PDA

View Full Version : Piniella suspended indefinately


munchman33
06-03-2007, 11:34 AM
Wonder how many games it will ultimately be. It's already 2, considering they won't even decide until Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2891897

DickAllen72
06-03-2007, 11:48 AM
What a joke, all the way around.

RKMeibalane
06-03-2007, 11:48 AM
Wonder how many games it will ultimately be. It's already 2, considering they won't even decide until Monday.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2891897

Is anyone else starting to notice similarities between Pinella's two months with the Cubs and Larry Brown's forgettable tenure with the Knicks? We have two coaches with successful track records managing other teams who take on what is supposed to be a "dream job," only to discover that having such a job doesn't mean much when the team itself sucks.

UserNameBlank
06-03-2007, 11:50 AM
Yeah, ignore the comments Jason Giambi made but suspend Lou for a few games for entertaining the crowd and providing something for sports fans around the world to laugh about.

But oh well. It's not like it matters for the Flubs anyway. The season was over before it started and this whole 162 game thing is just a formality.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 11:57 AM
Yeah, ignore the comments Jason Giambi made but suspend Lou for a few games for entertaining the crowd and providing something for sports fans around the world to laugh about.

But oh well. It's not like it matters for the Flubs anyway. The season was over before it started and this whole 162 game thing is just a formality.

His behaviour nearly incited a riot. Not to mention he made contact with an ump. That is letter of the law right there.

DumpJerry
06-03-2007, 12:01 PM
...................meanwhile, Barry Bonds pursues Hank Aaron's home run record in full view of Bud Selig.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 12:38 PM
...................meanwhile, Barry Bonds pursues Hank Aaron's home run record in full view of Bud Selig.

And if he did suspend Bonds? An arbitration hearing where the verdict in about thirty seconds is he can't because baseball never had a rule saying steroids weren't allowed when he took them.

I hate Bonds as much as anyone. But those of you expecting baseball to do anything about it are unreasonable.

gosiu
06-03-2007, 12:39 PM
...................meanwhile, Barry Bonds pursues Hank Aaron's home run record in full view of Bud Selig.
But it's not like he's actually watching it. :D:

tebman
06-03-2007, 12:45 PM
I joked one time that the Cubs are where managers' careers go to die. When the Cubs hired Piniella I was surprised he took the gig -- I thought he was a more knowledgeable baseball guy than that, and thought he knew that being the front man for the Cubs was not about winning but rather about public relations.

Maybe he's realizing that now. I really wonder if he'll last the whole season.

UserNameBlank
06-03-2007, 12:57 PM
His behaviour nearly incited a riot. Not to mention he made contact with an ump. That is letter of the law right there.
Opening the gates at Wrigley is enough to incite a riot. Normal fans don't go nuts and litter their field with garbage just because a manager argues with an ump. Cub fans are a breed of their own.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 01:02 PM
Opening the gates at Wrigley is enough to incite a riot. Normal fans don't go nuts and litter their field with garbage just because a manager argues with an ump. Cub fans are a breed of their own.

Fair enough. But the league won't see it that way. They want to make flubs fans happy.

He still bumped the umpire pretty hard before the first hat kick.

Frontman
06-03-2007, 01:14 PM
And if he did suspend Bonds? An arbitration hearing where the verdict in about thirty seconds is he can't because baseball never had a rule saying steroids weren't allowed when he took them.

I hate Bonds as much as anyone. But those of you expecting baseball to do anything about it are unreasonable.

So by definition, if you commit a crime against US Law, its still ok in the eyes of baseball?

If that's the case, the Sox should have someone kidnap Jeter and A-Rod; since that's not against the rules of baseball.

Daver
06-03-2007, 01:15 PM
...................meanwhile, Barry Bonds pursues Hank Aaron's home run record in full view of Bud Selig.

There is the burden of proof issue.............

oeo
06-03-2007, 01:32 PM
I don't know if he'll even make it the original two years I thought he would stay before resigning.

IndianWhiteSox
06-03-2007, 01:55 PM
There is the burden of proof issue.............

