I almost Chaconed my boss today. Give the guy some credit. He's just doing what we're all thinking! SHAWN CHACON, DON'T YOU HATE PANTS?

SHAWN CHACON, DON'T YOU HATE PANTS?

And now the Grich steals something other than Christmas......

Chacon and Ramirez don't deserve to be lumped in with Myers and Lugo, who are pieces of ####. I've never encountered a wife-beater for whom it was just a "I lost my cool once". Both Chacon and Ramirez deserve equal punishment, and most people here agree. The fact that they won't get it doesn't make that our fault.

I've been around here going on 6 years, I think, and this thread has got to be in the top 10 for "most insane arguments made/positions held". Bravo.

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."

Never? I looked at one team -- the Tigers -- and the traveling secretary is listed there as part of the "Baseball Operations" department. You get to the link through hitting "Front Office" on the team's website which leads you to the "Front Office Directory."

It's almost assuredly the same with the Red Sox. Let's face it: Manny Ramirez, just like Shawn Chacon, assaulted a part of his team's front office. The relative rank of the two people -- GM and traveling secretary -- does not alter this fundamental fact. If it's "anarchy" and "rebellion" for Chacon to get a tad physical with the pain-in-the-ass GM -- screaming at him and interrupting his dinner an hour before a game -- it's "anarchy" and "rebellion" for Manny to get physical with the traveling secretary for no reason.

Link: http://detroit.tigers.mlb.com/team/front_office.jsp?c_id=det

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.

Yes, indeed. The MLBPA does not want teams unilaterally deciding whether or not a player's behavior is bad enough to violate 7(b)(1).

-- MWE

Yes, indeed. The MLBPA does not want teams unilaterally deciding whether or not a player's behavior is bad enough to violate 7(b)(1).

Especially when the whole incident has the whiff of a setup to get a skinflint owner out from under a bad contract.

Different treatment between Manny Ramirez and Shawn Chacon is irrelevant. If my neighbor takes a (legally unjustified) swing at me, I can press charges. I can also refuse to press charges if he apologizes to me. I can refuse to press charges in exchange for a payout of some sort. I can decided that I've been friends with him so long, that it's an aberration. But if I do one of the latter, that doesn't mean that my new neighbor on the other side can take a swing at me without fear of charges being pressed.

By their actions, both Manny and Chacon opened themselves up (arguably) to having their contracts voided. That doesn't mean that teams are required to do so. Especially since there are different teams involved anyway, and different circumstances.

Chacon to get a tad physical

So grabbing a guy by the neck and throwing him to the ground and having to be pulled off is a tad physical?

What has to happen to be "physical"? Hospitalization? Greater than a pint of blood loss?

Different treatment between Manny Ramirez and Shawn Chacon is irrelevant.

[...]

By their actions, both Manny and Chacon opened themselves up (arguably) to having their contracts voided. That doesn't mean that teams are required to do so. Especially since there are different teams involved anyway, and different circumstances.

That's a reasonable assessment with regard to their respective team's discretion. The other issue is whether or not MLB will impose any penalties, and if so, will they be identical.

For anyone sincerely interested in pitchers, scouting, and agression, I recommend "Dollar Sign on the Muscle," by Kevin Kerrane. An excellent read.

Especially when the whole incident has the whiff of a setup to get a skinflint owner out from under a bad contract.

No it doesn't, worse pitchers than Chacon are getting paid more this year, and among MLB "skinflints", McLane doesn't approach the bottom of the barrel.

WRT Manny being Manny, I think what Manny did was far worse than Chacon. Chacon attacked someone a lot higher up in the pecking order than Manny did, and Chacon attacked someone capable of defending themselves (not physically).

Why exactly didn't the team didn't just put Chacon on the suspended list for the full year?

From reports beyond Chacon's, it appears he basically pushed Wade to the ground. That's why there's no facial bruising, no trips to the hospital, no assault charges filed. He apparently laid hands on Wade with less force than a holy roller preacher.

Not defending Chacon here, not saying he shouldn't have been released, just pointing out he did little damage.

From reports beyond Chacon's, it appears he basically pushed Wade to the ground. That's why there's no facial bruising, no trips to the hospital, no assault charges filed. He apparently laid hands on Wade with less force than a holy roller preacher.

Obviously the issue of what Chacon actually did is relevant to the grievance. If Wade was a couple of inches from Chacon's face, screaming (drill sergeant style, as someone else referenced earlier), and Chacon pushed him back and Wade fell to the ground, that's very different than if Chacon grabbed Wade around the neck, choked him to shut him up, and then hurled him to the ground.

What Manny did seems to be much worse than what Chacon did, but I can't see MLB getting involved. The victim has said that the issue is behind both of them.

Never? I looked at one team -- the Tigers -- and the traveling secretary is listed there as part of the "Baseball Operations" department. You get to the link through hitting "Front Office" on the team's website which leads you to the "Front Office Directory."

I'm sorry, I thought you said, "Masthead," not "staff directory on the website." Since outside people might actually need the information as to who the traveling secretary is, they list it. That doesn't make him "management." Can he set team rules? Hire and fire or otherwise impose discipline? Set work schedules for people? Or does he get tickets for players whose families are visiting and make hotel reservations?

