MLB 2021: The Shohei Must Go On*

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

As I understand it, if they cut him before the MLB investigation is over, even if the investigation eventually turns out to be damning, Bauer’s people can argue, probably successfully, that he was cut for PR reasons, rather than moral reasons. The evidence of this would be that the Dodgers cut him before the investigation was complete. If the Dodgers want to avoid cutting a $100 million check to a rapist, they need to wait. 

And I'm saying this isn't the case in terms of cutting him from the 40 man roster.  The Yanks "cut" Jacoby Ellsbury and while the rest is legally murky, the MLB had no problem with him being extricated from that accounting.  Hell, the same thing ended ARod's career.  The Dodgers are still on the hook for paying him, yeah, but that doesn't mean they couldn't send a message by cutting him in that regard.

[Myshkin]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

And I'm saying this isn't the case in terms of cutting him from the 40 man roster.  The Yanks "cut" Jacoby Ellsbury and while the rest is legally murky, the MLB had no problem with him being extricated from that accounting.  Hell, the same thing ended ARod's career.  The Dodgers are still on the hook for paying him, yeah, but that doesn't mean they couldn't send a message by cutting him in that regard.

Man, you might wanna go back and reread my comment. I never said the Dodgers couldn’t cut Bauer; in fact, I explicitly said they could. But the question asked wasn’t whether or not they could cut him; it was whether or not they could void his contract. That is the question I was answering. You seem determined to correct me for something I never said.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Man, you might wanna go back and reread my comment.

Man, maybe you might wanna go back and read my comment.  I wasn't trying to be confrontational, just wanted to clarify and point out the distinction because I've been through it as a Yankee fan.

[Myshkin]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Man, maybe you might wanna go back and read my comment.  I wasn't trying to be confrontational, just wanted to clarify and point out the distinction because I've been through it as a Yankee fan.

So you needed to mischaracterize what I said in order to clarify a point that wasn’t in contention?

[DMC]

Just now, Myshkin said:

So you needed to mischaracterize what I said in order to clarify a point that wasn’t in contention?

I thought it was worthwhile to point out your depiction wasn't entirely correct, yes.  Get over yourself.

[Myshkin]

Just now, DMC said:

I thought it was worthwhile to point out your depiction wasn't entirely correct, yes.  Get over yourself.

What part wasn’t entirely correct? The part where I explicitly said the Dodgers could cut Bauer at any time? Or the part where I said that if they wanted to have the best chance at voiding his contract they would have to wait for the MLB investigation to be completed? 

[DMC]

Just now, Myshkin said:

What part wasn’t entirely correct? The part where I explicitly said the Dodgers could cut Bauer at any time? Or the part where I said that if they wanted to have the best chance at voiding his contract they would have to wait for the MLB investigation to be completed? 

The part where you left out the fact they can cut him right now - and it would have no legal ramifications on whether they actually need to pay him or not which is an entire other battle - and haven't.  I think it's important to point that out.  If you don't, that's your own business.

[Myshkin]

Just now, DMC said:

The part where you left out the fact they can cut him right now - and it would have no legal ramifications on whether they actually need to pay him or not which is an entire other battle - and haven't.  I think it's important to point that out.  If you don't, that's your own business.

I seem to recall that I did in fact say they could cut him right now, and then went on to lay out why doing so would indeed have ramifications on whether or not they would have to pay him. You know, all of this stuff is in writing. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

I seem to recall that I did in fact say they could cut him right now, and then went on to lay out why doing so would indeed have ramifications on whether or not they would have to pay him. You know, all of this stuff is in writing. 

I don't know why you want to argue so much with me.  You said:

Quote

I believe the way it works is the Dodgers have to wait until the MLB investigation is done before they can invoke a morality clause. They can of course cut him at any time, but I think if they do it before the MLB investigation is over it makes it much more difficult to get out of paying the rest of the contract.

And in response I said:

Quote

Well, they can cut him whenever they want, so let's not pretend that's a thing.  You're right though in terms of actually nixing the contract - whether it will count against their luxury tax, overall salary, etc.  I don't know exactly how that works.

The way you said it suggested to me you thought the Dodgers were waiting because releasing him now would have an effect on paying out his contract.  You know why?  Because you said it would be much more difficult to get out of paying the rest of his contract.  And that's wrong.  Again, get the fuck over yourself.

[Myshkin]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't know why you want to argue so much with me.  You said:

And in response I said:

The way you said it suggested to me you thought the Dodgers were waiting because releasing him now would have an effect on paying out his contract.  You know why?  Because you said it would be much more difficult to get out of paying the rest of his contract.  And that's wrong.  Again, get the fuck over yourself.

What I said: “they can of course cut him at any time”.

What you responded: “they can cut him whenever they want, so let’s not pretend that’s a thing”.

So perhaps you can see why that rubbed me the wrong fucking way, considering that I was pretending no such thing.

And yes, cutting him right now would have an effect on whether or not they would have to pay out the rest of his contract. That’s why the Dodgers haven’t cut him. You can go back to my earlier comment to see the explanation.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Myshkin said:

So perhaps you can see why that rubbed me the wrong fucking way, considering that I was pretending no such thing.

And I tried to clarify that and yet you continued to be confrontational when I wasn't.

3 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

And yes, cutting him right now would have an effect on whether or not they would have to pay out the rest of his contract.

I'm saying you're wrong.  It wouldn't.

[Myshkin]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

And I tried to clarify that and yet you continued to be confrontational when I wasn't.

I'm saying you're wrong.  It wouldn't.

You clarified by saying the Dodgers didn’t need to wait if they were willing to eat the money. Which was something I was never contesting.

