PDA

View Full Version : Mark Buehrle Finding it tough in Miami


palehosepub
01-06-2012, 02:43 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/big-league-stew/miami-pitbull-ban-forces-mark-buehrle-family-settle-182451604.html

Can't move into Miami Dade county because of one of his dogs is a pit bull. Pit bulls are OK in Chicago, come back home Mark - :smile:all is forgiven.

pythons007
01-06-2012, 02:47 PM
That's a really stupid law. The dog isn't harmful until trained to be harmful.

Nellie_Fox
01-06-2012, 03:15 PM
Breed-specific dog bans are incredibly stupid. A "pit bull" can be a UKC registered American Pit Bull Terrier, an AKC registered American Staffordshire Terrier, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, a Bull Terrier, or various hybrids thereof.

Pete the Pup of the Our Gang movies was a pit bull. They used to be known as the "Nanny Dog" because of how good they were with children. It's how they've been socialized by cretins in society that has given them a bad name. Yes, they are incredibly brave and strong, so when socialized to be aggressive they're dangerous. But that's true of many breeds, especially among terriers. Pit Bulls bred and socialized to be companion animals are wonderful dogs.

#1swisher
01-06-2012, 03:21 PM
Slater looks more like a reindeer, then a pit bull in the picture! :redneck

VenturaFan23
01-06-2012, 03:22 PM
That's a really stupid law. The dog isn't harmful until trained to be harmful.

Well said.

DumpJerry
01-06-2012, 03:36 PM
I looked up some statues and case law related to contracts. Here's what I found:

1. A contract is not voidable under these circumstances, rather, the party of the second part (a/k/a Mark Buehrle) services are immediately and irrevocably transferred to prior recipient of said services (the Chicago American League Major League Baseball Association a/k/a/The White Sox) for the term, duration and conditions of the contract entered into between the party of the first part (a/k/a Miami Marlins) and the party of the second part (Burls) with the exception of the payment provisions contained within the contract. Said payment provisions remain the sole and exclusive responsibility of the party of the first part and no recovery for said costs, expenses and payments may be demanded of the prior recipient of said services.

JoeyCora28
01-06-2012, 04:05 PM
I looked up some statues and case law related to contracts. Here's what I found:

1. A contract is not voidable under these circumstances, rather, the party of the second part (a/k/a Mark Buehrle) services are immediately and irrevocably transferred to prior recipient of said services (the Chicago American League Major League Baseball Association a/k/a/The White Sox) for the term, duration and conditions of the contract entered into between the party of the first part (a/k/a Miami Marlins) and the party of the second part (Burls) with the exception of the payment provisions contained within the contract. Said payment provisions remain the sole and exclusive responsibility of the party of the first part and no recovery for said costs, expenses and payments may be demanded of the prior recipient of said services.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.j pg/175px-Yul_Brynner_in_The_Ten_Commandments_film_trailer.j pg

So it is written, so it shall be done! :smile:

TDog
01-06-2012, 04:09 PM
Do you think the manager of the Marlins (and by extent the Marlins organization) was aware of the fact that Mark Buehrle had a pit bull?

The Marlins probably knew or should have known about this problem. Not that failing to disclose it would rise to the level of negotiating in bad faith. It probably isn't a dealbreaker issue anyway. I didn't read the link and don't know if Broward County also bans pit bulls. It's just something so Sox fans to grab onto as evidence that Mark Buehrle should have stayed with the Sox.

DumpJerry
01-06-2012, 04:15 PM
Do you think the manager of the Marlins (and by extent the Marlins organization) was aware of the fact that Mark Buehrle had a pit bull?

The Marlins probably knew or should have known about this problem. Not that failing to disclose it would rise to the level of negotiating in bad faith. It probably isn't a dealbreaker issue anyway. I didn't read the link and don't know if Broward County also bans pit bulls. It's just something so Sox fans to grab onto as evidence that Mark Buehrle should have stayed with the Sox.
Ozzie lobbied for the ban. Pit Bulls drown him out.

Jpgr91
01-06-2012, 04:18 PM
He is saving almost $3 million by moving from Illinois to Florida, that should help him cope.

palehosepub
01-06-2012, 04:37 PM
He is saving almost $3 million by moving from Illinois to Florida, that should help him cope.

