Kmart128 Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 7 hours ago, redsoxsuck05 said: German slapped his girlfriend in front of someone from the Commisioner’s Office. I read that to be false. I saw a report that denied that claim and said whatever took place happened in his private residence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 The Yankees have eight games left this season. The Astros have nine games left. Houston holds the tie-breaker for home-field advantage. The two teams are tied at 100 wins right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom cody Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 Yankees/Astros would be fun to watch. Wonder which team ends up with the most wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 1 hour ago, tom cody said: Yankees/Astros would be fun to watch. Wonder which team ends up with the most wins. I'm not counting anybody out. OAK can play tough. MN can clobber the ball on any given night CLE can have their moments. TBs.....well, TB which means they're a pain in the *** that the NYY have played about 1000 times. HOU's healthy (far as I can tell.....) and loaded for bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 14 hours ago, marshawn lynch said: So MLB put German on leave without any police investigation/criminal charges but NFL won't do same with Antonio Brown... Which one of these leagues is in the wrong MLB. Sports leagues need to stop pretending they are law enforcement...and jury and executioner. Like this 2nd accusation against Brown the woman's lawyers, upon her getting threatening texts, did contact the police, his lawyer, his agent, him...no they went to the league and said do something about it. Why the eff is it the leagues job to be involved in that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanrick Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 hour ago, mse326 said: MLB. Sports leagues need to stop pretending they are law enforcement...and jury and executioner. Like this 2nd accusation against Brown the woman's lawyers, upon her getting threatening texts, did contact the police, his lawyer, his agent, him...no they went to the league and said do something about it. Why the eff is it the leagues job to be involved in that? To take an extreme case, the Pats cut Aaron Hernandez before the legal process played out. Do you think they (the NFL and the Pats) should have let him continue to play until then? I can't imagine you do... If it's about the seriousness of the charges, I would argue rape (which would be difficult to prove at this point, but is extremely serious) and threatening/intimidating someone with photos of their children (which is easy to prove) would be sufficient. We make fun of the NFL for protecting "the shield", but you can't have accused rapists and murderers playing for your sport while they await consequences of their actions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils1854 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 Just like everyone thought, the Atlanta Braves are back to back East Champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 2 hours ago, titanrick said: To take an extreme case, the Pats cut Aaron Hernandez before the legal process played out. Do you think they (the NFL and the Pats) should have let him continue to play until then? I can't imagine you do... If it's about the seriousness of the charges, I would argue rape (which would be difficult to prove at this point, but is extremely serious) and threatening/intimidating someone with photos of their children (which is easy to prove) would be sufficient. We make fun of the NFL for protecting "the shield", but you can't have accused rapists and murderers playing for your sport while they await consequences of their actions. There is distinction between cutting/releasing and punishing (suspension, fine, ineligible list). No employer is required to keep an employee they don't want. So if that is what they choose that is fine as long as it is done by the terms of the contract (so guaranteed money still owed is still owed). But the other stuff is no longer really employment related, it's punishment. They are holding you to your contract but taking money, it is a completely different thing. If you don't want to be associated with them anymore then fine, but you can't just take what they've earned. I also don't think the NFL as a league (or any other sports league) should be banning players (or anyone) unless the sin was something that effects the game itself (i.e. on field). The franchises are separate companies if one of them is ok employing a person they should be allowed to. Basically I am fine with employers acting as employers, they chose who they employ. I am not ok with them acting as another branch of government there to punish you and for victims to seek redress. I disagree with the bolded. They are as you say accused, not convicted or held liable in a civil suit. All of the rules we have regarding trials are not simply to be nice or "fair" it's because they are need to ensure veracity of claims. If you want to see what happens otherwise look at McCarthyism and blackballing. Even putting aside that people shouldn't be punished for beliefs (undoubtedly another problem with it) essentially if you were accused you were guilty and blackballed. That is unless you were a good American and gave the names of others whether true or not. Same thing happened during the witch trials in the US and UK.. My question to you is what do you do if you have an accusation but a victim that doesn't want to press charges (e.g. the SI report against Brown). From an accusation standpoint it's not different than someone accusing the person and deciding to press charges. And yet there is no way for the claim to be judged unless we want the league to act as investigator, judge, jury, and then executioner. Or if they do press charges but the person is found not guilty or a prosecutor says there isn't enough evidence. Are they now cleared and allowed to play? Does the league HAVE