I hope that was sarcastic, I mean what more burden of proof do you need after the leaked jury hearings and the Balco testimonies or other witnesses. If Bonds was on trial for terrorism instead of tax evasion, then he would have already been in jail.

IlliniSox4Life
06-03-2007, 01:57 PM
So by definition, if you commit a crime against US Law, its still ok in the eyes of baseball?

If that's the case, the Sox should have someone kidnap Jeter and A-Rod; since that's not against the rules of baseball.
Even the NFL suspends guys for breaking the law when there's no official rule against it.

It's sad when the MLB looks bad compared to the NFL.

RKMeibalane
06-03-2007, 02:00 PM
Even the NFL suspends guys for breaking the law when there's no official rule against it.

It's sad when the MLB looks bad compared to the NFL.

The NFL has a real commissioner. Baseball has Bud Light.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 02:00 PM
So by definition, if you commit a crime against US Law, its still ok in the eyes of baseball?


There's a reason Barry Bonds isn't in jail. There isn't evidence to convict him of breaking U.S. law.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 02:01 PM
Even the NFL suspends guys for breaking the law when there's no official rule against it.

It's sad when the MLB looks bad compared to the NFL.

The key difference is the power of the players unions. The MLBPA has power that has been backed by the judicial system many times in the past.

DSpivack
06-03-2007, 02:04 PM
I joked one time that the Cubs are where managers' careers go to die. When the Cubs hired Piniella I was surprised he took the gig -- I thought he was a more knowledgeable baseball guy than that, and thought he knew that being the front man for the Cubs was not about winning but rather about public relations.

Maybe he's realizing that now. I really wonder if he'll last the whole season.

Can't be any worse than his last stop...Tampa.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 02:04 PM
I hope that was sarcastic, I mean what more burden of proof do you need after the leaked jury hearings and the Balco testimonies or other witnesses. If Bonds was on trial for terrorism instead of tax evasion, then he would have already been in jail.

So you expect MLB to act solely on illegally leaked testimony from a case that DID NOT result in Barry Bonds facing jail time?

Yeah, that'd sit real well with the MLBPA. I'm sure they wouldn't sue and have Bonds back in uniform in a day.

IndianWhiteSox
06-03-2007, 02:06 PM
So you expect MLB to act solely on illegally leaked testimony from a case that DID NOT result in Barry Bonds facing jail time?

Yeah, that'd sit real well with the MLBPA. I'm sure they wouldn't sue and have Bonds back in uniform in a day.

At this MLBPA would be dumb enough to take this case. Like I said before, if it weren't for the feds not worrying more about terrorism(and rightfully so they should worry about terrorism) than this crap, Barry Bonds would be in jail.

Nellie_Fox
06-03-2007, 02:28 PM
And if he did suspend Bonds? An arbitration hearing where the verdict in about thirty seconds is he can't because baseball never had a rule saying steroids weren't allowed when he took them.

So by definition, if you commit a crime against US Law, its still ok in the eyes of baseball?Actually, I heard on XM MLB homeplate that this isn't true. Everyone keeps stating that there was no MLB rule against steroids, but they said there was a catch-all rule banning the use of any other illegal drugs, and steroids were a federally controlled substance at the time.

There is the burden of proof issue.............Exactly.

I hope that was sarcastic, I mean what more burden of proof do you need after the leaked jury hearings and the Balco testimonies or other witnesses. If Bonds was on trial for terrorism instead of tax evasion, then he would have already been in jail.There is no way MLB can use illegally leaked information.

Frontman
06-03-2007, 02:31 PM
There's a reason Barry Bonds isn't in jail. There isn't evidence to convict him of breaking U.S. law.

You mean besides his testifying under oath, right?

Nellie_Fox
06-03-2007, 02:33 PM
You mean besides his testifying under oath, right?Testimony that is sealed, and cannot be used unless the feds decide to prosecute him for perjury. He testified under immunity, but that doesn't immunize you if you perjure yourself.

Red Barchetta
06-03-2007, 02:52 PM
I joked one time that the Cubs are where managers' careers go to die. When the Cubs hired Piniella I was surprised he took the gig -- I thought he was a more knowledgeable baseball guy than that, and thought he knew that being the front man for the Cubs was not about winning but rather about public relations.

