Bradley DFA'd

I figured the post that would bring me back from the brink would be on Bradley. I'm seeing too much naivity as well as first impression reactions that it's making me think people really don't get how this front office works.

Bradley is known for having a temper that causes him to do stupid things that piss off his current orginization. So why would anyone believe what Beane says when he states the issue of playing time as the reason why they let him go? What makes Bradley's past indescretions null if the guy is upset about being delayed two days so that the A's could decide if they need to demote an infielder or pitcher?

Because Bradley bitched about not being activated quickly, the A's could not decide whether they should keep IF JJ Furmaniak or demote one of the extra pitchers they have been carrying. Instead, Bradley's actions caused the A's to have to re-call an infielder when they DFA'd him.

Then there's this: back in May of '06, Bradley was on the DL for a knee injury at which time he was expected back in 15+ days. However, he then suffered a setback and had a shoulder injury that forced his return to be delayed until the All Star Break. According to someone who posted on the ESPN forums, someone who had posted inside information before hand about clubhouse activities, Bradley went on a tirade and injured himself. Flash-foward to Tueday when Bradley had a noticable limp and it's not far-fetched to state that Bradley may have re-injured himself on account of his temper.

Frankly, the A's did the right thing in designating Bradley for assignment; they are able to control what little trade value he has based on his past performance without worries that between activiation from the DL and the days leading up to the trade deadline, Bradley does not do anything to harm his value even further. His athletic potential won't nab the A's a top prospect when he's in a walk year, owed 2 million dollars, and has the type of issues he does.