The San Francisco Examiner was formerly held by the Hearst Corporation. The Hearst Corporation now owns the San Francisco Chronicle. Just wanted to try and fit something in there about 'yellow journalism'. Which brings us to Mychael Urban's latest piece posted in the San Francisco Examiner. Urban tends to push 'Fort Knox Gold' journalism that can only benefit the A's organization and its wishes.


If Susan Slusser is a 'tool', Urban is a Craftsman distribution warehouse. Urban isn't a 'company man' because he isn't directly employed by the A's. He is an employee of MLB.com. And we all have come to know and love the communication and media abilities of MLB.


Urban is the definition of hypocrite and despite his 'insider' access, tends to fawn over the same players, miraculously enough, that are 'Billy's Boys'. Chastising the rest. Hey, didn't Urban have Bobby Crosby as an AL MVP candidate this year? Chavez last year? Nick Swisher winning the ROY? Harden winning a Cy Young? If the A's need Urban to discredit a player and their abilities, he's ready and willing with a hatchet job. This week Urban attempted a dual fisted hatchet job on Milton Bradley.


Let me be clear, there are many avenues for this article and I want to present it first in its published form prior to stripping it down.


Please, go read the article and then come back. If you have read the article, read it again.




The article is an attempt to kiss both Michael Lewis' ass and kiss up to Billy Beane at the same time. Urban recently had an article in the Examiner where he makes snide comments toward Bill Beane's off season ventures, never analyzing, but allowing himself enough slack to reel him back to minion of Beane status if need be. Just good ol' fashioned, roll up your sleeves hard work. The article is not available online; the Examiner does not seem to have an archive available.


I'm going to walk through the latest article and create a working framework as we progress. Urban opens the piece with the 10 billionth reference to Moneyball in an article on the A's. Well done. Urban, of course, still doesn't get Moneyball, only the version of Moneyball he wants.


Moneyball was about a story, it wasn't the full story. Moneyball tries to give a drive-by view of the Oakland A's attempt to analyze, recognize and exploit undervalued areas of the baseball talent market. The A's hit upon On Base Percentage (OBP) not necessarily because it was undervalued at the time. OBP is simply the most important skill a hitter in baseball offers. You can't score runs unless you get on base.

The A's weren't just stocking up on players with high OBP, they were stocking up on cheap, available players at the major league and high minor league level because there were other things 'wrong' with those players. What wasn't wrong with the hitters, is that they seemed to have a penchant of getting on base. The A's have pitchers, too. Lewis, for the most part, did not cover pitchers as in depth as hitters. Again, not the full story.


Back to Urban. I want to present what appears to be the main idea behind Urban's piece.


"Now that Beane's success has increased the value of OBP, he's looking for weaknesses elsewhere, and what he's apparently discovered is that so-called "problem players" are undervalued."


Two paragraphs in and Urban is already begun a faulty premise for an argument. OBP has always been a valued commodity in baseball. Before Bill James. Before Branch Rickey. It's how the commodity of getting on base is presented. The batting average has historically been what is reporting in newspapers and the on screen graphic. But even guys with high batting averages tend to get on base a lot. The New York Yankees didn't create a new dynasty in the last two decades because they went with a bunch of fast guys who could sacrifice and had good gloves up the middle. They went with high OBP hitters. Most they bought, but still...


Problem players - Jose Canseco must not be with a MLB team because he priced himself out of the market, right? Along with John Rocker. Steve Howe and Ken Caminiti both recently passed away but they were problem players in their time. Albert Belle. What about Barry Bonds? Those guys were and are pretty damn good players.


Here is where Urban tries to provide the support for his argument, Billy Beane signed a few problem players in his quest to stay ahead of the curve and mine the undervalued in the marketplace:


"One of Beane's problem players is Milton Bradley, and he's becoming a bigger problem by the day"


Frank Thomas was run out of Chicago because he was a "problem player" - he was signed in the off season by the A's. Jay Payton has recently been accused of making his seasonal clubhouse grumblings. Nick Swisher is the constant 'star' for A's beat writers because the guy can't shut up. Swisher also happens to be the player (along with Joe Blanton) recently outed by Susan Slusser as having way too much of a social life that entails late nights, a lot of drinking and carousing.

Here's a quick aside because it needs consideration; does Urban not realize that he runs the risk of singling out three African-American players - Bradley, Thomas and Payton as problem players? Swisher and Blanton are just 'young guys' and 'young guys' will do that stuff? Eric Chavez and Bobby Crosby are performing so poorly the A's sent down Dan Johnson as a distraction.

