Bauer suspended 2 full seasons, beginning today

[Otto von Ballpark]

Link:
MLB.com: Trevor Bauer suspended 2 full seasons

Remember to keep the discussion civil and appropriate.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I believe this is the longest player suspension since the 1919 Black Sox players were banned for life.

[wsnydes]

1 minute ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I believe this is the longest player suspension since the 1919 Black Sox players were banned for life.

Pete Rose?

[wsnydes]

MLB certainly seemed to take their time with this to be thorough.  The punishment certainly sends a message.

[Otto von Ballpark]

1 minute ago, wsnydes said:

Pete Rose?

I was just considering player suspensions. Rose had given up his player/manager charade by then.

[High heat]

I am very surprised by this, all criminal charges were dropped and I believe he is suing her for defamation.  Would think that MLB would wait till that is resolved before they officially suspend him especially for that length. 

[Doctor Gast]

I can't see MLB suspending Bauer when the courts have dismissed it. IMO it's MLB punishing Bauer for being Bauer and giving LAD a break.

[chpettit19]

Tough situation. The legal system is based on a certain set of rules and there are certain standards they have to be able to meet to convict someone. Not charging him doesn't even mean they don't think he did it, it just means they didn't think they could prove he did it. These situations are so tough because it's almost completely "he said, she said" and there's very little proof to be provided unless you have someone blatantly admitting to something.

The league has a much lower set of standards for punishing someone. It appears as if they did a very thorough investigation on this. You'd like to think them suspending him for 2 full seasons means they have a lot of evidence that makes them believe a large part of her claims are true. But with the kind of money that's involved in this there's always the question of the Dodgers going to the league and telling them they don't want the PR nightmare so just get him off their books and roster. Really tough situation all around.

I can't believe that 324 games is going to hold up on appeal, though. Maybe it ends up being 162? But I don't feel like they have a great precedent for a suspension like this so find it hard to believe it'll hold at 324 after he appeals. Will be interesting to follow, though.

[Mike Sixel]

Shockingly long, given MLB history. 

Also, they did it during the NFL draft, as many suspected they would to bury the news some (though most of those thought he'd be reinstated)....

[Game7-91]

Here's the relevant section of the Domestic Violence Agreement MLB/MLBPA agreement:

Domestic violence includes, but is not limited to, physical
or sexual violence, emotional and/or psychological intimidation, verbal violence,
stalking, economic control, harassment, physical intimidation, or injury....Sexual assault refers to a range of behaviors, including a completed non-consensual  sex act, an attempted nonconsensual sex act, and/or nonconsensual sexual contact.

It seems likely MLB has concluded that Bauer has violated both areas of domestic violence and sexual assault. The just cause language later in the agreement gives the Commissioner disciplinary powers similar to standard personnel policies. Just so, its a stunning precedent if it stands, and if nothing else, is going to get the serious attention not only of Mr Bauer but of everyone across the league. And that is a good thing IMHO.

Agree with others here though the extent of the suspension is at risk under Bauer's appeal, unless there are facts not yet publicly known. Commissioner has a fair amount of latitude but precedents can limit that. The defamation suit is a distraction-it doesn't seem like a serious case, but it can be used as leverage in negotiating future civil settlements, as long as the courts allow the case to continue.

This will be interesting to follow. More than anything it points out the ambiguity around the mish-mash of state and federal laws and court defined precedents around consent, and the evidence that is allowed and weighted in support of allegations or denials.  The lessons for MLB are many, but maybe best summarized as MLB and team franchises need to be abundantly clear with players and all employees of MLB and franchises that the consequences for actions in violation of this policy will be substantial-as they should. For many victims, who are otherwise unable to support the high standards of proof for criminal prosecutions and convictions, these types of penalties are a significantly supportive statement. I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of her allegations over his denials, but on the whole, MLB has clearly come down on the side of the accuser, and I think this will help move the league and its teams to work very hard to prevent this type of conduct in the future, and create a more a more equitable environment for the investigation and resolution of any future claims.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 hour ago, chpettit19 said:

Tough situation. The legal system is based on a certain set of rules and there are certain standards they have to be able to meet to convict someone. Not charging him doesn't even mean they don't think he did it, it just means they didn't think they could prove he did it. These situations are so tough because it's almost completely "he said, she said" and there's very little proof to be provided unless you have someone blatantly admitting to something.

The league has a much lower set of standards for punishing someone. It appears as if they did a very thorough investigation on this. You'd like to think them suspending him for 2 full seasons means they have a lot of evidence that makes them believe a large part of her claims are true. But with the kind of money that's involved in this there's always the question of the Dodgers going to the league and telling them they don't want the PR nightmare so just get him off their books and roster. Really tough situation all around.

