Just as the specter of Milton Bradley overshadowed all things Cub in the last six weeks of the season and at the winter meetings, one of the most popular story lines of the 2010 spring training has been about how the "mercurial outfielder" isn't in Mesa.

In other words, some in the media are trying to define 2010 by the mistakes of 2009 - for good or ill.

We have taken our share of shots at the Chicago media - most notably Paul Sullivan - for their continued obsession with Milton Bradley, even though he was shipped out of town in the offseason.

But it isn't entirely the fault of Sullivan, Gordon Wittenmyer, and the radio talkers who obsessively parrot "Milton Bradley! Milton Bradley!" whenever things get slow.

(click "read more" for full article)

In fact, much of the fault lies with Jim Hendry, Jeff Samardzija, Alfonso Soriano and anyone else in the Cubs organization who has answered a question about Bradley since he was sent to Seattle for Carlos Silva.

By answering Sullivan's questions, by answering WMVP's repeated questions, by answering Wittenmyer's questions ... the Cubs continue to give the ghost of Milton Bradley life. By playing the compare and contrast game, they are providing new copy. By accepting the premise of the oft-repeated questions, they are validating the story.

Think I'm exaggerating? A non-exhaustive list of examples here, here, here and here.

All of this may have come to an end this week, however, with Wittenmyer's publication of a story that called Marlon Byrd the "anti-Bradley" in which he trolled the clubhouse for comments on said thesis. That elicited a strong rebuke from Derrek Lee:

"It's ridiculous," Lee told Bruce Levine and Jonathan Hood on ESPN 1000's "Talkin' Baseball" Saturday morning. "If it was a white guy who came over [to the Cubs] would he be [called] the 'anti-Milton Bradley'? It just makes no sense. Marlon's a completely different guy. He wasn't traded for Milton. He signed here as a free agent, so why even bring Milton Bradley's name into it? It really makes no sense and it's just, again, the media trying to make something out of nothing."

Exactly. But the Cubs must stop helping them "make something out of nothing."

It's time for the Cubs to get boring on this subject. Any time they are asked about Milton Bradley, the answer needs to be:

"We have a strong team and are looking forward to improving this year."

Or maybe they should rewatch this:

Whatever they do, one thing is important: Stop. Talking. About. Milton. Bradley.

It is more difficult for the Cubs than it would be for, say, a political campaign or a Fortune 500 company with strict policies on who can or cannot speak with the media. In Mesa, you have these guys interacting freely with executives, scouts and dozens of ballplayers with varying degrees of willingness to chat with reporters.

But the best way to stop having to answer questions about Milton Bradley and 2009 is to stop answering questions about Milton Bradley and 2009.

By doing so, the Cubs will marginalize the questioners, leave them with no fresh copy and expose them for being stuck in the past with their silly little obsessions.