Skip to content

Great Moments in respect for Due Process

Aug 5, 2013, 10:50 AM EDT

I’m not singling Danny Knobler out here as he’s merely reflecting MLB’s thinking and, frankly, the thinking of most people I’ve talked to. But it is pretty telling about our collective sense of justice:

No sense that due process is actually something that’s pretty cool and ignoring it would be reckless and wrong for its own sake. Merely that it would be a tactical mistake. “Being seen” as following due process is important. Due process itself? Eh, whatever.

This sense developed over the weekend that Major League Baseball had backed down or that Alex Rodriguez gained some tactical advantage in this big waltz. I’m not really sure about that. A-Rod is still gonna get hammered. He’ll get to play a bit before then, but he’s still going to be hit hard. The only reason we have that sense, I think, is because baseball and/or its surrogates overplayed their rhetorical hand for so long, talking as if suspending A-Rod under the CBA rather than the drug rules and thereby denying him appeal rights was somehow reasonable when it never was at all.

Oh well. My long-ago observation still holds: no one really cares about due process until process is due to them.

  1. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM

    MLB has already stepped so far outside the lines with this guy, what difference would it make if they went a little further? 214 game suspension = OK; enforcing the suspension during the appeal = not OK. This the the line they draw? Is there anything about this that is not arbitrary? Welcome to the theater of Bud.

    • El Bravo - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:00 AM

      Leave ARod alone?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        If he did something, punish him accordingly. Why make up a whole new class of punishments for this guy.

        Oh yeah, because Bud don’t like him. I forgot about the “guys who Bud doesn’t like” clause in the CBA.

      • chadjones27 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:44 AM

        Why make up a whole new class of punishments? Maybe because no one has ever (allegedly) done what A-Rod has done in such a manner. (From what I’ve picked up, took Roids, lied to MLB, lied to and impeded an MLB investigation, and if you listen to the rhetoric, also clubbed baby seals using kittens)
        I’m not saying it’s right, but, it seems Bud is trying to set a precedence of harsh punishments for those who break the rules.
        I’m still very curious as to what exactly they have proof of. Then we’ll all be informed as to whether the punishments that MLB is laying out are too strict or not.

      • turdfurgerson68 - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        This is also a way for MLB to assist the Yankees in getting under the luxury tax without having to make any radical moves.

        With a-roids contract of the books for 2014 the Yankees can now resign Kuroda snd make a slew of other moves without being in cost cutting mode.

        Like one commentator stated: The NY Yankees say sh*t and MLB says what color?

        What a farce.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:10 PM

        Chad…didn’t everyone who ever used steroids do all of those things? They all got the drugs from somewhere, and someone had to help. They all lie when caught (David Ortiz anyone?). If lying is “impeding an investigation” then just about every suspension needs to start at 214 games instead of 50.

    • djpostl - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:47 PM

      You’re an idiot.

      He used, repeatedly. He steered younger players towards PEDs. He attempted to impede the investigation by purchasing evidence from witnesses.

      He is getting off EASY with a year and change suspension.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:07 PM

        You see, jumping to conclusions gets you in trouble every time. You disagree with me, so I am an idiot. By that same token, I disagree with you and I think that makes you a fornicator. Same logic.

        Frankly, all we have are MLB leaked “off the record” allegations. I have heard that it was Bosch and crew who tried to sell evidence to ARod, not the other way around. Every player who ever used was steered there by someone. I don’t believe there is a “made rookies use drugs” clause with a 214 game penalty in the JDA or ever enforced against anyone ever.

        My point is that MLB is making this all up as they go along, and the more damage they can do to Alex’s reputation before the evidence is presented, the better they look in the court of public opinion. Apparently to the point where questioning MLB makes one “an idiot” in the minds of some of the more easily persuaded fan base.

