southsider2k5

QUOTE (hi8is @ Sep 9, 2014 -> 12:48 AM) Whining sounds a hell of a lot different than, "damn it." However, if you want to play the name game... I can go down that road. There's a lot of anger boiling in me at the moment, so... Let me remain calm, request you shut your almighty mouth, and just leave it at that.

Why does it change things for 99% of America? Because those people never see true spousal abuse. The vast majority don't experience that. You can read about something, but it doesn't measure like the visual.

THEMAGICGLASSESAREBACK

He still looks like he is in awe of the majors. Like he doesn't think he deserves to be here yet.

Dunn gets a bit of a round of applause.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 07:14 PM) Yes he did. One of the rare Valparaiso guys I actually like cause of that. Valpo+ND+Cubs=puke

2 runs on no hits.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 07:01 PM) I laughed. He was treated like absolute s*** by fans, even though after 2011 he was productive. Also, I read it more as "I understand getting mad at guys you want to produce." Exactly.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 06:54 PM) Hahn really danced around a question asking about Viciedo's 2015 status. It is super obvious that Dayan won't be on the South Side next year, except as a visitor.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 06:58 PM) Only way I'd see it happening is if the Sox see him as THE final piece to go for it. Then Jerry MIGHT open the checkbook. Sounds about right to me.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 06:48 PM) I'd be down with Shark if the price was right. Sale - Samardzija - Rodon - Quintana - Danish/Montas/Adams would make me quite happy. Use the other two arms as trade bait. Plus, didn't Samardzija grow up a Sox fan? If he keeps going at this rate, he will be WAY out of the Sox shopping range. I would say you'd have to be looking at the 100-$150 million range.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 05:48 PM) Chuck Garfien ‏@ChuckGarfien 33s What does Samardzjia think about joining a pitching staff with Chris Sale? "That's not a bad start there for sure." It will never happen, but dayum that would be just f'ning nasty. Throw Rodon in at #3 and Q at #4? Wow.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 05:26 PM) No one is saying it is simple. And no offense, but your friend's daughter has some other things going on besides just an evil boyfriend if she continues to date him. We can't question every decision a woman makes or action she takes because she was hit by the man she was with. I know I'll get some grief for this, but I feel it needs to be said: Some men and women that think they love eachother (and who am I to say if they truly do or not) treat each other very strangely. They fight, they say terrible things to one another, they physically abuse one another. Human behavior is sometimes very strange. Rightfully so, people become outraged when men are filling the role of abuser. However, there is much less outrage when women are the abusers. Disproportionately so. And does anyone even care when gay couples fight? When society as a whole starts trying to get in the middle of some of these strange relationships, it seems to backfire. Oftentimes, it doesn't seem to be for the benefit of anyone actually involved. I'm all for protecting women in danger, and I am all for protecting men in danger. But sometimes, these people don't want protection, they don't want outside involvement, and if that is truly the case, than so be it. Continue at your own peril, for all I care. Not to mention there are two massive distinctions that are being ignored to make light of this situation. The finance can do whatever the heck that she wants. If she wants to be with Rice, there is nothing that can stop her from doing so, well unless Rice actually succeeds in killing her one day, but that is a different story. The other thing is how the NFL as an employer handles the situation. One does not effect the other. How the NFL views the behavior of its employee, doesn't equate to how Rice's finance views him. The NFL is fully within its right to terminate its employees employment situation because of how its employee acted, whether the victim likes it or not. You want to really protect a victim? Do everything you can to make an abuser think twice about beating on his significant other. If even one abuser stops and thinks that he could lose his job and millions of dollars if he throws a punch, this media storm has been a success. Hell even if one average Joe has the same second thoughts, this has been a success.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 05:18 PM) I think its more the fauxrage of the last few days. I have no problem with people who in February said all of these things. I just find it interesting that most people didnt care for half a year, and now they are all outraged. This didnt just happen. Who said that domestic abuse was OK in February? That is a strawman.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 05:11 PM) Look Shack, when youre dealing with women, you cant let them make decisions. They arent capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, so its up to men to tell them whats right and wrong. Clearly fans and the NFL understand the relationship of Rice and Palmer better than they do, so it makes perfect sense that the NFL and fans have to step in. Especially because in the last months Rice and Palmer have had a lot of profile issues. Even in jest, the contempt you hold for the victims of abuse is just disgusting.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:54 PM) Absolutely true. But not many times do employers/employees sit down, come to an agreement about the punishment and then months later have the employer arbitrarily change their mind. If the Ravens immediately cut him, itd be different. They cut him before the NFL suspended Rice indefinitely.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:36 PM) Does the employer have the right to fire you without justification? I'm truly asking as I don't know. Right now Rice can say he had no legal action taken against him. Why should the business take action when the courts didn't Again don't take this as I agree. I think he should have been prosecuted. But since he wasn't, I don't know the justification. Employers don't need to have their employee go to court for anything in almost all cases to fire them. People have been fired for MUCH less.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:34 PM) I would bet Rice still has recourse against the NFL though if he just arbitrarily changes the punishment. When you set forth a protocol on how to treat your employees and you don't follow them you're breaching your agreement. If Ray Rice gets his job back off of a f***ing technicality, that will be even more disappointing than Ryan Braun getting off of his suspension off of a BS technicality.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:29 PM) I don't think so. I think it's part of the " ethics/personal conduct" part of the agreement and contracts. Just about everything that has to do with employment and punishment goes through the CBA. It does. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/a...lence-penalties

