I have no answer to your question, but it's possible they're both telling the truth, in that they could be interpreting the phrase differently. If Wade said, "Get the #### into my office," he may not interpret that as cursing at Chacon, as opposed to, "Get into my office, you ####."

Aw, hell. Whenever I hear someone complain about cursing, I instantly know they just trying to change the subject.

And Chacon will have a hard time getting anyone to believe that he is hurt by cursing. But if he is, how he manages to hang around with pro athletes I can't possibly guess.

Nieporent channeling Clinton. Now I've seen everything. :)

Technically, neither of his examples is even a curse. Although the don't-have-a-leg-to-stand-on someones I referred to will interpret any as such because it suits their purpose of misdirection.

MLBPA has said it will fight houston's decision to cut off chacon's money if he clears waivers, so this will get interesting.

MLBPA has said it will fight houston's decision to cut off chacon's money if he clears waivers, so this will get interesting.

They probably feel they have to so as not to set a precedent or make management think they're getting soft. Give the owners an inch...

Of course they'll fight it, but they shouldn't have much of a case. I hope they don't, at least.

When you agree to work for a company, you agree to work for whoever the company says is your boss, and to take direction from them and treat them with respect. If you don't like it, you can quit. You at least need to act like you respect your boss, even if you don't. It's not like a company picks 50 people and draws straws to see who's in what position. And even if they did, then by choosing to work there you've accepted the conditions.

Among the sort of civilized countries this seems to be part of an attitude peculiar to the United States. Respect is earned. Courtesy, sure. Everyone deserves that, at least initially. But respect, because someone is paying you money? That seems like an odd thing to buy, or sell. By working there you've accepted certain conditions. I'd like to see more people also take the position that by hiring you, your employer also agrees to abide by certain conditions--certainly more conditions than just not treating you like sh!t.

Among the sort of civilized countries this seems to be part of an attitude peculiar to the United States. Respect is earned. Courtesy, sure. Everyone deserves that, at least initially. But respect, because someone is paying you money? That seems like an odd thing to buy, or sell. By working there you've accepted certain conditions. I'd like to see more people also take the position that by hiring you, your employer also agrees to abide by certain conditions--certainly more conditions than just not treating you like sh!t.

He didn't say you have to respect them. He says you have to treat them with respect. I think you're only disagreeing over terms, not behavior.

He didn't say you have to respect them. He says you have to treat them with respect. I think you're only disagreeing over terms, not behavior.

Yes, I was very careful to not say that you have to actually respect them.

Orinco, Nieporent -- perhaps you should wiki the term 'ad hominem'.

But respect, because someone is paying you money?

Long chain all the way back to the world's oldest profession.

You'd better thank Dave Chappelle.

Yes, I was very careful to not say that you have to actually respect them.

True. You're right.

Alex Perros,

Every morning when I awake I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I'm not sure that's right.

talk about clipped balls.

You should have better taste in your philosophers.

ps. For anyone interested in what fatuity passes for thought nowadays, the link is a blast. The schlub couldn't even write three paragraphs without invoking Godwin's. It's mostly a waste of time though.

Orinco, Nieporent -- perhaps you should wiki the term 'ad hominem'.

I can hear the Primer Rodney Dangerfield, "I looked up ad hominem in the dictionary and they had a picture of <insert your least favorite poster here>"

Speaking of the Second Amendment related decision, "infringe" is NOT synonymous with "regulate", yet it often gets treated as such. I wonder why (seriously).

Seriously, anyone who cites Derrick Jensen for any reason other than to mock him has lost all credibility. As big an idiot as Jensen is, anyone who think he has a single worthwhile idea is even stupider. Sadly, this goes for you, Alex Perros...what a fool.

Words of wisdom from Derrick Jensen:

Every morning when I awake I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I'm not sure that's right. I've written books and done activism, but it is neither a lack of words nor activism that is killing salmon here in the Northwest. It's the dams.

Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the dams will stay. Scientists study, politicians and business people lie and delay, bureaucrats hold sham public meetings, activists write letters and press releases, and still the salmon die.

Sadly enough, I'm not alone in my inability or unwillingness to take action. Members of the German resistance to Hitler from 1933 to 1945, for example, exhibited a striking blindness all too familiar: Despite knowing that Hitler had to be removed for a "decent" government to be installed, they spent more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government than attempting to remove him from power.

My god, is this the stupidest man alive? The plight of SALMON justifies dynamiting dams? I suppose this all somehow ties into the need to occasionally beat the tar out of an incompetent boss...but I guess Alex Perros, the only real man with any shred of pride or self-worth among us, can explain that better than I can.

My god.

the only real man with any shred of pride or self-worth among us,

I think this will be someone's new handle.

Salmon act less predictably than many BBTF posters.

Too long a handle. :-(

Still haven't looked up ad hom, huh?

Hint: it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Now that I've had a day to ponder this,

You must have an easy job or a really nice boss.

Chacon looks more and more like a jackass in this situation. He blew it and I can't think of a way to excuse it. I can think of ways of understanding him, but I can't think of a reasonable excuse, especially after seeing Wade's presser. That is a very unimposing man physically.

There is no reasonable excuse. But I think, based on what we have heard, that Wade handled himself abysmally. That said, the chasm between "incompetent and obnoxious" and "criminal and violent" is uh, large.*

My other thought on the situation is that I wish Wal-Mart employees would rise up en masse and tell Drayton McLane to go #### himself.

I agreed with your observation upthread that McLane's word choices in describing this incident were quite revealing.*

*so's your mom

You rang?

That does look pretty funny as a handle.

Impossible to resist, rr

Impossible to resist, rr

...so's your mom.

The handle actually looks funnier to me on the sidebar, although it's kind of funny here, too.

So say something else so it'll be back on the sidebar.

Like what?

The mockery for the clipped balls comment is deserved, and the remainder of the scorn is undoubtedly related. Anything else I've had to say afterwards has been drowned out because of it, and that's my fault. I obviously identified a little too closely with Chacon. Make of it what you will.

But whatever you think of Jensen, and in many ways he fits the bill of looney lefist, the initial idea that I presented is not without merit, and neither is much of the rest of his writing -- a serious consideration of the line where thought should end and action begin.

When, where and how would any of us stood up against Hitler if we had found ourselves in Germany in the '30's and '40's? The analogy with salmon destruction sounds nuts, and the US is not Nazi Germany, despite a long history of government attacks/subversion against activists in our history.

But if we are cowed by our bosses today, isn't that at least one indicator that we would have been good Germans in the past? None of us has faced any of the hardships Germans did before the rise of Hitler, yet many of us are not likely to go as far as signing a union card in a labor-hostile environment or protest in significant ways politically against policies we strongly disagree with. Would any of us here be tax protesters if we found the use of our money morally repugnant?

