Jump to content

Merkin teases possibility of a Clevinger reunion in 2024, Kopech in rotation next year as well


caulfield12
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes, each of those things was inappropriate and two of them directly brought the franchise into the matter. 

So despite all evidence and findings proving otherwise, you're still ready to send the guy to the Gulag? Seems Fascist, tbh. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

So despite all evidence and findings proving otherwise, you're still ready to send the guy to the Gulag? Seems Fascist, tbh. 

Please tell me what evidence there was and what was proven. How was it proven that he did not abuse this woman? What were the causes of the bruises in the photos? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Please tell me what evidence there was and what was proven. How was it proven that he did not abuse this woman? What were the causes of the bruises in the photos? 

Sorry, I should have said lack of evidence. He went through the process and was cleared. You've basically made up your mind about something you ultimately have no idea about. Those in charge of the investigation know a hell of a lot more than you, and cleared him to play. It's not a good look for you. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Please tell me what evidence there was and what was proven. How was it proven that he did not abuse this woman? What were the causes of the bruises in the photos? 

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say if there was any shred of solid evidence of this MLB would have thrown the book at him.  This ain't 10 years ago.  He would have been suspended, in jail, etc.  I just can't see MLB and the police turning a blind eye to it.  This isn't like Ray Rice almost 10 years ago level cover up.  That s%*# was easier back in the day to sweep away than it is today.  Anyways, I hate the guy too, so don't go thinking he's on my fantasy team or anything. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

Sorry, I should have said lack of evidence. He went through the process and was cleared. You've basically made up your mind about something you ultimately have no idea about. Those in charge of the investigation know a hell of a lot more than you, and cleared him to play. It's not a good look for you. 

No, he went through the process and was not suspended, this is fundamentally different from being cleared or proven that he did not do it. We know this language well, it is used in legal matters all the time. We are absolutely allowed to decide that we believe a jury got things wrong and we are absolutely allowed to understand that he probably beat the s%*# out of a woman who later took photos of the bruises but MLB had a high enough standard that, when interviews were done like 6 months later (For whatever reason, and again this should have violated MLBs procedures as spelled out online), they decided they didn't have enough to suspend him.

Do you believe that no jury has ever acquitted person who actually committed a violent crime? If so, it's not a good look for you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

No, he went through the process and was not suspended, this is fundamentally different from being cleared or proven that he did not do it. We know this language well, it is used in legal matters all the time. We are absolutely allowed to decide that we believe a jury got things wrong and we are absolutely allowed to understand that he probably beat the s%*# out of a woman who later took photos of the bruises but MLB had a high enough standard that, when interviews were done like 6 months later (For whatever reason, and again this should have violated MLBs procedures as spelled out online), they decided they didn't have enough to suspend him.

Do you believe that no jury has ever acquitted person who actually committed a violent crime? If so, it's not a good look for you.

You're basically saying there is no measure in which you would believe Clevinger, which is so fundamentally ridiculous that I can't believe I'm addressing it. I believe MLB would gladly throw the book at Clevinger if they had any evidence whatsoever, especially after breaking Covid protocol. But hey, you made up your mind about the situation despite knowing less than those assigned to rule on the matter, so what's the point of continuing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

That's really bizarre. 

Wait, what?!? I'm always amazed at how dudes dismiss a woman's word as insignificant or lies, even when given under oath. He was "cleared" in that his abuse and harassment didn't meet MLB's threshold for suspension. The intro song shows immaturity. Colas stalking her social media is weird, but considering the allegations, could certainly scare a person under legal siege from a multi-millionaire. 

The claims of abuse were made under oath, and there's nothing to them that make them sound made up. A normal human being should have a problem with Clevenger's alleged actions, regardless of his ERA. I can't fathom how you see a person's disgust with that abuse and harassment to be "bizarre". 

Too many guys are way too comfortable with how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously about abuse. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Love 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Wait, what?!? I'm always amazed at how dudes dismiss a woman's word as insignificant or lies, even when given under oath. He was "cleared" in that his abuse and harassment didn't meet MLB's threshold for suspension. The intro song shows immaturity. Colas stalking her social media is weird, but considering the allegations, could certainly scare a person under legal siege from a multi-millionaire. 

The claims of abuse were made under oath, and there's nothing to them that make them sound made up. A normal human being should have a problem with Clevenger's alleged actions, regardless of his ERA. I can't fathom how you see a person's disgust with that abuse and harassment to be "bizarre". 

Too many guys are way too comfortable with how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously about abuse. 