You cant put a price on the companionship of a dog.
This should be a wake call for Mark that he made a bad mistake. Im offering my help to move him back to Chicago

TommyJohn
01-06-2012, 05:20 PM
Do you think the manager of the Marlins (and by extent the Marlins organization) was aware of the fact that Mark Buehrle had a pit bull?

The Marlins probably knew or should have known about this problem. Not that failing to disclose it would rise to the level of negotiating in bad faith. It probably isn't a dealbreaker issue anyway. I didn't read the link and don't know if Broward County also bans pit bulls. It's just something so Sox fans to grab onto as evidence that Mark Buehrle should have stayed with the Sox.

You got it! I'm grabbing!

Bobby Thigpen
01-06-2012, 06:12 PM
You cant put a price on the companionship of a dog.
You're out of your mind.

$3M or a dog? It's a decision? Really?

Frontman
01-06-2012, 06:26 PM
Here's a novel idea:

Live outside of the "no pitbull" zone. Seriously, this isn't rocket science, Mark. Like you're going to be home to see the mutt anyways. Make the money, visit your family and dog when the offseason/home stands, drive down to the ballpark.

Mountain out of a mole hill.

Bobby Thigpen
01-06-2012, 06:30 PM
Here's a novel idea:

Live outside of the "no pitbull" zone. Seriously, this isn't rocket science, Mark. Like you're going to be home to see the mutt anyways. Make the money, visit your family and dog when the offseason/home stands, drive down to the ballpark.

Mountain out of a mole hill.
Concur.

ilsox7
01-06-2012, 06:30 PM
He is saving almost $3 million by moving from Illinois to Florida, that should help him cope.

No, he's not. While he will achieve some savings by playing for the Marlins, it likely won't come close to $3MM.

TheOldRoman
01-06-2012, 10:25 PM
Here's a novel idea:

Live outside of the "no pitbull" zone. Seriously, this isn't rocket science, Mark. Like you're going to be home to see the mutt anyways. Make the money, visit your family and dog when the offseason/home stands, drive down to the ballpark.

Mountain out of a mole hill.
If you read the article, it mentioned that the Buehrles already purchased a place in south Broward County where they could keep the dog. It says it isn't nearby, but I don't know how far it is from the park. Regardless, he shouldn't have to drive an hour to work just so he can keep his pitbull. The pitbull ban is based on faulty logic to begin with, and Mark drew attention to it. I don't see the issue here.

CWSpalehoseCWS
01-06-2012, 10:27 PM
You're out of your mind.

$3M or a dog? It's a decision? Really?

You must have never had a dog. They really do become apart of your family. There's members of my extended family I would rather give up for money than my dog.

TheOldRoman
01-06-2012, 10:35 PM
You must have never had a dog. They really do become apart of your family. There's members of my extended family I would rather give up for money than my dog.Yeah. Plus, Buehrle will make over $100 million in his career. $3 million is a lot of money, but it doesn't mean the same to him as it would to an average person.

Bobby Thigpen
01-06-2012, 10:46 PM
You must have never had a dog. They really do become apart of your family. There's members of my extended family I would rather give up for money than my dog.
I've had three.

They're animals. They come and go. $3M would go along way toward securing my actual human family's well being. For me, it's not even a decision.

DSpivack
01-06-2012, 10:55 PM
I've had three.

They're animals. They come and go. $3M would go along way toward securing my actual human family's well being. For me, it's not even a decision.

It's not a question of $3 million or not, though, at least the way that I see it. It's a matter of having a longer commute than he would otherwise, as I'm assuming those dogs are legal in Broward.

Brewski
01-07-2012, 10:23 AM
Yeah, they were originally a fighting breed, if they haven't been socialized properly, if they haven't had the fight bred out of them, if they haven't been trained properly, if something unusual doesn't excite them, if they don't suddenly get the pack instinct. Holy moley, that's a lot of if's! You own one if you want, not me. Powerful dog, locking jaws, bigger than children, stronger than old people. You own one if you want, not me.

They are responsible for most of the dog bite related deaths in the US, aren't they? Too many if's. Let poor Mark drive an extra half hour a day. Boo flippin' hoo.