These questions are as aimed at me as they are at you -- the evidence in my life is that I'd be a good German as long as my own bread continued to be buttered.

Regardless of what you think of Jensen or of me, these are questions well worth thinking about. Draw different conclusions if you will, just don't ignore them as unworthy of consideration. At some point in all our lives, there comes a time to stand up to men more imposing than Ed Wade.

Okay, I haven't paid attention to this thread for 200 or so posts, but how the hell did you people get to equating the decision not to commit eco-terrorism to save salmon and the Third Reich???

Did I miss an appearance on this thread by Ward Churchill or some other nutjob?

Did I miss an appearance on this thread by Ward Churchill or some other nutjob?

Just us everyday BTF nutjobs. Scroll through the pages you've missed and you'll see.

But if we are cowed by our bosses today, isn't that at least one indicator that we would have been good Germans in the past?

This is ####### absurd.

Reading Jensen is a sign that your brain is pretty much fried. He's not much of a philosopher. He is even worse a writer. Derrick Jensen is pretty much beyond attack or defense because there are no logical arguments in his "writings". Mockery, merciless mockery is the only option.

I don't believe the question of whether to use violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you sufficiently feel the loss? So long as we discuss this in the abstract, we still have much to lose. If we begin to feel in our bodies the immensity and emptiness of what we lose daily - intact natural communities, hours sold for wages, childhoods lost to violence, women's capacity to walk unafraid - we'll know precisely what to do.

WTF?

Where did the idea come from that extreme environmentalism (if it can even be dignified by that term) is "leftist"? This back-to-the-trees garbage is just part of the anti-intellectual, anti-science morass in which this country is embroiled, and the enemy of true leftism.

There has always been romantic/mystical anti-scientific leftism at least since the French Revolution. Many early popular labor movements have a little Luddism in them. Sorry, the left still owns the Anarchists.

Mockery, merciless mockery is the only option.

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but mockery.” -- Albert Einstein

-
Is it okay to be a Luddite?

-
My favorite philosopher.

Where did the idea come from that extreme environmentalism (if it can even be dignified by that term) is "leftist"? This back-to-the-trees garbage is just part of the anti-intellectual, anti-science morass in which this country is embroiled, and the enemy of true leftism.

Whatever my objections to Vaux's political proclivities, I give the man credit for being an honest-to-goodness old fashioned working-class leftist. Not like these godawful northwestern treehuggers.

These questions are as aimed at me as they are at you -- the evidence in my life is that I'd be a good German as long as my own bread continued to be buttered.


On the one hand, of course, everyone is like this. Even folks who end up being heroes. The guys who fight at any and all provocation don't last long and fight a lot of unworty, dishonorable battles. They are, in fact, the guys that us "good Germans" wind up needing to fight.

On the other hand, don't sell yourself short. Not knowing anything except that you've lived in the USA during the last half of the 20th century, I'd say you've not yet had a true push comes to shove moment when standing and fighting is so obviously required over a calmer, more diplomatic approach. For all the bad government we've had, we've not had anything like Hitler or Stalin. And fighting a more democratic, legal, moral war of words and ideas has accomplished a lot. The little guy has to pick his battles. Even then he'll lose more often than not but if the little guy fights the big guy and there is the slightest whiff of justice and righteousness on the side of the big guy, the little guy is screwed.

-
The origins of treehugging.

Obviously Chacon's shouldn't be beating down Wade, and I have no idea what Chacon's background is.

I just had a few observations:
1. If my Boss called me into her office during my lunch, I would finish whatever work I was doing with the kids and see her when I was most prepped for the meeting. This is HOW I stay on good terms with my boss.
2. If she demanded that I go in that very second, I'd ask why and if it was a real emergency for what was best for the kids, I'd go. If it was a BS job security issue, I'd call one of the other union reps and tell her I'd need to schedule the meeting for when they could be there.
3. I agree entirely with all of the PSAs playing "Violence is NEVER the answer" but remember not everyone grew up in environments where this is the case. There are plenty of people who grow up in environments where not responding to verbal attacks with physical responses gets you labeled "soft" and getting labeled soft gets you hurt or killed. Until we are doing something to address those situations, we ought to be careful before condemning people's self-preserving behavior.

It's always a good idea to stand up to authority (which probably explains why I'm self-employed), but it's generally a bad idea to physically attack another human being unless you're in imminent, physical danger.

Yes. To think otherwise is to justify the meatheaded adolescent view that the only way to "stand up for yourself" is to kick someone's ass. Macho pride at work.

Reminds me of a News of the Weird item I just read--19 year old woman beat the crap out an elderly woman during a traffic confrontation, and the 19 year old (in all seriousness, apparently) claimed "self-defense." I thought this was kind of funny, but it's amazing how broadly some people define "self-defense;" this completely wrongheaded view's not that uncommon. (Hint: "T1t-for-tat" does not equal "self-defense." And "having your pride wounded" does not equal "imminent danger sufficient to justify 'self-defense.' ")

I think it should be noted that dams are coming down due to peaceful protests and are allowing salmon to run in the rivers. Ore just announced that it was going to remove another one recently (the 8th I believe. They have removed a number in Maine that I know of as well.

C'mon, Eraser. The guy is 30 years old and has been in professional baseball for 12 years. He knew what the drill is. When your manager calls you into his office, you go. When your GM calls you in, you drop everything you're doing and go. Chacon knew very well what was up. He was going to hear some bad news. So he decided to stonewall. That's completely unprofessional behavior.

Chacon has no excuse. None at all. In fact, by not being able to face the music of a private meeting, Chacon was being a selfish, hypersensitive wimp. The guy is not deserving of any respect at all.

I agree 100%, except for the "you drop everything and go" line. If I think it's best for the kids, I'll interrupt my lunch to see my boss, but that's my right to do so, not my obligation. Regardless, not dropping my sandwich is not the same as choking my boss' boss, and I never said anything that would defend Chacon's behavior. I merely made a couple of observations that were triggered by the incident, but I feel likely have no application to the Chacon incident.

Another thing. If people grow up in an environment that is so threatening that they react to negative co-worker interactions with Pavlovian acts of violence, they have no business being around other people, being in a work environment that involves interpersonal contact.

Clearly, I am not discussing "Pavlovian acts of violence", but calculated acts of violence that have been taught as part of a culture of violence. In the case of our society--a culture of violence that our social structure creates. I don't see how been socially trained in an unchosen destructive environment should lead to utter mainstream ostracism. How about empathetic training that gives people the same expertise to work in non-physical environments of conflict that they have developed in physical environments of conflict?

