The Cubs beat the White Sox 5-4 in the first game of a weekend series at Comiskey U.S. Cellular Field.  Jake Fox got the start at third and went 3-4 including a big two-run homer in the 4th inning.  Geovany Soto (apparently sober and alert) went 2-4 with a three-run blast, and Randy Wells pitched another very good game, going 7.0 innings and giving up five hits and two earned runs for the victory.

But the big news of the day came in the sixth inning.  After flying out to go 0-3 for the game, Milton Bradley came back to the dugout, threw his helmet, and then attacked a water cooler.  There were some reports that the victim was the oft-abused Gatorade cooler, but the Gatorade cooler was apparently spared to the deteriment of the water cooler.

After the tantrum, an angry Lou Pineilla told Bradley to get dressed and go home.  Sending a player to the showers is a somewhat routine occurence, but sending one home in the middle of a game is extremely rare.  The exchange between Piniella and Bradley then escalated, with Piniella reportedly following Bradley into the clubhouse and calling him a “piece of shit.”

According to several published reports, the tension between Bradley and Piniella has been building for some time.  In fact, the tension is apparently between Bradley and the rest of the team, not just Piniella.  Several people have expressed both publically and privately that Bradley’s “me first” attitude has worn thin in less than a half-a-season with the club.

According to Bruce Miles with the Daily Herald, “Apparently, the Cubs feel that Bradley is acting selfishly. GM Jim Hendry talked with us in the runway after the game and said he wanted players to be ‘all in.’  I pressed him on that, and he said that ‘all in’ means all for the team. Some of Bradley’s teammates also are beginning to wonder.”

In case you have forgotten the details of Bradley’s season this far, Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times reminds us:

“Bradley has been a recurring issue for Piniella almost since Day 1 of his three-year deal — from the nagging groin injury in April that dragged beyond day-to-day status without a move to the disabled list, to the ejection and subsequent suspension in his first Wrigley Field at-bat, to complaining publicly and to staff that umpires were conspiring against him because of his past run-ins.

“All the while, he has struggled to avoid minor injuries, limiting him to just 45 starts while struggling to hit when he has been in the lineup. Touted as the big left-handed bat the Cubs sought in the offseason, the switch-hitting Bradley is hitting just .200 from the left side.”

Bradley’s act has apparently worn thin on several of his teammates.  According to Chris DeLuca of the Chicago Sun-Times, Alfonso Soriano was one of them:

“Privately, the players in the Cubs’ dugout wanted to give Piniella a standing ovation. Veteran Alfonso Soriano, who doesn’t get the credit he deserves for being a true team leader, said he had never seen anything like it during his nine-year career. And then Soriano — always one of the first Cubs in the clubhouse — put the onus on Bradley to shape up or ship out.

”’That’s my first time to see a manager fighting with a player; get mad with a player,” Soriano said. ”Sometimes you can get mad, but not like that. It’s something new for me every day.

”’We are 25 players, and we have to be on the same page. If he is not 100 percent to help the team win, we don’t need him. If he’s 100 percent and he wants to play, he’s more than welcome.”’

Granted, it’s a little odd to hear Soriano publicly bash Bradley, considering that he is in a rather severe slump of his own.  Even so, it is telling that Soriano said anything at all.  He normally doesn’t say anything critical of other players.  That hasn’t been his MO.  So if Soriano is talking, chances are that the rest of the team is tired of Bradley’s act as well.

I have to admit that I’m a little concerned about double standards here.  After all, Piniella didn’t have much of a reaction when eaith Carlos Zambrano or Ryan Dempster threw tantrums earlier this year, destroying a Gatorade cooler.  He also didn’t react this harshly when Zambrano and Michael Barrett got into a physical fight last year.  The fact that the whole organization, from Jim Hendry to Lou Piniella to the players, has reacted against Bradley leads me to believe that there is more going on than has been reported.

From Wittenmyer:

“From the front office to the clubhouse, Cubs personnel sympathize with Bradley’s frustration, and nobody blames him for struggling. But an apparent preoccupation with his individual issues over the team’s efforts to shake a first-half malaise has worn on teammates, even down to things as simple as working close pitches for walks with runners on base when putting the ball in play with less than two outs might score a rare and needed run.”

So what happens now?  Lou Piniella said that nothing more will happen and that he’ll be putting Bradley in the lineup today.  But Jim Hendry wasn’t so quick to just put this episode in the past. 

”’We’ve potentially got a lot of good things still going on here,” Hendry said. ‘We feel like we are going to get back and contend and be in the race. And you certainly don’t want actions that aren’t conducive to somebody being all-in every day.’