Zisk77
01-07-2012, 10:44 AM
You're out of your mind.

$3M or a dog? It's a decision? Really?

To some people, there dog is like a child to them. Would you sell your child for 3M?

Now some of the children I teach, I'd sell for $3 and give back change. :wink:

Noneck
01-07-2012, 10:59 AM
When somebody has that kind of resources at his disposal, there is no excuse for not covering all the bases prior to making a life changing decision. No sympathy from me.

Red Barchetta
01-07-2012, 11:28 AM
That's a really stupid law. The dog isn't harmful until trained to be harmful.

True, however if the majority of owners in that specific county train that particular breed of dog to be aggressive, perhaps that's why the law was passed.

Bobby Thigpen
01-07-2012, 11:30 AM
To some people, there dog is like a child to them. Would you sell your child for 3M?

Now some of the children I teach, I'd sell for $3 and give back change. :wink:
There is a major difference. My child is not LIKE a child, it is my child.

LongLiveFisk
01-07-2012, 11:31 AM
You're out of your mind.

$3M or a dog? It's a decision? Really?

I'll take the $3M. You can always buy more dogs you'll grow to love with that money. :D:

Red Barchetta
01-07-2012, 11:33 AM
Yeah, they were originally a fighting breed, if they haven't been socialized properly, if they haven't had the fight bred out of them, if they haven't been trained properly, if something unusual doesn't excite them, if they don't suddenly get the pack instinct. Holy moley, that's a lot of if's! You own one if you want, not me. Powerful dog, locking jaws, bigger than children, stronger than old people. You own one if you want, not me.

They are responsible for most of the dog bite related deaths in the US, aren't they? Too many if's. Let poor Mark drive an extra half hour a day. Boo flippin' hoo.

A friend of mine had a Pit Bull. Nice dog and friendly.

My friend got married. Dog was fine.

My friend and his wife had a baby. Dog was fine. Until...

...6-months later the dog tore into a baby doll toy. Wife freaked out a little, but they thought it was an innocent dog act. The next day, the dog was growling at the baby on the couch. The day after the dog was gone.

I know that could happen with any breed of dog, however not every breed of dog could cause the damage a Pit Bull can.

I agree. Too many "ifs". As to Mark, no sympathy. Drive a little farther or give the dog to a relative.

Frontman
01-07-2012, 11:47 AM
If you read the article, it mentioned that the Buehrles already purchased a place in south Broward County where they could keep the dog. It says it isn't nearby, but I don't know how far it is from the park. Regardless, he shouldn't have to drive an hour to work just so he can keep his pitbull. The pitbull ban is based on faulty logic to begin with, and Mark drew attention to it. I don't see the issue here.

Sorry, I'm not feeling sorry for someone. If he had done his due diligence, and if the dog was that important; he should of considered it before signing with the Marlins. If Mark wants to lead the charge to change the law; make an honest case for why it shouldn't be in place besides "they're beloved pets/members of the family."

As far as the law being "faulty logic," I've yet to see anyone make a logical reason for the law NOT to be in effect. The whole nature/nurture thing isn't holding up much water.

Before anyone says you can train any animal not to be aggressive might go talk to Sigfried and Roy before making THAT argument!

ilsox7
01-07-2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I'm not feeling sorry for someone. If he had done his due diligence, and if the dog was that important; he should of considered it before signing with the Marlins. If Mark wants to lead the charge to change the law; make an honest case for why it shouldn't be in place besides "they're beloved pets/members of the family."

As far as the law being "faulty logic," I've yet to see anyone make a logical reason for the law NOT to be in effect. The whole nature/nurture thing isn't holding up much water.

Before anyone says you can train any animal not to be aggressive might go talk to Sigfried and Roy before making THAT argument!

I'm not taking sides in this debate, but wanted to point out that if you did talk to S&R, they would not support your position. They've been clear since the incident that the tiger was not acting out of aggression.

Viva Medias B's
01-07-2012, 12:10 PM
Do you think the manager of the Marlins (and by extent the Marlins organization) was aware of the fact that Mark Buehrle had a pit bull?

