More Call-Ups

Dave · September 21, 2010 at 10:24 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

With a hat tip to Ryan Divish, we have the rest of the M’s call-ups now that the Rainiers season is officially over: Mike Carp, Greg Halman, Matt Mangini, and Anthony Varvaro. Of the four, only Mangini was not on the 40 man roster, so they’ll have to move either Shawn Kelley, Jack Wilson, or Milton Bradley to the 60 day DL to make room for him.

The name most conspicuous by his absence? Josh Lueke. You can bet the farm that this is not a baseball decision, but a PR one. I’ve been told by several people in the game that they don’t think Lueke will ever pitch for the Mariners, and this serves as some confirmation of that speculation. We’ll see, but the smart money seems to lean towards Lueke getting traded this winter.


60 Responses to “More Call-Ups”

  1. Badbadger on September 22nd, 2010 1:12 pm

    Again, maybe I’m missing something obvious but Lueke only has 40 innings above A ball. Maybe they just didn’t want to put him on the 40 man roster yet.

  2. gwangung on September 22nd, 2010 1:19 pm

    Promoting him in light of this probably isn’t a good PR move, but more importantly it would be a net negative in ongoing attempts to stigmatize date rape. This isn’t a “political correctness” issue,

    Sorry, but this DOES strike me as political correctness. This is because a) you’re being very vague on what would constitute correct behavior and b)assumed his guilt.

    From the information that’s out there, there are reasonable people who could conclude he was guilty of rape. There are also reasonable people who could conclude that he was not guilty. Given that, I’m not sure it’s a reasonable thing to proceed as if he was, in fact, guilty.

    On top of that, it is not at all clear what you want him to do about the situation. If it’s up to him, what are his next steps? And does he have the opportunity to do so?

  3. Mike Buchman on September 22nd, 2010 1:39 pm

    Lueke pleaded no contest, which in the eyes of the law is the same as pleading guilty. So reasonable people can conclude he was guilty. He said so himself.

  4. Duncan Idaho on September 22nd, 2010 1:45 pm

    Dave is right about Soriano and also I should mention that Soriano often spoke to the media in a complaining way about the desire to close or start. It was still a stupid trade.

    If the Lueke situation costs us as fans JackZ, I believe irreparable damage will have been done to the organization. If JackZ loses his job now it will be ten years minimum before the M’s compete. Oh and I forgot to say, watch the Mets sign Z to be GM and win the World Series within 2-4 years.

  5. MarcS on September 22nd, 2010 4:19 pm

    This is because a) you’re being very vague on what would constitute correct behavior and b)assumed his guilt.

    RE: b, I’m assuming – as we ALL should for the sake of debate – that he’s guilty of False Imprisonment with Violence, because that’s what he was convicted of. He gave up the assumption of innocence by pleading guilty to a crime.

    We don’t have to assume he’s guilty of the even worse crime of rape to know that the story itself (including discussion of how many guys she kissed that night, what she was thinking going to his apartment, how much she had to drink, the fact that they had sex, and the assertion by his lawyer a few days ago on KJR that the victim was wearing “skimpy clothing”) revolves around the societal issue of “date rape.”

    Re: a), I thought I was pretty clear about what behavior would be correct, but to get even more specific: some form of public acknowledgment that he committed a crime, that the crime had terrible consequences for the victim, and that he feels remorse and a sense of responsibility for preventing such things happening to others. (I think many commenters assume he’s actually apologized, but the only apology was the one he was forced to read at sentencing as part of the plea agreement, and it was your standard non-apology apology. When Geoff Baker asked him to clarify what he was apologizing for, he refused to answer.)

    I suspect he won’t do that because he either doesn’t want to expose himself to a civil lawsuit once he starts making the big bucks, or because he doesn’t believe he committed a crime. And if he wants to continue protesting his innocence, the Mariners have to dump him, because having the case retried in the media is something I think even his supporters won’t have any tolerance for.

