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 the word "indeed" in the article. Shocking, isn't it?

Sad, but undeniably true - Plaschke is the most influential sports writer in Los Angeles. I agree with Jon in 51, he has to give this interview and it potentially has huge PR benefit for the organization. The Plashcke view of the last 1 1/2 years, that the Dodger owner doesn't know what he's doing, and is motivated by financial side dealings, is, frankly, the conventional wisdom among casual sports fans in L.A. If you want to start a new CW in LA (e.g. that the Dodgers do know what they're doing), going through Plaschke is pretty much the way to do it.

Now that's all well and good, unless the Dodgers actually let Plaschke start making decisions for the team. If Bradley or Depo are sacrificed on account of this, and I think Bradley is gone, that's a bad thing. But when you have a season this bad, there's going to be fallout.

I think the view that the Times is going after the blog viewpoint is taking it a bit far.

I'm not sure sure I should dignify the column in the LA Times by commenting on it. Just a terrible, terrible piece.

You know, it's sure a good thing that everyone knows how to run a baseball team better than Depo. Afterall, it was just random chance that he got the job, right?

One thing I did notice is that the quotes by McCourt were basically one-line tidbits that had zero context, so they could have been originally meant to mean just about anything. The line about Depo seeing the light could just of easily have been about Bradly, rather than player evaluation in general.

I still believe in Depo, I'm still suspicious of McCourt, I still think Tracy needs to leave, and I've always thought that Plaschke isn't even worth reading.

64 -- Thanks. But I guess I don't see what that accomplishes, unless the team ends up with Drew in CF and someone else that equals Bradley's production or better in RF. If the end result is more Repko, count me out.

Jon in 51 and Jacob in 67 I think have the right idea. And they state it a lot more clearly than I ever could. Not a good idea to write angry.

#19:

Excellent point. When this whole mess became public, it was natural for the "I told you so" crowd to blame the losing on chemistry problems, not on other things which are glaring yet fixable.

Injuries are an excuse for losing only up to a point. That is why depth on the roster is critical. This team, as constructed, could have been good, quite good, I believe. But the intended 2005 line-up never played a SINGLE game together. It was a huge injury risk, which Stat Boy should've planned for better. That means not accumulating AL farm rejects and retreads like Grabowski, Rose, and Cody Ross.

You can get bench talent for a reasonable price. You don't have to pay $4 million a year for good back-ups. I'm certainly not saying that would've saved their season, but being as close as they have stayed, they could be a little closer.

When you have four or five rookies or retreads starting at once, you are doomed. How many games this year featured some combination of Rose, Ross, Grabowski, Repko, and Edwards? Far too many.

Repko and Edwards are guys who actually have some talent, Repko more than Edwards. I have hope for them, especially for Repko, who should at least be a good 4th OF. But there is no reason to keep picking up guys like the other three, let alone expect them to contribute anything.

The Angels are a good example of supplying depth. For the last three years, they have had injury-plagued teams, but their stellar bench players keep them in it. In fact, they often have had trouble getting guys in the line-up because there's no space for them.

The Dodgers need to assemble more depth. They need to make some very wise trades and hope for better health and one or two more young guys to be ready next year. There is a dearth of talent on the FA market, so I don't expect much from there.

67 If you want to start a new CW in LA (e.g. that the Dodgers do know what they're doing), going through Plaschke is pretty much the way to do it.

Undeniably true, but reporters/columnists are never accountable if their counsel is adapted and then turns out bad. I think you're alluding to the Angels' situation, i.e. the Times treatment of Arte Moreno as a God. Well: Look at the standings. Hard to argue with the Times if they think Moreno's doing well.

If McCourt dumps Bradley and then dumps DePo, Plaschke will cheer. But if the Dodgers finish out of the running in 2006, Plaschke won't say, "we were wrong." He'll say McCourt panicked.

Long time reader, first time poster. I love watching Milton Bradley play, he's fearless and wild and it's great fun watching him take the risks he does, even if he fails.

I have to say that Bob Timmerman has pretty much nailed this one on the head. Its obvious to anyone whos spent time watching Milton Bradley play that no one is as hard on Milton as Milton. So after a frustrating year of playing hurt and watching your team struggle, the last thing you need is the hall of fame loner in the corner calling you out for not hustling.

But there is one point that Milton made that has gotten lost, most likely because he pointed the finger at the media. That point is that often times when referring to a white player being vocal or demonstrative, the white player will be called "Firey" or "Intense" where in the past when Milton exhibits the same behavior, it's "he's a head case" or "he's got issues." He does have a point there.

#67:

Yes, Plaschke's views always remind me of the social psychological phenomenon of people discounting or ignoring evidence that doesn't support their views, while they focus more on things that do support them.

An example is Plaschke's claim a while back that the current regime banned fans from watching Dodger BP because they wanted to save money on security personnel. However, the truth is that the Fox regime started that ban, not the McCourts. But that falsehood fit PERFECTLY with the image of them being cheap and penny-pinching.