The Marlins probably knew or should have known about this problem. Not that failing to disclose it would rise to the level of negotiating in bad faith. It probably isn't a dealbreaker issue anyway. I didn't read the link and don't know if Broward County also bans pit bulls. It's just something so Sox fans to grab onto as evidence that Mark Buehrle should have stayed with the Sox.

Considering who Buehrle's manager was before he signed with the Marlins, I would suspect that he was aware.

kufram
01-07-2012, 12:38 PM
Yeah, they were originally a fighting breed, if they haven't been socialized properly, if they haven't had the fight bred out of them, if they haven't been trained properly, if something unusual doesn't excite them, if they don't suddenly get the pack instinct. Holy moley, that's a lot of if's! You own one if you want, not me. Powerful dog, locking jaws, bigger than children, stronger than old people. You own one if you want, not me.

They are responsible for most of the dog bite related deaths in the US, aren't they? Too many if's. Let poor Mark drive an extra half hour a day. Boo flippin' hoo.

I have always had dogs. I have two Bedlington/Whippets now and they are more important than anything to me except for my daughter. I take dog ownership very seriously. I make sure I can run them in the fields where they are safe and are not going to come across running children because they would chase them.... they would also chase bikes, motorcycles, rattling trailers, etc because they are sight hounds and it is in their blood to chase things that move and make noise. I can't train it out of them so when I walk in town they stay on leads. in the fields the rabbits, squirrels, and deer are on their own. They don't bother sheep because sheep don't move very fast... or make much noise. Cows are left alone also. The deer are too fast for them, but only just.

Here in Britain pit bulls were banned some years ago after yet another child was mauled and killed ... that time by a relative's dog who was no stranger to them.

It's Mark's responsibility to know the law. I hope he knows what these dogs can do and keeps others safe because it has been shown too many times that they can suddenly attack no matter how well they've been trained. That doesn't mean it WILL happen but it definitely can.

All of this isn't helped by the kind of people that sometimes have these dogs for very bad reasons.

Bobby Thigpen
01-07-2012, 12:40 PM
Lost in the argument over whether pit bulls are safe to be around is the fact that over 66% (IIRC) of the dogs put down every year are pit bull breeds. Could be the county got sick of having to take care of so many dogs that were discarded by people.

Broccoli Rob
01-07-2012, 12:55 PM
Poor Mark Beuhrle.

Frontman
01-07-2012, 02:52 PM
I'm not taking sides in this debate, but wanted to point out that if you did talk to S&R, they would not support your position. They've been clear since the incident that the tiger was not acting out of aggression.

If they don't agree that some animals are dangerous, than obviously they wouldn't agree with my point.

If someone wants to own a dangerous animal, then you must abide by the laws set up for said animal. Miami-Dade has that law to protect those who don't want to risk living near pitbulls.

ilsox7
01-07-2012, 03:22 PM
If they don't agree that some animals are dangerous, than obviously they wouldn't agree with my point.



That's a different point than saying you can or cannot train the aggression out of animals. Again, I am not taking sides on this one, I am just saying that S&R (and others) contend that what happened with the tiger had nothing to do with aggression. I am sure there are plenty of other instances out there to demonstrate your point, but I would not use the S&R one. That's all I was saying.

Frontman
01-07-2012, 03:27 PM
That's a different point than saying you can or cannot train the aggression out of animals. Again, I am not taking sides on this one, I am just saying that S&R (and others) contend that what happened with the tiger had nothing to do with aggression. I am sure there are plenty of other instances out there to demonstrate your point, but I would not use the S&R one. That's all I was saying.

My point is that those who swear up and down you can "train" a dangerous animal not to be dangerous is a falsehood. You can't "train" an animal not to be dangerous. You can train it to behave; sure. But a tiger is still a tiger. A pitbull is still a pitbull. Sure, you can train it to behave, but it still has a jaw that can lock onto a possible perceived prey and kill it outright.

ilsox7
01-07-2012, 03:30 PM
My point is that those who swear up and down you can "train" a dangerous animal not to be dangerous is a falsehood. You can't "train" an animal not to be dangerous. You can train it to behave; sure. But a tiger is still a tiger. A pitbull is still a pitbull. Sure, you can train it to behave, but it still has a jaw that can lock onto a possible perceived prey and kill it outright.

