is out, "Ladies and Gentlemen, the Bronx is Burning." It's about the 1977 Yankee team in the context of New York's woes of that year. It is most enlightening to relive the out and out hatred between Jackson and Thurman Munson, and the almost deranged behavior of their manager, Billy Martin. The team seemed ready to explode. DT readers don't need to be reminded how that season turned out.

44
If McCourt is going to go and start a 12-step "good character" program, then I'm not looking forward to him making amends.

45 I am not an african-american, but I think if having the correct number of the right minorities on the team was an issue, then having just one african-american on the team would not be sufficient

What I don't get is why McCourt (or anyone associated with the Dodgers for that matter) would ever agree to an interview with Plaschke.

If McCourt refuses Plashcke, the worst that can happen is Plaschke writes some baseless, rant-filled "editorial" lacking in logic and skewed by personal vendetta. How is that any different from a Plaschke article based on an actual interview?

With all of the competing news outlets in print, television, and cyberspace, I don't understand why the Dodger's brass don't take a little control and grant "exclusive" interviews to more balanced media outlets. They have nothing to lose.

Fire Jim Tracy?

Fire the LA Times.

45 -- Hey, yeah, I totally forgot about the LA angle. Wasn't Plaschke the one who wrote that tear-jerking article about Chuck Tiffany and how he grew up dreaming about playing for the Dodgers, and how it was such a travesty the Dodgers don't have more players with LA roots?

Chemistry matters less in baseball than any other professional team sport. It's all a matter of perception. Boston apparently had good team chemistry last year, but only because Manny was "just being Manny" and not a flaky distraction, and Schilling was being an "outspoken leader", and not an "arrogant jerk".

48 - No, McCourt's decision to give Plaschke the interview is probably wise. To most, McCourt will come off as caring and concerned and humble - the latter quality one that has particularly seemed lacking.

Whereas if McCourt doesn't talk to Plaschke, Plaschke gets to go off on the entire organization top to bottom.

Today's column, after all, is an optimistic one for the future of the Dodgers in Plaschke's mind. "They finally get it," he's saying. It's good PR for the mainstream.

re: Jon's update 2

Perspective has never been one of Plaschke's strong points.

Plaschke is a moron.

That said, in the city that pioneered Showtime Basketball and the Lake Show, having a churchie, a broken-down canuck, and a wannabe-redneck head up the marketable aspects of the team, well, that's just sad. I would rather have 9 Milton Bradleys.

Also, if I were DePodesta and I read those comments from my boss, I would be sending my resume out today.

While I disagree with Plaschke trying to lump all of this into one basket I do think the time has come to cut ties with Milton Bradley and get this time under control.

I look at the Atlanta Braves who play 90 miles from my house and I see all their division championships. Sure you can point to their single world series win but I think all of us Dodger fans would gladly take those NLDS and NLCS wins that they've enjoyed over the last 13 years. My point is this stuff doesn't happen in Atlanta. Other than the John Rocker deal which was dealt with swiftly can you name a Braves controversy?

In just the last couple of seasons we've had Odalis Perez calling out his teammates and Jim Tracy three or four times, Jeff Weaver publicly blaming Tracy for leaving him in too long, and numerous Milton Bradley episodes. I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot of others but let's just take those.

The time is long overdue for someone to clamp down on this and get the franchise back in the direction of being all about business and professionalism. There is absolutely no reason why the Atlanta model can't work in LA. Especially when Atlanta is on a tighter budget in a much smaller market.

47 It's not about numbers. I don't care if we have 25 African Americans or none. But look at Bradley's stats. Despite being injury prone, he's been a pretty consistent offensive force, a tremendous defensive player, and takes seriously his status as a role model, especially given that he grew up in Harbor City, just down the 110 from Dodger Stadium.

He screwed up. He's 27 and he overreacted under stress, and displayed some ego and racial oversensitivity. He definitely created the problem himself. But I think McCourt is being precipitous in dumping him. PR people (I've worked with them for decades) can be the least wise people. They react to the moment. The press was negative on Bradley, the talk radio blowhards were negative on Bradley, so the PR people tell McCourt, "Bradley's a problem." How this incident will all look in three months is something most PR people lack the vision to conceive, and I think at that point, McCourt will be the one under fire if Bradley's gone. That was my point.

51 Frank probably thought it was wise to talk to Plaschke but he inadvertently put himself into Plaschke's camp while putting everyone else outside of it.

McCourt gets it now, according to Plaschke. Tracy always has gotten it, it's just the poor sod had to keep his mouth shut the entire time. Depodesta and the players are left on the outside looking in.

Or perhaps not so inadvertently...

FJT's new favorite columnist from Page2 ESPN, Scoop Jackson, has his take on this situation. It's free, so have a read. This little nugget was taken from the 3rd paragraph:

"The first thing you gotta understand is that sometimes we [African-Americans] be trippin'. "

So...yeah.

http://tinyurl.com/ax8m2

Maybe If Frank had Paul add another 10 million to the offer for Beltre we wouldn't have any chemistry problems.

LOL

I've got a short, short new thread up top that might work for an open chat at this point, if people want to leave this story behind.

I'll leave my parting thoughts about Plaschke, by just saying that this is the final straw:

I'm never having him over to my place for dinner!

Which GM decided to pick up Bradley, anyway?

re: 22, as bad as this column by Plaschke seems, it really is no better or worse than any other (hit)piece he does.

#11:

Old Bear, Tracy does not play this team as a "scrappy, SB" team. Have you not noticed the lack of aggressiveness, SB's, etc.? Yes, he uses the bunt, sometimes wrongly, but he does not do so excessively. This team needs MORE aggressiveness, not less. They look much like the 2003 crew--flat, uninspired, and uninspiring.

#4:

Bradley will not be traded. They simply won't tender him a contract, thereby making him a FA before he otherwise would have been. He has no 2006 contract.

63 - Speaking of which, what was the vibe in here when APerez got thrown out at 2nd after his basehit in the critical inning last night.

Hindsight says it was a horrible decision, but I liked the aggressive baserunning at that time.

#16:

He didn't use t