ForceEight

Well that being said, looks like we gave up Rodriguez for Andrew Miller...

I disagree. Our prospects are more valuable than any starting pitching that seems to be on the market, and I can't imagine they're game for selling for relief, especially with Jimenez coming back as the extra arm to replace someone. At this point, I think the smartest move is to stay.

What a sickening trade. The A's are selling everything they have for starting pitching.

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/30/there-are-reports-that-jon-lester-is-going-to-the-orioles-and-reports-that-thats-utter-baloney/

Curious as to where you're hearing it from. I don't see so much as a rumor of a deal posted anywhere.

And Lester will be back there in six months anyway...I hope it's not true.

Don't look now, but the Rays have a chance of getting to .500 today.

Yeah, going from being nervous about safeties to being nervous about corners doesn't feel very good. There's nothing more important than whatever muscle issue is bothering Webb healing up, though.

Two years and a $500 fine possible.

What's your prediction for the Steelers?

Ha! It doesn't look quite like that, but something called fulgurite can form if the lightning was hot enough. It's kind of ugly, but sometimes can wash up as somewhat cool looking pebbles.

You should learn to take your own advice. Whether Papa is or isn't a fan of whatever team isn't really any of your business, either.

From Deadspin.

I don't disagree with those feelings and I don't disagree with the fact that domestic violence is disgusting. I understand that people feel a certain way about what happened, and I think they have every right to it. I'm not, however, saying that someone who thinks two games isn't enough has their head on wrong, or whatever. If Rice had been suspended for four games, or six games, or whatever, I'd actually be all for it. Just as I would the two games, or no games. My point is in trying to understand why we're, as a nation, in such a fuss about this suspension given the circumstances outlined by myself and by you previously. I just feel that it's misguided, because I completely and totally agree that the NFL needs a better system in place (whether public or not), but I don't think that this is the case that proves it.

DC, you made the case yourself. The only evidence to argue is that Roethlisberger got a four game suspension, while Rice only got two games. Their cases (much less the accusations) don't compare, though. The precedent isn't there.

What about if the video wasn't present? Think about that in terms of the Donald Sterling case, too, for example. What sort of punishment would you feel is justified, and do you think there would be the level of outrage that we have now?

Sure was.

He's already been paid, so I don't think that holds any water. I see where we're confused. I didn't mean that the prosecutors seemed to agree he was defending himself in that sentence; I meant it in reference to the previous one, that there was no evidence one way or another to really agree upon anything further than the program. I also agree that Suggs did it to get them off his case. It probably seems like Rice did the same, but I don't get that same vibe--I guess that's the best way I can put that. It's not as though she's getting a whole lot more out of it (again, Rice has already been paid), and they certainly seemed happy enough both before and after. Based on what you're saying, the outrage is coming from the idea that Rice wasn't made an example out of. That the NFL decided not to show the world how much it's against domestic violence by giving Rice an absurdly long suspension or docking him something more than he already was. I get that. It comes from, as you've said, how misguided their suspensions seem to be sometimes, especially as it pertains to treatment of players/people who do things much worse or much less terrible, as the case may be (see: Will Hill being on our roster, for example). I never saw anyone showing anger towards Ben's suspension, or Vick getting a year, or the inevitable year that Gordon's going to get. I never saw anyone throwing a fit about Meriweather's suspension from his head-hunting against the Bears, either. They all got what they deserved, paid for it, came back, or whatever. But I've also never seen much of an argument that Rice's suspension should be longer, or that there is precedent for it, or that it's inherently soft, either, considering his circumstances versus the others above. I get that domestic violence is an issue. I get that Rice should not have hit his fiance (if he did, etc.), regardless of whether or not she had hit him. I get that the league's use of suspensions as punishment for off-the-field crime is a wildly imperfect system that has no clarity and is frustrating as hell, especially since it seems to be coming from the decision of one person. And I get that women's rights activists are going haywire about this, especially as it relates to Stephen A.'s comments the other day that Janay "provoked" him (which is never an excuse for reciprocal violence, yet continues to be the overlooked value here; if everyone is so dead set on the idea that he clocked her without video evidence, why is no one mentioning the likelihood that she had walloped him, too?). I just don't see how this specific situation is so outrageous compared to the others, and why people are so angry at Rice, the Ravens, and/or Goodell for it.