DePodesta, I believe, entered March planning on having Choi start at first, Valentin at third, with Saenz, Ledee and Perez leading the bench and spot-starting. Those three, as we've seen, are three great guys to have on the bench. The Dodgers had depth at the start of the season.

What they didn't have is depth to withstand long-term absences by Drew and Bradley and Ledee. Arguably, the bench needed to be deeper. But it was hardly barren.

#73:

When you get into many ugly scrapes with fans and umpires, as well as repeated run-ins with the law, that is more than being "fiery." It is a serious problem.

I hope that for Sunday's 50th anniversary celebration of the Brooklyn World Series championship there isn't a whole bunch of people commenting on how good their chemistry was.

Because it really wasn't. The mid 1950s Dodgers had deeop divisions in the clubhouse especially between those who were in Jackie Robinson's camp and those who were in Roy Campanella's camp.

Irony alert!

Plaschke
April 5, 2004

"A team suffering from serious ownership credibility can show that at least the new general manager is trying. Milton Bradley is the Dodgers' best overall hitter. Right now. Period. ... the Indians are thrilled to rid themselves of a guy they had essentially thrown off the team last week for bad behavior. To which I reply with two words: Gary Sheffield. One of the best pure hitters to sit in the Dodger dugout in many years, he was traded for being a miscreant, a move that was originally applauded in this space until the ensuing losing taught me better.

The idea of clubhouse chemistry having evaporated after 15 years of feel-good
failures, it is time to face the nasty truth. The Dodgers need some jerks who can play... One thing Bradley hasn't done is fight with his teammates... The Dodgers are acquiring Bradley not for his leadership, but his knocks... "We have looked closely at Milton, and we think he will be fine in the clubhouse," DePodesta said."

76: so what do you call it when you get in to many ugly scrapes with teammates and umpires and break your wrist "washing your truck"?

66 He did indeed.

"In granting his first newspaper interview about the racially charged feud between Milton Bradley and Jeff Kent, Mccourt's swings were mighty indeed."

#75:

I didn't say it was a barren bench. Ledee, Perez, and Saenz are all good players whom I like. However, they were not enough to rely on, especially when Saenz had prior health issues, as well, and cannot play every day.

The entire starting OF (intended) had injury histories, and it was wrong to count on Ledee and Grabowski, as well as AAA guys like Edwards and Ross. Oh, yes, there is always Chen, too, when needed.

Jon -- re the clarification up top -- this interview doesn't happen minus the Bradley/Kent episode. I guess I see the point, but it seems strained to me.

I hope Bradley is back, and he may yet be. The problem will be for DePodesta getting a bat to replace his.

#79:

Funny, I thought that would be brought up. Kent's actions were lame in that incident, but how many times did that incident occur? Once. Bradley has had repeated problems in a variety of circumstances with different people.

I am NOT eager to see Bradley go. I was proud of his calmness this year and thought he had finally turned it around. At this point, though, can they continue to gamble with him?

Plaschke's predictable "character and chemistry" column is filled with his typical calling cards of snide computer references, unfounded conclusions, and ridiculous overstatement, but I think that Plaschke's hyperbole is matched and exceeded by today's DT comments. There's not too many original sportswriters out there, and most of them simply use hindsight to point out "obvious conclusions". If the season had gone in a different direction, his obvious conclusions would have been different.

In the past, Plaschke has been ridiculed for his poor writing, indefensible simplification, and bad analysis. He is probably guilty of all of those things today as well, but he seems to have struck something a little deeper as well. "Methinks we doth protest too much."

78
Along the lines of bigcpa's irony alert, Plaschke was very vocal in complaining that Dan Evans didn't make any changes at the deadline in 2003 while the Padres acquired Brian Giles. He wondered why the Dodgers were always on the sidelines when it came to trades.

82 - Just looks like another one of those times that we're not on the same wavelength. It's cool.

84

We've protested more. With Steve not around, we're fairly reserved by our normal standards!

78 - Thanks. I borrowed from that to add up top.

84 - he seems to have struck something a little deeper as well. "Methinks we doth protest too much."

- meaning, we secretly like Plaschke? We secretly agree with him?

I'll grant you that there's a lot of hyperbolic criticism of Plaschke, but your conclusion seems to imply something further ... which I'm not understanding.

Did anybody catch this? I stole it from Transaction Guy:

"I think [for Milton Bradley] to make it a race issue is ridiculous. Jeff Kent doesn't discriminate against anybody. He ignores Latinos, blacks and whites equally."
—- Lance Berkman

89

Meaning that the character and chemistry issue has been routinely dismissed on this site. The typical (though not universal) response is that "winning breeds chemistry", and although that statement isn't incorrect I would argue that it's a gross simplification (IMHO).