“Hendry has said the Cubs did their homework on Bradley before signing him to the three-year, $30 million contract, but it’s no secret the talented outfielder has had his troubles elsewhere.

“Does this come with the territory when dealing with Milton Bradley?

”’What comes with the territory is being appreciative of a great place to play and a team that won 97 ballgames,” Hendry said. ”If you’re going to play here, you have to be all-in.”’

So does that mean that Hendry is looking into trading Bradley?  And if so, who would take him?  Actually, there’s two questions contained in that one question: 1) who would want him, and 2) who could afford him? 

The only way the Cubs could trade Bradley is if they could ship him to another team for another player with a bad contract.  Two such teams and players that come to mind are the Angels with Gary Matthews, Jr. and the Royals with Jose Guillen.  Here’s how they compare:

Milton Bradley
31 years old    56 Games/169 AB    .237/.355/.379    5 HR    16 RBI

Gary Matthews, Jr.
35 years old    44 Games/139 AB    .223/.276/.324    2 HR    18 RBI

Jose Guillen
33 years old    58 Games/210 AB    .257/.339/.410    8 HR    33 RBI

According to Cot’s Baseball Contracts:

• Milton Bradley is signed through 2010 ($5 million in 2009, $9 million in 2010) with a vesting option for 2011 ($12 million) if he plays in 75 or more games in 2009.
• Gary Matthews, Jr. is signed through 2011 ($10 million in 2009, $11 million in 2010, $12 million in 2011).  He has a full no-trade clause in 2009 and partial no-trade clause in 2010 and 2011.
• Jose Guillen is signed through 2010 ($12 million in 2009, $12 million in 2010).  He also has some minor incentives for receiving league awards and he receives a suite for road games.

There are several points to consider here.  First, neither Matthews nor Guillen are exactly hitting well either, but that’s not really the point.  I’m fairly certain that the Cubs would gladly trade Bradley’s production for the exact same production minus the headaches.

From what I know of the situation, the Angels would happily trade Matthews just to get rid of his contract.  He is a 4th (or 5th) outfielder for them and he has one of the worst contracts in baseball.  I’m also fairly certain the Matthews would waive his no-trade clause to go almost anywhere where he would see more playing time.  But what would the Angels do with Bradley?  On an AL team, Bradley would predominately be a DH.  The Angels have Vlad Guerro DHing right now, but his contract is up at the end of the year and rumor has it that the Angels will not invite him back.

Then the question becomes, what would the Cubs do with Matthews?  First, he’s a right fielder (who can play CF in a pinch), so he could step right in for Bradley.  He’s also a switch hitter just like Bradley.  Finally, he’s not as volatile or as selfish as Bradley.  True, Matthews is a little more expensive ($5 million more in 2009, $2 million more in 2010), but the Cubs have to face the fact that it is going to cost them money to move Bradley.

Trading for Jose Guillen is more of a longshot, although the Royals are reportedly willing to part with their everyday right fielder.  So why would the Royals trade for Bradley?  First, he is more affordale than Guillen.  In 2009 he’s $7 million cheaper and he’s $3 million cheaper in 2010.  By trading for Bradley, the Royals could give some of their young outfielders a chance to play.  In addition, Mike Jacobs is the Royals current DH and he isn’t hitting any better than Bradley.  Plus, Jacobs’ contract is up at the end of 2009, so the Royals would have a DH already in house (albeit a more expensive DH).

Why would the Cubs want Guillen?  He would be significantly more expensive in 2009 and 2010, but after 2010 they would be done with him.  Even so, taking on that much additional payroll in 2009 and 2010 might be difficult to do considering the Cubs current ownership situation.  And I hate to even mention it, but Guillen is cursed by hitting from the right side.  Of course at this point, the Cubs might not be so enamored with left-handed hitters.

So, if the Cubs traded for Guillen they would spend more money, but they could plug Guillen into right field right away.  They would also add a guy to their lineup that is hitting better and with more power.

In order to make any deal, the Cubs will probably have to give up a prospect or two.  I hate that, but the unfortunate truth is that Bradley has become a distraction to this team and sacrifices are going to have to be made to move the distraction. 

Whether you love him or hate him, it seems clear that Milton Bradley does not have the personality needed to succeed in the Cubs spotlight.  In a place like Texas last year, he could do his job without being the center of attention.  The same could be true in Kansas City and perhaps LA (bigger city than Chicago, but less attention is paid to the Angels than the Cubs).  The move could be good for Bradley and would almost assuredly be better for the Cubs.