Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Bauer suspended 2 full seasons, beginning today


Bauer is a strange, seemingly demented, dude. MLB is not above reproach in any way and this seems pretty convenient for the Dodgers. Bauer was open on his media and MLB was not happy. Bauer should have been aware of this and his ego and moral compass were beyond damaged - so he is now toast; career over and good riddance.

There was a player from Oregon State blackballed several years ago and that case was just sad. Reading through the entire case load it sure seemed he received a poor outcome.

Did anyone else think of Kobe and his early issues? 

Bauer is a real piece of work though. He has money and may get more from the courts but he is done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Leader

Washington Post, and subsequently MLB Trade Rumors where I came across it, reporting there's a 3rd woman who's brought allegations against Bauer who was also interviewed by MLB. He denies those as well. I have no idea what the truth is in any of these situations, but it sounds like MLB had a lot to go on before making their decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

Washington Post, and subsequently MLB Trade Rumors where I came across it, reporting there's a 3rd woman who's brought allegations against Bauer who was also interviewed by MLB. He denies those as well. I have no idea what the truth is in any of these situations, but it sounds like MLB had a lot to go on before making their decision.

I read that Post article just now. Ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gunnarthor said:

Haven't seen the legal arguments that will clearly come up but if mlb can suspend a player for two years without appeal,  as some have suggested,  they need to fire their union negotiators. 

Not true. The players can appeal, as Bauer will do. Most up until now have chosen not to appeal, in negotiating a reduced suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

So much for "What two consenting adults do in the privacy of a bedroom is no one's business", I guess.

When one of the adults is unconscious, it calls the “consenting” part into question.

Legally, if they agree to the unconscious acts beforehand, there’s not much of a case for criminal prosecution as we have seen. But the MLB/MLBPA policy is not limited by that, and in fact is pretty clear on the matter:

Quote

Sexual assault refers to a range of behaviors, including a completed nonconsensual sex act, an attempted nonconsensual sex act, and/or nonconsensual sexual contact. Lack of consent is inferred when a person uses force, harassment, threat of force, threat of adverse personnel or disciplinary action, or other coercion, or when the victim is asleep, incapacitated, unconscious or legally incapable of consent

(emphasis mine)

Here is a PDF link to the MLB/MLBPA Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy:

http://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wsnydes said:

Courts tend to avoid collectively bargained issues like this.

True, but if unequal application of the terms of the agreement can be proven, as Buaer will more than likely argue, the discipline can be reduced or overturned. I believe Bauer is limited to arbitration on appeal, regardless, he will probably make his case by comparing his punishment to previous cases disciplined under this section of the 2016 CBA.

Regarding previous comments about privacy and fairness, privacy claims go away when a criminal complaint and/or charge is brought against an adult for sexual assault. (Minors are protected-case in point, new Vikings draftee Ed Ingram).

Anonymity is different than privacy, and is granted to accusers/victims of sexual assault, but privacy is not- frequently, accusers are required by courts to disclose medical and personal details to investigators and courts.

Regarding the policy, domestic violence definitions are not limited by consent. That there was physical and sexual violence does not seem to be in dispute, although I suppose Bauer could have tried to defend himself by arguing the actions did not meet a reasonable definition of violence. It would seem a high mountain for him to climb though.

So, is this just a personal pecadillo of Bauer's, and is he unfairly having his personal life run through the mud? Or....not? 

I believe his actions and public attempts at justifying those actions reek of a narcissistic, misogynistic, violent personality. His actions caused great harm to another person. I hope he finds genuine help before he harms someone beyond repair. He may have been clever enough to create enough doubt to limit his criminal exposure, but that came at a great cost. His public statements about the case tarnished his reputation beyond repair. The chances of another MLB team taking him on when his suspension is over is probably nil, and I don't think that is unfair. He doesn't seem to have remorse, or, elite talent to the point that some team would try to rehabilitate him by setting up some sort of treatment and management program.

LAD might have cause to claim breach of contract, so, he then tries to reach a settlement with LAD and agrees to teminate the contract. Then if he really thinks he wants to continue in baseball, may find chances in Korea or Japan. But if MLB is going to take their own policies seriously, and demonstrate true support for those victimized by sexual assaults, they should not only impose the suspension, but figure out a way to help him move elsewhere if what he wants is to continue a career in pro ball. And MLB should seize the opportunity to take the lead in pro sports in supporting victims of domestic/sexual assaults. I've spent this entire post talking about Bauer and what he might want, and not one word about this woman and what her life is like. Her experiences and those of others treated in this way deserve respect and due process, and it appears this policy may be the only thing that can deliver a semblance of that for her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get this straight.