I agree that winning does build chemistry. You can have a bunch of misfits and miscreants but if they're winning at a .700 clip than the team will get along fine. However, chemistry can also breed winning. Not always, and not on every team, but if a lesser caliber team has a good rapport - that can directly translate into more victories. And unlike what others on this site have said, I would argue that this is more true in baseball than any other sport. The season is long and grueling and you are essentially living with 25 guys for six months, if the team has "chemistry" it can make going out on the field each and every day an enjoyable experience. The grind of a 162 game season is minimized, individual performance improves if your mental outlook is better, and consequently the team's performance improves. I have been coaching on the college level for over a decade (not baseball) and each team is different - some get along great and don't play very well, some have internal struggles and overcome them, and others have an unquantifiable chemistry that enables them to play better than their talent would dictate. I suppose my point is that the "chemistry" issue has negative connotations for most DT readers, and my experience leads me to believe that although chemistry can't make a talent-less team great it can make a talented team better.

#90:

In a fairly lengthy piece in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, several Astros denied Kent was a bad teammate or a racist. Berkman stated that everyone loved him and would love to have him back. Granted, I don't believe the Astros had any blacks on their team last year, but Berkman's comment about wanting him back was more telling to me.

91 - My take is that chemistry isn't important, it's just that is completely overrated.

I'll take 25 talented players that have "poor chemistry" over a team full of AAA-talent that make me feel warm and fuzzy.

The ideal situation is that you have both, chemistry and talent, but I'm not sure you can say winning is dependant on chemistry.

The negative connotation comes from the media and management's insinuation that we'd rather have guys that we like, rather than guys that can play (Phillips over Choi, for example).

91 People on DT have a lot of different views about team chemistry, with the preponderance coming down on the not-so-important/winning-leads-to-it side.

I think, however, that the problem people (well, I'll speak for myself), I, have with the Plaschke article is that it equates the organization's view of team chemsitry solely with whether or not they continue to employ Milton Bradley with countervaling arguments on either side (good guys, other guys who might be jerks) completely ignored. Jose Guillen is waiting in the wings as exhibit b.

I think the problem with the chemistry issue is that it is hard to identify and isolate and expecting a baseball GM or manager to find guys who are "good chemistry" guys or "bad chemistry" guys is just as hard as it is any walk of life.

Who wasn't worked in some group setting where there was some person one of us couldn't get along with? But maybe that person could do his/her job well and we just had to put up with it.

"Good chemistry" and "bad chemistry" I think can only be determined in hindsight with any accuracy.

93 - that should read "...chemistry isn't not important..."

dang double negatives...

84 - I just hate idiots with a venue, that's all... writing like Plaschke's is a dangerous thing to suggestable minds. I wonder how many people agreed with his article in post 78 at the time?

To be precise, the Astros had one African-American on the team in 2004. Darren Oliver pitched in 10 games for the team.

At the risk of Plaschke-fisking becoming passé:

Next year, when the Dodgers don't lose 1000 player-days to the DL, winning the Western Division title with many of the same players from this season's core, Plaschke will tell us that this moment was the turning point; when Frank McCourt had finally "seen the light" and learned what it means to run a baseball team.

Plaschke's 2005 Dream Team:

1b Green $17M
3b Beltre $14M
C LoDuca $7M
CF Finley $7M
LF Roberts $1M
RF Encarnacion $4M
2b Cora $1M
SS Izzy $3M

Weaver- $9M
Gagne- $10M
Dreifort- $13M

OK I'm at $86M. I have 9 active players. My offense will get along great and score 3.5 runs/game. I don't have Brad Penny. Now I just need 4 starters with good character and preferably playoff caliber talent. Any ideas?

91 - I see what you're saying. Thanks for the explanation.

Perhaps we should review the Dodgers history of "personality dump" transactions -

trade Kevin Brown (file also under "salary dump") - undeniably good result

trade Gary Sheffield - undeniably bad result, although, frankly I feel better about myself not having to root for him

trade Raul Mondesi - good result unless you couple it with the $87 million Green extension. Additonal note- Mondy's principle offense, the bleep Davey bleep Kevin Malone speech, was actually something that every Dodger fan could get behind.

don't resign Don Sutton - pretty bad

Other examples?

I read McCourt's statements as directed towards the current situation, but perhaps pointed towards other attention-getting stories that have gone on this season -- Lowe's alleged affair and even Penny's recent milk shenanigans. These are all embarrassing to the organization.

Despite Plaschke's slant, I was glad to hear McCourt is mad and wants to do something about it.

The Saturday after Milton Bradley was acquired in 2004, the LA Times sports section ran 13 letters about baseball.

12 of them were about the Dodgers and all were universally opposed to the changes the Dodgers had made. 3 of them were vehemently opposed to the Bradley acquistion. One writer called him "dugout poison".

Another complained that DePodesta got fleeced in letting Cabrera and Romano go in spring training. So Mr. Geoff Flynn of Palmdale do you wish you hadn't been published now?

