I really need a job where I can sign a multi-million dollar contract, suck at what I do, attack my boss, and be able to claim I was fired unlawfully.

The good news is this will raelly irritate McLane. He'll have something to grouse about at the country club this weekend.

The 30-year-old pitcher was suspended after shoving Wade to the floor before the Astros played Texas last Wednesday.

This article says "shove". No mention of "choke". Curious.

I think that this is the type of stuff that gives the MLBPA a bad name.

I really need a job where I can sign a multi-million dollar contract, suck at what I do, attack my boss, and be able to claim I was fired unlawfully.

Well, you can always claim that you were fired unlawfully.

I think that this is the type of stuff that gives the MLBPA a bad name.

This is a strange tack on a lawyer site--there are mechanisms design to defend people, even those who do something despicable.

They have to do this, as much as they dislike the PR hit. To take a more extreme example from the Premier League, I'm sure the the player association really, really would like Joey Barton to just disappear. Must be annoying to stick up for a thug like that.

Yeah, they have to file the grievance. The owners are not known for letting small precedents of labor law slide by them without exploitation.

I think that this is the type of stuff that gives the MLBPA a bad name.

This is the type of thing that gives all unions a bad name- unfortunately for them if they don't file a grievance on behalf of a member- they may be liable to the member.

20 years ago I worked one summer as a Post Office- as part of a conversation on something or the other, the union rep said the main point of the union wasn't money, someone else said, "no? well then what the hell do we need the union for?" The rep said, "the main point of the union is to keep a-holes like you from getting fired after you haul off and smack the PM"...

Every scout who ever turned in a report on Chacon has addressed the question: "would he knock you on your ass?" It seems those reports might be relevant as to why Houston hired him in the first place.

I think that this is the type of stuff that gives the MLBPA a bad name.

It's actually the type of stuff that gives it a great name, defending a member against an obviously extra-contractual action by his employer. It's what they're there to do.

If you really want to complain about the union, complain about the draft and other things that make their members servile in ways most people don't have to be.

It's actually the type of stuff that gives it a great name, defending a member against an obviously extra-contractual action by his employer. It's what they're there to do.

He physically attacked his boss
That's not grounds for dismissal in your world?

He physically attacked his boss
That's not grounds for dismissal in your world?

Not in this context, no. And not on the facts as I've read them.

we'll see what the arbitrator says.

From the article:
The Astros said Chacon violated a provision in the UPC that states the player may be terminated if he shall "fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey to the club's training rules."

If that's in his contract, terminating the deal doesn't seem obviously extra-contractual to me. But I guess my opinion really doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

as i mentioned in the other thread, i think chacon was wrong to do violence to ed wade, but i don't have a problem with him getting the money. it's probably the last big paycheck he'll ever get in baseball.
what does our crack legal team think of his chances?

I was actually surprised that the Astros didn't suspend him indefinitely while they talked over with the lawyers how to make this go away.

Well, I don't think it would be a good policy for the MLBPA to fight only in cases where they are obviously right. :-)

Even if they are 100% certain they will lose, they have to stand up for the player.

He physically attacked his boss
That's not grounds for dismissal in your world?

Not unless the contract says it is. Most people don't have work contracts negotiated down to the most minute detail. Major League baseball players do. It's possible that this termination was lawful under some "good faith" clause, a la Denny Neagle. I wouldn't bet on it though.

So let's look at every other behavioral faux pas committed by a player that didn't get them terminated. Attacking teammates, players on other teams on the field, all sorts of brushes with the law outside of baseball. Doesn't that failure to consistently apply the standard have some bearing here?

It's actually the type of stuff that gives it a great name, defending a member against an obviously extra-contractual action by his employer.

I wouldn't say that it's "obviously" extra-contractual. But it is "potentially" extra-contractual, in that the Astros are claiming that Chacon's actions violate a clause in the UPC that allows the player to be terminated for failing to "conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship". There's no question, IMO, that Chacon's conduct was deplorable - but the MLBPA would be derelict in their responsibility to the players if they let the Astros unilaterally make the decision that it deserved termination. That's why you have grievance arbitration - you let a neutral third party make the decision based on the evidence from both sides. There's no implied endorsement of Chacon's behavior by the MLBPA.