My employer decides I'm guilty.

Society and its laws decide I'm innocent.

Wrong?

My employer decides my fate base on moral opinion.

Society bases my fate on not having enough clear cut details.

We sure need those robotic umpires as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RickOShea said:

Let's get this straight.

My employer decides I'm guilty.

Society and its laws decide I'm innocent.

Wrong?

My employer decides my fate base on moral opinion.

Society bases my fate on not having enough clear cut details.

We sure need those robotic umpires as soon as possible.

This isn’t about criminal guilt or innocence, so no, that isn’t what they decided. But MLB did decide, after a lot of investigating, that he violated terms of the CBA. What the courts decide to do or not has no bearing on employee policy.

As for what society thinks, I will say this as a member of society, I never want him playing for my team. I won’t put aside what three women have said he did to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RickOShea said:

Let's get this straight.

My employer decides I'm guilty.

Society and its laws decide I'm innocent.

Wrong?

My employer decides my fate base on moral opinion.

Society bases my fate on not having enough clear cut details.

We sure need those robotic umpires as soon as possible.

No court decided guilt or innocence. 

Employers can fire you any time they want. It is called at will employment. Bauer is not in a protected class

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old-Timey Member
9 hours ago, RickOShea said:

Let's get this straight.

My employer decides I'm guilty.

Society and its laws decide I'm innocent.

Wrong?

My employer decides my fate base on moral opinion.

Society bases my fate on not having enough clear cut details.

We sure need those robotic umpires as soon as possible.

The law did not find him innocent. It decided not to try to prove his guilt. That's a massive difference. Also, civil cases have different thresholds.... I'm not sure how this is hard to understand, frankly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

The law did not find him innocent. It decided not to try to prove his guilt. That's a massive difference. Also, civil cases have different thresholds.... I'm not sure how this is hard to understand, frankly. 

If you have been run out of a job for personality issues it could cloud your view on other people's situation.

There is also a tendency to to lump groups of people as something. For example all cops are now bad people because of Chauvin. If a person has ever been part of a one person's word against another's it may cloud a judgement on this situation. There isn't physical proof, so somebody is lying, it must be the woman because in that person's world a woman has lied about them in their viewpoint. That would be reasons why it could be hard for someone to understand

There is also a possibility of a person being a third grade dropout but I really didn't want to go to far in that direction. It is my Uncle Ralph excuse. He survived without really understanding much. The name was changed to protect the innocent 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verified Member

Just a nitpick. Bauer was cleared of wrongdoing in a CIVIL COURT where the evidentiary requirement is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Motions for protection (restraining orders) are civil in nature, not criminal, but the judge in that case stepped well outside of the required ruling and made remarkable statements in her findings that the acts were consensual in nature, that the woman's claims of injury did not match the findings of medical doctors and that the woman pursued Bauer, not vice versa.

https://thesource.com/2021/08/26/source-sports-trevor-bauers-sexual-assault-accuser-denied-restraining-order-judge-finds-encounters-consensual/

Quote

 

 

Following all testimonies, Judge Dianna Gould-Saltman delivered a 10-minute ruling with two outcomes: dissolving the temporary restraining order and denying a permanent restraining order. The judge found the encounters were consensual, and the woman’s initial declaration – on which she was granted the temporary ex parte restraining order – was “materially misleading” to the court. The Judge ruled that while there was a “dating relationship”, that no sexual or physical assault occurred because the woman had consented to the acts at issue.

“We consider that, in the context of a sexual encounter, when a woman says ‘no’, she should be believed. So what about when she says ‘yes’”?” the judge stated. “Respondent did not pursue petitioner. He did not threaten petitioner to coerce her into sexual activity. And he didn’t threaten her after they had engaged in sexual activity.”

The judge added, “Petitioner complains in her testimony that one of her problems has been her desire to seek attention. Communications to her friends, which are entered into evidence, indicate she was excited for the attention to her and, eventually, the damage that attention would have on the respondent. Petitioner had and has the right to engage in any kind of sex as a consenting adult that she wants with another consenting adult. She was not ambiguous about wanting rough sex in the parties’ first encounter and wanting rougher sex in the second encounter.”

