Jim Fainter Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I read where MLB has levied an undisclosed fine of up to $ 2 Million on the Marlins for hiring Jack McKeon to finish out the season. I guess this takes Wally Backman out of the equation for the Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 It also could hasten the break up of the Marlins. let's get on the phone and start asking about guys like Juan Pierre, Alex Gonzalez, and Josh Beckett!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 It's a bulls*** fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 It's a bulls*** fine. f***in-A right it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Fainter Posted May 30, 2003 Author Share Posted May 30, 2003 Unconstitutional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 But very moral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I read where MLB has levied an undisclosed fine of up to $ 2 Million on the Marlins for hiring Jack McKeon to finish out the season. I guess this takes Wally Backman out of the equation for the Sox. if this is so - do we have a link yet - it would be not for hiring McKeon, but for not interviewing according to the MLB procedures - that should not be too hard to understand, even for any republicans out there - you can hire who you want but there is an MLB interview process that needs to be followed according to MLB rules. you can hire who you want but there is an MLB interview process that needs to be followed according to MLB rules. difference between hiring - and interviewing - I get tired of those who refuse because of (name your reason) to understand the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Unconstitutional. bulls***. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Yes, there is a difference and that is why IMHO the mlb policy doesn't pass the common sense test when you hire from within. Why parade around someone for the sake of looks and then hire the white guy? I hate hollow gestures. The Marlins where suppose to find a couple of minorities, bring them in, then promote their guy. How does that help the guys that get the sham interview? In fact it hurts the guy because later when a position does come up that they really have a chance at people start thinking this guy has interviewed for 4 Managerial jobs and never got one, I wonder what's wrong with him? Hire the best guy for the job, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 bulls***. Please explain how forcing an Organization to interview minorities is Constitutional . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonkeyKongerko Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Please explain how forcing an Organization to interview minorities is Constitutional . It's part of making minorities not just equal but more equal. This is why the Sox organization prides itself on the JM/KW combo. This is also why they have been reluctant to fire the Krazy Korps. It scares me to think what hiring practices and punishments like this will do to this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Yes, there is a difference and that is why IMHO the mlb policy doesn't pass the common sense test when you hire from within. Why parade around someone for the sake of looks and then hire the white guy? I hate hollow gestures. The Marlins where suppose to find a couple of minorities, bring them in, then promote their guy. How does that help the guys that get the sham interview? In fact it hurts the guy because later when a position does come up that they really have a chance at people start thinking this guy has interviewed for 4 Managerial jobs and never got one, I wonder what's wrong with him? Hire the best guy for the job, period. There's your answer, cwsox. I couldn't agree more, and just because we're Republican doesn't make us racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 You wouldn't pay attention if I did, my good friend. But if Florida Marlins want to do whatever they f*** they can, they can, but then they leave MLB and do it on their own. MLB has its rules for its members that are well within constitutional law, case law as well as statute law, and I could cite you any numbers of decisions - you may remember, I am a member of the Michigan Bar Association and I deal with this stuff - and Florida wants to go outside the rules, then it gets fined. I can give you all kinds of links to case law from all kinds of federal courts dealing on employment issues. MLB's policy is very well within established case and statute law. As far as Tex Sox Fan, that argument remains bulls***. You are against ollow gestures, I am against racism. Your argument fails here #1 because Florida did not hire from within the organization now they did, they hired from outside, didn't they. And what did they do, they hired one more f***ing retread from the good old boys network instead of give anyone else a chance. And your argument fails #2 because it is only a hollow gesture if you have a f***ing closed mind. I have done the hiring for various law offices as well as other businesses and corporations, and it is easy to decide who you want and then close yourself out. But when you follow an interview process that is A. established by the rules in place and B. inclusive and C. fair because they give people the right to apply, then you get D. someone who never would have had a chance otherwise who you never would have found otherwise because they would E. never have had a chance