-- MWE

So let's look at every other behavioral faux pas committed by a player that didn't get them terminated. Attacking teammates, players on other teams on the field, all sorts of brushes with the law outside of baseball. Doesn't that failure to consistently apply the standard have some bearing here?

But, but, but ... he pushed ... his boss.

So let's look at every other behavioral faux pas committed by a player that didn't get them terminated. Attacking teammates, players on other teams on the field, all sorts of brushes with the law outside of baseball. Doesn't that failure to consistently apply the standard have some bearing here?

There is no exacting standard for "just cause" in labor arbitration, but the most frequently cited standard is Arbitrator Carroll Daugherty's "Seven Tests." In the usual - but not universal - application, if any of the following is not established by the employee, an arbitrator will find that the discipline lacked just cause.

1. Did the company give the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable disciplinary consequences of the employee’s conduct?
2. Was the company’s rule or managerial order reasonably related to (a) the orderly, efficient, and safe operation of the company’s business and (b) the performance that the company might properly expect of the employee?
3. Did the company, before administering discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule or order of management?
4. Was the company’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively?
5. At the investigation, did the “judge” obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged?
6. Has the company applied its rules, orders, and penalties evenhandedly and without discrimination to all employees?
7. Was the degree of discipline administered by the company in a particular case reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the proven offense and (b) the record of the employee in his service with the company?

I don't know if Shyam Das, the current permanent baseball arbitrator, follows Daugherty's tests or invokes a differing standard. He has reduced at least one suspension of a baseball player who committed a non-playing physical act related to playing conditions; Kenny Rogers suspension for pushing a camera man was reduced by Das.

But his boss hired him because he's a big, agressive guy. It's like you're a bar owner who hires a bouncer, and then sues him because he decks you when you yell at him.

What was Wade's behavior? Was he allowed to have the union rep attend the meeting in Wade or the manager's office, which was what the altercation was about? Seems like more info is needed before all unions are dismissed as bad.

So let's look at every other behavioral faux pas committed by a player that didn't get them terminated. Attacking teammates, players on other teams on the field, all sorts of brushes with the law outside of baseball. Doesn't that failure to consistently apply the standard have some bearing here?

Seems like a good reason to criticize ownership, but I don't think that inconsistency means they lose their contractual right to terminate an employee under the provision cited by JCW.

EDIT: Er, see dlf above.

But his boss hired him because he's a big, agressive guy.

His boss hired him to play baseball according to the team's wishes. I'll bet that there isn't any mention of aggressiveness in Chacon's contract.

So let's look at every other behavioral faux pas committed by a player that didn't get them terminated. Attacking teammates, players on other teams on the field, all sorts of brushes with the law outside of baseball. Doesn't that failure to consistently apply the standard have some bearing here?

And if the team had decided to terminate all of these "other" players for their behavioral problems, then we could have a discussion about the validity of those terminations. The teams didn't do that, though, even if they perhaps could have.

What was Wade's behavior? Was he allowed to have the union rep attend the meeting in Wade or the manager's office, which was what the altercation was about?

Chacon made no mention of any union business prior to or during his altercation with Wade. The idea of a union representative in the meeting that never took place is a strawman.

It's possible that this termination was lawful under some "good faith" clause, a la Denny Neagle.

And even in that case, the Rockies ended up settling with Neagle, paying 95% of his salary instead of 100%.

is it possible for the team to want the 'win' -- that is, the contract termination -- bad enough to offer to quietly pay chacon almost all the lost salary? sounds like that's what happened with neagle.

Not in this context, no.

Does this mean you feel an employee is justified in physically attacking his employer if
A: The employer yells at him;
B: Interrupts his lunch to yell at him;
C: Curses at him after yelling at him?

An employer who can't terminate an employee after being physically attacked by such an employee should just close up the business and go work for someone else.

i know you're responding to a post about someone saying chacon could dispute the termination, but i don't think even the mlbpa is asking for chacon to get his job back, just the lost salary. unless i'm misreading.

