Heimlich

PNW, I would ask that you reconsider this post and delete both the thread and link.

Having read a reference to this early this morning, the ethical aspects were overwhelming to me.

You would think OSU would do a little due diligence on their athletes  given he's the fourth OSU player arrested in the past five years. 

infielddad posted:

PNW, I would ask that you reconsider this post and delete both the thread and link.

Having read a reference to this early this morning, the ethical aspects were overwhelming to me.

Agreed. 

I don't see how any team could draft him. Leaving the moral aspect aside he would be a huge distraction with team mates and media and it would be a huge PR blunder. 

I mean teams have signed guys who beat their wifes and did other stupid stuff all the time but sexual abuse of a pre teen is a whole different thing especially when it was multi year thing apparently.

The repeat offense rate for a fifteen year old in adulthood is about 2%. But the media will make him seem like a monster. If you're familiar with the New York Post their headline was "Oregon State's star pitcher is a child molester." Imagine what the headline would be if the New York City area gave a squat about college baseball.

RJM posted:

The repeat offense rate for a fifteen year old in adulthood is about 2%.

But the media will make him seem like a monster. If you're familiar with the New York Post their headline was "Oregon State's star pitcher is a child molester."

Imagine what the headline would be if the New York City area gave a squat about college baseball.

1. Well that's a comforting statistic. Good enough odds to leave him alone with your 6 yr. old daughter or grand-daughter (or any kids for that matter)? I think not......btjm

2. I'd be willing to bet that the little girl he molested and her parents think he is a monster (and at the very least a child molester).

3. At 15 I knew perfectly well that that touching a 4-6 yr. old girl between her legs was not only not a good idea but DEFINITELY wrong!

It's a sensitive topic - but I think in general the discussion of off field criminal behavior and its impact (or lack thereof ) on college sports is a valid one.

That statistic isn't accurate for these types of offenses.

Otherwise, all teen offenders would be required to register regardless of their indiscretions.

infielddad posted:

PNW, I would ask that you reconsider this post and delete both the thread and link.

Having read a reference to this early this morning, the ethical aspects were overwhelming to me.

Agree. Way to sensitive topic and not for public discussion.

There have been people who have done much worse at 15 and gotten a chance.  There are no other known victims.  And he had no issues in college.  I see he failed to report as a sex offender this year.  Although I don't believe that he should have to report anymore, there's no story of why he failed to report, which could have landed him in jail for 1 year.  Since that charge was dismissed, I'm assuming he had a good excuse.  He doesn't seem like a bad kid at heart since he's never been a trouble kid before and since the incidents.  He dedicated himself to becoming one the best college pitchers despite having no plus pitches...that's what Roger Clemens was in college.  His delivery reminds me of Billy Wagner.  I could see the Yankees taking a chance on him in the bottom rounds.  

Picked Off posted:

infielddad posted:

PNW, I would ask that you reconsider this post and delete both the thread and link.

Having read a reference to this early this morning, the ethical aspects were overwhelming to me.

Agree. Way to sensitive topic and not for public discussion.

Why not? Because it makes you uncomfortable? It's part of the public discourse on the player (who is an adult), the team (who now has to answer for their decision to bring him on) and the University and NCAA. 

Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't make this topic something that people in the baseball world, this community in particular, wouldn't want to discuss. It has value.

"Why not? Because it makes you uncomfortable? "

NO!  

Maybe you should not be so bold (trying to be diplomatic here) as to ask questions like this without knowing the background and life experiences of those to whom you direct such comments. This is not about me.

This site has never been about discussions of individual players.  There are plenty of sites where that is fair game. The HSBBW, to date, has not been one of them. This is one reason for my views.

I took the time to read the complete article in the Oregonian. In a pretty unusual move, the Oregonian chose to them write and publish a their follow up explanation on why they went forward with publishing the article.  After reading the  articles and a number of the comments, and then seeing this thread, I made the post I did because I do think there are important issues, many of them ethical, some potentially personal, and  felt this was not the place for the information to be popped into the site in  the way it was.

