Yankees Got Chapman

[Stotle]

Sure, it is right to question whether his circumstances dictate his contrition. However, can't we first agree that extended bouts of contrition and concrete acts that may positively impact society are a good thing and certainly more worthy or reinstatement than Greg Hardy or myriad others who offer zero accountability or contrition? This keeps getting setting up as an either/or. It isn't. It is a continuum. If Ray Rice doesn't deserve to be reinstated, then why is Greg Hardy playing. I'm fine if Ray Rice never gets reinstated to the NFL. I'm not fine if he doesn't and these other do simply due to a videotape.

Regarding your last statement, I don't feel right just concluding that someone did something multiple times simply because he was videotaped doing it once with no other supporting evidence. I can think of several bad things I did in my youth once and only once. I'd hate to be judged to be a repeat offender by anyone that saw me that day.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But what I see is you making assumptions about both players based on public acts of contrition (or a lack thereof). It could absolutely be the case that Rice has been abusive half a dozen times with this woman and a dozen times prior with other women, while Chapman has never raised his hand in anger prior to that evening. I'm not saying that is likely, but it's certainly among the possible realities we are faced with. Yet, you are advocating for Rice being on the "better" side of the continuum.

I just don't see the logic behind the paradigm you are setting-up for enforcement.

[Stotle]

Ok, I agree with all of that. I'm confused since you seem to arguing against a lot of that with prior posts. Chapman has neither taken responsibility, offered contrition, made amends, or undergone rehabilitation. Rice has done all of those things way, way beyond what the league expected. You appeared to act like Rice was a done deal who didn't deserve another chance and Chapman basically shouldn't be viewed as a bad character at all. Maybe my reading comprehension is just poor.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Oh, no. I don't have any strong opinion on Rice outside of the fact his league-instituted punishment should be within pre-established parameters. Sorry for being unclear. I'm not taking a hard stance against Rice; rather, questioning a soft stance based upon acts of contrition that may or may not be spurred by a desire to get millions of dollars in his bank account.

Re: Chapman, I have no idea what the Yankees' diligence turned up, or if he has taken responsibility behind closed doors. I don't need a public apology if I'm trying to decide whether to trade for him. I guess I punt on that aspect of the analysis absent further info re: Cashman's body of knowledge.

[weams]

Killing someone while driving drunk- Have a patch!

I was unpopular with my stance on the patch.

[Can_of_corn]

I was unpopular with my stance on the patch.

I'm often unpopular, you get used to it.

[weams]

I just don't see the logic behind the paradigm you are setting-up for enforcement.

I'm almost more frightened by the eight gunshots in the home than I am with the choke out.

[Stotle]

1) stuff like Chapman trade and Hardy pick up have to be negatives for the league's image, right? That's why I'm losing my mind and I'm not alone? Poorer image decreases value. Commissioners primary role is to increase the value of the league and protect its image in public. The purpose of the rule would seem to be pretty obvious, right? Keep guys out of the headlines where one or more teams are saying "I want him" while he is being investigated for being a pretty awful person. Pretty clearly sends the wrong message, right?

2). If you were in the chair and concluded the reports were accurate, what would you do? I think the Yankees did this HOPING he is suspended long enough to get another year before FA. Two of their beat writers made that a focus of the story. Talk about slimy. They are using it to their advantage. Cool, he beat the crap out of a woman, but she isn't pressing charges so no jail time yet he will get a suspension that doesn't crush us in 2016 and gets us an extra year. SCORE!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. I guess so. But the absolute only way that type of a rule works is if the league is under strict obligation to complete an investigation ASAP. Otherwise you are screwing over the current team holding player rights. You also need to extend it to FA -- if a FA is under investigation for anything he can't negotiate a contract for employment. Same principle. What if the matter isn't yet decided upon with respect to legal ramifications? What if there is a civil suit. Is that player held out of the game until the civil suit has concluded?

2. If I was convinced this was a one-off unlikely to reoccur I'd trade for him on the condition he do a PR circuit and complete some form of counseling/steps to help address whatever was determined to be the root cause of the incident. If this is a pattern of behavior or I got the sense this was something likely to happen again I wouldn't want him in my organization.

