Yankees acquire Aroldis Chapman

[Wingack]

I suppose, but I don't see how this in any way disputes mt8thsw9th's point - people who cheer for Chapman are scumbags. Only you can decide if your love of the team outweighs how you could (or should?) feel about said team employing Chapman. As an NFL fan, I've grappled with this often and I don't have much to say to those who accurately say that I'm a scumbag for watching, and supporting, teams who actively hide the consequences of brain injuries. They're scumbags by any definition of the term, and so am I for watching.

Like a lot of things, you make you choice and deal with the consequences. If cheering for the Yankees is more important to you than the fact that you are are a scumbag for cheering Chapman, then you get to live with those (personal) consequences. If someone else wants to call the Yankees "a bunch of scumbags for employing Chapman"...well, you can't really argue, can you? I mean you can, but when you do you're a hypocrite, too, so probably best to just grit your teeth and hope for the Chapman era to end quickly.

I couldn't root for John Lackey in a Red Sox uniform. I thought what he did to his wife was awful, and combined with what else we knew about the person John Lackey, I could never "root" for him. I didn't attend Red Sox games, I watched far fewer - and never Lackey starts - and by the end of 2013, I was barely a Sox fan anymore. I'm glad the team finally got rid of the guy but my Red Sox fandom has absolutely decreased because the organization chose to employ a player I could not, in good conscience, root for. That's a personal choice. I don't think I've ever written about it here, and I definitely didn't tell fellow fans (very often) that they should also give up on the team, but I did what felt right to me.

Wingack, as a thoughful human being, has to make that choice for himself. Either way, Wingack will remain a good person, albeit one who has had to make a "cheer decision" based on more than laundry. Fandom gets more complicated when you grow up. It isn't all about the laundry anymore. For another, counter-example check out PK Subban, the Montreal Canadien who gave millions to finance a hospital. Or Didier Drogba, the soccer player who has built multiple hospitals in his home country. Who you choose to cheer for says something about you. If it's a team, and that team employs a scumbag, you're enabling that team/scumbag. If that's OK with you...terrific. It isn't OK to me (or mt8thsw9th) and the world will keep on spinning either way.

Thanks for being so forthcoming and honest here. It also shows a lot of integrity.

Fandom is a difficult thing, it was a different era, but are our older SoSH members and parents of SoSH members scumbags for rooting for the Red Sox while they were the last team to integrate? Were there people that didn't root for the team until the did integrate? I honestly don't know but it would be worthy hearing from some of our older members.

In a general sense, I am much less emotionally invested in cheering for the Yankees or any team like I did when I was a teenager, that is all part of me becoming an adult. And yeah, it is true that when you hear a good story about a player on a team you like you feel good about rooting for him. For example, just a few weeks ago Max Scherzer (on my second favorite team) gave The Salvation Army National Capital Area Command ten thousand dollars to help pay for gifts for kids that were stolen from the Salvation Army in DC just before Christmas, to help buy all new gifts. Class act. So yeah, I may cheer a little harder for him when he pitches and want to see him do even better than he already does.

But I am under no illusions that there are also scumbags on the Nationals (or more scumbags on the Yankees) that we just don't know about yet.

 

[No Guru No Method]

I'm not sure who I should direct my anger towards: you for posting that link or me for being stupid enough to click on it. (You did warn me, so I know the answer.)

I'll admit that I did get a kick out of the Yankees' new acquisition being referred to as "Arnold Chapman." But holy crap, that place is a madhouse ...

Just as a side note - it must be really hard to get banned from that forum now. In the good old days this poster would have been out the door faster than a young lady holding a Jeter gift basket.

 

[Wingack]

Just as a side note - it must be really hard to get banned from that forum now. In the good old days this poster would have been out the door faster than a young lady holding a Jeter gift basket.

No one is paying attention there at all anymore.

 

[nvalvo]

Just for the record, I don't think that happened here. We've all seen Cashman's unusual bluntness when dealing with the press in recent years, and here is the exact quote from after the deal:

"Certainly, there are some serious issues here that are in play," Cashman said. "I acknowledge that's an area clearly of concern, and I think it certainly is reflective of some of the acquisition price, and there's risk, and I understand that."

That certainly doesn't seem like 'crowing' to me, just explaining the situation from his perspective.

Fair enough. The crowing may have been more a product of the press coverage than anything anyone in the organization actually said.

