Milton Bradley talking about the Cubs to the New York Times is like catnip for Paul Sullivan. It turned into three Tweets and a story that begun thusly:

MESA, Ariz. -- When Milton Bradley was traded to Seattle in December, he said he no longer wanted to discuss his controversial stint with the Cubs.

"I have no interest in speaking about Chicago," Bradley told reporters. "I'm a Seattle Mariner. I've moved on. I wish you would move on, and I wish the Chicago Cubs organization the best."

But three months later, Bradley had some interesting things to say about Chicago in an interview with the New York Times. In Bradley's eyes, the blame for his unproductive season lies with "Chicago," not him.

(click "read more" for full article)

But Sullivan has taken every opportunity he can to knock Bradley, often with no obvious motivation or logical reason for doing so. Day after day, Tweet after Tweet, non sequitur after non sequitur. All about Bradley.

Sullivan has called Bradley an idiot. Sullivan has compared Bradley to Marlon Byrd in a Tweet (Derrek Lee subsequently suggested there were racial undertones when Gordon Wittenmyer did the same thing in a story). Sullivan has passive aggressively called bloggers stupid for being critical of him.

And Bradley is the one who has a problem?

This obsession with Milton Bradley isn't my primary complaint with Sullivan, though I continue to believe he broke a fundamental ethical guideline when he called him an idiot in a public forum. That simply isn't kosher in journalism, as any news organization with adult supervision would tell you.

No, my main complaint is that he simply isn't very good at what he does.

Rarely, if ever, do you learn something from a Paul Sullivan story. Nor are you struck by the artfulness of his writing. Never once has he used a clever turn of phrase. And I'm having trouble remembering any meaningful news he broke about the Cubs this offseason (though I may be mistaken on this one). Major roster moves, arbitration hearing results, injury news ... they all seem to have come from somewhere else first.

All of this would be forgivable if he were proficient in any one area - or if he displayed basic decency while failing to be proficient. You can mask shortcomings in reporting ability when you write well. You can hide struggles with writing when you're breaking news left and right. And, failing those two areas, you can buy a decent amount of goodwill by being a good guy.

Unfortunately, Sullivan falls well short in all of these areas - no matter what Jimmy Greenfield thinks. That leaves a gaping hole in the most important sports beat assignment at the most important newspaper covering the most important team in Chicago.

Pity.