to do it's own investigation? That is a horrendous system. So yes, I firmly believe that 1) nothing should happen unless convicted (criminal trial) or found liable (civil trial), 2) The team and team alone then makes the decision, it is not a league matter, 3) their only options are to fully retain or release, no suspensions or fines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanrick Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, mse326 said: There is distinction between cutting/releasing and punishing (suspension, fine, ineligible list). No employer is required to keep an employee they don't want. So if that is what they choose that is fine as long as it is done by the terms of the contract (so guaranteed money still owed is still owed). But the other stuff is no longer really employment related, it's punishment. They are holding you to your contract but taking money, it is a completely different thing. If you don't want to be associated with them anymore then fine, but you can't just take what they've earned. I also don't think the NFL as a league (or any other sports league) should be banning players (or anyone) unless the sin was something that effects the game itself (i.e. on field). The franchises are separate companies if one of them is ok employing a person they should be allowed to. Basically I am fine with employers acting as employers, they chose who they employ. I am not ok with them acting as another branch of government there to punish you and for victims to seek redress. I think you are creating your own distinction between releasing and punishing. Teams can release for reasons other than poor performance on the field. You say "that is fine as long as it is done by the terms of the contract" but the contracts include language that says guarantees can be voided for conduct detrimental to the team. I agree that punishing a player for a crime he hasn't been convicted of is beyond their jurisdiction. That's why the NFL has the Commissioner's Exempt List - let the court system play out, don't punish the player (continue to pay him) but don't let someone who could possibly be guilty of a serious crime continue playing and representing your team and the league. In AB's case, I think the Pats looked at the number of accusations, along with the fact that this latest one will be pretty easy to prove, and decided it was time to stop allowing him to represent them. They have that right. I'm guessing an arbitrator will decide if he gets his guaranteed cash or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 8 hours ago, mse326 said: MLB. Sports leagues need to stop pretending they are law enforcement...and jury and executioner. Like this 2nd accusation against Brown the woman's lawyers, upon her getting threatening texts, did contact the police, his lawyer, his agent, him...no they went to the league and said do something about it. Why the eff is it the leagues job to be involved in that? Agree with this sentiment. The league(s) should be the one of the respondents with potential action - but at the tail end and certainly not the first. That should be (and usually is) legal in some form. Depending on the severity or gravity of the issue(s), perhaps the league intercedes with the temporary "Commissioner's List" (or "Admin Leave") removal from the game pending outcomes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 7 hours ago, titanrick said: To take an extreme case, the Pats cut Aaron Hernandez before the legal process played out. Do you think they (the NFL and the Pats) should have let him continue to play until then? If I'm not mistaken, NE cut Hernandez after he'd been perp walked out of his home in cuffs - for which they can hardly be faulted. By that time the public story was well ahead of the known fact - but it was bad stuff - and the police were on Hernandez like white on rice. Ambiguity was hard to locate. Besides, NE had a lengthy file on the guy already. He had a "known" history. In following the Hernandez saga I learned how intensive and to what lengths (some? all?) NFL teams go to police matters internally. I've heard that DAL has a thriving "staff" of such "facilitators" and if I'm not mistaken, a PI NE used to facilitate player matters with police (or whomever) and steer them towards a quiet resolution lived next door or near Hernandez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 4 hours ago, titanrick said: In AB's case, I think the Pats looked at the number of accusations, along with the fact that this latest one will be pretty easy to prove, and decided it was time to stop allowing him to represent them. They have that right. I'm guessing an arbitrator will decide if he gets his guaranteed cash or not. Based on this read from the NY Post - I suspect NE acted within their contractual rights and ABs cost himself some coin - again : "The Patriots decided Friday to cut the bombastic wide receiver after just 11 days with the team. When Brown officially signed on Sept. 10, he agreed to a $9 million signing bonus and a guaranteed $1 million base salary. The Patriots were required in the contract to pay him $5 million of the bonus by Monday, Sept. 23, with the remaining $4 million bonus money scheduled to be paid on Jan. 15. According to multiple reports, the Patriots have yet to pay that, and it’s unclear if they will attempt to challenge paying the bonus. If the Patriots were to withhold the payment, Brown could file a grievance against the club" Ultimately, OAK deemed AB too hot a live wire and ditched him just before his contract guarantees were to kick in...and it appears NE has just followed suit. Which leads one to the same conclusion in both instances: WTF is so wrong with the player that he cant keep himself under control (?) if not for a short while further? To be stashed in the "Mysteries of Life" file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 9 hours ago, titanrick said: but the contracts include language that says guarantees can be voided for conduct detrimental to the team But being accused of something is not the same as having done it. If he hasn't been found to have done it then they'd have to prove it in court if he challenged it. But again even then it is within the terms of the contract. That is they will pay him what he is owed under the contract. I get that the contracts provide for fines and suspension (because the CBA does) but I vehemently disagree with that concept. 