The Judge continued, “Petitioner was clear that was she extremely stressed and had extreme anxiety when respondent sent messages. She also testified that she was extremely stressed and anxious when he didn’t send messages. That isn’t rational… Respondent did not pursue petitioner. She pursued him. Petitioner’s testimony made clear that she was upset that respondent didn’t call her when she expected him to and that during and after their first in-person encounter, petitioner wanted more of a relationship with respondent than the facts, as she presented them, could realistically be expected… Her fear that respondent might do something if he knew she went to the hospital had no factual basis. Her fear that respondent might do something if he knew she had filed a request for a restraining order does not appear to have had any factual basis.”

 

 

The outcome of the LA district attorney's office not filing charges was virtually guaranteed unless they were unable to uncover credible evidence, and after months of investigating there was apparently no new evidence warranting charges. If you believe the DA's office didn't turn over every rock and shine a light into any closet they could find, especially other accusations, you're naive. Nothing would be more powerful in court than accounts from multiple women, regardless of truth and the DA's office undoubtedly scrutinized the Ohio temporary restraining order in addition to requesting to interview the petitioner in that case as well. I believe the only reason the DA's office wouldn't pursue a high profile case like this one where there were at least two multi-billion dollar corporations (Los Angeles Dodgers and MLB) pushing for charges, regardless of whether or not it could prove guilt, is there was so little evidence they couldn't survive a motion to dismiss before trial. MLB has a lot of protections against being sued. The Los Angeles District Attorney's office isn't so lucky.

The accusations against Bauer have proven utterly baseless in both civil (preponderance of evidence) and criminal court. That should mean something. The kind of acts alluded to suggest Bauer and the women he "dates" may have a couple screws loose, making the false accusations all the more likely in my opinion. Then again, I know utterly nothing about that world even if I understand it exists. Haven't read them, but I have heard of the "red room of pain" (which does make me laugh at the stupidity of the concept) and 50 Shades of Grey series sold 35 million copies. Mind boggling to me. To each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2022 at 8:58 PM, Otto von Ballpark said:

Not true. The players can appeal, as Bauer will do. Most up until now have chosen not to appeal, in negotiating a reduced suspension.

This is the key when talking about the rather shocking length of the suspension and why there was no time served component. In cases like Sam Dyson, he negotiated and did not appeal the decision in return for a time served component and/or a reduced sentence length.

Bauer has been quite hostile toward MLB during this process so it shouldn't be surprising they didn't give him time served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Leader

I can’t believe that, two years ago, I actually wanted the Twins to trade for this guy.

The MLB will be a better place once Bauer is out of the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t have to break the law, be found criminally or civilly liable to break MLB’s code of ethics/compliance/conduct. MLB conducts its investigations independently and are agreed to by the MLBPA. There’s loads of lawyers and arbiters and representatives on both sides.

Bauer got (will get) his due diligence and he got his punishment for breaking whichever code he failed to comply with.

I don’t get the heartburn on this one.

I do feel bad for the women and family members who are getting pulled into this. The court of public opinion judges them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verified Member
2 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

You don’t have to break the law, be found criminally or civilly liable to break MLB’s code of ethics/compliance/conduct. MLB conducts its investigations independently and are agreed to by the MLBPA. There’s loads of lawyers and arbiters and representatives on both sides.

Bauer got (will get) his due diligence and he got his punishment for breaking whichever code he failed to comply with.

I don’t get the heartburn on this one.

I do feel bad for the women and family members who are getting pulled into this. The court of public opinion judges them too.

This is absolutely true. Just because something isn't illegal or there isn't any civil misconduct doesn't mean it's not prohibited or a problem for MLB. A player calling an umpire names on social media or in a post game presser is a good example. Bauer's  unwillingness to mitigate business risk (for lack of a better term) and accept responsibility for his own brand and the MLB brand wound up being detrimental to MLB.

I think the issue at play is whether or not the punishment is applied fairly and consistent with other players with similar situations. The following is a list of suspensions for domestic violence where the allegations were fully substantiated and players were convicted or admitted guilt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_domestic_violence

Sam Dyson is possibly the most applicable here from MLB's perspective with his 162 game suspension before there were any finished civil or criminal findings against him; however, investigations into Dyson did lead to multiple extremely serious and varying charges last year. The evidence against Dyson is obviously far stronger than Bauer.

