I certainly am not looking the other way if you're referring to me so please don't tell me I'm full of shit. I have pointed out that he is not a good human being. Am I going to stop watching the Red Sox because of it? No.
Sox sign Aroldis Chapman
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Name one yourself, hotshot.
Faith in the legal system and assumptions of due diligence...as if there haven't been countless credibly accused perpetrators of violence against women who have been overlooked and/or "cleared" by the legal system.
I don't think anyone upset about this signing think that Chapman should be black-balled for life from baseball. I think everyone upset by the signing simply doesn't want their/our team being the one to employ him. I couldn't care less that the Yankees and Cubs and Pirates and Royals and Rangers felt comfortable employing him. I only care whether the Red Sox do.
Matt Araiza, Terrence Shannon, Brian Banks, Tristen Wallace, Shawn Oakman, Duke lacrosse team, and there’s a lot more I’m missing. Bottom line, it happens and the person making the accusations hardly ever faces repercussions.
Chapman isn't about sexual assault and rape. It's about violence, straight up violence. As far as I know there wasn't a sexual assault element to it.
As a father of a daughter who was raped in college, but it was too difficult to prosecute the guy (thanks Kobe), obviously I tend to believe the "alleged" victim in these cases.
That being said, years ago here on campus a woman accused guys of rape, ruined their lives. Turned out to be not true and the charges against her for that false allegation were dropped and she was let back in school.
https://archive.ph/R0gTf
So it does happen from time to time.
I'm not speaking specifically of the Chapman case, by the way.
That being said, years ago here on campus a woman accused guys of rape, ruined their lives. Turned out to be not true and the charges against her for that false allegation were dropped and she was let back in school.
https://archive.ph/R0gTf
So it does happen from time to time.
I'm not speaking specifically of the Chapman case, by the way.
The bolded made me laugh, even though you didn't intend for it to.
What's the percentage of people accused of a crime who say they didn't commit the crime who actually did? Or didn't? And yes, people are falsely accused of crimes by others, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that percentage is less than 5%.
I was speaking in the hypothetical. Although this being a message board, I kinda assume everyone is running at about a quarter of a tank of shit.
I hope enough people tell them that he's a distraction from the joy of baseball. I'm acutely aware it will not lead to anything aside from my own personal experience. I appreciate the belittling, though. Rock on, man.
I don't normally comment on baseball stuff, but since this is a public forum that, I assume, is at least monitored by the Red Sox, let me add my own deep disappointment at this signing. I was once an avid Red Sox fan -- less so in recent years. This move only deepens my alienation from this organization.
Then don’t watch? If you’re going to be miserable watching the game with Chapman on it, don’t watch. If you don’t enjoy something that is optional to do, then don’t do it. Simple as that.
I think your standard for "false allegations" seems to be "not proven in a court of law," but even then it's odd to use this standard to argue, as you have, that Chapman "never assaulted his girlfriend," when he accepted without appeal an MLB suspension for a domestic incident during the course of which she called 911 and he fired eight bullets from a gun.
How else can allegations be proven false other than in a court of law? He made it clear in his statement he did not harm his girlfriend. He accepted the suspension because he thought it would be less distracting for the team. Firing 8 shots in a garage is frowned upon and reckless of course, but this does not directly relate to the domestic abuse. It seems as if the allegations are being treated as factual while the facts are being treated as fictional.
This is a pretty laughable statement. Of course, hes not going to say he did it, hed be giving an easy criminal case to the authorities.
DV victims have a uniquely difficulty in confronting their accuser and prosecutions are quite difficult (and the point of a criminal process is not in fact to determine if an accusation is false, but whether the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). There is a meaningful difference between whether the government can imprison someone and whether something on a reasonable basis occurred. The 911 transcript is a pretty reasonable evidentiary basis for me to say he did it.
Its certainly a hell of a lot better than his own self serving statements.
“Hello, I have an emergency. My husband just got into a fight with me and I’m really scared because I have my daughter and he has a gun.” She starts to give the dispatcher the address but barely chokes it out before adding: “He’s doing the shotguns. He’s doing the shotguns. Oh my God, you guys have to hurry up.”
Over and over, she begs for help to get there as quickly as possible—“You guys have to come here right now ... Oh my God I’m really scared ... He was hitting me in front of everyone”—to the point where the dispatcher has to remind her to take deep breaths and calm down so Barnea can tell her what is going on. At one point, Barnea starts crying.