While I think it is unlikely, one reason I made the post I did related to the young girl and her family.  I don't know her exact age, now, but I sure as heck would not want her, or her family, to access this site (or others for that matter) and be confronted with discussions which arise from and may trigger unwelcome aspects from her personal experiences or those of her family.

Why does our society have any sentence less than life?

It isn't like you do your time in jail, get out, and they wipe the slate clean. It affects what college you can get into, what neighborhoods you can live in, what jobs you can have....what's the point in the jail time?

infielddad posted:

This site has never been about discussions of individual players.  There are plenty of sites where that is fair game. The HSBBW, to date, has not been one of them. This is one reason for my views. 

I see people comment on individual players here all the time...college, pro, even high school. Not sure what you are talking about. This is news, this is current. The decisions made by Oregon State to bring this player on are pertinent and worthy of discussion.

I sympathize with the victim here, clearly she is paying the ultimate price for this young man's actions. But to say it's too sensitive to talk about is wrong in my opinion. Shoving this under the carpet, hoping it isn't discussed, that is the wrong course to take, in my opinion. This needs to be out there to teach our children that there are consequences to behavior out of the social norms. Having a criminal record comes with consequences, some of which affect you long into your life. Institutionally, I don't know that Oregon State necessarily did anything "wrong" per se. I mean, I am sure this was "in the news" back when it happened, but (and I am not a lawyer) I am sure these matters may have been sealed due to the victim and offender being minors. How much due diligence was actually possible at the time? So is OSU at fault at all? Can you blame the athlete for taking the opportunity to compete if the opportunity arose? I don't think you can, however you also cannot fault the MLB teams who decide to pass on drafting this guy based on his criminal record. The interesting discussion will begin when/if someone actually drafts him.

infielddad posted:

"Why not? Because it makes you uncomfortable? "

NO!  

Maybe you should not be so bold (trying to be diplomatic here) as to ask questions like this without knowing the background and life experiences of those to whom you direct such comments. This is not about me.

This site has never been about discussions of individual players.  There are plenty of sites where that is fair game. The HSBBW, to date, has not been one of them. This is one reason for my views.

I took the time to read the complete article in the Oregonian. In a pretty unusual move, the Oregonian chose to them write and publish a their follow up explanation on why they went forward with publishing the article.  After reading the  articles and a number of the comments, and then seeing this thread, I made the post I did because I do think there are important issues, many of them ethical, some potentially personal, and  felt this was not the place for the information to be popped into the site in  the way it was.

While I think it is unlikely, one reason I made the post I did related to the young girl and her family.  I don't know her exact age, now, but I sure as heck would not want her, or her family, to access this site (or others for that matter) and be confronted with discussions which arise from and may trigger unwelcome aspects from her personal experiences or those of her family.

 

 

 

 

 

I went looking for more information. The girl would be twelve now. There were multiple offenses over a couple of years. The girl and her mother have been shunned by the family/relatives for pursuing the case. 

If the kid has been clean for six years I don't have an issue with him. The university gets what comes its way for being unaware. I thought the New York Post headline was in poor taste. But it's how the Post appeals to their readers. 

Based on an experience with a woman I love to my very core, I very much disagree with your view that your right to discuss this on a public message board is justified by  your "sympathy" with the victim. 

I have made my  position known and see no reason to post further.

infielddad posted:

Based on an experience with a woman I love to my very core, I very much disagree with your view that your right to discuss this on a public message board is justified by  your "sympathy" with the victim. 

I have made my  position known and see no reason to post further.

 

And I disagree with 'your reach' to claim that his sympathy for the victims is justification for his wanting to discuss the topic.

You don't like the thread? Don't click on it.

Stifling speech or discussion on a topic you don't agree with or don't like....well, we all know where that will lead.

DesertDuck posted:

infielddad posted:

Based on an experience with a woman I love to my very core, I very much disagree with your view that your right to discuss this on a public message board is justified by  your "sympathy" with the victim. 

I have made my  position known and see no reason to post further.

 

And I disagree with 'your reach' to claim that his sympathy for the victims is justification for his wanting to discuss the topic.

You don't like the thread? Don't click on it.

Stifling speech or discussion on a topic you don't agree with or don't like....well, we all know where that will lead.

