Any interest in Trevor Bauer if he's released?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Aristotelian said:

Presumption of innocence is a well established legal principle but it is not stated anywhere in the text of the Constitution.

This is all the Constitution says about criminal prosecutions:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The presumption of innocence goes back hundreds of years before the United States came into existence and is an assumed legal principle.

 

[Number5]

13 minutes ago, crowmst3k! said:

Is he still a member of the bar association? If so, then: yes. 

[Jammer7]

25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

This is all the Constitution says about criminal prosecutions:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

The presumption of innocence goes back hundreds of years before the United States came into existence and is an assumed legal principle.

 

Ok. It was an off the cuff remark, initially. The Constitution and Bill of Rights surround that concept in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments, no? I corrected it by saying was a foundational presumption. @Aristotelian was not wrong. 

As long as the burden of proof is that of the state, he is innocent until proven guilty. It does go back to English common law, as is the basis for our system. I hope this post eliminated any doubts as to my acknowledgement of sitting corrected. Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

[Frobby]

22 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

Ok. It was an off the cuff remark, initially. The Constitution and Bill of Rights surround that concept in the 5th, 6th and 14th amendments, no? I corrected it by saying was a foundational presumption. @Aristotelian was not wrong. 

As long as the burden of proof is that of the state, he is innocent until proven guilty. It does go back to English common law, as is the basis for our system. I hope this post eliminated any doubts as to my acknowledgement of sitting corrected. Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

There’s no doubt in my mind that, if some state tried to change the rule of innocent until proven guilty, even the current literalist Supreme Court would find that it’s implicit in our Constitutuon even if not expressly spelled out.   

Merry Christmas to you as well.   
 

[LookinUp]

In an odd way, I'd kind of respect a smaller market team who went after a guy like Bauer and was just up front with fans. They could say something like:

"We understand there's big risk and that the facts are disputed. With our position in the marketplace, we don't have the same financial resources to obtain top flight talent. That means we might need to operate in areas where there's greater non-financial risks to obtain such talent. As such, we've acknowledged and accepted the risk of signing Trevor Bauer, protected ourselves contractually to the extent practicable, and are hoping that Mr. Bauer's contention that he's innocent and will be an upstanding citizen moving forward is true." 

[banks703]

1 hour ago, DocJJ said:

During the 2021 investigation, the Washington Post discovered a prior restraining order from another woman who made identical allegations stemming from an incident in 2017.  Where there is smoke, there is often, though not always, fire.

Do you mean the woman who filed the restraining order without any specific allegations against him but also at the time the restraining order was filed she omitted the fact that she hadn't actually seen him in person for over a year? Is this the woman who was arrested for showing up to his apartment underaged piss-drunk, assaulting him and was arrested for underage drinking due to her "extreme state of intoxication" and her refusal to leave his apartment? Is this the same woman who when he texted her ridiculous texts (is this what you mean by online harassing?) in a very clear attempt to get her to leave him alone, she responded to him that it was "kind of hot that I bother you that much aw" ? Do you mean the woman who demanded $3.4 million from him to not publicly broadcast details of their relationship? 

 

Do you mean this woman?

[banks703]

1 minute ago, LookinUp said:

In an odd way, I'd kind of respect a smaller market team who went after a guy like Bauer and was just up front with fans. They could say something like:

"We understand there's big risk and that the facts are disputed. With our position in the marketplace, we don't have the same financial resources to obtain top flight talent. That means we might need to operate in areas where there's greater non-financial risks to obtain such talent. As such, we've acknowledged and accepted the risk of signing Trevor Bauer, protected ourselves contractually to the extent practicable, and are hoping that Mr. Bauer's contention that he's innocent and will be an upstanding citizen moving forward is true." 

They wouldn't need to do that. They would just need to say that they've done their due diligence. 

 

Contrary to what several have posted here, everything that I have ready about how Bauer's teammates felt about him prior to the incidents were always positive. Of course there are probably lots of information stating the opposite.