 

It's a logical fallacy to use systemic/societal problems to an individual case that's been heavily investigated. Believing Clevinger was falsely accused, or was unfairly judged, after rigorous scrutinization doesn't mean one doesn't recognize that we have an incredibly huge problem when it comes to victim blaming in cases of domestic abuse. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

You're basically saying there is no measure in which you would believe Clevinger, which is so fundamentally ridiculous that I can't believe I'm addressing it. I believe MLB would gladly throw the book at Clevinger if they had any evidence whatsoever, especially after breaking Covid protocol. But hey, you made up your mind about the situation despite knowing less than those assigned to rule on the matter, so what's the point of continuing?

Yes, you're correct. I believe the woman who shared photos of her bruises in an article online accusing Clevinger, who had no clear benefit in coming forward and who probably cost herself money in the process, is credible. I find it baffling that MLB would have failed to interview her promptly and find it completely improper that they should have had the incident reported to them while he was still on the Padres and still had to talk to her again in February. As this might have come down to a he-said, she-said situation in terms of her statements, taking those statements so far afterwards is one step above trying to cover it up since memory doesn't work that way, it gets worse over time, including for traumatic events. Whoever decided on a suspension or not would have had to know that it would be appealed to an independent arbiter, and these cases are complicated enough when everything is investigated correctly, and inconsistent statements made 6 months afterwards would be an easy thing to argue against.

So yes, I've made up my mind. You also have made up your mind that the accuser was lying and that those bruises came from something else or from someone else, despite knowing less than those assigned - you've indicated this by saying repeatedly that he was "cleared" without knowing that. But it only looks bad when I believe the person who published pictures of their bruises, not when you decide you don't believe them because...well, whatever, you won't say where you think those photos came from.

And to top it off, we then have things that should not have happened at all, him dragging the team into this. No one ever should have thought a guy publicly accused of domestic abuse should be playing the song "Gold Digger" as their walkout song, and they made him stop right away when they were called out on it. They should absolutely have said "everyone stay away from this person as one of our teammates had an issue with them" and yet somehow this wound up involving one of the other team rookies. These were things that should not have happened.

So I don't know the whole story, but I am absolutely allowed to believe the accuser from what was presented even if it didn't rise to the standard of a suspension, and I am absolutely allowed to wonder why on Earth they were still interviewing this person in February as that alone casts doubt on the quality of the MLB investigation. 

And given all this, it's totally unsurprising that people were insisting he was one of the most likely guys to be traded at the deadline outside of his personal issues and in the end no one wanted him, and it seemed obvious that he would be claimed at the waiver wire deadline, if anyone wanted him.

And yes, if they bring him back, the only reason you won't hear about this all next year is that it will be the last straw for a lot of white sox fans. 

  • Like 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes, you're correct. I believe the woman who shared photos of her bruises in an article online accusing Clevinger, who had no clear benefit in coming forward and who probably cost herself money in the process, is credible. I find it baffling that MLB would have failed to interview her promptly and find it completely improper that they should have had the incident reported to them while he was still on the Padres and still had to talk to her again in February. As this might have come down to a he-said, she-said situation in terms of her statements, taking those statements so far afterwards is one step above trying to cover it up since memory doesn't work that way, it gets worse over time, including for traumatic events. Whoever decided on a suspension or not would have had to know that it would be appealed to an independent arbiter, and these cases are complicated enough when everything is investigated correctly, and inconsistent statements made 6 months afterwards would be an easy thing to argue against.

So yes, I've made up my mind. You also have made up your mind that the accuser was lying and that those bruises came from something else or from someone else, despite knowing less than those assigned - you've indicated this by saying repeatedly that he was "cleared" without knowing that. 

And to top it off, we then have things that should not have happened at all, him dragging the team into this. No one ever should have thought a guy publicly accused of domestic abuse should be playing the song "Gold Digger" as their walkout song, and they made him stop right away when they were called out on it. They should absolutely have said "everyone stay away from this person as one of our teammates had an issue with them" and yet somehow this wound up involving one of the other team rookies. These were things that should not have happened.

So I don't know the whole story, but I am absolutely allowed to believe the accuser from what was presented even if it didn't rise to the standard of a suspension, and I am absolutely allowed to wonder why on Earth they were still interviewing this person in February as that alone casts doubt on the quality of the MLB investigation. 

And given all this, it's totally unsurprising that people were insisting he was one of the most likely guys to be traded at the deadline outside of his personal issues and in the end no one wanted him, and it seemed obvious that he would be claimed at the waiver wire deadline, if anyone wanted him.

And yes, if they bring him back, the only reason you won't hear about this all next year is that it will be the last straw for a lot of white sox fans. 