After all, can't you say the same for non-physical sociopathic behavior? "If people grow up in an environment that is so threatening that they respond to actions of dissent with Pavlovian acts of verbal abuse, then they have no business being around other people or working in interpersonal situations, especially in areas such as management?"

Eraser, I'd give what you say plenty of credit were we discussing an 18 year old kid. Clearly, this may become a teaching moment, which may include some discipline in that circumstance.

However, it will lead to full ostracism if you say that anyone who grows up in such an environment is forever and excepted from the broader societal rules of behavior. A 30 year old man who has worked in an industry for 12 years must have grown past his upbringing. If we allow that guy to hark back to his days on the street (and I have no idea if this is true of Chacon or not) then a person of that background will always be allowed to do things like this. If I know that he's going to be given a pass because of his background, I won't let him anywhere near my business.

I agree, it's important to consider upbringing and, ideally, eliminate violent environments completely (can't be done) but it's also important to hold folks from ALL backgrounds to the same standards once they're put in the same place. If it's important for the haves to allow the have-nots "in" (it is) then the have-nots have to do a bit of adapting as well.

If Chacon really did grow up in a violent environment, I'd consider that as evidence that makes me say he may not really be a bad person, but it doesn't excuse what he did or make me want to keep him around.

"If people grow up in an environment that is so threatening that they respond to actions of dissent with Pavlovian acts of verbal abuse, then they have no business being around other people or working in interpersonal situations, especially in areas such as management?"

Whether or not this applies to Chacon vs. Wade, a huge distinction must be made between "verbal abuse" and physical attack.

Stick and stones and all that.

Reading Jensen is a sign that your brain is pretty much fried. He's not much of a philosopher. He is even worse a writer. Derrick Jensen is pretty much beyond attack or defense because there are no logical arguments in his "writings". Mockery, merciless mockery is the only option.

I don't agree with Derrick on most things. I don't see him as a philosopher in the sense I am used to. But I do know him and I know that he's a very good man, and worth a thousand of the likes of you.

Bunyon, I agree completely, and I don't think that Chacon has any excuse. I'm not asking that he or others be given leeway, but rather why so much leeway is given to sociopaths who do not use physical violence as a means to abuse.

Basically, "Sticks and stones..." is ########. After all, broken bones heal, psychological wounds often endure lifelong.

Once again, not a justification for physical abuse, but a simple question of why verbal abuse in the workplace which is not only inhumane, but has been show to hurt productivity is waved off.

You'll notice that in some areas of society, talking smack about another's family is about the worst thing you can do--beyond any physical attack--while in others if you calls someone on it you are told to "quit whining".

Personally, I can handle either without responding in kind, but I don't think anyone should HAVE to. And we should never focus on the "thin-skinnedness" of someone who does speak up about it.

After all, the sociopathic tendencies of verbal abuser should be considered and judged before the reaction of the abused is vilified.

But I do know him and I know that he's a very good man, and worth a thousand of the likes of you.

What's he gonna do?

Awake every morning and ask himself whether he should write or blow up my house? Then tell himself he should keep writing, though he's not sure that's right?

Basically, "Sticks and stones..." is ########. After all, broken bones heal, psychological wounds often endure lifelong.

I agree with this 100%. Maybe more. I don't abhor violence of all kinds. Show me someone verbally abusing someone else and I'm as cool with someone intervening with violence in that case as I am someone intervening in physical abuse with violence. Abuse is abuse and should be treated the same.

And I see what you're saying. Abusers shouldn't be given leeway, no matter what their tool.

J Lowenstein: And who are you to say that who is the greater man? Are you God, given an all knowing eye through which to parse the true nature? You use personal feelings towards Jensen in your evaluation, yet know nothing of the man you attack. This makes you similar in argument to Orinoco. Perhaps Jensen is worth a 1,000 Orinoco (unlikely, as few men are worth more than another), but you are certainly worth no more than Orinoco based on your own argument.

After all, broken bones heal, psychological wounds often endure lifelong.

I think you are wrong. Common law and common sense would agree with me.

The damage from physical attack is much more immediate and serious. Broken bones very often don't heal. In fact, almost 100% of limbs lost in attacks are due to the physical kind. There are a lot more murders through broken neck bones than insults.

To live in a complex and crowded society like ours, it's necessary to let a lot of verbal insults go. If one has to address it, escalating towards violence is almost always unproductive.

In case it wasn't clear, I don't see any evidence that Chacon was verbally abused. I was merely pointing out that verbal abuse isn't <<< physical abuse.

I still don't see anyway to read this situation taht Chacon isn't a huge problem. Wade doesn't look good, nor does Cooper, but 90% of this is on Chacon.

Nice story, but I was really hoping that Chacon was going to choke you at some point.

336:

There has always been romantic/mystical anti-scientific leftism at least since the French Revolution. Many early popular labor movements have a little Luddism in them. Sorry, the left still owns the Anarchists.

Yes, it's well-known that the left defends Blut, Boden und Krieg, is much beholden to religion and mysticism, has opposed technical progress and the Enlightenment right from the get go.

Geez....

How Kevin would have dealt with Chacon over the internet

Kevin: Shawn, you ####### ##########, I am talking to you, you ####### freak.

Chacon: I'll talk later. I'm eating right now. Let me finish.

Kevin: What are you off your meds? I'm Kevin, this can't wait. We have to talk now.

Chacon: I can't right now. I'm eating. We'll talk when I'm done.

Kevin: You mean you're refusing to salute me. who the #### do you think you are, you piece of ####

Chacon: I said I'll meet with you when I'm done eating.

Kevin: (Stares at him intently for a minute.)

Chacon puts Kevin on ignore.

eh, not so funny after reading it again .. oh well.

it is what it is :)

I don't agree with Derrick on most things. I don't see him as a philosopher in the sense I am used to. But I do know him and I know that he's a very good man, and worth a thousand of the likes of you.

Well, I don't know him, so all I can judge him by is his writings. If they accurately reflect his thinking, he isn't a good man; he's also not sane. If they don't, he's not particularly honest, is he?