The next longest suspension was Jose Torres who received a 100 game suspension. He plead guilty to assault in order to have 4 other charges dropped including assault with a deadly weapon. Obviously, a night and day difference from Bauer's case because there's a confirmed conviction here.

Bauer's strongest argument could be Miguel Sano's lack of any suspension despite allegations of sexual assault, though that investigation was kept much quieter and out of the news than Bauer's situation where being in Los Angeles and his inability to keep his mouth shut clearly made everything a much worse from an MLB optics standpoint.

Considering thorough civil and criminal investigations and legal processes have found no misconduct on Bauer's part, it's hard to see how MLB came up with 2 years... other than the fact it gets the Dodgers out of paying for the contract... which reeks of collusion.

Comments which boil down to "Bauer's not very nice so why should anybody care if he's treated fairly or if powerful entities gather together to ruin his life for their convenience" don't sit well with me. They're the same type of arguments police often make when allegations of police brutality are brought against officers. "So and so wasn't a good guy, they have a conviction for such and such a crime" alluding to it being okay to beat them with a tire iron for an allegedly burned out license plate light. The biggest reason to care is the precedent it sets for when a powerful entity decides they don't like you or somebody you care about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Leader
28 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

This is absolutely true. Just because something isn't illegal or there isn't any civil misconduct doesn't mean it's not prohibited or a problem for MLB. A player calling an umpire names on social media or in a post game presser is a good example. Bauer's  unwillingness to mitigate business risk (for lack of a better term) and accept responsibility for his own brand and the MLB brand wound up being detrimental to MLB.

I think the issue at play is whether or not the punishment is applied fairly and consistent with other players with similar situations. The following is a list of suspensions for domestic violence where the allegations were fully substantiated and players were convicted or admitted guilt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_domestic_violence

Sam Dyson is possibly the most applicable here from MLB's perspective with his 162 game suspension before there were any finished civil or criminal findings against him; however, investigations into Dyson did lead to multiple extremely serious and varying charges last year. The evidence against Dyson is obviously far stronger than Bauer.

The next longest suspension was Jose Torres who received a 100 game suspension. He plead guilty to assault in order to have 4 other charges dropped including assault with a deadly weapon. Obviously, a night and day difference from Bauer's case because there's a confirmed conviction here.

Bauer's strongest argument could be Miguel Sano's lack of any suspension despite allegations of sexual assault, though that investigation was kept much quieter and out of the news than Bauer's situation where being in Los Angeles and his inability to keep his mouth shut clearly made everything a much worse from an MLB optics standpoint.

Considering thorough civil and criminal investigations and legal processes have found no misconduct on Bauer's part, it's hard to see how MLB came up with 2 years... other than the fact it gets the Dodgers out of paying for the contract... which reeks of collusion.

Comments which boil down to "Bauer's not very nice so why should anybody care if he's treated fairly or if powerful entities gather together to ruin his life for their convenience" don't sit well with me. They're the same type of arguments police often make when allegations of police brutality are brought against officers. "So and so wasn't a good guy, they have a conviction for such and such a crime" alluding to it being okay to beat them with a tire iron for an allegedly burned out license plate light. The biggest reason to care is the precedent it sets for when a powerful entity decides they don't like you or somebody you care about.

Every player to be suspended under this particular policy to this point has agreed to a certain number of games in return for giving up their right to appeal the penalty. Dyson's case may actually be MLB's best chance for getting the 324 to stick. Dyson agreed not to appeal in return for a shorter suspension. So it's not a 1:1 comparison between the suspensions that have been handed out previously and Bauer's since Bauer has already said he'll appeal his. There was no agreement on punishment reached in return for waiving his appeal rights.

Civil and criminal investigations and legal process did not find "no misconduct on Bauer's part." The criminal investigation found they didn't have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bauer was guilty so they didn't charge. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence of wrong doing or that they think he did nothing wrong. We will likely never know what evidence they have or what they actually think happened or if they think he's guilty. The civil proceedings found that there was no basis for a restraining order against Bauer. Again, not the same as criminal guilt. The judge did have strong statements on the evidence they heard, though. But that was not a criminal hearing and different evidence was presented for a different goal.