and F. your mind was closed and you never would have met and never interviewed them and discovered their potential if you had F. followed the same closed door practices that have denied lots of people in the past. Noe how this began: the same tired old bulls*** that you can't hire who you want. That was an untrue statement. Florida chose to violate an established policy for the organization they they belong to, willingly, because it was their choice - they don't have to be in MLB - for interviewing. They deserve whatever s*** comes their way. There is a lot more to say but I am not going to say it because it will just so in all the wrong places and I would rather like people I know than get into a brawl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 It's part of making minorities not just equal but more equal. This is why the Sox organization prides itself on the JM/KW combo. This is also why they have been reluctant to fire the Krazy Korps. It scares me to think what hiring practices and punishments like this will do to this country. Can I guess safely that you are white, very white, and are afraid that you won't have all the advantages that you think being white entitles you to have? The "more equal" argument is total bulls***. The playing field being level means that some people might lose the use of the white race card to play. And it is about time. Can you prove other than your own hunch that KW and JM are not being fired because they are black? A lot of teams with a lot worse records than the Sox have not fired their GMs nor their managers. Tell me why they, the white ones with team with worse records, haven't been fired if KW and JM haven't been fired because they are black? And for your last question - what have the white racist policies provided for our country - try Jim Crow laws and segretation and everything this nation went through until the civil rights movement. If that is America to you, white priviledge enforced by law, then go back to the 1950s and before. We had it your way for centuries. Racisim is what this country was all about until then (and obviously still now for some...), and if you are so worried about what will happen to our country because equal opportunity applies, then let me tell you I will fight every step of the way to any return to the 1950s and before. Where our country is headed because of equal opportunity is far, far better than where we have been as a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 and just because we're Republican doesn't make us racist In the unlilkely event that this is true...it still makes you remarkably unfun to hang out with, white boy. Oh and we need to raise our taxes to the levels currently used in Ther Greater Prussian Umpire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Where our country is headed because of equal opportunity is far, far better than where we have been as a nation. That's debatable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I have a question. If you want to have an interim manager just finish out the season so you don't have to interview during the regular season, do you have to interview minorities? Also....a hypothetical here....say I fire Frank Spank after the season....doesn't matter what race or ethnic group he is....and, when I interview Joe Blow, John Bonn, and Chuck Luck....who are all minorities.....do I then have to interview a majority(or a white person/caucasian/whatever else you want to call it), or have I followed the rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 That's debatable no, it is not. Do you know our nation's history on race? What are you, 28? You don't seem to have a clue where this nation has been. If you think the days of segregation were better than now, then I'd be real proud of what you believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 That's debatable Good...because cwsox can debate anyone under the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 I have a question. If you want to have an interim manager just finish out the season so you don't have to interview during the regular season, do you have to interview minorities? Also....a hypothetical here....say I fire Frank Spank after the season....doesn't matter what race or ethnic group he is....and, when I interview Joe Blow, John Bonn, and Chuck Luck....who are all minorities.....do I then have to interview a majority(or a white person/caucasian/whatever else you want to call it), or have I followed the rules? Without the exact MLB policy in front of me now, and having been a week or so since I read it, my guesses are (a) no and (B) yes. Interim is interim. And the problem being addresed are those who have not had equal chances, not those who have had the advantages over others. The best example is the NBA. They have had equal hiring for so long, it is now irrelevant who is hired because teams are hiring on a total equal opportunity basis so no pays any attention anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Fainter Posted May 30, 2003 Author Share Posted May 30, 2003 TO: CWSOX and Brando. First of all, I should never have used the word "unconstitutional." My bad. I knew it wasn't, I just hate Big Brother watching and directing how I think. I'm also not in the business of defending the Marlins, but I am a baseball fan, and I can't help having reactions to what happens around me. It seems to me that the Marlins owner wanted to do two things quickly. 