Gameboard - Fieldtrip & investigative journalism

Just because that is the narrative that is being told does not mean that it is reality. Those who have created the Milton Bradley needs to be traded or Milton Bradley is a clubhouse cancer simply has to do with their personal feelings toward Bradley. Sullivan admitted that he reports differently based on whether he likes a player or not. He is not doing his job.

I don’t think this is a conspiracy rather I believe Bradley’s personality doesn’t fit into the Beat Writer’s or some of the fan’s vision of an acceptable personality. As such they view him as harmful to the baseball environment they believe and like and report/ act towards him accordingly.
Legally, he’s done nothing wrong in his life. He is a law abiding citizen. To me, there is no reason to complain about a player’s personality unless he gets into legal trouble or his actions do something to tangibly harm the team (beat up another player, get suspended due to legal problems, drugs and alcohol abuse, etc) When deciding whether or not I want Bradley to stay, his personality has zero effect. He’s a good ballplayer and he should stay. If Milton Bradley wasn’t a good player and was getting payed 5 million, I would want him off the team too, but not because of his personality. The real question is why are people so concerned over what kind of person Milton Bradley is?
The assumption by beat writers and that a player who they don’t like personally or think is a jerk causes a team to be worse is psuedo-psychology. It’s just making things up about the mental component of the game with zero research and zero psychological theory to support their argument. The best a good psychologist would tell you regarding clubhouse chemistry and players like Milton Bradley is “It seems reasonable that their might be some negative effect on performance, but I don’t have any evidence at this time and I wouldn’t read too much into it without further examination and study.”

Al, you are not a sports psychologist, nor do you have psychological research studies to suggest what you are saying is true. You have every right to have the opinion that his contributions are outweighed, but it’s my opinion (which I have a right to) that your opinion is a somewhat weak one.

I’ll predict your response: Opinions cannot be right or wrong so do not say that my opinion is weak or bad.
Read my wording carefully I said your opinion was somewhat weak. That is different than saying it’s wrong. Just like there are good and bad interpretations to poetry or literature (not right or wrong) so are there better and worse opinions. And an opinion that relies on sports journalism and psuedo-psychology would not seem to be a strong or better opinion to me. But I could be wrong.