[MrOrange82]

Sure, it is right to question whether his circumstances dictate his contrition. However, can't we first agree that extended bouts of contrition and concrete acts that may positively impact society are a good thing and certainly more worthy or reinstatement than Greg Hardy or myriad others who offer zero accountability or contrition? This keeps getting setting up as an either/or. It isn't. It is a continuum. If Ray Rice doesn't deserve to be reinstated, then why is Greg Hardy playing. I'm fine if Ray Rice never gets reinstated to the NFL. I'm not fine if he doesn't and these other do simply due to a videotape.

Regarding your last statement, I don't feel right just concluding that someone did something multiple times simply because he was videotaped doing it once with no other supporting evidence. I can think of several bad things I did in my youth once and only once. I'd hate to be judged to be a repeat offender by anyone that saw me that day.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think Hardy would exhibit similar kinds of contrition if he'd, essentially, been booted out of the league. I'd rather see those acts than not, but I'm basically a retributivist. I don't really credit what Rice (or others like him) do after they've been caught red-handed. And I definitely don't think he should be invited back into the league, regardless. Whatever gestures he chooses to make from this point forward to "make amends" should be performed in a vacuum that doesn't include "possible, future NFL paycheck" as a carrot/motivator.

If I could ban all players of "low character" from professional sports leagues, I would. If I could convince enough of the sports-watching public to "tune out" such that teams and leagues wouldn't need to be force-fed video evidence of horrible, inexcusable events before taking action on such players, I'd happily do so. IMO, it's an embarrassment (that reflects on all of us) that guys like Hardy are allowed to continue enjoying the extreme privileges that attend careers in pro sports. But we keep tuning in.

It probably looks as though I'm dancing between points, but ultimately, in my mind, there's virtually no difference between guys like Rice and guys like Hardy. I'm glad Rice is out of his game, and I'm angered that Hardy is still in his. I don't really disagree with your arguments, but I don't lend nearly as much weight to what Rice has/hasn't done since his "bad act" was recorded/revealed to the world.

[Stotle]

What? I'm advocating Rice is better because he did all the things you wrote are important.

He took responsibility.

He offered contrition.

He performed amends well beyond what was required and long after he is out of the spotlight.

He went through rehabilitation well beyond what was required.

Chapman has done none of these things.

One is clearly better than the other if you believe Chapman did it.

Your what if scenarios basically boil down to "we don't know what we don't know so we can't ever judge anybody in either direction." Maybe I'm a serial killer and a pedophile. You don't know for sure, right? Does that mean if someone asks if I'm a pedophile or serial killer, your answer would be "I don't know?"

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My issue with the logic is that Chapman could do all of those things next week after the league tells him he's suspended. At that point he's jumping through hoops to try and get back into the "good boy circle." Shrug.

I'm not advocating for Cashman's brilliance. I think arbitrarily choosing which flawed players we exile is problematic. I didn't like it with PEDs and I don't like it here. To be clear, I don't like it on the macro level -- media/fans getting frothy to the point some form of blood letting is levied. At the league level I'd like a policy in place and for the league to act within that policy.

At the MICRO level, on my team or in my organization, I'm much more open to setting a standard for how my players act and how they represent my organization. Even then, I'd generally want players to know the deal before meting out justice. But I recognize that's not always possible. Still, it would be my goal.

[Stotle]

I think Hardy would exhibit similar kinds of contrition if he'd, essentially, been booted out of the league. I'd rather see those acts than not, but I'm basically a retributivist. I don't really credit what Rice (or others like him) do after they've been caught red-handed. And I definitely don't think he should be invited back into the league, regardless. Whatever gestures he chooses to make from this point forward to "make amends" should be performed in a vacuum that doesn't include "possible, future NFL paycheck" as a carrot/motivator.

If I could ban all players of "low character" from professional sports leagues, I would. If I could convince enough of the sports-watching public to "tune out" such that teams and leagues wouldn't need to be force-fed video evidence of horrible, inexcusable events before taking action on such players, I'd happily do so. IMO, it's an embarrassment (that reflects on all of us) that guys like Hardy are allowed to continue enjoying the extreme privileges that attend careers in pro sports. But we keep tuning in.