Urban foolishly tries to associate the Oakland A's as having "ongoing success" because they are currently and precariously atop the AL West. If the A's were in 2nd place, 3rd place or dead last would Urban try to find a way to lay the blame at Milton Bradley's feet? Until recently all of the A's foibles have been blamed on 'injuries' - not the failure of the A's players and coaching staff to produce on the field. Let's take 'injury-prone', note that and tuck it away for later.


Here's where Urban ultimately attempts to shunt facts with his own brand of 'Truthiness'. I am using minor editing to shorten rather than distort; again, go read the article.


"Bradley, as everyone knows, came to Oakland with more baggage that a trans-Atlantic luxury liner...No big deal, Beane told everyone...Bradley himself told us he was simply misunderstood...Both men were wrong. Dead wrong."


I am guessing that would then place a marker on Urban as 'dead stupid'? If you just skim past the next two sentences in the piece, you might not realize this: this is the epitome of how much Urban does not know about baseball, sports, writing or critical analysis.


"Bradley has five-tool talent, which is what enticed Beane into trading away his top outfield prospect, Andre Ethier, to get him. But he also has about seven screws loose."


Profoundly stupid, eh?


So many questions and outrages emerge. Bradley isn't a prospect. His 'talents' are skills. He is an established player and performer at the major league level. The five-tools are generally reserved for minor league players and more specifically prospects. Once you are proven, the tools have been used. I can rehash the Moneyball blabber here, but I am sure most of you have already entered that in by yourself.


Let the hatchets begin to swing.


"Until Saturday, Bradley had been on his best behavior. Of course, it's easy to behave when you're on the disabled list, which is where Bradley has been for most of the year."


Wow. I don't even know if I need to point out how stupid this is. Even the language is condescending; 'best behavior' and 'behave'. A grade school tisk, tisk task master is Urban.


"And then came Saturday in Boston...A's manager Ken Macha didn't play him the next day, offering the lame reasoning that Bradley had been on the bases so much Friday that he needed to give his legs a rest. The truth is that Macha didn't want Bradley to have to deal with the Boston fans again."


There it is, there's that word, 'truth'. Is that TRUTH, is it fact or is it, "the most likely scenario is..."? The fact is, Urban didn't bother to find out, or at least provide readers any comments on the situation that points to his 'truth'. So is he lying here when he calls it truth or are we to assume he is a hack beat writer for MLB.com because he did not question the move in his write up of that game? Or both? Wonder if he Macha knows Urban called his reasoning, "lame"?


Looking at Urban's write up following the game in question, though, it looks like Urban didn't bother to call Macha's on his 'lame' excuse. He saved that for an article in the Examiner, not MLB.com.


"So on the A's moved to Baltimore, where the Orioles fans aren't exactly known for being harsh. But they certainly got under Bradley's skin, and Bradley gave them plenty of material with one of the weakest acts seen since the World Cup ended."


Ugh huh. As I understand it, the fans in Baltimore are quite courteous, kind and well kempt. There have never been any issues with fan behavior in Baltimore, all of the fans look just like the image portrayed by the media for Cal Ripken, JR. In fact, I believe Baltimore is a dry town. The city streets are patrolled by stereotypical police officers who often stop to counsel young men through the wisdom of Irish proverbs.


"After stumbling while rounding first base on Wednesday, Bradley appeared to be injured, and badly...There must have been some kind of medical magician in the dugout, because Bradley was back out on defense the next inning, even diving for a ball."


A few of us were watching the game via MLBTV and keeping up the banter in the EiO Webchat. Watching the replays of Bradley's turn at first base you could clearly see his right lower leg become silly-putty on the first step. Before hitting the bag his right foot takes a nice right-handed turn while the rest of his body is going left. The Oriole broadcasters winced as they saw the replays. Score a low blow for Urban.


In the meantime, during the chat I offered the best case scenario is that Bradley stretched a tendon in his ankle. It would not have been unlikely that Larry Davis took a look at the ankle, gave a quick stress test and the ankle was wrapped in tape or re-wrapped if he already had his ankle taped. Bradley may have even been sporting an ankle brace and it needed to be adjusted in the dugout.


As for the play in the field, maybe if Bradley was 100% he would have got the ball, hence, no need to dive? Maybe Bradley dove because his ankle injury was actually pretty serious and trying to slow down or stop is more painful than starting to run in the first place? That's the most likely case. That and Bradley saw that he had back up on the play and could afford to dive and not worry so much about a sudden stop.


