Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 26, 2011

Red Sox Pitcher John Lackey Divorcing Wife Battling Cancer, Report Says

Lackey filed on August 30, according to court docs in Texas, claiming “the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities.”

Krista and John got married in November, 2008.

Sources close to the family tell TMZ that Krista underwent a double mastectomy in March and underwent chemotherapy as recently as June.

The divorce petition says John and Krista had a prenup. It also says Lackey has “separate property” he wants to keep for himself.

Have at it…

Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:09 PM | 427 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

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.

Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 > 
   1. Zach Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:56 PM (#3937179)
I was surprised to find that diagnosis of cancer doesn't actually change the rate of divorce very much.

Although apparently men are six times as likely to divorce a cancerous wife than the other way around.
   2. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3937188)
it is unclear to me what purpose is served by including Krista Lackey's cancer diagnosis in this other than to make John Lackey look bad. I'm not married but it certainly looks like it comes with difficulties and when people get divorced, that is sad and for me to sit here in judgment of John Lackey would be pretty scummy.
   3. BDC Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:04 PM (#3937191)
It's unclear why Lackey, who's struggled on the field all season long, didn't wait until the off-season, which for the reeling Red Sox could start in a week or so, to start divorce proceedings.


TFA seems to imply that Lackey's going to be spending the next few weeks in court or something; but the initial petition is just a formal filing; you can't get a decree for at least 60 days in Texas, and negotiations among lawyers could be taking place continuously anyway.

As to divorce under these circs, I rag nobody. We know nothing about how eager either of these people is to keep living with the other.
   4. Famous Original Joe C Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:07 PM (#3937194)
As to divorce under these circs, I rag nobody. We know nothing about how eager either of these people is to keep living with the other.

Agreed. This could not be less of my business.
   5. tshipman Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:08 PM (#3937196)
We know nothing about how eager either of these people is to keep living with the other.


You don't normally get divorced when one person has cancer if you like living with each other.
   6. bunyon Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:10 PM (#3937199)
I'm always a little surprised when the media portrays ongoing litigation as a huge time drain. Mentally and psychologically draining, sure. But requiring lots of time? That's what the lawyers are for. The only times I've been involved in legal stuff, I show up for a conversation at the beginning and another, usually shorter one, at the end.

If I were a MLB player I'd probably rather have this going on in season so I have a distraction. The idea of sitting around idle while my marriage was dissolved...well, let's just say it's safe to say I'd put on weight.
   7. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:21 PM (#3937209)
well, let's just say it's safe to say I'd put on weight


hmmm..I always lose weight during break-ups. In fact, I've asked my wife to pretend she's leaving me in an attempt to fool my body.
   8. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:27 PM (#3937216)
it is unclear to me what purpose is served by including Krista Lackey's cancer diagnosis in this other than to make John Lackey look bad.


Why would we need another purpose beyond making John Lackey look bad?

"In sickness and in health", and all that...
   9. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:29 PM (#3937219)
it is unclear to me what purpose is served by including Krista Lackey's cancer diagnosis in this other than to make John Lackey look bad.

Well, mission accomplished. I understand there's more to every marriage than we can see, but divorcing a cancer-stricken wife after three years of marriage sure makes it look as if you weren't paying attention during that whole "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" part.
   10. AJMcCringleberry Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:34 PM (#3937224)
Maybe she was a giant ##### who was blowing Tim Wakefield in her spare time.
   11. SoSH U at work Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:34 PM (#3937225)
I wonder if you don't really like living with the wife, is her ongoing battle with cancer less likely to make you pitch like crap than if you do?
   12. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:37 PM (#3937226)
Maybe she was a giant ##### who was blowing Tim Wakefield in her spare time.

Maybe Lackey is mad because she stopped having sex with Wakefield after the cancer diagnosis and he needs that cuckold fantasy.
   13. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:38 PM (#3937228)
Maybe she was a giant ##### who was blowing Tim Wakefield in her spare time.


Doesn't matter. Suck it up and wait to divorce her until she's done being treated for cancer. She's fighting for her life - don't throw her an anchor.
   14. bunyon Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:39 PM (#3937230)
There are things one can do that mean you're in the wrong even if you have cancer. Contrary to what many would have you believe, suffering tragic ill-health does not make one a saint. I can, just sitting here, think of half a dozen things a woman could do that I would leave her for even if she did have cancer.

Now, I'm not saying she did any of them. I'm not saying that Lackey isn't simply a shallow, selfish SOB who doesn't want to live with a sickly woman or use his money to ease the suffering of someone he loves. I have no idea. But that is exactly the point: I have no idea.

