See how that goes, Craig? Both ways.

“Asking for people to hold off on judgment the day a scandal breaks is shameful how?”

That is not shameful. What is shameful is to make such a statement, and then to go to a Penn State class the NEXT DAY (the timeline you describe is wrong) and pass all sorts of judgments. Like, asserting that Joe Paterno was being scapegoated, and calling out the media for its coverage of the situation. That makes Posnanski a Paterno apologist and also a 100% iron-clad true blue hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do, it would seem.

“What did you want Posnanski to do, quit the project altogether?”

Yes, exactly. While it would have been hard to walk away, it would also have been the right thing to do. Joe Posnanski planned to write a tribute to the great Joe Paterno. That book became impossible, and Posnanski simply isn’t the correct writer for the type of book that was now apropos. If he could not abandon the project, then the next best thing would have been to step back and give it some time–a couple of years, at least.
The question I ask myself is, if Joe Posnanski’s own daughters had been the victims, would have have written the book still? I assume the answer is ‘no.’ And if that is the case, how does it all of a sudden become ok because it’s someone else’s kids who were molested? None of Posnanski’s defenders has ever been able to answer that question.

“give me a break with the moralizing from Pearlman.”

I’m not interested in his “moralizing.” I reference him because he is presumably familiar with journalistic standards in general, and with SI policies in particular (even if he chooses to violate those standards on his personal website). I could quote my own expertise–having once served as managing editor of a medium-sized newspaper–but while my sense of the ethics is the same as Pearlman’s, I’ve already been called “full of shit” and have been accused of making things up.

Again, I remain amazed at the ability of Posnanski fans to look the other way, in the face of all evidence that he’s got some pretty serious shortcomings (again: THREE jobs in one year?). Look above, where ezthinking presents evidence in support of Posnanski that is DEMONSTRABLY not true. 10 thumbs up! Is this not the same kind of myopia that the fans of this blog bemoan in the Murray Chasses and the Jon Heymans of the world?

You have built entire scenarios around things that have yet to have factual proof. You are the living embodiment of a person jumping the gun! Congratulations, JTGlady!

I mean, his handling of the Paterno situation was shameful.

Asking for people to hold off on judgment the day a scandal breaks is shameful how? I haven’t read the book, so I can’t speak for what’s in it, but what did you want Posnanski to do, quit the project altogether?

“One of the things that really irks me, RE: Posnanski and Paterno, is that, late last year, after the initial Sandusky news hit, the author addressed a class at Penn State titled, “Joe Paterno: Communications and the Media.” As an employee of Sports Illustrated at the time, defending Paterno before a room of students was, to be polite, unprofessional (When I was coming up at SI, the editors would have considered firing a writer for such an action).

Not sure of the timeline, but here’s what happened. 11/4/11 Sandusky is indicted on multiple accounts of sex crimes against young boys. On or around 11/10/11, Joe Posnanski is quoted by one person in a class where he mentions such incendiary things as:

“The rush to judgment here has been extraordinarily. The lesson to learn might be that we screwed this thing up.”

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see things like “Paterno is a scapegoat” is both right and wrong. Paterno should have done plenty of things when hearing about the news, but oftentimes reading some articles seemed to place more blame on Paterno than Sandusky himself.

Pos also said:
“The only thing people remember about Woody Hayes is that he hit a player. I don’t want that to happen to Joe. He didn’t hit a player.”

Which sounds really bad, but lots of people are also forgetting about the good Paterno did. Again, he wasn’t the one who abused this kids.

Also, give me a break with the moralizing from Pearlman. He’s the same guy who made some predictions about how the baseball season was going to turn out, and when it blew up in his face he edited his predictions with no comment. Then when called out on it, he said “they were a joke” Ha ha…

Misrepresentation of a material fact (either by words or conduct, or intentional lack of disclosure) made with the intent to deceive a third party so said third party will rely upon said misrepresentation, with actual reliance upon the misrepresentation.

Thus, a team would have to legally prove five elements:

(1) The Misrepresentation;
(2) Defendant’s knowledge that the statement is untrue;
(3) Intent to deceive (a/k/a scienter);
(4) Justifiable reliance on said misrepresenation; and
(5) Injury to the party who relied upon such misrepresentation.

The reason Craig, in his (former) professional opinion mentioned the cost and difficulty (it’s not simple at all), is that it is nearly impossible to demonstrate element three (3) above. Moreover, one would have to prove that the organization relied upon statements made by the player under contract, and that the reliance was justified. If, for example, the party making the misrepresenation has dubious or questionable credibility, then there is an issue as to whether the party relying on a statement made by (for lack of a better term) a known liar did so justifiably.

As a final matter, what are the putative damages the team in question has suffered. Did the player’s signing result in increased revenue, performance, meat in the seats, etc.? If so, what is that value? What is the value remaining on the deal?

It’s for reasons like these that a lay person, regardless of skill, intellect, etc., cannot make statements that a legal action sounding in fraud is “very simple” or the difficulties of any lawsuit are “strawman arguments.” Multi-trillion dollar corporations (as far as asset value, etc.) settle lawsuits all the time based on said “simplicities” or “strawmen arguments.” In fact, teams of accountants and other bean-counter types have determined that the cash value of settlements saves money as opposed to throwing money at defense costs.