I'm sorry, I thought you said, "Masthead," not "staff directory on the website." Since outside people might actually need the information as to who the traveling secretary is, they list it. That doesn't make him "management." Can he set team rules? Hire and fire or otherwise impose discipline? Set work schedules for people? Or does he get tickets for players whose families are visiting and make hotel reservations?

Look at old media guides and the like; the traveling secretary will be on the team's masthead. Nor does the website say "staff directory." It says, instead, "front office directory."

The T.S. generally can't set team rules for core baseball matters, but he generally is empowered to make the travel reservations and guidelines and a violation of those is a violation of team rules. If Chacon had had an argument with the T.S. about the quality of the hotel the T.S. picked, it escalated, and Chacon punched him out, it would be just as much a violation of team policy as what Chacon did to Wade.

The T.S. on most teams can hire and fire people, albeit not players.

Different treatment between Manny Ramirez and Shawn Chacon is irrelevant. If my neighbor takes a (legally unjustified) swing at me, I can press charges. I can also refuse to press charges if he apologizes to me. I can refuse to press charges in exchange for a payout of some sort. I can decided that I've been friends with him so long, that it's an aberration. But if I do one of the latter, that doesn't mean that my new neighbor on the other side can take a swing at me without fear of charges being pressed.

By their actions, both Manny and Chacon opened themselves up (arguably) to having their contracts voided. That doesn't mean that teams are required to do so. Especially since there are different teams involved anyway, and different circumstances.

What you're saying -- and several other people have said something similar earlier in this thread -- is only partly true. This is not a question as to whether to press criminal charges. This is a question of contractual interpretation. When you have a vague, ambiguous, non-specific, or incomplete provision in a contract -- and the one applicable to this situation is -- one party to the contract doesn't get to unilaterally decide how to interpret it. Rather, courts (or, as in this case, arbitrators) interpret the terms objectively. And courts look at several factors, in essentially this order:

1. Course of performance
2. Course of dealing
3. Industry usage

(This is all Contracts 101, btw.) Basically, what that means is that the courts look first to see how the parties interpreted the term when it came up earlier in that contract, and then they look at how the parties interpreted it when dealing with prior contracts, and then they look to see how the term is generally interpreted within the industry.

So, in short, if players choke GMs all the time and don't get released for it, then the court will assume that the parties don't really understand the provision to mean that players can be fired for choking GMs.

So, even shorter, yes, it does matter how other teams handle these types of situations.

Look at old media guides and the like; the traveling secretary will be on the team's masthead. Nor does the website say "staff directory." It says, instead, "front office directory."

I'm sure there's relevance to that distinction, but I don't know what you think it is. "Front office" is a generic baseball term that often refers to all non-playing personnel, or at least all non-on-field personnel.

If your point is that not every team employee is listed, that's true, but it's rather missing the point of a media guide, which is not to enable employees to plan company picnics. Rather, the purpose of the media guide -- as the name implies -- is to provide information to the media to enable them to do their jobs. They don't need to know the name of the ushers for any reason, so those names aren't listed. They may need to know the name of the traveling secretary, since they themselves often travel with the team, so his name is listed.

The T.S. generally can't set team rules for core baseball matters, but he generally is empowered to make the travel reservations and guidelines and a violation of those is a violation of team rules. If Chacon had had an argument with the T.S. about the quality of the hotel the T.S. picked, it escalated, and Chacon punched him out, it would be just as much a violation of team policy as what Chacon did to Wade.

If Chacon had punched out the ballgirl, it would be just as much a violation of team rules as if he punched out the TS or the GM; that doesn't make the ballgirl "management." If he had punched out a fan, it would be a violation of team rules.

I don't know what your basis is for the claim that the TS can hire and fire people. The TS is an administrative position. He makes hotel reservations and buys airline tickets. He gives out tickets to players' family members (or not, in Manny's case). He's not a team executive.

Look at old media guides and the like; the traveling secretary will be on the team's masthead. Nor does the website say "staff directory." It says, instead, "front office directory."

Which includes other "members of the front office" such as receptionist/switchboard operator, office assistant, and the executive assistant to the Red Sox Foundation. Not to rag on those people, because they probably work hard and do a good job, but they can hardly be described as working for the front office in the context it's generally used.

If Chacon had punched out the ballgirl, it would be just as much a violation of team rules as if he punched out the TS or the GM; that doesn't make the ballgirl "management." If he had punched out a fan, it would be a violation of team rules.

Precisely so, which is why I wondered at the outset about the reasons everyone was stressing that Wade was somehow Chacon's "boss."

all i can say is it seems to me if the principals in the ramirez incident have patched things up, it really doesn't have any bearing on the chacon incident.
there's a big difference between employees having a shoving match over company perks vs. a subordinate physically attacking one of his supervisors over job performance.
and if anyone wants to bring up the fact that ramirez layed hands on a member of management (an issue we can't seem to resolve), yes, i agree its serious. but i believe he saw the severity of the transgression and did what his employers wanted to make it go away: he apologized, and it also appears that the apology was enough to satisfy upper management.
i guess we're getting into ball-clipped territory here, but really if manny can swallow his pride and do this, it simply doesn't rise to what happened in houston.