I also don't know Orinoco (perhaps you do) so I don't know how much he's worth, relative to Jensen, but he's definitely more rational.

kevin,

wade did NOT go up to chacon and calmly say any such thing. the other players who were in the dining room agreed with chacon's version of things

you and i BOTH know that if you ever walked up to any of YOUR subordinates in front of their colleagues and started screaming and swearing at them demanding they stop eating their lunch and go with you now, you would have been fired BEFORE that employee, no matter HOW insubordinate that employee was

you and i BOTH know that the appropriate way for wade to handle it was to go to chacon and say, calmly, that he understood that chacon refused to meet with cooper, was that in fact true? (the boss SHOULD get both sides of the story, right?) what if chacon had said that he had told cooper that he had said he would be HAPPY to meet with cooper in the presence of his union rep and cooper had refused THAT? what if he said that his agent had told him to wait to have any conference until he got to the ballpark?

chacon is not a child and coop/wade is not his parent. and coop is NOT a slave and coop/wade is not his slaveowner.

i do know that chacon's teammates with the astros have said supportive things about him. and when teammates don't like you they do one of those - well, i'm just glad to be here bull durham lines.

ed wade made a complete ass of himself and he sure as heck did NOT earn respect from the other guys.

naw, gr, i giggled.

i've posted before that imho wade is kind of a tool, but it doesn't justify chacon's actions. he was out of line.

isn't there a legal term called 'fighting words'? isn't that the standard for justifying physical contact? i don't think wade came close to that, did he?

isn't there a legal term called 'fighting words'?

Judge Wapner told us that there were no words that justified assault.

bbc, i have to disagree. according to the timeline i've heard, wade was confronting chacon after chacon had already refused a meeting with his superiors once.

even conceding your assertion that wade was verbally abusive (which i don't necessarily), chacon is in the wrong for escalating it to physical contact.

you're right on one thing. if your boss crosses a line of verbal abuse, his job is threatened. but the right response on the part of the employee is not a throwdown. its anybody's guess what happens after that, the company might feel like both of them have to go. there's an injustice here if wade isn't in some kind of trouble with his boss, but chacon still has to go.

i'm still curious about that, joe. any of our lawyers here wanna weigh in? if you are one yourself, my apologies.

I am no lawyer. Apology accepted anyway.

phred,

i have NEVER said that chacon was right to attack wade physically. wade, the way he acted, reminds me of rumplestiltskin jumping up and down after the mother told him his name...

- do we KNOW that chacon refused a meeting with cooper? we know that wade said so. do we KNOW that chacon didn't say he wanted the union rep or his agent present?

but lets say that cooper actually did refuse to meet with cooper. or the pitching coach (who the other pitchers OBVIOUSLY do not like - it ain't just chacon, not by a LONG site)

cooper goes to wade - and NOT to either berkman or the union rep - and remember that this is a club which is not exactly, um, supportive of cooper. really stupid move.

now wade is stuck - he has to do SOMEthing, right?
- first, he should be thinking of the smart way to deal with the fact that cooper just alienated the team even more. he COULD have told cooper to go talk to the union rep or even oswalt or brocail or ausmus, you know, who COULD have run interference with chacon. remember, the other guys in the clubhouse LIKE chacon. he's no mitch melusky.
- second, his objective should be THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TEAM - to persuade chacon to go to the bullpen because fact is that there really is NOT any guy in the minors who can be that second long guy, right, and the best interest of the team is to have chacon in the pen, not someone who is an even worse pitcher?

so, do you really think that wade confronting chacon in the lunchroom in front of his teammates was something that a good executive should do? do you think that jumping up and down and hurling curse words like that was a smart thing to do?

- answer - it was NOT. a 52 year old man with short man syndrome waving his ding dong around does NOT exactly command respect.

maybe i should put it this way - do you think harvey's walbangers, a guy who don't take nothin from nobody, who believes that respect should be EARNED (outside of the military) would have acted that way if he was in wade's shoes? nope.

and do you think that this entire episode increased/decreased players' respect of the manager?

do you think that this entire episode increased/decreased players' respect of wade?

do you think that this entire episode increased/decreased top FA players' interest in signing with the astros? do you think that agents of non-desperate players are gonna look forward to working with someone like wade? a guy who made the Organization look bad? a guy who is being laughed at in the national press?

but lets say that cooper actually did refuse to meet with cooper

nice trick. but i know what you meant.

:-)

look ... bbc ... my answer to all of this obsession with ed wade's shortcomings as a supervisor is 'so what?' its interesting, but its irrelevant. i've said more than once that i believe ed wade is a poor executive. its not a justification for chacon's behavior. period. for every scenario you want to paint that puts a favorable spin on chacon, i could counter with one for wade. how 'bout chacon refuses to meet with cooper, who tromps back to his office, to find wade there waiting for the two of them? and wade says 'hey, where is he?' what's cooper supposed to say then? i don't know or care if it shook out that way. chacon was wrong to knock the man down. i had an earlier query about wade maybe using 'fighting words'. i'd like to know if that is a possibility. frankly i doubt it.

you've made your point. the place is dysfunctional. we know that. the discussion is about the merits of chacon's actions.

you and i BOTH know that the appropriate way for wade to handle it was to go to chacon and say, calmly, that he understood that chacon refused to meet with cooper, was that in fact true? (the boss SHOULD get both sides of the story, right?) what if chacon had said that he had told cooper that he had said he would be HAPPY to meet with cooper in the presence of his union rep and cooper had refused THAT? what if he said that his agent had told him to wait to have any conference until he got to the ballpark?

What if Chacon had said any of these things? What if I told the senior partner at my firm that I wasn't going to a meeting unless my wife could be present? What if I told a judge that I didn't feel like rising when he entered the room? What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo? Why do you think that there's another "side" to the story? Cooper told Chacon to come meet with him. Since when does Chacon get to refuse?

chacon is not a child and coop/wade is not his parent. and coop is NOT a slave and coop/wade is not his slaveowner.

No, Chacon is an employee, and cooper/wade are his bosses.

So...Shawn Chacon:History's greatest monster
Manny Ramirez:Metrosexual having a bad day

I'm just goofin. I understand why the two are being treated differently. One more reason that it's sad George Carlin is gone now.

Fighting words ruling

The lawyers will need to tell us if this ruling has been modified since then.

- do we KNOW that chacon refused a meeting with cooper?

Yes.

we know that wade said so.

We know that Chacon said so. RTFA.

do we KNOW that chacon didn't say he wanted the union rep or his agent present?

Yes. RTFA. But if he did say that, why do you think that would excuse him?

"Come into to my office; we need to talk."
"No. I want my agent present."

Sorry, but that's not a legitimate response.

but lets say that cooper actually did refuse to meet with cooper. or the pitching coach (who the other pitchers OBVIOUSLY do not like - it ain't just chacon, not by a LONG site)

cooper goes to wade - and NOT to either berkman or the union rep - and remember that this is a club which is not exactly, um, supportive of cooper. really stupid move.