And I don't need to have any idea. If, in the next few years my life become entwined with Mr. Lackey's I'll sure as hell look deeper into this situation. Until then, I only care how well he pitches.
   15. bunyon Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#3937231)
Maybe Lackey is mad because she stopped having sex with Wakefield after the cancer diagnosis and he needs that cuckold fantasy.

This hypothesis does neatly explain why both pitchers have been terrible for much of the season.
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#3937232)
Doesn't matter. Suck it up and wait to divorce her until she's done being treated for cancer. She's fighting for her life - don't throw her an anchor.
We don't know whether this divorce action is unilateral. It might be something they agreed upon. My hope is that this is amicable and both parties are experiencing as little suffering as possible.

It's certainly plausible that Lackey is doing something very bad here, but I think it's wrong to leap to that judgment given the level of information we currently have.
   17. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:42 PM (#3937237)
I understand there's more to every marriage than we can see, but divorcing a cancer-stricken wife after three years of marriage sure makes it look as if you weren't paying attention during that whole "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" part.


This assumes he is leaving her BECAUSE she has cancer. If so then yeah, he's a scumbag who should be castrated. Or, maybe she slept with someone from a support group in which case I don't blame him. Like Lasorda's bunyon says, we don't know a damned thing and really have no reason to know.
   18. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:42 PM (#3937239)
This hypothesis does neatly explain why both pitchers have been terrible for much of the season.


And fuels my theory of why Varitek always refused to catch for Wakefield...of course this requires imagining Karen Varitek with Wakefield.
   19. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3937243)
Or maybe Lackey is mad because his wife broke up his sexual relationship with Wakefield.
   20. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:45 PM (#3937246)
I'm always a little surprised when the media portrays ongoing litigation as a huge time drain. Mentally and psychologically draining, sure. But requiring lots of time? That's what the lawyers are for.


It depends upon the State and what the litigation is about.
I don't I know about Texas, but in NY, a contested divorce can be quite time consuming for the couple.
   21. AndrewJ Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:45 PM (#3937247)
John Lackey giving us his Newt Gingrich impersonation.
   22. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:46 PM (#3937249)
but divorcing a cancer-stricken wife after three years of marriage sure makes it look as if you weren't paying attention during that whole "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" part.


As I said in the other thread:

"And if she beats the kids? If she's divorcing him? If the split is entirely amicable?"

This is all an attempt to make Lackey look bad. Mission accomplished indeed.
   23. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3937250)
it is unclear to me what purpose is served by including Krista Lackey's cancer diagnosis in this other than to make John Lackey look bad

To make Sox fans feel better about hating him?

The other purpose is the "in sickness and health thing," perhaps public figures like Lackey and Newt Gingrich and John Edwards SHOULD get publicly reamed for this kind of thing.
   24. Don Malcolm Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:48 PM (#3937253)
I think the only reason why this story is relevant is because a number of folks (including Bill James) have referenced Lackey's personal life as the reason for his poor season in '11. Given the age we live in, we will probably become privy to more details concerning this story than most (or perhaps only many) of us will wish to know.
   25. alkeiper Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:48 PM (#3937255)
How about "Krista Lackey Divoring Husband with 6.41 ERA?"
   26. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:50 PM (#3937258)
How about "Krista Lackey Divoring Husband with 6.41 ERA?"

"Krista Lackey Divorcing Husband With Tragic Chin Deficiency"
   27. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:50 PM (#3937260)
How about "Krista Lackey Divorcing Husband with 6.41 ERA?"
Thread won.

Nothing more to say here, move along everyone.
   28. fra paolo Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:50 PM (#3937261)
It would take extremely unreasonable behaviour to justify leaving someone you ostensibly loved enough to marry but three years ago in these circumstances. I think we can question Lackey's judgement on one or two levels; but in the absence of further information, we can't do more than that.
   29. Forsch 10 From Navarone (Dayn) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:56 PM (#3937268)
This could not be less of my business.

Truth. I have no interest in knowing things like this.
   30. asinwreck Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:56 PM (#3937269)
There go his endorsements.
   31. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:57 PM (#3937271)
And if she beats the kids?

Haven't seen any mention of children, and the marriage was pretty short, FWIW.

