Yankees Got Chapman

[weams]

MLB network. I know I would take anything Harold Reynolds said as solid information. Not.

I suspect that it was Olney. I am sure it was not Harold.

[abbott]

Not outrage but there were a lot of people that did not agree with it in significant part due to character issues. Delmon Young too.

Albert Belle.

Bobby Bonilla wasn't a criminal, but he was elite level jerk.

Was Chapman hard to manage in Cincinnati? Was he a decent clubhouse guy? Show up and pitch when he was supposed to, not whine and moan?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stotle]

I wouldn't trade for anyone with a felony investigation pending. Resolved is another story.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, but there is no felony investigation in Chapman's case. There is a league disciplinary investigation.

[Stotle]

It isn't about preventing domestic violence. It is about refusing to give millions of dollars to someone who commits it. Hardy is an affront to the NFL so comparisons to him saying "it isn't that bad" are in really poor taste and show a lack o f understanding about the issue IMO.

It would help if people understood the laws of a state before they wrote things like "well, they aren't going to charge him". It is impossible to prosecute what he did in Florida without the victim pursuing it. And if you don't understand why the victim isn't pursuing it, I'd advise you to read more about domestic violence, especially involving disparate economic situations.

Regarding the comments about judging Cashman, I only judged him AFTER reading his own quotes on the move. He knows he traded for a guy who did some really bad stuff. It is clear from his comments. He couldn't pass up the deal. In other words, the mans actions were less important than how cheaply he could be acquired. That is plain and simple wrong.

What DD did with FRod wasn't good either IMO and I complained loudly at the time, but they aren't remotely analogous events. He didn't go after FRod when the event was under investigation. It was years later. He didn't get him for pennies on the dollar while ignoring what he had done and basically using that as a rationale for the move. Finally, for all I know FRod has told every GM he has talked to for the last 5 years how much he regrets that incident and laid out how he paid his debt and changed. I doubt it but he might have done so. He has had no further trouble that I can find. Chapman is lying about what happened based on multiple eye witness accounts.

It saddens me that so few people seem to really care. I don't need the guys I watch to be choir boys, but I do not want to watch someone who commits violence against another and doesn't even seem to care.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I respect where you are coming from. What follows, though, is that you believe the only right course of action would be for Chapman to be banned from baseball. I don't think the standard can be "You can't acquire someone who was involved in some level of domestic abuse, but if he's already on your team it's okay to keep employing him."

[abbott]

If Chapman, or any other player, is not in material breach of their contract, how do you get rid of him? I doubt there's a team that would 'Keyshawn' a MLB player today. A team suspension for a violation of team rules for an offense that was not punished by the league, but that's about it.

It would be as if the Orioles took a moral position with Davis and said that his 50 game suspension was insufficient and they declared him in breach of contract and sued him for lost profits associated with his suspension. Not Going To Happen

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

Sigh, first of all it was a 25 game suspension. Second of all, these aren't even remotely comparable situations. It scares the hell out of me that people can't see the difference. Third, Chris immediately took responsibility for what he did. Fourth, the fact that he had previously had a therapeutic use waiver and subsequently got another is huge mitigation of the act in any court of law or mediation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It appears to me the list of offenses go:

Steroids- Out of the Hall! Boo!

Domestic abuse/Hate crime - Short suspension.

Killing someone while driving drunk- Have a patch!

[Stotle]

Ok, you're right, but there is only no felony investigation because the victim won't press charges. In this case, I take the league investigation as the ongoing investigation. Regardless, the isn't going to be cleared. The guy did it (multiple witnesses), denies it or lies about it depending on the quote, and feels no responsibility for it. I just can't support that behavior.

Ray Rice hit his wife ONCE (fianc?e at that point). He has spent thousands of hours since that day making amends in every possible way while also taking full responsibility. He and his wife are still together and have grown stronger out of an incident that could have ruined them. As a couple they are universally lauded as good citizens and parents by those that know them. It isn't an act. He is contrite and is working to help prevent it from happening to others. Yet, he has never played football again for what comes down to one reason. It was on camera.

Hardy and these other fools abuse people, don't even begin to take responsibility let alone make amends, and they are being paid millions. What Chapman did lasted over hours. It wasn't a momentary lose of control. But, since there is no video, lots of us just choose to minimize it. I don't get it. If the consumers didn't support these guys, they wouldn't have jobs.