You think that a supervisor going to one of his employees and saying, "This co-worker of yours is defying my orders; could you try to get him to listen to me?" is the right way to handle a disciplinary problem? (Yes, if an employee is doing a bad job, sometimes you can drop a subtle hint to him to shape up by speaking to one of his co-workers. But if an employee is openly defiant, admitting to another employee that you can't control him is not an effective management technique.)

phred,

sigh

ok let me do this WITHOUT it seeming like there is any favorable spin on chacon. lets suppose that no question about it that chacon disrespected BOTH the pitching coach and the manager and told cooper he refused to meet with him. period. he's sulking like a little kid who don't WANNA put away his toys and he don't see WHY does he hafta?????????

now cooper has a problem and wade, the BOSS has a problem. no question.

- but it is wade's job to SOLVE the problem and him being the boss is supposed to do what will benefit the the Astros baseball club, the current group of players - getting them to play well, and supporting the manager. correct? or do you think the best solution is simply to throw chacon off the team instead of doing your best to persuade him to be a good boy and help out by relieving - and the reason they wanted him to relieve instead of releasing him/sending him down was that they thought he could help the team in the bullpen. drayton is cheap, but he is not THAT cheap and they have cut some not performing players before. yeah he would have had to eat about a mill, but that is really pocket change to the team

wade ONLY succeeded in making everything worse. he did the worst job a boss could possibly do for EVERYONE. except the opposing teams.

- sort of like if one of my kidz announces he won't go to bed. now i could take some sort of heavy object and beat his brains out then throw him on the bed. well, it got him in bed all right, but it was the worst possible solution, wouldn't you say?

and that is about what wade accomplished.

but it is wade's job to SOLVE the problem

He did solve the problem. He solved it in exactly the same way that virtually any boss in any industry would - by firing the guy who acted like Chacon did.

do you think the best solution is simply to throw chacon off the team

Yes.

sort of like if one of my kidz announces he won't go to bed. now i could take some sort of heavy object and beat his brains out then throw him on the bed. well, it got him in bed all right, but it was the worst possible solution, wouldn't you say?

Chacon isn't a kid. He's an adult, and an employee of the organization. He didn't get his brains beaten out, he got fired, like any other employee would if he acted like that.

- sort of like if one of my kidz announces he won't go to bed. now i could take some sort of heavy object and beat his brains out then throw him on the bed. well, it got him in bed all right, but it was the worst possible solution, wouldn't you say?

But one of your proposed solutions would be something like this, if I'm understanding your previous post:
"Barry, be a honey and go talk to Lamar about going to bed. I can't seem to get through to him." Those are your kids names, right? :)
A minute later ...
"Mommy, Lamar says you're mean and I think he's got a point. I'm not going to bed either."

Look, I don't think Wade comes out very well here. I gave my thoughts on how he should have proceeded much earlier. Ultimately, as GM, it might have come down to calling security if Chacon can only respond petulantly.

As far as the betterment of the team, perhaps getting rid of Chacon without having to pay him (Not a foregone conclusion) might be the best thing anyway.

reading what zielinski forwarded, i wonder if wade's words could be narrowly construed as fighting words. there seems to be conflicting stories about what he said to chacon.

for instance, if he said words like 'look in the f-ing mirror', addressing chacon's status with the club, i don't think chacon has justification.

but if wade said something like 'look in the mirror, you miserable f-', etc. ... well ... i could be swayed. maybe.

Fighting words ruling

The lawyers will need to tell us if this ruling has been modified since then.

Two different issues. Chaplinsky and its progeny held that words likely to cause a breach of the peace aren't protected by the First Amendment. So, if you come up to me and utter words likely to cause me to attack you, the state can punish you for inciting a breach of the peace without running afoul of the First Amendment. If I, in fact, do attack you, that you said bad things to me (generally; I don't pretend to be familiar with the law in all jurisdictions) doesn't excuse my actions; I've still assaulted you.

david,

you are not in a union. and i do believe a union employee has the right to have the union rep with him at management meetings.

i have RTFA and a WHOLE lot of other FA too. and talked to a few people. and the fact is that the players agree with chacon's version.

but this is still not really addressing the point.

the point is that wade had to deal with a problem after cooper made chacon into wade's problem.

actually i agree with you that chacon is the employee and wade is the boss. so if wade marches up to chacon and starts screaming and cussin him out right there in front of his teammates while chacon is eating lunch, no matter WHAT chacon does/says, what effect do you think it will have on the other players? (hint - a very bad one).

do you SERIOUSLY think this was an intelligent decision by a senior executive? regardless of whether or not chacon should have said - yassuh massah sah with his mouth full?

as for what wade SHOULD have done, i've already said. FIRST, not make a bad situation incredibly worse than it already was. which he did.

- as for you personally
i would bet that if your senior partner walked up to you when you were sitting and eating lunch with your co workers and started screaming at you and cussing you telling you to **** lunch and leave with him/her NOW,
well, i would bet that you would tell that supervisor - my resignation from this firm will be on your desk in 1 hour and a complaint filed with the state bar by the end of this business day.
- and you would have another job before the week was out. because with your brains i bet there are a LOT of firms who would trip all OVAH themself to get someone like you. i can't speak for kevin but i personally have a very VERY high respect for your lawyer abilities. as well as your brainz

unfortunately, baseball players do not have freedom, like you do, to resign from their job and go get another one, do they?

baseball chick,

sigh

(kinda irritating, isn't it?) ... you're still bringing up tangential issues. wade's 'solution' and yours differs. maybe you'd be a better gm. but i bet chacon still wouldn't be pitching for you at the end of the day, and that would benefit the astros.

others are making my arguments better than i can. you should read them carefully and quit obsessing over wade's inadequacies. they aren't the issue, unless maybe, maybe, there's an opening in the matter of 'fighting words'.

the point is that wade had to deal with a problem after cooper made chacon into wade's problem.

Actually, by refusing to meet with Cooper/Wade, Chacon made Chacon into Wade's (further) problem. Once again, what exactly did Cooper do wrong?

so if wade marches up to chacon and starts screaming and cussin him out right there in front of his teammates while chacon is eating lunch, no matter WHAT chacon does/says, what effect do you think it will have on the other players? (hint - a very bad one).

What effect do you think it had on the other players when Chacon showed up the front office in front of all of his teammates? It is one thing for Lance Berkman to be arrogant. At least he's a star. His teammates can understand why he would get away with such behaviour (even if they were annoyed by it).

But Shawn Chacon? In the words of Al Borlan: "I don't think so Tim". If you are one of the three worst guys on the team, one of your key jobs is to stay quiet and hope that nobody notices you stink. Choking out the general manager problem isn't a good way to achieve this central objective.

unfortunately, baseball players do not have freedom, like you do, to resign from their job and go get another one, do they?

They don't have the freedom to resign from their multi-million dollar salaries? The horror...the horror...