Don't know enough to judge Lackey, although as I said in the other thread, he wasn't very smart to accuse the baseball media and to refer to it as a personal mattter without elaboration. He drew more attention to the story, but it was likely to get some circulation whenever it surfaced.
   32. SoSH U at work Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:01 PM (#3937277)
Now, I'm not saying she did any of them. I'm not saying that Lackey isn't simply a shallow, selfish SOB who doesn't want to live with a sickly woman or use his money to ease the suffering of someone he loves. I have no idea. But that is exactly the point: I have no idea.

And I don't need to have any idea. If, in the next few years my life become entwined with Mr. Lackey's I'll sure as hell look deeper into this situation. Until then, I only care how well he pitches.


See, I'll work under the assumption that a guy who leaves his cancer-stricken wife is kind of a scumbag, since that seems like the most likely possibility and since my opinion of John Lackey has absolutely no bearing on John Lackey's well being. And if my life becomes entangled with Mr. Lackey's sometime in the future where my opinion of him does become meaningful, I'll sure as hell look deeper into the situation.

Truth. I have no interest in knowing things like this.


Agreed. At the same time, I can't unknow it now.
   33. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:01 PM (#3937278)
This is all an attempt to make Lackey look bad. Mission accomplished indeed.


Hey, here's an idea: If Lackey didn't want to look bad in the court of public opinion, maybe he shouldn't have decided to DIVORCE his SERIOUSLY ILL WIFE, who's being treated for CANCER.

Just a thought, there.
   34. Scoriano Flitcraft Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:02 PM (#3937280)
I wonder if one of the reasons Lackey went to Boston, aside from the glorious contract, was that his wife is originally from the area.

There is a picture of her in this link talking to a man that looks terminally ill.
   35. OCD SS Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:07 PM (#3937287)
So was this what the text message that had him so irate was about?
   36. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:07 PM (#3937288)
maybe he shouldn't have decided to DIVORCE his SERIOUSLY ILL WIFE, who's being treated for CANCER.


Do you people even read?

What if SHE IS DIVORCING HIM? And if she is beating the kids, why should he give a #### what the court of public opinion thinks? Right now his beef seems to be with his personal number being leaked to some dick from TMZ.
   37. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:09 PM (#3937289)
So was this what the text message that had him so irate was about?


"Longhorns suck."

#BarrySwitzerisGod
   38. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:09 PM (#3937290)
Sources close to the family tell TMZ


And that's all you need to know.

-- MWE
   39. Justin T is going to crush some tacos Thursday Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:11 PM (#3937291)
Do you people even read?

What if SHE IS DIVORCING HIM?


Do you read?
   40. BDC Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:11 PM (#3937292)
Texas allows "no-fault" divorce; the person filing the petition is not necessarily unilaterally deciding to "divorce" the other, in a transitive-verb sense. There are any number of reasons why one spouse might file in a case where both agreed, or even that one spouse might file when it's the other one who's primarily moving for the divorce. TFA (and other stories about the Lackey marriage) are spun to make him seem cruel, but as I said above, we just don't know the real story.
   41. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:12 PM (#3937295)
Maybe she's divorcing him for the same reasons that Sox fans want to divorce him. He sucks.
   42. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:13 PM (#3937296)
And if she is beating the kids, why should he give a #### what the court of public opinion thinks?


They don't have kids.
   43. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:17 PM (#3937298)
What if SHE IS DIVORCING HIM?

Do you read?


He could be filing for her. The split could be amicable. The cancer could be completly gone. The point is, "We. Don't. Know."

...and the stupid proposition that "even if she's ****ing other guys, her cancer gives her a divorce-free pass" is bannable.

edit: "Dale Sams defends Ugueth Urbina, Julio Lugo, and John Lackey...next on his list, child molesters. News at 10."
   44. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:18 PM (#3937301)
...and the stupid proposition that "even if she's ****ing other guys, her cancer gives her a divorce-free pass" is bannable.

stupid, yes, but a low threshold for banning around here. :)
   45. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#3937302)
I don't know what's going to happen to the Red Sox over the next three games, or what'll happen if they make the playoffs.

I don't know what the stories behind the story are as it relates to Lackey, his wife, her illness, and their relationship.

I don't know how a team starts 2-10, then goes 80-41, and has since gone 7-19.

It could, obviously, be a lot of good and bad luck, and it reminds us that baseball is a game played by people, with all the baggage they bring to their job.

But I find it hard to believe that there aren't some personal stories behind the Red Sox epic collapse over the last month or so. Did you see Lackey again last night? He allows a leadoff softly-grounded single to start the 7th, and Francona takes him out. Lackey looks like he could've killed Tito as he walked off the mound. He, literally, looked scary.