 

[wallypip]

Has anyone seen if off-field issues affect a player's arbitration chances? He made 8.3 M last year and MLB Rumors has him projected at 12.9 in arb this year. I'm not going to discuss what that means to Chapman because I don't know what he did or didn't do, but that is pretty significant cash for both sides. $4M+ on top of whatever gets fined and loses in suspension is an expensive mistake for Chapman--I have no sympathy for him, I'm just noting it. For the Yankees, 8.3 is a calculated risk. 12.9 is a lot to pay for a third closer no matter how good he is.

 

[djhb20]

Just for the record, I don't think that happened here. We've all seen Cashman's unusual bluntness when dealing with the press in recent years, and here is the exact quote from after the deal:

"Certainly, there are some serious issues here that are in play," Cashman said. "I acknowledge that's an area clearly of concern, and I think it certainly is reflective of some of the acquisition price, and there's risk, and I understand that."

That certainly doesn't seem like 'crowing' to me, just explaining the situation from his perspective.

In the NYTimes the day of the acquisition, BC was quoted as saying -

“Given the circumstances that exist, the price point on the acquisition has been modified,” Cashman said. “We felt this was an opportunity to add a big arm to our bullpen.”

Now, I don't know what everyone's definition of crowing is, but that's clearly going out and being straight that they jumped on him because he was cheap because of the DV allegations.

That is, they got him *because* of the DV allegations making the cost low and he'd be on another team otherwise. (Indeed, the Dodgers had traded for him - presumably outbidding the Yankees.)

 

[Pinchrunner#2]

Are you seriously arguing that Ray Rice shouldn't have been suspended because he wasn't convicted of anything even though there is film of him punching his wife?

I'm glad the rest of us have gotten a bit more enlightened in the past years.

So two other things. On a macro level, a rule that a player can't be suspended until he is convicted is kind of insane. You realize that would mean, for example, that Aaron Hernandez would have been playing for the Pats while he was on trial.

On a more personal level, the next time you get in a fight with your SO/wife/GF, why don't you go grab a gun, lock yourself in the bathroom, and fire it 8 times into a wall and tell me how she reacts. Perhaps she'll get a bit emotional about it . . . .

Read my post again. If someone is in investigative custody, the club, not the league, is able to terminate the contract, because the person cannot fulfill the content of the contract. That would be the case for Hernandez. The Patriots are free to release him, which they did, but the league should not be involved. It should not be their business.

As for Rice. Thats the problem with this media world. There is a video, everybody has an opinion and the league makes a populistic decision. I assume America is a nation of law. Therefore there should be a trial (in an actual court) and everybody has the right to defend themselves. Even an individual who was videotaped doing something disgusting. Its a question of principle and it is not up for discussion.

The club, here Baltimore Ravens, has still the option to release their player, if they think their player did something wrong. But a league suspension is the equivalent of an employment ban. Nothing good comes out of this. The league puts itself higher than law and should not be able to do that in my opinion. Plus, it's a medieval sanction. They are making an example instead of focusing on ameliorating the persons behavior.

The bottom line: There should not be two sanctions for the same misconduct. No league should be officially punishing players who are not convicted by law (check the completely ridiculous Roethlisberger suspension), since we live in a state of law and any institution has to accept the process and the result thereof. The clubs are free to release anybody if they think, their member did something that they cannot accept and all the other clubs can have their own opinion by either signing the guy or leaving him on the free market.

 

[behindthepen]

Reminiscent of the 1990 Reds Nasty Boys:
Myers ERA+ 193 K/9 10.2
Dibble 229 12.5
Charlton 146 (starter and reliever) 10.1 (as reliever)

 

[soxfan121]

Thanks for being so forthcoming and honest here. It also shows a lot of integrity.

Fandom is a difficult thing, it was a different era, but are our older SoSH members and parents of SoSH members scumbags for rooting for the Red Sox while they were the last team to integrate? Were there people that didn't root for the team until the did integrate? I honestly don't know but it would be worthy hearing from some of our older members.

In a general sense, I am much less emotionally invested in cheering for the Yankees or any team like I did when I was a teenager, that is all part of me becoming an adult. And yeah, it is true that when you hear a good story about a player on a team you like you feel good about rooting for him. For example, just a few weeks ago Max Scherzer (on my second favorite team) gave The Salvation Army National Capital Area Command ten thousand dollars to help pay for gifts for kids that were stolen from the Salvation Army in DC just before Christmas, to help buy all new gifts. Class act. So yeah, I may cheer a little harder for him when he pitches and want to see him do even better than he already does.