Edit: I have no clue if Lance Berkman is arrogant. Although I suspect that he's not, I can guarantee you that I would be if I got paid like him.

unfortunately, baseball players do not have freedom, like you do, to resign from their job and go get another one, do they?

Yes they do. They can retire at any time and seek any job outside of U.S./Canada professional baseball.

If you suck, like Chacon, you could certainly get out of your contract at any time, and see if any other team wants you.

unfortunately, baseball players do not have freedom, like you do, to resign from their job and go get another one, do they?

oh dear. where to start? he sure as he11 has the freedom to resign. too bad he doesn't have quite the level of alternatives he would want based on his previous job history. that is, the choice of another multi-million $$$ contract. but that's on him. baseball doesn't owe him anything. he should have thought a little more strategically. from end to end, chacon has shown a shocking inability to see where his bread is buttered. okay, i'm sure anybody would reach a point where they won't stand for a certain level of treatment, no matter the compensation. but then you walk. you don't throttle your boss in front of everybody.

It is one thing for Lance Berkman to be arrogant. At least he's a star.

This is a good point, and one I have been thinking about for a while. When your coaches or manager has a problem with Lance Berkman, you find a way to solve it. When its Chacon, you release him. The minute Chacon refuses to meet with anyone, be it the manager, the coach, or the GM, you release him. I suppose it would have been better for Wade to calmly release him, rather than yell at him and release him, but its not much of a difference either way.

unfortunately, baseball players do not have freedom, like you do, to resign from their job and go get another one, do they?

Actually they do. There is Japan, there is Mexico, there are the independent leagues.

A major decrease in pay, perhaps. But there are options.

What if Chacon had said any of these things? What if I told the senior partner at my firm that I wasn't going to a meeting unless my wife could be present? What if I told a judge that I didn't feel like rising when he entered the room? What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo? Why do you think that there's another "side" to the story? Cooper told Chacon to come meet with him. Since when does Chacon get to refuse?

As BBC points out, he perfectly does have the right to answer for a union rep present. I'm surprised you don't know that.

383:

It's an odd doctrine. It sanctions some words or phrases because they breach the peace and motivate others to commit the crime of assault. It thus treats the assault as an intelligible and probable response to the fighting words uttered without also excusing the assault.

So, individuals are permitted to physically defend themselves against physical attack but not verbal attack.

As BBC points out, he perfectly does have the right to answer for a union rep present. I'm surprised you don't know that.

And Wade has the right to release a ballplayer, at any time. Now, Wade may still have to pay his salary under those circumstances, but he could still kick him off the team.

392 - It doesn't strike me as particularly odd. If someone insults you in a sufficiently vile manner, the law punishes the insulter, but expects you to take the high road in response.

394:

What strikes me as odd, I suppose, is that the doctrine demands virtuous behavior from the insulted while also treating the assault response as 'normal.' It seemingly needs the assault response to make the doctrine as a whole necessary.

S.Z: Assuming you're linking to Chaplinksy (too lazy to check), it hasn't been formally overruled, but it has almost certainly been substantially narrowed at this point. (Calling a police officer a "god damned racketeer" and a "damned fascist" is really not going to get too many cops riled up nowadays. Giggling, perhaps.) Now, if you yell a racial slur in someone's face on a public street, you may still run afoul of Chaplinsky.

Note, however, that the so-called "fighting words doctrine" of Chaplinksy does not say, "If someone says this to you, you're allowed to punch him." It says that the government can prosecute the person who uses fighting words, for breach of the peace.

Re Fighting words doctrine:

Haven't read through all the responses yet, but the "fighting words" doctrine has no relevance to this situation. It's a Constitutional Law principle, not a criminal or tort law one. The idea is that "fighting words" - i.e. words that "by their very utterance inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace" (from Chaplinsky, though I'm quoting from memory) - are unprotected speech and therefore not covered by 1st Amendment protections.

But of course this only relates to the government's attempt to prosecute someone for their speech, e.g. perhaps prosecuting those Westboro Baptist Church goons for inciting a breach of the peace through their words. In practice it's a dead doctrine: it hasn't been overturned by the Supreme Court, but the court has NEVER upheld a "fighting words" conviction since 1942. No "fighting words" statute could ever survive the Court's subsequent narrowing of the Chaplinsky decision.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the Wade/Chacon situation, not the least reason being that the fighting words doctrine would theoretically only be used as a charge against the guy saying the inflammatory words, not as an affirmative defense for the guy who responds to them. Wade could have called Chacon all sorts of vile names, and Chacon would still be technically liable in civil or criminal court for his subsequent assault and battery on Wade. Practically speaking, however, if I were Chacon's defense lawyer in such a situation I would try to get him in front of a jury...assuming the facts were presented sympathetically enough, there's a good chance the jury wouldn't convict (the other side would also probably try to settle before it got to that). Also, I could think of a number of counterclaims (in a civil trial) or affirmative defenses (in a criminal one) to attempt. But that's neither here nor there, especially because here in the real world (as opposed to legal maneuvering in court) I think Chacon is a guilty sonofabitch and deserves everything coming to him.

Damn, and like 30 different people answered the same question as I was writing that.

i have RTFA and a WHOLE lot of other FA too. and talked to a few people. and the fact is that the players agree with chacon's version.

Well, you asked whether we knew whether Chacon had refused to meet with Cooper, and you implied that this was Wade's version of events. In the FA, Chacon himself tells the story that way:

According to Chacon, he was in the dining room after batting practice when Cooper asked him to come to his office.

"I said, 'What do you want to speak to me about?' " Chacon said. "He said, 'We just want to talk to you.' I said, 'Anything you can say, you can say to me right here. I don't want to go to the office.' He looked at me, and I said, 'There's nothing for me to say to you guys.' And I don't think whatever they had to say to me they were going to make me happy. I didn't want to get in a closed-room conversation."

you are not in a union. and i do believe a union employee has the right to have the union rep with him at management meetings.

You may have a right to have a union representative with you if there's a meeting involving a disciplinary issue. You don't have the right to refuse to meet with your boss for routine business purposes without a union rep. Whether Chacon is going to be in the starting rotation or bullpen is not union business.

thanks anyway esoteric, i think yours was the most comprehensive, and it satisfies my skepticism that chacon had any kind of defense for his actions.

- as for you personally
i would bet that if your senior partner walked up to you when you were sitting and eating lunch with your co workers and started screaming at you and cussing you telling you to **** lunch and leave with him/her NOW, well, i would bet that you would tell that supervisor - my resignation from this firm will be on your desk in 1 hour and a complaint filed with the state bar by the end of this business day.

