Brad Thompson just won’t shutup

[12xu]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

[kennethamos]

BT is the worst excuse for an announcer in Cardinals history. Juvenile garbage feeder who actually makes Chipster seem competent.

[Chitownredbird]

Brad is a better color guy than Oli is a manager. Talk about damning with faint praise.

How about adios to both?

[brucesutterHOF]

Place Brad in the studio and replace him with Sweeney. I would for Dani to take some turns in the TV booth as the analyst.

This is pure genius

[DIAMONDINTHEROUGH]

How many games does Sweeney work? I liked him when I had access to the games last year.

[11WSChamps]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

[JuanAgosto]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

[11WSChamps]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

Anyone can perhaps exaggerate once in awhile..the poster said "all the time".

So how could one game be enough to make a judgement?

[JuanAgosto]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

Anyone can perhaps exaggerate once in awhile..the poster said "all the time".

So how could one game be enough to make a judgement?

So a person can witness/hear something but NOT make an observation because they only saw/heard it once? How many times do you think is needed for an observation to be validated? You do understand that announcers have patterns? Its not like Harry called each game differently. He wasn't showing up saying "Im going to be overly dramatic today." Or "(bleep). I'm going to be really understated for this one." As someone who saw Harry on WGN for several years, I can say he was over the top.

[11WSChamps]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

Anyone can perhaps exaggerate once in awhile..the poster said "all the time".

So how could one game be enough to make a judgement?

So a person can witness/hear something but NOT make an observation because they only saw/heard it once? How many times do you think is needed for an observation to be validated? You do understand that announcers have patterns? Its not like Harry called each game differently. He wasn't showing up saying "Im going to be overly dramatic today." Or "(bleep). I'm going to be really understated for this one." As someone who saw Harry on WGN for several years, I can say he was over the top.

Well you could say the same thing if you heard someone once and they weren't over the top, correct?

I believe a lot of folks would agree that by the time Harry got to the Cubs he was more showman than broadcaster. "Over the top" or entertaining and painting a picture of the game for the listener? Everyone has an opinion.

The broadcaster I heard doing Cubs games was a far cry from his Cardinal days.

[JuanAgosto]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

Anyone can perhaps exaggerate once in awhile..the poster said "all the time".

So how could one game be enough to make a judgement?

So a person can witness/hear something but NOT make an observation because they only saw/heard it once? How many times do you think is needed for an observation to be validated? You do understand that announcers have patterns? Its not like Harry called each game differently. He wasn't showing up saying "Im going to be overly dramatic today." Or "(bleep). I'm going to be really understated for this one." As someone who saw Harry on WGN for several years, I can say he was over the top.

Well you could say the same thing if you heard someone once and they weren't over the top, correct?

I believe a lot of folks would agree that by the time Harry got to the Cubs he was more showman than broadcaster. "Over the top" or entertaining and painting a picture of the game for the listener? Everyone has an opinion.

The broadcaster I heard doing Cubs games was a far cry from his Cardinal days.

His Cardinals tenure was before my time. So I will rely on what those who were around then say. Harry might have been less over the top, but ive heard he could be vindictive and spiteful. Heard stories of him bashing Kenny Boyer at every opportunity. All because Boyer refused a pregame interview request.

[11WSChamps]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

Anyone can perhaps exaggerate once in awhile..the poster said "all the time".

So how could one game be enough to make a judgement?

So a person can witness/hear something but NOT make an observation because they only saw/heard it once? How many times do you think is needed for an observation to be validated? You do understand that announcers have patterns? Its not like Harry called each game differently. He wasn't showing up saying "Im going to be overly dramatic today." Or "(bleep). I'm going to be really understated for this one." As someone who saw Harry on WGN for several years, I can say he was over the top.

Well you could say the same thing if you heard someone once and they weren't over the top, correct?

I believe a lot of folks would agree that by the time Harry got to the Cubs he was more showman than broadcaster. "Over the top" or entertaining and painting a picture of the game for the listener? Everyone has an opinion.

The broadcaster I heard doing Cubs games was a far cry from his Cardinal days.