The thing is, Lackey actually pitched very well after the first inning, and I suspect Lackey prides himself as a guy who can throw lots of pitches, and lots of innings, and he's probably like, "####, Tito, I'm in a good groove in our biggest game of the year, I give up a dinky grounder, and you take me out like a toddler on one of those "mommy leashes". Will you let me work through SOMETHING that's going well today?"

The whole thing makes me feel very uneasy about the team right now.
   46. bunyon Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#3937303)
Fair enough, I don't blame anyone for judging a guy with the scant knowledge that we have given that that judgment has no materiel consequences. It's just that I've seen enough marriages break up where I thought it obvious who was at fault and what happened only to learn later I'd been very wrong. And, hell, I've seen plenty of marriages stay together where I would say it had no shot and shouldn't be working.

At the end of the day I have trouble enough trying to make sense of my own marriage to be sure I know what's up in others.
   47. Jay Seaver Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#3937304)
I wonder if one of the reasons Lackey went to Boston, aside from the glorious contract, was that his wife is originally from the area.

It was, IIRC, talked about as a factor in the decision at the time. So, it seems that this failed marriage has made a lot more people miserable than most.
   48. Lassus Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:28 PM (#3937313)
Texas allows "no-fault" divorce; the person filing the petition is not necessarily unilaterally deciding to "divorce" the other, in a transitive-verb sense.

New York State as well, just within this past year.
   49. Nasty Nate Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:29 PM (#3937316)
The thing is, Lackey actually pitched very well after the first inning, and I suspect Lackey prides himself as a guy who can throw lots of pitches, and lots of innings, and he's probably like, "####, Tito, I'm in a good groove in our biggest game of the year, I give up a dinky grounder, and you take me out like a toddler on one of those "mommy leashes". Will you let me work through SOMETHING that's going well today?"


...and Tito's responding thoughts: " ####, john, you are having the worst season anyone has ever seen, it's so pathetic if you think 3 earned runs in 6 innings means you are pitching so well that you deserve a longer leash, although I do think it is a ####### miracle that the Yankees haven't hung 8 on you today, go sit on the damn bench and you are lucky the team bus still picks you up"
   50. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:37 PM (#3937321)
John Lackey giving us his Newt Gingrich impersonation.

My first thoughts award a coke to Andrew J.
   51. winnipegwhip Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:40 PM (#3937328)
Maybe Tito Landrum was involved?
   52. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:42 PM (#3937329)
See, I'll work under the assumption that a guy who leaves his cancer-stricken wife is kind of a scumbag, since that seems like the most likely possibility and since my opinion of John Lackey has absolutely no bearing on John Lackey's well being.

Because it's such an obviously scummy thing to do, and I haven't seen anything else to date that suggests Lackey is a horrible person, I would reserve judgment without knowing more details.
   53. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:51 PM (#3937336)
Because it's such an obviously scummy thing to do, and I haven't seen anything else to date that suggests Lackey is a horrible person, I would reserve judgment without knowing more details.

Not that it makes him the kind of unpleasant person who would blindside his seriously ill wife with divorce papers, but isn't Lackey notorious for being demonstratively exasperated by poor defensive plays behind him?
   54. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:52 PM (#3937339)
I haven't seen anything else to date that suggests Lackey is a horrible person
Well he is on the Red Sox.
   55. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#3937340)
...and the stupid proposition that "even if she's ****ing other guys, her cancer gives her a divorce-free pass" is bannable.


Not nearly as stupid, however, as the proposition that the woman WHO JUST HAD BOTH OF HER BREASTS CUT OFF would be running around indiscriminately ####### other guys (when she isn't beating her nonexistent children, of course), while poor John Lackey sits at home crying the tears of ultimate sadness.
   56. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:59 PM (#3937343)
Not nearly as stupid, however, as the proposition that the woman WHO JUST HAD BOTH OF HER BREASTS CUT OFF would be running around indiscriminately ####### other guys (when she isn't beating her nonexistent children, of course), while poor John Lackey sits at home crying the tears of ultimate sadness


So you're saying that neither one of us know? Right?
   57. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:03 PM (#3937347)
We don't know whether this divorce action is unilateral.

Not really right. It appears to be a contested action and Horse Face filed the petition.

We also know that his grounds didn't include adultery, or it almost certainly would have been in the petition. With the caveat that it's dependent on the vagaries of Texas marital law, "Discord or conflict of personalities," seems to bear significant resemblance to "I don't want to be married to or live with her anymore."(**) There's no allegation of abuse (mental, emotional, or physical), or lack of consort, or the like.

