Yankees acquire Aroldis Chapman

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,946
Washington
Good deal from a talent perspective. I'd feel better about it if he didn't actually assault his girlfriend. Given the lack of physical evidence, it's possible. I don't know how or if we will ever know though.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,807
Seattle, WA
So many teams that actually needed a closer. One of the biggest WTF moments I can remember. It looks like trumping theYankees offer would have been a piece of cake. Where were the Mariners on this?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,355
Portsmouth, NH
What the hell is wrong with the Reds? They can't even make basic baseball decisions in a reasonable and sound manner. They don't get enough for Frazier and then they turn around and give away Chapman for basically nothing. I don't want to hear about the Yankees prospects. The 3b was going nowhere, too many strikeouts, can't field, always hurt. The one pitcher has some upside, but he is a future middle of the rotation starter at best, and the odds are against him reaching his ceiling. I would rather have one qualifying offer draft pick than the four players the Reds received. With that draft pick, I might be able to select someone with a high ceiling. I would also rather hold on to Chapman to see if I can get something valuable for him at the trade deadline. The Reds moved Chapman at a time when his value was incredibly low. And where were the Dodgers? They could have easily beat this package and acquired Chapman. Andrew Friedman continues to perform like the most overrated executive in baseball today.
The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse. I'm not sure how that leads to your conclusion, however. If anything I applaud Andrew Friedman for making that decision.

Any team could have "easily beaten this package". The Dodgers chose not to given the situation. And there's nothing wrong with the Reds, at least as far as this transaction is concerned. They wanted him gone. And good for them as well.
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse. I'm not sure how that leads to your conclusion, however. If anything I applaud Andrew Friedman for making that decision.

Any team could have "easily beaten this package". The Dodgers chose not to given the situation. And there's nothing wrong with the Reds, at least as far as this transaction is concerned. They wanted him gone. And good for them as well.
The Dodgers also ran one of the most upstanding members in baseball history out of town,soooooooo......
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse.
Well, actually they decided they didn't want a second one, as Puig (and Jose Reyes for COL) are both also currently under investigation by MLB for similar incidents.
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,052
Astoria
The Dodgers decided they didn't want a domestic abuser - or even the hint of one - on their team or in their clubhouse. I'm not sure how that leads to your conclusion, however. If anything I applaud Andrew Friedman for making that decision.

Any team could have "easily beaten this package". The Dodgers chose not to given the situation. And there's nothing wrong with the Reds, at least as far as this transaction is concerned. They wanted him gone. And good for them as well.
I don't disagree with this but Chapman is also making $15M a year. I would think that the Reds could get a lot of teams to top the package they received but not many aside from the Dodgers and Yankees who would pay the whole salary after this.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,355
Portsmouth, NH
The Dodgers also ran one of the most upstanding members in baseball history out of town,soooooooo......
Literally no idea what you're talking about or what you think it means here.

Well, actually they decided they didn't want a second one, as Puig (and Jose Reyes for COL) are both also currently under investigation by MLB for similar incidents.
Good point. There's bee na lot of talk about them trading Puig. It is probably entirely unrelated, but one could certainly see why they wouldn't want to double down, no?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,355
Portsmouth, NH
I don't disagree with this but Chapman is also making $15M a year. I would think that the Reds could get a lot of teams to top the package they received but not many aside from the Dodgers and Yankees who would pay the whole salary after this.
Chapman made $8M last year and is arbitration eligible. I'm not sure where you are pulling $15M from, but sure, his price tag likely played a part in limiting his market. But that's beside the point that Friedman dropped the ball here. The only way I see the Reds not calling LAD back after getting their best offer from NYY is that Friedman said "we want no part of him at any cost" when the first deal fell through.
 