      • stevem7 - Aug 5, 2013 at 10:01 PM

        WOW can we assume you are an Investigator in the office of the MLB Commissioner? Cause the way you say he used, steered younger players, impeded the investigation by purchasing evidence means you have access to all the information. OH WAIT… it was MLB that bought the evidence from witnesses. Tell us really, who are you? A CLOWN from the Ringling Brothers? A blithering idiot in from 10 days in the Death Valley Desert? You can fess up and tell us. Because otherwise you are just a blithering idiot who assumes facts not in evidence. So tell us how you know these things.

  2. DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    “no one really cares about due process until process is due to them.”

    Actually, people care about due process very much. I could be wrong, but I don’t think people saying “This guys a fraud, throw him out” would support a police search without a warrant – even if it was not applied to them. That said, I would love to hear you expand on this notion that attitudes about Braun and A-Rod is the true benchmark of ones beliefs of Constitutional rights.

    • danrizzle - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM

      The term due process does indeed derive from the Constitution (as far as general American consciousness goes; I would bet it has some derivation predating the Constitution), but in common civil lawyer-parlance, and I believe general parlance as well, it is not inappropriate to use the term ‘due process’ as pertaining to the rights of employees under employment agreements or collective bargaining agreements. As in, “you can’t fire him because he is owed due process” can be tantamount to saying “you can’t fire him because he gets two strikes first” or “you can’t fire him because you haven’t held a hearing”.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

        Shhhh, you are only supposed to agree with Craig

      • Craig Calcaterra - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        I’m not saying A-Rod and Braun are having their Constitutional rights trampled. I’m saying that MLB was clearing considering not following the due process owed players under the Joint Drug Agreement. They have apparently agreed.

    • kyzslew77 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:20 AM

      My favorite parts in the MLB CBA/JDA are the parts that say the protections in those documents are only available to players who are nice people (just like my favorite part of Constitution is the clause that says only nice friendly people get rights)

    • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM

      I don’t understand your last line. Are Braun and A-Rod not protected by the same constitution?

      MLB is a heavy-handed organization. We should have expected this nonsense the moment a former owner (and tumultuous personality during the ’94 strike which destroyed baseball as we know it) became the ultimate judge and jury pertaining to its players (and their finances).

      We need a Commish like Kenesaw Landis to reel this power trippers in. It’s this notion that Bud can judge accordingly that is the real fraud.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:39 AM

        “Are Braun and A-Rod not protected by the same constitution?” – Yes

        I am saying that if people look at an employee/employer situation and say “I think this bum violated his agreement, toss him out”, that belief (right or wrong) says nothing at all about what the person thinks of Due Process. And frankly, it is ridiculous for Craig – who is very quick to talk other writers to task for hyperbole – to imply it

      • Kevin S. - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM

        DPF, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that in this case, “due process” refers to the collectively-bargained procedures that baseball must follow as it attempts to discipline players. If people think baseball should ignore that, it says that they think nothing of the specific version of due process that applies to baseball. Your stance here is disingenuous at best.

      • skids003 - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM

        Koufax, I agree with you. A commish like him with total control over the owners would be great. Whether those very owners would allow it like they did in 1920, I doubt it.

        We need due process. Without it, we are judged merely on emotion, not facts. Recent court cases have proven this. And if we are judged in the court of public opinion, we are a doomed society.

      • turdfurgerson68 - Aug 5, 2013 at 4:18 PM

        koufaxmitzvah -

        “We need a Commish like Kenesaw Landis to reel this power trippers in”

        —————————————————-

        Sure, what baseball needs is another commissioner who is a blatant racist like ol’ Kenesaw was.

        Ignorance surely is bliss…jeez.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        You sure got me, Turdles. Boy, when I said we needed a Commissioner like Kenesaw Landis, you know, I was thinking CUZ HE HATED DEM DARKIES!!11!11 as opposed to because he came from outside the game, and wasn’t an owner, and actually represented the public.