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:27 PM) I'm not saying people should accept this type of crime, but I'm just not sure anyone would lose their job when there was no prosecution. I'm not a lawyer but would anyone really lose their job when there was no conviction in court? I personally think he should go to jail for a long time regardless. Let her enjoy his money without him having the opportunity to touch her. But we can't just do whatever we want to someone outside of the court system. We can't. But your employer can fire you for a whole myriad of reasons, this being one of them. The NFL has a conduct policy, and very clearly stipulates a whole list of reasons you can be fired from your job (aka have your contract terminated). It also has the right to bar you from working from them again, just like any other company does.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:22 PM) Technically, they aren't outside of the protocol, are they? Didn't the policy give them the ability to suspend someone for longer depending on some other factors? Besides, this occurred prior to the protocol...in fact, it was obviously the reason the protocol was created in the first place. From before today... http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/a...lence-penalties http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11425532...violence-policy

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:21 PM) I can't imagine this not being appealed by Rice/Player's Union before too long. This falls outside of the CBA.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:17 PM) But this isn't a felony because there was no conviction. In all other cases they wait for the legal system to take it's course, just like the guy in San Francisco. Why is it up to the NFL to provide justice? No workplace should want to be associated with this sort of behavior. I have no problem with someone losing their job for it. In any business, the employees of a company are a large part of their image. Getting rid of people who don't fit that image does not bother me in the least.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:13 PM) No, the NFL could have followed the protocol it created specifically as a result of this case. And not change their mind mere weeks later. So the NFL could have empowered a wife beater, in the interest of some kind of misguided fairness. Pass.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 8, 2014 -> 04:04 PM) Because in the sense of what i'm talking about - an overreaction - it's true. This is above and beyond, by far, anything in NFL history when it comes to suspensions and punishments. And it was done in 4 hours. And it seemingly ignored a prior "sentence." The NFL willy-nilly said "oh s***! People saw the video! Better get rid of him quick!" It's the definition of an overreaction, even if you ultimately agree with the result. And I don't disagree about setting harsh penalties. Setting a hard precedent would be great. But you have to be more fair about it. You can't set up a punishment system and on the fly change it because of public pressure. What if we did that with the law? Oh you were speeding, that's a $100 ticket noooooooooooooo wait, 60 days in jail! Maybe that'll teach you not to speed through this school zone! At some point, to set up harsher penalties someone has to be the first one to get them, so all of the historical BS of how they looked the other direction strawman will be there. If it wasn't Ray Rice, it was the next guy, or the guy after him. f*** the NFL for looking the other way for this for so long, and all of the other felony's they pretend don't happen. Hopefully some day they join the rest of the world in not wanting to associate with the people who beat their spouses, or any of the other felony's.