It's certainly plausible that Lackey is doing something very bad here, but I think it's wrong to leap to that judgment given the level of information we currently have.


Why? Because Lackey's a baseball player?

(**) Texas appears to be a no-fault state, but that doesn't mean that a party can't or won't plead fault if it's present. It doesn't appear to be here.
   58. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:04 PM (#3937348)
Not nearly as stupid, however, as the proposition that the woman WHO JUST HAD BOTH OF HER BREASTS CUT OFF would be running around indiscriminately ####### other guys (when she isn't beating her nonexistent children, of course), while poor John Lackey sits at home crying the tears of ultimate sadness.


There are three possibilities at play here;

1. John Lackey is a humungous dick.

2. Krista Lackey is a humungous #####.

3. The issues involved are many and complex and completely unknowable to those of not involved in the situation.

If you present either option 1 or option 2 without any more evidence than "John Lackey pitches for a baseball team I dislike" you are bound by any sense of fairness to acknowledge both options.
   59. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:05 PM (#3937350)
It's certainly plausible that Lackey is doing something very bad here, but I think it's wrong to leap to that judgment given the level of information we currently have.


Why? Because Lackey's a baseball player?

Because we have no information and leaping to judgment about a person's private life whether he is a baseball player, an accountant or a ditch digger is wrong.
   60. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:05 PM (#3937351)
I understand there's more to every marriage than we can see, but divorcing a cancer-stricken wife after three years of marriage sure makes it look as if you weren't paying attention during that whole "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health" part.
True. Because everyone uses the Christian vows.
   61. Swedish Chef Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:08 PM (#3937354)
I think the Red Sox should divorce Lackey.
   62. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:08 PM (#3937355)
True. Because everyone uses the Christian vows.

Why, what do the Klingon vows say?
   63. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:09 PM (#3937356)
So you're saying that neither one of us know? Right?


Do you have some kind of learning disability?
   64. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:09 PM (#3937357)
I think the Red Sox should divorce Lackey.

Unfortunately, they signed a ruinous prenup.
   65. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:10 PM (#3937360)
Because we have no information and leaping to judgment about a person's private life whether he is a baseball player, an accountant or a ditch digger is wrong.

We do have information.

I see nothing to suggest that American culture or society lives by the principle that "leaping to judgment" about a person's private life (**) is "wrong." Nor is that necessarily a correct moral or ethical principle.

2. Krista Lackey is a humungous #####.

This actually isn't a possibilty, at least based upon anything in the article or the divorce petition. The irony of suggesting it while at the same time lecturing people not to jump to conclusions about Lackey is quite thick.

(**) Nor is filing for divorce a "private" action.
   66. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:11 PM (#3937361)
True. Because everyone uses the Christian vows.

Why, what do the Klingon vows say?


I'm a traditionalist, so I went with the classic, "Do you promise to use her as you will? Not to blast her into space? Until such time as you get the whim?"
   67. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:13 PM (#3937363)
(**) Texas appears to be a no-fault state, but that doesn't mean that a party can't or won't plead fault if it's present. It doesn't appear to be here.
(1) Are you basing this on something other than the article? It's possible I'm missing it, but I don't see any link to the actual papers.
(2) Maybe she committed adultery but he's being magnanimous by not pleading it, since it's unnecessary.
   68. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:17 PM (#3937365)
It's unclear why Lackey, who's struggled on the field all season long, didn't wait until the off-season, which for the reeling Red Sox could start in a week or so, to start divorce proceedings.
I'm puzzled about this quote on multiple levels.
1) Why would he?
2) The quote appears to imply that Lackey would just have had to wait a few more days -- but (a) their offseason might not start in a week or so, and (b) in any case, it was filed in August, when their offseason was more distant than that. IOW, he'd have been waiting six weeks, not one.
3) It seems unlikely that Lackey would choose when to file, anyway; his lawyer would do that. (I'm not saying that Lackey couldn't have told him to wait; I'm just saying that it's usually a mistake to read too much into the specific timing of a lawsuit. When a client meets with me about filing a suit, the suit generally gets filed based on when I am prepared to file it.)
   69. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:19 PM (#3937366)
I see nothing to suggest that American culture or society lives by the principle that "leaping to judgment" about a person's private life (**) is "wrong." Nor is that necessarily a correct moral or ethical principle.


On this you and I will have to agree to disagree.