Maybe he's realizing that now. I really wonder if he'll last the whole season.

True, but most accomplished managers want the challenge of the Cubs because if they were to win a WS, they would be immortalized in "Cubdumb".

Frontman
06-03-2007, 02:58 PM
Testimony that is sealed, and cannot be used unless the feds decide to prosecute him for perjury. He testified under immunity, but that doesn't immunize you if you perjure yourself.

Exactly. Finally pull the dang trigger and charge him with perjury. If even half the evidence in "Game of Shadows" is true (and I'm giving Bonds A HUGE amount of leeway by saying that) there should be enough to get him on perjury.

downstairs
06-03-2007, 03:06 PM
And if he did suspend Bonds? An arbitration hearing where the verdict in about thirty seconds is he can't because baseball never had a rule saying steroids weren't allowed when he took them.

I hate Bonds as much as anyone. But those of you expecting baseball to do anything about it are unreasonable.


Woah, woah, woah... steroids are *illegal*. If MLB (or anyone's job!) finds out- through the law or their own testing or simply their own investigation- that someone is doing something illegal, they have a right to suspend/fire them.

downstairs
06-03-2007, 03:08 PM
Actually, I heard on XM MLB homeplate that this isn't true. Everyone keeps stating that there was no MLB rule against steroids, but they said there was a catch-all rule banning the use of any other illegal drugs, and steroids were a federally controlled substance at the time.

Exactly.

There is no way MLB can use illegally leaked information.

Why can't they use whatever they wish? The worst that will happen is the Players Union will sue them. Fine. That gives two scenarios:

1. A court, in light of all the steroids talk, would never side with the players union.

2. Just drag it out in court for years until Bonds has to retire anyway.

downstairs
06-03-2007, 03:11 PM
There is the burden of proof issue.............

There is no burden of proof for a private corporation. That's something that applies to the *government* and only then in certain types of cases.

Many cases only carry the weight of "preponderance of evidence". But legal talk aside, MLB doesn't have to abide by any constitution for its own rulings.

Nellie_Fox
06-03-2007, 03:43 PM
There is no burden of proof for a private corporation. That's something that applies to the *government* and only then in certain types of cases.

Many cases only carry the weight of "preponderance of evidence". But legal talk aside, MLB doesn't have to abide by any constitution for its own rulings.Of course there is. Burden of proof is not a constitutional provision, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. The burden of proof in a civil porceeding is preponderance of evidence, which is the burden MLB would have in a contractual case. And I would guarantee that if MLB tried to suspend him, thinking that his case would drag on until he was too old to play, the court would immediately issue an injunction preventing the suspension from taking effect until the case was heard, so Bonds would finish his career before the case was heard.

munchman33
06-03-2007, 03:48 PM
Of course there is. Burden of proof is not a constitutional provision, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. The burden of proof in a civil porceeding is preponderance of evidence, which is the burden MLB would have in a contractual case. And I would guarantee that if MLB tried to suspend him, thinking that his case would drag on until he was too old to play, the court would immediately issue an injunction preventing the suspension from taking effect until the case was heard, so Bonds would finish his career before the case was heard.

You're the only one around here making sense Nellie.

Iwritecode
06-03-2007, 10:51 PM
I joked one time that the Cubs are where managers' careers go to die.

It's not a joke when it's true. Go look at the list of past managers and see how far you have to go back to find one that had anything resembling a successful career after leaving the Cubs.

MILTMAY5
06-03-2007, 11:18 PM
I joked one time that the Cubs are where managers' careers go to die. When the Cubs hired Piniella I was surprised he took the gig -- I thought he was a more knowledgeable baseball guy than that, and thought he knew that being the front man for the Cubs was not about winning but rather about public relations.

Maybe he's realizing that now. I really wonder if he'll last the whole season.
He probably never imagined it would be worse than Tampa Bay! This is a lesson in be careful what you wish for!

RadioheadRocks
06-03-2007, 11:27 PM
He probably never imagined it would be worse than Tampa Bay! This is a lesson in be careful what you wish for!


