TheLeviathan

Grades are a bit bullish, especially relative to expectations set out at the start of 2016.

If it's not Reyes, I'd need Weaver and Perez to put it above a DeLeon package. Kelly is good defensively, but he's probably not a big leaguer with his bat.

No, they aren't mutually exclusive, it's just that many people have been making your exact argument for about ten years and been wrong. It might be time to talk with less certainty about how much a weak farm system really matters with the right people in charge.

Nor should it in this case. There is so little upside to the move.

Age is but one factor. He's also been highly erratic in terms of how he produces. "Streaky" would be an enormous understatement. First half Dozier was bordering on a bench player. Second half Dozier was Ruthian. I'd label anyone with that kind of swing a high probability of regression.

Absolutely Ben. The University owes their students the obligation of following their own code if they're going to enforce it against them. My point is that, in the process of their investigation, they think a crime was committed (sexual assault in this case) they should refer that to the police. Their findings should never indicate there was a criminal violation without the criminal system determining it. If they find there was a violation of their code - fine. But, as you say, they better have followed their own procedures on this.

Well now we're just being silly.

Could make a significant difference in how flippable he is by July.

Where did I get your argument wrong? You stated you expected 2017 to be not quite as good, you clearly stated we'd get "nothing" for him now, and then you stated this time next year we'd get a "real prospect". Were you being facetious? Otherwise I can't make any sense out of this.

If this is true, then we likely gave up on his best value 5 months ago.

No.

Are you in the room? If so, this is a rather bold claim. To be clear, you're arguing when he's a year older with less team control (under a reasonable contract) and after a year you fully acknowledge probably won't be as good.....that he'll magically have more trade value? Huh?

This is not about inferiority complexes. It's about probabilities. There is a very high probability that Dozier will regress from this point, what we saw last year is almost certainly his career year. There is the probability of us contending to factor in as well. There is the probability of our ability to acquire pitchers in some other way. Like it or not, we have some pressure to deal Dozier too, but not as much as the Dodgers have to finish this move.

I think we all need to accept that the idea of Dozier plus some prospect is just not really on the table. Those kinds of deals don't happen often (as noted earlier) and they are more of a video game approach. It's just not how things work. To answer the question in more of the realm of possibility: I don't deal any of them except in the situation in which we deal Dozier and have an opening at SS and we can acquire a glove-first young player.

I'm sure both put this on pause for the next week or so any way, just out of respect for Dozier. I anticipate the Dodgers blink at some point here.

In the other thread it's mentioned the Dodgers have "moved on" - I can't find any such report?

I am not stating the colleges don't have this right as of now. They do. Hell, they've basically been mandated to do it. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be that way. They shouldn't have the right, it's a non-legal court for all intents and purposes. And I'm opposed to all forms of non-legal quasi-courts for deciding if criminal action took place. Civil cases still happen with lawyers present, sometimes juries, judges, and a host of other provisions that come with our legal system. This was a handful of people hired, on behalf of the university, to look out for the university on a matter they have been mandated to address, with minimal due process (if any at all). Again, if your company suspects you of embezzling money or randomly murdering your co-workers, do they get the middle management team together to investigate? Because that's what is happening here.

I'm not sure how much it's been discussed, but I wonder how much of that stubborn approach is to make sure that the rest of the league knows that even though they're "new" they won't be pushovers?

Yes, what they hold as their ethics policy is up to them. If consenting group sex is something the university wants to put as actionable in their policy - that is their right. I don't have a problem with them having a tribunal to determine sexual harassment, lewd behavior, or whatever other non-criminal matters they want to put in their policy. And if they deem a student violated one of those non-criminal policies - boot them. Have a process for it, but boot away. But to expel someone for "sexual assault" is to determine a crime happened. Your policy should be to refer all crime to the courts. If someone is accused of sexual assault at your work place they don't get the department heads together to determine your guilt. They call the police. Why should colleges be any different?

You think firing someone is the same as labeling someone a sexual assaulter? You can't possibly believe that. The end effect is not even remotely "the same". I'm not taking issue with any company or organization's ability to enforce a non-criminal policy of conduct. I'm taking issue with a non-judicial entity making decisions about crimes. It's easy to look past how HORRIBLE an idea that is when we hate sexual predators. But that's when it's most important not to look past! The next thing we'll hear is that the courts aren't doing the right thing about child molesters so we'll let the PTA hand out banishments. Don't like that one? Come up with any analogy you want where the following are claimed to justify it: The courts aren't "good enough", the "won't someone please think of the children!" emotional appeal of "this is so important we have to do something!", and then we let a non-judicial tribunal decide what happened and how to handle the accused. Want to reduce sexual assaults? I'm with you, but not every solution should be on the table. This one most definitely shouldn't be. Form task forces between the campus police and law enforcement. Add extra lighting and security around campuses. Increase awareness and training for officers who field these calls. Form specific police units to handle these crimes on campuses. Hit them with the "yes means yes" framework over and over and over again on campus. Colleges should help victims pursue criminal charges, have counselors and others there to help them through the process so they put these things in the court. But setting up side tribunals of a bunch of stuffed shirt college employees to decide sexual assault? Good lord what a terrible idea.

Then you gather more evidence if you want to pursue the crime. Depending on the state you could just fire them also, but you do so under at will laws, not because you declare them a thief.

Policies about drugs still entail law enforcement when the drug has criminal punishments. And when they don't (like drug testing for employment and that sort of thing. Or drug testing for welfare benefits) I oppose those policies on the same grounds. Crimes should go through the criminal courts where all the foundational protections of our system are in place. No tribunal at work, college, or anywhere else should be determining if you murdered someone, embezzled, sexually assaulted, robbed, or kidnapped anyone. That's not the proper place for those matters. All of these students did more than enough to be kicked out just for their lewd behavior. That's sufficient. We don't have to decide if they were criminals, leave that to the authorities.

I also think history will show this strategy to be ineffective for what it is intended for. Crimes belong in criminal court. Throw these idiots out for lewd behavior or even harassment, but assault? Nope, not the proper place for that determination. We should never sacrifice basic rights and judicial principles just to feel like we're doing something. The scumbag's right to defend himself in the wake of a criminal allegation are the same as mine. I don't want to chip away at them.

Depends on WAY too many things to say. All things being equal, probably a pitcher.

You're right the way I phrased that made that unclear. Civil suits are still happening in a courtroom following a great deal more in terms of procedures, rules, and host of other judicial measures. They are presided over by a judge, often there is a jury, there are lawyers, etc.