D.Y&gt; out for 50 games

weak

by greg456 @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2006 2:24 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed

I expected closer to 100.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 9, 2006 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Scroll down for UFC's post about precedent

nt

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Argh

UCF, not UFC. I wish post-editing was possible...

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

The retroactive suspension shortens it a bit, but I'm glad that there is community service involed.

by sasquatch83 on May 9, 2006 2:26 PM EDT reply actions

Too harsh and should be appealed

This was the longest suspension in the league's 123-year history. I don't know much about the International League's 123 year history of discipline, but I'd be willing to bet money that this wasn't the worst foul in the 123 year history of the league.

When the comparable incidents gave out 5-10 game suspensions, this one is 50? I am not a lawyer, but I think even I could win Delmon's appeal on this one. The MLBPA should have a field day with this.

by delmonfan on May 9, 2006 2:31 PM EDT reply actions

I would be willing to take your money

That this was the worst incident in the History of the IL.

by spepin on May 9, 2006 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Can't possibly be

120 years ago, it wasn't unheard of for players to jump into the stands or actually beat up the umpires. Would you be willing to tell me that John McGraw's Orioles didn't do worse things than throw a bat at an ump? If major league teams were doing worse things back then, then why wouldn't the less powerful leagues? I'm sure players have done MUCH worse things in the past. However, it probably is the worst since the IL took MLB's lead in consolidating power and having a strong commissioner.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on May 9, 2006 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

120 years ago

120 years ago women couldn't vote (or own property in many places in the US) interracial marriage was illegal in most states, African-Americans were second class citizens (legally so) through much of the US and resorting to physical violence was a pretty socially acceptable method of resolving a dispute. 19th century standards should not be considered when looking at the behaviour of a 21st century individual.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 9, 2006 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

I wasn't

trying to imply that the punishment standards were the same (back then, the owner would have released the player if he was a scrub and not done anything about it if he was the ticket draw). Just saying that I'm sure worse things have happened, before the televised era.

"If there wasn't nine guys out in the field, I'd have a hit every time except when I strike out." - Delmon Young

by Brickhaus on May 9, 2006 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Can

Can anyone think of any other occasions where a player hit an umpire with a bat? I certainly can't think of one at any level. Delmon has to also be aware that the severity of the suspension may well prevent him from being charged with battery in a criminal court.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 9, 2006 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Battery?

You gotta be kidding me. That would be thrown out in an instant. Read the disclaimers on the back of any baseball ticket.

by delmonfan on May 9, 2006 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Uh

I don't think Delmon bought a ticket to get into the stadium. Are you kidding me? That's the biggest disconnect I've ever seen, is your statement and the reality of the situation. But I guess I should expect that from someone calling himself "delmonfan." Slavering fanboys suck.

by Flynn Blake on May 9, 2006 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

He Could Easily Be Charged with Battery

As an attorney, I can say that I could see a very reasonable chance of Delmon being charged with battery, because although the ump would consent to some normal and anticipated contact, there is no way a judge would find that the ump consented to having a bat thrown at him.

by ssjames on May 9, 2006 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Proof

You have no way of proving that Delmon meant to hit the ump with the bat. Even the Commissioner admitted to that in the statement that was released. The worst Delmon was was negligent in his action of throwing the bat in frustration.

Finally, I don't see how any International League sanction would rule out the hypothetical battery charge.

by delmonfan on May 9, 2006 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Stop apologizing

He, at best, flung the bat in the direction of the umpire and ended up hitting him in the chest. He didn't "flip" it or anything like that. It was a deplorable act and one that should be punished. Frankly, I don't give a damn if he "meant to hit him". It was a stupid, careless, and violent act towards an authority figure, and that is unacceptable.

IMO, he got off easy at 50 games and community service. He would have gotten the season if it was me.

