MLB has put him on administrative leave, said the investigation from last year remained/remains open.

I'm guessing he's not playing again this year. I further predict he won't be on the Cubs next year.

I further predict he won't be on the Cubs next year.

Non-tender?

No, someone will trade for him. Someone always does - the allure of unrealized potential is too great. He was a change of scenery candidate before, even moreso now. The Cubs won't get that much for him, but they'll get something.

This likely never ends up in a criminal charge either, which gives teams more to hide behind. Not that a pending charge has stopped other teams before.

Makes me ill.

Reading Reidy's account sounds just so... textbook... I had a cousin and an aunt in this kind of relationship and it's just - IDK, gut-punching to hear the same tropes recounted. In both cases, never would have expected it from the abuser - both guys just seemed so "not the sort". And then, you hear that it's almost a calling card of the facade - like every toxic and violent and ugly thing a person can do to another gets stored up and released in a finely tuned stream at a single, other individual in private.

#### him.

Non-tender him.

I don't want him back.

That's why I'm shvtty to everyone. Keeps the violence at bay.

I wonder what percentage of athletes/actors/politicians have something like this (or sexual assault/harrassment) in their history. It will be interesting over the next few years as this kind of thing gets discussed more and more (hopefully with victims willing and able to talk about it) how our entertainment choices change or even IF they change.

I wonder what percentage of athletes/actors/politicians have something like this (or sexual assault/harrassment) in their history.

I think it would be disturbingly high. Those field likely attract a large number of narcissistic socio-paths, since those characteristics would be very likely to help people advance in highly competitive, cut-throat fields.

That's why I'm shvtty to everyone. Keeps the violence at bay.

That's what really gut-punched me in the case of my cousin... I mean, our extended family was/is very close - and she was always something of a tomboy. I felt so stupid when the facade fell away - a woman in her late 20s/early 30s, however much she was once a tomboy, just doesn't get that many bruises.

But - I genuinely thought I liked the guy. Everybody did.... but when she finally left him - with two black eyes, a broken nose, and fractured arm. It was just... IDK. I'm embarrassed to say that the first thing I said to her when she told me/us (just so happened I was staying at her parent's house for a family thing the night she left) about the abuse is "are you sure?" - I could make excuses and say it was just the shock of realizing the ####### had snowed me good and proper or whatever... but regardless, #### that. Won't get fooled again.

I wonder what percentage of athletes/actors/politicians have something like this (or sexual assault/harrassment) in their history.

I think it would be disturbingly high. Those field likely attract a large number of narcissistic socio-paths, since those characteristics would be very likely to help people advance in highly competitive, cut-throat fields.

Not to mention, the virtual job requirement to maintain a carefully coifed, managed and outwardly 'nice' public persona.

Not to mention, the virtual job requirement to maintain a carefully coifed, managed and outwardly 'nice' public persona.

Yup. Being a great liar with no conscience is a great way to get ahead in this world.

Happy they made this move. After reading the post, I just didn't want to see him in a Cubs uniform ever again. From the baseball side, they might want to try to get Mike Freeman on the 40-man in case something happens to Javy. We don't need Zo, Bote or even Bryant getting any significant time at SS.

Those field likely attract a large number of narcissistic socio-paths

As a performer: Fuck you and the mentally stable absolutely-never-abuse-anyone bankers you rode in with.

I wonder what percentage of athletes/actors/politicians have something like this (or sexual assault/harrassment) in their history. It will be interesting over the next few years as this kind of thing gets discussed more and more (hopefully with victims willing and able to talk about it) how our entertainment choices change or even IF they change.

well, it's already affected my choices in where i go for meaningful experiences in art and film.

for instance, i simply cannot comfortably watch a woody allen movie anymore.

i just can't do it, knowing what i know about him now and then seeing how he exploited our high opinion of him in his work. there are other figures in culture who we could have the same reaction to, probably some who deserve it even more — for instance, wagner was a really despicable person in real life. but allen is more of a gut punch because he was someone who i personally felt much closer to in terms of temperament and outlook in my formative years. my cohort saw him as this cool, reckless inventive bohemian, a nebbishy guy with just the right rebellious streak. but then finding out about him and his sneaking around with soon yi, lying to his partner — the girls adoptive mother for god's sake. not to mention these allegations by his other children, even if there is a dispute over veracity.