        Now I can go through life saying, You Don’t Know Me. Some Moron Named Turd Knows Me.

        Ignorance and bliss, huh?

      • skids003 - Aug 5, 2013 at 4:47 PM

        Koufax, I knew what you meant. Pisses you off when someone takes a statement you make and spins it, doesn’t it?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Aug 5, 2013 at 4:53 PM

        Good point, Skids. Everyone on the Interwebz should expect it and know how to respond. I choose to go all out if I choose to go out at all.

        You and I been thinking a lot alike lately. What’s up with that?

      • skids003 - Aug 6, 2013 at 7:39 AM

        Koufax, I guess that means there is hope for libs and cons everywhere?

  3. xujudadyveg - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:06 AM

    just as Heather said I am shocked that any body can profit $5264 in 4 weeks on the internet. have you seen this page ……. Max47.ℂ­ℴ­ℳ

  4. bravojawja - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM

    It’s not like due process is enshrined in our Constitution or anything. Oh, wait…

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:18 AM

      Actually the Constitution says nothing at all about an Employer suspending an Employee at Will

      • dlf9 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        Sure … but this isn’t an at will employee. He is subject to a CBA that has express procedural terms that must be followed before disciplining an employee.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:47 AM

        I would contend that since the CBA allows for “best interests of baseball” terminations, they are Employee at Will. The popular notion is that Employees at Will can be canned with zero reason at all. The reality is that courts have long held that Employees at Will must be given some sort of cause for termination – even the guy working the grill at BK

        But even MLB players are not, this is not a constitutional issue, I think we all would aggree

      • rightherenow123 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        Problem is, its not “at will” employment in this case.

      • bravojawja - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        So does the Constitution not govern a contract signed in the US? I wasn’t aware an individual could sign away a constitutional right.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:57 AM

        “Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law”

        Now, if you want to say that MLB is violating the CBA or other agreements they have with the players, fine. Heck, the arbitrator may even agree with you. But this is not a Constitutional issue

      • Kevin S. - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:59 AM

        Actually, the Constitution does not govern actions between private entities. Laws do, but the US Constitution is specific to the government itself. That’s why the government can’t censor you for saying something profoundly horrific and dipshittish, but your employer can fire you for it.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Then you picked and chose what I wrote.

        I do not believe anyone can say “no one cares about Due Process” based on what A-Rod and Ryan Braun. Do you disagree?

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        P.S. – talk about going off on a tangent! Yes, for the record, I do believe that MLB would be violating a Constitutional right if they denied A-Rod Free Speech.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM

        Yes, for the record, I do believe that MLB would be violating a Constitutional right if they denied A-Rod Free Speech.

        No, they wouldn’t. The constitution outlines what the gov’t can/cannot do. It has nothing to do with private organizations.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM

        In this case, I was actually replying to bravojawja. I’m also somewhat confused as to what is a response to what here, since mass confusion ensues when comments can only nest three levels deep.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:06 PM

        Meh, it’s all getting out of hand….I am losing track as well

    • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:26 PM

      Bravo – time for a civics lesson. There is no constitutional right to due process in relationships between private parties; in this case there are only the due process rights agreed to between MLB and the union. The constitutional due process rights apply when the government is taking action against an individual. This is not the “signing away” of a constitutional right – that right was never there in the first place.

      The snark in your post(s) is especially silly given the total lack of understanding of the basics of how your constitution works.

      • bravojawja - Aug 5, 2013 at 2:02 PM

        Or perhaps my snark follows the snark in the OP.

        Don’t get snippy with me, mohel.

      • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 2:09 PM

        Ha! That was well played!

  5. jaybyrd99 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    We’re the 8 acquitted Black Sox afforded due process by baseball?
    “I deeply regret the postponement of these cases,” Landis says. “However, baseball is not powerless to protect itself. All of the indicted players have today been placed on the ineligible list.”