Having played sports as a kid and through college, suffering injuries upon injuries, surgeries, stitches and more hours in the training room than on the field, there is magic that happens when it comes to trainers in dugouts and on sidelines. How good are trainers at their craft? I know in football in several instances where players have had ankles taped up so quickly that they missed just one play - less than a minute from the first rip of the tape roll. I've seen players knees buckle like bran cereal in a blender and be ready to roll in a matter of minutes after hitting the sidelines. When you're a QB and your only offensive weapon is on the sideline getting taped up after 1st down you know exactly who to thank when the player is back in the huddle on 3rd and long.


A professional trainer like Larry Davis would be able to assess a player's injury or even discomfort by the time he walked back with, or helped the player off the field. A's fans have become used to ignoring Larry Davis as he rarely has anything useful information as he is under constant gag order. And he often is used as a punching bag when it comes to the A's training room looking like the Battle of the Somme (too soon?). In reality Davis can only provide his thoughts to management and the administration as they truly are the powers that be.


"He sprained his ankle," said assistant athletic trainer Steve Sayles, who treated Bradley after the incident. "It was already taped; we just reinforced it a little bit."


Here is the brink, the ledge, the precipice - we're about to knock it up a notch.


"So the fans let him have it, and rightly so."


Because fans, especially A's fans, so rarely try to provoke visiting players. There have been zero fan incidents at the Oakland Coliseum in the last several years. None at all. It has not been an issue. Or in baseball in general. All of those police officers, private security and stadium employees in point of fact employed for player and fan protection alike are there because of some vast conspiracy theory involving the mob and the "Baseball Security Union". I am just supposing here, no need to start linking conspiracy theories.


"...and while none of his teammates would go on the record (nor would Bradley, who didn't talk after the Boston game, either), it was clear that they are tired of Bradley's act."


Bradley also didn't want to talk when the season started. He is not a big fan of the media.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO VENTURE A GUESS, AT THIS POINT AND TIME, AS TO PERHAPS WHY?

Urban not only insults Bradley in this case, he insults Bradley's teammates and the Oakland A's organization. He calls them out as 'cowards' for not going on the record with him that they are indeed "...tired of Bradley's act." Either that, or there really is nothing to go on the record about. Most of the quotes surrounding Bradley from the last week had to do with his 'fire' and the way he approaches the game.


"Kotsay said he didn't think Bradley was becoming a distraction, adding that he likes "the fire he brings to this ball club." Kotsay then suggested reporters talk to Thomas, who has played with "fiery guys" such as Carl Everett and Tony Phillips in the past.


"You've just got to leave them alone and let them be who they are," Thomas said. "All the fiery guys I've played with, they play better when they're like that."


Well, whoever got those quotes doesn't think that Urban has a leg to stand on. Oh, wait, those quotes are part of an article Urban wrote. Sorry, didn't mean to use Urban's words against him.


"They're also tired of Macha playing the role of enabler."


As A's fans we're also sick of MLB playing the role of enabler and allowing Urban to be employed.


"Beane is a very good GM, but he swung and missed big with Bradley - Ethier is batting .340 for the Dodgers, while Bradley is batting .249 and causing headaches. So it's on Beane to do what Macha should have done and sit Bradley down."


Let's dip into Mychael Urban's Mailbag from around the time of the trade:


"Did it hurt to give up Ethier? Sure. But let's remember that he's played only a handful of games above Double-A. And don't forget that the A's picked up a pretty solid big-league backup infielder in the deal, too. If Mt. Milton doesn't erupt and helps get Oakland past the first round of the playoffs, the trade will look like a steal no matter what Ethier ends up doing for the Dodgers."


Didn't Urban start the piece with something regarding On Base Percentage? Oh, that's right, Moneyball. Wasn't Bradley on the DL? Kind of hard to improve any of your numbers, including batting average, when you can't get into a regulation MLB game, isn't it?


"For a guy who's so big on track records, it's puzzling why Beane would ignore Bradley's. It was never a matter of 'if' regarding blowup. It was 'when?'"


Beane also has had Jose Guillen, Randy Velarde, Frank Menechino, the Giambi brothers, Arthur Rhodes, Eric Karros, Mark McLemore, Mark Redman, Tom Wilson and Cory Lidle come through in the past few years. It's not like anyone in that group of guys were working part-time in a monastery during the off season.


"And when is now."