The prosecutor never said anything one way or another, other than that in light of all the evidence considered, the intervention program was justified. I said that it seemed that way because of that fact, along with Rice's attorney saying that it was a result of multiple factors including his lack of a record and the evidence and "compelling reasons". It's not just domestic violence that the league has misdirected priorities about. It's any crime. Their suspensions do not align well with what the criminal justice system (which is somewhat of a mockery itself, so why are we comparing, anyway?) has decided certain offenses are worth. That being said, I've yet to understand the outrage against Rice, other than the snowball effect of outrage because outrage already exists. Why is a two-game suspension light? If this is the response towards Rice, where's the anger towards Suggs, whose wife claimed that he dragged her outside of a moving car, poured bleach on her, punched her in the neck, etc. on different occasions (and let's not use the past as a filter; some of this was less than two years ago). There is simply no public evidence that we should be as angry towards Rice and the league as we (as a country) seem to be, taking in to context these other things. I'm not happy that he seems to have clocked his fiance. Neither is she presumably, but she was happy with him entering the program and not pressing charges, and subsequently marrying him. I just still don't understand the outrage.

I cannot physically understand the reason for all the hoopla about how easy Rice got off. The only meaningful comparison I've seen so far is to Pryor and his five games, which is more a testament to the corruption in the NCAA and the NFL's connections to it than it is anything to do with the league itself. Since the suspension, the descriptions of what happened to Janay have only gotten worse. Rice "uppercut" her. He "knocked her around half to death". There is very factually zero evidence of any of this, and just as much evidence that Rice was defending himself from her and drunkenly went too far (as did she, apparently). The prosecutors seemed to agree with that. So, those things being said, someone please explain to me the outrage, and not within the confines of comparisons to other suspensions; getting suspended for PEDs is not an apples to apples look, especially since PEDs are very literally considered to be "cheating" at the game for which they are employed and from which these suspension decisions are made. And, before you answer, please consider that I am just as staunchly against domestic violence as anyone. I think it is disgusting, and I think that men or women who beat their spouses or loved ones should absolutely be thrown in jail. That being said, please consider how the incident falls within that category, and help me understand all this outrage?

Well for starters, I suppose your buddy's wife wasn't too happy about hearing that? A large reason the Rice issue isn't as big as some want it to be is because, considering whatever reason, his fiance isn't up in arms about the situation and is still happily with him.

Out for year, I would assume. Franks has also yet to pass his conditioning test, so depth is pretty thin right now in the backfield.

It'll start with Machado hopefully being able to go today. And Chen hopefully getting through the sixth tonight?

I really doubt anyone would be behind bars for this for very long. It's fun to compare Rice's incident and suspension to Gordon's or Ben's, but they are on a different level. I also don't feel like getting off topic and rehashing Rice's charges in the first place, but there is a clear difference between Rice's case and these: premeditated and repeated use of very clearly illegal drugs/DUI, and "alleged" and by definition premeditated rape (of which there were multiple stories). The fact of the matter is that what happened with Rice and his fiance was a drunken incident that got way too far, but was understood by all parties (excluding fans and overzealous attorneys) the next morning as a really ugly thing that happened between a couple. And yeah, I would even agree that the words I'm using for each incident sound biased and fit my point of view, but the fact that I can do that in and of itself lends to the lighter severity of Rice's issue versus Ben's and Gordon's.

Better to have a mutual domestic dispute with your soon-to-be wife that results in a violent hit than "allegedly" rape a girl? Yeah, I guess it is. Slightly.