But his boss hired him because he's a big, agressive guy. It's like you're a bar owner who hires a bouncer, and then sues him because he decks you when you yell at him.

He didn't hire him to attack people. Give me a break.

, but i don't think even the mlbpa is asking for chacon to get his job back, just the lost salary. unless i'm misreading.

I'd assume so. They just want Chacon to get the $, which was to be expected.

He didn't hire him to attack people. Give me a break.

Well maybe he did hire him to attack people, unruly drunks and so forth, he didn't hire him to attack co workers, managers, non-unruly customers, the boss., etc...

So let's look at every other behavioral faux pas committed by a player that didn't get them terminated. Attacking teammates, players on other teams on the field, all sorts of brushes with the law outside of baseball. Doesn't that failure to consistently apply the standard have some bearing here?

Manny is probably going to be one of the comparators, and Houston won't be able to use the difference in performance to justify the discipline since they aren't allowed to not pay Chacon just because he was lousy. They may also be reluctant to argue that a GM is different than the rest of the hired help, but it would be a point in their favor. Could be an interesting case and MLB may advise it's better to settle than air how often their industry tolerates minor assaults by players.

Typo alert: I meant to write 'employer' rather than 'employee' in the second sentence of #20. Oops.

He didn't hire him to attack people. Give me a break.

Of course he did. Every pitcher in baseball is required to attack someone once a game or so. Just because in this one instance that knuckleball of agression boomeranged against the guy who hired it doesn't turn Chacon into a bad guy.

Wade is Frankenstein, Chacon is the monster, all we need now are villagers with pitchforks....

violated a provision in the UPC that states the player may be terminated if he shall "fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey to the club's training rules."

Do lawyers deliberately insert such vague language to cash in on fees later, or is it a product of negotiation where nobody wanted to give in so they said: "oh hell, just put something indecipherable there and let the arbitrators decide what it means"?

#32 ~ General Motors doesn't need to have the same disciplinary practices as Ford to be able to terminate its employees. If the Sox fail to discipline Ramirez, it is evidence that could overturn a discipline taken against Pedroia if he bites Francona's ankles, but it has very little relevance in a case between the Astros and their players.

Does this mean you feel an employee is justified in physically attacking his employer if
A: The employer yells at him;
B: Interrupts his lunch to yell at him;
C: Curses at him after yelling at him?

An employer who can't terminate an employee after being physically attacked by such an employee should just close up the business and go work for someone else.

Will the Red Sox will be closing their business after their employee, Manny Ramirez, physically assaulted the team's traveling secretary?

Manny is probably going to be one of the comparators, and Houston won't be able to use the difference in performance to justify the discipline since they aren't allowed to not pay Chacon just because he was lousy. They may also be reluctant to argue that a GM is different than the rest of the hired help, but it would be a point in their favor. Could be an interesting case and MLB may advise it's better to settle than air how often their industry tolerates minor assaults by players.

The traveling secretary is part of the team's front office and generally listed on the company masthead. He's clearly part of management.

The owners are not known for letting small precedents of labor law slide by them without exploitation.

What small precedent would that be? The right to slam your boss to the floor?

This is legalistic nonsense. As to the comment in #7 that claims "if they don't file a grievance on behalf of a member- they may be liable to the member", the only way I could see that to be the case is if Wade's story doesn't check out with the witnesses' version of events. The union has a choice here, and pretending that they're obliged to protect a thug just throws common sense on its head, along with the GM.

Also: Manny is sixth in the AL in homers and RBIs, and Chacon is ninth in the NL in homers allowed. Draw your own conclusions.

Manny is probably going to be one of the comparators [...]

How is that a useful comparison? I fail to see any value in that.

Yes, Manny attacked (or "shoved," whatever he did) a clubhouse attendant. If his team had decided to terminate his contract without pay as a result of that offense, then the result of that case would be an interesting comparison to this case. That the Red Sox decided not to terminate Manny's contract has no bearing whatsoever on the Chacon case.

Just because in this one instance that knuckleball of aggression boomeranged against the guy who hired it doesn't turn Chacon into a bad guy.

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, but this how you feel about Brett Myers whacking his wife around?