1) Get rid of Torberg and his pitching coach; and 2) hire a reasonably qualified guy to manage for the rest of the season on the cheap. Enter McKeon. Maybe they already knew each other; at least I wouldn't be surprised if they did. Just because McKeon had been hired and fired several times before doesn't make him a bad guy. Just ask Joe Torre and Frank Robinson -- two guys who had both been fired at least twice and who are now achieving success and acclaim in their present positions. And if you think McKeon is too old for the job, well, that is another social subject that we can discuss another time. I realize they did not go through the formal and time consuming interview process designed to achieve diversity, but the job is just for the rest of the season. In a few months the Marlins will be looking for a long term manager, and I'm certain that they will interview several people. Again, I'm not trying to defend them, I'm just looking at the situation as I see it. In my original post at the start of this thread I said that MLB fined the Marlins an "undisclosed" amount. If the fine was 10 or 20 grand, I don't have a problem with it. If it was for $2 Million, I do. It would be excessive. When I brought up Backman, I probably was saying something between the lines. First, I really like the guy, and if we fire JM, he would be my favorite candidate. Second, when you're in the middle of a season, the team might not have the luxury of going through a time consuming interview process. I know I was not trying to start a political or social discussion. The Marlin fine had just happened, and I threw it out there. I was not trying to promote or defend racism of any type, nor was I even thinking about Republicans vs Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 30, 2003 Share Posted May 30, 2003 Good...because cwsox can debate anyone under the table. that is not a good thing, it means I just keep going on and on, so I am off for tonight, see everyone tomorrow or Sunday or Monday or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wsc425 Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 thats not a lot of money...or at least imo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 no, it is not. Do you know our nation's history on race? What are you, 28? You don't seem to have a clue where this nation has been. If you think the days of segregation were better than now, then I'd be real proud of what you believe. Yeah..... I do actually. For somebody that claims to be all knowing when it comes to all things racial, I'm surprised you are for reverse discrimination. Since Affirmative Action is the greatest thing to keep everything on an even playing field since PB & J, let's institute Affirmative Action in the sporting arenas where white players, with the exception of hockey, are in the minority. After all, what's good for the goose in good for the gander...... right Vince? Or how about we abolish Affirmative Action all together in California? After all, whites are now the minority according to the latest census. No need to institute a policy of reverse discrimination in a State where big, bad whitey is in the minority now is there? I find it laughable that liberal's think that if Affirmative Action was done away with, that this country would go the way of pre-Civil Rights Movement America. If it wasn't for the spectre of the big bad white man portrayed to minorities by the Democratic Party, the party, and their socialistic platform would cease to exist today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 TO: CWSOX and Brando. First of all, I should never have used the word "unconstitutional." You have nothing to be sorry for. After all, forcing an owner to interview minorities is against everything the US Constitution stands for. The US Supreme Court has been saying as much for the past couple of years now. More and more, companies and governmental agencies are being found in violation of white men's rights through a series of reverse discrimination policies that Affirmative Action proponents say are policies which level the playing field. It is called reverse discrimination. The hypocrital liberals defend Affirmative Action discrimination and denounce reverse discrimination as a popular belief among white males who are passed over for hiring or promotion. Liberals scoff at the proof they're given that patterns of reverse discrimination exist. For instance, in my employment, the Director wants to name a white man to a post held by only 6-8 people in the job. The Hispanic workers Assn. (not the real name because I don't want to print here what I do) has all but told the Director that HE WILL PLACE SO-AND-SO HISPANIC IN THAT POSITION. Real fair to white men huh..... come to think of it, real fair to blacks, women, asians, etc. etc. etc. And, before you jump on the fact that he wants to put a white man there, he has already appointed a black man and a woman to similar positions...... more than likely due, in part, to the same kind of pressure. Thank God the days are ahead of us where the Supreme Court eventually says "No" to discrimination in any form..... whether it be white against black or black against white and so on and so forth and abolishes Affirmative Action once and for all If you think you're being discriminated against at the job place when Affirmative Action is eventually abolished, keep Vince in business and do what everyone else in America does now..... sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.