    • dlf9 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM

      Due process, in an employment setting, is providing the procedural safeguards that the parties negotiated. There was no such agreed upon safeguards in 1920, so the players had no contractual right to any particular process.

      • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM

        And in the current setting, there are due process safeguards in the agreement between the parties. There are also parts of the agreement that don’t have these safeguards. If A-Rod interfered with the investigation or sought health services without informing his team, these potential violations would fall under parts of the CBA with fewer due process rights. As you say, the player has whatever rights are afforded in the agreements between the parties. While it is a bit moot since the suspension will be confined to the JDA, my understanding is that there are appeals rights in the CBA that the players agreed to. If the league follows the provisions of the CBA there is no due process issue, despite the mental gymnastics here to find one.

  6. yahmule - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM

    I think you presume a lot by stating you know how Knobler feels about justice based on a couple of tweets. I read his first tweet as a slightly cynical assessment of the way MLB conducts their business. Not too big a leap considering their track record.

  7. jaybyrd99 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    Were not we’re .
    How about Mickey Owen, Luis Olmo , Sal Maglje etc who were banned for years because they went to play in the Mexican League ?

    • fanofevilempire - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM

      wtf does the Mexican League have to do with this, people are all over the place on this, now we have gone to the Mexican League.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM

        So you’re Jake Taylor?

  8. chip56 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM

    I’m just curious – if the evidence that MLB has against Alex has done so much more than we think he has why is using the “Best Interest of the Game” clause a violation of due process? The clause is there, black and white in the CBA, why is the notion of the league using it such taboo?

    Frankly I would like to see it used more often – I think guys like Brett Myers, K-Rod, those two minor leaguers who just committed rape – all banned by the league office.

    • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

      100% correct, but this will be completely glosses over by the anti-establishment types that don’t like anyone acting like “The Man,” even if the “victims” in the case agreed to they system in the first place. If A-Rod interfered with the investigation, that act is governed by the best interests clause. MLB has apparently decided to use the JDA route only, perhaps to maintain a positive relationship with the union. They have the ability to do this because they seem to have a mountain of evidence that A-Rod used steroids many times over a two-year period.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM

      why is using the “Best Interest of the Game” clause a violation of due process?

      Because one could easily argue that the widespread use of PEDs in baseball helped bring the game back from the ’94 strike. It’d be hard to argue that Selig should go outside the JDA when the game has never been healthier.

      • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:58 AM

        Outside the CBA would be for interfering with the investigation, which is not contemplated in the JDA. Players using their financial power to prevent effective investigation has the potential to hurt the game in the future. The best interests clause can be used to prevent future damage and to send a message to all players, too, as is the case with gambling.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:15 PM

        Outside the CBA would be for interfering with the investigation, which is not contemplated in the JDA. Players using their financial power to prevent effective investigation has the potential to hurt the game in the future.

        Unless there’s written proof that Arod offered to buy this information, and not in the form of text messages which can be easily fabricated, I doubt this point stands. It’s a he said/he said argument between a guy who tried to extort both Arod and MLB vs a guy who’s lied about PED use.

      • chip56 - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

        And baseball can argue that having a habitual steroid user and possible distributor on a MLB roster is not in the best interests of the game.

      • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM

        Church, you raise points regarding the ability of MLB to win the case. My point is whether that case falls under the CBA rather than the JDA. Interfering with the investigation is a subject matter that would fall under the CBA rather than the JDA. Whether that case is strong is another matter – nobody knows the strength of any of this information yet.

        Moot point since they apparently will do it all within the JDA, which to me suggests that MLB is very confident in the facts and their ability to prove more than three violations of the JDA.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        And baseball can argue that having a habitual steroid user and possible distributor on a MLB roster is not in the best interests of the game.