Ok, I suppose I'm done. More evidence in the "professional sports just aren't worth my time" category.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't give Ray Rice the benefit of the doubt. It's great he's been making amends. Would he have acted the same had he not been caught on tape? If he were not trying to get a contract and millions more in the bank?

It just seems like you are meting out justice haphazardly. As I said, I get where you are coming from. But then the stance is boot him out of the league, and stand behind that realizing it's going to make for some potentially sticky situations along the way when you explain why one guy is banned from the sport for an incident that's video taped while another has yet to be punished although there are whispers all over that he tends to drink and get a little physical with his wife/kids during the offseason.

I don't think professional sports should take up much of anyone's bandwidth. I'm a fan of folks enjoying them as entertainment, but they shouldn't be the billion dollar empire they are. But here we are.

And, again, in principle I agree with most of what you are saying. I just don't get the "you're a bad person for employing/acquiring this guy while an investigation is still ongoing." If you have a principled stance based on morality, it shouldn't matter whether an investigation is ongoing or if the event occurred a year ago or three years ago. It just doesn't make logical sense to me how Chapman should be unemployable during an investigation but then good to go after some to-be-determinded period of time and after he has shown some collection of acts satisfying the public he has passed the "I'm really sorry" threshold. Isn't that why the league is conducting its investigation? To determine what, if any, action should be taken against Chapman? If that's the case, isn't the league action enough of a punishment? If not, what's the rest?

As far as Cashman now being a bad guy, you get paid to make a baseball decision. Whether or not an investigation is ongoing you are acquiring a player for what he does on the field. You are also acquiring the potential for suspension or expulsion from the league, clubhouse/makeup problems, and bad PR. Trading for him now says absolutely nothing about the character of Cashman. If it does, then at what point should teams be open to trading for Chapman? Again, I come back to the only logical stance based on your stated opinion being you are for banning Chapman from the sport. I'm just not convinced that's the direction the sport should go.

[Stotle]

Sigh, first of all it was a 25 game suspension. Second of all, these aren't even remotely comparable situations. It scares the hell out of me that people can't see the difference. Third, Chris immediately took responsibility for what he did. Fourth, the fact that he had previously had a therapeutic use waiver and subsequently got another is huge mitigation of the act in any court of law or mediation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is irrelevant to me. When faced with incontrovertible evidence and the prospect of losing of millions of dollars, sorry if I don't commend someone for coming clean and "making good." The penalty is the penalty. Apology tours mean nothing to me.

I'm not "okay" with domestic violence. I'm also not okay with arbitrarily deciding to take punitive action outside the framework of any league policy because it makes everyone feel good. That's not justice for anyone.

If baseball wants to be a zero-tolerance organization with respect to domestic violence, I'm all for it. Determined you hit your wife/kids, you get booted from the sport. Everyone knows the deal. But deciding arbitrarily that teams that choose to associate themselves with someone with an investigation pending should be condemned and criticized seems over the top to me.

If I were a dictator I'd have a lot of different views as to how things ran in all facets of life. As I am not, I look primarily to see if we are trying to treat people fairly under established guidelines.

[Stotle]

I am all for second chances when guys take responsibility and make amends. In his case, I think he shouldn't be able to play for anyone until those things happen. And it would take time and effort for amends, not some half ass apology.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I just don't see the point. A dog and pony show doesn't do anything for the victim, doesn't improve the life of the accused, and really only serves to try and humble someone who the public has decided to scorn. Okay, fine. I get that's what people like to see today. But I'd much rather baseball put a policy in place that addresses how matters should be treated, and then made counseling mandatory upon a breach.

If it were my team, I'd require counseling before continuing to play the player. I don't care how many babies he kisses on his way to and from counseling, or how passionately his wife claims the incident has brought the two of them closer together.

[OFFNY]

If Chapman, or any other player, is not in material breach of their contract, how do you get rid of him? I doubt there's a team that would 'Keyshawn' a MLB player today. A team suspension for a violation of team rules for an offense that was not punished by the league, but that's about it.