103- Tricking batboys into puking is great for team chemistry.

102 - How did we end up getting rid of Darryl Strawberry?

Bobby Bonilla?

Pedro Guerrero for John Tudor - why did we trade our best hitter in the middle of a pennant race? I was 12, so I don't feel like I got the full story.

Wow. I can see this ridiculous article really stirred things up here. Remember guys...

bill.plaschke@latimes.com

103 - Ok, , Lowe's affair: definitely smarmy.
But Penny's milk incident? The way I heard it was pretty funny. Offered the bat boy $500 for drinking a gallon of milk... so the kid puked. If he got his $500 then it's all good, if not then yeah, it's bad. Am I missing something on this? Did the kid get deathly ill?

105 Yeah, I realize, as Penny said, this stuff goes on every day.

I'm in San Diego and I've been hearing the terms "laughingstock" and "dysfunctional" a little too much lately from colleagues and the radio... so that's where I'm coming from.

92 I take your point and I'm sure Berkman was being supported. The quote was toungue in cheek; I just thought it was funny.

Uh "supportive" above, not supported. Sheesh...

103 - I didn't consider that McCourt or Plaschke might have been referring to Lowe. Of course, that might be because Plaschke mentioned Bradley, Kent and Drew, but not Lowe.

Is anyone anywhere at all embarrassed about the Penny milk incident?

I wonder if DePo is rereading The Fountainhead tonight--tabloid journalist crucifying the protagonist for failing to conform to the rules of mediocrity; feckless stooge employer. . . Best case scenario: McCourt commits suicide and leaves DePo in charge of the team. Um, and the widow McCourt marries DePo and they live happily ever after. I'm flexible on that last part.

112 - Is anyone anywhere at all embarrassed about the Penny milk incident?

Not at all... could have been beer, then what? Last I heard milk does a body good.

112 Speaking for myself no, but I'm guessing the Dodger org would've preferred this never happened.

We all remember what we were like in our 20's, sometimes I forget that these are just kids making a lot of money.

112 I am emphatically not embarrassed. Heaven help me if the media starts following me around. Some of my "bets" can be pretty creative.

Jon, it makes me think of the Adam Dunn Scouting Excursion. I was excited that came off so well. All but one person showed up and I was pretty excited and also pretty loud. It was fun. But I wonder how it would've appeared in print that I kept trying to convince ten reasonable adults that Hee Seop Choi is in fact our lord and savior. I think the media reports might've been less than kind.

The clubhouse is referred to as a real frat-house like environment. The kid is surrounded by multi-millionaire superstars that all behave like 12 year olds. He just wanted to fit in. I think it's hilarious.

113 Thanks for messing up my screen. I wonder if Orange Juice can be wiped off a monitor without damaging it...

I believe Penny said that the batboy lost the bet not because he threw up but because he didn't drink the gallon of milk in the required one hour.

Pedro Guerrero was traded for John Tudor because Fred Claire felt that the Dodgers needed one more pitcher to compete in the playoffs. Guerrero had been hurt a lot in 1988 and he was generally unhappy. He also got kicked out of a game in early August which left the Dodgers short of position players, so they had to use Tim Leary (whose pitching had tailed off in August also) as a pinch-hitter.

Leary ended up getting the game-winning hit in that game.

Leary ended up getting the game-winning hit in that game.

That was against the Giants, and it was wonderful.

Tim Leary, Santa Monica High graduate, was a helluva hitter. As I recall, he contributed very little during the '88 post-season.

Peter Gammons, whom I think very highly off, said this: "The Dogders would not have won the World Series without John Tudor."

Sure...

119 - Thanks. I had forgotten until a few years ago that the Guerrero trade had actually occurred in 1988. Seems like an awfully major move for a team that eventually won the WS, esp. with the offense (or lackthereof) that we won with.

If he was still with the Dodgers in August, was it a post-waiver deal?

I knew he wasn't what he once was for the Dodgers that year, but man did he have a couple of years for the Cardinals after the trade.

121 - Did he pitch in the playoffs at all?

I specifically remember Tudor walking off the mound after a pitch (similar to Penny last year, where you just know), I think for good, but I don't remember what year that was.

121 Leary seemed to run out of gas by the end of that season. He had pitched a lot of innings in winter ball rehabbing from injury, so the theory was that all the work finally tired him out.

I believe he was eventually traded to the Reds for Kal Daniels.

'89 was Pedro's good year with St. Louis. The rest of the time he was pretty mediocre.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/guerrpe01.shtml

124 Right you are...

July 18, 1989: Traded by the Los Angeles Dodgers with Mariano Duncan to the Cincinnati Reds for Kal Daniels and Lenny Harris. (baseballreference.com)

123 Tudor walked off the mound in Game 3 of the '88 Series, I believe.

From the "how time flies" department...

Pedro Guerrero will turn 50 next year.