2. Krista Lackey is a humungous #####.


This actually isn't a possibilty, at least based upon anything in the article or the divorce petition. The irony of suggesting it while at the same time lecturing people not to jump to conclusions about Lackey is quite thick.

It appears to me as no more or less a possibility than John Lackey being a humungous dick. My point is that if you are going to suggest one of the two scenarios, then you need to suggest both.
   70. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:19 PM (#3937367)
(1) Are you basing this on something other than the article? It's possible I'm missing it, but I don't see any link to the actual papers.

No. The article does mention at least a part of the grounds. I'd infer that something more salacious -- i.e., adultery or abuse -- would have been in the article.

(2) Maybe she committed adultery but he's being magnanimous by not pleading it, since it's unnecessary.

I don't know that it would be unnecessary, given that he wants a prenup validated and, at least according to TFA, wants certain property that might otherwise be declared marital to revert to him. If the other spouse was at "fault," you're more likely to win property division issues, at least in most states.
   71. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:20 PM (#3937369)
It seems unlikely that Lackey would choose when to file, anyway; his lawyer would do that. (I'm not saying that Lackey couldn't have told him to wait; I'm just saying that it's usually a mistake to read too much into the specific timing of a lawsuit. When a client meets with me about filing a suit, the suit generally gets filed based on when I am prepared to file it.)

So you're saying he might have gone to the lawyer to file for divorce right after the cancer diagnosis, but it took this long to file? That dastard!
   72. SoSH U at work Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:20 PM (#3937370)
Because we have no information and leaping to judgment about a person's private life whether he is a baseball player, an accountant or a ditch digger is wrong.


We have some information. It's possible that, as Dale says, Lackey's wife wanted the divorce and John filed it for her. But don't, as people with functioning brains, we have to consider the likelihood of such possibilities? That seems, from my vantage point, decidedly less likely than the fact that John wanted a divorce so John filed for one. Yes, it's possible that Lackey has done nothing wrong. I'd say, based on what we do know, the odds are much better that John Lackey is kind of a scumbag.

Now, if more information becomes available, I'd be happy to revise my opinion. But I don't subscribe to the "if you can't know absolutely all the facts then you can't have an opinion," school of thought. Particulary when, as I noted above, my opinion of John Lackey has absolutely no effect on John Lackey.
   73. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:20 PM (#3937371)
True. Because everyone uses the Christian vows.

Why, what do the Klingon vows say?
Uh.

(Doubt Lackey used them. Or the Jewish ones. But I am still annoyed at the Christianocentric worldview that thinks that everyone promises never to get divorced. No, we all don't.)
   74. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:21 PM (#3937374)
Why, what do the Klingon vows say?


There's two kinds.

There's the full ceremony. And there's the basic "I want marry. I say we're married.", "I agree, we're married."

Both are life-binding. I don't think there are divorces in Klingon culture.

Do you have some kind of learning disability?


I have lesions at the top of my brain stem and in that general area, but I wouldn't qualify that as a 'learning disability'? Why do you ask?
   75. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:21 PM (#3937375)
I am still annoyed at the Christianocentric worldview that thinks that everyone promises never to get divorced. No, we all don't.

Especially not your wife.
   76. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:22 PM (#3937376)
"if you can't know absolutely all the facts then you can't have an opinion,"


I guess to be clear I should say it's fine if you have an opinion (though I still think refraining from judgment is the way to go), but if you are writing for a public media outlet you have a responsibility to present the facts as known and not leap to such conclusions.
   77. rconn23 Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:23 PM (#3937377)
John Lackey looks like a sloth. That's all I got.
   78. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:23 PM (#3937378)
So you're saying he might have gone to the lawyer to file for divorce right after the cancer diagnosis, but it took this long to file? That dastard!
Hell, maybe he went to the lawyer before the cancer diagnosis, and the lawyer took this long to file.
   79. Randy Jones Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:23 PM (#3937379)
Pat Robertson sees nothing wrong with what Lackey is doing.
   80. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:23 PM (#3937380)
It appears to me as no more or less a possibility than John Lackey being a humungous dick. My point is that if you are going to suggest one of the two scenarios, then you need to suggest both.

No, you really don't.

Where a guy files a divorce action against his cancer-fighting wife less than three years into marriage that states no grounds beyond "I don't want to be married anymore" you really don't need to balance wondering whether he's a humongous dick with wondering whether she's a humongous #####. You really don't.

