Milton Bradley Gone for Good?

Cubs’ GM Jim Hendry finally pulled the plug on Milton Bradley Sunday, suspending the disgruntled outfielder for the remainder of the season after Bradley criticized the team in a Daily Herald article.

But it was clear early on that Bradley was a poor fit for the Cubs. He didn’t play well to start the season. He had miscues in the field, was suspended for arguing with an umpire and criticized Chicago fans. And as the season wore on and the Cubs fell further behind in the NL Central, Bradley seemed to get even more restless and critical. Hendry had seen enough and put Bradley on the shelf – possibly for good.

It’s highly unusual for a team to suspend a player for the rest of the season, when there are two weeks remaining. The fact that the Cubs have done this shows how desperate they are to end the Milton Bradley experiment. The Cubs are Bradley’s eighth team in nine years in the big leagues. Doesn’t it make you wonder why he can’t stick with any one team for too long?

In hindsight, maybe the Cubs should have done something sooner with Bradley – suspension or trade or something – to get him out of the clubhouse. But I guess when you have $30 million invested in a player, you want to be patient and give him time to adjust to the team and perhaps come around on his own.

So what next? Do the Cubs take the loss and let him go? Or will they be able to work out a trade? And with all the well-publicized baggage Bradley carries, would any team want him?

There is no doubt in my mind that Bradley will not return to Wrigley Field next season. It’s clear he’s been looking for a way out almost since the day he walked into the clubhouse. And the Cubs should do all they can to give him a one-way ticket out of town.

Good-bye to the Coin Flip; Play-In Game Could Be Next

If you were waiting to find out which major league teams currently in contention would host a potential one-game playoff, you’ll have to wait until the end of the regular season. MLB GMs decided last November to eliminate the coin flip, which in the past determined which team would host a one-game playoff in the event of a tie.

Instead, the host team will be decided by a series of on-field tiebreakers, beginning with head-to-head records. If that’s tied, the next tiebreaker is the team with the highest winning percentage within the division, followed by the highest winning percentage in intra-league play during the second half of the season.

I like the change and I believe it’s an improvement over the coin flip, which seemed arbitrary and pointless. However, with three levels of on-field tiebreakers, why bother playing a tiebreaker game at all?

I know the play-in game is supposed to help generate excitement for the playoffs. But under this new system, a play-in game seems obsolete. Think about it. If two teams have the same record, but team A has the season record over team B, wouldn’t it make sense to name Team A the divisional winner without having a tiebreaker game? Why should Team A be expected to play Game 163 to prove that they are indeed the divisional winner when they already have the proven that they are the better team in the division by having the season record against their rival?

Further, what happens if Team A hosts a tiebreaker game and loses to Team B? Team A would probably feel cheated out of a division title. How many times would this scenario have to play out before owners and GMs decide the play-in game isn't such a great idea afterall.

Eliminating the coin flip is a step in the right direction, but there's more work to be done. Time will tell if the tiebreaker play-in game stands the test of time.