There was an interesting aside in the Sun-Times today about Milton Bradley. The focus was about how he hasn’t played much, how he pisses people off (they actually used “piss” from a Bradley quote – how risque!), and how it’s ridiculous that he’s appealing his suspension while he’s sitting games out anyway.

But the part that had me pondering was this:

After all, his first two weeks with his new club has been about as interesting and surprisingly eventful one hit, six starts and a groin injury can be. He’s even making inroads already on ticking people off.

Just ask Larry Vanover, the umpire who ejected him in a matter of seconds at the end of that pinch-hit Wrigley debut Thursday — then followed up with a report that cost Bradley a two-game suspension. CHICAGO SUN-TIMES.

If Bradley’s suspension were based on “making contact” with the umpire, as we had previously been led to believe, it wouldn’t be some follow-up report that got him suspended – it would be the video evidence.

I’ve repeatedly said I never really saw the contact, so I didn’t really understand the explanation.

Well, this indicates that the explanation was bunk. Clearly, Bradley was suspended for what he said to Vanover. Vanover wrote it up in a report, and bingo, Bradley gets a suspension that, on the visual evidence, seemed ridiculous.

Who knows what Bradley actually said in his 10 second outburst, but it must have been pretty bad to lead to a two game suspension – a game for every five seconds. How many f-bombs can you drop in five seconds?

Bradley has a reputation – deserved or not – with umpires, there’s no two ways about it. So he’s never going to get the benefit of the doubt; and when he blows up at an ump, if they’ve got the authority to throw him under the MLBus, they will. I love the passion, but when it costs the Cubs one of their best players, it starts to irritate.

We’re not quite there, yet, but Bradley has nothing but strikes against him at this point.

  • MB21

    Ace, I posted a link to this over on ACB. I couldn’t tell if there was contact either and I have a few pictures from the video as well. I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying though.

    • Ace

      I’m saying that if Bradley was suspended after Vanover wrote up a report about the incident, the suspension wasn’t due to something you could see on video. It must have been something that Vanover observed and reported (now in theaters starring Seth Rogen).

      • MB21

        Yeah, but a report has to be filed with the MLB office before a player can be reprimanded. Larry Vanover had to fill out a report if Milton Bradley made contact with him. MLB needs the report because it’s not going to watch every game. If no report is filed no punishment will be given unless it’s such a bad act that it shows up on ESPN and Bob Watson decides he must act even without the report from the umpire. The umpire would likely be fined or suspended if he didn’t turn in a report for an issue that big though.

  • DK

    Any lip readers out there???

    • Ace

      Seems like “f you you f’ing f” should be easy enough to read. Will have to look at the video.

  • Fella

    Ace, I think the report they are speaking of was the one mentioned. It was a report stating physical contact.

    “The umpire who ejected Milton Bradley in his Wrigley Field debut Friday intends to file a report stating that the outfielder made physical contact.
    Bradley is in serious danger of being suspended. He struck out looking on a full count pitch and shared a brief, but aggressive, exchange with umpire Larry Vanover, at one point knocking the ump’s hat slightly up his head. The report will be filed with the Commissioner’s Office on Saturday. We’ll keep you updated.”

  • Ace

    Well, that’s that. Thanks Fella. Just seemed strange to me that MLB would need a report from the umpire to demonstrate there was contact. Seems any one of the five video cameras pointed at him would have been enough (if there had been contact).