You, delmonfan, are making a fool of yourself. Please stop.

by jc3 on May 9, 2006 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Charges

First of all, Delmon didn't have to Intend to hit the ump, he did it and from witness accounts it sounds like there's a chance he WAS trying to hit the ump. I suspect however, that SSJAMES knows a LITTLE bit more about what chances Delmon would face than you do.
Second of all, the battery charge would have to be brought by the umpire. If he sees Young's punishment as being sufficient and sees Young accepting the punishment as it is handed down he may decide that his punishment is sufficient. If the IL handed down a short suspension of if Delmon were to start bitching about the punishment being unfair and appeal it down to something small he may decide that Delmon hasn't been sufficiently punished and decide to press charges. Young would have to retain an attorney and face the shame at least of being arrested and booked. Accepting his punishment with contrition and humility is the best thing he can possibly do right now. he needs to keep his mouth shut for a while or risk further damaging his already severely tarnished reputation.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 9, 2006 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Didn't need to intend to hit the ump

Even if Delmon only intended to scare the ump, or making the ump nervous that that the bat would hit him, then Delmon messes up and "accidentally" hits the ump, it's battery, regardless. If he had meant to scare the ump and tossed the bat at the ump, but missed then we would have an assault. Either way, he could be prosecuted, but they would probably need the participation of the ump in question.

by ssjames on May 9, 2006 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions

And everyone

said I was nuts when I brought up possible legal ramifications.

I don't think they would need the umps cooperation in any criminal court proceedings, but it would certainly make their job easier.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

bat

Also, would the bat turn the assault charge into assault with a deadly weapon?

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 9, 2006 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions

Depends

It depends upon the state law, and I am not an attorney in Rhode Island, where it occurred, so I don't know the laws with respect to what constitutes a deadly weapon, but it might be one.

by ssjames on May 9, 2006 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions

also an attorney...

even did some criminal law work a few years ago!

Just some minor points...

Technically, whether a hypothetical prosecution goes forward does not depend on the ump "pressing" charges. The district attorney's office, acting on behalf of the people of R.I., makes that decision. In reality, if the complaining witness does not want to testify, the DA rarely brings a case - which is why it is thought of as pressing charges.
the supposed lack of clear intent to hit the ump would not preclude a prosecution. I do not practice in R.I. and am not familiar with their penal code, but if they are like any other state they have different degrees of battery. One can be "reckless" and be convicted of a crime. I think one would be hard pressed to argue that DY's actions were not reckless.
the fact that there may be language on a ticket warning of dangers and limiting the liability of the club is irrelevant to this situation.
all that being said, in the real world I'd say there is less than .001% chance it actually gets prosecuted. Nobody got hurt. There isn't much of a deterrent motivation (i seriously doubt the R.I. DA is worried about an outbreak of on field violance because he was soft on this case). Frankly, there are more important things to worry about - especially for a case that would likely end up as an ACD.

by LeftyTG on May 10, 2006 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Ump

Where's the umpire's ticket?
The umpire isn't a paying fan, he's an employee and those disclaimers mean squat outside of the normal context of the game. Getting hit with a foul ball is one thing, a player jumping into the stands and hitting a fan with a bat is something else entirely and I guarantee that player would go to trial.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 9, 2006 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions

The problem

What other comparable incidents were there?

by sasquatch83 on May 9, 2006 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

In 1948....

Manager Pepper Martin choked an umpire in an International League game and received a 2 week suspension and a $100 fine. That is the only thing I could find for a somewhat comparable incident.

by UCFKnights on May 9, 2006 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't know how that works...

Certainly there is an appeal system, but if Delmon wants to emerge with any sort of reputation in tact, he should just take the penalty.

Another thing: are minor league players protected by (or under the aegis of) the MLBPA? I wouldn't think so, but really, I just don't know.

by Azteca on May 9, 2006 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions

also

I think this is a fair penalty. His conduct was despicable, but all-in-all he only misses about 6 weeks of play, and thus gets to keep his prospect luster.

by Azteca on May 9, 2006 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

I think he is.

I read somewhere he is protected by the MLBPA by virtue of the fact that he's on the 40 man roster.

by AucklandGM on May 9, 2006 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

NM, answered 2 threads below in greater detail

by AucklandGM on May 9, 2006 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions

Gee--we aren't biased are we?

I think 50 games is a slap on the wrist. My initial feeling was 100 games if they wanted to set a precedence.

He should consider himself fortunate.

by stello12 on May 9, 2006 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions

"Set a precedent"

First off, it's a "precedent" not "precedence".