You think maybe he's missing that "D-ray swagger"??? :rolling:

MRM
06-04-2007, 11:50 AM
So by definition, if you commit a crime against US Law, its still ok in the eyes of baseball?

If that's the case, the Sox should have someone kidnap Jeter and A-Rod; since that's not against the rules of baseball.

Bonds has not been charged with committing any crime. The only crime I've seen proven was the leaking of grand jury testimony. THAT was a crime. If the feds had any substantial evidence against Bonds he'd have been charged already. THEN Bud light might have a leg to stand on in handing down a suspension. As it is, even the leaked testimony does not indicate Bonds broke any baseball rule and certainly wasn't enough to charge him with a crime.

I'm so sick of the whole steroid thing. It's not like Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, Canseco, and Sosa were the only guys taking the stuff. They were hitting against pitchers who were roided up, too. Players have been taking Illegal amphetamines since, at least, the 60's. Why is this not getting as much attention? There is still no reliable test for human growth hormone...you think there aren't several players taking it to this day? Fact is, there are millions of dollars at stake for these guys. Anyone who thinks ball players aren't going to try and gain every advantage possible to protect that kind of scratch is extrememly naive.

While I'm ranting about 'roids, why is it a huge deal in baseball but gets nary a mention in Pro Football where it has been a bigger problem and for a longer period of time? Shawn Merriman was the first big name player actually busted and what was his punishment? A 4 game vacation and an invitation to the Pro Bowl. THAT sends a message, doesn't it?

MRM
06-04-2007, 12:03 PM
Of course there is. Burden of proof is not a constitutional provision, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is. The burden of proof in a civil porceeding is preponderance of evidence, which is the burden MLB would have in a contractual case. And I would guarantee that if MLB tried to suspend him, thinking that his case would drag on until he was too old to play, the court would immediately issue an injunction preventing the suspension from taking effect until the case was heard, so Bonds would finish his career before the case was heard.

None of that makes any difference. Baseballs anti-trust exemption complicates the legal issue far more than what you guys are discussing. And it (a lawsuit) most certainly is NOT a can of worms Selig and co. want to open as it would invite further congressional hearings and probable federal regulation of the sport.

Also, MLB doesn't have the authority to unilaterally suspend Bonds unless it can show he broke a MLB rule in the first place. They can't. Because he apparently hasn't. If they could, he'd be long gone in a New York minute.

Giambi has admitted he took steroids intentionally. Unless MLB can prove he did so AFTER testing started, there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. You can't instate a rule/law then enforce it retroactively.

Viva Medias B's
06-04-2007, 02:59 PM
Piniella suspended for four games. That apparently includes yesterday's game and the three games in Milwaukee this week.

TDog
06-04-2007, 04:21 PM
I joked one time that the Cubs are where managers' careers go to die. When the Cubs hired Piniella I was surprised he took the gig -- I thought he was a more knowledgeable baseball guy than that, and thought he knew that being the front man for the Cubs was not about winning but rather about public relations. ...

As opposed to the White Sox managing job which is about winning and public relations.

The Cubs job is about both winning and public relations, too. Winning isn't as important to Cubs management as it is to the White Sox management because the Cubs business objective is more likely to be achieved without winning.

All things being equal, if the Piniella tirade had been a Guillen tirade, people likely would be using that as justification in demanding his firing, although some believe Guillen's lack of on-field arguments should be grounds for dismissal.

Piniella was overrated as a manager before he came to the Cubs, just as Dusty Baker was. Hiring overrated managers is part of the marketing thing -- the promise that a genius will lead the team to the World Series.

The last two managers hired by the White Sox, Manuel and Guillen, were rookie managers believed to have attributes their predecessors lacked. I don't believe that was to save money, but to look for a winner. However, the fact there had to be a public announcement that Guillen has to undergo sensitivity training at a time when winning isn't an issue shows that winning isn't everything.

Barry Bonds should be totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Frontman
06-04-2007, 08:55 PM
Bonds has not been charged with committing any crime. The only crime I've seen proven was the leaking of grand jury testimony. THAT was a crime. If the feds had any substantial evidence against Bonds he'd have been charged already. THEN Bud light might have a leg to stand on in handing down a suspension. As it is, even the leaked testimony does not indicate Bonds broke any baseball rule and certainly wasn't enough to charge him with a crime.