when i think about how we all thought 'manhattan' was this witty, urbane comedy of manners i now have a mild nausea. the thought of allen writing that part for himself and thinking it had some kind of artistic merit now looks like an unbelievable tone deaf act of hubris. this was especially driven home to me recently, after viewing some of rohmer's films. i was struck by how audaciously allen stole from rohmer's cinematic vocabulary without a fundamental understanding of rohmer's intent. watching 'claire's knee', all i could think of was that allen must have watched it over and over again in his little screening room and just rubbed his hands, thinking 'i'm going to make a movie like this, where a middle aged guy puts his hands all over some young chick, but screw rohmer and his philosophizing, my guy is gonna get the girl, and, and, yeah, i'll write the part for myself! that'll be great!'

he just feels so damn dishonest to me now, and i get bummed out that i was gulled for so long.

Seems so very long ago that Russell seemed primed to make Javy Baez the odd-man out.

Really disturbing to hear, but unfortunately, not shocking given that this was already sort of out there last year.

Totally fine never seeing him play for the Cubs again.

Addison Russell looks like a Morlock.

for instance, i simply cannot comfortably watch a woody allen movie anymore.

I have to admit -

I thought The Pianist was a great film - it sounds silly, but I struggled whether to see it when it was in theaters and I actually did struggle with whether to watch it when it hit cable (obviously, I landed on yes, but waited for cable).

I submitted this item as well, so hopefully Furtado deletes it as redundant.

Makes me sick.

From the baseball side, they might want to try to get Mike Freeman on the 40-man in case something happens to Javy.

I'd just as soon see Zobrist or La Stella out there. And believe me, I have no interest in actually seeing either of those guys at short.

As a performer: #### you and the mentally stable absolutely-never-abuse-anyone bankers you rode in with.

High-ranking corporate executives, especially bankers, fit the glib, narcissistic, sociopath pattern to a tee.

I'd just as soon see Zobrist or La Stella out there. And believe me, I have no interest in actually seeing either of those guys at short.

Bote is a perfectly fine backup SS, and I'd much rather see him than Freeman. Zo and Bryant also as emergency options are better than wasting a roster spot on Freeman.

Polanski, etc...: I figure that I vote with my pocketbook and that I've way more entertainment options available to me than I've time to pursue them. So, while I might miss some quality work, I'm just substituting for other good things.
(this is strictly an intellectual consideration, the off-screen behavior of the artists involved does not provoke an emotional reaction with me while i'm engaging with the art)

From the baseball side, they might want to try to get Mike Freeman on the 40-man in case something happens to Javy.

I'd just as soon see Zobrist or La Stella out there. And believe me, I have no interest in actually seeing either of those guys at short.

Blech - if they're going to add anyone (and personally, I'd just pray for Baez's health and go with the Zobrist/Bote "we're ####### if Javy gets hurt" option), I'd add Chesny Young. He's stretched at SS, but #### it - he runs a bit and I think they need to decide whether to 40-man him this offseason anyway.

Or - hell - Zack Short isn't a terrible option. He'd be stretched to jump - but Short is basically Happ-ian in his ability to work counts and take walks (or K looking) and he's got some pop. He's kind of a K-Mart David Bote - but one who can play SS. I think he's got another year of free service before any 40-man decisions need to happen though.

EDIT/ADD: FWIW - as much as Short's 227/356/417 line at Tennessee doesn't exactly scream MLB ready - I'd point out that he was hitting like .160 into June. 30 HRs and 176 BBs the last two seasons combined make him quite interesting in my mind.

As a performer: #### you and the mentally stable absolutely-never-abuse-anyone bankers you rode in with.

High-ranking corporate executives, especially bankers, fit the glib, narcissistic, sociopath pattern to a tee.

I feel very odd agreeing with snapper as opposed to Lassus, but yeah. No one said all* performers (or bankers, or journalists, or whatever), but I don't think it's particularly outrageous to assert that certain "field(s) likely attract a large number of narcissistic socio-paths."


*OK, maybe all politicians ...

It's a bit depressing but I think to reach the peak of any field you need to be kind of a terrible person. That's an overgeneralization obviously but I think has a ring of truth. To be elite at anything you have to have boundless confidence and that tends to be a personality trait they can't just turn on or off between the lines.