I haven't seen anyone say Bauer isn't nice so shouldn't be treated fairly. I've seen a lot of people point out that no criminal charges is not the same as finding no misconduct. I've seen a lot of people put extra weight on the accusations of 3 women who don't know each other over 1 guy who has done himself no favors in the "believe I'm a good person" department. That's what this all comes down to. Does MLB believe Bauer or the 3 women? Not being nice doesn't mean you shouldn't be treated fairly, but it does hurt when the situation at hand is your word verse someone else's. That's all this is. Bauer's word vs the word of his accusers. MLB seems to feel that Bauer's word is not as believable as his accuser's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

Every player to be suspended under this particular policy to this point has agreed to a certain number of games in return for giving up their right to appeal the penalty. Dyson's case may actually be MLB's best chance for getting the 324 to stick. Dyson agreed not to appeal in return for a shorter suspension. So it's not a 1:1 comparison between the suspensions that have been handed out previously and Bauer's since Bauer has already said he'll appeal his. There was no agreement on punishment reached in return for waiving his appeal rights.

Civil and criminal investigations and legal process did not find "no misconduct on Bauer's part." The criminal investigation found they didn't have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bauer was guilty so they didn't charge. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence of wrong doing or that they think he did nothing wrong. We will likely never know what evidence they have or what they actually think happened or if they think he's guilty. The civil proceedings found that there was no basis for a restraining order against Bauer. Again, not the same as criminal guilt. The judge did have strong statements on the evidence they heard, though. But that was not a criminal hearing and different evidence was presented for a different goal.

I haven't seen anyone say Bauer isn't nice so shouldn't be treated fairly. I've seen a lot of people point out that no criminal charges is not the same as finding no misconduct. I've seen a lot of people put extra weight on the accusations of 3 women who don't know each other over 1 guy who has done himself no favors in the "believe I'm a good person" department. That's what this all comes down to. Does MLB believe Bauer or the 3 women? Not being nice doesn't mean you shouldn't be treated fairly, but it does hurt when the situation at hand is your word verse someone else's. That's all this is. Bauer's word vs the word of his accusers. MLB seems to feel that Bauer's word is not as believable as his accuser's.

Again, the crime, or civil suit is irrelevant to the league investigation. What we’ve read in the newspaper is not the whole story. We don’t know the details of what they found or how it relates to the MLB code of conduct/ethics/compliance. All we know is Bauer was found to have broken the rules and that it relates to accusations of abuse, etc.

People get fired for way less, usually long before any criminal or civil lawsuit is even filed, let alone completed. Bauer is suspended for two years, it’s impossible for us to benchmark this instance against prior instances precisely because we don’t know any of the details from any of the issues (including Dyson).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Verified Member
3 hours ago, chpettit19 said:

...Civil and criminal investigations and legal process did not find "no misconduct on Bauer's part." The criminal investigation found they didn't have enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Bauer was guilty so they didn't charge...

I feel pretty strongly you did not read the Judge's findings when she threw out the temporary restraining order against Bauer. In no uncertain terms the judge's findings vindicated Bauer while harshly criticizing the petitioner over and over. Those findings are not technically binding on a criminal investigation because the judge's findings in regard to a motion for protection are to establish whether or not the respondent represents an imminent threat to the petitioner, not necessarily to the validity of the all alleged criminal conduct outlined petitioner's complaint. Hearings for a motion for protection can enable a judge to grant nearly immediate protection to a potential victim while evidence is gathered during a criminal investigation. That said, again, the judge went out of her way to chastise the petitioner in the findings. 

A criminal investigation can continue while a search for more evidence continues and the police and DA undoubtedly turned over every rock like following up on the other case in Ohio, et cetera. Witness interviews and things like DNA testing can take several months after motions for protection might be heard. Likely the only chance for successful charging would have been to establish a credible witness who could establish a clear pattern of conduct to lend credibility to the accuser in San Diego because the woman in San Diego had no credibility left. It seems the DA was unable to establish such a witness. When DA's decline to charge, they do not say "so and so was clearly innocent" for legal reasons. Desperately clinging to the DA not going to extraordinary lengths to proclaim Bauer's innocence as a sign Bauer is actually guilty and should be punished anyway and despite a civil court's findings his accuser was not credible and the relationship was purely consensual is disgustingly vengeful and unreasonable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Leader
1 hour ago, bean5302 said:

I feel pretty strongly you did not read the Judge's findings when she threw out the temporary restraining order against Bauer. In no uncertain terms the judge's findings vindicated Bauer while harshly criticizing the petitioner over and over. Those findings are not technically binding on a criminal investigation because the judge's findings in regard to a motion for protection are to establish whether or not the respondent represents an imminent threat to the petitioner, not necessarily to the validity of the all alleged criminal conduct outlined petitioner's complaint. Hearings for a motion for protection can enable a judge to grant nearly immediate protection to a potential victim while evidence is gathered during a criminal investigation. That said, again, the judge went out of her way to chastise the petitioner in the findings. 