Second off, this is a league with a 123-year history. There are precedents already out there. You can't just wipe away history and say I want to send a message.

by delmonfan on May 9, 2006 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions

What is the precedent for throwing a bat?

There is no precedent for this.
There is no history to wipe away.
Delmon made history, the commish set the precedent.

by rojosoto on May 9, 2006 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

If there is precedent.....

Show us an example of the last time someone in the IL threw a bat at and ump and how many games he got?
Cant?
Thats because there is no precedent, you're wrong, plain and simple.

by spepin on May 9, 2006 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

History

You can't compare baseball incidents pre-WWII to today, it was a much, much different atmosphere, a lot more things were tolerated.
Sure, if a guy threw a bat at an ump in 1925, he'd probably get a week at most... but I don't think that's a precedent baseball should follow. There are many precedents from baseball's past that should never be followed again.

by SmokeyJoeWood on May 9, 2006 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Just a question . . .

but are minor league players covered by the MLBPA? I don't think that they are, but what about those with Major League contracts? This question actually came up between a buddy and I but in the context of baseball video games. Anyone know the answer?

by RayRay on May 9, 2006 2:39 PM EDT reply actions

If they are on the 40 man

then they have major league contracts and are major league players covered by the CBA and part of the MLBPA. They can be playing in the minors and have all this apply.

by nms on May 9, 2006 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Here's a link to the MLBPA FAQ

And on membership:

"All players, managers, coaches and trainers who hold a signed contract with a Major League club are eligible for membership in the Association. In collective bargaining, the Association represents around 1,200 players, or the number of players on each club's 40-man roster, in addition to any players on the disabled list."

Didn't really find the answer to your question, though.

by Azteca on May 9, 2006 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions

No

the answers there.

It doesn't matter if players are in the minors or not. What makes them a majorleaguer instead of a minor leaguer (for CBA purposes) isn't where they are playing but if their contract is on the 40man.

by nms on May 9, 2006 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Weak

as hell. Like I said originally, if I ran the D-Rays, I'd tack 20 games onto it. If he has some sort of appeal process and gets it reduced, I'd make sure he was out for 70 games at minimum.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 3:35 PM EDT reply actions

Agree - too light

I think the 50 games should have been in addition to the two weeks he's already sat out. That would have totaled almost a half season's worth of games, which is abotu right.

by rojosoto on May 9, 2006 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Would the MLBPA permit this?

Are clubs allowed to arbitrarily suspend players like this? I remember the MLBPA coming to bat for Soriano when the Nats were going to sit his butt for refusing to play.

by UCFKnights on May 9, 2006 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't know

but I'd be finding out if I were them. Players get suspended from teams all the time(not talking about baseball), just not for that long. Artest and Iverson have been suspended by their team, football players and hockey players have been. Can't think of any baseball examples off the top of my head tho...

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions

Appeal?

Why would Delmon appeal? It sounds like he was actively involved in writing out his own punishment (from the notes above and the article at ESPN.com.) Why would he agree to the terms of the punishment with the commissioner, then turn around and appeal? You would think he just wants to get this all behind him.

by rojosoto on May 9, 2006 3:40 PM EDT reply actions

Couldn't have said it better myself

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions

back around 1918

Back around 1917, Babe Ruth punched an umpire in the mouth for a called 3rd strike. This action resulted in the umpire losing his two front teeth. I heard the talking heads on ESPN discussing this when the Delmon thing happened. Take it for what its worth.

Charlie

Go Pirates!!!

by cool hand Charlie on May 9, 2006 4:37 PM EDT reply actions

No doubt . . .

I'm sure Peter Gammons was there to see it happen . . . He probably even had his REAL hair then.

If not the Toupee, then rest assured that Joe Morgan will reveal that his uncle's, brother's, aunt's, second cousin had a labrador retriever who was there and has video footage to prove it!

by hunteralan on May 9, 2006 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions

LOL

Joe Morgan is pretty bad. He has seen and done pretty much anything in baseball.

Who's worse, Morgan or Harold Reynolds?

by yoda1 on May 9, 2006 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Uhhhh . . .

. . . that's akin to asking what's worse, falling out of a plane at 20,000 feet with no parachute or getting your head chopped off by a guillotine . . .