Attacking someone (other than defense of a physical attack, MAYBE) is the definition of a "bad guy". No wonder the planet's so ###### up. Oh well.

Can anyone imagine what it would have been like if Ty Cobb had a union behind him?

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious, but this how you feel about Brett Myers whacking his wife around?

I tend not to see baseball as either a gossip column or a law symposium, but if she married him precisely because he's a luscious big brute, then I'm not so sympathetic.

Attacking someone other than defense of a physical attack is the definition of a "bad guy". No wonder the planet's so ###### up. Oh well.

The first question about any pitcher is, "how's his fastball?" Then comes, "Will he pitch inside?" "Is he mean?" "Is he a puss?" "Will he knock you down?"

If you're a fan of major league baseball, you're a fan of agression and tolerant of violence. Look in the f------ mirror!

I tend not to see baseball as either a gossip column or a law symposium, but if she married him precisely because he's a luscious big brute, then I'm not so sympathetic.

yeah, I'm sure she married him because she loves to be punched by him in public. Sure.

If you're a fan of major league baseball, you're a fan of agression and tolerant of violence. Look in the f------ mirror!

Ummm, have you ever heard of the concept of "appropriate venue"? I mean, it's OK to be naked in the shower. It's not OK to get on the subway in the same state of undress.

Ummm, have you ever heard of the concept of "appropriate venue"? I mean, it's OK to be naked in the shower. It's not OK to get on the subway in the same state of undress.

Jerry Seinfeld would disagree.

I tend not to see baseball as either a gossip column or a law symposium, but if she married him precisely because he's a luscious big brute, then I'm not so sympathetic.

Ah.


If you're a fan of major league baseball, you're a fan of aggression and tolerant of violence. Look in the f------ mirror!

Ummmmmmm...... I still can't tell if you're serious. Tolerant of violence?


Then comes, "Will he pitch inside?" "Is he mean?" "Is he a puss?" "Will he knock you down?"

You must find Greg Maddux intolerable. And Mike Mussina. Unless you want to count "grumpy" as "mean".

Ummm, have you ever heard of the concept of "appropriate venue"? I mean, it's OK to be naked in the shower. It's not OK to get on the subway in the same state of undress.

I'm sure "appropriate venue" was the sole topic conversation on those rookie league bus rides from Lethridge to Pocatello.

General Motors doesn't need to have the same disciplinary practices as Ford to be able to terminate its employees.

GM and Ford do not abide by one binding labor contract with their employees. The Astros and the Red Sox - subsidiaries of Major League Baseball and bound by MLB's collective bargaining agreement with the MLBPA, do.

If you're a fan of major league baseball, you're a fan of agression and tolerant of violence. Look in the f------ mirror!

I always knew the All-American sport would set us on the path to Soviet-style institutionalized violence.

/feeds more trolls than the Brothers Grimm

#48 ~ The UAW has, for several contracts now, seriously negotiated with one of the big three manufacturers and then had the terms largely, if not completely, incorporated into the CBAs of the other two. The discipline and discipline grievance articles of those three CBAs are virtually identical. And while the 'Stros and Sox must abide by the CBA between MLB and MLBPA, they are not subsidiaries.

Reading the latest CBA (PDF), I note that it reads on (PDF) page 229 in section 7(b)(1):

7.(b) The Club may terminate this contract upon written notice to the Player (but only after requesting and obtaining waivers of this contract from all other Major League Clubs) if the Player shall at any time:
(1) fail, refuse or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the Club’s training rules;

But in Article IX of the CBA (page 40 in the PDF) it says,

A Player whose Contract is terminated by a Club during the championship season under paragraph 7(b)(2) of the Uniform Player’s Contract for failure to exhibit sufficient skill or competitive ability shall be entitled to receive termination pay from the Club in an amount equal to the unpaid balance of the full salary stipulated in paragraph 2 of his Contract for that season.

There's no mention of what happens if someone is being fired under paragraph 7(b)(1) of the Uniform Player's Contract. And that, I suspect, is what the union very much wants to avoid, i.e. an out that lets teams fire a player in-season with no recourse to salary owed.