No, I waited until the process played out before I jumped to any conclusions. Based on MLB's position, and the position of the authorities after this was investigated, it sure looks like a baseless accusation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes, you're correct. I believe the woman who shared photos of her bruises in an article online accusing Clevinger, who had no clear benefit in coming forward and who probably cost herself money in the process, is credible. I find it baffling that MLB would have failed to interview her promptly and find it completely improper that they should have had the incident reported to them while he was still on the Padres and still had to talk to her again in February. As this might have come down to a he-said, she-said situation in terms of her statements, taking those statements so far afterwards is one step above trying to cover it up since memory doesn't work that way, it gets worse over time, including for traumatic events. Whoever decided on a suspension or not would have had to know that it would be appealed to an independent arbiter, and these cases are complicated enough when everything is investigated correctly, and inconsistent statements made 6 months afterwards would be an easy thing to argue against.

So yes, I've made up my mind. You also have made up your mind that the accuser was lying and that those bruises came from something else or from someone else, despite knowing less than those assigned - you've indicated this by saying repeatedly that he was "cleared" without knowing that. But it only looks bad when I believe the person who published pictures of their bruises, not when you decide you don't believe them because...well, whatever, you won't say where you think those photos came from.

And to top it off, we then have things that should not have happened at all, him dragging the team into this. No one ever should have thought a guy publicly accused of domestic abuse should be playing the song "Gold Digger" as their walkout song, and they made him stop right away when they were called out on it. They should absolutely have said "everyone stay away from this person as one of our teammates had an issue with them" and yet somehow this wound up involving one of the other team rookies. These were things that should not have happened.

So I don't know the whole story, but I am absolutely allowed to believe the accuser from what was presented even if it didn't rise to the standard of a suspension, and I am absolutely allowed to wonder why on Earth they were still interviewing this person in February as that alone casts doubt on the quality of the MLB investigation. 

And given all this, it's totally unsurprising that people were insisting he was one of the most likely guys to be traded at the deadline outside of his personal issues and in the end no one wanted him, and it seemed obvious that he would be claimed at the waiver wire deadline, if anyone wanted him.

And yes, if they bring him back, the only reason you won't hear about this all next year is that it will be the last straw for a lot of white sox fans. 

To be completely honest, it was a much worse look for the Sox when they didn't even make a choice to suspend him during the investigation when it first came to light.  Since then, the team, MLB and the police all cleared him.  I can't see how this is a worse look now than it was then.  I fully expected him to be when it came out and was shocked when he wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TaylorStSox said:

It's a logical fallacy to use systemic/societal problems to an individual case that's been heavily investigated.

You're using language that betrays a lack of compassion for the victim. You are demonstrably wrong to say there's a lack of evidence. There was a lot of evidence. Emotional and mental abuse are actual things. MLB may decide they're not "there" yet on suspending a star over emotional abuse and grabbing her arm in an aggressive manner. That's their own business. 

Clevenger was also suing the victim for custody of their child, when he has no way to raise that child. The victim has described the situation he establishes with a new girl friend raising the child of his previous girlfriend, as she had done with the child of Clevenger's partner before her. 

To mock abuse by saying that Clevenger should sue WSCR for airing claims that were given in testimony under oath is bizarre. Our " incredibly huge problem when it comes to victim blaming" is only exacerbated by bro-dudes pretending that "there's no evidence" when an abused woman has provided loads of evidence. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, soulfly said:

To be completely honest, it was a much worse look for the Sox when they didn't even make a choice to suspend him during the investigation when it first came to light.  Since then, the team, MLB and the police all cleared him.  I can't see how this is a worse look now than it was then.  I fully expected him to be when it came out and was shocked when he wasn't.

The way MLB rules work are quite specific on this, the White Sox couldn't do that unless the league did so, and the league could not do so for more than a period of 7 days without some additional excuse for doing so. The only thing the White Sox could have done was cut him and pay him his full salary after the investigation, if they wanted him off the roster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Yes, you're correct. I believe the woman who shared photos of her bruises in an article online accusing Clevinger, who had no clear benefit in coming forward and who probably cost herself money in the process, is credible. I find it baffling that MLB would have failed to interview her promptly and find it completely improper that they should have had the incident reported to them while he was still on the Padres and still had to talk to her again in February. As this might have come down to a he-said, she-said situation in terms of her statements, taking those statements so far afterwards is one step above trying to cover it up since memory doesn't work that way, it gets worse over time, including for traumatic events. Whoever decided on a suspension or not would have had to know that it would be appealed to an independent arbiter, and these cases are complicated enough when everything is investigated correctly, and inconsistent statements made 6 months afterwards would be an easy thing to argue against.