I have been on this site for a very long time.

I don't need you to tell me what to do, how to act, or how to express my views. 

I didn't reach anywhere. I used his words. I expressed my views based on my appreciation of the impact on a woman who was a  victim.

infielddad posted:

Based on an experience with a woman I love to my very core, I very much disagree with your view that your right to discuss this on a public message board is justified by  your "sympathy" with the victim. 

I have made my  position known and see no reason to post further.

 

Whether or not a baseball board is the correct venue is a fair enough point, but in general not discussing this type of issue allows it to perpetuate because people don't want to talk about it. That's akin to pretending it didn't happen. Ultimately, not identifying perpetrators increases the risk to potential victims.

Is this a matter to be discussed here? Really, I don't know.  It's less a baseball story than a general discussion topic - and perhaps that is what we should be discussing.  Whatever the crime may be, should convicted felons be representing colleges athletically?  I think that is a fair matter for discussion and one I can see from multiple points of view. That's a topic more in line with the general subject matter here.

Rob, thanks for your thoughtful position.   As long as the following doesn't get lost and hopefully gets more fully appreciated (again, I don't see the "baseball" aspect though), folks like SanDiego and Desert can post away:

"So I called Tracy, who now works as a consultant for OSU. She was in tears. She'd been in the comment section of the piece on OregonLive.com, sifting through the reaction of so many concerned this story might derail OSU's journey toward Omaha.

"That little girl matters," Tracy said. "I am furious that people are thinking about him, and not her. People keep asking, 'What about his second chance?' and 'When does he get to move on with his life?' And all I can think about is that now 11-year old girl, 'What about her? When does she get to move on?'"

Should convicted felons be allowed to compete in college sports would be a hell of a debate. It would come down to some teams are willing to do anything to win versus it's good they're allowing them a second chance on the allowing them to play side of the debate. 

For example, the Browns are a perfect example selecting Mixon in the NFL draft. They're desperate to win. Did you know while Tebow's goodness was the face of the Florida program he played with forty-five teammates with criminal records?

I've always felt fans don't care if a player is an ax murderer (as long as he doesn't live down the street) if he helps the team win a championship. But now there's moral outcry from the non fan and casual fan community making it difficult for teams to support criminals. 

infielddad posted:

Rob, thanks for your thoughtful position.   As long as the following doesn't get lost and hopefully gets more fully appreciated (again, I don't see the "baseball" aspect though), folks like SanDiego and Desert can post away:

"So I called Tracy, who now works as a consultant for OSU. She was in tears. She'd been in the comment section of the piece on OregonLive.com, sifting through the reaction of so many concerned this story might derail OSU's journey toward Omaha.

"That little girl matters," Tracy said. "I am furious that people are thinking about him, and not her. People keep asking, 'What about his second chance?' and 'When does he get to move on with his life?' And all I can think about is that now 11-year old girl, 'What about her? When does she get to move on?'"

I read an article stating the mother says the girl doesn't really remember the incident anymore. Unfortunately putting the story in the news may create a different situation. It's not hard for a kid her age to put the pieces together. That's my cousin and the relatives don't talk to us anymore. They're talking about me. 

RJM, Thanks for your very thoughtful perspectives, especially for the victim.

The girl may not understand or  "confront" what happened happened for a number of years into her future.  Lots of pretty reliable information would indicate she probably will, eventually. As with you, a major concern of mine is the Oregonian chose to publish something, without the consent of the victim, and the true impact may be with her and her family.

Am I the only one that lives in a static bubble?  I have a 14 year old and an 8 year old.  If it's not on Disney/nickelodeon/ or an ad for it at Lakepoint my kids don't see it...honestly I barely see it.  I TRY to read one news site but most of the articles are about 50+ year old children saying "Nuh uh, I didn't say that"..."Ya huh, you totally did!"

infielddad posted:

Rob, thanks for your thoughtful position.   As long as the following doesn't get lost and hopefully gets more fully appreciated (again, I don't see the "baseball" aspect though), folks like SanDiego and Desert can post away:

"So I called Tracy, who now works as a consultant for OSU. She was in tears. She'd been in the comment section of the piece on OregonLive.com, sifting through the reaction of so many concerned this story might derail OSU's journey toward Omaha.