crow216

Dragon Wangler
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
16,052
Astoria
Chapman made $8M last year and is arbitration eligible. I'm not sure where you are pulling $15M from, but sure, his price tag likely played a part in limiting his market. But that's beside the point that Friedman dropped the ball here. The only way I see the Reds not calling LAD back after getting their best offer from NYY is that Friedman said "we want no part of him at any cost" when the first deal fell through.
Sorry about that. Thought I read $15M on a tweet earlier.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
Good point. There's been a lot of talk about them trading Puig. It is probably entirely unrelated, but one could certainly see why they wouldn't want to double down, no?
Yeah, definitely. I don't blame any other team for not rolling the dice here, I think it's an unusual set of circumstances that make it probably worth it for NY, but we'll see how it plays out.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
I hate to say it but I have to trust Cashman here. This is a huge gamble if he hasn't thoroughly vetted the allegations and what suspension is likely, if any.
Joel Sherman was saying on MLBN that the Steinbrenners have always been very financially supportive of and tight with Florida police and he's pretty sure that whatever the police know, the Yankees now know.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,305
In The Quivering Forest
Yeah, definitely. I don't blame any other team for not rolling the dice here, I think it's an unusual set of circumstances that make it probably worth it for NY, but we'll see how it plays out.
Mets really should have been sniffing around Chapman. Maybe give them back a better package for the Reds to eat some of the money.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
5,900
I like how no one is mentioning this as if it's no big deal to discharge rounds into a neighborhood:

At that point, he told investigators, he got his pistol from the glove box and locked himself in his garage. He fired seven rounds into a concrete wall and fired one round through a window before tossing the pistol aside.
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
So on MLBTR it says if he is suspended for more than 45 days in 2016 he won't hit six years of service time next year.
Pretty sure MLBTR is wrong. The CBA expressly says time on a suspension counts towards service time:

ARTICLE XXI—Credited Major League Service

A. Definitions
Those Player rights expressly set forth in the Basic Agreement for which a Player’s eligibility is dependent upon credited Major League service will be determined as follows:

(1) One full day of Major League service will be credited for each day of the championship season a Player is on a Major League Club’s Active List. A total of 172 days of Major League credited service will constitute one full year of credited service. A Player may not be credited with more than one year of credited service, 172 days, in one championship season. Major League service will be computed commencing with the date of the first regularly scheduled championship season game, through and including the date of the last regularly scheduled championship season game. This rule shall apply uniformly to all Players and all Clubs notwithstanding differences in a particular Club’s schedule.

(2) For purposes of calculating credited service, a Player will be considered to be on a Club’s Active List if: (a) placed on a disciplinary suspension by a Club, the Senior Vice President, Standards and On-Field Operations or the Commissioner, or on the Disabled List; or [military service]...
 

EvilEmpire

Dope
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
10,946
Washington
Unless gun laws in FL are much different than where I live in WA (entirely possible, of course), I think it depends on the kind of neighborhood, how much property he has, and whether or not it is zoned for shooting. It could be a very big deal or not much of one of at all.

I'm on the outskirts of a small town and can legally shoot a handgun on my five acre property.

Whatever the case, I'm sure the Yankees knew going in what potential gun charges are out there.

Edit: Responding to HSC.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
I think in Florida it's actually mandatory to discharge your gun into the neighborhood once per year, or they take it away. :)

Pretty sure MLBTR is wrong. The CBA expressly says time on a suspension counts towards service time:
If that's true (and it looks like it is), absolutely everyone is reporting that incorrectly, not just MLBTR.
 

Bowlerman9

bitchslapped by Keith Law
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 1, 2003
5,211
Pretty sure MLBTR is wrong. The CBA expressly says time on a suspension counts towards service time:
No it doesn't. It says that suspensions count towards service time that fall under the certain criteria listed, not just any suspension at all. Notice how the Joint Drug Agreement isnt part of that criteria? Well apparently neither is the new personal conduct policy.

"All disciplinary suspensions under the policy that are upheld are without pay and suspended players will not accrue Major League service."

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25277055/mlb-enacts-policy-for-domestic-violence-sexual-assault-and-child-abuse
 

Joshv02

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,633
Brookline
Well apparently neither is the new personal conduct policy.
Thanks. You are right - the joint agreement (also here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:large ) includes that language. I glanced over it when I read it.