Tudor pitched in one game in the NLCS (which the Dodgers won in extra innings) and one game in the World Series (in which he left early) and the Dodgers lost.

Tudor threw 52 1/3 innings for the Dodgers in 1988 with a 2.41 ERA.

Kalvoski Daniels, that is. He was a great hitter until the injury bug destroyed him.

He had an excellent 1990, from what I remember.

120 - That was a thrilling game - one of the most memorable I've attended.

125 - Yeah, I guess it was only the one year. 3rd in MVP voting, pretty good. I remember he was having a Jeff Kent-type year, where he hit some ungodly number with RISP.

Icaros can remember baseball games from 1988, but not "Supertrain"!

If it wasn't for Guerrero being traded to St. Louis, Fernando might never have thrown a no-hitter.

133 It's all about priorities. 1988 was the year I really developed an unhealthy obsession with baseball.

Kids at school started making fun of me, called me Brent Musburger.

131 It was so great to live in the Bay Area and hate the Giants that night.

I remember a guy who knew Lasorda; said Tommy was pretty ticked that Tudor contributed next-to-nothing to LA in '89 because of injuries but got remarkably healthy when he returned to St. Louis.

If memory serves, John Tudor was Jeff Kent without the charm. That may be overly harsh...

137 Tudor didn't strike me a motocross fan.

138 "as"

The other thing about the Guerrero-Tudor trade was that it was leaked before it was official. Tudor didn't really want to leave St. Louis and Guerrero didn't want to leave the Dodgers. So Guerrero went on a major league pout for one game. And if the deal had fallen apart, the Dodgers would have been stuck like the Padres were with Phil Nevin for a week. However, the Dodgers wouldn't have had enough time to make a new deal.

So they would have gone into the playoffs with a star player with a really bad attitude.

Another deadline deal Claire made was acquiring Ricky Horton from the White Sox so the team could have another lefty in the pen since Orosco was less than stellar in 1988.

Horton threw 4 1/3 IP in the NLCS and didn't appear in the World Series. Horton was put on the playoff roster instead of Tim Crews, who had a pretty good year in 1988 and was one of the few Dodger pitchers who pitched well against the Mets in the regular season.

John Tudor was another guy who didn't like anybody else in the world. He never smiled. He made Kevin Brown look like Jose Lima.

Ah, the 130's. It was a great era for Icaros posting. I remember it well...

141 I like that one better than what I came up with in 137.

Brian Holton was the unsung hero of the '88 bullpen, IMO.

He later helped us acquire Eddie Murray.

142 LOL. You guys were making me feel lonely.

So how's that first chapter of Huck Finn going, Bruin?

Are they on the raft yet?

Alright, I'm going to stop blabbing now.

146 I'm getting to it, I'm getting to it... (sigh).

It's really one of my enduring shames. I can't believe I made it through college without encountering that book! I was exposed to a lot of world lit and of course the brits but virtually nothing from American Lit until I changed my major.

John Tudor after his game as a Dodger as reported in the August 18, 1988 LA Times.

"My heart is in St. Louis, but my arm will be in Los Angeles," Tudor said Tuesday. "I really didn't foresee it happening, although I guess this is the logical time for contending teams to do something like that.

"I don't relish the idea of going over there as the guy who's going to try to pick it up for them. I'm not going to be the one to do that. It's going to be a team effort . . . This is hard. In my mind, I'm still a Cardinal. The whole thing hasn't had a chance to set in yet."

SB,

It's pronounced "Cay-ro".

It will make sense later.

And you will wonder why Twain was writing about an NFL team with the "Dolphin" character.

147 Icaros beats the tag and gets the homerun!

(Internet) Icaros, one of the more consistent posters on Dodger Thoughts, hit the first homerun in the month of August today. Tagged out earlier in the thread by SB after reaching third and showing impressive dominance in the 130's, all that seemed left to accomplish was the homerun. He got it with a combination of staying on topic, making allusions to past posts, self-deprecating humor and ironically a promise to "stop blabbing."

After "missing the tag" with post 148, SB was heard to say "He's always been one of my favorites. I'm happy for him though getting cleated on the slide with that jab about Huck Finn is something I won't be forgetting anytime soon."

Despite a recent move to the bay area, the homerun Icaros indicates he will be a presence on the DT board for many moons to come. "I like it!", said SB. Other posters were not available to comment, probably wondering if they can get word in edgewise...

#112, yes Jon, I am. How old is Penny? How old is the batboy? I gather that it is impossible for anyone to drink a gallon of milk without getting sick. Offering a kid money to do something that will make him sick is not innocent hijinks.

I have been silent on Bradley/Kent. I think I am willing to cut Bradley more slack because of the disadvantages I assume he had when he was young. Kent I don't like. He is a fine ballplayer, but other than the fact that he does not like Barry Bonds I find nothing likeable about him.

