Just to keep the discussion going, the stories are out and it's pretty much what Buster Olney said earlier. Beane felt like there was a roster crunch coming and that Bradley wasn't going to deal with being on the bench or being a part-time player. At least that's the story he's giving.
The MLB.com story is right here.
SF Chron story is right here.
You know, the truth is that there is probably more to this than we'll ever know. But I do think that getting rid of Bradley now does help you get a better sense of what the outfield will be in 2008 (Bradley clearly wasn't a part of that plan) and it wasn't like Bradley had proven that he could stay on the field for more than seven games at a time. This gives the A's to give players that Beane has loved for a long time like Cust and Snelling a chance to prove if one of them can be a regular contributor.
Do I think that was the main reason for the move? Probably not, but unfortunately, the ending of this Bradley saga is as open to interpretation as the ending to The Sopranos.