I agree with that. But that is much different than saying you can or cannot train an animal to be aggressive.

sullythered
01-07-2012, 04:13 PM
I've had three.

They're animals. They come and go. $3M would go along way toward securing my actual human family's well being. For me, it's not even a decision.

So are humans.

Bobby Thigpen
01-07-2012, 04:15 PM
So are humans.
You are correct.

sullythered
01-07-2012, 04:17 PM
My point is that those who swear up and down you can "train" a dangerous animal not to be dangerous is a falsehood. You can't "train" an animal not to be dangerous. You can train it to behave; sure. But a tiger is still a tiger. A pitbull is still a pitbull. Sure, you can train it to behave, but it still has a jaw that can lock onto a possible perceived prey and kill it outright.

None of the Pit Bull breeds are at the top of the list in either bite strength or natural aggression. Left to their own accord, without the influence of people, Chows, Dalmatians (temperment), German Shepherd Dogs, Rotties (bite strength), and a slew of other breeds are more dangerous than any of the Pit Bull breeds.

sullythered
01-07-2012, 04:30 PM
but it still has a jaw that can lock onto a possible perceived prey and kill it outright.

Oh, and also, none of the Pit Bull breeds have a jaw that is, physiologically, any different than any other dog. The "locking" myth is bunk.

Frontman
01-07-2012, 04:46 PM
Oh, and also, none of the Pit Bull breeds have a jaw that is, physiologically, any different than any other dog. The "locking" myth is bunk.

I stand corrected. It just won't let go, due to its nature. Doesn't matter if it locks or if it is just aggression, it still is dangerous.

And yes, many breeds if left alone in the wild (including dogs and cats that were bred into domestication) can be dangerous and feral. And the reverse can be said with SOME wild animals that can be trained to be safe.

However, natural hunters are still that, natural hunters. A Chihuahua can be the sweetest dog, until he's in the arms of his owner and anyone approaches that person while the dog is held. Then, Fluffy the sweet chihuahua nearly takes off the hand of the approacher! Put Fluffy down, and he'll all of sudden want to lick the very hand he tried to rip off. Its the dog's nature to be a protector.

One post that I'm sure you'll all laugh at, either pro or con this law. I can not help but find the irony in something I read on Facebook about this very topic posted by someone who argues that its the owner's responsibility.

"ll stab every person that comes to my door trying to tell me i have to get rid of my dog... its not a pitbulls fault its owner is a dumb piece of XXX that doesnt know how to take care of their pet"

Great way to make the point for people who support this law. Dumb owners could make the whole law required by showing such devotion to their pet (not to mention complete disregard for human life.)

sullythered
01-07-2012, 05:14 PM
I stand corrected. It just won't let go, due to its nature. Doesn't matter if it locks or if it is just aggression, it still is dangerous.

And yes, many breeds if left alone in the wild (including dogs and cats that were bred into domestication) can be dangerous and feral. And the reverse can be said with SOME wild animals that can be trained to be safe.

However, natural hunters are still that, natural hunters. A Chihuahua can be the sweetest dog, until he's in the arms of his owner and anyone approaches that person while the dog is held. Then, Fluffy the sweet chihuahua nearly takes off the hand of the approacher! Put Fluffy down, and he'll all of sudden want to lick the very hand he tried to rip off. Its the dog's nature to be a protector.

One post that I'm sure you'll all laugh at, either pro or con this law. I can not help but find the irony in something I read on Facebook about this very topic posted by someone who argues that its the owner's responsibility.

"ll stab every person that comes to my door trying to tell me i have to get rid of my dog... its not a pitbulls fault its owner is a dumb piece of XXX that doesnt know how to take care of their pet"

Great way to make the point for people who support this law. Dumb owners could make the whole law required by showing such devotion to their pet (not to mention complete disregard for human life.)
That is pretty funny. And I agree with you that it is near impossible to train aggression out of any particular animal. My point was only that Pits have been demonized unjustly, as a whole over the last 15 years. Just like Rotties were demonized in the 90's, and Doberman Pinscher's in the 80's. It's just a bull**** flavor of the month thing.