It's likely that the only reason you're suggesting this phony equivalence is that Lackey is a baseball player.
   81. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:25 PM (#3937383)
But I don't subscribe to the "if you can't know absolutely all the facts then you can't have an opinion," school of thought.


You are Nick Carfado and I claim my five pounds.
   82. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:30 PM (#3937387)
Where a guy files a divorce action against his cancer-fighting wife less than three years into marriage that states no grounds beyond "I don't want to be married anymore" you really don't need to balance wondering whether he's a humongous dick with wondering whether she's a humongous #####. You really don't.


You're making an assumption that what is in the legal document is the full story, I think that's a bad assumption.

It's likely that the only reason you're suggesting this phony equivalence is that Lackey is a baseball player.


I've got several friends who have gotten divorced. In each case I've tried to maintain an open mind about both parties responsibiilty. I can't say I've always succeeded but that has been my goal.
   83. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:32 PM (#3937389)
Sources close to the family tell TMZ that Krista underwent a double mastectomy in March

She should have her #### taken away. Too soon?
   84. JRVJ Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:33 PM (#3937392)
With apologies to some decent people who have been very fair in this thread, this thread shows everything that is bad about BTF.
   85. JJ1986 Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:37 PM (#3937394)
states no grounds beyond "I don't want to be married anymore"


When you file for divorce, you're not required to list all the reasons that you want a divorce. If that's enough there's no reason to include more (especially considering that Lackey's a celebrity who may not want his private life examined).
   86. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:39 PM (#3937397)
With apologies to some decent people who have been very fair in this thread, this thread shows everything that is bad about BTF.


Yeah, when the participants in this thread completely no-sell a perfectly cromulent "Flash Gordon" reference it's time to take a good hard look at ourselves.
   87. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:40 PM (#3937398)
Because we have no information and leaping to judgment about a person's private life whether he is a baseball player, an accountant or a ditch digger is wrong.

We do have information.


Yes we do, not an awful lot, but enough to state that the odds are that Lackey is a humongous $^&$*%

maybe that's not true, maybe this is amicable, or his wife is pure evil and he'd be divorcing her if she still had two healthy boobs...
   88. rconn23 Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:40 PM (#3937399)
"With apologies to some decent people who have been very fair in this thread, this thread shows everything that is bad about BTF."

Yes. This is awful.
   89. Charles S. will not yield to this monkey court Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:42 PM (#3937403)
But I am still annoyed at the Christianocentric worldview

BTF, the only place in the world where my aggressively atheist ass could be accused of being Christianocentric.
   90. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:43 PM (#3937405)
(2) Maybe she committed adultery but he's being magnanimous by not pleading it, since it's unnecessary.


While this isn't technically impossible, as I pointed out earlier it does strain credulity somewhat to suggest that the woman who just had both of her breasts removed and who was up until fairly recently still on chemotherapy would be whoopin' it up out on the town. Mastectomy produces significant psychological and sexual trauma for most women, for example. Then, you've also got all of chemotherapy's possible effects on female sexuality, which according to the National Cancer Institute can include "dryness or itchy feeling in the vagina", "hot flashes", "infections of the vagina or bladder", "periods that are not regular or no periods (menstruation)", and "stress, fatigue, or little interest in sex". Hawt! Not to mention some of the not-specifically-sexual buzzkills that accompany chemotherapy, like baldness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and crippling fatigue.

I have lesions at the top of my brain stem and in that general area, but I wouldn't qualify that as a 'learning disability'? Why do you ask?


No reason - just making conversation.
   91. RJ in TO Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:43 PM (#3937406)
With apologies to some decent people who have been very fair in this thread, this thread shows everything that is bad about BTF.

Not everything. Just a good sampler.

Once it blunders aimlessly along to the 1000 post mark, then it'll show everything that is bad about BTF.
   92. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:46 PM (#3937407)
"if you can't know absolutely all the facts then you can't have an opinion,"


It's not humanly possible to have "all the facts" about a situation. There are always more facts out there. In a functional sense, you're saying that people should never arrive at an opinion about anything - which would, of course, lead one to wonder how you arrived at your opinion regarding other people's right to form opinions. Did you first consider all the facts before making that judgment?
   93. SoSH U at work Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#3937413)
Yes we do, not an awful lot, but enough to state that the odds are that Lackey is a humongous $^&$*%


Exactly. The entirely fictitious Divorcestandings says it's 88 percent likely that Lackey's conduct in the proceedings is cretinous. If that percentage has been good enough to keep my pants dry when it comes to the Sox playoff hopes, and it has, it ought to be enough to lead me to conclude that Lackey is indeed a shitheel. Though, it does explain why Jose and Dale are far more skittish.