I don't like rooting for a team made up of ballplayers who are jerks. I assume that if DePo assembles a 2006 Dodger team of 25 players equal in ability to Jeff Kent and who have Kent's personality that the Dodgers will win the 2006 World Series. That will be all well and good for most Dodger fans I assume, but this long time Dodger fan will not be cheering.

I don't expect DePo or any other general manager to assemble a roster of 25 gentleman players. There is however a limit to the number of jerks I am willing to accept on a roster. DePo and McCourt are very close to that limit right now.

Stan from Tacoma

151 Wow, I'm genuinely touched and honored by that post.

It has been pretty easy to stay consistent on DT. I'm without a job (temporarily), living at my parents' house for the first time in 12 years (temporarily!), and I have no friends here (we'll see).

Milkboy has offers rolling in.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2143002&partnersite=espn

Brad Penny is 27 I think.

As for Icaros, we will just call him "Costanza" for the time being.

2005 Dodger Jerk Count - using the most liberal definition

Bradley (controversy)
Kent (standoffish, insensitive)
Lowe (gigolo)
Penny (milk)
O. Perez (out of shape in mind and body)
A. Perez (disinterested in third base in March)
Weaver (head case)
Phillips (expects to play somewhere)
Drew (quiet, takes walks)

152 My response, FWIW.

I don't think Penny's prank was taken in any way other than fun by anyone involved. That includes the "kid."

I don't think the Dodgers are made up of jerks. I think they're made up of human beings. I think they are human beings worth rooting for because they wear the Dodger uniform and they care about playing well. I think that's beyond dispute.

We can't get rid of the "jerks" unless we're willing to identify them. I can't find any on the Dodgers. Emotional? Different? Yes. So are most people.

For what it's worth, I'd be willing to play with any of the DT posters, any time, including you. I assume we won't always get along. That doesn't make us jerks. It makes us human.

Icaros, are you the one who was looking for flight attendant work?

What about guys who aren't on the roster anymore?

Isn't Scott Erickson the poster boy in the jerk department?

Mason & Ireland blame the whole mess on the Dodgers not realizing the importance of Derek Hall and his relationship with the media and the community.

159 If I ever saw a game where the battery was Scott Erickson and Todd Hundley, I'd probably turn it off.

158 I was, but the job market turned out too thin, especially for those with no experience.

My plan now is to become a surgical technician, but I have to wait a year to start training because I missed the application deadline by one week.

160 Well, I'm glad they cleared that up!

161 no you wouldn't...you'd be laughing so hard you wouldn't be able to grip the remote

As for Icaros, we will just call him "Costanza" for the time being.

If I can parlay that into work as a hand model or a job with the Yankees I'll take it.

164 When you're right, you're right...

156-Drew (quiet, takes walks)
LOL

And as for the Penny milk thing, its a common prank and who's to say penny didnt already know the Kid? He did play for florida for some years you know, also is this the first time any of you have heard of this? We did this to the freshman of my team(only for 100 bucks), its classic make em puke for being greedy.

It seems like the majority of the people here want Bradley on the team next year.

I'm curious, under what conditions would you accept that? Are you willing to tolerate another season in which, as we know now, there is a persistent friction with Kent? Choose Bradley over Kent, given one or the other? Some sort of reconciliation (I'm not sure how realistic this is)? I thinnk having both of them say they will tolerate each other is going to result in another season like this one, I'm afraid (perhaps without this catastrophic end result).

Just wondering what people think are the possibilities.

I like Bradley and wanted him to be a Dodger success story...but I now think he needs to go. I have people who work for me. I have them great latitude to do their jobs with creativity. But when I step in and tell them that they must do something, they have no choice. If they intentionally disobey me, they will be fired. And that would have been the same case if I did that to anybody I have ever worked for. A military officer told me last night that if he did that, he would go to prison.

McCourt, DePo and Tracy have all gone out of their way to help Bradley. When he was told to stop talking to the press and then he immediately violated that command, he wrote his own walking papers.

168 Part of the problem is we don't know enough. I'd like to think a realistic reconciliation is possible because I'd want both players on my team. But we don't know and probably won't know the true reasons for whatever decision the Dodgers come up with.

Which is really the point of this thread, I think. Plaschke thinks he knows. He doesn't.

I'd put half up front half at the end of the season clause in Bradleys 2006 contract, Where as he would agree to no emotioinal outburts that are counterProductive to the teams season and then at the end of the season if he fulfills his end of the bargain he is Paid in entirety otherwise he is DFA'd with only half pay. Or something like that.

From 169 When he was told to stop talking to the press and then he immediately violated that command, he wrote his own walking papers.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. If you let Bradley come back after willfull disobedience, what are you really saying?

167 - Yeah, I think a lot of people missed the fact that a) this is an old prank, not just Penny being a jerk and b) Penny probably did know the kid.