Especially when the whole incident has the whiff of a setup to get a skinflint owner out from under a bad contract.

If you really believe this and aren't just putting on the tinfoil hat for awhile, you'll need more proof to convince me, at least.

As was pointed out above, there are much worse pitchers making much more money. Also, aren't there other, more controversy-free ways to do that? Finally, I don't believe that a man in Wade's position would put himself in physical peril to save a rich owner a few dollars.

Now if Pavano were stupid enough to assault Cashman (and, of course, not hurt himself in the process), I might be more inclined to believe your theory.

Obviously the issue of what Chacon actually did is relevant to the grievance. If Wade was a couple of inches from Chacon's face, screaming (drill sergeant style, as someone else referenced earlier), and Chacon pushed him back and Wade fell to the ground, that's very different than if Chacon grabbed Wade around the neck, choked him to shut him up, and then hurled him to the ground.

Serious question: if a "Wade" was acting in the former manner, would the law allow a "Chacon" to "push" Wade out of his personal space? All hypothetical -- I'm not really asking about the Houston situation, I'm asking about what the law says (or various laws say) about a situation where someone is "in your face."

Why exactly didn't the team didn't just put Chacon on the suspended list for the full year?

The MLBPA would certainly have filed a grievance on Chacon's behalf in that case, as well, and for the same reason - teams don't get to unilaterally decide that actions like Chacon's justify a full-season suspension under the CBA (with the key word there being "unilaterally").

-- MWE

Serious question: if a "Wade" was acting in the former manner, would the law allow a "Chacon" to "push" Wade out of his personal space? All hypothetical -- I'm not really asking about the Houston situation, I'm asking about what the law says (or various laws say) about a situation where someone is "in your face."

Generally speaking, you have the right to use proportionate force to defend yourself against an assault. If someone is so "in your face" that you have a reasonable fear that the person may become physical with you, you have the right to use proportionate force to prevent that from happening.

I don't know what your basis is for the claim that the TS can hire and fire people. The TS is an administrative position. He makes hotel reservations and buys airline tickets. He gives out tickets to players' family members (or not, in Manny's case). He's not a team executive.

They generally have staffs and can hire and fire members thereof.

Teams, by the nature of the business, run pretty sophisticated and intensive travel offices; I don't think the position is rightly denominated "administrative." I'm not sure either why you'd claim a traveling secretary isn't a team "executive." She/he has ultimate responsibilty for the aforesaid sophisticated and intensive travel office. She/he's middle to upper-middle management in a baseball franchise -- which is why the position has been on almost all team mastheads for decades before the internet/media saturation age, notwithstanding the effort afoot to reduce the listing to something akin to the team caterer.

Generally speaking, you have the right to use proportionate force to defend yourself against an assault. If someone is so "in your face" that you have a reasonable fear that the person may become physical with you, you have the right to use proportionate force to prevent that from happening.

"Proportionate force" in this instance not including anything physical, as long as they don't get physical with you.

Teams, by the nature of the business, run pretty sophisticated and intensive travel offices; I don't think the position is rightly denominated "administrative." I'm not sure either why you'd claim a traveling secretary isn't a team "executive." She/he has ultimate responsibilty for the aforesaid sophisticated and intensive travel office. She/he's middle to upper-middle management in a baseball franchise --

I have good knowledge only one team but:

1: "pretty sophisticated and intensive travel offices"- yes I could see how it would be logical for an MLB team to have such a thing- the team I;'m familiar with did not (as of 5 years ago)

2: She/he has ultimate responsibilty for the aforesaid sophisticated and intensive travel office.
change responsibility to "blame"

3: She/he's middle to upper-middle management in a baseball franchise
definitely lower-middle management

definitely lower-middle management

Nonetheless, management.

I'm really shocked that no one has yet waded in to say something about "a black man assaults a white man, igniting panic that this is the first step in a massive uprising in which the Negro beats up the white man and steals his woman."

Teams, by the nature of the business, run pretty sophisticated and intensive travel offices;

Yet the Yankees still hired Costanza.

Yet the Yankees still hired Costanza.

And Wilhelm had authority to hire and fire him. :)

...there's a big difference between employees having a shoving match over company perks vs. a subordinate physically attacking one of his supervisors over job performance.

What's the difference between a shoving match and a physical attack? From what I've read, both incidents were remarkably similar regarding the level of physical altercation, both starting as shouting matches with the bigger guy pushing the smaller to the floor.

How we read violent acts depends upon who's acting against whom, for whatever reason. If I punch an equal, the consequences will be less than if I punch my boss. If I punch the President, I'll be lucky if all I get is 10 years in prison. If a drug dealer robs another dealer and kills him he'll be punished less severely than if he robs and kills a prominent citizen.

Even if you think that such outcomes are just and reasonable, they are primarily different because of the social status of the victim. Sociological studies have borne out this fact. Other factors may come into play, but I've yet to see this point refuted, or its irrelevancy successfully argued.