Almost three minutes in, her voice a bit steadier, she makes a request: “I just need the cops here, just to control him. Please. That’s all I want.” Then she breaks down crying.
Source: https://deadspin.com/zero-tolerance-for-domestic-violence-will-only-make-it-1787428167/
Again, anyone defending Chapman needs to make sure they see Zack Scott's post, as clearly he had/has more info than was ever public at the time. If anyone isn't aware, Scott was in the BOS front office at the time.
View: https://twitter.com/ZackScottSports/status/1863981394877141051
Zack Scott
@ZackScottSports
After 2015, we agreed to send Margot and Marco Hernandez to the Reds for Chapman, but it fell apart when we discovered disturbing details about his domestic dispute. We actually informed the Reds about it. We pivoted to Kimbrel, and Chapman went to the Yankees. I guess enough time has passed without incident for the Sox to be ok with it now.
View: https://twitter.com/ZackScottSports/status/1863981394877141051
Zack Scott
@ZackScottSports
After 2015, we agreed to send Margot and Marco Hernandez to the Reds for Chapman, but it fell apart when we discovered disturbing details about his domestic dispute. We actually informed the Reds about it. We pivoted to Kimbrel, and Chapman went to the Yankees. I guess enough time has passed without incident for the Sox to be ok with it now.
There's a lot going on here, and I'm not going to try to parse all of it, but I will say this. If you think that lack of a criminal conviction equates to "proving the allegations false", you have a lot of work to do, on the mechanics of our legal system, the history of domestic abuse allegations, and Aroldis Chapman's own history. We can start there.
Twice? They received him once before and once after trading him to the Cubs for Gleyber Torres.
This move cannot be graded on its own. Its a potentially a good baseball signing if they are indeed adding other, more impactful pieces. But if its this plus a few other Giolito type reclamation projects that's another story.
Chapman feels like he should be signed by a young, small market team on the come up. Maybe that's how the Sox view themselves but well resourced teams shed players with flaws like Chapman (and its his entire body of work, not just the DV/gun stuff). He can be very effective but he comes with a PR cost that may prove expensive for Boston.
Chapman feels like he should be signed by a young, small market team on the come up. Maybe that's how the Sox view themselves but well resourced teams shed players with flaws like Chapman (and its his entire body of work, not just the DV/gun stuff). He can be very effective but he comes with a PR cost that may prove expensive for Boston.
Maz was also arrested for dragging a woman by her throat. I think that's what he was referring to.
I’m torn.
On one hand, if Chapman wasn’t famous and received a job offer contingent on passing a background check, a Massachusetts employer couldn’t lawfully rescind that offer based on what happened in 2015, except maybe if he was going to be working at a shelter for abused women or something. I think MA law is morally correct on this point — it’s usually wrong to judge people by the worst thing they ever did, and it is bad for society not to give people who committed crimes (even if they were convicted, which Chapman was not) a chance at redemption.
On the other hand, this is going to affect my fandom. I can mouth high-minded sentiments about second chances, but Chapman’s behavior was truly awful, and I can’t feign warm feelings for him, laundry notwithstanding. What Chapman did is not remotely comparable to athletes who have made homophobic remarks. I’d argue it’s not even comparable to what Uegeth Urbina did — for all I know, those guys had it coming. But no woman deserves to be abused by her domestic partner, and there’s no circumstances that could come to light that would make Chapman’s behavior understandable, much less forgivable.
I’m not going to be able forget about what Chapman did and cheer when he gets a big strikeout. I don’t think I’ll ditch the Red Sox over Chapman, but I didn’t immediately dump the Steelers over Roethlisberger either; it was something that wore on my fandom until I decided it would be more fun to root for the Patriots. I guess we’ll see what happens here.
This sucks.
On one hand, if Chapman wasn’t famous and received a job offer contingent on passing a background check, a Massachusetts employer couldn’t lawfully rescind that offer based on what happened in 2015, except maybe if he was going to be working at a shelter for abused women or something. I think MA law is morally correct on this point — it’s usually wrong to judge people by the worst thing they ever did, and it is bad for society not to give people who committed crimes (even if they were convicted, which Chapman was not) a chance at redemption.
On the other hand, this is going to affect my fandom. I can mouth high-minded sentiments about second chances, but Chapman’s behavior was truly awful, and I can’t feign warm feelings for him, laundry notwithstanding. What Chapman did is not remotely comparable to athletes who have made homophobic remarks. I’d argue it’s not even comparable to what Uegeth Urbina did — for all I know, those guys had it coming. But no woman deserves to be abused by her domestic partner, and there’s no circumstances that could come to light that would make Chapman’s behavior understandable, much less forgivable.