Huh. I'd like to know 'when' Bobby Crosby and Eric Chavez are going to perform like the upper echelon players Beane and his minions, such as Urban, they are painted out to be. I'm wondering 'when' Jason Kendall is going to perform up to the level Urban keeps establishing for us to just 'wait for'. I'm wondering 'when' there's going to be an explanation of Esteban Loaiza, 'when' are we going to find out why Dan Johnson was sent down, 'when' is Marco Scutaro going to find his way to another team, 'when' are we going to see the Antonio Perez that was supposed to be the bonus in the Bradley/Ethier trade, 'when' are we going to see the benefits of Brad Halsey, Kirk Saarloos, Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick. I'd also like to know 'when' we can watch the A's without dreading how Ken Macha is going to screw things up - like bringing in your closer for the 9th inning when you are ahead by four runs. I'd like to know 'when' the A's ownership will quit their bitching about San Jose and stop trying to sell the idea of a baseball village built with private money. 'When' that baseball village is owned by A's ownership, 'when' the profits and benefits go nowhere the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda and 'when' the private money is actually hundreds of millions of dollars in tax loopholes that screws the public.


Indeed 'when', 'when' indeed.


You really have to stand back and wonder what the hell Urban was trying to accomplish with this piece.

• Is Urban trying to show Bradley in a poor light to instigate a response from Bradley?




• If he is trying to get a response from Bradley; is it so show that Bradley is above such things by not responding or if he does respond, begin a media feed of Bradley the 'problem player'?




• Is this an attempt by Urban to get national media attention with a violent outburst by Bradley?




• Is Urban pissed off because the A's clubhouse has begun to shun the media following the Swisher/Blanton/Loaiza/Sauerbeck/Bradley flare ups?




• Has the laid back style of the A's clubhouse now become a place where the media lapdogs have to actually 'work' to get a usable quote?




• Is there a hint on the horizon that the days of relative freedom are coming to an end; are the A's going to begin limiting the access allowed to the media?




• Is Urban working for Billy Beane on this or is Urban really this stupid?

Over the past week, Bradley has been hearing it from fans in Boston and Baltimore. Go figure. Bradley has a reputation that follows him along thanks to the wonderful media who reference. A typical article on Bradley follows up with what is, for all intents and purposes, a rap sheet. If Bradley sneezes and fails to cover his mouth in time, articles can be penned and picked up nation and worldwide. "Bradley inconsiderate of teammates". Toward the end of the article it will recount anything deemed negative about Bradley and not put those events in context.


I'm really having a hard time reconciling what Urban is trying to get to with this article. To me he's an assface trying to use his job with MLB.com and influence in the A's clubhouse to write fluff for MLB.com and play hatchet man at a media outlet with a very low readership. Coward. Assface. Stupid.


Bradley had issues in Montreal. So did the rest of MLB. SEE: Jeffrey Loria, Felipe Alou, Bud Selig, Florida Marlins, John Henry, Boston Red Sox, RICO lawsuit, Washington Nationals. Bradley had issues in Cleveland. So did the rest of Cleveland and their three managers in 18 months. Bradley had issues with Jeff Kent and the Los Angeles media as a Dodger. The L.A. Media was able to get Paul DePodesta fired and hounded Bradley because he and Paul LaDuca "the heart and soul of the Dodgers" had a run-in years before.


Personally, I was hoping the A's would pick up Bradley when he was on the outs in Cleveland. I had a poll on the blog and it seemed most didn't care about any of the 'baggage' either. Bradley is the kind of player Oakland fans love. This is the city who cheered on Lyle Alzado, Lester Hayes, Jose Canseco, Rickey Henderson and Dave Kingman. How else would a blue collar area react to a player who has stood up to authority and refused to take crap because it's the status quo? They'd make him a picnic lunch and ask him to beat the snot out of their boss at work, what else?


With the trade to Oakland, the only fuss I made was that the A's gave up too much to get a player the Dodgers no longer wanted a part of. Andre Ethier was a player the A's drafted twice times; once out of high school and once out of college. Ethier is a tremendous hitter, the only knock being his lack of power and too few walks as a minor leaguer despite a decent strike out to walk ratio. Ethier has a .530 slugging percentage for the Dodgers with a .915 OPS, yes better than any Oakland Athletic. He's only 24 years old and could still develop the 'power' or continue to hit doubles - he hits an extra base hit one out of every 10 AB's.


I just don't get where Urban gets off. Hopefully, this is where; MLB needs to fire his ass for gross incompetence and conflict of interest.