You must find Greg Maddux intolerable. And Mike Mussina. Unless you want to count "grumpy" as "mean".

A very good rule of thumb is that if someone brings up what is typical in baseball, and your retort includes the name "Greg Maddux," then you're probably on the wrong path.

Christy Mathewson, too.

A very good rule of thumb is that if someone brings up what is typical in baseball, and your retort includes the name "Greg Maddux," then you're probably on the wrong path.

A very good rule of thumb is that if you condone choking and hitting as a response to verbal confrontation, then you're probably on the wrong path.

EDIT: And where the hell do you find violence in baseball as typical? I think you're reporting on what's typical in your brain rather than on the field.

You don't have to "condone choking and hitting," to understand that Shawn Chacon and Ed Wade are the same guys they were a week ago. You just have to understand choking and hitting.

You don't have to "condone choking and hitting," to understand that Shawn Chacon and Ed Wade are the same guys they were a week ago. You just have to understand choking and hitting.

LAUGHTER

You don't have to "condone choking and hitting," to understand that Shawn Chacon and Ed Wade are the same guys they were a week ago.

Shawn Chacon was a bad guy a week ago. Shawn Chacon is a bad guy now.

I didn't know and didn't particularly care a week ago that Shawn Chacon was a bad guy. Now I know and still don't particularly care that Shawn Chacon is a bad guy.

Babe Adams, I'm a little lost as to your point. As far as I can tell, you're asserting that yelling and cussing is typical behavior for Ed Wade, and that choking and hitting is typical behavior for Chacon.

That could very well be true; it wouldn't surprise me at all.

But... so what?

I'm with the union on this one, actually. If choking were a justifiable reason for release, than please explain how Alex Rodriguez has a job.

As for Babe Adams' second post

Of course he did. Every pitcher in baseball is required to attack someone once a game or so. Just because in this one instance that knuckleball of agression boomeranged against the guy who hired it doesn't turn Chacon into a bad guy.

Yes, hitting a batter on the field is remotely comparable to physically assaulting your own boss.

Wade is Frankenstein, Chacon is the monster, all we need now are villagers with pitchforks....

Since I am a fan of baseball, and therefore a fan of aggression and tolerant of violence, I will add said villagers to the list of organizations I root for when they are named.

Wade might be (and probably is) a jerk in this case. That has little bearing on Chacon's stupidity, though, as being cursed at is not justification for violence.

It's not the physical assault that most people are objecting to, but its target.

Professional athletes are free, within limits, to beat on teammates, team personnel, opposing players, the drunken public, wives and girlfriends and still be able to pursue their profession.

But authority figures are off limits.

Professional athletes are free, within limits, to beat on teammates, team personnel, opposing players, the drunken public, wives and girlfriends and still be able to pursue their profession.

That other athletes have not faced similar consequences for assault or similar actions is not a reason to let Chacon off the hook. It's certainly regrettable that some people get special treatment, but that doesn't excuse this type of behavior from someone like Chacon.

Professional athletes are free, within limits, to beat on teammates, team personnel, opposing players, the drunken public, wives and girlfriends and still be able to pursue their profession.

But authority figures are off limits.

Where have you picked up this notion? Nobody feels that way.

I would heartily endorse the Astros' release of Chacon if Chacon had beaten up teammates, opposing players, his wife, or whomever else. It might not constitute a breach of his contract, though, had he done that instead of beating up Ed Wade.

It's not the physical assault that most people are objecting to, but its target.

Uh, no. At least not in my case.

You know what would be really funny? If Babe Adams got married, got in a car accident and became a paraplegic, and then his wife mopped the floor with him whenever she felt like it, screaming "You ballsless piece of ####! I have to do everything around here! Now get up off the floor I just waxed or I'll wax you some more!"

That would be really funny.

In the universe that MLBPA inhabits, just cause would only exist if Wade was D.O.A.

Again, this is about the lost salary and nothing else. Win or lose, what are the chances Chacon ever wears an MLB (or minor, non-independent league) uniform again?

Also, there's nothing stopping Wade from filing assault charges, is there? Why hasn't that happened?

Also, there's nothing stopping Wade from filing assault charges, is there? Why hasn't that happened?