Also, I suspect that some posting as to the simplicities, etc., also were among those who did not support the government’s case(s) against the likes of Bonds, Clemens, et al.

No one likes throwing good money after bad, especially when considering something a bad investment. Business types (i.e.: not me) tend to simply cut losses at that point and move on. In fact, this type of behavior (cutting losses) tends to be why teams will eat large portions of a bad contract in order to unload a player.

Please bear in mind that the foregoing does not constitute any advice, etc., nor is it intended to attack or villify any opinion. It is designed to inform and possibly educate members of what tends to be an over litigious population.

Your bill will be forthcoming…

9.(a) The Club and the Player agree to accept, abide by and comply
with all provisions of the Major League Constitution, and the Major
League Rules, or other rules or regulations in effect on the date of this
Uniform Player’s Contract, which are not inconsistent with the provisions
of this contract or the provisions of any agreement between the
Major League Clubs and the Major League Baseball Players Association

The Joint Drug Agreement specifies that three failed drug tests leads to a permanent suspension. For the Yankees to attempt to void Rodriguez’s contract in this situation is clearly inconsistent with that agreement.

“One of the things that really irks me, RE: Posnanski and Paterno, is that, late last year, after the initial Sandusky news hit, the author addressed a class at Penn State titled, “Joe Paterno: Communications and the Media.” As an employee of Sports Illustrated at the time, defending Paterno before a room of students was, to be polite, unprofessional (When I was coming up at SI, the editors would have considered firing a writer for such an action).”

I mean, his handling of the Paterno situation was shameful. He was roundly lambasted in the various media for his actions in the weeks following the scandal, and his book–cynically rushed into print to capitalize on interest in the scandal–was universally judged to be an apology for Paterno. You know, the same Paterno that looked the other way for more than a decade while children were molested.

Now, he’s on his third job in less than a year. I mean, whether you believe he was fired from SI or not, there’s simply no explanation for that which does not reflect badly on Posnanski. Either he is a lousy employee, or he doesn’t honor his commitments, or he is prioritizing money over all else, or something. I suppose Posnanski’s continued popularity speaks to the appeal/power of his “aw shucks” toe-in-the sand schtick.

Anyhow, please commence the thumbs down. I am hoping to collect even more downs than the time that I suggested that Albert Pujols’ contract with the Angels wasn’t as bad as it seems.

November 11, 2011: Posnanski appears before a Penn State class the day after the scandal broke, and calls Paterno a “scapegoat”

http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2011/11/10/joe-posnanski-thinks-that-joe-paterno-is-being-made-a-scapegoat-did-you-know-posnanski-was-writing-a-book-on-paterno/

March 30, 2012 (aka five months LATER): Posnanski announces he is leaving SI:

http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2012/03/30/joe-posnanski-is-leaving-sports-illustrated/

Feel free to totally make things up, though. Certainly it doesn’t make it look like you are, you know, full of shit.

Leave the law to the lawyers. Your bias is showing and its not flattering.

For my part, I really hope he doesn’t become some sort of NBCSports “superblogger,” with posts across all of the various “Talk” blogs. I used to be a fan, but I lost all respect for him and for his integrity thanks to his essentially apologetic take on Paterno. It was a tough situation for him, and a tough test, to be sure, but he pretty clearly failed it. I’d rather not have him polluting this blog. Obviously, if (when?) he does, I’ll just have to skip over those items. Which means, thankfully, that I’ll still have plenty of time to read Calcaterra BSOHL articles, as well as Gleeman pieces that cyberstalk Mila Kunis.

Find a middle ground and agree to release A-Rod and pay him 75% of what is left on his deal instead of letting him rot and get booed into oblivion for 4 more years. Something tells me he’s not secure enough as a person to handle the scrutiny he’ll be getting in New York as he ages.

While myriad civil suits lack merit and merely serve to encourage our more despicable barristers, often they are the only recourse for the individual [and therefore society, sometimes] to rectify injury or injustice, particularly versus institutional bullies like wealthy corporations, city hall and the federal gov’t; because crappy lawsuits are successful and righteous ones fail is a poor reason to condemn them generally.

Don’t jump the gun? 92% of us would have to leave the board if that is outlawed.

I am working on getting A-Rod convicted of being Pete Rose’s bookie

When you go to battle for a noble and just cause, you cannot expect to avoid casualties

What noble cause would the Yanks be pursuing here?

A lawsuit only makes sense when you’ve decided that you no longer want the player even if it means eating the entirety of the remaining contract.

If the Yankees don’t want his contract any more, there’s zero reason to sue him. They can cut him at any time and just pay the remainder of his salary. Why add any additional expenses on top of it by bringing it to a court of law?

While I agree with much of your point, there are also two factors which must be considered. One is the idea of “sunk cost”, that the Yankees are going to pay millions either way, in salary or in legal fees. In the worst case, both (see Craig’s third point). The other is the fact that filing a suit can be a Pandora’s Box–who knows what evils may be revealed, especially if A-Roid’s lawyers go with a “scorched earth” defense, an “If I’m going down, I’m taking the Yankees and lots of players with me” strategy. Does MLB want this, and more specifically do the Sainted Yankees really want this?