Aqcuiring only 'chemistry' guys is kind of a catch-22 argument. Given how limited the pool of available players is, do you really want to restrict your options further by unequivocally avoiding players perceived to be perceived 'bad guys'?

Also, if chemistry is soooo important to winning and good 'clubhouse guys' are so easily identifiable, why would a team ever allow such a player to leave via trade or FA? And, since such players are rarely available, why is it supposed to be so easy to acquire them?

My point is probably poorly articulated (after-lunch slowness), so I'll try this:

ASSUME:
(1) When making decisions to construct a pro baseball roster, a player's character should be considered alongside his talent level
(2) The pool of players does not include an abundance players of both good talent and character
(3) Since chemistry and character are important, players of good character should never be replaced with players of poor character
(4) So, how the heck is a team supposed to be able to acquire ONLY players with 'good character', if they are (almost) never available?

174 - Raising them within the organization "The Dodger Way," Tommy Lasorda would probably argue. Before trading them.

Just kidding.

I don't think its necessary to "choose" between the two. This isn't Shaq vs. Kobe. Neither player has any leverage whatsoever here.

How about they just shut it, and go out and play? And even if they can't keep quiet, they would only be sandbagging future contracts (esp. in Bradley's case) by dogging it.

174 - How could the Angels, the quintessential "character" team, let their co-heart-and-soul-guy go (Eckstein)?

BTW, the irony is delicious, that the "character" (Ecks) guy is far outperforming the high-paid "talent" guy (Cabrera).

174

I didn't understand McCourt's comments as saying they were only going to acquire chemistry guys. My understanding of his comments is that there are a few players throughout MLB who, no matter how good they are, you do not want on your team. In other words, to change sports, if you were an NFL owner, would you offer TO a contract?

178 Al Davis would.

178 - niether do I. My 174 was more in relation to the larger debate than any comments McCourt made, proper context or not. You make a good point - it's more about avoiding certain guys than anything else. But considering the case of Kenny Rogers, it may not always be so easy to identify the 'bad guys'. And, again, given the limited player universe, avoiding a guy ONLY because of a perception that he's bad news might not be the best policy.

181 - Yes, I would offer TO a contract. Just keep the signing bonus small...:)

err, 178.

Perhaps someone mentioned this, but would a team full of "character guys" basically be made up of scrappy, short, fast, white guys who supposedly play good defense and can't hit for power? In other words, Jason Repko. Yeah, that sounds like a hell of a team.

176 Very true. This is definitely not Shaq v. Kobe. When key players on a basketball team don't get along, it stands out a lot more than on a baseball team. Twice as many players on a baseball team. And their feud was about something much more serious (as far as pro athletes are concerned) than perceived bigotry or incompatible personalities— ego. So I think it is likely that too much importance is being attached to this one dust-up. I suspect that if Walter Alston were still manager, he would just tell them to shut it and play ball, and that would be that.

I'm late to this thread, but FWIW, Jon was overreacting, but not out of line. Plaschke overreacts as regularly and surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, so it's only right to throw it back at him every now and then. :-)

To add to Jon's question in 112, I'm a little amazed that no one has been taken back by the cruelty in the batboy incident. Isn't anyone bothered by the fact that Penny was basically entertaining himself through the kid's discomfort. Yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody does it, blah, blah, blah.

Reminds me a lot of the punks in high school who used to tease a mongoloid friend of mine for their own amusement. I'm no fighter, but I used to love wading into them.

Prior to this season, my two least favorite players in all of MLB were Russ Ortiz and Jeff Kent. There was absolutely no rational reason behind this, I just didn't like seeing their faces on my television. As this season has progressed, Kent has grown on me. I wouldn't consider myself a fan of Kent and I certainly wouldn't want to throw back a few beers with him, but he is certainly a player you would want to have on your team.

I don't think the same can be said for Bradley. There's no doubt that he's a talented player, and may even become a great player. And I don't doubt that Kent may be a bit racially insensitive - he's the son of a motorcycle cop who likes dirt bikes and spends the off-season on a Texas cattle ranch - which certainly doesn't mean he's a racist but could indicate that he's a bit of a redneck. Kent is probably not much of a clubhouse leader but he isn't necessarily a distraction either.

On the other hand, Bradley seems to be burdened with a pretty severe persecution complex. Someone on this site has mentioned this previously, and I would have to agree. Look at his repeated responses to situations in which he believed he was being wronged, from the bottle throwing incident to the traffic stop to Kent questioning his effort on a single play. Bradley overreacts to confrontation. Worse than that, his feeling of being wronged doesn't dissipate quickly; for example, Bradley's childish pointing toward the dugout after legging out a play the next day sealed the deal for me - Bradley will continue to have problems no matter where he goes. Maybe he can overcome these traits, but I doubt it and although I might be a little disappointed to see him go mostly I will just be relieved.

My prediction: if Kent is gone, and Bradley stays there will be another incident next year. It could involve a teammate, an opponent, or a heckler, but Bradley's problems with confrontation will continue to rear it's ugly head again and again.