        Except this is covered in the JDA as well, and [citation needed] that he was a distributor.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:10 PM

        Moot point since they apparently will do it all within the JDA, which to me suggests that MLB is very confident in the facts and their ability to prove more than three violations of the JDA.,

        It’s possible. Also possible that MLB knows the violations under the CBA are impossible to prove. Hopefully we’ll see, but I doubt anything is going to be made public.

  9. themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:31 AM

    Big fan of due process when the government is trying to take away life and liberty. The constitutional protections of due process apply to the government doing things to people; it does not apply to private entities. In this case there is a union representing the players, and they have built due process into their CBA. That agreement among the parties also gives the commissioner the right to suspend or ban him in the best interests of baseball without due process rights. The players had the right to negotiate changes to that clause, but did not do so. Outside parties (such as writers of blogs) may believe that they should have, but the fact remains they did not.

    In reality there is no due process issue in this case for two reasons. First, the suspensions will be under the JDA, which has appeal rights to an arbitrator. If MLB has the goods on A-Rod they will win, otherwise they won’t. The second reason is that all parties involved (MLB, players, union) have agreed to a system that provides appeals in some cases but not others, and that agreement governs.

  10. jaybyrd99 - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:50 AM

    Fan -Gee I don’t know what the F does the Mexican league have to do with this . Players were banned , we’re having players banned now …. Must be some connection , maybe you can help….
    As for 1920 , 1946 and now , the players were not unionized , I get that , but due process of some type should have been afforded . The Mexican league players that were banned 5 years did actually fight and some were allowed clemency and came back early . Don’t know what the black sox players did afterwards other than write letters to Landis .

  11. scotttheskeptic - Aug 5, 2013 at 11:55 AM

    chip, your last sentence proves your disdain for due process. Until convicted, those minor leaguers have a presumption of innocence.

    • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      So does Aaron Hernandez, who was cut by the Patriots upon his arrest and was passed over by every team in the NFL despite being an excellent football player. Due process violation? Chip was suggesting they get kicked out until they are tried, just as is happening in the NFL with Hernandez.

      • scotttheskeptic - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM

        Oh, where to begin? chip asserts that the minor leaguers are guilty. It is in his statement, “committed rape,” which is what, to me, demonstrated his disdain for due process. He rides herd over the presumption of innocence. These players were removed from the team, rightfully, pending the adjudication of the cases.

        Hernandez is incarcerated.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        So does Aaron Hernandez, who was cut by the Patriots upon his arrest and was passed over by every team in the NFL despite being an excellent football player.

        Different leagues, entirely different rules. There’s also the issue that the NFL is already starting pre-season games while Hernandez is in jail. Makes it a bit difficult to learn the playbook, don’t you think?

        There’s also nothing preventing the Yankees from cutting Arod at any moment, just like the Patriots did. The Yanks just have to pay him.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:42 PM

        To follow up on that, by cutting Hernandez when they did, the Patriots probably forfeited the right to claw back any bonus money in the event that he’s convicted. The Patriots didn’t deny Hernandez any guaranteed money under the terms of his deal.

      • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:44 PM

        The presumption of innocence applies to the standard of proof when the government tries to put you in jail. Everyone – including employers – are allowed to apprise the situation for themselves and make their own decisions accordingly – even before the person is tried and convicted. That is what the Patriots (and the rest of the NFL) did, and it is what most employers would do if an employee was charged with rape or murder. It does not mean they think the alleged perpetrator doesn’t deserve the right to the presumption of innocence in their trial.

        Again – it is not possible for the employer to commit a due process violation; it is only possible to commit a violation of the collective bargaining agreement.

  12. mornelithe - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:01 PM

    I wonder, could the league base suspensions off of charges under the auspices of both agreements? They could suspend A-Rod for breach of the JDA, for X amount of games. They could also suspend/ban under the CBA for attempted witness tampering/intimidation, and attempts to purchase, conceal or destroy evidence.