But I am under no illusions that there are also scumbags on the Nationals (or more scumbags on the Yankees) that we just don't know about yet.

My 85-year old grandmother - who retired to Ft. Myers - was the world's biggest Ted Williams fan. She's active in her church community, is a fantastic example of a grandma, and from-time-to-time drops "sneaky like a Jap" into her vocabulary. Is she a "scumbag" for occasionally dredging up World War 2 ethnic slurs she learned as a patriotic American in a time when the government was interning Japanese-Americans? Feels to me like the Chris Rock-O,J. Simpson rule, "I don't condone it, but I understand." Times, and cultural norms, change. I've always been disdainful of the Red Sox racist history; Yawkey was a straight up racist, that sucker was simple and plain, motherfuck him and Pinky Huggins.

But I don't think of older fans as "scumbags" for being a product of their times. Nor do I think my otherwise-saintly grandmother is a terrible person because she says something racist once-and-a-while. I would, however, have a problem if she was running a major league baseball team, which is why Marge Schott had to go - no? There's a different level of accountability for those who act professionally - like Schott or Brian Cashman - and my old-school racist grandma.

Cashman being lauded for "exploiting a market inefficiency", in 2016, is worth questioning. I mean, there's little chance Aroldis Chapman is ever gonna be a "true Yankee" because he's starting out at "scumbag" with much of the fanbase. The vast majority of Yankee fans who do cheer for Chapman will have some guilt, which will detract from their experience as fans. Who wants to think about spousal abuse when there's 2 out in the 9th, and two strikes?

 

[Wingack]

My 85-year old grandmother - who retired to Ft. Myers - was the world's biggest Ted Williams fan. She's active in her church community, is a fantastic example of a grandma, and from-time-to-time drops "sneaky like a Jap" into her vocabulary. Is she a "scumbag" for occasionally dredging up World War 2 ethnic slurs she learned as a patriotic American in a time when the government was interning Japanese-Americans? Feels to me like the Chris Rock-O,J. Simpson rule, "I don't condone it, but I understand." Times, and cultural norms, change. I've always been disdainful of the Red Sox racist history; Yawkey was a straight up racist, that sucker was simple and plain, motherfuck him and Pinky Huggins.

But I don't think of older fans as "scumbags" for being a product of their times. Nor do I think my otherwise-saintly grandmother is a terrible person because she says something racist once-and-a-while. I would, however, have a problem if she was running a major league baseball team, which is why Marge Schott had to go - no? There's a different level of accountability for those who act professionally - like Schott or Brian Cashman - and my old-school racist grandma.

Cashman being lauded for "exploiting a market inefficiency", in 2016, is worth questioning. I mean, there's little chance Aroldis Chapman is ever gonna be a "true Yankee" because he's starting out at "scumbag" with much of the fanbase. The vast majority of Yankee fans who do cheer for Chapman will have some guilt, which will detract from their experience as fans. Who wants to think about spousal abuse when there's 2 out in the 9th, and two strikes?

Well, I would call them "scumbags" (actually it isn't a word I use so I would probably call them something else) if they were happy that the Red Sox were not integrating like the other baseball teams were. Sure folks back then were a product of their time and all, but there were also plenty of right thinking people that weren't OK with those types of policies and beliefs, so they don't just get a blanket pass from me.

I definitely think the bolded is fair and people are doing just that. I just don't think someone is a scumbag if they are a Yankee fan and Chapman comes into the game and they aren't actively rooting for him to blow the lead.

 

[EvilEmpire]

But I don't think of older fans as "scumbags" for being a product of their times. Nor do I think my otherwise-saintly grandmother is a terrible person because she says something racist once-and-a-while. I would, however, have a problem if she was running a major league baseball team, which is why Marge Schott had to go - no? There's a different level of accountability for those who act professionally - like Schott or Brian Cashman - and my old-school racist grandma.

I'm genuinely curious, how did the Fitzpatrick scandal impact your Red Sox fandom? The guy was Sandusky before Sandusky. He molested clubhouse kids for 20 years, ending in 1991. According to media reports, players and at least some team officials knew about it. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you were probably an adult when the scandal broke.

Did you stop rooting for the Sox when all that went public? Until team ownership changed? I think the question of how much team scandal is enough to give up fandom is a legitimate (and interesting) question. I'm on the fence about whether or not I like the Chapman signing because of the off-field issues, but can't honestly say the signing is enough to make me question my lifelong Yankee fandom. I feel like I can root for the Yankees despite Chapman and don't have a strong feeling about Cashman's comments one way or another. Generally speaking though, I appreciate his honesty over the last several years. I'm not sure what would be enough for me to give up on the Yankees.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/donald-fitzpatrick-red-sox-sex-scandal_n_1095118.html

According to reports, former Red Sox players such as Jim Rice and Sammy Stewart got wind of Fitzpatrick's deeds and would warn kids in the clubhouse to avoid him. In 1971, one of Fitzpatrick's victims came forward to the team, and in a manner similar to Penn State's handling of the Sandusky allegations, the team did not alert authorities or fire Fitzpatrick.

 

[soxfan121]

I'm genuinely curious, how did the Fitzpatrick scandal impact your Red Sox fandom? The guy was Sandusky before Sandusky. He molested clubhouse kids for 20 years, ending in 1991. According to media reports, players and at least some team officials knew about it. I don't know how old you are, but I'm guessing you were probably an adult when the scandal broke.

Did you stop rooting for the Sox when all that went public? Until team ownership changed? I think the question of how much team scandal is enough to give up fandom is a legitimate (and interesting) question. I'm on the fence about whether or not I like the Chapman signing because of the off-field issues, but can't honestly say the signing is enough to make me question my lifelong Yankee fandom. I feel like I can root for the Yankees despite Chapman and don't have a strong feeling about Cashman's comments one way or another. Generally speaking though, I appreciate his honesty over the last several years. I'm not sure what would be enough for me to give up on the Yankees.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/donald-fitzpatrick-red-sox-sex-scandal_n_1095118.html

I left New England for college and got into some other stuff during the time when this story broke, and only became aware of it as a member of this board/around the time of the settlement, so I can't really answer your questions. Obviously, it is sickening and awful and I'm sure there's something in archives to that effect. I obviously didn't stop following the Sox after learning of the scandal but I think if it were to break tomorrow, I'd be done. How's that for hypocrisy?

But I'm also (obviously) fascinated with the "how much scandal is enough to give up fandom" question. Earlier this fall, I got into a heated debate with a Steelers fan who wanted to claim that the Rooney's are objectively better than other NFL owners because they don't employ bad guys, and the next day the Steelers signed Michael Vick. Which was really weird, because Vick is a guy I will now root for. He's served his time, and continues to do the right thing. Same issue with Brandon Marshall, who could have been permanently banned from the NFL for his repeated domestic violence incidents but has now become an outspoke advocate against domestic violence (and mental illness, etc.)

People can, and do, change. Do organizations? Or is it win at all costs, just hope you get more Jeters than Chad Curtis's? I don't expect any Yankee fan to repudiate their memories of 1999 because of what Curtis became after his career ended but the memorabilia should be in a box at this point, right? We all learn, and evolve, and try to do the right thing knowing what we know now.

 

[LondonSox]

[QUOTE="Pinchrunner#2, post: 1526637, member: 72900"
As for Rice. Thats the problem with this media world. There is a video, everybody has an opinion and the league makes a populistic decision. I assume America is a nation of law. Therefore there should be a trial (in an actual court) and everybody has the right to defend themselves. Even an individual who was videotaped doing something disgusting. Its a question of principle and it is not up for discussion.

The club, here Baltimore Ravens, has still the option to release their player, if they think their player did something wrong. But a league suspension is the equivalent of an employment ban. Nothing good comes out of this. The league puts itself higher than law and should not be able to do that in my opinion. Plus, it's a medieval sanction. They are making an example instead of focusing on ameliorating the persons behavior.

The bottom line: There should not be two sanctions for the same misconduct. No league should be officially punishing players who are not convicted by law (check the completely ridiculous Roethlisberger suspension), since we live in a state of law and any institution has to accept the process and the result thereof. The clubs are free to release anybody if they think, their member did something that they cannot accept and all the other clubs can have their own opinion by either signing the guy or leaving him on the free market.[/QUOTE]

Unless you know what is in those contracts in terms of legal language - which I'm pretty sure you don't, but please correct me if you are an expert. He cannot be sent to jail or fined etc without a fair trial, but that is not needed for someone to fire you. Depending on the contract that is entirely at the whim of the employer, or the regulator of the employer if that exists.
The league is the regulator and overseer of the clubs. The SEC or FSA or other financial regulators can absolutely do this for anyone in the finance area, there is similar oversight for insurance and so on. All of these are the same.
The employer can do whatever in it's legal rights, but it cannot prevent the regulator doing this over their head. For the likes of the FSA the rules are written so that they can indeed stop you trading without any prosecution etc. I hope you are as up in arms for this as you are for defending a clear wife abuser, which is a far harder crime to prosecute as you cannot force the wife to press charges.