So yes, I've made up my mind. You also have made up your mind that the accuser was lying and that those bruises came from something else or from someone else, despite knowing less than those assigned - you've indicated this by saying repeatedly that he was "cleared" without knowing that. But it only looks bad when I believe the person who published pictures of their bruises, not when you decide you don't believe them because...well, whatever, you won't say where you think those photos came from.

And to top it off, we then have things that should not have happened at all, him dragging the team into this. No one ever should have thought a guy publicly accused of domestic abuse should be playing the song "Gold Digger" as their walkout song, and they made him stop right away when they were called out on it. They should absolutely have said "everyone stay away from this person as one of our teammates had an issue with them" and yet somehow this wound up involving one of the other team rookies. These were things that should not have happened.

So I don't know the whole story, but I am absolutely allowed to believe the accuser from what was presented even if it didn't rise to the standard of a suspension, and I am absolutely allowed to wonder why on Earth they were still interviewing this person in February as that alone casts doubt on the quality of the MLB investigation. 

And given all this, it's totally unsurprising that people were insisting he was one of the most likely guys to be traded at the deadline outside of his personal issues and in the end no one wanted him, and it seemed obvious that he would be claimed at the waiver wire deadline, if anyone wanted him.

And yes, if they bring him back, the only reason you won't hear about this all next year is that it will be the last straw for a lot of white sox fans. 

Wasn’t he on the IL at the deadline? Kind of hard to trade a guy who is going to be out at least another month.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

You're using language that betrays a lack of compassion for the victim. You are demonstrably wrong to say there's a lack of evidence. There was a lot of evidence. Emotional and mental abuse are actual things. MLB may decide they're not "there" yet on suspending a star over emotional abuse and grabbing her arm in an aggressive manner. That's their own business. 

Clevenger was also suing the victim for custody of their child, when he has no way to raise that child. The victim has described the situation he establishes with a new girl friend raising the child of his previous girlfriend, as she had done with the child of Clevenger's partner before her. 

To mock abuse by saying that Clevenger should sue WSCR for airing claims that were given in testimony under oath is bizarre. Our " incredibly huge problem when it comes to victim blaming" is only exacerbated by bro-dudes pretending that "there's no evidence" when an abused woman has provided loads of evidence. 

Sorry, but I live in a world where due process is a thing. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

The guy embarrassed the organization and turned spring training into a circus.  Others have forgotten that but Reinsdorf sure hasn't.  I would be absolutely shocked if this turd is on the team next year.  

Jerry Reinsdorf - the arbiter of good will and common sense. 

Edited by TaylorStSox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dick Allen said:

Wasn’t he on the IL at the deadline? Kind of hard to trade a guy who is going to be out at least another month.

He actually just came off the IL on July 29, pitched 5 scoreless innings. 

But even if he was hurt, the White Sox have actually done this exact thing before. In 2013, Rick Hahn traded Jesse Crain to the Rays for either a PTBNL or Cash Considerations when Crain had been hurt since June 29, with the return to be based on whether or not he actually came off the DL during the season. They could absolutely have done a similar setup with him if any team wanted him, the White Sox pick up some of the money since they're going to have to pay it anyway, and the return in terms of prospects (or a financial return) depending on what Clevinger actually does the rest of the year.
https://www.espn.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/9519708/chicago-white-sox-trade-jesse-crain-tampa-bay-rays

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TaylorStSox said:

Sorry, but I live in a world where due process is a thing. 

And OJ was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, right? 

"Due process" doesn't mean if a dozen parents said their kids were molested at a day care, you are still obligated to drop your kids off there because they were never found guilty in court. 

I find it really weird and abhorrent when a dude digs in on this and chides others for not openly liking Mike Clevenger because of "due process". From testimony given under oath, I think the guy's a rage-addicted scumbag who uses his money to continually harass his victims, even when they're no longer partners. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WestEddy said:

And OJ was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, right? 

"Due process" doesn't mean if a dozen parents said their kids were molested at a day care, you are still obligated to drop your kids off there because they were never found guilty in court. 

I find it really weird and abhorrent when a dude digs in on this and chides others for not openly liking Mike Clevenger because of "due process". From testimony given under oath, I think the guy's a rage-addicted scumbag who uses his money to continually harass his victims, even when they're no longer partners. 

Nobody has to "like Mike Clevinger." I sure as hell don't like Mike Clevinger, and I certainly don't encourage anybody else to.

The OJ bit was predictable, and another logical fallacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TaylorStSox said:

Nobody has to "like Mike Clevinger." I sure as hell don't like Mike Clevinger, and I certainly don't encourage anybody else to.

The OJ bit was predictable, and another logical fallacy. 

Then maybe don't lecture people on the vital importance of Due Process in this case if you're wishy washy about it on other cases.

  • Like 2
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...