Is there really a right answer?

by hunteralan on May 9, 2006 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions

The other incident being discussed

Pete Rose (as a manager) shoved an umpire in 1988 - and got a 30 game suspension.

by sasquatch83 on May 9, 2006 4:47 PM EDT reply actions

Who cares

Am I the only one who doesn't care how long he got. Just get the kid some help so he doesn't have any more problems. Hopefully his parents or brother is doing something.

Sitting him out longer only hurts Tampa. They don't need to have his growth stunted by sitting out a year. In the end it hurts their bottomline. To us Delmon is a ball player. To the owners of a baseball team he is nothing more then a piece of meat. They can't make money with Delmon sitting out. Money is all that matters to these people. For that reason he gets a slap on the wrist and a don't do that again speech.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2006 4:58 PM EDT reply actions

Yeah, but face it ...

To most guys here, Delmon Young is strictly a line of agate type that affects our fantasy, sim or real life rooting. That's all. To pretend there's anything noble about our rooting interests seems a bit absurd.

by Flynn Blake on May 9, 2006 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

i disagree

I have no interest in Delmon Young for fantasy purposes. I believe that his suspension is weak because he could have seriously injured that ump. He could have done lasting damage. A bat is a weapon. You come down hard on incidents like this so that the next hothead that comes along doesn't push the envelope a bit further. I think this incident warranted a punishment that gets people's attention. 50 games doesn't do that for me. The fact that he'll be back playing baseball in June seems ridiculous. I wonder if it would have been longer if it had been a prospect no one had ever heard of.

by greg456 @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2006 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions

subject

Do you think sitting the guy for another 50 games is going to teach him something he isn't going to get from missing 50 games?

IMO the length of the suspension doesn't matter. He is either going to get the point or he isn't.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2006 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

sure

I think he'll either get it or he won't, regardless of 50 or 100 games.

My point was, come down hard on him to leave a lasting memory in the minds of future hotheads and would-be copycats.

by greg456 @ Minor League Ball on May 9, 2006 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Don't agree

with that rationale. Does that mean you don't punish a violent criminal harshly because he'll get what he did was wrong or he won't? Make rape a misdemeanor because if the rapist doesn't get it, what good does incarcerating him do?

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Slurve

The barn's out of straw.

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Pay attention to the thread, people

I'm quoting from UCFKnights upthread:

"Manager Pepper Martin choked an umpire in an International League game and received a 2 week suspension and a $100 fine. That is the only thing I could find for a somewhat comparable incident."

Anybody want to argue that choking is less of an offense than a tossed bat?

These threads are always beyond stupid, mainly because you all react in the most vindictive ways possible. There ARE precedents, but most of you are too lazy to actually look for them, even when they're served to you on a silver platter midthread.

Hopefully this will be the end of the Delmon diaries, and we can go back to discussing people instead of bats. Cole Hamels will probably give up another run soon...

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 8:14 PM EDT reply actions

apples, meet oranges

"Anybody want to argue that choking is less of an offense than a tossed bat?"

No, but I would argue, like someone else alluded to, that times have changed. Social mores have changed drastically. Pepper only got 2 weeks and the Babe got a slap on the wrist. Jump forward to 1997 and Sprewell chokes his coach. The consequnces of that were pretty severe. The NBA tried to expel him from the league. In the end, it cost him 1/2 a season, a voided 24 million dollar contract and no doubt cost him money ever since in the form of lower contracts.

If these threads are beyond stupid, read it and move on instead of making multiple posts. Condescension and arrogance aren't impressing anyone or contributing to anything other than the vindictive behavior you profess to dislike so much.

We're not discussing bats, we're discussing people. Bats don't throw themselves.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Social mores

don't change that drastically. Baseball was more rough and tumble in the early 20th century, but by World War II it had settled down quite a bit. Choking wasn't acceptable then, and that's a precedent for an attack on an ump in the very same league.

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 9:22 PM EDT reply actions

Also

the vast majority of commenters ARE discussing the bats. There have been plenty of attacks, assaults, etc, on umps before, even in recent times, but most of them didn't involve bats. That's almost always the retort - "Yeah, but he threw a BAT! Unacceptable."

Look no farther than this thread.

And please, it's not like any of you guys are actually discussing Delmon Young. He's just Faceless Thug #2 with a stat-line; none of you know anything about his personality. Neither do I.

Bats are the discussion. Not the umpire, who remains nameless, and not Delmon Young as a person. Young is just something in need of punishing, and the reason why - the bat - and his stature as a prospect is why this is so salacious. There's nothing unique about Young himself being discussed; people would be saying the exact same things about any other hot prospect who did the same.

It's the butler, out of the batter's box, with the thrown bat; his name and nature are not important, only his rank and weapon.

by historypeats on May 9, 2006 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Wake-up pt. II

Not discussing Delmon as a person? You need to go back and look at previous threads. The history of his actions most certainly been discussed, including his temper tantrum when they didn't call him up last year, the childish behavior he has displayed on more than one occasion. The idea of counseling has been brought up. Is "the bat" being discussed? Sure, it's part of what happened and a big reason why it is such as big of a deal as it is. Does Delmon's status as a prospect make this a bigger deal? Sure, we typically talk about prospects that are mid to high level, regardless if there is controversy or not. You don't see any Wilbur Perez threads here for a reason. Why, because he isn't really worth talking about at this point.

Somewhere, someone is brewing some coffee. Go get a whiff.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions

Wake up

I grew up in the 70's. If I acted up in public, my mom gave me a swat. You do that these days, you'll end up talking with DCFS and be looked at like your some kind of child abusing peice of crap.

In 1948, when the Pepper Martin choking incident happened, women were still viewed strickly as homemakers, it was OK to hang a black man in the south and you never heard little Johnny drop an F-bomb in a movie. Sex education in schools of the '40's... yeah right. Times have changed DRASTICALLY since the 40's.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions

please

lynching was not "ok" in '48.

i know its nice to project all the nations racial issues on the south but get your facts right.
it happened but it was rare.
It was as rare in the 60s as the 40s...less than 90 a year IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY. Less than 10% of what it was earlier in the century and less than 5% of what it was at its postRecon peak

Whats more is it generally wasn't "ok", in general. Lynching at its peak was a community spectacle, endorsed as a method of justice and of "crime" (read: uppitiness) prevention. By this time it wasn't the major event that it had been, it wasn't implicitly endorsed by the community.

In the 1950s death of Emmitt Till the accusers went so far as to try to hide from their crimes...in a true lynching the lynchers would be proud of their deed.

Lynching was almost dead by its standards, in the south and in america and it had lost its acceptance

by nms on May 10, 2006 2:01 AM EDT up reply actions

Don't put

words in my mouth. "Lynching" was never mentioned in my post. Lynching was a public spectacle. Most racial crime has been under the cover of darkness for a long time. Doesn't mean it didn't exist. There are plenty of racial crimes documented from the last 60 years. Used to be that many law officals would look the other way in the south or even encouraged it like George Wallace. On top of that, there were plenty of citizens who supported racial crime by way of being passive - an implicit endorsement. Blacks had to make a national spectacle just to get registered to vote in Mississipi in 1963. Law officials actively/violently prevented them from going and getting registered.

You call 90 a year rare? Do you think if it was still 90 a year today we would call it rare? James Byrd's murder was a national story in 1998. If it would have happened in 1948, I doubt there would have been the same reaction, if they were even caught at all. OK, so that number is the WHOLE COUNTRY. Without even checking, I promise the majority of them happened in southern states.

Regardless of how bad it still is, racial crime is not nearly as bad or accepted as it was 40-50 years ago, which supports what I was trying to say.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 10, 2006 7:48 AM EDT up reply actions

different times

You simply cannot apply a precedent from baseball 50 years ago. It was such a different era, even after WWII. Most MLB teams were still segregated, most players had offseason jobs, society itself was different, and incidents like that were treated differently.

Juan Marichal pummelled a catcher with a baseball bat and was suspended for about a week. This was a few years after the Pepper Martin incident.
Both of these suspensions were obviously severely light, especially by today's standards.

Just because the wrong precedent was set 50 years ago doesn't mean we should follow those precedents today.

by SmokeyJoeWood on May 9, 2006 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Couldn't have said

it better myself...

"Just because the wrong precedent was set 50 years ago doesn't mean we should follow those precedents today."