"That little girl matters," Tracy said. "I am furious that people are thinking about him, and not her. People keep asking, 'What about his second chance?' and 'When does he get to move on with his life?' And all I can think about is that now 11-year old girl, 'What about her? When does she get to move on?'"

I could not agree more, the victim is the child. That is where the concern should be foremost. However, there are other facets to this story that will be discussed. I agree 1000% that the tragedy lies in what happened to this child and could care less about the perpetrator or his second chances in life. So I think, Infielddad, you maybe have taken my comment out of context. If it were my child who was the victim, I would be doing everything I could to make this guys life a living hell.

SanDiegoRealist posted:

infielddad posted:

Rob, thanks for your thoughtful position.   As long as the following doesn't get lost and hopefully gets more fully appreciated (again, I don't see the "baseball" aspect though), folks like SanDiego and Desert can post away:

"So I called Tracy, who now works as a consultant for OSU. She was in tears. She'd been in the comment section of the piece on OregonLive.com, sifting through the reaction of so many concerned this story might derail OSU's journey toward Omaha.

"That little girl matters," Tracy said. "I am furious that people are thinking about him, and not her. People keep asking, 'What about his second chance?' and 'When does he get to move on with his life?' And all I can think about is that now 11-year old girl, 'What about her? When does she get to move on?'"

I could not agree more, the victim is the child. That is where the concern should be foremost. However, there are other facets to this story that will be discussed. I agree 1000% that the tragedy lies in what happened to this child and could care less about the perpetrator or his second chances in life. So I think, Infielddad, you maybe have taken my comment out of context. If it were my child who was the victim, I would be doing everything I could to make this guys life a living hell.

Hummm...you bring up a valid point.  InterestIng time for this story to break, don't you think?

CaCO3Girl posted:

SanDiegoRealist posted:

infielddad posted:

Rob, thanks for your thoughtful position.   As long as the following doesn't get lost and hopefully gets more fully appreciated (again, I don't see the "baseball" aspect though), folks like SanDiego and Desert can post away:

"So I called Tracy, who now works as a consultant for OSU. She was in tears. She'd been in the comment section of the piece on OregonLive.com, sifting through the reaction of so many concerned this story might derail OSU's journey toward Omaha.

"That little girl matters," Tracy said. "I am furious that people are thinking about him, and not her. People keep asking, 'What about his second chance?' and 'When does he get to move on with his life?' And all I can think about is that now 11-year old girl, 'What about her? When does she get to move on?'"

I could not agree more, the victim is the child. That is where the concern should be foremost. However, there are other facets to this story that will be discussed. I agree 1000% that the tragedy lies in what happened to this child and could care less about the perpetrator or his second chances in life. So I think, Infielddad, you maybe have taken my comment out of context. If it were my child who was the victim, I would be doing everything I could to make this guys life a living hell.

Hummm...you bring up a valid point.  InterestIng time for this story to break, don't you think?

It's not a coincidence, IMO

SanDiegoRealist posted:

infielddad posted:

Rob, thanks for your thoughtful position.   As long as the following doesn't get lost and hopefully gets more fully appreciated (again, I don't see the "baseball" aspect though), folks like SanDiego and Desert can post away:

"So I called Tracy, who now works as a consultant for OSU. She was in tears. She'd been in the comment section of the piece on OregonLive.com, sifting through the reaction of so many concerned this story might derail OSU's journey toward Omaha.

"That little girl matters," Tracy said. "I am furious that people are thinking about him, and not her. People keep asking, 'What about his second chance?' and 'When does he get to move on with his life?' And all I can think about is that now 11-year old girl, 'What about her? When does she get to move on?'"

I could not agree more, the victim is the child. That is where the concern should be foremost. However, there are other facets to this story that will be discussed. I agree 1000% that the tragedy lies in what happened to this child and could care less about the perpetrator or his second chances in life. So I think, Infielddad, you maybe have taken my comment out of context. If it were my child who was the victim, I would be doing everything I could to make this guys life a living hell.

Thoughtful and much appreciated.

Thank you.