I am not doubting her story or defending Russell in any way, but I don't think the headline ("releases detailed allegations") is accurate. She wrote a blog post in which she does make accusations of physical abuse for the first time, which is certainly noteworthy:

The first time I was physically mistreated by my spouse, I was in shock. I couldn’t wrap my head around what just happened…Why did he get so angry? What did I do for him to want to put his hands on me?

...

About a month after leaving, I returned for a visit so my son could see his father, also in hopes that maybe, just maybe I’d see a change in my husband. But, as I expected our visit was a nightmare, I swore to myself it would be the last time he’d lay his hands on me & it would be that last time I’d let my son be a witness to it.

But I have seen multiple sources describing "detailed allegations", which oversells it a bit in my opinion.

EDIT: There are also a lot of mentions of verbal and emotional abuse, which I'm not looking to gloss over. But I don't think that would get a player suspended.

It's a bit depressing but I think to reach the peak of any field you need to be kind of a terrible person. That's an overgeneralization obviously but I think has a ring of truth. To be elite at anything you have to have boundless confidence and that tends to be a personality trait they can't just turn on or off between the lines.

Okay but, totally hypothetically, what if I'm mediocre in my field but also not particularly fun to be around? Whose fault is that, Jose? Hmm?

Okay but, totally hypothetically, what if I'm mediocre in my field but also not particularly fun to be around? Whose fault is that, Jose? Hmm?

Obama's?

Okay but, totally hypothetically, what if I'm mediocre in my field but also not particularly fun to be around? Whose fault is that, Jose? Hmm?

Your doppelganger's?

Oops -- wrong thread!

Of the owners/CEOs I've worked for, there's a fairly even split between "narcissist" and "genuinely great person." None of the narcissists were sociopaths or naturally mean-spirited but they were absolutely capable of self-delusion in service of their strange large-but-fragile egos.

OK, maybe that was a little grumpier than was deserved.

Grumpy like a narcissistic sociopath.

I think to reach the peak of any field you need to be kind of a terrible person

I think you need to be single-minded and driven.

You don't necessarily have to be a shit.

I think you need to be single-minded and driven.

You don't necessarily have to be a ####.

But, single minded and driven tends to lead to shitty behavior. If you only care about reaching the top of your field, and are incredibly driven, other people become either tools to aid your success, or obstacles to be overcomes. That doesn't lend itself to treating them as people.

A lot of the sports heroes we worship are terrible people. Fine to throw him off the team bus now, but remember how much you were pulling for him while he was pulling this ####.

But I have seen multiple sources describing "detailed allegations", which oversells it a bit in my opinion.

It oversells it quite a bit.

I have no trouble believing that Russell is a crummy person, and I think putting him on admin leave is appropriate while the investigation plays out.

But, no one knows anything more about what happened after reading this than they did before. And, to be honest, I think there are some reasons to be skeptical about this blog post - it seems designed more to keep the story going in the media than to shed any light on what actually happened.

But, no one knows anything more about what happened after reading this than they did before. And, to be honest, I think there are some reasons to be skeptical about this blog post - it seems designed more to keep the story going in the media than to shed any light on what actually happened.

Did you read the blog post? But I see your point -- if things were as bad as she says, she would have gone to the Proper Authorities.

Did you read the blog post? But I see your point -- if things were as bad as she says, she would have gone to the Proper Authorities.

Interesting comparison, since Christine Blasey Ford of course actually did make very detailed allegations.

If you haven't yet, you absolutely need to see Hannah Gadsby's "Nanette" (it's on Netflix). Just watch it and listen. One of the many topics is whether to separate the artist from the man.

I support the admin leave. If Russell physically abused her, I hope he suffers the criminal consequences. I hope she and her son recover from this and have a happy, healthy life from here on out. I hope he gets the psychological help he needs (which it sounds like he needs whether he's criminally guilty or not).

On the psychological diagnosis -- I'll admit I haven't even remotely kept up with the research in this area, but "narcissism" wasn't considered to have much to do with it back in the day. Abusers were considered (frequently) to be people with quite low self-esteem who then act abusive to feel powerful in the relationships/scenarios that they can (i.e. the bully). I'd prefer he never plays for the Cubs but that's the comfortable choice for me. I'm fine if he never plays MLB again but I'm also fine with him going through the process and the counseling, coming out the other side and getting on with his career in hopes he doesn't do this again.