It would be as if the Orioles took a moral position with Davis and said that his 50 game suspension was insufficient and they declared him in breach of contract and sued him for lost profits associated with his suspension. Not Going To Happen

Sigh, first of all it was a 25 game suspension. Second of all, these aren't even remotely comparable situations. It scares the hell out of me that people can't see the difference. Third, Chris immediately took responsibility for what he did. Fourth, the fact that he had previously had a therapeutic use waiver and subsequently got another is huge mitigation of the act in any court of law or mediation.

I think that people DO see the difference(s.)

Choosing to act like they don't see the difference(s) in order to promote whatever their agenda happens to be is not the same as not seeing the difference.

And if I'm giving people too much credit ...... and they really don't see the difference(s) ...... well, that to me illustrates a pretty serious lack in terms of interpreting and comparing situations.

[OFFNY]

Lol, you're the one who used Chris Davis as a comparable to Chapman. It was your post. Now you act like I should know you can tell the difference and I have an agenda. Ok, whatever.

What are you talking about?

abbott compared the two, not me.

And I was critiquing his agenda, not yours.

[OFFNY]

I'm sorry. For some reason, I thought that was abbott's follow up post. My mistake.

OK. Thanks for clearing it up.

[MrOrange82]

You allow for no rehabilitation? There was nothing Ray Rice can do to make amends? That surprises me, but I have no issue with it if you're consistent.

What Rice has done is a thousand miles from a contrition act and an interview or two. Have you read about it? The man has spoken at many, many events unpaid taking responsibility and advocating ways people could avoid the situation in their lives.

And again, I'm fine with Rice never playing again, but how does that work with Hardy and Chapman? Taking responsibility plays no part at all to you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm unabashedly glass-half-empty, but it's fair to question whether Rice would've gone to such lengths had he not been drummed out of the NFL (i.e., he's had the "time," so to speak).

IMO, sports have too often provided safe harbors for criminals, particularly violent ones, and I'm also fine with Ray Rice never seeing another game from field level. Ideally, the same fates should befall people like Hardy and Chapman, regardless of whether there's video evidence of the damning act(s), and regardless of how often the act(s) were repeated, if at all. My guess is that Rice didn't actually suffer the misfortune of having a camera coincidentally catch the first and only time he hit a significant other. I'd find it really hard to believe that he's that "unlucky."

[Stotle]

You allow for no rehabilitation? There was nothing Ray Rice can do to make amends? That surprises me, but I have no issue with it if you're consistent.

What Rice has done is a thousand miles from a contrition act and an interview or two. Have you read about it? The man has spoken at many, many events unpaid taking responsibility and advocating ways people could avoid the situation in their lives.

And again, I'm fine with Rice never playing again, but how does that work with Hardy and Chapman? Taking responsibility plays no part at all to you?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rehabilitation matters to me from the standpoint of someone correcting a shortcoming that was damaging to them and to others. I'm all for rehabilitation.

Contrition matters to me from the standpoint of how I might feel about an individual on personal level, to the extent I have personal feelings about a professional athlete (usually I do not).

Taking responsibility matters to me from a decision making standpoint at a professional level in that it helps convince me this player is intent on improving and making sure his indiscretions aren't repeated. To me, that goes hand in hand with rehabilitation and has almost nothing to do with contrition (though I'd encourage acts of contrition and might demand it depending on how bad the PR is for the organization).

If I'm the Yankees I care more about what Chapman plans to do differently in the future. It doesn't matter to me how much he says he's sorry, or how many speeches he gives. If the league comes back with a suspension and community service required, his completing that community service doesn't change my personal or professional opinion of the man.

[Stotle]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never advocated taking action outside the league's policy. If it were me, there would be a rule that any player under a disciplinary investigation is ineligible for trade during the investigation. There isn't. The Yanks are within their rights. That doesn't mean I don't think what they did is slimy and lacks morality. I think it is clearly a poor decision.

Would you have traded for Chapman right now? If not, how are we advocating different things? If you would, I would ask why you think it is ok IF you believe he did the things he is accused of doing (I'm assuming you'd investigate and come to a conclusion before you traded for him)?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. What's the purpose of the no trade rule?

2. I don't know if I would have traded for Chapman. I would have to do a whole lot of due diligence prior to making that decision. The answer wouldn't hinge on this one event and what has been reported in the media, I don't think. Tough to say without being in the actual chair, making the decision.