186--Bradley has also continued this year, on the road, to "shush" the opposing crowd after making a catch. I've been disappointed to see that hot dogging continue. He needs to grow up. Perhaps becoming a father in December will help him do that.

187 - If you think he's going to stop "shushing" with a newborn baby crying at 3 a.m., let me tell ya ...

185- Minor physical discomfort with no lasting damage. It's not exactly Bum Fights. If your objection is that the kid wasn't a peer, that Penny was abusing his authority then maybe you have a point. Really, wouldn't this be funnier if Penny had bullied Schmoll into trying it? There's a line from the Screwtape Letters on the order of, any horrible thing one does will be excused so long as it's funny. This fits the bill, in a way that teasing a kid with Down Syndrome doesn't.

"Cruelty is shameful--unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man's damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke."

C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

So...it's funny to try and get a kid who doesn't know any better to puke? Oh, okay, now I get it.

I'm listening to what's being said, but isn't it obvious to anyone above the age of 7 that drinking a gallon of milk puts you at risk of getting six.

I mean, was it a peer pressure or frat house situation? Or was it, yeah, I'll try it - but if I can't do it, I'll just walk away.

192 - "getting sick," not "getting six"

I think you have to start from the premise that puking is inherently funny. It sounds like you don't accept that. I'm not particularly proud that I find puking funny, but there's not much I can do about it. It's not funny enough to excuse every means of provoking it: I wouldn't think it was funny if Penny had slipped an emetic into the kids lunch. But tricking a kid into puking. . . Yeah; I'm really not proud of it, but it's still seems funny.

bokonon -- Doesn't the quote in 190 basically say that people use the idea of "joking" as a way to be excused from acting cruel, and that using such an excuse to be cruel is a fast road to hell (that is, it's evil)? I don't think it's saying that it's a GOOD thing that you can get horrible things excused if they're funny. I think it's saying that it's quite disgusting that this is the case.

I'm not saying your position about puking is right or wrong. I'm just confused by your use of the quote.

Again folks, the guy didn't even puke. He lost the bet because he simply couldn't drink the whole gallon in the alloted one hour time limit.

Also, these bat boys are not little kids. They are actually paid professional young adults who have a damn cool job. I've seen them with facial hair, even. I'm sure Penny is not even ten years older than this guy.

Bokonon - do you laugh when you're the one ralphing, or just when others are doing so? ;)

195- It completely contradicts my position. I love C.S. Lewis, but I think if we had ever had dinner together, the evening would have ended with him slapping my face.

196- Even though he didn't puke, he probably experienced some gastronomic unpleasantness in the processing, and expulsion of what milk he did consume. Unfortunately, diarrhea is even funnier than puking.

I'm probably going to hell.

197- Only in retrospect. I remember being violently ill the first time I tasted cream cheese. My dad made a point of saying (six or seven times), "This isn't butter, you know. It's going to taste different." I tried it and my first thought was, "THIS ISN'T LIKE BUTTER!" [puke].

The milk trick is the sort of thing I can imagine my grandfather pulling on me, and then laughing at me for.

It completely contradicts my position.
OK, so you knew that. Got it.
I love C.S. Lewis, but I think if we had ever had dinner together, the evening would have ended with him slapping my face.
Or, perhaps, puking all over your shoes.

I have already remarked about the Penny incident in #152. If pukking is a funny subject, perhaps I can lend some levity to the discussion. This current collection of Dodger players, along with Steiner and Monday, have me headed to the toilet with my face squarely over the bowl. I will take no bets on my ability to stomach a combination of Kent, Weaver, Odalis, Derek, Steiner and Monday any longer.

Vin, I doubt you read any of this, but when you are gone there are going to be a lot of Dodger fans go with you unless this organization makes a concerted change in the way it operates. I can and will simply stop being a Dodger fan if the people on the field, in the broadcast booth, and in the front office are not people I can identify with.

Stan from Tacoma

You'd better send McCourt your personality profile, Stan. Let him know your hobbies, favorite foods, types of movies you enjoy, etc.

Otherwise it's going to be really hard for him to know exactly which prospective employees fit your criteria for personal identification.

well, I heard the guy on the radio and he thought it was funny. He was like yeah, I was fine, I went home, worked out on the stairmaster and then went out partying.

#202, I have no need to send McCourt anything. Being a Dodger fan is a choice. Plenty of other teams out there. If it gets to the point the players and front office people in major league baseball as a whole are not a story I care to follow, I will stop following major league baseball. I have no need to dictate to anyone, but I also have no need to follow a sport that promotes values that are offensive to me.

I say all that as an ex-NFL fan. I have never sent the NFL Commissioner my views nor do I care to do so. I have no illusions about my views having any particular currency; the NFL has done quite nicely without me as I have done without them.

Stan from Tacoma