PseudoSABR

I think they have a plan (or an idea of one) to "fix" Kinley that could make him ML ready; they'll use spring training to figure that out. I'm sure they went to the add process for Rule 5 purposes differently than the Rule 5 draft. That is, the decision/process to not add Burdi and Bard were separate from the decision/process to draft Kinley.

Arrieta should give them a home-town discount.

Chin Music agrees that the Twins are the best fit.

1) Sexual harassment isn't a crime or necessarily a compensable tort claim. No ones suggested that. There are certainly times where sexual harassment would amount to a crime in some instances, and be compensable in a civil suit, in other instances. 2) Sexual harassment is a fireable offense in nearly all professional work places., likely because of your employment contract. Go into a work place and yell your suggestion, and see how it goes over. 3) If a 18 year old bangs a consenting 17 year-old classmate, I doubt there's much harm there. The point is there are plenty of behaviors which are criminalized that don't always cause harm, even if they might sometimes. 4) I know what I'm talking about. PM me for my credentials.

The Twins have so much payroll coming off the books next year, that I think they can structure a deal with Darvish so that it doesn't balloon payroll to such an extent this season.

May not mean much, but clearly there's a working relationship between the agency and the Twins.

Generally, such advice is warranted. But sometimes it's clear a person hasn't done the necessary research to entitle them to their opinion, and they ought to be called out on it. Not doing your homework is pretty unforgivable. (And they need not be a lawyer to do research; nor does being a lawyer entitle them to not do research, or have the correct opinion).

A crime is what we say a crime is (defined by our legislatures or our congress). There need not be any harm. Intent matters, but not harm. (For instance, sleeping with a consenting minor is a crime, smoking pot is a crime, speeding is a crime; show me the harm.). In terms of suing some one under tort law (civil law), yes there needs to be a harm, but that harm can indeed be psychological and emotional. You can sue some one for intent to emotionally inflect harm. Really. Harassment may not be a crime (yet), but it is something that workplaces and schools seek to root out. Harassment does not equal assault. Stop using the assault standard to judge harassment. If the person who retaliates does so in outsized measure they deserve more punishment. Self-defense is a defense to criminal and civil liability, but it must be reasonable given the actions of the instigator. If a women slaps you, you do not get to cold-cock her. If a women draws a gun on you, you do get to use life threatening force to defend yourself (but that's never the example.) I'm glad you are engaging in this conversation, but I do suggest you study the law more, and the real experience of women-victims of violence. I don't believe you've done either.

In criminal law, women are held accountable for the very actions you take issue with. If they commit an assault, they get charged with it, all the time. And if Ray Rice's wife were a professional athlete or a celebrity, her actions would have come under scrutiny as well (but hardly what ever she did to be the first aggressor condones being knocked out cold. Come on, man). The "true" harm standard you advocate for is problematic on so many levels. Yes yelling at someone in sexual or sexist way is sexual harassment. It is not assault, but it is harassment. How the heck are we suppose to measure 'true' harm when the harm is psychological, social, and systemic? Whatever disproportionality manifests through false accusation is far, far outweighed by the disproportionate number of men in positions of power. Perhaps, it's the power dynamic at play, rather than some innate bias against men.

fify

Good thing that's not happening in any "official" sense; as for it happening on social media--well, awkward pick-up lines are are hardly the only way to get eviscerated. If by nuance you mean grandfathering in old bad habits, some how exempting the awkward--well, no, I don't think that's any kind of solution. But if you mean nuance by looking at each situation case-by-case within its context, absolutely, and no one is pushing back against it. What I'm pushing back against is the notion that its too much to ask for men to discern what is or is not appropriate. Where there is grey area (what little there really is), men should seek clarification and weigh on the side of caution. I imagine there's all kinds of tactics that HR people, educators, sociologists have come up with to aid men in making that determination. What I don't want is to drag our feet on this issue in defense of the jerk who holds himself out as the awkward guy.

We're now just arriving at a cultural moment were sexual harassment is not the norm. I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to start worrying about the sexual-harassment Gestapo. Again, I don't know of any sexual harassment policy that has a one-allegation and your done rule. Most policies have the flexibility to forgive and redress mistake. But for more severe conduct--like a mistake in sexual consent--isn't forgivable, like a mistake in giving an unsolicited compliment is; the policies should, and I believe do, account for the distinction. Largely lack of enforcement and unwillingness for victims come forward have been the factors that left sexual harassment unaddressed. It's on the awkward people to get up to speed on what's appropriate, not on us. I was awkward, but I had no problem discerning what might be inappropriate and in fact, steered well clear of any gray area (part of my awkwardness). If awkward guys have a harder time getting dates as a result of sexual harassment policies--well, so be it; our society can live with it. Again, there won't be any severe consequences if the mistake is honest, minor, and they learn from it. (And honestly, you're better than painting my argument as an insincere charade to be part of some partisan group. You're saying context will make the distinction more gray; I'm saying it will make the distinction of whether there is sexual harassment more clear and simpler.)