    Would that hold up, or no? Asking seriously here, because I honestly think in the mix of all the PED’s talk, people are forgetting that A-rods been rumored to have done exactly what is described above, which are considered relatively serious charges in a federal court.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      The two main witnesses in this case are also under investigation for possibly selling drugs to minors. They’re going to have to be very careful because, during arbitration, they are under oath and anything they say will be used against them in any future federal case.

      • mornelithe - Aug 5, 2013 at 12:21 PM

        Indeed, however if the MLB has as much evidence as they say they do…enough to have other players accepting the punishments (texts, phone records, documents etc…) it could take the witnesses out of the equation. Couldn’t it?

        Either way, the league could potentially have cases under both agreements for the separate transgressions, correct?

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:06 PM

        I should note that’s entirely possible that MLB has every possible document signed with Arod’s signature saying he did all these things; however, in case they dont:

        Indeed, however if the MLB has as much evidence as they say they do…enough to have other players accepting the punishments (texts, phone records, documents etc…) it could take the witnesses out of the equation. Couldn’t it

        No, for two reasons. One, merely saying that have proof that Player X did Action A doesn’t mean that Player Y did Action A as well. You need evidence of what Player Y did too. The second issue is that Arod is being suspended for other reasons outside of taking drugs*. MLB has to prove those infractions as well and this is where the credibility of those witnesses comes in.

        And let’s look at those two witnesses. Tony Bosch, who when this scandal first hit said he wasn’t supplying drugs to any players. Then agreed that he was once MLB agreed to indemnify him against any future lawsuits. He’s also not a doctor, so he could be facing federal charges of dispensing drugs without a license. He’s also under investigation for providing drugs to teenagers.

        Witness two is Porter Fischer, who’s probably the one who tried to sell documents to Arod for a substantial cost. Why isn’t he being charged with extortion? He then tried to extort MLB into buying the documents as well.

        It’s very easy to prove drug use/possession through receipts/shipping labels/etc. The other charges involve testifying which can open the witness(es) up to future federal charges since they’ll be under oath.

  13. myhawks1976 - Aug 5, 2013 at 1:19 PM

    the issue, is NOT this convoluted. Alex was considered for banishment under the CBA recognized best interests of baseball.

    Bud, realizing that the players and the Union have walked pretty much hand in hand with him on the Biogenesis issue, chose to steer away

    Bud avoided pulling his god card, because the union would have been FORCED, even if they didn’t want to, to fight that tooth and nail on precedent alone.

    the last thing the union can do is set up the precedent that the Commissioner can actually use that at his will, as it would have given ground for future use.

    The process has been drawn out, because baseball wanted to wrap the whole thing up in one tidy bow, and wash their hands, which has required conversation with a lot of parties.

    I hate Bud Selig. but I have a hard time nailing him on this YET. now, before I condone the last year or so, I’d love to SEE the evidence.

    • themohel - Aug 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

      Awesome post, myhawks. I agree with every single thing you said here. From the MLB point-of-view, there’s no need to take the risk of using that God card, if the goods they have are already a royal flush.

  14. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 5, 2013 at 2:47 PM

    I blame LA Law for making average television watchers feel qualified to debate points of law. The real tragedy in all of this is the damage done to sports message boards everywhere.

  15. jfk69 - Aug 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM

    The so called witches of Salem would like to chime in. We have not come very far. On the other hand ARod will only be literally burned.
    Remember Bud Selig swears to this day there was no collusion among the owners. Then why did he and the other owners pay nearly 300 million to make the problem go away. Only when the Govt threatened to get involved did they pay. See history does repeat itself.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pujols deal still worth it to Angels?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. I. Davis (3948)
  2. D. Robertson (2725)
  3. M. Machado (2721)
  4. M. Minor (2717)
  5. K. Farnsworth (2624)
  1. M. Cuddyer (2533)
  2. G. Springer (2523)
  3. M. Harrison (2509)
  4. O. Taveras (2390)
  5. C. Kershaw (2366)