And why do you say I’m wrong? I’ve laid out why it would hurt the Dodger’s chances of voiding the contract if they cut Bauer before MLB finishes their investigation. Maybe you could lay out why you think that’s not true.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Myshkin said:

You clarified by saying the Dodgers didn’t need to wait if they were willing to eat the money. Which was something I was never contesting.

And why do you say I’m wrong? I’ve laid out why it would hurt the Dodger’s chances of voiding the contract if they cut Bauer before MLB finishes their investigation. Maybe you could lay out why you think that’s not true.

JFC.  As I've already said, the Dodgers can cut him from the 40 man and it will have absolutely no impact on his contract situation or the MLB's investigation.  Any MLB player can be cut like that at any time.  They stopped doing this, but up until a couple years ago teams used to literally sell players' contracts up until August 31.  That's how Verlander became an Astro.  Again, legally the Dodgers are on the hook for paying Bauer - or maybe not, who knows - but that doesn't have anything to do with whether he has to be on their roster.  He absolutely can be cut in that regard whenever the fuck the Dodgers want.

[Myshkin]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

JFC.  As I've already said, the Dodgers can cut him from the 40 man and it will have absolutely no impact on his contract situation or the MLB's investigation.  Any MLB player can be cut like that at any time.  They stopped doing this, but up until a couple years ago teams used to literally sell players' contracts up until August 31.  That's how Verlander became an Astro.  Again, legally the Dodgers are on the hook for paying Bauer - or maybe not, who knows - but that doesn't have anything to do with whether he has to be on their roster.  He absolutely can be cut in that regard whenever the fuck the Dodgers want.

Jesus fuck, it’s like talking to a brick wall. I know they can cut him at any time. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they can void his contract. You keep saying that cutting him now will have no impact on invoking the morality clause to void his contract, but you have not as of yet provided any reason for why you believe this. If they cut him now, when they try to use a morality clause to void his contract he will argue that they cut him for PR reasons, not for breaking the morality clause. He will use as evidence the fact that they did not wait until all the facts were in before they cut him. This is probably a winning argument. If they wait for the MLB investigation to be completed, and hopefully for the MLB to say that the evidence shows that Bauer is a piece of shit, before they cut him, then he can no longer use this argument. 

Again, and to be perfectly clear, this has nothing to do with whether or not they can cut him. I know they can cut him, and the original question I was responding was not about cutting him; it was about voiding his contract. The Dodgers have not yet cut him because it would hurt their chances of voiding his contract. If you don’t believe that’s true, please explain why you don’t believe it’s true. And please, please do not again respond with reasons why they are allowed to cut him, because that is not the issue I’m talking about.

[MercenaryChef]

so...the dodgers can cut bauer?

[Myshkin]

2 minutes ago, MercenaryChef said:

so...the dodgers can cut bauer?

This? You haven’t showed up around here in jebus knows how long, and this is how you make your return?

[MercenaryChef]

5 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

This? You haven’t showed up around here in jebus knows how long, and this is how you make your return?

come on, baby. don't be like this.  not in front of the others. 

and i know i haven't been around as much as i should. don't think i don't care about you, and our dodgers....except bauer. i never liked or accepted him. fuck that guy.

[Myshkin]

1 minute ago, MercenaryChef said:

come on, baby. don't be like this.  not in front of the others. 

and i know i haven't been around as much as i should. don't think i don't care about you, and our dodgers....except bauer. i never liked or accepted him. fuck that guy.

Shh, your wife is listening. But also, oh how I’ve missed you.

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Jesus fuck, it’s like talking to a brick wall. I know they can cut him at any time. That is not the issue.

That is, literally, the issue I brought up.

21 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

You keep saying that cutting him now will have no impact on invoking the morality clause to void his contract,

I have never, up until this point, mentioned the morality clause.  Invoking it or otherwise.

25 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

If they cut him now, when they try to use a morality clause to void his contract he will argue that they cut him for PR reasons, not for breaking the morality clause. He will use as evidence the fact that they did not wait until all the facts were in before they cut him. This is probably a winning argument. If they wait for the MLB investigation to be completed, and hopefully for the MLB to say that the evidence shows that Bauer is a piece of shit, before they cut him, then he can no longer use this argument. 

This is all speculative.  And not supported by precedent, at all.  You are very clearly defending the Dodgers for NOT releasing him when they can - right now.  Considering how Ellsbury's case has gone, that really shouldn't be a concern - and he was released due to injuries instead of, ya know, what Bauer is accused of.  By maintaining that the Dodgers "have to wait" you are very obviously absolving them of responsibility.  It's quite frankly pathetic.

31 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

The Dodgers have not yet cut him because it would hurt their chances of voiding his contract. If you don’t believe that’s true, please explain why you don’t believe it’s true. And please, please do not again respond with reasons why they are allowed to cut him, because that is not the issue I’m talking about.

....Because you are the only one who thinks there's a link between the Dodgers officially ridding themselves of him - which they still haven't done - and legally trying to void his contract.  There's not.  You're wrong.  Get over it.

[Myshkin]

FFS, the entire point of my post, the post you felt the need to correct, was about invoking the morality clause. You didn’t need to bring it up; it was the fucking topic being discussed. But instead you wanted to point out something that everybody already knows; something which I had already pointed out? Oh and also, Jacoby Ellsbury GOT PAID. The question I was answering was about whether or not the Dodgers can avoid paying Bauer, so WTF does the Ellsbury situation have to do with anything? The Ellsbury situation, the ARod situation, these are in no way analogous to the Bauer situation. At this point, with the totality of your argument being repeating “you’re wrong” over and over again and telling me to get over it, I just have to assume you have no idea what you’re talking about. Take your troll bullshit somewhere else. I’m over banging my head against this wall.