Any interest in Trevor Bauer if he's released?

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

16 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long. 

[E-D-D-I-E]

1 hour ago, HakunaSakata said:

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I feel like the Browns have absolutely been blasted for trading for Watson (i.e., it's been nothing but bad PR). 

Do you have any concerns about Bauer's influence on our mostly young roster? I'm only asking because we're talking about a guy who chucked a ball over the CF fence when his manager tried to remove him from a game? A guy who routinely seems to try to make the game more about him and less about the team and who seems to extremely immature for a 31 year old man. 

Your not mistaken, the Browns got blasted. My point is so what? What happened? Its blown over, fans are still going, they are still on TV. Its all a show. Again, the game is bigger and always will be. 

His lack of maturity and influence on younger players is something to consider.

He has been a bit "explosive". However, take a look this ownership/front office. They have multiple holes in the rotation, not much imminent and they aren't willing to pony up. Where these pitchers coming from? We have a need, he can fill it. He got railroaded and its not a secret. One thing I didn't consider is how liberal Baltimore is. The fans may cause a stir. But honestly I would expect that and I don't think it matters. Win and no one remembers....

[ChosenOne21]

I want to win baseball games. Getting a pitcher of Trevor Bauer's pedigree for league minimum has a really great chance to help us do that. If he sucks, cut him

[LA2]

Just plain No. I'm also surprised this thread has gone on this long.

Edited December 23, 2022 by LA2

[sportsfan8703]

48 minutes ago, Sports Guy said:

The evidence they had was her face right?  I mean, there is no denying he hit her, I believe??

So, knowing that he definitely hit her and that she had the marks on her face and body to prove it, how is he not guilty?

I think it’s pretty obvious that the cops had evidence that showed she wanted this and that is was consensual and, at the end of the day, if that is the case, he didn’t do anything wrong legally speaking.

I mean, there are people who like to get pissed on, pooped on, thrown up on, rape fantasies, etc….there are just a lot of messed up people out there and while we may not be able to understand it or think they are sick f*cks, it’s how they choose to live and none of us have the right to intrude upon that.

I wouldn’t even say there are messed up or f’d up people out there. I’m not saying you’re saying this… but some people might say anything other than missionary is sick. Or all of the LGBTQ+ is sick. 
 

Bauer is in the LGBTQ+ community. His + is “F” for Freak. Who are we to judge to consenting adults?  

[E-D-D-I-E]

56 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Obviously that's the conclusion law enforcement came to, at least based on the evidence they had available, they didn't feel they had enough to prove it.

But I don't know about that blanket statement at the end of your sentence.   I'm not an expert on the law.   But I believe he has admitted to beating her about the face, but said she had given consent for roughness/pain.   Where is that line drawn?   If I tell you that I want to die and ask you to kill me, I believe you can still be convicted of murder or manslaughter or something if you honor my wishes.   If she gave consent for rough sex, does that mean that he can hit her until she has black eyes and a bruised face and that is not considered a crime?

Obviously, he wasn't charged, so maybe the answer to that question is yes.   Or maybe he wasn't charged because they just didn't have enough evidence to move foward.

For 2 years they tried to charge and still couldn't prove anything. That fact tells all. We have seen too many cases of women vs athletes fail, to know what is real and what isn't. How many charges has Ben Rothlisberger been cited with? Yet the public still backs him. 

[Jammer7]

15 minutes ago, sportsfan8703 said:

I think this is the big point. Was it just a sex act “gone bad?”  Also, what “normal” people might consider “weird” acts, well those acts are a lot more mainstream now. We’re not talking ice cubes here. 
 

He’s hasn’t been charged, but does that mean he’s “innoncent?”  It just means the DA thought they didn’t have enough to convict or even justify taking to trial. This has just been bizzarre since the story broke. 

The US Constitution says yes, innocent until proven guilty. Due process, 5th amendment and such.

[Aristotelian]

8 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

The US Constitution says yes, innocent until proven guilty. Due process, 5th amendment and such.

Actually the text of the Constitution does not say that. It is considered inferred.

[BRobinsonfan]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

Of course there should be. If he’s innocent, then you shouldn’t worry about signing him.  It all goes together.

If he beat and raped those women, he should be in jail for the rest of his life or better yet, dead.

If what happened was between 2 consenting adults, he did nothing wrong.  We may think it’s disgusting and F’ed up but you see a lot of weird stuff and how people choose to get off is none of our business.

You're absolutely right if what happened took place between two consenting adults.  But in this case you have one party saying it wasn't consensual and the other party saying it was.   These kinds of discussions invariably dissolve down to arguments over which side you believe more.  That's why the thread should be focused on the merits  about signing him or not signing him.  

[Barnaby Graves]

1 hour ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Bauer hasn't pitched since the sticky substances ban and his recent career success is supposedly largely owed to whatever he was putting on the ball. Add in the PR nightmare associated with Bauer and it's a risk only a team desperate to win is going to take on him. 

This is a salient point for me.  His slider was 30th in spin rate, curveball 21st, in 2021.  He's going to be 32, which isn't too bad, but hasn't pitched in a while and a headcase besides this particular issue.

For league minimum I'd probably do it anyway to be honest, this entire case was so muddled and I do think his punishment was vindictiveness on the part of MLB.  Hopefully he wants to keep his head down a little bit and prove himself, I would not want him on his bullshit around these young guys who seem for the most part like good people.  I don't know how much of a bad influence he'd really be, I think that concern may be overstated.  I think the team is looking to Adley Rutschman to lead and Trevor Bauer will be on the outside looking in wherever he plays this year.

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

But where you are wrong is if it’s proven he did nothing wrong, public perception can and likely would change. 

We all know that it's impossible to prove he did nothing wrong.

[Jammer7]

37 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

Actually the text of the Constitution does not say that. It is considered inferred.

It is “presumed,” not inferred. The state has the burden of proof. If not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted. It is a fundamental principal of US law, and a defining principal of how trails are conducted. The 5th, 6th and 14th amendments all deal with this foundational part of American law. 

Now, a non-existent “right to privacy” is inferred in several amendments. In the Lawrence case I cited earlier, it is a question of right to privacy, among other things. 

[SemperFi]

Two points I would like to add: the Orioles with a young team seem genuinely concerned with character and he was a bit of a loose cannon to begin with.  Secondly don't discount the PR side-I have seen the Watson comparison but the game day demographics in baseball are very different than football, don't discount the role women and a family atmosphere would play in a decision to bring him here.  I don't see a chance of this happening.

[geschinger]

27 minutes ago, BRobinsonfan said:

You're absolutely right if what happened took place between two consenting adults.  But in this case you have one party saying it wasn't consensual and the other party saying it was.   These kinds of discussions invariably dissolve down to arguments over which side you believe more.  That's why the thread should be focused on the merits  about signing him or not signing him.  

It should absolutely be part of the calculus on the merits about signing him that he is someone who has violated the domestic abuse policy.  That was upheld by a three-person abitration panel.  While prosecutors couldn't reach the beyond reasonable doubt standard to charge him an arbitration panel was able to conclude under a preponderance of the evidence standard that he did indeed violate MLB's domestic abuse policy.  That goes well beyond arguments about whom you believe more.

[Aristotelian]

15 minutes ago, Jammer7 said:

It is “presumed,” not inferred. The state has the burden of proof. If not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted. It is a fundamental principal of US law, and a defining principal of how trails are conducted. The 5th, 6th and 14th amendments all deal with this foundational part of American law. 

Now, a non-existent “right to privacy” is inferred in several amendments. In the Lawrence case I cited earlier, it is a question of right to privacy, among other things. 

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