TaylorStSox
01-07-2012, 05:17 PM
My point is that those who swear up and down you can "train" a dangerous animal not to be dangerous is a falsehood. You can't "train" an animal not to be dangerous. You can train it to behave; sure. But a tiger is still a tiger. A pitbull is still a pitbull. Sure, you can train it to behave, but it still has a jaw that can lock onto a possible perceived prey and kill it outright.

I'm only going to comment on American Pit Bull Terriers. First, lockjaw is an absolute myth. Second, "pit bulls" are not naturally human aggressive and rank towards the bottom of bite/attack statistics. However, many are naturally dog aggressive as their purpose was dog on dog combat. They were bred for a couple hundreds years for that "Job." Hence the name "pit" bull. For this same reason, human aggression was considered a negative trait and bred out of the animal. Today, there are so many people that breed for size, color and money that there are a lot of poorly bred dogs running around. It's the same in all breeds. Labs and Dalmatians have a ton of problems, including human aggression.

sullythered
01-07-2012, 06:10 PM
I'm only going to comment on American Pit Bull Terriers. First, lockjaw is an absolute myth. Second, "pit bulls" are not naturally human aggressive and rank towards the bottom of bite/attack statistics. However, many are naturally dog aggressive as their purpose was dog on dog combat. They were bred for a couple hundreds years for that "Job." Hence the name "pit" bull. For this same reason, human aggression was considered a negative trait and bred out of the animal. Today, there are so many people that breed for size, color and money that there are a lot of poorly bred dogs running around. It's the same in all breeds. Labs and Dalmatians have a ton of problems, including human aggression.

Actually, they weren't initially bred to fight other dogs. They were bull-baiters when bullfighting still existed in England. Though their dog aggressiveness has been bred up in recent years.

TaylorStSox
01-07-2012, 06:25 PM
Actually, they weren't initially bred to fight other dogs. They were bull-baiters when bullfighting still existed in England. Though their dog aggressiveness has been bred up in recent years.

It's definitely debatable. A ot of people consider the bull and terrier to be a completely different breed. A hundred years of specialized breeding will change the breed vastly. For example, the Amstaff has only been separated from the APBT for a relatively short time and the breeds no longer look much alike. It also depends on the club, as UKC dogs don't look like ABDA dogs, which I consider the true representation of the breed.

PatK
01-09-2012, 01:45 PM
If pitbullls are banned in Miami, explain this guy

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3kceJZF6B_Y/SGth1bdo--I/AAAAAAAAAcI/3_Sa6NLBY9Q/s400/Pitbull%2B-%2BMoney%2BIs%2BStill%2BA%2BMajor%2BIssue%2B%28200 5%29%2B%5BVBR%5D.jpg

palehosepub
01-11-2012, 08:23 AM
in Sun Times this morning, MB's take on the situation.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/9935068-574/mark-buehrle-balks-at-miamis-ban-on-pit-bulls.html

Frontman
01-11-2012, 04:15 PM
Ok, so he knew about the ban PRIOR to signing, but then after signing found it difficult to move to Miami?

Sorry Mark, but that just is backwards logic. No county/state/government is going to change a law for a baseball player.

hi im skot
01-11-2012, 04:29 PM
Ok, so he knew about the ban PRIOR to signing, but then after signing found it difficult to move to Miami?

Sorry Mark, but that just is backwards logic. No county/state/government is going to change a law for a baseball player.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anywhere where Buehrle expected anyone to change the law for him.

Everything I'm reading was just basically "If I can't get a place in Miami-Dade county, I'll get a place somewhere else."

No biggie.

SI1020
01-11-2012, 06:30 PM
Check out the second video in the link. Very interesting study of the bite strength of four dog breeds.

http://www.cocothebloggingdog.com/2009/06/which-dog-breed-has-strongest-jaw.html

ChiSoxGal85
01-11-2012, 06:38 PM
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anywhere where Buehrle expected anyone to change the law for him.

Everything I'm reading was just basically "If I can't get a place in Miami-Dade county, I'll get a place somewhere else."

No biggie.
I agree. There was nothing unreasonable about what Mark said or did. He doesn't agree with the law, but he didn't try to get around it or demand it be changed for him, he just dealt with it.

(Sigh...I miss Mark...:whiner: )

Frontman
01-11-2012, 10:00 PM
With a thread entitled "having it tough" makes it sound like we're supposed to feel for him.