Good deal from a talent perspective. I'd feel better about it if he didn't actually assault his girlfriend. Given the lack of physical evidence, it's possible. I don't know how or if we will ever know though.
The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse. I'm not sure how that leads to your conclusion, however. If anything I applaud Andrew Friedman for making that decision.What the hell is wrong with the Reds? They can't even make basic baseball decisions in a reasonable and sound manner. They don't get enough for Frazier and then they turn around and give away Chapman for basically nothing. I don't want to hear about the Yankees prospects. The 3b was going nowhere, too many strikeouts, can't field, always hurt. The one pitcher has some upside, but he is a future middle of the rotation starter at best, and the odds are against him reaching his ceiling. I would rather have one qualifying offer draft pick than the four players the Reds received. With that draft pick, I might be able to select someone with a high ceiling. I would also rather hold on to Chapman to see if I can get something valuable for him at the trade deadline. The Reds moved Chapman at a time when his value was incredibly low. And where were the Dodgers? They could have easily beat this package and acquired Chapman. Andrew Friedman continues to perform like the most overrated executive in baseball today.
The Dodgers also ran one of the most upstanding members in baseball history out of town,soooooooo......The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse. I'm not sure how that leads to your conclusion, however. If anything I applaud Andrew Friedman for making that decision.
Any team could have "easily beaten this package". The Dodgers chose not to given the situation. And there's nothing wrong with the Reds, at least as far as this transaction is concerned. They wanted him gone. And good for them as well.
Well, actually they decided they didn't want a second one, as Puig (and Jose Reyes for COL) are both also currently under investigation by MLB for similar incidents.The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse.
I don't disagree with this but Chapman is also making $15M a year. I would think that the Reds could get a lot of teams to top the package they received but not many aside from the Dodgers and Yankees who would pay the whole salary after this.The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse. I'm not sure how that leads to your conclusion, however. If anything I applaud Andrew Friedman for making that decision.
Any team could have "easily beaten this package". The Dodgers chose not to given the situation. And there's nothing wrong with the Reds, at least as far as this transaction is concerned. They wanted him gone. And good for them as well.
Literally no idea what you're talking about or what you think it means here.The Dodgers also ran one of the most upstanding members in baseball history out of town,soooooooo......
Good point. There's bee na lot of talk about them trading Puig. It is probably entirely unrelated, but one could certainly see why they wouldn't want to double down, no?Well, actually they decided they didn't want a second one, as Puig (and Jose Reyes for COL) are both also currently under investigation by MLB for similar incidents.
Chapman made $8M last year and is arbitration eligible. I'm not sure where you are pulling $15M from, but sure, his price tag likely played a part in limiting his market. But that's beside the point that Friedman dropped the ball here. The only way I see the Reds not calling LAD back after getting their best offer from NYY is that Friedman said "we want no part of him at any cost" when the first deal fell through.I don't disagree with this but Chapman is also making $15M a year. I would think that the Reds could get a lot of teams to top the package they received but not many aside from the Dodgers and Yankees who would pay the whole salary after this.
Sorry about that. Thought I read $15M on a tweet earlier.Chapman made $8M last year and is arbitration eligible. I'm not sure where you are pulling $15M from, but sure, his price tag likely played a part in limiting his market. But that's beside the point that Friedman dropped the ball here. The only way I see the Reds not calling LAD back after getting their best offer from NYY is that Friedman said "we want no part of him at any cost" when the first deal fell through.
Yeah, definitely. I don't blame any other team for not rolling the dice here, I think it's an unusual set of circumstances that make it probably worth it for NY, but we'll see how it plays out.Good point. There's been a lot of talk about them trading Puig. It is probably entirely unrelated, but one could certainly see why they wouldn't want to double down, no?
Joel Sherman was saying on MLBN that the Steinbrenners have always been very financially supportive of and tight with Florida police and he's pretty sure that whatever the police know, the Yankees now know.I hate to say it but I have to trust Cashman here. This is a huge gamble if he hasn't thoroughly vetted the allegations and what suspension is likely, if any.
Mets really should have been sniffing around Chapman. Maybe give them back a better package for the Reds to eat some of the money.Yeah, definitely. I don't blame any other team for not rolling the dice here, I think it's an unusual set of circumstances that make it probably worth it for NY, but we'll see how it plays out.
Pretty sure MLBTR is wrong. The CBA expressly says time on a suspension counts towards service time:So on MLBTR it says if he is suspended for more than 45 days in 2016 he won't hit six years of service time next year.