9 hours ago, titanrick said: That's why the NFL has the Commissioner's Exempt List - let the court system play out, don't punish the player (continue to pay him) but don't let someone who could possibly be guilty of a serious crime continue playing and representing your team and the league. This assumes that there is no benefit to playing and therefore it is not punishment to say you can't. If there are any incentives in the contract this is plainly false even from an immediate monetary impact. And even if there aren't we know that stats accumulated effect future contracts. Further there is still further reputational harm by continually reminding people through not letting him play. 9 hours ago, titanrick said: They have that right. I'm guessing an arbitrator will decide if he gets his guaranteed cash or not I never disagreed with that. I said a team as employer has the right to decided they don't want to employ him anymore. I will admit that my last sentence confused what I meant. My point 1 when I talked of nothing happening I meant not paying the guarantees because that is something that needs a decision of culpability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 13 hours ago, mse326 said: There is distinction between cutting/releasing and punishing (suspension, fine, ineligible list). No employer is required to keep an employee they don't want. So if that is what they choose that is fine as long as it is done by the terms of the contract (so guaranteed money still owed is still owed). But the other stuff is no longer really employment related, it's punishment. They are holding you to your contract but taking money, it is a completely different thing. If you don't want to be associated with them anymore then fine, but you can't just take what they've earned. I also don't think the NFL as a league (or any other sports league) should be banning players (or anyone) unless the sin was something that effects the game itself (i.e. on field). The franchises are separate companies if one of them is ok employing a person they should be allowed to. Basically I am fine with employers acting as employers, they chose who they employ. I am not ok with them acting as another branch of government there to punish you and for victims to seek redress. I disagree with the bolded. They are as you say accused, not convicted or held liable in a civil suit. All of the rules we have regarding trials are not simply to be nice or "fair" it's because they are need to ensure veracity of claims. If you want to see what happens otherwise look at McCarthyism and blackballing. Even putting aside that people shouldn't be punished for beliefs (undoubtedly another problem with it) essentially if you were accused you were guilty and blackballed. That is unless you were a good American and gave the names of others whether true or not. Same thing happened during the witch trials in the US and UK.. My question to you is what do you do if you have an accusation but a victim that doesn't want to press charges (e.g. the SI report against Brown). From an accusation standpoint it's not different than someone accusing the person and deciding to press charges. And yet there is no way for the claim to be judged unless we want the league to act as investigator, judge, jury, and then executioner. Or if they do press charges but the person is found not guilty or a prosecutor says there isn't enough evidence. Are they now cleared and allowed to play? Does the league HAVE to do it's own investigation? That is a horrendous system. So yes, I firmly believe that 1) nothing should happen unless convicted (criminal trial) or found liable (civil trial), 2) The team and team alone then makes the decision, it is not a league matter, 3) their only options are to fully retain or release, no suspensions or fines. I completely disagree with this entire post and you would run a business into the ground lol. You would have an accused rapist still working for your company (NFL, for example. NFL is still a company and needs to protect its brand)? Your brand is going to be destroyed and overall product deeply wounded. That’s why the commish exempt list exist. Purgatory to find out the facts. If he is found out to be guilty, and you let him play while he is accused, it is going to be BAD for that brand. Media and Purchases will crucify. It’s not about what you think is right lmao. That’s not how business works. It’s about preserving your brands image and making money. No one is above money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mse326 Posted September 21, 2019 Share Posted September 21, 2019 1 minute ago, BayRaider said: I completely disagree with this entire post and you would run a business into the ground lol. You would have an accused rapist still working for your company (NFL, for example. NFL is still a company and needs to protect its brand)? Your brand is going to be destroyed and overall product deeply wounded. That’s why the commish exempt list exist. Purgatory to find out the facts. If he is found out to be guilty, and you let him play while he is accused, it is going to be BAD for that brand. Media and Purchases will crucify. It’s not about what you think is right lmao. That’s not how business works. It’s about preserving your brands image and making money. No one is above money. You think everyone accused of crimes is always suspended in every company? Please. And if you just keep firing people for accusations you run the risk of liability for unlawful termination. You're also kidding yourself if you think they are losing money if they play him until there is a judgement against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts