Bradley, Lueke, And Precedents

Dave · January 19, 2011 at 11:39 am · Filed Under Mariners 

Obviously, most of the talk today surrounding the M’s is about Milton Bradley’s arrest. This can’t be how the M’s were hoping to kick off the new year, and the fact that it comes two weeks before FanFest has to be annoying to the organization – after all, they’re now faced with standing in front of a bunch of fans before his court date (February 8th), which leaves them in the uncomfortable position of having to say something without actually saying anything.

Beyond that, the Mariners have to figure out what they’re going to do with Milton now. At this point, I think most people expect the team to take some action that removes him from the team, whether that be suspension, a move to the restricted list (the same procedure they pursued last year when he took his leave of absence), or just an outright release. Given all of the questions about how Bradley would fit in with Eric Wedge at the helm, how he’d respond to a reduced role that left him as a part-time player, and his ability to serve as the team’s fourth outfielder given his injury history, this seems like a straw-that-breaks-the-camel’s-back, even if the charges end up being dropped. Pretty much every other organization that has ever employed Milton Bradley has reached a point where they determined his baggage wasn’t worth it anymore, and this is probably that point for the M’s.

If they just want to wash their hands of the situation and be done with it, they can just release him. It’d be the no-hassle way of dealing with the issue, as no one would really question the organization if that’s the path they decided to pursue. They’d have to eat the $12 million he’s owed for 2011, but it’s a sunk cost anyway, and it’s not like it’s all that hard to find a right-handed hitting outfielder who can get 250 plate appearances and avoid causing drama for everyone around him.

The other options would be a bit trickier, as they’d likely involve the team seeking some sort of reimbursement for the wages they’re expected to pay Bradley this year. Larry Stone has a great piece on the history of teams trying to void contracts with players over off-the-field legal problems. In general, it hasn’t gone very well, as the player’s association has been able to hold teams at bay when they attempt to declare that a player has forfeited his right to be paid. It is possible that there is language in Bradley’s contract that would allow the team to pursue this course in his specific situation, but there’s no way for us to know if that’s the case or not. There’s also another factor to consider for the M’s, and that’s Josh Lueke.

The team took a pretty big PR hit last year with how the Lueke situation was handled after he was acquired from Texas in the Cliff Lee trade, but since then, the team has operated in a way that suggests that they expect Lueke to remain a member of the organization going forward. Lueke’s situation is different in many ways than Bradley’s, especially in that his offense took place while he was not a member of the organization, but he spent time in jail for his offense and the Mariners are still willing to employ him (as of now, anyway). Given their decision to acquire Lueke (and subsequently retain him throughout the off-season), it would then be hard to convince a judge that Bradley simply being arrested for making a threat would constitute behavior that would prevent them from continuing to employ him.

Likewise, it will appear somewhat hypocritical of the Mariners if they cite this incident as a primary cause for his release, but continue to employ Lueke. On one hand, the organization certainly wants to be seen as taking a firm stance against abuse against woman, but making different choices as to Lueke’s and Bradley’s futures with the organization presents some problems. They have opted to note that Lueke deserves a second chance, but Bradley has no noted history of abuse towards women that I can find Bradley has never been charged with any domestic abuse issues (though there was a 2005 incident where police were called to his home that I missed in my original research) and this charge – while serious – is not as extreme as what Lueke served jail time for. You can point to Bradley’s past problems getting along with coaches, management, teammates, and umpires as examples of why he’s run out of second chances, but all of those problems have been with men. If the organization chooses to release him on the grounds of violating a policy of abuse towards women, it will be hard to simultaneously justify Lueke’s continued employment. If one deserves a second chance, then it will be argued that so does the other.

In short, there is no easy clean fix here, unless the team decides to just take this as an opportunity to enforce a retroactive no-tolerance policy and release them both. I doubt that’s the path they’ll pursue, however. My guess is that we end up seeing Bradley placed on the restricted list, remain a member of the organization, and the team simply choose not to pursue an attempt to recoup his salary. He’d still technically be a member of the organization, but he wouldn’t be part of the team anymore. This is essentially what the Cubs did to Bradley at the end of the 2009 season, when they just sent him home to finish the year.

No matter what they do, however, they’ll be criticized from some angle.

Comments

55 Responses to “Bradley, Lueke, And Precedents”

  1. mrb on January 19th, 2011 11:57 am

    This is a good piece, but I wish you’d taken on the race angle, because it is guaranteed to come up; especially on the heels of the Roethlisberger/Vick thing [imagine if that had been the Super Bowl matchup. Holy Cramoley!]. Maybe that post is in offing…

  2. Jordan on January 19th, 2011 12:13 pm

    In other news the A’s DFA’d IF Tolleson…Seems like a good NRI to add to our other AAAA fodder. I just hope this Bradley incident doesn’t force Tui on the roster.

  3. diderot on January 19th, 2011 12:18 pm

    There is nothing the Mariners can or should do short term.
    First, no one knows exactly what happened, other than there was an arrest.
    Second, it would be not only unfair but also incredibly inconsistent to banish someone on the basis of an allegation, when Lueke sports a conviction. (Not to mention mrb’s salient point on race).
    And third, there’s the question of equivalency. Consider that not one, but two organizations–the M’s and Rangers–determined that Lueke’s actions were not sufficient to ban him.
    The M’s really have no recourse but to ride this out until they can come to some negotiated, mutually-agreed settlement with him (which I expect them to explore immediately).

  4. Westside guy on January 19th, 2011 12:20 pm

    A bit of a tangent, but – I noticed that, on last week’s Hot Stove League, Tony Blengino specifically mentioned Leuke as someone that may fill a bullpen role this year. That seems to be additional collaboration for Dave’s comments regarding his likely continued employment by the Mariners.

  5. AdamN on January 19th, 2011 12:23 pm

    I like your piece Dave, but your understanding of the Lueke situation is troubling and to put it on the same level of Bradley is simply incorrect. Then to say crime against women is worse than another crime is like saying steroids is worse than another form of rule breaking in MLB that you tweeted in agreement to if I remembered correctly.

    Being in fraternity environment/heavy bar exposure and the type of situation Lueke was in it’s a no win situation. Lueke made the mistake of drinking way too much, but to say he abused women and is some horrid person is simply speculation that are not supported by the facts.
    Pleading guilty is an admission of fault, but it by no means the person is telling the truth it is a more or less a requirement of the plea bargin reached. Josh probably did the math, I fight the charge and face 5 years in prison if guilty or plea guilty and face next to nothing. What is better and less risky? You do this analysis daily with baseball and he simply applied this same concept with life.

    The facts are both parties were hammered, therefore neither could give consent to anything. With a good lawyer he could file countered charges that she raped him. There is regrettable sex and rape. The girls action that night points directly to regrettable sex, now how over the line he went who knows because its a he says she says thing. But to jump to the conclusion he is this scum that people make him out to be is simple ignorance of the situation and the unequal power women are given in these situations.

  6. Shrike on January 19th, 2011 12:24 pm

    Incredibly inconsistent? There are a raft of differences between the two situations. Dave lists many of them in his article above. The most salient one is that Lueke’s past actions preceded his employment by the Mariners, whereas Bradley’s current predicament occurred during his tenure as a Mariner. I’m not suggesting that placing Bradley on the restricted list is the “right thing to do”, but the M’s have every right to do so if they so choose (as long as they still pay him his remaining salary).

  7. georgmi on January 19th, 2011 12:39 pm

    Dave didn’t say that “crime against women is worse than another crime”; he said that a conviction for sexual abuse is worse than an accusation of a threat.

    The circumstances around Lueke plea-dealing his rape accusation down to what he was eventually convicted of are irrelevant to Dave’s argument, and in fact make his argument stronger, because what Lueke was originally charged with is not just worse than what Bradley is currently charged with, but much worse.

  8. ivan on January 19th, 2011 12:44 pm

    What if the charges against Bradley turn out to be groundless?

  9. CMC_Stags on January 19th, 2011 12:58 pm

    but your understanding of the Lueke situation is troubling and to put it on the same level of Bradley is simply incorrect.

    Since you were apparently in Josh’s apartment in Bakersfield, maybe you could tell us what happened?

    If not, then don’t make guesses about what happened and then say that your guesses are more accurate than Dave’s simple statement of fact (guilty plea versus previous accusation).

  10. ivan on January 19th, 2011 1:10 pm

    It’s not like it’s all that hard to find a right-handed hitting outfielder who can get 250 plate appearances and avoid causing drama for everyone around him.

    Is it at all in the realm of possibility that the M’s could buy Matt Murton from his Japanese team? He had a big year last season, breaking the NPL record for most hits in a season (I think Ichiro had set it).

  11. Badbadger on January 19th, 2011 1:21 pm

    I think that the difference between Lueke and Bradley is that Lueke was given his second chance by the Rangers and has had time to show that he seems to be taking advantage of it by being a model citizen. Bradley has had a lot of chances and has shown no signs of taking advantage of any of them. Plus he sucks, so there’s less reason to want to stick your neck out for him.

  12. b__rider on January 19th, 2011 1:25 pm

    I think that, when all the information in, the Mariners might have a reason to get rid of Bradley and keep Leuke. That’s because we need to consider not just what they did, but what their actions say about what direction they’re going. Perhaps Leuke did something terrible some time ago, but now he’s become (or becoming) a better person who has learned from his mistakes. On the other hand, the fact that Bradley keeps getting in trouble shows that he’s _not_ making progress on becoming a better person, and the Mariners might want to give up on rehabilitating him.

    That being said, I don’t think I (or most other people) really know enough about the two cases to judge. But I do think it matters whether the person is trying to improve his character, and recent events weigh more heavily in that.

  13. sciacca on January 19th, 2011 1:26 pm

    If there is anyone in baseball for whom, when writing a contract, you would put in a phrase like “we don’t have to pay him if he misses any time because he is being held on felony charges”, then it’s MB. It’s too much to hope for, but I still hope it’s in there, and then when he misses spring training for a few days to resolve this they can void his contract.

  14. MrZDevotee on January 19th, 2011 2:01 pm

    I think the difference is enough that Lueke and Bradley’s situations can coexist without requiring equal assessments and responses.

    Where Leuke legally admitted his mistake, and (as far as we know) has made strides to move on from his past, and show that he has learned from his mistakes (and is also likely on Probation and registered as a sex offender, meaning “on a very short leash”), Bradley has consistently been suspended and/or “sent home” by numerous teams throughout his career for repeated offenses, most of which occurred “on the job”, including those while a member of the Mariners. M’s management has gone so far as to stand by him while he took time off for treatment, only to find that it appears to have not paid off.

    So, to me, the difference is… Leuke has been given one chance, and so far has toed the line, while Bradley has been through many “changes of scenery”, and yet repeated his mistakes over and over again, without much progress towards correcting his behavior.

    I think the proper move is to jettison Bradley, as an example to Leuke of what we’re unwilling to put up with while he wears a Mariner’s uniform.

    If we go by media reports, Leuke has done much better under the microscope than Bradley ever has.

  15. xxtinynickxx on January 19th, 2011 2:02 pm

    I think Lueke is easy to understand because they acquired him after the fact. Bradley is during his stay and his cost of being paid vs his output vs his on and off the field problems are very hard to justify his staying.

    However I’m a big believer in second chances and think Lueke’s chance is here with the M’s, Bradley’s will probably be some where else but still should be given his chance, unless he goes to prison.

  16. Leroy Stanton on January 19th, 2011 2:24 pm

    The difference is that Lueke is an asset and Bradley is a liability.

  17. Chris_From_Bothell on January 19th, 2011 2:27 pm

    The difference is that Lueke is an asset and Bradley is a liability.

    Ding! Got it in one.

    All the previous posts that provided some reasoning for how Lueke is repentant and Bradley showing a pattern of behavior – I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the reasoning the team uses to get rid of Bradley but keep Lueke.

  18. charliebrown on January 19th, 2011 2:28 pm

    The M’s really have no recourse but to ride this out until they can come to some negotiated, mutually-agreed settlement with him (which I expect them to explore immediately).

    Why would Bradley agree to anything less than his full salary? He gets nothing out of it. Even if the M’s release him, no other team will sign him. He’d only be losing money and not getting anything in return.

    I do think you’re right that the M’s have to ride this out though. They’re going to have to ride this out for the whole season while paying him $12 mil to stay away from the team.

  19. Badbadger on January 19th, 2011 2:41 pm

    I don’t know, the examples Larry Stone gave were all settlements for less than the full amount. If Bradley thought he might not win arbitration it would be in his interests to settle.

    The only way I care about the financial angle though is if the M’s get that money in time to use it to improve the team. Otherwise I couldn’t care less if the billionaires who own the team get a few million back.

  20. diderot on January 19th, 2011 2:54 pm

    Why would Bradley agree to anything less than his full salary?

    Not having to face reporter questions about this for the next six months?

    Trying to minimize the cameras outside the courtoom if he goes to trial?

    Not having this incident become the defining impression of his career?

    I’m not saying he’d bite…but I would expect the Mariners to pursue it. If the M’s offer to let him walk away ‘clean’ (i.e., minimized media attention), would that be worth $4 million to him? $2 million? A million?

    I don’t know…but maybe.

  21. bookbook on January 19th, 2011 3:13 pm

    Did Roethlisberger kill some one?

  22. Faceplant on January 19th, 2011 3:17 pm

    Bradley and Lueke are two players that each had histories. Both were brought here on the understanding that if they messed up again, they would be on their way out. Bradley (probably) messed up again. Lueke hasn’t.

    Sorry, but I just don’t see any inconsistency. If the Mariners release Bradley it’s because of this incident, not past ones.

  23. Carson on January 19th, 2011 3:57 pm

    What if the charges against Bradley turn out to be groundless?

    That probably doesn’t happen until well into the baseball season.

    Plus, the court of public opinion will have already convicted him, and given all of his past issues (namely with our new manager), there’s no reason to hang on to him.

    It would just be best to cut the head off the snake. Now.

  24. The Ancient Mariner on January 19th, 2011 4:02 pm

    Just to clarify (again), Lueke did not “legally admit his mistake,” he did not “plead guilty,” and he was not “convicted.”

    Lueke pled no contest, which is specifically not an admission of guilt.

  25. Mike Snow on January 19th, 2011 4:24 pm

    A no contest plea means he was convicted.

  26. Rboyle0628 on January 19th, 2011 4:27 pm

    Why would Bradley agree to anything less than his full salary? He gets nothing out of it. Even if the M’s release him, no other team will sign him. He’d only be losing money and not getting anything in return.

    Another team will take a flier on him, somewhere, even if its an independent league team. But, if I were the Mariners I’d offer him a settlement, we release you for “name figure here” amount or sit at home for 2011. If he thinks he can beat this and wants to make a point that he can still play, I’d bet its a coin flip he accepts the offer. It cant hurt to offer, ya figure the worst case scenario he says no and then either way your still on the hook for 12 mil.

  27. Evan on January 19th, 2011 4:31 pm

    Yes, Lueke was convicted. The No Contest plea is essentially an assertion that he won’t mount a defense, but nor will he admit guilt. He basically refused to participate in the adversarial part of the justice system.

    And since he was charged with a crime, and he didn’t mount a defense, he was convicted and sent to prison.

  28. Chris_From_Bothell on January 19th, 2011 4:57 pm

    If Lueke wasn’t so talented, fewer people would be splitting hairs over legal definitions.

  29. Leroy Stanton on January 19th, 2011 5:09 pm

    And since he was charged with a crime, and he didn’t mount a defense, he was convicted and sent to prison.

    If by “sent to prison” you mean “let out of jail” then I agree with you.

  30. Dennisss on January 19th, 2011 5:22 pm

    I will throw my hat in the ring with the commenters who say that the big difference between Bradley and Lueke is timing. I don’t think it would be so hard to convince a judge that the players’ conduct while members of the Mariners organization is the key factor.

    That’s not just legal parsing; it makes all the difference in the world to the Mariners. Both men are welcome in the organization if they can keep out of trouble. If not, their pasts come into play.

  31. Faceplant on January 19th, 2011 5:30 pm

    Yes, Lueke was convicted. The No Contest plea is essentially an assertion that he won’t mount a defense, but nor will he admit guilt. He basically refused to participate in the adversarial part of the justice system.

    True, but this was all part of a deal with the DA. They never could have proved a false imprisonment charge on the merits. It was simply the charge they agreed on, likely because he wouldn’t have to register as a sex offender.

    We know Lueke was convicted of the crime of false imprisonment, and has paid the price for it. He almost certainly did not actually commit the crime of false imprisonment because the woman was their voluntarily, and drank until she passed out. He may have raped her. Hey may not have. We really don’t know.

    But I think it’s important to remember that innocent people strike plea deals all the time. And just because you are accused of a crime, doesn’t mean you committed it (regardless of your past transgressions).

  32. Faceplant on January 19th, 2011 5:38 pm

    That’s not just legal parsing; it makes all the difference in the world to the Mariners. Both men are welcome in the organization if they can keep out of trouble. If not, their pasts come into play.

    Exactly, and that’s how I would expect the Mariners to frame it if they do release Bradley, or try to void his contract. Two separate players, each with previous issues, were brought in and put on notice that any further transgressions would result in their termination. One player has fulfilled his obligations, and one hasn’t.

  33. diderot on January 19th, 2011 5:45 pm

    Two separate players, each with previous issues, were brought in and put on notice that any further transgressions would result in their termination

    We actually know that for a fact with Bradley? I wasn’t aware of that.
    And I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the case with Lueke, since the front office apparently didn’t know about his past when the trade was consumated.

  34. TerryMc on January 19th, 2011 6:02 pm

    Whether guilty or not, Lueke reached a plea deal. The reason why you would not see an established major leaguer enter into a similiar plea deal is simply money. If the funds were available for top notch legal defense I doubt there would have been a deal. I don’t mean to come off overly cynical about the legal system but I would not be suprised if the charges would have been dramatically different if he was in a different economic bracket. I.e. one in which the prosecuters would assume a high priced and competent legal defense team before they filed charges.

    If he had made the charges “go away” at the time would that change people impression of him? Would the alternate outcomes result in differing personal responsibility changes from him? I don’t want to defend the guy but I expect him to be a better person now because of his plea agreement than he would be had the resources been available to avoid all punishment.

  35. Leroy Stanton on January 19th, 2011 6:20 pm

    If I could plead no contest and get out of jail in Bakersfield, I think I might do it even if I was innocent. Especially after seeing the movie Witch Hunt and knowing that Ed Jagels is still the Kern County DA.

  36. The Ancient Mariner on January 19th, 2011 6:41 pm

    Mike, Evan: yes, pleading no contest (or, more properly, nolo contendere) results in a nolo contendere conviction, with attendant sentencing. However, this is not actually the same in all respects as a conviction resulting from a guilty plea or jury verdict; the penalties are the same, but the other consequences are not. Thus to say that he is “convicted” without noting that legally, this particular conviction does not in fact establish that Lueke affirmatively committed an illegal act is to say something which is significantly wrong for the purposes of this discussion.

    In other words, if part of what you mean by “convicted” is “we have grounds to assert he done the crime” — which, on my read, is the case for at least some of the commenters here — then no, that assertion is not correct.

    And as regards the M’s and Bradley, I suspect they’ll wait to make a final decision until after February 8; what the odds are that he ends up being denied bail or that something else happens that would actually result in his being in prison after he’s supposed to report to the team, I don’t know, but something like that could give them a case to void his contract.

  37. mariners2009 on January 19th, 2011 7:00 pm

    How sad is it that this is the most exciting thing to come out of this years off season? I have been hearing crickets chirping since october…

  38. Westside guy on January 19th, 2011 7:23 pm

    Excuse the intrusion – I didn’t realize I’d wandered into the Groklaw forums by mistake. :-D

  39. samregens on January 19th, 2011 9:03 pm

    The only thing I know about the Luecke thing, is that if the M’s get rid of this promising pitcher over this, they are contemptible losers.

    But it would be just like the Mariners.
    They agonize about a headache (Bradley) who played like crap for them last year, while a division rival picks up a former? hardcore (cocaine) drug addict a few years ago, get praised for it and get MVP production out of him.

    This division rival’s manager snorts cocaine during the season, their PR department puts another spin on it, and then a lazy sold media can’t give this team enough gushing accolades for sticking with him, and they go to the World Series.

    And Luecke committed whatever he did as a member of this commended division rival team. But you have the dead-last pathetic Mariners agonizing their pretty little heads over whether to let him pitch for them or not.

    Maybe I sound too bitter, but it’s really too much crap going down.
    And it’s not just the too dainty and precious Mariners, but also the media gushing over the Ron Washington thing, etc. with the Rangers. People can get sold spin (“a (fake) heartwarming story”) so easily.
    The Rangers didn’t own up to the failed drug test results two seasons ago, not because they were “sticking to their guy in hard times” but simply because they were in a good position and didn’t want to jeopardize their chances for the playoffs. Seems obvious simple cold calculation.
    And some people fall over themselves praising the Rangers.
    I despise the Rangers more than the Angels or A’s, who at least are less full of crap.

  40. Bremerton guy on January 20th, 2011 7:38 am

    Do we know yet what Bradley is alleged to have said in his threat? I’m not a defender of rape, but if MB made a death threat, my opinion is that is significantly more serious than rape. Or false imprisonment, for that matter.

  41. Paul B on January 20th, 2011 7:44 am

    This could all be moot if Bradley gets hurt in spring training, or if his hitting seems to be the same or worse than last season. In that case, he’ll most likely be released before the start of the season.

  42. jrdo410 on January 20th, 2011 8:19 am

    I think there is a big difference between the two – Bradley has had about 1000 incidents, Lueke has had one. Lueke’s one incident is probably worse than any single Bradley incident, but he isn’t an ongoing problem. He did his time and has seemed to have learned from his mistakes. Bradley hasn’t learned.

  43. Mike Snow on January 20th, 2011 8:51 am

    In other words, if part of what you mean by “convicted” is “we have grounds to assert he done the crime” — which, on my read, is the case for at least some of the commenters here — then no, that assertion is not correct.

    What I would ordinarily expect “convicted” to mean is that someone has a finding of guilt for a particular crime on their criminal record. In that sense, it is entirely accurate to say Lueke was convicted. That’s why I objected to the assertion that he was not convicted, which I consider completely counterfactual.

    It may be that some of the things people are extrapolating from the conviction are also misleading, of course. A conviction is for a specific crime, for example, and in this case, it is wrong to say Lueke was convicted of rape, even though some people keep repeating it, because that’s not the charge he pled to.

    As for whether we have grounds for asserting particular facts, that’s ultimately more of an epistomological argument about the limits of our knowledge. But in legal terms, even if you want to restrict what we collectively can claim as established fact to what was actually decided in court, you should be aware of how a plea typically works.

    For constitutional reasons, courts are not supposed to find people guilty without some statement of fact that establishes the elements of the crime of which the person is being found guilty. In a normal guilty plea, the defendant makes an admission to a set of facts that establishes these elements, in addition to the admission of guilt. A no contest plea involves no such admission, as has been rightly pointed out. Instead, since the defendant is only conceding the likelihood of being found guilty at trial, typically as part of a no contest plea the defendant must allow the court to enter the police report as establishing the factual basis for the elements of the crime. Legally speaking at least, the contents of the police report are considered fact at this point, and sufficient evidence that Lueke committed the crime for which he was convicted.

  44. The Dreeze on January 20th, 2011 9:41 am

    [off-topic]

  45. The Ancient Mariner on January 20th, 2011 9:52 am

    Mike, I didn’t say he wasn’t convicted, I said he wasn’t “convicted”; obviously I was trying too hard to be brief (trying to get something typed before I needed both hands for my one-month-old) and thus ended up leaving that to carry too great a load of meaning. Rhetoric fail.

    As for your last point, yes and no. Yes, the contents of the police report are considered fact at this point; no, they are not considered sufficient evidence that Lueke committed the crime for which he was convicted. Were they so, he wouldn’t have pled nolo.

    I should note, I’m not saying Lueke didn’t do everything they said he did. I’m saying that hasn’t been established; which is relevant here because it makes the parallel to Bradley far more tenuous, and thus far less likely to restrict the M’s freedom of movement in dealing with Bradley.

  46. AdamN on January 20th, 2011 9:53 am

    Thanks all who corrected me and point out that his plea was no contest and not an admission of guilt. What he pled no contest too is absurd! We all can say that did not occur the women voluntarily went to his place.
    Lueke took the least risky approach and took this option. If I was his lawyer I would have fought it because he would have won. This is buyer’s remorse from the plaintiff and he should have counter filed rape charges against the women as he was intoxicated and could not consent. No one can say who had the upper hand in this incident just who was the first to file charges, but that doesn’t necessary mean he is guilty or she is innocent.

    This at the end of the day is he says she says and there was no admission of guilt in any of it. Those who say he is a despicable person who should not take the field as a mariner are basing these not on facts or actually looking at the situation without any biases.
    Here is some facts to let sink in and change your judgment
    Fact: most people assume domestic violence occurs most often by men towards women when actually women against men are 33% higher than the latter. The truth could show me to be a moron, but we do not know the truth and in my book you innocent until proven guilty and based of his behavior the disrespect he has received is not warranted. Does Josh Hamilton get this type of treatment?

  47. The Ancient Mariner on January 20th, 2011 9:54 am

    Went back to edit my last comment, and AdamN had already posted. Meant to say, I left the scare quotes to carry too much meaning — it wasn’t clear what I was trying to do.

    AdamN, look into the way the justice system operates around Bakersfield, and consider that if his lawyers had fought it to a verdict, that verdict probably would have come down to how much the jury ended up disliking Lueke. IMHO, given that he cannot possibly credibly claim innocence, that would have been extremely risky.

  48. AdamN on January 20th, 2011 9:56 am

    I went back to edit my comment and you did the same thing, so sorry for any typos folks.

  49. Mike Snow on January 20th, 2011 10:07 am

    Yes, it was a little confusing if those were intended to be scare quotes, since all the other quotation marks in that comment made it seem like those were just to indicate what other people were saying. I agree with the rest, he did not plead guilty or legally admit his mistake, but he was convicted, and no amount of rhetoric can get around that.

  50. AdamN on January 20th, 2011 10:25 am

    @Ancient Mariner
    I’m risky person than most, but it proves my point even more that he decided to take the less risky route. ESPN had a story of guy who went to Jackson state who did the same thing I based off the facts in situation he got hosed, but took the less risky route too. No risk no reward.

    Sorry to side track the comments, but the criticism against Lueke should be rebuked in a similar manner that I have brought forth and others and point out the disease called Bradley brought to the mariners.

  51. Faceplant on January 20th, 2011 10:59 am

    We actually know that for a fact with Bradley? I wasn’t aware of that.

    No, we don’t. I should have been more clear about that. I would, however, be shocked if the Mariners didn’t talk to him about his past behavior, if not when they acquired him then when they suspended him for leaving the team.

    And I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the case with Lueke, since the front office apparently didn’t know about his past when the trade was consumated.

    Zduriencik talked about this at the ussmariner event at Safeco.

  52. Faceplant on January 20th, 2011 11:14 am

    Legally speaking at least, the contents of the police report are considered fact at this point, and sufficient evidence that Lueke committed the crime for which he was convicted.

    True, but every case should be looked at on an individual basis. From what I know if you are pleading down, the prosecution must be able to demonstrate a prima facie case for the charge you are pleading to. A prima facie case is simply a case that meets the absolute minimum standards.

    In other words, the charge was good enough to be allowed to continue, but if the prosecution had gone to trial on a charge of false imprisonment the state wouldn’t have had a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

  53. philosofool on January 20th, 2011 12:07 pm

    If the Mariners release Bradley and another team signs him, is he still owed everything? I take it that the answer is “yes.” Hence, it seems to me that the M’s could leverage the option to suspend him or put him on the restricted list to get him to agree to leave the team for less than his guaranteed salary, since he could then seek other employment. Not sure anyone would sign him at this point, but he might be willing to take that risk for $2m.

  54. low on January 20th, 2011 4:34 pm

    assuming this contract is insured, maybe the mariners would be able to recoup some of the money because of this?

  55. Westside guy on January 20th, 2011 4:36 pm

    Bradley has burned so many bridges that I would be really surprised if anyone took a flier on him (assuming the Mariners release him).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.