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 9, 2006 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions

and I'm not arguing that we should follow it

I'm simply pointing out that most commenters are ignoring it.

by historypeats on May 10, 2006 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Hmmm...

Looking back over my posts, extremely sloppy writing on my part makes it look like I WAS arguing that we should follow precedent. I don't actually think that's a good idea, considering two weeks for choking an umpire is way, way too light.

Banning Young for the season still seems like it would be too harsh; I could see that happening if he had taken a swing at the ump with it, but it really just looked like a stupid temper tantrum, albeit one that yielded an unintentionally comical video clip (the non-reaction of the catcher was priceless). If Young had really been mad enough to intentionally hurt the ump, he probably wouldn't have walked away.

I think 50 games is appropriate, and I hope he never does something like this again.

Finally, I am still tired of these diaries. :)

by historypeats on May 10, 2006 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions

If

Young had taken a swing at the ump with the bat in his hands, a LOT of folks would be calling for him being banned from baseball permanently and I think you could COUNT on criminal charges being pressed.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 10, 2006 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions

Get a grip

Todd Bertuzzi got a 20 game suspension for permanently crippling another player from behind - nowhere near the puck, intentionally, and outside of the flow of the game.

Delmon got 50 games for flipping the bat in the general direction of the plate.

Even if a player whacked the ump with the bat intentionally over the head, they would not get a permanent ban from baseball.

by delmonfan on May 10, 2006 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Hockey v. Baseball

You're still comparing Apples and Oranges. Half the stuff that occurs during the normal course of a hockey game would result in probably a 4-5 game suspension in Baseball. In Hockey, hitting a player with your body or stick is part of the game. And you're STILL ignoring the fact that Delmon hit an OFFICIAL, not a fellow player. The context and the target MATTER. Do yourself a favor kid, make like your idol, Delmon, and clam up. You're digging yourself even deeper over this.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 10, 2006 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Context and Target

Of course the context and target matter. The context here is that Delmon caused no injury. The target was padded and saw the bat coming.

Steve Moore did not see the devastating hit he was dealt coming, and it was outside the scope of the play, and fully intentional and premeditated (again, scope and a premeditated target) Still, Bertuzzi only ended up with 20 games.

Delmon's suspension was one of the harshest disciplinary actions in the history of baseball, and still people are clamoring for more blood. You and your little friends with your pitchforks and torches need to realize that this was a history setting precedent that the MLBPA is shooting themselves in the foot by not appealing.

by delmonfan on May 10, 2006 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

Context

So because the ump (in your opinion) saw the bat coming and the bat happened to hti a padded part of the body, it wasn't that big of a deal? That bat was moving at a pretty good speed, the ump had no time to react, if he did see the bat coming at all. Was delmon aiming for the padded portion of the ump
The context is that this is BASEBALL, not hockey or football, it's a very low contact sport and when it comes to the officials, all of those sports are NO contact. Comparing this incident to anything in hockey is the absolute HEIGHT of stupidity and only goes to show how desperate you are to defend a guy you clearly idolize and cannot generate a rational opinion on.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 10, 2006 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Agree

you penalize the action, not the outcome.

Go lay in your bed and look up at your life-size Delmon poster until you can separate your man love for him and rational thought. Many of your comments are ridiculous to the point I almost think they are tongue-in-(Delmon's)-cheek.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 10, 2006 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh...

That's nasty....

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 10, 2006 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Classy

Stay classy, Slurve-Diego.

The result is what matters. Delmon didn't mean to hurt the ump, and didn't. Unlike below.

by delmonfan on May 10, 2006 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Clueless

You really are clueless aren't you?
Delmon hit an UMPIRE, not a player.
This is 2006, not 1950.
This is BASEBALL, not hockey.
And Delmon used a BAT, something which is likely to be considered a 'deadly weapon' in an assault case.

If Delmon had swung the bat at and hit the Ump, there's no doubt in my mind he'd have been arrested already. As it is, he threw a bat at an official and he got a light suspension, probably partly in exchange for a promise not to appeal it.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 10, 2006 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Yawn

Do you have anything to offer other than ad hominem attacks or rehashed arguments?

by delmonfan on May 10, 2006 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions

He didn't

mean to hurt the ump? How do know? Is your man-love for DY so great you have been able to tap into his thoughts? To me if he didn't mean to hurt him, he would have simply flipped him the bird or told him off. Nope. He "flung" a bat at him at a pretty good rate of speed. That could have been a lot more serious than it was. As Crimson pointed out, a baseball bat can be considered a deadly weapon. A baseball ball can crack a human skull travelling less than 20 MPH if it hits right.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 10, 2006 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions

subject

I'm not sure I would go as far to say Delmon wanted to hurt the ump. Delmon was face to face with this guy for about 10 sec. If he wanted to hurt him it would of been a lot easier when they were face to face.

I think what we seen was a spoiled athlete throwing a temper tantrum. He was mad and had a fit. Just like when a baby throws a fit the toy in his hand went flying.

Was about the dumbest thing I have ever seen on a diamond, but lets not turn this guy into Dick Damm.

Bernie Williams was tossed from a game and instead of throwing the bat he tossed the batting helmet at the UMP. Just missed the guy. Why is no one saying boo about this. The shock value was bigger because of the bat.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on May 10, 2006 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

If I had

my choice, I'll take my chances with geting a helmet thrown at me. It's no contest IMO. When was the last time you heard of someone being charged with assault with a deadly weapon and that weapon was a batting helmet?

I agree it was probably more a tantrum than DY saying to himself "I'm gonna hurt this guy." At the same time, he knew in the back of his mind his actions did have potential to hurt the ump.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 10, 2006 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions

subject

"At the same time, he knew in the back of his mind his actions did have potential to hurt the ump."

to hurt the ump? How do know? Is your man-love for DY so great you have been able to tap into his thoughts?
Slurve

If I'm an Ump I don't want anything flying my way from angry players. If MLB wanted to make sure this behavior ends they need to sit bernie down for a game or two.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on May 10, 2006 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions

What?

What are trying to say, he didn't know the bat could possibly do some harm? Be serious.

I'm not defending Bernie, he should have seen a suspension. That said, imagine there someone standing in front of you with a helmet and a bat. You have to choose which one he is going to throw at you. If you say the bat, I would have to say you don't have all of your dogs barkin' A bat is heavier and denser than a helmet - by a WIDE margin. More weight/density = more potential for injury. I'll take my chances with a flexible batting helmet made to ABSORB energy 100 times out of a 100 over a bat that is made to TRANSFER energy.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)

by slurve on May 10, 2006 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Bernie

Bernie only got tossed last night, he probably will get a suspension but it wasn't going to get handed down today.

DelmonFan you have yet to discredit or provide a logical argument against any of those 'rehashed arguments' you jst reply with ridiculous stuff like comparisons to hockey or events that happened 50-60 years ago.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on May 10, 2006 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions

subject

Who would argue they would rather get hit by a batting helmet over a bat?

"What are trying to say, he didn't know the bat could possibly do some harm? Be serious."

I'm saying if his main goal was to hurt the ump he would of done it when he was standing 2 feet away.

I don't think he thought about anything when he threw the bat. I guess you have never been pissed and done something that had an ending you didn't think about.

I'm not defending what Delmon did. I'm just against going overboard on punishing him. If he hasn't learned his lesson after 50 games, he isn't going to get it after 100. The only thing gained by suspending him longer is it keeps a player who learned his lesson out of the game longer.(if he learned)

If he comes back and does somethign dumb then suspend him for life. I don't care. But before that happens lets give the kid a chance.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on May 11, 2006 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't care

if it was his goal to hurt the ump or not. Nobody said it was his objective, just that anyone with any common sense would know the whole time that throwing a bat = bad. Have I done rash things when pissed off? Who hasn't. Doesn't mean I react with violence towards another. My brother used to piss me off all the time at dinner table, never made me throw the knife in my hand at him. This is a called 3rd strike in the beginning of a game. It's not like this built to a cresendo over the course of a game.

I don't care if he has learned his lesson by the time the 50 games is up. Good chance he has already learned most of his lesson after only about the 10 games he's already missed. The amount of time it takes him to learn his lesson should not have a bearing on how long the penalty is. It's about demonstrating to Delmon and other players that this is what happens when you do something like this.

"Second guessers are guys that could have never gotten it right the first time." - Tommy Lasorda (for guys that have no other defense for their actions.)