I can't believe that 324 games is going to hold up on appeal, though. Maybe it ends up being 162? But I don't feel like they have a great precedent for a suspension like this so find it hard to believe it'll hold at 324 after he appeals. Will be interesting to follow, though.

If MLB really has a lot of evidence that this actually happened, I would hope that would have been turned over to be used in court proceedings.  If it was, and it still wasn't enough for prosecutors to even bring charges, then it's bizarre to me that MLB would still suspend for 324 games.  If the evidence was not handed over, then that's an awfully scummy move by MLB, and Manfred should be ashamed of himself (unless MLB is restricted by the MLBPA, in which case the MLBPA should be ashamed of itself).

I also read in an article this morning that when this policy was put in place, the players waived their right to appeal, so unless that's inaccurate, this ban will stand.

I am very much not a fan of Trevor Bauer as an individual, and think he's overrated as a player, but this is indefensible.  It is ridiculous that MLB is punishing Bauer for, legally, no reason whatsoever.

[Otto von Ballpark]

6 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

I also read in an article this morning that when this policy was put in place, the players waived their right to appeal, so unless that's inaccurate, this ban will stand..

I read that too, but it's just referring to the other players suspended under this policy to date. As part of negotiating those suspensions, those particular players waived their right to appeal. But players in general still have the right to appeal, as Bauer plans to.

[Cap'n Piranha]

3 minutes ago, Otto von Ballpark said:

I read that too, but it's just referring to the other players suspended under this policy to date. As part of negotiating those suspensions, those particular players waived their right to appeal. But players in general still have the right to appeal, as Bauer plans to.

Ahhh, good clarification, thank you.  I assume when suspended players are not paid--if that's the case, I would think Bauer could potentially have a legal case, given the massive amount of money he is losing out on because of this.

[adorduan]

2 hours ago, wsnydes said:

MLB certainly seemed to take their time with this to be thorough.  The punishment certainly sends a message.

What message might that be?

[chpettit19]

36 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

If MLB really has a lot of evidence that this actually happened, I would hope that would have been turned over to be used in court proceedings.  If it was, and it still wasn't enough for prosecutors to even bring charges, then it's bizarre to me that MLB would still suspend for 324 games.  If the evidence was not handed over, then that's an awfully scummy move by MLB, and Manfred should be ashamed of himself (unless MLB is restricted by the MLBPA, in which case the MLBPA should be ashamed of itself).

I also read in an article this morning that when this policy was put in place, the players waived their right to appeal, so unless that's inaccurate, this ban will stand.

I am very much not a fan of Trevor Bauer as an individual, and think he's overrated as a player, but this is indefensible.  It is ridiculous that MLB is punishing Bauer for, legally, no reason whatsoever.

MLB didn't have evidence until after the prosecutors declined to bring charges. That's why the investigation took so long. Bauer has smart lawyers and there's no way they'd let MLB interview their client or gain evidence that could be used to prosecute their client in the court of law.

And, as I said in my original post, the legal standards are drastically higher than the standards of this policy. In cases of "he said, she said" like this the court of law is very hard to prosecute in. But it's just a matter of MLB believing her enough. If they lean just 51% her direction they can lay down the hammer. Criminal court and a company policy are just not very comparable things.

Looks like you already got the rundown on the right to appeal being waived by individual players, not being a part of the policy in general.

[wsnydes]

5 minutes ago, adorduan said:

What message might that be?

MLB isn't messing around with domestic violence.  Just because charges weren't handed down, they're still sending a message, right or wrong.

[Mike Sixel]

The standards for criminal prosecution and MLB/Union language are very different, and the fact he wasn't charged isn't really relevant. 

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

The standards for criminal prosecution and MLB/Union language are very different, and the fact he wasn't charged isn't really relevant. 

Just like civil cases versus criminal cases, much different standards for burden of proof.  

MLB concluded that he violated the terms of the CBA, which is all that really matters in this particular scenario.

[Squirrel]

11 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

MLB concluded that he violated the terms of the CBA

This is the distinction everyone needs to bear in mind.

[sthpstm]

The law may say she didn’t die and it was consensual so we have no box to check for prosecution. Can the MLB not take that more into consideration than the law can? They can’t be expected to put in writing the depraved acts someone might perform, consensual or not. What he and she did is insanity, and could have resulted in death, and he’s being punished by his employer for it. End of story as far as I can see.