On the psychology of outstanding achievement (in the field of excellence) -- no idea what the research says but I've spent a good bit of time with people like this (in academia and music mainly) and my conclusion is that it's obsession (or single-mindedness) not narcissism. From what I've seen, this certainly leads to a lot of busted marriages, estranged relationships with kids, etc. but (as far as I know) not physical abuse. (Not that I was ever in a particularly good position to know.) If you're working 80 hours a week plus spending most of your other waking time thinking about your job, networking, strategizing, etc. then you are not investing time in your personal relationships. Still, most of such marriages that I've seen have managed to stay together. Anyway, this also hasn't been what I would quite consider narcissism -- if anything, these folks seem more on the "autism spectrum." (I understand, in these cases the person is putting themselves and their needs first which is also the case of narcissists and sociopaths so it's not easy to decide which it is from our distance.)

On the artistic side -- for good or ill, for me it has sometimes come down to whether I had an appreciation of the art before finding out about the personal side. As somebody noted upstream, there's no shortage of great art (or ML-quality SS) so I have no problem putting my consumer dollars elsewhere if I know about allegations (or the guy just seems creepy) beforehand. Examples -- I was a big fan of Miles Davis before learning that Cicely Tyson revealed that he abused her and I continue to be a big fan of Miles. But there are a number of jazz musicians of a similar vintage who have been accused of abusive behavior and I've easily decided they (or generally their estates) did not need my money (and I had lots of other options to spend on). My "approach" has changed a bit ...

So the two I've spent the most time thinking about are Woody Allen and Bill Cosby. Allen was an "easy" one for me. I was a big fan of early Allen, the screwball comedies. Then Annie Hall was wonderful. Then Manhattan. It's the last Allen film I liked (that's why it was "easy" for me). But it also creeped me out in real time. It is a good movie and I could kinda rationalize it because I was 17-18 when it came out and a fat, nebbish kid -- of course I was "in love" with Mariel Hemingway in that movie and of course I fantasized that some beautiful woman would be the one to take control of the relationship and provide me the confidence that the relationship was real. But I recognized that the Allen character is a creep which I don't think Allen (or the critics) did. (Among my movie-going friends of the time, I'm pretty sure I was the only one pointing this out.)

But it was "easy" because I didn't like the movies that came afterward anyway -- for, I think, artistic reasons. I saw the next half-dozen or so, sometimes in original release, sometimes afterwards. He became too self-aware and "arty" IMO and the humor declined substantially. So when the Soon Yi weirdness and the later accusations came out, it was easy to ignore all of his films after that. Any my reaction to Manhattan in real time made it easy for me to accept that he is a creep in real life. I think I've watched Annie Hall once or twice in the last 30 years, I don't think I've been able to stomach Manhattan in that time. (His early screwball comedies never seem to pop up.) I recall re-watching Manhattan at least once post-release (but I think pre-knowledge of Soon Yi, etc) to double-check my opinion -- and it was the same only more creepy.

Then, not realizing it was an Allen movie, I stumbled across "Vicky Christina Barcelona" on cable. Admittedly, personal creepiness that I find Scarlett Johansson "irresistibly beautiful". It's a terrible movie, about two young women's adventures in Barcelona that includes one of them having a fling with a much older Javier Bardem. About halfway through (I flipped in and out) I thought "Jesus, this is so bad it's almost like a Woody Allen movie" which I discovered when the credits rolled that it was.

And that movie was made after all of this stuff had come out publicly. As those credits rolled all I could think was "for ####'s sake, the last person's take we want on young women discovering themselves is Woody Allen's." It does not reflect well on studios' decision-making that the movie even got made -- and I gather Allen has a number of such movies for cities he loves (starting with Mahnattan) -- and I believe it was well-reviewed.

On Cosby, I was a HUGE fan when I was a kid. His comedy albums of the 60s were a staple in our house and, if you've ever heard them, it's mostly stuff about being a kid and a young adult so it's easy to relate to from 10-15. I loved the Fat Albert routines (the cartoon was a bit disappointing but I was a bit old for it). The later Cosby show was excellent in its first couple of seasons although (IMO) his comedy routine had fallen off badly by then and he had become rather conservative on the social/political front so I wasn't a huge fan by that time.

I was more than old enough when the Cosby charges came out to know that my "heroes" aren't heroes but serial rapist is as far away from "hero" as you can get. My reaction I suppose was not one of self-doubt ("I can't believe this" or "what's wrong with me that I like his comedy") as much as just sadness for the women and disgust with the man.