I guess you missed the point where I said, "pull the dang trigger already and charge him." If Bonds wouldn't be the first one to drop "this is because I'm black" in every interview post being charged, the Feds probably would of charged him already.

But if the case isn't 100% air tight, the second that phrase made it into the news cycle, all it would be is "The Feds are out to get Barry since he's black." Nevermind that his shoe size as lept up two and half, his hat size is dang near a half an inch larger, and that he now has a larger forehead than the Gieco Cavemen; but hey, I should stop, since I obviously hate him for being black.



I'm so sick of the whole steroid thing. It's not like Bonds, McGwire, Giambi, Canseco, and Sosa were the only guys taking the stuff. They were hitting against pitchers who were roided up, too. Players have been taking Illegal amphetamines since, at least, the 60's. Why is this not getting as much attention? There is still no reliable test for human growth hormone...you think there aren't several players taking it to this day? Fact is, there are millions of dollars at stake for these guys. Anyone who thinks ball players aren't going to try and gain every advantage possible to protect that kind of scratch is extrememly naive.


1. So, two wrongs make a right? Since obviously "other" players took it, that's ok?!?! If that's the case, I'm going to go steal a few cars, since I wouldn't be the only one. Why charge me, he did first?

2. Amphetamines don't get much attention as the biggest user of amphetamines isn't just 9 home runs away from a record. Then again, Lord only knows what Barry's blood is now made of. It might just be green for all we know!

3. Again, since HGH can't be tested for, that makes it ok?

If you are so sick of the steriod talk, here's a bit of advice:

STOP APOLOGIZING FOR BARRY FLAMIN' BONDS! Bonds is a horrid human being, from all accounts, and is a liar and a cheat to boot. He was the greatest, but because of hubris (ie "ego") he couldn't handle a pasty face white guy named McGuire hitting the single home run record. He became a freakin' walking science experiment, and now stand to break a solid record that stood for damn near 30 years. The only test result I would need is to see if he could wear his Pirates baseball cap, and since we all know his skull is now enlarged due to HGH, I need no other result. Same with Mark, Sammy, and Palmerio. Rat cheatin' frazza, razza, (I'd swear here, gang; but I'm not going to get booted over Bonds.)


While I'm ranting about 'roids, why is it a huge deal in baseball but gets nary a mention in Pro Football where it has been a bigger problem and for a longer period of time? Shawn Merriman was the first big name player actually busted and what was his punishment? A 4 game vacation and an invitation to the Pro Bowl. THAT sends a message, doesn't it?

I always love when folks point out other wrong doers in protecting wrong doers. It makes their case oh so much stronger. Just because the NFL's policy is weak sauce doesn't mean that MLB is right in how they've conducted biz for the past decade and a half.

Trust me, at least the NFL didn't need the government to step in and say "stop your players from using steroids, or we will." The NFL policy might stink, but its a policy that they've had without Congress forcing it.

Let me throw something out here, gang. Its well known that I'm not a huge Frank Thomas fan; far from it. I can respect the athelete, but not like the man. And I'll be happy when Frank goes into the Hall, but I can't be honest and say its because I think he was a nice guy when he was a Sox player.

HOWEVER, the biggest shame, the biggest insult I saw was Frank having to go before Congress. For the mere suggestion that he was a user honked me off terribly. You can ask my family, I was mad as hell that he had to go. "Thought you didn't like Frank." That's right I didn't like him, but he would be one of the last players I would accuse of using steroids. (Well, maybe Ozzie during his playing days, as he had those bird legs, but you get my point.)

Thomas might of been many things, but his body never went through the massive changes these other jokers went through. Hell, the man's foot dang near fell off due to bad medical advice, I'm pretty sure he wasn't using!

The biggest crime out of the steroid era? That Frank was overshadowed by a bunch of lying cheats who, if they were as great as everyone says they were, wouldn't of needed to do what they did to break home run records.

kitekrazy
06-05-2007, 10:10 PM
Maybe Lou realizes the Cubs are the Bermuda Triangle of baseball.