Comments on: Remember Josh Lueke? The Mariners should beware of creating a double standard

By: jaolson28

jaolson28 — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 22:00:29 +0000

I should add that when Bradley came to the Mariners they undoubtedly informed him that if he messed up again he was probably done.

And I know for a fact that the Mariners told Lueke that this IS his second chance. If he messes up again, he knows he’s gone.

Bradley messed up again, and Lueke hasn’t. Not sure how releasing Bradley in this instance could be seen as a double standard.

By: jaolson28

jaolson28 — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:56:24 +0000

Patrick:
You’re on the right track Patrick but it’s still more complicated than that. The DA didn’t exactly have an air tight case against Lueke. The woman was actually so drunk that she can’t remember what happened, while Lueke claimed it was consensual. With the woman not able to remember anything, the state was going to have a hard time proving rape.

From Lueke’s perspective, he still might get convicted if it went to trial and could face jail time in addition to having to register as a sex offender. Even if he didn’t commit the crime it was clearly in his interests to strike a deal with the DA, and get on with his career.

Craig:
You really need to correct this article. The way it’s written clearly implies that Lueke was pled no contest to something that he didn’t. He was not convicted of rape and sodomy.

As to the broader point you are making, I’m not sure I see the parellel. Lueke’s incident happened before he became a Mariner, was his only offense, and by all accounts has been a model citizen since. Bradley has an ongoing history of issues, and this latest one happened while he’s wearing Mariner blue.

By: fribnit

fribnit — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:34:23 +0000

My guess is the mariners will hang their hat on Milton Bradley’s past history of problems if they decide to ry to void the contract.

By: joshv02

joshv02 — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:49:13 +0000

Isn’t the major difference b/w the two that Bradley makes $12mm, and isn’t that a good reason to see a difference? It isn’t JUST moral indignation – its moral indignation coupled with having to pay $12mm. I don’t see why that isn’t a good enough reason to treat them differently.

Note: I agree that they won’t do anything. But not because they don’t want to create a double standard. There is a major difference b/w voiding a player in his 30s being paid millions, and keeping a player in his 20s being paid nothing.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:14:55 +0000

Craig,

You mentioned the rape and sodomy charges, and then talk about Lueke being convicted. If memory serves, Lueke plead no contest to the charges of false imprisionment with violence because the young women didn’t want to relive the experience on the stand. In reading your post, it seems Lueke was convicted of rape and sodomy charges when he was not. I think it is safe to infer that Lueke is indeed guilty of the rape and sodomy claims, but he was found guilty (is that correct in a plea of no contest?) of a lesser charge.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:05:01 +0000

I’ll grant you both the “he did it before he was a Mariner” point, but the Mariners made a big deal a couple of years ago about having a zero tolerance policy and, at the time of the trade, they made a silly show of saying that they didn’t know about his history when they clearly did (or at least should have). Suggests to me that at least some people in the M’s organization felt that their existing policies made getting Leuke a problem for them.

By: easports82

easports82 — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:00:20 +0000

One could argue there’s a difference in the Lueke case from the other players that the M’s have sent away because of violence: the others did it in Mariner uniforms. Lueke’s acts occurred nearly 3 years ago while in the Rangers’ system and he has served a penance as prescribed by the law. Granted, if he threw 85, he never would’ve been on anyone’s radar anyways.

By: Paul White

Paul White — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:58:44 +0000

I suspect the Mariners will argue, not completely unreasonably, that unlike Bradley, Lueke hasn’t done anything as a member of the Mariners organization that would warrant releasing him. Lueke’s transgressions occurred while he was in the Texas organization, and he has kept his nose clean since joining the Mariners. His offense was certainly worse than anything Bradley has been accused of, but if it occurred before his current employer employed him, and it was nothing he hid from them when he was acquired, what grounds would they have to cut him loose? FWIW – I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not arguing that the Mariners wouldn’t have the legal right to release a minor league pitcher who had legal trouble in his past. Certainly they would. But his past legal trouble is unchanged in his time with the Mariners, so if it wasn’t enough to stop them from acquiring him in the first place (through oversight or otherwise), it would be a pretty hard sell to claim that he now needs to be released after nearly three subsequent years with a clean record.

Bradley, on the other hand, has now had multiple incidents in his time as a Mariner, not to mention a far longer and more varied history of past problems than Lueke. I think the Mariners have decent grounds to treat him differently than Lueke (or Dan Cortes, for that matter, who also has a checkered past but no problems since joining Seattle).

By: Panda Claus

Panda Claus — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:32:11 +0000

Another option exists: Bradley might become available for a really, really good price. Not that the demand would be all that high for him.