Which has brought me to my current "position" which is really no help at all. Bill Cosby is an incredibly important person in the history of comedy -- that simply can't be denied. He's an important person in African-American history -- he was sort of the Jackie Robinson of TV, the first African-American on TV that "middle America" was comfortable with (similar to Sidney Poitier in films). The latter Cosby show was a good TV show, a huge hit and showed America a side of the African-American experience that they didn't see often on TV (even if that was the easiest side of the African-American experience for the public to accept).

And he's a serial rapist.

I'm not trying to separate the artist from the man. I'm trying to recognize that Cosby was a great comedian and a serial rapist. The first clearly doesn't "excuse" the latter in any way whatsoever ... but the second truth doesn't make the first one untrue. Thomas Jefferson was an architect of democracy and a slave owner and rapist. (Sex with someone you own is not a consensual relationship.) These days, I see little connection between these dual realities -- i.e. that one is correlated with the other -- it's just the reality we have to deal with. It doesn't offer any guidance on whether to continue to support the "good" in light of the evil.

Like I said, none of this really helps "us" in our quandary of how we "should" feel about Addison Russell. (We, obviously, are the least important parties.) He is a talented baseball player and (apparently) an abusive #######. I'd prefer not to cheer for abusive ######## but that's about me, not his ex-wife. I'd like to find ways to support her but that's really up to the social support and criminal justice systems (making it easy for me to claim no responsibility). I don't think that removing baseball from his life is going to help him stop being abusive but maybe it would.

If it offers any usefulness, my "insight" helps to clarify what really doesn't (or shouldn't) need clarification -- the important thing is to stop Russell's abusive behavior (and even more obviously Cosby the serial rapist). Given the choice between losing a great comedian or ridding society of a serial rapist, I'm confident every human would gladly give up the comedian. Society can get along better without Addison Russell the fine defensive SS than it can with an abusive #######. (Supreme Court justices are left as an exercise for the reader.)

I suppose it also highlights that our ideal outcome here is that his ex-wife and child (and any other past victims of his abuse) are cared for, Russell is fixed and Russell continues to be a fine defensive SS. Unfortunately, the easiest of those to achieve is the last one which also happens to be the one of no importance.

it seems designed more to keep the story going in the media

Huh? Why would she want to keep it going? Why would she wait 18 months to do so? The "story" has been out of the media for ages now. If media coverage was the goal, wouldn't she have given an exclusive interview to some media outlet?

I'll admit that to someone of my vintage, revealing such things via Instagram, blog posts, etc. seems very strange but that's just how these things go these days. I revealed the news of my sister's death on facebook -- it was the easiest way to let my friends know, especially given they're spread all over the world. I've had friends reveal addictions on facebook.

Then Manhattan. It's the last Allen film I liked (that's why it was "easy" for me). But it also creeped me out in real time. It is a good movie and I could kinda rationalize it because I was 17-18 when it came out and a fat, nebbish kid -- of course I was "in love" with Mariel Hemingway in that movie and of course I fantasized that some beautiful woman would be the one to take control of the relationship and provide me the confidence that the relationship was real. But I recognized that the Allen character is a creep which I don't think Allen (or the critics) did. (Among my movie-going friends of the time, I'm pretty sure I was the only one pointing this out.)

it's funny--John Simon--who I generally loathed--pointed this out exactly in a savage review at the time--he called it "a multifariously dishonest film"

here he is quoted

As in Annie Hall, there is again, and still more strongly, the implication that women are wicked or boring and can be redeemed solely through loving Woody Allen, the only decent male on the scene.

I loved Annie Hall at the time, I liked (but did not love) Manhattan, but when rewatched in the last few years, both now nauseate me

Interesting comparison, since Christine Blasey Ford of course actually did make very detailed allegations.

Very few, actually. But what I think many men are missing in these stories is not that the abusers are criminals -- both avoid that route intentionally -- but that such abusive behavior is an acceptable societal norm in which the women are fortunate to even be in a position to be abused by these "pillars of society".

Also, we identify, consciously or not, with the men, depending if they are on our team. And even then, we are all on team MAN. And that's the heart of the problem.

I remember my junior high history teacher setting up an assembly for us all to watch "What's Up, Tiger LilY? What the hell was he thinking??