I’m not going to be able forget about what Chapman did and cheer when he gets a big strikeout. I don’t think I’ll ditch the Red Sox over Chapman, but I didn’t immediately dump the Steelers over Roethlisberger either; it was something that wore on my fandom until I decided it would be more fun to root for the Patriots. I guess we’ll see what happens here.
This sucks.
There's no implication in the post that he had more info than what did come out a few months later. Is your thought the Red Sox found additional information, and that Scott may actually still have info that would be relevant (and, perhaps, has not been turned over to the authorities)?
I hope he blows his elbow in spring training. Barring that, I hope he single handedly blows every game he enters until he's released.
Every game at Fenway there are fans who are survivors (and loved ones of victims) of domestic abuse in the stands. They've been through enough and they don't deserve to feel triggered, or complicit or even conflicted just because this shithead has a wicked sinker. Get someone else.
Every game at Fenway there are fans who are survivors (and loved ones of victims) of domestic abuse in the stands. They've been through enough and they don't deserve to feel triggered, or complicit or even conflicted just because this shithead has a wicked sinker. Get someone else.
No, I don’t really remember the timeline so what you’re saying is probably correct.
Yep, I wondered that too, even if jokingly.. My first thought was “does this make the Soto signing more or less likely?” One track Soto mind.
Dug in a tad further, because I remembered all the trade drama around this time
I read it as (with added timeline info): Sox have deal in place in November/first days of December 2015 (had to be before the late-December 2015 trade to the Yankees, and probably before the Dodgers trade that was similarly scuttled early that December) > Sox inform Reds of what they learned and scuttle the trade over it ("domestic dispute" as Scott puts it) > Reds have trade with Dodgers > news comes out about the DV > Dodgers trade scuttled > Reds trade Chapman to Yankees. Something like this.
Seems like the Reds were trying to trade a guy they knew had this stuff coming out and maybe played dumb when the info was passed to them. Yankees still did it.
What was the name of that punter on the Bills that was
accused of the rape of an underage student? Buffalo immediately cut him as soon as the accusations became public. The District Attorney completely absolved him of any misconduct but unfortunately I do not think he's been hired by any team since then. He's the only guy I know of that was accused of rape, completely absolved of any crime and yet was unable to continue his career. Was it Matt Azzaria?
Wasn't Zack Scott fired as Mets GM after only a month on job because of a DWI arrest?
I don’t like this because of his history. But of course I have paid no attention to him since 2022. But I don’t like it much from a baseball standpoint either. Not really warm to the idea of a closer (or any reliever) that fell apart and f’d up to the point that NYY told him to stay home for the playoffs.
Should he be banned from baseball? No. But there are dozens of good relievers out there; no reason the Red Sox have to make me watch him. Pirates seemed like a good spot for him.
Should he be banned from baseball? No. But there are dozens of good relievers out there; no reason the Red Sox have to make me watch him. Pirates seemed like a good spot for him.
He’s one of the best available lefty relievers on the market. There’s a very good reason why the Red Sox should make you watch him.
He can't be a closer, he has to be a 7th or 8th inning guy because there are games where he will come in and walk three guys in a row on 12 pitches and you need someone behind him.
I had no clue that they hired him. It figures that the Chiefs of all teams would sign him.
Well let’s see if @InsideTheParker can stand to stay in the TV room when he’s pitching. I have my doubts.
I too will be interested to see what I do. I guess you're talking about walking people was well as being accused of domestic violence.
I am not looking forward to the whole deal. And what's so disappointing is that the Red Sox could have been a fairly good distraction from the other aspects of our public life that I'm not too crazy about.
You’ve got to stop speaking for people. I’m a pretty lapsed fan but won’t root for the team while he’s on it. I’m a big Celtics fan but wouldn’t watch another game if they signed Miles Bridges. I even hate Kandinsky when I read your posts.
Joe Mazulla was arrested for grabbing and dragging a woman by the throat.
Incredibly disappointing. I thought Breslow would be smarter than this.
I won't be rooting for him. One of the biggest reasons following a team is enjoyable is that the players are kinda likeable. That's been lacking a bit recently.
I won't be rooting for him. One of the biggest reasons following a team is enjoyable is that the players are kinda likeable. That's been lacking a bit recently.
Well the domestic violence is worse than walking people. But yes it is the whole package.