ARTICLE XXI—Credited Major League Service
A. Definitions
Those Player rights expressly set forth in the Basic Agreement for which a Player’s eligibility is dependent upon credited Major League service will be determined as follows:
(1) One full day of Major League service will be credited for each day of the championship season a Player is on a Major League Club’s Active List. A total of 172 days of Major League credited service will constitute one full year of credited service. A Player may not be credited with more than one year of credited service, 172 days, in one championship season. Major League service will be computed commencing with the date of the first regularly scheduled championship season game, through and including the date of the last regularly scheduled championship season game. This rule shall apply uniformly to all Players and all Clubs notwithstanding differences in a particular Club’s schedule.
(2) For purposes of calculating credited service, a Player will be considered to be on a Club’s Active List if: (a) placed on a disciplinary suspension by a Club, the Senior Vice President, Standards and On-Field Operations or the Commissioner, or on the Disabled List; or [military service]...
If that's true (and it looks like it is), absolutely everyone is reporting that incorrectly, not just MLBTR.Pretty sure MLBTR is wrong. The CBA expressly says time on a suspension counts towards service time:
No it doesn't. It says that suspensions count towards service time that fall under the certain criteria listed, not just any suspension at all. Notice how the Joint Drug Agreement isnt part of that criteria? Well apparently neither is the new personal conduct policy.Pretty sure MLBTR is wrong. The CBA expressly says time on a suspension counts towards service time:
Thanks. You are right - the joint agreement (also here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:large ) includes that language. I glanced over it when I read it.Well apparently neither is the new personal conduct policy.
I believe the instincts you are expressing in the bolded section are correct.Thanks. You are right - the joint agreement (also here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:large ) includes that language. I glanced over it when I read it.
(Though, not to get too into the weeds - that only applies to those that "are upheld." If the suspension isn't challenged before the arbitration panel, presumably it would be with pay and does accrue service time as it was not "upheld"? Though that would be a distinction that makes little sense [though, I guess it does incent people not to appeal?], so I'm likely reading it wrong - or its just a drafting issue that people will ignore.)
Are you seriously arguing that Ray Rice shouldn't have been suspended because he wasn't convicted of anything even though there is film of him punching his wife?IRemember, Chapman has not been found guilty of anything yet. I would have added Chapman in heatbeat for that package. MLB should not be suspending people based on hearsay or their own investigation nor on actual conviction. That would be punishing somebody twice for the same act (if convicted, and if not, it would be just random). That's my opinion and apparently the approach of a lot of sport unions.
Are you seriously arguing that Ray Rice shouldn't have been suspended because he wasn't convicted of anything even though there is film of him punching his wife?
I'm glad the rest of us have gotten a bit more enlightened in the past years.
So two other things. On a macro level, a rule that a player can't be suspended until he is convicted is kind of insane. You realize that would mean, for example, that Aaron Hernandez would have been playing for the Pats while he was on trial.
On a more personal level, the next time you get in a fight with your SO/wife/GF, why don't you go grab a gun, lock yourself in the bathroom, and fire it 8 times into a wall and tell me how she reacts. Perhaps she'll get a bit emotional about it . . . .
Exactly. Strictly on field, it may be a great move. But in real life, all in, this is a garbage move.
And if the Sox did it, I'd be seriously pissed off at the organization.
To the extent the "Yankee Way" is a real thing, how does this possibly fit it? If I were on the Yankees, and they told me to shave or cut my hair or whatever after this move, I'd tell them to fuck off.
No we wouldn't. There is no way of celebrate the addition of a wide beater to the roster.What the fuck?! We would all be sacrificing white baby lambs at the alter of Dombrowski if he had pulled this off.
That's true almost every time you jail someone. Dad kills the neighbor, dad goes to jail, dad's wife/innocent child/parents/place of business/etc suffer. It sucks, but dad brought it on everyone and the long-term impact of not punishing criminals is probably worse--especially in cases of domestic abuse a la Ray Rice where codependency and emotional enmeshment are common.I'll bring this up again and I hope there is a satisfactory answer but I don't know of one. Ray Rice knocked out his girl. She stayed with him and didn't press charges. Who exactly is the league protecting/punishing by not letting Ray Rice play football? They're punishing Ray Rice but indirectly punishing his girlfriend assuming he is the bread winner.
That's true almost every time you jail someone. Dad kills the neighbor, dad goes to jail, dad's wife/innocent child/parents/place of business/etc suffer. It sucks, but dad brought it on everyone and the long-term impact of not punishing criminals is probably worse--especially in cases of domestic abuse a la Ray Rice where codependency and emotional enmeshment are common.
Your question is easy to answer: The NFL (and MLB, and all sports leagues) is in the entertainment business. The goal is to put a product on the field that will compel consumers to watch. Period.It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.
If dad kills a neighbor, dads going to jail as I'm sure the victims family wants him to. His family will suffer but they were not who the crime was committed against.
Your question is easy to answer: The NFL (and MLB, and all sports leagues) is in the entertainment business. The goal is to put a product on the field that will compel consumers to watch. Period.
The initial suspension for Rice was lenient because the NFL/Ravens wanted Rice back on the field. They were also confident that people would never see video of the actual assault. (Beyond the one video that had already surfaced.) When the video of him assaulting his then-fiance in the elevator surfaced, the NFL realized that their product would be damaged if he were on the field because his actions were repellent. So they dropped him. (Whether Goodell had the right to do so is immaterial, because the Ravens cut him anyway.)
That's the cold reality of the situation. Employers do what is in their best interests irrespective of their employees or their spouses and family.
The Yankees are taking a risk by assuming that the details of Chapman's case will never be presented graphically enough for the public to care. They may be right. They may be wrong. But like every employer in and out of sports, their concern about the victim extends only as far as the impact on their bottom line.
I think you are underestimating the complexity of domestic abuse. That she did not leave him does not mean she doesn't want to see him punished, and even if she doesn't want to see him punished, that does not mean it is okay to simply turn away if you are in a position to intervene or respond. Domestic abuse is ugly enough on the surface, but it's even more so when you dig a bit deeper than the obvious.It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.
If dad kills a neighbor, dads going to jail as I'm sure the victims family wants him to. His family will suffer but they were not who the crime was committed against.
The stated goal of such personal conduct policies, at least as the NFL puts it in their standard contracts, is to address any conduct that would result in "the detriment to the League and professional football [and] that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players” from [such] conduct detrimental."It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.
WowThere's an organization with a baseball connection that seeks to help families suffering from domestic abuse: http://www.joetorre.org. Maybe the Yankees could steer Chapman's mistress that way.
No we wouldn't. There is no way of celebrate the addition of a wide beater to the roster.
The only reason Chapman's girlfriend ended up less bruised than Hardy's girlfriend is because her brother pulled Chapman off of her.This thread is fucking hysterical. Those high horses look pretty comfy.
And if you seriously think this is the SAME as Greg Hardy, go look at those pictures, and then re-read the part where Chapman's girlfriend didn't have any injuries or redness anywhere on her body. That's not to say that Chapman didn't do anything, or that he's not a piece of shit, but you CANNOT say it's the same as Greg Hardy, who left his victim covered in bruises. He beat the shit out of her. Chapman did not (kudos!).
Well, no. Teams have a choice to employ players or not. The Patriots cut Hernandez BEFORE he was officially suspended. I'm quite sure that no team would have employed him until after his trial in the event he had a very different outcome.So two other things. On a macro level, a rule that a player can't be suspended until he is convicted is kind of insane. You realize that would mean, for example, that Aaron Hernandez would have been playing for the Pats while he was on trial.
You seem a lot more clear on what happened than all of the people who were there, who gave conflicting testimony to the police each time they were interviewed (the girlfriend didn't mention being choked until her third interview). Maybe you should check in with Florida police and tell them what you know?The only reason Chapman's girlfriend ended up less bruised than Hardy's girlfriend is because her brother pulled Chapman off of her.
They both did the same thing.
Is it OK to cheer for the team you like?Anyone who cheers for this guy is a fucking scumbag.
Yeah, I'd tap the brakes on the sanctimony. I imagine anyone who follows sports has cheered athletes who've done similar things.Anyone who cheers for this guy is a fucking scumbag.
Just for the record, I don't think that happened here. We've all seen Cashman's unusual bluntness when dealing with the press in recent years, and here is the exact quote from after the deal:I agree it's sleazy for the Yankees to crow about getting good value in trade because of Chapman's legal troubles.
I suppose, but I don't see how this in any way disputes mt8thsw9th's point - people who cheer for Chapman are scumbags. Only you can decide if your love of the team outweighs how you could (or should?) feel about said team employing Chapman. As an NFL fan, I've grappled with this often and I don't have much to say to those who accurately say that I'm a scumbag for watching, and supporting, teams who actively hide the consequences of brain injuries. They're scumbags by any definition of the term, and so am I for watching.Is it OK to cheer for the team you like?
You realize, if he gets a save I cheer for the fact that the Yankees won the game in which he played in, not because I like feel good for him or something. Honestly, I don't know that when I am watching a team that I like I am actually "cheering" for individual players instead of the actual team that I like and want to win.