His Cardinals tenure was before my time. So I will rely on what those who were around then say. Harry might have been less over the top, but ive heard he could be vindictive and spiteful. Heard stories of him bashing Kenny Boyer at every opportunity. All because Boyer refused a pregame interview request.

Heard about the Boyer thing from others but have no first hand knowledge of it.

I think we can agree that players were not nearly as insulated from the team broadcasters as they are today. I would imagine most broadcasters in that era may have had some run ins with players because the announcers then weren't as quick to sugarcoat things as they do today.

Image, marketing, etc. are more important than "telling it like it is".

No doubt Harry had a giant ego as most of those guys did and with popularity apparently took it too far when Gussie decided to let him go.

[JuanAgosto]

If you had to listen to Chip instead of watching it, you'd never know what happened. Line drives are bloopers, deep drives are medium fly balls, great catches rare routine plays...drives me nuts. It's like I'm watching a different game.

Learned from his grandfather.

You're wrong yet again.

He is not wrong. When Harry was the main man on KMOX in the sixties, he was over the top all the time. Thing is, most of the games were not televised, so unless you were at the game, you did not realize how much Harry exaggerated.

And you were at every game with radio in hand?

Why would he need to be at every game? Going to one and seeing different from what you are hearing isn't enough? Why would he have to test that 80 other times?

Besides, the few national TV broadcasts usually used one announcer from each team to do play-by-play. So he could've noticed it watching tv.

Anyone can perhaps exaggerate once in awhile..the poster said "all the time".

So how could one game be enough to make a judgement?

So a person can witness/hear something but NOT make an observation because they only saw/heard it once? How many times do you think is needed for an observation to be validated? You do understand that announcers have patterns? Its not like Harry called each game differently. He wasn't showing up saying "Im going to be overly dramatic today." Or "(bleep). I'm going to be really understated for this one." As someone who saw Harry on WGN for several years, I can say he was over the top.

Well you could say the same thing if you heard someone once and they weren't over the top, correct?

I believe a lot of folks would agree that by the time Harry got to the Cubs he was more showman than broadcaster. "Over the top" or entertaining and painting a picture of the game for the listener? Everyone has an opinion.

The broadcaster I heard doing Cubs games was a far cry from his Cardinal days.

His Cardinals tenure was before my time. So I will rely on what those who were around then say. Harry might have been less over the top, but ive heard he could be vindictive and spiteful. Heard stories of him bashing Kenny Boyer at every opportunity. All because Boyer refused a pregame interview request.

Heard about the Boyer thing from others but have no first hand knowledge of it.

I think we can agree that players were not nearly as insulated from the team broadcasters as they are today. I would imagine most broadcasters in that era may have had some run ins with players because the announcers then weren't as quick to sugarcoat things as they do today.

Image, marketing, etc. are more important than "telling it like it is".

No doubt Harry had a giant ego as most of those guys did and with popularity apparently took it too far when Gussie decided to let him go.

I think Harry was just a guy who developed a huge ego and started to act like a huge jerk whenever he felt like it. I dont think Boyer was the only player. Just maybe the highest profile Cardinal that Harry treated that way. Then he had his issues with Mr. Busch. That was idiotic on his part.

[Joseph-Magrane]

You all who say Dani is ugly, you’re gay?

[hotrivets]

Chip is just ok when he sticks to the game. You can tell he is bored with doing announcing so he wants to talk about anything else. Really you can't stick to your job for 3 hours 150 days per year? Time to move on.

Brad is just a hick. Probably a nice enough guy but no way he should be in that position. I agree he should do the kiddie show- they might find him amusing. Lame.

Dani wants more face time and apparently she has talked the team into it. Lots of interviews; none of it interesting. Let's face it most players are not that interesting- would you want to watch interviews of most people doing their jobs? There are specific questions that might elicit an interesting answer but none of the announcers do the work to come up with those. It's the same old drivel- how did you feel to get the big hit, strikeout, etc. Some kind of brief overview of the ground rules of various stadiums might be interesting but a 5 minute tour of the fence is not. Again, more air time for Dani.

[OldRed]

Brad would be excellent doing school visits with Fred Bird.