I haven't read everything there is to read about this incident. So what I'm about to post my not apply. 

To all the posts along the lines of "the kid shouldn't be allowed to play pro ball". I would wonder if there were a civil suit and if so was it settled and an amount paid. If the amount were to large for the family to pay wouldn't someone still be responsible for making restitution? To the point couldn't there exists a situation where the young girls family had a desire to see the young man sign as large a contract as possible? I could see them being more disappointed than anyone that this came to light now, a few days before the draft. 

In all probability a civil suit hasn't yet been filed.  No statute of limitations problem because the victim was and still is a minor; so a suit could have been filed but it could also be filed for a period of time after the victim reaches the age of majority.

I just saw a case - in court - where a little girl was the victim of an attempted kidnapping several years before and was still in therapy paid for by the perp with future therapy ordered by the court to also be paid (sort of open ended). She had not yet filed a civil action.

If an action hasn't yet been filed (or been filed but stayed),  it may make economic sense to wait until the perp has something to pay - which will be soon.

Goosegg posted:

In all probability a civil suit hasn't yet been filed.  No statute of limitations problem because the victim was and still is a minor; so a suit could have been filed but it could also be filed for a period of time after the victim reaches the age of majority.

I just saw a case - in court - where a little girl was the victim of an attempted kidnapping several years before and was still in therapy paid for by the perp with future therapy ordered by the court to also be paid (sort of open ended). She had not yet filed a civil action.

If an action hasn't yet been filed (or been filed but stayed),  it may make economic sense to wait until the perp has something to pay - which will be soon.

 

Then this could be a kinda worse case for the girl and her family. If this doesn't come out he signs early for 7 or maybe 8 figures. Now he may slide to the later rounds and sign for much less, or stay for his senior year.

So now the poor young girl may be a victim twice. First to the perp, then to a greedy press looking to sell newspapers and a misguided public opinion.

While he's the top pitcher statistically he's rated as a top sixty pick. The difference between 30th and 60th is 2M versus 1M. 

RJM posted:

While he's the top pitcher statistically he's rated as a top sixty pick. The difference between 30th and 60th is 2M versus 1M. 

And really how could anyone get by with just one Measly million!

CaCO3Girl posted:

RJM posted:

While he's the top pitcher statistically he's rated as a top sixty pick. The difference between 30th and 60th is 2M versus 1M. 

And really how could anyone get by with just one Measly million!

To a lot of people on this board, the phrase you hear them use is "life changing money." If your family has means, then $1M may not be considered life-changing money (especially after taxes and those signing bonuses are typically paid out over 2 years, not one lump sum.

It's a nice nest egg to start off life as a young adult, that is for sure.

SanDiegoRealist posted:

CaCO3Girl posted:

RJM posted:

While he's the top pitcher statistically he's rated as a top sixty pick. The difference between 30th and 60th is 2M versus 1M. 

And really how could anyone get by with just one Measly million!

To a lot of people on this board, the phrase you hear them use is "life changing money." If your family has means, then $1M may not be considered life-changing money (especially after taxes and those signing bonuses are typically paid out over 2 years, not one lump sum.

It's a nice nest egg to start off life as a young adult, that is for sure.

I agree. College juniors usually don't turn down that type of money.  

That money probably if invested right would be worth a lot more someday if the player doesnt stick.  

RJM posted:

While he's the top pitcher statistically he's rated as a top sixty pick. The difference between 30th and 60th is 2M versus 1M. 

Is he still a top2 round pick? No matter what you think about him, he will come with some baggage. Not in a way that he will do it again but that he will gather a lot of media attention.

CaCO3Girl posted:

RJM posted:

While he's the top pitcher statistically he's rated as a top sixty pick. The difference between 30th and 60th is 2M versus 1M. 

And really how could anyone get by with just one Measly million!

The point is someone suggested he would sign for seven or eight figures. Only top picks get eight figures. He's not a top pick. Now he may not be a second round pick. 

Oregon State Beavers pitcher Luke Heimlich is taking a leave of absence from the program in the midst of the College World Series.

- Bleacher Report

This SO FAR beyond a 'baseball' story in my opinion...