[wsnydes]

3 minutes ago, sthpstm said:

The law may say she didn’t die and it was consensual so we have no box to check for prosecution. Can the MLB not take that more into consideration than the law can? They can’t be expected to put in writing the depraved acts someone might perform, consensual or not. What he and she did is insanity, and could have resulted in death, and he’s being punished by his employer for it. End of story as far as I can see.

It's still against the law to physically abuse another person.  They don't have to die to be prosecuted.  The prosecutor felt that they couldn't meet the burden of proof to convict him of criminal charges.  As @chpettit19points out, a case of "he said, she said" is difficult to prove.  MLB has no such burden, only that he violated the terms of the CBA.

[h2oface]

I guess domestic violence

Domestic violence includes, but is not limited to, physical
or sexual violence, emotional and/or psychological intimidation, verbal violence,
stalking, economic control, harassment, physical intimidation, or injury....

which includes physical or sexual violence, is not in question, as it was/is the participants' chosen kink and both admit to it, and the emails invited it. It is not for me to say what two consenting adults agree to. I bet the Dodgers were tired of continuing to pay someone MLB wouldn't let play, and the PR problem that would result even if he was allowed to. Do they get reimbursed for what MLB/MLBPA basically made them pay while making him sit out so long with no decision?  I think MLB probably used more accusations than the court case in their gathering of evidence. I also bet that the courts will eventually overturn at least some of the ruling as it applies to this case. Bauer definitely needs a different kink.

[Cap'n Piranha]

12 minutes ago, sthpstm said:

The law may say she didn’t die and it was consensual so we have no box to check for prosecution. Can the MLB not take that more into consideration than the law can? They can’t be expected to put in writing the depraved acts someone might perform, consensual or not. What he and she did is insanity, and could have resulted in death, and he’s being punished by his employer for it. End of story as far as I can see.

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

[wsnydes]

5 minutes ago, h2oface said:

I guess domestic violence

Domestic violence includes, but is not limited to, physical
or sexual violence, emotional and/or psychological intimidation, verbal violence,
stalking, economic control, harassment, physical intimidation, or injury....

which includes physical or sexual violence, is not in question, as it was/is the participant's chosen kink and both admit to it, and the emails invited it. It is not for me to say what two consenting adults agree to, I bet the Dodgers were tired of continuing to pay someone MLB wouldn't let play, and the PR problem that would result even if he was allowed to. I think MLB probably used more accusations than the court case in their gathering of evidence. I also bet that the courts will eventually overturn the ruling as it applies to this case. Bauer definitely needs a different kink.

Courts tend to avoid collectively bargained issues like this.  See Tom Brady and Deflategate.  The punishment handed down to Brady by the NFL was upheld because the situation in which he was punished was collectively bargained.  Obviously much different situation, but still enforceable by the CBA, which both the owners and players agreed to.

[h2oface]

Does the suspension include the year they already removed him from working on "administrative leave"? Or is it basically 3 years +? Does he keep his 40 mil or so he was paid on administrative leave, or whatever they called it? I guess more info to come......

[Squirrel]

1 minute ago, h2oface said:

Does the suspension include the year they already removed him from working on "administrative leave"? Or is it basically 3 years +? Does he keep his 40 mil or so he was paid on administrative leave, or whatever they called it? I guess more info to come......

From reading the article posted, it said the suspension started 'today' ... to me that implied that it didn't include the administrative leave, which he was still paid for

 

[gunnarthor]

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. 

[h2oface]

13 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

Courts tend to avoid collectively bargained issues like this.  See Tom Brady and Deflategate.  The punishment handed down to Brady by the NFL was upheld because the situation in which he was punished was collectively bargained.  Obviously much different situation, but still enforceable by the CBA, which both the owners and players agreed to.

Maybe so....... but all it takes is one strong case to take away the power to be "outside the law" with your private club agreements. Remember Curt Flood? All Free Agents should. He should be in the HOF just for sacrificing his career for the rest of all MLB baseball players! Bauer is also in a position now to do that. He now has nothing to lose, because he will certainly get the Barry Bonds / Colin Kaepernick treatment, and his baseball career is basically over.

 

[wsnydes]

3 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Maybe so....... but all it takes is one strong case to take away the power to be "outside the law" with your private club agreements.

Perhaps, but I have to imagine the Patriots and Tom Brady not only had a better case but more connections on a far less serious issue.  

[h2oface]

25 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

From reading the article posted, it said the suspension started 'today' ... to me that implied that it didn't include the administrative leave, which he was still paid for

 

So much for speed reading..... it was all in the first paragraph.