Complaint for what? The "my boss was mean to me" section of the Code of Professional Responsibility? I don't think so. There's no rule that says that employers must be nice; there are attorneys who would make Ed Wade on his worst day look like a shrinking violet.

If that happened to me, I could resign, of course. I could laugh it off. Then again, if I deserved it -- as I would if I had just blown off both a junior partner's orders and a senior partner's orders because I felt like it -- then I wouldn't have time to type my resignation, because I'd be out on my ass already.

Just to reiterate: according to Chacon, Wade cursed at him after (a) Cooper told him to come into his office and Chacon refused, and (b) Wade came over and told him to come to the office and he refused again. That's Chacon's own version of events. At that point, anybody not in a union would be looking through Craigslist for another job.

If Chacon needed any more proof that his actions were weird and wrong and upset the normal way of things, I'd like to point out that Kevin and Nieporent are essentially agreeing with each other. Bizarre.

david,

chacon had ALREADY been informed that he had been removed from the rotation before the confrontation with ed wade - it was what started him behaving badly 5 days earlier. so it was more likely to be something disciplinary, don't you think?
- and wade started off the "conversation" screaming and cursing. it didn't start off calmly by anyone's story but his. which is why i said that the senior partner talking to you like that wasn't gonna happen. and if you worked at a place where you couldn't get along with the bosses, you would have resigned and gotten another job AND a job as a lawyer, not working in the day care/cleaning hotels along with the rest of us menial laborers.

but you guys are really not getting this because you are only thinking about chacon's RESPONSE to ed wade.

you seem to think things were wonderful betwen the players and manager and the pitchers and the pitching coach and chacon was the only problem. you are wrong. there is a good reason why the manager runs to complain to the GM instead of getting help from the team leaders.

there is a serious problem with this team - and chacon's insubordination is only a very small part. you don't think there is a damm good reason why the players are on chacon's side in this thing?

are you really seriously thinking that now that chacon is gone suddenly the players all respect either the manager or pitching coach, let alone the GM? do you really think things are suddenly better? i don't give a **** if they got lucky and managed to beat the red sux. things are a LOT worse, not a lot better.

ed wade is supposed to handle problems MAKE THINGS BETTER, not make things worse.

he had to make a decision - did he want chacon on or off the team?

if he wanted him off, he ALREADY had more than enough grounds for suspension and if he wanted more, AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE MORE TROUBLE, all he had to do was something very simple, such as calling chacon's agent and tell him that chacon refused to speak to the manager or pitching coach and that the agent better call chacon and tell him that there was a meeting between chacon, himself and the manager in 30 minutes and if chacon didn't show, he's be suspended. or he could go to chacon, in front of the other guys, and say, shawn, i want you to come and meet with coop and me now/in 20 minutes/whatever in his office and if you are not there, you will be suspended without pay immediately, THEN LEAVE.

but fact is that they didn't want chacon off the team, they wanted him to stay and pitch in the bullpen and stop acting like a 3 year old whoses mami wouldn't give him brother's toy.

- so, tell me, did ed accomplish ANYTHING helpful? answer - no, he made things a lot LOT worse for this year's team and future teams. now everyone knows that the players disrespect the manager. now everyone is sneering at ed for acting like a nincompoop.

there are smart ways to go about going and getting what you want in the end and ed wade did the stupidest thing possible because he wanted MOST to wave his little weenie around and tell chacon to suck it in front of his boys because that is how his idiot mind thinks. he knew damm good and well that if he came in and started yelling/cursing at chacon like that it wasn't going to get him anywheres. if he really thought that yelling and cursing at shawn was gonna get a yassuh massah i come with you massah sah - response, he has zero understanding of human beings of ANY sort.

------

as for the whole - oh chacon makes 2 million, like so freaking what does that have to do with the fact that he does not have the freedom to resign that job and get another position in his field? how would YOU like it if you wanted to change companies and you could never get a job in any other company in something you had got trained in - like you couldn't practice law anywhere, just be a legal secretary and bring the boss coffee and type or whatever they do for rookie ball salary. because that is what it is like.

now WHY does it matter whether or not chacon gets million of mcdonalds money? you think that if a person is paid something he immediately loses his rights? so much for "liberal" you want to go back to the old slave system where the team OWNS a man and has the right to treat him in any way as they please. and no WAY in freaking heck does your bosses boss approach you like that no matter WHAT was the problem between you and your immediate superior.

----

edmundo darling,

barry and lamar is the dog. understandable misuunderstanding.

and yes, i certainly WOULD use #1 son to get #2 son to comply. in fact, it works incredibly well. mamis is tricky that way.

you say - boo you need to explain to your brother that if you TWO don't go to bed right this minute, then you TWO just forget going with me to galveston tomorrow AND you stay with nana which means NO tv and you BOTH gotta take a nap.

if he don't jump to it, i tell him that baby brother gets to go to the game with me and they don't.

hehhehhehhehheh

i am a meannnnnn mami.

and, by the way, if coop was any sort of manager instead of a boob he would have used berkman/oswalt/brocail - and all those guys really like chacon - to get him to wise his ass

chacon had ALREADY been informed that he had been removed from the rotation before the confrontation with ed wade - it was what started him behaving badly. so it was more likely to be something disciplinary, don't you think?

Or more likely that trade request.

And Wade has the right to release a ballplayer, at any time. Now, Wade may still have to pay his salary under those circumstances, but he could still kick him off the team.

Sure. I agree entirely.

What business is it of the union how the Houston Astros deploy Chacon's services? If Chacon is getting shelled, and Cooper goes out to the mound to replace him, does Chacon just stand there and refuse to leave until a union rep is there to speak on his behalf?

If the employer doesn't articulate whether it is a disciplinary issue, you have every right to demand that a rep be present. Otherwise, why would an employer ever warn you before a disciplinary meeting?

406:

If the employer doesn't articulate whether it is a disciplinary issue, you have every right to demand that a rep be present. Otherwise, why would an employer ever warn you before a disciplinary meeting?

And if you suspect that you're going to an unannounced disciplinary meeting, well, that's why they make those pocket recorders!

Just to reiterate: according to Chacon, Wade cursed at him after (a) Cooper told him to come into his office and Chacon refused, and (b) Wade came over and told him to come to the office and he refused again.

You forgot (c) Chacon directly told Wade that whatever he had to say to Chacon, he should say it right there in the cafeteria.

wade started off the "conversation" screaming and cursing.

Did you read the article? Because that doesn't jibe with what it says Chacon said happened.