Ironically, he was fired end of year amidst swirling rumors he made it with one of the high school cheerleaders. Not an Allen type, but a young, good looking guy driving an MG on his first job.

Yup. Being a great liar with no conscience is a great way to get ahead in this world.

Well said, if you're only going to have one skill, you can get rich and powerful off that one.

Has the union agreed to this in a contract? I’m surprised they would allow this. Most of us work in a non-union environment and I can’t imagine a non work related allegation being used to suspend someone. A conviction, yes. But not an allegation.

Yup. Being a great liar with no conscience is a great way to get ahead in this world.

Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for for President again?

Abusers were considered (frequently) to be people with quite low self-esteem who then act abusive to feel powerful in the relationships/scenarios that they can (i.e. the bully).

I could be wrong about this, but hasn't more recent research largely debunked the "low self-esteem bully" paradigm, and found that they actually usually have too much self esteem?

I could be wrong about this, but hasn't more recent research largely debunked the "low self-esteem bully" paradigm, and found that they actually usually have too much self esteem?

my ex-wife happens to study this extensively and the sad truth is, domestic abuse is independent of esteem level--it happens at all levels

my ex-wife happens to study this extensively and the sad truth is, domestic abuse is independent of esteem level--it happens at all levels

This seems pretty intuitive to me, since there's no one reason why people are violent. Some do get off on the power trip because they feel inferior. Some people are very poor at anger management and impulse control irrespective of their self-esteem. Some are simply psychopaths who enjoy being cruel. As with anything else, people do things for different reasons and generalizing is dumb.

Huh? Why would she want to keep it going? Why would she wait 18 months to do so? The "story" has been out of the media for ages now. If media coverage was the goal, wouldn't she have given an exclusive interview to some media outlet?

Does it really take a lot of imagination to think up a plausible scenario? Try this:

She's mad at Russell for cheating on her repeatedly (which she does say in the post). But perhaps the specifics of his actions against her don't really amount to much, so she doesn't cooperate with the MLB investigation (which we know she didn't). Now MLB doesn't have anything to work with, and after the investigation drags for an extended time, they're about to wrap it up without any substantial findings against Russell. So she floats this blog post - short on specifics but long on explosive keywords - to keep it going and put him right back in the hot seat.

Now, obviously, I don't know that's the case, so it's probably more likely than not that I'm way off. Or it may be true, but also true that he deserves everything that's coming his way.

But we know she hasn't been open with MLB investigators. And this blog post is very vague, in a way that fans the flames but without giving anyone - MLB investigators, law enforcement, supporters - any clearer idea of what went on than they already had. It's basically little more than innuendo. And that seems worth being a little bit skeptical about.

But we'll see.

Looking over the numbers, Russell looks like a cromulent young shortstop, nothing else. If he were setting the world on fire with his hitting, would the "don't let the door hit you..." attitude of many baseball fans be different?

Of course it would.

This seems pretty intuitive to me, since there's no one reason why people are violent. Some do get off on the power trip because they feel inferior. Some people are very poor at anger management and impulse control irrespective of their self-esteem. Some are simply psychopaths who enjoy being cruel. As with anything else, people do things for different reasons and generalizing is dumb.

I would suspect that the single biggest factor is whether or not they were raised with violence. If you imprint on a kid very early that the way to deal with shitty behavior is with violence, that's a tough thing to overturn. Whether we call that a "power trip" or "low self-esteem" or whatever is kind of a rationalization.

A lot of the sports heroes we worship are terrible people. Fine to throw him off the team bus now, but remember how much you were pulling for him while he was pulling this ####.

If only we were all omniscient psychics like you, hippie.

Interesting comparison, since Christine Blasey Ford of course actually did make very detailed allegations.

I will not let the thread become OTP, but of course that's the very opposite of true.

Has the union agreed to this in a contract? I’m surprised they would allow this. Most of us work in a non-union environment and I can’t imagine a non work related allegation being used to suspend someone. A conviction, yes. But not an allegation.

Note that it's a suspension with pay, so it's not really something they could do something about. It's really an administrative matter more than a practical one for him; after all, they could just release him.

Note that it's a suspension with pay, so it's not really something they could do something about.

Any discipline is subject to the CBA even if there is no loss of pay. As a practical matter, I highly doubt this would be grieved, but it could be.