    Even though he served his time, I don’t think Michael Vick would ever play again in the NFL if he didn’t admit that what he did “was horrendous.” We don’t have anything close to such an acknowledgment from Lueke.

    (And for the record, I’m not arguing the Mariners’ should “punish” Lueke – but I see legitimate business concerns and ethical issues – way beyond political correctness – that make promoting him problematic to say the least.)

  6. JMHawkins on September 22nd, 2010 5:21 pm

    RE: b, I’m assuming – as we ALL should for the sake of debate – that he’s guilty of False Imprisonment with Violence, because that’s what he was convicted of. He gave up the assumption of innocence by pleading guilty to a crime.

    We really don’t need to re-hash the Lueke debate – there was an entire post/thread dedicated to it, and it quickly degenerated into people using Proof By Repeated Assertion to win the debate. If you missed that thread, go back and read it. One useful note is that whatever Lueke was or was not guilty of, it’s a lead-pipe cinch he was not in fact guilty of False Imprisonment with Violence. That was simply the cockamamie charge his lawyer and the prosecutor settled on as a way to avoid gambling on the outcome of a trial – something both sides had reason to worry about.

    It’s why I’m opposed to plea bargains, justice is never done with one. Either Lueke is a rapist who got off easy, or he was an innocent guy who was punished for something he didn’t do.

    And as far as the M’s squeeky clean image, they’re willing enough to bring on board PR problems – Carl Everett and Milton Bradley are examples. But they do seem to have a way of flipping the bozo bit (as folks used to say at MSFT) on certain players. Guys like Guillen and Soriano, and maybe Morrow too, get tagged with some sort of problem label and are shipped out for something less than they’re worth. I don’t really follow other teams well enough to know if they do it too, but it wouldn’t surprise me. It happens in business too.

  7. FelixFanChris420 on September 22nd, 2010 6:58 pm

    Stupid Stupid Stupid. But then again, this is what you get when you let non-baseball people make baseball decisions based on thing totally unrelated to baseball. Yes, I’m talking to you, Chuck and Howie. The kids got talent and is a potential closer, lets give him up for nothing because of something in his past that he already paid for…just so a few womens groups won’t complain for a week when they are on their periods. Because we al know, image and profit is more important to Chuck and Howie than fielding a winning team

  8. juneau_fan on September 22nd, 2010 10:25 pm

    just so a few womens groups won’t complain for a week when they are on their periods.


    At least women can only get away with excusing irrational behavior one week a month. What’s men’s excuse again?

  9. MrZDevotee on September 22nd, 2010 10:32 pm

    Smart Smart Smart. Until the local blogs stop talking about Lueke and his devious past non-stop, it’s wise to send him somewhere else in the system for a year or so, and let the waters settle a bit. I suppose Ackley is no longer in our plans too? Since he wasn’t called up?

    The stupid part was trying to bring him here via trade “under the radar”, but burying him for awhile is absolutely the right thing to do IF you want to keep him.

    Last time I checked, Bill O’Reilly, Marv Albert, Ruben Patterson, Ben Roethlisberger, Kobe Bryant, hell even Tiger Woods, were surviving their own idiocy and the aftermath of poor public opinion, but only after the dust settled.

    What you absolutely shouldn’t do, is bring him up, throw him in the fire, and expect him to simply ignore the current negative buzz and perform up to his potential.

    He’ll get a chance next spring, and if he does well then, THAT is a good time to right the pendulum of negative opinion. Not now.

    (And if you DID want to trade him, that would be the only reason to bring him up now– to show off what he has besides a bad rep… especially to those who don’t care about the bad rep.)

  10. flutieflakes on September 24th, 2010 1:23 am

    “If you take Cliff Lee out of the two trades, you end up with Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez for Smoak, Beavan, and Lueke. And even with Lueke’s plea bargain and Gillies cocaine issues, the M’s ended up with a net positive.”

    My morals might be different than yours, but talent and upside being equal, I’d much rather have a coke dealer, or even a coke lord, than an uninvited sodomist.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.