9 minutes ago, Baron said:

Where in any of his replies that I've just been reading for the last few pages did he imply that? 

Here I'll give you my opinion. It's weird. Your weird. 

You're

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Worth noting, found the rules. MLB is required under a confidentiality clause to not inform the teams until they are actually ready to take actions.

They can inform the players club when they are:
1 Announcing discipline or filing of a grievance
2. Establishing a treatment plan
3. Required to notify by a court order

MLB itself, if I'm reading this right, could not inform the White Sox of an open investigation unless they were ready to announce discipline. 

It could be possible for the White Sox to have found out something else if they ran a sufficient background check, but MLB couldn't have commented to them.

Section VI: http://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdf

 

Kinda true, but also wasn't he a known dick/cheater. I don't feel like going back, but wasn't it known he was cheating on his baby mama? Or something along those lines? It's enough red flags to me if i knew of his background ... for like the FO who is cutting a 12mm check to maybe make a bunch of calls to see what they could unearth .... 

 

We traded the Padres tatis ... we coulda picked up the phone and be like ... anything we should know? I dont know what normal protocol is but i kinda think if i was giving away that much money id make a few calls first. 

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Worth noting, found the rules. MLB is required under a confidentiality clause to not inform the teams until they are actually ready to take actions.

They can inform the players club when they are:
1 Announcing discipline or filing of a grievance
2. Establishing a treatment plan
3. Required to notify by a court order

MLB itself, if I'm reading this right, could not inform the White Sox of an open investigation unless they were ready to announce discipline. 

It could be possible for the White Sox to have found out something else if they ran a sufficient background check, but MLB couldn't have commented to them.

Section VI: http://content.mlb.com/documents/2/9/2/296982292/Major_League_Player_Joint_DV_SA_CA_Policy_English_2018.pdf

 

I bet the player's can thank the collective bargain agreement for that clause.

Just now, he gone. said:

Kinda true, but also wasn't he a known dick/cheater. I don't feel like going back, but wasn't it known he was cheating on his baby mama? Or something along those lines? It's enough red flags to me if i knew of his background ... for like the FO who is cutting a 12mm check to maybe make a bunch of calls to see what they could unearth .... 

 

We traded the Padres tatis ... we coulda picked up the phone and be like ... anything we should know? I dont know what normal protocol is but i kinda think if i was giving away that much money id make a few calls first. 

I think it's entirely possible you can judge the White Sox for that and for not doing enough of a background check given that this seems to be a risky person, but I think it is important to note that MLB was specifically blocked from sharing their information with the White Sox until the league was ready to announce discipline. 

Just now, he gone. said:

Kinda true, but also wasn't he a known dick/cheater. I don't feel like going back, but wasn't it known he was cheating on his baby mama? Or something along those lines? It's enough red flags to me if i knew of his background ... for like the FO who is cutting a 12mm check to maybe make a bunch of calls to see what they could unearth .... 

 

We traded the Padres tatis ... we coulda picked up the phone and be like ... anything we should know? I dont know what normal protocol is but i kinda think if i was giving away that much money id make a few calls first. 

If you did any kind of social media background check it would have come up.  Or haven't the Sox heard of google?

44 minutes ago, FourEyesShottenhoffer said:

The more I look at this, the more the possibility that this is a crazed girlfriend seems at least somewhat plausible. Sorry but I’m going to have to suspend judgment on this one

None of us know anything about their realtionship and what really happened. It does blow my mind that she is accusing him of tripping on acid every day though. Dude must be a superman to handle that. Back in college I would need a good 36 hours to recover from shrooms. Can't imagine taking acid on the daily and being a professional athlethe. 

1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

Yes, I believe due process is an incredibly basic human right, whether I like the person or not. I would have no problem with the Sox terminating the contract before the process plays out, and I'm inclined to believe the accuser. However, I take issue with posters accusing others of being immoral because they believe in human rights. It's honestly fucking crazy. 

What the f*** does the KKK have anything to do with that then??? Why are you comparing people who are trying to make sure this poor woman is ok(also not letting her potential abuser play on a baseball team which is a privilege) to a racist terrorist organization that was killing people because of skin color? 

Edited January 24, 20233 yr by Baron

I actually wonder if this results in changes to the CBA down the road.  If a team knew about a free agent possibly getting suspended while others didn’t, it could lead to a competitive advantage.

13 minutes ago, A-Train to 35th said:

BTW, are you southsiders2k5 burner account?  You seem to like each others posts often.

Nope but thank you for taking the time to try to confirm.

32 minutes ago, bmags said:

man I don't know, I don't think he was that undervalued. Before today, we knew he was on a pitch limit. He was -ok- in San Diego and was coming off a major injury.

I really have a hard time believing this was known.

Fair enough. We don’t want to believe that. But again, not doing the background homework, or making a poor judgment is bad enough.

Another argument that this team for the most part is unlikeable 

17 minutes ago, A-Train to 35th said:

BTW, are you southsiders2k5 burner account?  You seem to like each others posts often.

I really do appreciate the rent free room.

9 minutes ago, A-Train to 35th said:

If you did any kind of social media background check it would have come up.  Or haven't the Sox heard of google?

I thought she just posted this in the last 24 hours?

2 minutes ago, The Grinder said:

Another argument that this team for the most part is unlikeable 

I am not sure the Sox could have planned any worse of a route since the off-season of 2019 if they sat down and knew what the result of each action would before making plan.  It is surreal.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am not sure the Sox could have planned any worse of a route since the off-season of 2019 if they sat down and knew what the result of each action would before making plan.  It is surreal.

2021 deadline was the beginning of the end

 

It's to the point, where i'm thinking that this team is truly cursed.

2 minutes ago, White Sox Park said:

It's to the point, where i'm thinking that this team is truly cursed.

There is some bad mojo going on for sure

Until Jerry sells this curse will not be lifted

3 minutes ago, White Sox Park said:

It's to the point, where i'm thinking that this team is truly cursed.

That's a very odd way to spell Hahn.

while it was fun. Going to hide the sub, personal discussion going on. Feel free to discuss it on twitter.com or stuff.

14 minutes ago, fathom said:

I actually wonder if this results in changes to the CBA down the road.  If a team knew about a free agent possibly getting suspended while others didn’t, it could lead to a competitive advantage.

The statement from the Padres says that they were aware of the investigation. It is unclear when they found out, it is possible that the team was informed by the victim at the same time that the victim informed MLB, or that the victim informed the team first and the team shared it with MLB.

I mean, preller with that info is really obnoxious.

2 hours ago, RibbieRubarb said:

Source: The White Sox
?

BUT, I believe SD knew and that neglected to tell us? Did we even ask SD or Clevinger "is there anything in your past recently that could screw things up down the road? He's our George Santos now, but we're not stuck with him. We should wait for the suspension so we don't have to pay him for sure, BUT MY VOTE IS " HE GONE"

7 minutes ago, Soxfest said:

Until Jerry sells this curse will not be lifted

Somebody’s been drinking Jobu’s rum, I tells ya