 

As someone as pointed out in this thread and I pointed out in the other thread - MLB has clearly made an example of him so of course the tone around him now is that he's a terrible person. He very well might be but the facts and evidence don't support that.  

[Ohfan67]

Hard no. Way too much baggage and bad PR. 

[Frobby]

33 minutes ago, banks703 said:

Do you mean the woman who filed the restraining order without any specific allegations against him but also at the time the restraining order was filed she omitted the fact that she hadn't actually seen him in person for over a year? Is this the woman who was arrested for showing up to his apartment underaged piss-drunk, assaulting him and was arrested for underage drinking due to her "extreme state of intoxication" and her refusal to leave his apartment? Is this the same woman who when he texted her ridiculous texts (is this what you mean by online harassing?) in a very clear attempt to get her to leave him alone, she responded to him that it was "kind of hot that I bother you that much aw" ? Do you mean the woman who demanded $3.4 million from him to not publicly broadcast details of their relationship? 

 

Do you mean this woman?

I have to ask - are you related to Bauer, or his childhood buddy?   I think this is the second time you’ve posted this.   Why so obsessed with this?

Here’s how I see this: MLB has a process.   The proceedings are confidential and we’re never going to know what evidence was presented or collected for that, as opposed to whatever happened in court.  The arbitrator has ruled and Bauer is free to play now.  But the arbitrator also clearly felt that the MLB policy had been violated and pretty severe discipline had been warranted.  So I don’t think it’s likely that Bauer is blameless here, even though I don’t know (and will never know) what the evidence was that supported the arbitrator’s ruling, or whether I’d agree with the ruling.  

So now the question is, should the team avoid signing a player with this kind of black mark on his record?   My view is, the team doesn’t need to make a moral judgment, it just needs to be pragmatic.  How bad will fan backlash be, and will there be discontent in the clubhouse?   If they feel that not too many fans will walk away, and that the clubhouse will accept Bauer, then they should sign a guy who has the potential to improve the team drastically at very little cost.   He did his time and the team shouldn’t apply a further morality test beyond the pragmatic considerations above.  But if the backlash will make it a bad business decision, then don’t sign him.  
 

[DocJJ]

1 hour ago, banks703 said:

Do you mean the woman who filed the restraining order without any specific allegations against him but also at the time the restraining order was filed she omitted the fact that she hadn't actually seen him in person for over a year? Is this the woman who was arrested for showing up to his apartment underaged piss-drunk, assaulting him and was arrested for underage drinking due to her "extreme state of intoxication" and her refusal to leave his apartment? Is this the same woman who when he texted her ridiculous texts (is this what you mean by online harassing?) in a very clear attempt to get her to leave him alone, she responded to him that it was "kind of hot that I bother you that much aw" ? Do you mean the woman who demanded $3.4 million from him to not publicly broadcast details of their relationship? 

 

Do you mean this woman?

Some of these woman unfortunately are probably trying to extort money and misrepresent things.  (I think one of Ben Rothlisberger's accusers recanted her entire story and admitted to making it all up.) Some, unfortunately, probably have been violated (I'm pretty sure all 30 of Watson's accusers aren't lying).  Some, may be delusional and think they have a relationship with these men even though they've never even met in person.  All of these things are possible in these kinds of cases....

 

Regardless... a hard 'No' for Bauer for me....

 

[oh-wee-ohs]

Lol. Just a bunch of dudes in this whole thread with little to no understanding of women and how effed up Trevor Bauer really is. I've said my piece on this situation in another thread in the MLB forum awhile ago. Dude is sick. And getting your jollies off by beating the shit out of women is not ok. "Consensual" or not. Willing to bet what any of them actually got was far outside of the realm they thought they were flirting with.

Hard pass. Hope he gets completely blacklisted from MLB and no team wants to touch him with a 10 foot pole.

[ScGO's]

Too much worry over PR. If he comes to Baltimore and puts up 4+ WAR and is in the Cy Young running while the Os fight for a playoff spot, the PR will be amazing. Probably the best baseball attention since the Ripken days. Get the league talking about the Orioles every night 

As far as Bauer, the Press will squeeze every dollar they can out of a story no matter how good or bad the outcome with no care for whether they hurt or praise someone's reputation along the way. 