I'd counter with: it's rarely gray. In any employment/student misconduct situation there are cases that fall in the gray area. I don't think sexual harassment presents any more gray area than say plagiarism. In fact plagiarism is a good touchstone, in that educational institutions need to make it a priority to educate students about what plagiarism is and where there's any confusion on your part, don't do it. As ashbury indicates, the solution to not getting in trouble for sexual harassment is exceedingly simple: stay away from the line/the gray area. If you suspect your compliment to a coworker might be sexual harassment, don't say "Damn girl, that dress looks good on you!" If you don't think it could be construed as sexual harassment, go ahead and say, "That's a cool dress, Rita!" Of course things like word-choice, intent, and relationship of the sayer and sayee all matter. That's why no work place or school has an one-allegation and you're done rule. Again, hypotheticals are obviously more gray than any actual allegation; so let's avoid parsing them.

What is your point again? (That because it's not simple every time, why even have a policy at all? Or because one hypothetical might be ambiguous, false accusation will be rampant, and we must protect the powerful men?!) It can absolutely be harassment to comment on appearance, but the comment nick proffered, standing by itself, no reasonable person will believe constitutes harassment. However, if such comments are always made by the alleged harasser, and always directed at the alleged victim, and are combined with other advances, sure. There's some gray area, but only often in terms of what we pre-select as what might constitute harassment, but when it comes to an actual harassment allegation, there will be real facts and history and culture that help us determine whether or not its harassment. And the determination in the vast majority of cases will, indeed, be pretty simple. The thing is, dudes that sexually harass women will try to toe the line and keep doing what they are doing--it's their intent that in problematic, along with their behavior and what they say. If it's ambiguous, its worthy of an investigation. And the ambiguity may indeed work against men, as the opposite fosters the very culture we are trying to change. Typically, sexual harassment doesn't result in someone losing their job. Esp. the 'that's a nice dress' variety. Companies have process for dealing with first, second, third allegations about the same person. Will such process stop all false-accusations from having some appreciable affect? No. But it will have the affect of stemming the systematic sexual harassment that does take place. All that said, there's plenty of comments and behaviors that perhaps don't rise to level of sexual harassment but are nonetheless sexists and would have the potential to make women feel uncomfortable. Awkward dude should ask himself, would I make this same comment to a male coworker? If the answer is no, that's a clue. If the answer is yes, it still may not be cool. There's nothing wrong with putting a burden on dudes to shape their behavior; in fact, that's the whole point.

For another take on due process and sexual assault standards both on campus and off, there's this.

Nothing about #metoo takes away confidentiality. She spoke in confidence with those she trusted.If you mean you would have preferred the matter be handled internally--well, that's been modus operandi for decades, and yet we obviously still have a systemic problem with sexual harassment/assault. These aren't just a few bad apples; the problem is cultural, social, structural, and it is exacerbated by those who wish to keep this kind of information from public view.

Thanks for this articulate, thoughtful post.

To reverse your absurd analogy. What if your neighbor is smoking pot, or even dealing it? Do you still have moral duty to report? (This isn't meant to be fair question, but nor is your murder example, which is sensational, and intended to force the answer you seek). Investigations and trials themselves are not innocent processes that have costs, especially to those traumatized. You can't lay claim to any moral high ground and not acknowledge those costs to the very people we're supposedly trying to protect.

The criminal justice system is NOT the answer to the problem of systemic sexual assault/misconduct. Most sexual assaults--esp. without penetration--leave little hard evidence, beyond the testimony of a shaken victim. The high burden of proof necessary to prove guilt is very hard to overcome based only on the testimony of traumatized victim. What the answer often is is to shut-up and listen to victims, and to acknowledge one's own role either in saying nothing or in laying the groundwork where the credibility of the victim is the focus rather then the actions of the perpetrator.

How would we make the determination of incompetence anyway? Is anything short of netting Darvish incompetent? I think it's pretty clear the Twins are serious in their desire to retain Darvish's services; they may not, however, have the resources--or be willing to assign such a share of their resources--to obtain Darvish's services. But I don't see how anyone can credibly question their competency or their seriousness at this stage.

via Heyman's Inside Baseball.

https://twitter.com/JimBowdenGM/status/943274669603516416

Terms are more favorable than first reported. In any case, isn't Rodney still on the mound pitching in game 163? I didn't know he was available.

Bleh,