User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3091 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Dan Posted: May 01, 2012 at 12:01 AM (#4120430)Whoever wrote that is almost certainly wrong. The relevant case is the Padres attempts to break LaMarr Hoyt's contract. You might be able to find the arbitrator's comments on the case online, since Nicolau did write an article on discipline in sport.
What is clear from what I have handy is that it can't be selective. If you can convince an arbitrator that you'd want to void (say) Prince Fielder's contract for a similar action you'd have a chance. But I'm doubtful you could convince an arbitrator.
Found some quotes from Nicolau. The most important being, "Significant disparity of treatment also creates uncertainity in the administration . . . at a time when the need is for an integrated, consistent and rational system." and "San Diego did not carefully weight all the facts as just cause requires. It simply decided, irrespective of the circumstances, that its unwritten policy, as interpreted by (Ex-Padre President Ballard) Smith, would prevail."
They tried and failed.
Yep. Which in some scenarios (e.g. Young discipline vs. Miggy non-discipline) is completely crazy.
I guess if they have a chance to get someone like Johnny Damon if he opts out it may make some sense to use the money saved from Delmon to get him. Or if a trade pops up from a team looking to dump a guy for money reasons. But they're trying to win a championship and right now Delmon Young is one of the 25 best players on their team, and I don't think Mike Ilitch cares about wasting money that much.
Beat me to it!
Last season Delmon Young was worth 0.4 WAR. His only "good" year in 2010 was worth all of 1.8 WAR. In the 2 years prior to that his WAR was -0.6 and -0.9.
It's not clear that he's a better player than Don Kelly or Clete Thomas or whatever other filler they've got lying around. And they're paying him nearly $7M for this "production".
Shouldn't the notion of "hate crime" be considered a violation of free speech?
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the concept of a "hate crime" is based on the motive of the defendant, not the speech itself. The speech can be used as evidence of the motive, but it is not the speech that is being prosecuted.
Imagine if a white ball player was arrested for assault after yelling ####### NIGGERS in public.
Clete Thomas is a Twin.
I kinda agree, but I'm just saying they're thin on talent, Young still has potential to help you win, I don't think they care that much about the money or they wouldn't have tendered him last winter in the first place. Its not like he's a huge clubhouse cancer (is he?). Unless this incident makes it more trouble than its worth with people picketing Comerica or something, I don't see why they'd let him go.
If that's the case, then I'd love to know if "hate crimes" receive harsher penalties than similar crimes committed that do not have "hate crime" associated with them. If "hate crimes" get more jail time than the comparable "regular" crime, then you're penalizing differently based on speech.
No, you're penalizing differently based on motive.
You're penalizing differently based on motive. I can see why one would object to that -- "hate thought" (or "biased thought") is not a crime, so should crimes that are based in hate/bias be punished differently than ordinary crimes? But I don't think it's a problem from a freedom of speech perspective. Your words can be used as evidence against you, and this should not be surprising.
Delmon Young burst out in a spontaneous diatribe that lasted a minute or two. John Rocker gave an interview where he went into a lot more details about the bee in his bonnet, with full opportunity to think before spewing. You can agree or disagree about the two punishments, but these aren't identical cases, any more than your use of a disparaging term for gays on an internet forum is the same thing as what Young or Rocker did.
Imagine if a white ball player was arrested for assault after yelling ####### NIGGERS in public.
He'd have about the same bright future in baseball as Delmon Young has right now.
Well failed is the wrong word I think. The Rockies released Neagle. There was a grievance filed, and (as is typical of Das) the arbitrator encouraged the sides to negotiate. They reached a settlement for an amount that to my knowledge has never been confirmed but is generally believed to be about 90% of what Neagle was owed. This is what happened with the Orioles and Alan Wiggins (whose contract had language about future drug problems)
What this tells me is that (as God implies in #5) nobody's absolutely certain how things would play out, but the prevailing belief seems to be that if push comes to shove the arbitrator would side with the player.
All of this seems right to me. I guess we do give stiffer sentences based on motive, e.g. "I ran over him because I was trying to get home and didn't pay attention", vs. "I ran over him because he was ugly".
Would we give a stiffer sentence to the "I hate Jews" offender, or to the "I hate ugly people" offender?
I was using the words Rocker himself used.
First of all, I haven't seen that detail anywhere, so please share the source. Secondly, is that supposed to exonerate him in some way? If he was playing baseball completely shitfaced and threw his bat at the umpire, would it have lessened his suspension, or increased it?
First of all, I haven't seen that detail anywhere, so please share the source.
<a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/detroit_slugger_delmon_young_busted_qabDrrRJ45eBxoay6qou1O?utm_medium=rss&utm_c>The $6.5 million outfielder was so drunk that he had to be hospitalized after his arrest.</a>
Physical attractiveness is not a protected class as far as I know.
Delmon Young burst out in a spontaneous diatribe that lasted a minute or two. John Rocker gave an interview where he went into a lot more details about the bee in his bonnet, with full opportunity to think before spewing. You can agree or disagree about the two punishments, but these aren't identical cases, any more than your use of a disparaging term for gays on an internet forum is the same thing as what Young or Rocker did..
I was using the words Rocker himself used.
Then you should have put quotation marks around the offending word ("queer"), because otherwise there's no way to know whether or not you shared his sentiment. This is especially the case when you appear to be portraying Rocker as being a victim of some sort of a double standard.
Would we give a stiffer sentence to the "I hate Jews" offender, or to the "I hate ugly people" offender?
I would think the sentence for the same crime should be the same regardless of motive. If I contract a hit on someone because I hate them, and the hit-man does it for money, we both get 1st degree murder, even though our motives are very different.
The issue that these laws mean to address is the cascading social effects of hate crimes. If racial or sexual minorities are particularly targeted for violence, even low-level violence, this limits their ability to participate fully in society. The little bit of oomph that hate crime / bias crime laws add to existing laws about violence serves to help prevent that extra social evil that such crimes can have.
I worry about these laws because I don't like putting extra weapons in the hands of prosecutors, given the massive injustices within our criminal justice system. But I understand what advocates of these laws seek to achieve.
No idea how this impacts the current situation, but it's far from implausible that Young hasn't got the most effective treatment possible for his known issues. And in the Hoyt case it's pretty clear that this bothered Nicolau a great deal.
Agreed, but, if that were the case, isn't the right answer increased enforcement of the laws that exist, rather than disparate penalties? i.e., if there's a spate of assaults on gay men in a neighborhood, increase police patrols, and dedicate extra resources to solving and prosecuting those crimes. It's basically just good policing; put your resources where the crimes are prevalent.
You can have the same deterrent effect by ioncreasing the likelihood of punishment, w/o the potential mixed message that some victims have special status under the law.
There is also a very big issue of double jeopardy where people face regular criminal charges, are acquitted, and then face Federal Civil Rights charges for hate crimes.
Again, I'm pretty agnostic on these laws, probably leaning against, because I think that prosecutors have too many weapons in their utility belts as it is. But the simple solution you propose often isn't a solution at all.
Again, I'm pretty agnostic on these laws, probably leaning against, because I think that prosecutors have too many weapons in their utility belts as it is. But the simple solution you propose often isn't a solution at all.
Well, if the police refuse to investigate, and/or the DAs refuse to prosecute, the higher penalties won't do much good since nobody's getting convicted.
Corrupt police are obviously a huge problem, but the only solution is noncorrupt police. That's where the State or Feds have a real role; prosecuting crimes the locals won't.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main