 

[InsideTheParker]

I too disliked Lackey a lot. What an odious man! But I held my nose and cheered for the Sox, b/c he was not the only guy in the team. I expect Yankees fans will do something similar.

 

[Kutcher's Speed Limit]

I too disliked Lackey a lot. What an odious man! But I held my nose and cheered for the Sox, b/c he was not the only guy in the team. I expect Yankees fans will do something similar.

You're not equating Lackey's incessant scowling to Chapman's alleged actions, are you?

 

[Bowlerman9]

You're not equating Lackey's incessant scowling to Chapman's alleged actions, are you?

Cheating on your wife while she is battling cancer may not be as bad as what Chapman is alleged to have done, but its pretty far up there on the douche scale.

 

[luckiestman]

Cheating on your wife while she is battling cancer may not be as bad as what Chapman is alleged to have done, but its pretty far up there on the douche scale.

Cmon, it's way worse. Would you rather your wife took some dudes pipe in her holes or hit you with a pipe?

 

[jon abbey]

Chapman won't face any legal charges (MLB discipline still pending), in-depth story here:

"Police did not make any arrests at the time because of inconsistencies in what they were told about what happened. Police did not notice any marks around Barnea's neck, and she later told them she heard one shot, didn't know who fired it, and didn't want to prosecute. Last week she told prosecutors she did not remember saying he had hit her. She also said he pushed her because she got too close while yelling at him.

Other witnesses said they saw no physical altercation between Chapman and Barnea."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-aroldis-chapman-no-charges-20160121-story.html

 

[Murderer's Crow]

What a mess. The damage is done no matter what the truth is.

 

[acf69]

Chapman has now become the victim...

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/14830014/aroldis-chapman-new-york-yankees-hurt-anybody

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

WEEI just said Chapman is getting 40 games, but I'm not seeing it anywhere.

 

[ThePrideofShiner]

He's getting 30 games and did not appeal. It's all over Twitter.

 

[ifmanis5]

It's 30...

 

[Van Everyman]

Nick Cafardo is surely tweeting what a great deal this is going to be for the Yankees in light of this.

 

[In my lifetime]

The fact that it is 30 games and not 40 games is actually a tremendous negative for the Yankees. He should be on the roster by May 7th (as opposed to May 18th), which would give him the service time he needs to become a free agent after this year. So the Yankees would only control him for 1 year and not 2.

 

[Average Reds]

Good.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The fact that it is 30 games and not 40 games is actually a tremendous negative for the Yankees. He should be on the roster by May 7th (as opposed to May 18th), which would give him the service time he needs to become a free agent after this year. So the Yankees would only control him for 1 year and not 2.

Unless Cashman pulls the kind of shtick that Theo did last year to maintain service time flexibility. I'm not saying this is going to happen but, if it's possible for Cashman to do this, it would not be a surprise if Chapman contracts a version of Hellenic Flu that keeps him off the field until May 18.

 

[NYCSox]

Because I'm sure Chapman is dying to defer free agency by a full season? Am I missing something?

The bigger problem is the Reds panicking and not letting this play out first before trading him. Maybe they could have gotten someone who can actually play baseball in return.

 

[snowmanny]

Unless Cashman pulls the kind of shtick that Theo did last year to maintain service time flexibility. I'm not saying this is going to happen but, if it's possible for Cashman to do this, it would not be a surprise if Chapman contracts a version of Hellenic Flu that keeps him off the field until May 18.

Would that even work? Doesn't DL time count towards service time? Are you referring to Bryant? That wasn't some "shtick" that was SOP not bringing up a rookie on opening day. Maybe I am missing something.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Unless Cashman pulls the kind of shtick that Theo did last year to maintain service time flexibility. I'm not saying this is going to happen but, if it's possible for Cashman to do this, it would not be a surprise if Chapman contracts a version of Hellenic Flu that keeps him off the field until May 18.