Bigger picture, when I see a situation like this, it puts more emphasis on the "we're all sinners" perception, so who am I to judge him, as most stories have 3 sides: what he said, what she said, and what it really is, and in this case (and most cases) we'll probably never know what this situation really encompasses. You just hope all people can become better.

Anyway, everyone will move on to the next story within a few days and Bauer can compete against every team in MLB on his redemption tour carrying the world's biggest chip on his shoulder. I'd like that to be with the Os, on a league minimum salary ...and sign Kluber

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, oh-wee-ohs said:

understanding of women

Does this exist?

[Jim'sKid26]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

 

Here’s how I see this: MLB has a process.   The proceedings are confidential and we’re never going to know what evidence was presented or collected for that, as opposed to whatever happened in court.  The arbitrator has ruled and Bauer is free to play now.  But the arbitrator also clearly felt that the MLB policy had been violated and pretty severe discipline had been warranted.  So I don’t think it’s likely that Bauer is blameless here, even though I don’t know (and will never know) what the evidence was that supported the arbitrator’s ruling, or whether I’d agree with the ruling.  

So now the question is, should the team avoid signing a player with this kind of black mark on his record?   My view is, the team doesn’t need to make a moral judgment, it just needs to be pragmatic.  How bad will fan backlash be, and will there be discontent in the clubhouse?   If they feel that not too many fans will walk away, and that the clubhouse will accept Bauer, then they should sign a guy who has the potential to improve the team drastically at very little cost.   He did his time and the team shouldn’t apply a further morality test beyond the pragmatic considerations above.  But if the backlash will make it a bad business decision, then don’t sign him.  
 

Well stated and spot on. This is essential how I see it as well. Hopefully my concurrence with your eloquent argument doesn't minimize its relevance. Thank you for stating this in such a clear manner.

[banks703]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I have to ask - are you related to Bauer, or his childhood buddy?   I think this is the second time you’ve posted this.   Why so obsessed with this?

Here’s how I see this: MLB has a process.   The proceedings are confidential and we’re never going to know what evidence was presented or collected for that, as opposed to whatever happened in court.  The arbitrator has ruled and Bauer is free to play now.  But the arbitrator also clearly felt that the MLB policy had been violated and pretty severe discipline had been warranted.  So I don’t think it’s likely that Bauer is blameless here, even though I don’t know (and will never know) what the evidence was that supported the arbitrator’s ruling, or whether I’d agree with the ruling.  

So now the question is, should the team avoid signing a player with this kind of black mark on his record?   My view is, the team doesn’t need to make a moral judgment, it just needs to be pragmatic.  How bad will fan backlash be, and will there be discontent in the clubhouse?   If they feel that not too many fans will walk away, and that the clubhouse will accept Bauer, then they should sign a guy who has the potential to improve the team drastically at very little cost.   He did his time and the team shouldn’t apply a further morality test beyond the pragmatic considerations above.  But if the backlash will make it a bad business decision, then don’t sign him.  
 

LOL No, I am not related to Bauer nor do I know him. It’s just incredibly annoying to read people soapbox on something when none of us have all of the information. And when I see people cite the same incident without taking the time to post the other facts of said incident, it’s really frustrating to me. 
 

As it relates to the arbiter - if Bauer was simply seeking the fastest path to reinstatement, could he not have appealed to have only the upcoming year of suspension overturned? I realize that the specific details of the appeal are not available but he had already served 17 months of suspension, counting the 99 games of the 21 season. If I understood the proceeding correctly, he was asking only for a decision on the remaining term of the suspension, 162 games or the equivalent of 1 full season. 
 

As another mentioned, Bauer’s outspokenness of Manfred dug himself deeper. Isn’t it possible that the arbiter declared what was a victory for both sides? Just because the suspension was reduced and not completely dismissed, doesn’t technically mean that they found Bauer to be guilty of wrongdoing. 
 

Right?