No, but I doubt that he wants the added attendant publicity for MLB.

OK, Shysterball weighed in earlier today:

Craig Calcaterra said...

No idea, really. My guess is that, like dlf said, they aren't trying to save his job, just some of his salary. Arbitrations often split the baby, so they may have a chance at something.

I guess it all turns on whether teams have been able to void contracts in the past when the players have been involved in violent incidents, and I don't know the answer to that question.

It's certainly regrettable that some people get special treatment, but that doesn't excuse this type of behavior from someone like Chacon.

I'm not excusing his behavior, though I certainly understand why he did what he did. He's out as an Astro even if he gets paid, and may be out of baseball.

The point is that athletes nearly always get special treatment except when they physically confront the boss. Their violent displays are tolerated and rewarded except when they challenge management's authority.

Players shouldn't get off the hook for bad behavior, including punching nincompoops like Ed Wade, but find it worthy of note that they largely do except in confrontation with management.

Simply put, social hierarchy is the root of these ills, and has no simple solution.

It's not the physical assault that most people are objecting to, but its target.

social hierarchy is the root of these ills

For someone who objects to strawman arguments, you certainly make a lot of them.

Human nature is the root of violence. Violence existed long before there was any class society. I can guarantee it will exist in the psuedo-Marxist classless paradise of Derrick Jensen too.

In the real world, the moral calculus of violence contains many more factors than social hierachy. People mostly alleviate the moral guilt of violence upon reasons like self-defense (charging the mound), rough parity between the combatants (brawls between athletes) or the end results of violence (benches clearing brawl with no one hurt is usually brushed off; Marichal vs. Roseboro or not so).

In the case of athletes vs. authority figures, it's never as cut and dried as you make it out to be. The careers of both Sprewell and Bob Knight were hurt by their respective choking incidents, though there are significant differences between them.

In actual sports practice, the performance of the perpetrator was often the determining factor in the consequences and it would be bunk to drag social hierarchy into the equation. One could explain the fact that Sprewell suffered more than Knight because Knight was arguably the best active college basketball coach at the time but Spre was no where near the best basketball player. Manny will probably suffer less than Chacon because Manny was much better at baseball. This does not, however, affect the moral (or legal) evaluation.

The 'ills' I was referring to was the acceptability of violent acts by some actors but not others based upon social standing.

Human beings are violent by nature, but social hierarchy allows violence downward but frowns upon it when aimed higher. Why do athletes often get away with the things I listed above when people lower down the chain do not. And a lot of the 'get away with it' starts before they are adults. Presidents are allowed to kidnap, kill and torture, you and I are not.

Of course there are other factors in the moral calculus of violence (perhaps you'd find William Vollmann more palatable than other writers I've mentioned), but one's position within the social hierarchy largely determines our acceptance of it. Even your examples allow for it.

You don't have to be a Marxist or environmentalist or tree-hugger or whatever to find value in some of the aspects of their analysis and action. I've criticized all three of those positions here before, but my argument is mostly non-ideological.

Perhaps commenting on social hierarchy is like observing that the sky is blue and the grass green. It's a factor in human relations, and relevant in the case of Chacon. Certainly not the only major factor in analyzing either this dispute or other areas of life.

The traveling secretary is part of the team's front office and generally listed on the company masthead. He's clearly part of management.

The guy who fetches coffee is "part of the team's front office," and is "listed on the company masthead" as often as the traveling secretary is, which is to say never. He's not in any way "part of management." He's administrative staff. The fact that someone isn't a player doesn't make him "management."

relevant in the case of Chacon. Certainly not the only major factor in analyzing either this dispute or other areas of life.

If it's NOT the only major factor, then it is curious that you have not once mentioned the others.

social hierarchy allows violence downward but frowns upon it when aimed higher.

The fundamental error of Marxism is this type of generalization on class society, not only wrong but also lazy. Various strands of modern pseudo-Marxism inherited this fault. (Whities don't have the balls to drive around with a truckload of killing goons like Guevara, but talking big on class opression never hurt them.)

Class and hierarchies exist. They exist in sports. But they operate in complex ways. In many situations they are no where near the most crucial factor. To over-generalize and reduce every instance of violence to class society is not a useful approach. Worse, it is intellectually banal.