(Though, not to get too into the weeds - that only applies to those that "are upheld." If the suspension isn't challenged before the arbitration panel, presumably it would be with pay and does accrue service time as it was not "upheld"? Though that would be a distinction that makes little sense [though, I guess it does incent people not to appeal?], so I'm likely reading it wrong - or its just a drafting issue that people will ignore.)
 
Last edited:

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,638
Southwestern CT
Thanks. You are right - the joint agreement (also here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM9aheDUkAAi8wh.jpg:large ) includes that language. I glanced over it when I read it.

(Though, not to get too into the weeds - that only applies to those that "are upheld." If the suspension isn't challenged before the arbitration panel, presumably it would be with pay and does accrue service time as it was not "upheld"? Though that would be a distinction that makes little sense [though, I guess it does incent people not to appeal?], so I'm likely reading it wrong - or its just a drafting issue that people will ignore.)
I believe the instincts you are expressing in the bolded section are correct.

I would read the words "are upheld" to mean "not overturned." So a suspension that is not challenged is upheld.
 

No Guru No Method

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 23, 2002
1,176
Hyndford Street
"We know too well the mayhem and pain wrought by domestic violence. And sadly, we know there are likely more of these cases coming. There are so many things we know. But conditioned to praise the savvy and successful manipulator of market inefficiencies, we’ve rarely paused to wonder if maybe this thing should be off limits. If perhaps, in the face of understandable motivation and sound accounting, we ought not to exploit this thing. If perhaps, we end up paying a much graver price for baseball than a couple of prospects and an extra year of free agency. If perhaps, burdened with so much knowledge, we know too much to care about it being valuable, rather than decent."

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28126
 

djhb20

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2004
1,887
10025
Exactly. Strictly on field, it may be a great move. But in real life, all in, this is a garbage move.

And if the Sox did it, I'd be seriously pissed off at the organization.

To the extent the "Yankee Way" is a real thing, how does this possibly fit it? If I were on the Yankees, and they told me to shave or cut my hair or whatever after this move, I'd tell them to fuck off.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The interesting thing in rereading the article posted above is that it is clear that the incident we are discussing is not the first time police were called to Chapman's house.

It says that the officers knew of the child the couple had together because they learned that during "a previous interaction at the residence."

Now, maybe that was just a couple of starstruck officers who engaged in conversation with their rich neighbor, but I doubt it.

The more likely interpretation is that there was a previous altercation that also resulted in no charges being filed.

This woman needs to get herself and her child far, far way from Aroldis Chapman.

The only difference between this incident and the Greg Hardy incident was that Hardy's girlfriend's brother wasn't there to restrain the out of control professional shitstain.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
19,083
IRemember, Chapman has not been found guilty of anything yet. I would have added Chapman in heatbeat for that package. MLB should not be suspending people based on hearsay or their own investigation nor on actual conviction. That would be punishing somebody twice for the same act (if convicted, and if not, it would be just random). That's my opinion and apparently the approach of a lot of sport unions.
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 . . . .
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,831
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 . . . .

I'll bring this up again and I hope there is a satisfactory answer but I don't know of one. Ray Rice knocked out his girl. She stayed with him and didn't press charges. Who exactly is the league protecting/punishing by not letting Ray Rice play football? They're punishing Ray Rice but indirectly punishing his girlfriend assuming he is the bread winner.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
18,355
Portsmouth, NH
Exactly. Strictly on field, it may be a great move. But in real life, all in, this is a garbage move.

And if the Sox did it, I'd be seriously pissed off at the organization.

To the extent the "Yankee Way" is a real thing, how does this possibly fit it? If I were on the Yankees, and they told me to shave or cut my hair or whatever after this move, I'd tell them to fuck off.