How would he do this, exactly? DL time counts towards service. If he wanted to stall his clock, he would have to find a way to send him to AAA. With Chapman's service time already accrued, that would involve a waiver process. In which case he would likely be scooped up immediately and the Yankees lose him altogether.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Yeah, point taken, it's probably not possible for Cashman to achieve that.

 

[trekfan55]

Because I'm sure Chapman is dying to defer free agency by a full season? Am I missing something?

The bigger problem is the Reds panicking and not letting this play out first before trading him. Maybe they could have gotten someone who can actually play baseball in return.

After the Sox backed off, and the case started it looked like the Reds wanted to get rid of him.

This was never a trade, it was a dump. Many teams would have given them something for Chapman, even with the case hanging over him.

 

[JimD]

Joel Sherman - Nobody's the winner of Aroldis Chapman ban - as it should be

 

[smastroyin]

The Yankees already got a ton. They gave up not much for a year of Chapman. That they "lose" him for 20% of the season is meaningless compared to the price they paid.

I would have to hold my nose and root for him, but I'd really really love to substitute Brian Johnson for Manuel Margot and Javier Guerra in the 2015 offseason reliever trades. (an imperfect comparison to Rookie Davis, sure, but still)

(grand defenders of the Red Sox I understand the player control issues but Kimbrel is making essentially market rate so the control is of questionable value)

 

[RedOctober3829]

The Yankees already got a ton. They gave up not much for a year of Chapman. That they "lose" him for 20% of the season is meaningless compared to the price they paid.

I would have to hold my nose and root for him, but I'd really really love to substitute Brian Johnson for Manuel Margot and Javier Guerra in the 2015 offseason reliever trades. (an imperfect comparison to Rookie Davis, sure, but still)

(grand defenders of the Red Sox I understand the player control issues but Kimbrel is making essentially market rate so the control is of questionable value)

I'd have loved for DD to go get Chapman this year even after getting Kimbrel. Looking at the price of him and to me it would have been a no-brainer as they could top any deal the Yankees put out there. A Carson Smith-Koji-Chapman-Kimbrel bullpen? Yes, please.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I'm trying to imagine the shoe on the other foot. The Yankees deferring on Chapman for social issues and the Red Sox sweeping him up for used popcorn bags - not giving two shits about his crazy act and abuse.

I keep trying to consider how happy I'd be with this acquisition...but I can't, because it's a scumbag move no matter who pulled it off. Here's to hoping the fucker's rotator cuff tears out.

 

[soxhop411]

“‪@JonHeyman‬: Aroldis Chapman remains deeply misguided, if as he told the @nytimes that he ”didn’t do anything.“”

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

“I didn’t do anything,” he said. “People are thinking that it’s something serious; I have not put my hands on anyone, didn’t put anyone in danger. Since I didn’t do anything like that, I’m not thinking about it. If I didn’t do anything, why should I think about it? That is in the past. Now, I’m thinking about more important things: my family, kids, my career.”

Asked if his girlfriend’s calling 911 last October while hiding in the bushes because she was terrified was a problem, Chapman said: “It was just an argument with your partner that everyone has. I’ve even argued with my mother. When you are not in agreement with someone, we Latin people are loud when we argue.”

He added, “I do not have a problem.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/sports/baseball/aroldis-chapman-says-hes-happy-and-anxious-about-helping-the-team.html

 

[Average Reds]

Rob Manfred must be the most unhappy person in baseball right about now. Closely followed by Brian Cashman.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

He also goes on to imply there's a conspiracy against Latin players.

I can only hope that Chapman has a career year holding 5-2 losses for the Yankees.

 

[mauidano]

Narcissism in play here. It's a "race thing" huh? How about someone from the Yankees or this guys management team helping him learn from this. Obviously he was just cooling his heels somewhere with no type of counseling? The Yankees season continues to spiral down the toilet.

 

[luckysox]

Well, you can make a guy go to counseling, but that doesn't mean it'll do any good, especially if he does not believe he did anything wrong. In is mind, terrifying your girlfriend or mother or whomever else during a disagreement is a rational and acceptable thing to do, as long as that terror doesn't turn into something physical, or something dangerous. It's not a good thing that he thinks shooting a gun several times in your garage during the heat of an argument is not terrifying or dangerous. But if that's his belief and his experience, especially with women (he mentions his girlfriend and mother), then I fear, counseling or not, this won't be his last experience with the police and domestic issues.