A criminal investigation can continue while a search for more evidence continues and the police and DA undoubtedly turned over every rock like following up on the other case in Ohio, et cetera. Witness interviews and things like DNA testing can take several months after motions for protection might be heard. Likely the only chance for successful charging would have been to establish a credible witness who could establish a clear pattern of conduct to lend credibility to the accuser in San Diego because the woman in San Diego had no credibility left. It seems the DA was unable to establish such a witness. When DA's decline to charge, they do not say "so and so was clearly innocent" for legal reasons. Desperately clinging to the DA not going to extraordinary lengths to proclaim Bauer's innocence as a sign Bauer is actually guilty and should be punished anyway and despite a civil court's findings his accuser was not credible and the relationship was purely consensual is disgustingly vengeful and unreasonable.

 

 

I did read the judge's findings then this crazy thing happened where I had a different opinion than you about what it all meant. I'm not suggesting Bauer is guilty. I haven't once in any post on here said he is. You are the one proclaiming his innocence. I haven't said I think he's guilty or innocent. I've repeatedly pointed out that comparing anything in the legal system to what MLB is doing is a fool's errand. They aren't the same thing. They aren't comparable things.

I'm not desperately clinging to anything. I think Trevor Bauer comes off as a really crappy human being. I thought that well before I heard any accusations about sexual misconduct. Notice how I said "comes off as." I didn't say he is a crappy human being, I said he comes off as one. I've never met the guy and all I can go off of is how he chooses to conduct himself in public. I've seen the way he attacked a college girl over Twitter for days while encouraging his followers to also harass her because he didn't like her cheering for her favorite player. He's acted like a complete jerk in places that he knows thousands, if not millions, of people will see him acting that way. Now we have at least 3 women who say he acts like a complete jerk in private. I am able to take those pieces of information and add them to the fact that there are guilty people not charged with crimes every day in this country because a DA doesn't think they can convict with the evidence they have even thought they're 100% positive that the person committed a crime and come away with the reasonable idea that he may have done the things he's accused of. Notice how I used the word "may" there. He "may have" done these things. I don't know and you don't know. Yet you speak in certainties as if you were there. I say MLB knows far, far, far more than we do about the situation and they made a decision based on far more information than us. Now Bauer gets to appeal their decision and the situation will be independently arbitrated to decide if that suspension stays, is reduced, or is overturned completely. 

I have never, and will never, claim I know that Trevor Bauer is innocent or guilty of the things he's currently accused of based on the information we currently have. You can feel free to pronounce him innocent. That's your prerogative. I'm neither vengeful nor unreasonable in my stance. Your need to proclaim an answer 100% is on you, not me. We don't know either way. Baseball has a number of very highly paid attorneys I'm fairly certain they ran this by after it was investigated by some very highly paid investigators with some very impressive resumes. I think you stating that you know better than them is far more unreasonable than me saying I don't know what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Community Leader
3 hours ago, Richie the Rally Goat said:

Again, the crime, or civil suit is irrelevant to the league investigation. What we’ve read in the newspaper is not the whole story. We don’t know the details of what they found or how it relates to the MLB code of conduct/ethics/compliance. All we know is Bauer was found to have broken the rules and that it relates to accusations of abuse, etc.

People get fired for way less, usually long before any criminal or civil lawsuit is even filed, let alone completed. Bauer is suspended for two years, it’s impossible for us to benchmark this instance against prior instances precisely because we don’t know any of the details from any of the issues (including Dyson).

 

I agree. I don't know if you were trying to disagree with my post or are just further emphasizing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, chpettit19 said:

I agree. I don't know if you were trying to disagree with my post or are just further emphasizing it. 

I’m sorry, I was responding to a different post, my browser glitched out and recovered my text but it didn’t quote properly.

after reading your responses, we’re in alignment!

sorry for the confusion 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premiere Twins community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...