William Vollmann

wiki: "In early 2004 (after many delays) McSweeney's published Rising Up and Rising Down, a 3,300-page, heavily illustrated, seven-volume treatise on violence ". PASS.

There's an abridged version, but no comic-book one, so you may still want to pass.

To over-generalize and reduce every instance of violence to legality is not a useful approach. Worse, it is intellectually banal.

Only to say other people striking one note doesn't seem to upset you. And I don't think I've said that other issues raised are beside the point, irrelevant or crazy.

Only to say other people striking one note doesn't seem to upset you. And I don't think I've said that other issues raised are beside the point, irrelevant or crazy.

Like I (and about 20 other people) said in the other thread, it is pretty clear that Chacon was way out of line to say the least, and that Wade handled himself abysmally. That is pretty clear. How many people are spinning/interpreting it appears to be a function of a mix of ideology and workplace experiences.

no comic-book one, so you may still want to pass.

Nah, I seem to recall that you are the one who worships a comic book writer. Guy wanted to bomb dams to save salmon but was too ##### to actually do it. Name's Derek something, of course you remember him better than I do.

To over-generalize and reduce every instance of violence to legality is not a useful approach. Worse, it is intellectually banal.

Only to say other people striking one note doesn't seem to upset you. And I don't think I've said that other issues raised are beside the point, irrelevant or crazy.

I think it's useful to discuss the law regarding a case of physical assault. The introduction of class warfare is an entirely arbitrary and useless red herring and betrays a rigid and lazy intellectual mindset.

Shawn Chacon was a bad guy a week ago

Oh bullchit!

this is a smear. I have never heard anyone claim Shawn Chacon is bad guy, and I reject your obvious attempt to smear him.

You know what would be really funny? If Babe Adams got married, got in a car accident and became a paraplegic, and then his wife mopped the floor with him whenever she felt like it, screaming "You ballsless piece of ####! I have to do everything around here! Now get up off the floor I just waxed or I'll wax you some more!"

That would be really funny.

you need help, and i don't think one shrink is going to do the trick either

Quoting Derrick Jensen doesn't equal worship. Raising class as an issue doesn't make one a Marxist.

But your continued line of attack suggests you're more of an internet tough guy than me.

Uncle.

I have never heard from anyone Shawn Chacon is bad guy, and I reject your obvious attempt to smear him.

Former Yankee Shawn Chacon

QED.

Former Yankee Shawn Chacon

what you rehashed an AP story we have all read? you trying to smear him has nothing to do with that article.

Shawn Chacon was a bad guy a week ago. Shawn Chacon is a bad guy now.

Bullchit!

Quoting Derrick Jensen doesn't equal worship. Raising class as an issue doesn't make one a Marxist.

Alex, lost credibility, like clipped balls, ain't growing back.

Chacon pushed a guy down, is a horrible man, and should never work in baseball again.
Manny pushed a guy down, and all is forgiven.

The only difference is who they pushed.

Chacon subsequently grabbed Wade by the neck and threw him to the ground. When Wade tried to get up Chacon knocked him back down before other players intervened to break up the altercation

Before the fifth inning, Ramírez was caught on NESN cameras slapping Youkilis

The two were arguing over Ramírez's request for 16 tickets to the game in Houston, when Ramírez reportedly threw McCormick to the ground after saying "Just your do you [expletive] job."

The only difference is who they pushed.

No, the major difference is who did the pushing.

There is little difference morally between them.

There is little difference morally between them.

Just read your #69, and I agree.

in response to your smear on Chacon, who by all accounts is NOT a bad guy, just a guy who lost his cool, once, to the best of our knowledge.

Maybe you meant to say ..