I will not let the thread become OTP

Too late.

Just out of curiosity, who did you vote for for President again?

A great liar with no conscience. But, that doesn't do anything to narrow it down.

Maybe it eliminates some 3rd party candidate I never heard of.

Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
MLB’s domestic-violence policy allows #Cubs’ Russell to request emergency hearing that must take place within 24 hours of him asking to be removed from administrative leave. Sources say Russell, his agent Scott Boras and the players’ union are strongly considering that option.

A lot of the sports heroes we worship are terrible people. Fine to throw him off the team bus now, but remember how much you were pulling for him while he was pulling this ####.

Agree, which is why the myth making of some of the demonstrably "good" guys isn't a bad thing. Yes you might end up with a Kirby Puckett here and there but for the most part the myth making of Stan Musial or Hank Aaron, both guys who genuinely seemed like good people is a good example to the others in the field that you can still be a good person and be at the top of the field.

Yup. Being a great liar with no conscience is a great way to get ahead in this world.


Well said, if you're only going to have one skill, you can get rich and powerful off that one.

two different "buddies" I worked with have gone onto very successful careers, and this describes both of them to a T. (we worked commissioned retail, these guys were the two best salesman we had for the most part, and part of that was because their single goal was to make money...not to do a good job, not to provide a service, but ultimately their only motivation was money...and even though they had extremely high percentage of returns, they kept getting promoted and complimented because they kept making bank...One guy is now a vice president for some type of investment company....the other has turned his scam into a high profile gig in which he is actually doing a bit of good, but ultimately it's about his fame and popularity.)

Not trying to be accusatory, and this goes for any fan base, but I do wonder how Cubs fans reactions would have differed if this were Bryant or Baez instead of Russell, a player contributing nothing and that's easily released at this point. I'm guessing we wouldn't have seen any of these "I never want to see Baez in a Cubs uniform again!" posts. Seemed like the reaction to Chapman was tepid but he's going to help the team so...people seem to adjust their attitude depending on the situation.

I would suspect that the single biggest factor is whether or not they were raised with violence. If you imprint on a kid very early that the way to deal with shitty behavior is with violence, that's a tough thing to overturn

Abused and/or neglected as a pre-verbal child is the birthplace of psychopathology.

Abused and/or neglected as a pre-verbal child is the birthplace of psychopathology.

It's a birthplace. But plenty of abused/neglected kids don't turn pathological, and plenty of psychopaths have perfectly good upbringings.

Some of it is genetics, some of it is environment, and some of it is that some people choose to be evil, while others choose to be good.

Don't neglect the fact that many/most psychopaths know exactly what they're doing, know that it is wrong, but like the advantages or sensations doing evil gives them, so go ahead and freely choose evil.

FWIW, a number of folks in Gonfalon Cubs objected to the Cubs acquiring Chapman in real time in 2016 because of his suspension for abusive behavior, regardless of his likely role in helping the Cubs to the WS. We also went through this with Castro in 2012 which I believe pre-dates the MLB/MLBPA policy. No charges were ever filed in that one.

Here's the (? an?) earlier Russell thread from last year -- it mostly goes off course, the few comments from Cub fans amount to "I hope this isn't true." Apparently the 2012 Castro thread got over-heated (for unrelated reasons it sounds like) and has been disappeared.

2017 Russell thread

whatever happened to the Castro thread

There were a lot of Chapman threads, the one I looked at had little to say about his suspension.

One can of course note that the Cubs' FO didn't seem overly concerned with Chapman's history but may have decided to move Russell along suggesting their concerns are motivated by more than moral repugnance.

Regardless, the result of this will (almost certainly) be no more than a 2-month suspension for Russell starting 2019 at which point his baseball career will resume, whether that's for the Cubs or somebody else.

"Somebody else" seems kinda simple, but who? What FO would take the certain fanbase and media blowback for a B- shortstop?

What FO would take the certain fanbase and media blowback for a B- shortstop?

Well, assuming the Mets don't bring back Jose Reyes, they'll have an opening at crappy domestic abuser middle infielder.

Regardless, the result of this will (almost certainly) be no more than a 2-month suspension for Russell starting 2019 at which point his baseball career will resume, whether that's for the Cubs or somebody else.

Doesn't that really depend on the nature of the accusations? If it's the "usual" pushing, shoving, slapping, etc., I agree.