I guess this makes me all that's bad about BTF. The horror.

It's not humanly possible to have "all the facts" about a situation. There are always more facts out there. In a functional sense, you're saying that people should never arrive at an opinion about anything - which would, of course, lead one to wonder how you arrived at your opinion regarding other people's right to form opinions. Did you first consider all the facts before making that judgment?


It is, however, possible to read the rest of the paragraph surrounding that spliced comment.
   94. nick swisher hygiene Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:51 PM (#3937414)
On the one hand, BBTF snark and nastiness cannot be denied; on the other hand, BBTF hypocritical selective decency in the guise of anti-feminism is pretty undeniable as well.

It's hasty to believe this article gives us any certain information about Lackey's character; it's phony and insulting to pretend the facts as stated are anything other than pretty damning.
   95. bunyon Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:53 PM (#3937416)
Just to be clear: when I said I could think of many reasons to ask for a divorce from a seriously ill spouse, infidelity actually wasn't one of them.

Also, as others have said, petitions for divorce need not, indeed generally do not (in my experience), list all the grounds or even the most relevant ones.


Having said all that and being generally of the mind that we don't know and shouldn't know the details, I'm comfortable with someone saying that, given what they've read, they think it more likely that Lackey is the dick here. We can't know based on what is out there, but if you were forced to bet, that would probably be the way to bet. However, it isn't clear why we need to bet. We certainly have no pressing reason to come to judgment on these folks.


Also, I don't think this is a bad thread. Divorce and illness are serious, complex issues that people are emotional and passionate about, in almost equal measure, on many fronts. Discussion and debate of such subjects need not be off-limits. I agree that debate about a particular couple can be messy, but it illuminates general points.
   96. El Tigre Astride A Space Camel Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:56 PM (#3937420)
Just to be clear: when I said I could think of many reasons to ask for a divorce from a seriously ill spouse, infidelity actually wasn't one of them.

Like if she's an uggo?
   97. SoSH U at work Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:57 PM (#3937421)
However, it isn't clear why we need to bet. We certainly have no pressing reason to come to judgment on these folks.


Likewise, there's no actual downside to doing so.
   98. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:58 PM (#3937422)
It is, however, possible to read the rest of the paragraph surrounding that spliced comment.


I looked around to try and find it for a while, but got bored and gave up. Mea culpa.
   99. winnipegwhip Posted: September 26, 2011 at 05:00 PM (#3937424)
As a SABR member I need to know the SORG - The Sex of Replacement Girlfriend to see if this is a good move.
   100. bunyon Posted: September 26, 2011 at 05:01 PM (#3937425)
However, it isn't clear why we need to bet. We certainly have no pressing reason to come to judgment on these folks.

Likewise, there's no actual downside to doing so.


True enough. Judging people is a natural thing to do. And pretty harmless in the current situation. Maintaining an open mind is much more important when it is a friend(s) going through this.
Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 4 5 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBaseball's most underrated Hall of Fame candidates. | SportsonEarth.com : Anthony Castrovince Article
(1 - 9:21am, Nov 28)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(5075 - 9:10am, Nov 28)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8726 - 9:09am, Nov 28)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogYankees won't get into bidding war for Chase Headley: source - NY Daily News
(14 - 9:02am, Nov 28)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-28-2014
(1 - 8:58am, Nov 28)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(550 - 8:50am, Nov 28)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(43 - 8:37am, Nov 28)
Last: Non-Youkilidian Geometry

NewsblogBaseball’s Teen-Age Twitter Reporters - The New Yorker
(10 - 8:25am, Nov 28)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(598 - 5:55am, Nov 28)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1185 - 4:30am, Nov 28)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

NewsblogDave Cameron: A proposed three-way swap for Red Sox, Mariners, Nationals
(53 - 1:58am, Nov 28)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

Newsblog[Cricketer NOT baseball player] Phil Hughes dies after “pitch” to the head
(13 - 1:53am, Nov 28)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Hall of Merit2014 Results: Maddux, Thomas and Glavine elected to the Hall of Merit!
(82 - 1:19am, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(57 - 12:52am, Nov 28)
Last: Bleed the Freak

NewsblogSource: Tomas agrees to six-year deal with D-backs | MLB.com
(24 - 12:15am, Nov 28)
Last: McCoy

Page rendered in 0.6241 seconds
52 querie(s) executed