Manny Ramirez was a bad guy a week ago. Manny Ramirez is a bad guy now. I didn't know and didn't particularly care a week ago that Manny Ramirez was a bad guy. Now I know and still don't particularly care that Manny Ramirez is a bad guy

Julio Lugo was a bad guy a week ago. Julio Lugo is a bad guy now. I didn't know and didn't particularly care a week ago that Julio Lugo was a bad guy. Now I know and still don't particularly care that Julio Lugo is a bad guy

Brett Myers was a bad guy a week ago. Brett Myers is a bad guy now. I didn't know and didn't particularly care a week ago that Brett Myers was a bad guy. Now I know and still don't particularly care that Brett Myers is a bad guy

General Motors doesn't need to have the same disciplinary practices as Ford to be able to terminate its employees. If the Sox fail to discipline Ramirez, it is evidence that could overturn a discipline taken against Pedroia if he bites Francona's ankles, but it has very little relevance in a case between the Astros and their players.

As others have noted, all MLB teams are subject to the same labor agreement and precedents. Chacon's side will argue that MLB has a long history of tolerating "minor assaults" by players - citing incidents from Babe Ruth allegedly dangling Miller Huggins outside a moving train all the way up to Manny's latest altercation. While comparable incidents with the Astros would have the most precedential value, the arbitrator won't be able to just ignore other practices within the industry. The MLBPA will probably readily concede that Chacon could have been suspended (for some period that won't affect Chacon's bottom line that much), thereby giving the arbitrator the "middle ground" he might already be looking for. It's a decent argument, and MLB might prefer a settlement rather than risk a precedent-setting loss or the bad publicity that may come from airing instances of bad behavior that resulted in less than outright release without pay.

I'll toss two more names out there ...

Milton Bradley, to the best of my knowledge has never hit anybody ..
Elijah Dukes, to the best of my knowledge has never hit anybody ..

yet they are both seen as horrible human beings by this board.

Manny, loved and forgiven ...
Lugo, nobody seems to care ...
Myers, again, not a care ... has anybody seen his ERA?

But Milton, Dukes, and now Chacon are bad people.

Elijah Dukes, to the best of my knowledge has never hit anybody ..
[...]
Lugo, nobody seems to care ...
Myers, again, not a care

I'm sorry. Do you, sir, visit the same BaseBall Think Factory as we do?

Who has Dukes hit? is that what you mean?

He yelled at his wife over the phone after she cleaned out their bank account.

He had sex with some people ..

I don't remember him hitting anybody. I could be wrong.

He yelled at his wife [and THREATENED TO KILL HER] over the phone after she cleaned out their bank account.

He had sex with some people ..

I don't remember him hitting anybody. I could be wrong.

/shakes head and sighs

There's a Brett Myers thread going on right now. I think you'll find that most posters there aren't big Brett Myers fans.

It also seems like every time an athlete has some behavioral transgression, I see lots of Julio Lugo comparisons. He is certainly not forgotten.

oh thats right, Dukes hit that kid in the minors.

Also when Bradley was injured during last year's incident with the first base ump, the majority sentiment here was behind him. He was no where as despised as Lugo, Dukes or Myers. The jokes about Bradley are mostly about his frequency of injuries.

Here is one list of Duke's reported actions.

good read on Dukes here. He has demons for sure. I feel for him.

Here is one list of Duke's reported actions.

Funny thing about the SP Times. They were the one paper that went after Dukes with everything they had. They got him removed from the team. Most of the other papers reported the AP stuff but stayed out of it. The Times had special Elijah Dukes section, dedicated to trashing the dude, publishing every tid bit from his divorce.

Funny thing about the SP Times. They were the one paper that went after Dukes with everything they had. They got him removed from the team. Most of the other papers reported the AP stuff but stayed out of it. The Times had special Elijah Dukes section, dedicated to trashing the dude, publishing every tid bit from his divorce.

I'm in no position to comment on that, but assuming they have an agenda doesn't neccesarily mean that what they report is false.

Former Yankee Shawn Chacon

QED.

I'm just glad the headline didn't read, "Shawn Homosexual".

got sidetracked reading .. back to the point.

There is nothing that would suggest that Chacon is a bad person. He lost his cool one afternoon and pushed his boss to the ground. Thats all.
People make mistakes, its human nature. People lose their cool for one reason or another too, its human nature. [a man screaming at you while you are eating could be one of them]

People usually make mistakes when losing their cool. it does not make them a bad person.

Whether or not someone is a bad person is kind of subjective.