Serious question that I can't find answered on the Google machine - is it just a "policy" or do they actually write it into their contracts?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,157
Not here
What the fuck?! We would all be sacrificing white baby lambs at the alter of Dombrowski if he had pulled this off.
No we wouldn't. There is no way of celebrate the addition of a wide beater to the roster.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
26,572
Alexandria, VA
I'll bring this up again and I hope there is a satisfactory answer but I don't know of one. Ray Rice knocked out his girl. She stayed with him and didn't press charges. Who exactly is the league protecting/punishing by not letting Ray Rice play football? They're punishing Ray Rice but indirectly punishing his girlfriend assuming he is the bread winner.
That's true almost every time you jail someone. Dad kills the neighbor, dad goes to jail, dad's wife/innocent child/parents/place of business/etc suffer. It sucks, but dad brought it on everyone and the long-term impact of not punishing criminals is probably worse--especially in cases of domestic abuse a la Ray Rice where codependency and emotional enmeshment are common.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,831
That's true almost every time you jail someone. Dad kills the neighbor, dad goes to jail, dad's wife/innocent child/parents/place of business/etc suffer. It sucks, but dad brought it on everyone and the long-term impact of not punishing criminals is probably worse--especially in cases of domestic abuse a la Ray Rice where codependency and emotional enmeshment are common.

It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.

If dad kills a neighbor, dads going to jail as I'm sure the victims family wants him to. His family will suffer but they were not who the crime was committed against.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,638
Southwestern CT
It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.

If dad kills a neighbor, dads going to jail as I'm sure the victims family wants him to. His family will suffer but they were not who the crime was committed against.
Your question is easy to answer: The NFL (and MLB, and all sports leagues) is in the entertainment business. The goal is to put a product on the field that will compel consumers to watch. Period.

The initial suspension for Rice was lenient because the NFL/Ravens wanted Rice back on the field. They were also confident that people would never see video of the actual assault. (Beyond the one video that had already surfaced.) When the video of him assaulting his then-fiance in the elevator surfaced, the NFL realized that their product would be damaged if he were on the field because his actions were repellent. So they dropped him. (Whether Goodell had the right to do so is immaterial, because the Ravens cut him anyway.)

That's the cold reality of the situation. Employers do what is in their best interests irrespective of their employees or their spouses and family.

The Yankees are taking a risk by assuming that the details of Chapman's case will never be presented graphically enough for the public to care. They may be right. They may be wrong. But like every employer in and out of sports, their concern about the victim extends only as far as the impact on their bottom line.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
15,831
Your question is easy to answer: The NFL (and MLB, and all sports leagues) is in the entertainment business. The goal is to put a product on the field that will compel consumers to watch. Period.

The initial suspension for Rice was lenient because the NFL/Ravens wanted Rice back on the field. They were also confident that people would never see video of the actual assault. (Beyond the one video that had already surfaced.) When the video of him assaulting his then-fiance in the elevator surfaced, the NFL realized that their product would be damaged if he were on the field because his actions were repellent. So they dropped him. (Whether Goodell had the right to do so is immaterial, because the Ravens cut him anyway.)

That's the cold reality of the situation. Employers do what is in their best interests irrespective of their employees or their spouses and family.

The Yankees are taking a risk by assuming that the details of Chapman's case will never be presented graphically enough for the public to care. They may be right. They may be wrong. But like every employer in and out of sports, their concern about the victim extends only as far as the impact on their bottom line.

I can buy that but it does make me more sympathetic to the idea that sports leagues should stop having the extra identity of judge and jury.

I'm not sympathetic to chapman and rice, I wish the women would have left these guys and pressed charges, that didn't happen.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.