It probably looks as though I'm dancing between points, but ultimately, in my mind, there's virtually no difference between guys like Rice and guys like Hardy. I'm glad Rice is out of his game, and I'm angered that Hardy is still in his. I don't really disagree with your arguments, but I don't lend nearly as much weight to what Rice has/hasn't done since his "bad act" was recorded/revealed to the world.

That's said much better than I attempted. I wasn't anti-Rice/pro-Chapman but rather indifferent to Rice's good acts as an important distinguishing factor between how the two should be viewed.

I agree with you and VaTech re: what I'd *like* to see as far as professional sports and the character of the participants, but pro sports threw morals out a long time ago -- so I guess I'm just numb enough at this point that I don't get fired-up when I see evidence that yet another athlete is a bad dude.

[Stotle]

Honestly, if I can't get someone as intelligent and well respected as Stotle near my side of thinking, I should just move on.

Go Chapman! Way to go Cashman! You're brilliant!

Hmmm, I wonder what else I can do with my time other than professional sports. I'm just not in the mainstream on this stuff anymore it appears.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with your sentiments. I am not there yet on the policies you're suggesting based on my own perception that they would/could not be implemented fairly.

[Frobby]

I'm fine with all of that. I'm not advocating that Rice be reinstated. I'm advocating that it is bullcrap that he isn't and Hardy is. The only logical explanation is a videotape which is completely illogical.

I also know you're where I am where you're about over this pro sports crap overall. I'm not sure I will ever be able to turn my back on the Orioles as they are basically part of my DNA, but I certainly do wish I could more and more these days.

It is understandable. But I still think the majority of pro athletes are good people, and I enjoy watching the games and rooting for the teams and players I like, so I try not to let the bad apples and the corrupt and mercenary aspects of pro sports distract me from the parts I enjoy.

[Stotle]

Chapman doing an act for a few weeks isn't going to do crap for me either. Rice is STILL doing things almost weekly almost 2 years later. He no longer reasonably has an expectation that a team will sign him. That registers for me.

I have no issue with the rest of what you wrote. I do think you're giving Cashman way too much benefit of the doubt.

Either way, thanks for the discussion. I think this discussion helped to crystallize some things for me. I've been doing the NFL thing this year, as always, but my heart isn't in it. I think it is time for me to move on to different interests. I broke away from pro basketball about 5 years ago. Pro football and baseball were the only sports left other than tennis. I think football is done and baseball may be Orioles only.

Happy New Year!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm with you. I haven't followed pro football in a long time but occasionally tune in for a particular game. Don't follow basketball or hockey or soccer. Baseball is always going to be baseball for me, but I'm pretty much focused on what happens between the lines. I want to be in Camden Yards the next time the Orioles play in a World Series, but I'm not emotionally invested in the daily outcomes re: the organization, or any organization.

I also think you are on the right side of the issue. Just tired of leagues arbitrarily punishing players when it suits them. That's all. I can guaranty there are much more productive and worthwhile uses of time than following any pro sports.

Finally, I'm agnostic as to Cashman. I think you might be 100% right or mostly wrong. I have no inside information and try my best to making strong personal statements about folks in the industry if I don't have a pretty solid, fact-based basis for doing so.

Happy New Year, as well. While I was challenging your views, I do believe your indignation and anger is the correct reaction, and I echo your general sentiments. I wish the country didn't worship bad people, but it does.

[Stotle]

My post was snarky. Apologies for that. I control that impulse better these days, but it still gets me at times.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No worries, buddy. I didn't take offense. I don't like taking a stance that even tangentially condones Chapman -- my intent isn't to stick up for him. I just want a fair process for everyone.

[MrOrange82]

I wish the country didn't worship bad people, but it does.

I just (somehow) restrained myself from posting a Kimye .gif.

You're all welcome.

[Stotle]

I just (somehow) restrained myself from posting a Kimye .gif.

You're all welcome.

No shortage of examples, that's for sure. Right down to politicians continually voted into office, musicians, actors, TV stars, athletes, etc.