Regardless, Chacon had a reasonable expectation that the meeting in Cooper's office was going to have disciplinary ramifications, and he was correct. Otherwise, as it says in the FA, why would Wade speak "sternly" to Chacon? I know that in my job, when a boss tells me to come to his or her office "sternly", I say "sure, as soon as I find a steward to represent me." As soon as Wade spoke to Chacon "sternly", it became a union issue.

Chacon blew it by assaulting Wade. That was dumb.

411:

That's one of the reasons to have a union: To have a related witness (deterrent/representative) present when a boss wants to set an employee straight about something.

kevin,

once more - chacon had ALREADY been told he had been pulled from the rotation 4 DAYS before the "conversation" in the cafeteria. therefore, the conversation in cooper's office could NOT have been about telling chacon that he had been pulled from the rotation.

why do you think he had ALREADY had his agent tell wade that he wanted a trade? why do you think he had ALREADY told the media that he wanted a trade???????

- please remember that i live here in houston. i hear a LOT of stuff. and wade had the redass when he came in to talk to chacon from the beginning. most stuff that happens stays in the clubhouse, but that didn't not by a LONG shot. the players are not suddenly respecting either cooper or wade here.

and yeh, chacon blew it by assaulting wade - it WAS dumb. and wade blew it by the way he decided to handle things. now, instead of having a good long reliever in the pen, we have nobody. real smart eddie. you and your limp little weenie.

and i'm finding out that wade is not exactly well liked in the GM community and i would not be surprised at all if chacon gets picked up by another team before the ASB.

oh, what the he11, i'll take a crack at this.

chacon had ALREADY been informed that he had been removed from the rotation before the confrontation with ed wade - it was what started him behaving badly 5 days earlier. so it was more likely to be something disciplinary, don't you think?

maybe. or more like he was getting sent down, or released or getting a dressing down. that happens in managers' offices all the time. chacon was ducking it. he should have faced the music.

- and wade started off the "conversation" screaming and cursing. it didn't start off calmly by anyone's story but his.

um, could it also be players circling the wagons in an entirely understandable way? forgive me if i'm just a tad skeptical.

which is why i said that the senior partner talking to you like that wasn't gonna happen. and if you worked at a place where you couldn't get along with the bosses, you would have resigned and gotten another job AND a job as a lawyer, not working in the day care/cleaning hotels along with the rest of us menial laborers.

covered this before. he can get other jobs as a ballplayer. too bad if they don't pay millions. but they are out there, and it's on chacon to be aware of his options.

but you guys are really not getting this because you are only thinking about chacon's RESPONSE to ed wade.

because his response is all out of proportion to the alleged provocation.

you seem to think things were wonderful betwen the players and manager and the pitchers and the pitching coach and chacon was the only problem. you are wrong.

who said that? not me. you are lumping me with 'you guys.' i didn't say that. you are wrong.

there is a good reason why the manager runs to complain to the GM instead of getting help from the team leaders.

couple of things wrong here. we don't know the exact chain that lead to wade walking up to chacon. as i posited hypothetically earlier, wade may have been waiting in cooper's office for chacon and cooper. that's just one possibility. and, as someone else pointed out, going to the team leaders on this isn't necessarily good management. it's just your idea of good management, perfectly reasonable, but not the only solution.

there is a serious problem with this team - and chacon's insubordination is only a very small part. you don't think there is a damm good reason why the players are on chacon's side in this thing?

oy vey. nobody is denying this. okay, they don't like wade (according to you) but its a leap to say the players are all lined up with chacon over this. and even if they are, its to be expected considering the general tendencies in management/labor squabbles.

are you really seriously thinking that now that chacon is gone suddenly the players all respect either the manager or pitching coach, let alone the GM? do you really think things are suddenly better? i don't give a **** if they got lucky and managed to beat the red sux. things are a LOT worse, not a lot better.

no doubt. again, that's not the issue.

ed wade is supposed to handle problems MAKE THINGS BETTER, not make things worse.

according to who? define 'make things better'. win games? seems like demoting chacon would trend towards that.

he had to make a decision - did he want chacon on or off the team?

if he wanted him off, he ALREADY had more than enough grounds for suspension and if he wanted more, AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE MORE TROUBLE, all he had to do was something very simple, such as calling chacon's agent and tell him that chacon refused to speak to the manager or pitching coach and that the agent better call chacon and tell him that there was a meeting between chacon, himself and the manager in 30 minutes and if chacon didn't show, he's be suspended. or he could go to chacon, in front of the other guys, and say, shawn, i want you to come and meet with coop and me now/in 20 minutes/whatever in his office and if you are not there, you will be suspended without pay immediately, THEN LEAVE.

excellent. much better way to handle it. ed wade is a dummy. chacon is still wrong to strangle him and throw him to the ground. that's been the thrust of the thread.

but fact is that they didn't want chacon off the team, they wanted him to stay and pitch in the bullpen and stop acting like a 3 year old whoses mami wouldn't give him brother's toy.

good description of chacon's behavior. yet he still gets a pass for jumping his boss? now you're making my argument.

- so, tell me, did ed accomplish ANYTHING helpful? answer - no, he made things a lot LOT worse for this year's team and future teams. now everyone knows that the players disrespect the manager. now everyone is sneering at ed for acting like a nincompoop.

they were doing that before. again, what's it got to do with anything?

there are smart ways to go about going and getting what you want in the end and ed wade did the stupidest thing possible because he wanted MOST to wave his little weenie around and tell chacon to suck it in front of his boys because that is how his idiot mind thinks. he knew damm good and well that if he came in and started yelling/cursing at chacon like that it wasn't going to get him anywheres. if he really thought that yelling and cursing at shawn was gonna get a yassuh massah i come with you massah sah - response, he has zero understanding of human beings of ANY sort.

this massah stuff is beneath you. you're coloring (sorry for the pun) this in some way that satisfies an animus that is beside the point in the discussion. chacon getting up and going to cooper's office isn't a submission to a flogging.

------

as for the whole - oh chacon makes 2 million, like so freaking what does that have to do with the fact that he does not have the freedom to resign that job and get another position in his field? how would YOU like it if you wanted to change companies and you could never get a job in any other company in something you had got trained in - like you couldn't practice law anywhere, just be a legal secretary and bring the boss coffee and type or whatever they do for rookie ball salary. because that is what it is like.

oh brother. covered this before. he's a crummy pitcher. baseball doesn't owe him anything besides the terms of his contract, which he's jeopardized by his behavior.

now WHY does it matter whether or not chacon gets million of mcdonalds money? you think that if a person is paid something he immediately loses his rights? so much for "liberal" you want to go back to the old slave system where the team OWNS a man and has the right to treat him in any way as they please. and no WAY in freaking heck does your bosses boss approach you like that no matter WHAT was the problem between you and your immediate superior.

ok, nevermind.