If dad kills a neighbor, dads going to jail as I'm sure the victims family wants him to. His family will suffer but they were not who the crime was committed against.
I think you are underestimating the complexity of domestic abuse. That she did not leave him does not mean she doesn't want to see him punished, and even if she doesn't want to see him punished, that does not mean it is okay to simply turn away if you are in a position to intervene or respond. Domestic abuse is ugly enough on the surface, but it's even more so when you dig a bit deeper than the obvious.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
19,083
It's not quite the same though, and that's why I think there is some sad irony in domestic violence. To protect the victim physically, you almost punish them in other ways. In the Ray Rice situation no one went to jail. This is about the NFL. The victim doesn't want the assailant punished. So what is the NFL doing? What is the goal.
The stated goal of such personal conduct policies, at least as the NFL puts it in their standard contracts, is to address any conduct that would result in "the detriment to the League and professional football [and] that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players” from [such] conduct detrimental."

(Note - that language is in the AP appeal brief of the NFL.)

I agree with AR that the major rationale for these policies are self-serving - that the majority of people who watch/follow the NFL or other professional sports do not want people like AP, Hernandez, Rice, and Chapman playing ball and collecting checks until they are actually convicted of a crime.

However, in the defense of pro sports, the commissioners also generally include some sort of deterrent effect - i.e., if such policies stop one player from doing something awful, then they are worth it.

Your suggestion that pro sports leagues wait until someone actually get convicted isn't workable in real life. First of all, trials and convictions can take years after an event and is it really practical to allow these people to participate with - and represent - a team every day/week while these charges are pending? Second, the term "conviction" doesn't mean much either. What about appeals? Would pro sports have to wait until all appeals are finalized? What happens if the players pleads to a lesser offense? What happens if a player accepts some sentence but doesn't admit guilt?
 

cromulence

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 25, 2009
4,486
This thread is fucking hysterical. Those high horses look pretty comfy.

And if you seriously think this is the SAME as Greg Hardy, go look at those pictures, and then re-read the part where Chapman's girlfriend didn't have any injuries or redness anywhere on her body. That's not to say that Chapman didn't do anything, or that he's not a piece of shit, but you CANNOT say it's the same as Greg Hardy, who left his victim covered in bruises. He beat the shit out of her. Chapman did not (kudos!).
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
No we wouldn't. There is no way of celebrate the addition of a wide beater to the roster.
This thread is fucking hysterical. Those high horses look pretty comfy.

And if you seriously think this is the SAME as Greg Hardy, go look at those pictures, and then re-read the part where Chapman's girlfriend didn't have any injuries or redness anywhere on her body. That's not to say that Chapman didn't do anything, or that he's not a piece of shit, but you CANNOT say it's the same as Greg Hardy, who left his victim covered in bruises. He beat the shit out of her. Chapman did not (kudos!).
The only reason Chapman's girlfriend ended up less bruised than Hardy's girlfriend is because her brother pulled Chapman off of her.

They both did the same thing.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,764
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.
Well, no. Teams have a choice to employ players or not. The Patriots cut Hernandez BEFORE he was officially suspended. I'm quite sure that no team would have employed him until after his trial in the event he had a very different outcome.

Ultimately if the league isn't going to do something it's up to the fans of the team to keep their team in line. I think what you see in Dallas is that more fans are willing to give Hardy a second chance then there are fans willing to take a stand against his presence on the team.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
The only reason Chapman's girlfriend ended up less bruised than Hardy's girlfriend is because her brother pulled Chapman off of her.

They both did the same thing.
You seem a lot more clear on what happened than all of the people who were there, who gave conflicting testimony to the police each time they were interviewed (the girlfriend didn't mention being choked until her third interview). Maybe you should check in with Florida police and tell them what you know?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
Jon Heyman touched on this yesterday, not sure how much of this is insider info and how much is just pulled out of his ass, but FWIW:

"Word is going around that a long suspension is unlikely in the case of Aroldis Chapman’s alleged domestic violence incident. MLB is taking the domestic violence issue very seriously but word is the evidence may be thin in this case. The Yankees aren’t saying anything beyond that they did their “due diligence” in making the trade. But suffice it to say, they wouldn’t have made the deal if they thought he was in for a long suspension."

I'm not sure the last part is true, since as has been covered thoroughly, NY would get him for 2017 also if he is suspended 46 days or longer, but maybe Heyman has inside sources to back up his statements, dunno.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon-heyman/25433117/inside-baseball-what-happens-to-13-big-free-agents-left-more-mlb-notes
 

LostinNJ

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
432
I wonder how Chapman is going to like warming up in the bullpen at Fenway Park, you know, with the bleacher fans so close and all -- can't imagine they'll just sit quietly and admire his technique.
 

Wingack

Yankee Mod
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,305
In The Quivering Forest
Anyone who cheers for this guy is a fucking scumbag.
Is it OK to cheer for the team you like?

You realize, if he gets a save I cheer for the fact that the Yankees won the game in which he played in, not because I like feel good for him or something. Honestly, I don't know that when I am watching a team that I like I am actually "cheering" for individual players instead of the actual team that I like and want to win.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,978
Rogers Park
Anyone who cheers for this guy is a fucking scumbag.
Yeah, I'd tap the brakes on the sanctimony. I imagine anyone who follows sports has cheered athletes who've done similar things.

My understanding is that something like 1 in 3 American women have been at some point subject to some sort of intimate partner violence (some sources say 1 in 2!). Of course, there's a spectrum of seriousness (1 in 5 women have been the victims of "severe" violence) and there's reason to believe that much of this violence is committed by serial offenders, but it's a widespread social problem. Think about those rates for a second. People on this board are pretty good at thinking statistically. Even accounting for serial offenders, a *ton* of men are domestic abusers of varying severity.

I agree it's sleazy for the Yankees to crow about getting good value in trade because of Chapman's legal troubles. But at the same time, it would be pretty unlikely that a group of 25 men would be entirely innocent of this sort of thing.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
I agree it's sleazy for the Yankees to crow about getting good value in trade because of Chapman's legal troubles.
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.
 

No Guru No Method

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 23, 2002
1,176
Hyndford Street
My new favorite post ever from Morons "R" Us sums it up in a most awesome way !

DV is disgusting but the investigation is still ongoing. If everyone on the Yankees is required to be a beardless choir boy, get ready for some lean years. Derek Jeter seemed like an asshole teammate and may be a racist homophobe, Andy Pettitte was a drug cheat, and there's a long tradition of scumbags from ARod, Clemens, Knoblauch, Gooden and Chad Curtis to Leyritz, Strawberry, Steve Howe, Mickey Mantle, and George Steinbrenner himself.

Most fans seem to look back fondly on one of the greatest deadline acquisitions of all time, where David Justice powered the 2000 team all the way to a third straight title. This is the same guy who Halle Berry filed a restraining order against and who may or may not have beaten the sh*t out of her.

The Yankees also have a checkered past when it comes to racism, avoiding integration until eight years after Jackie Robinson and employing an outfielder who said he liked to crack blacks over the head with a nightstick" during the offseason.

Anyway, none of this made me like the Yankees any less and I'm not going to start now. I get a kick out of the clowns on WFAN who've called in and said that they're going to boycott. Really, this is where you draw the line?​
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
27,638
Southwestern CT
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 ...
 
Last edited:

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Is it OK to cheer for the team you like?

You realize, if he gets a save I cheer for the fact that the Yankees won the game in which he played in, not because I like feel good for him or something. Honestly, I don't know that when I am watching a team that I like I am actually "cheering" for individual players instead of the actual team that I like and want to win.
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.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
48,896
Definitely agree with the football part of that, and it shouldn't be limited to the NFL as the NCAA are arguably a lot worse in terms of exploiting the players (at least the NFL guys are getting paid). My freshman comp research paper in college in 1984 was that college football players should be paid by the schools and not forced into the charade of taking classes that most of them go through, pretty much no progress on that front in the intervening years even while TV contracts have skyrocketed.

As far as Chapman specifically, I never paid much attention to him before (I mostly follow the AL) except for obviously being aware of how ridiculously hard he throws. For me at this point, he is like Rafael Soriano, a bit hard to root for personally but that's almost certainly not going to stop me while he is in NY.