Mariners knew about Josh Leuke's past?
Bored with the Mariners. Good news! Geoff Baker has an article for you. Mariners says they didn't know about Leuke's past. Rick Adair say he actually informed Zduriencik ahead of time before the deal was completed. Rangers GM Jon Daniels comments on his side of the story. Chuck Armstrong demanded a substitute for Josh Leuke. Zduriencik has implemented google search policy in wake of this issue. Josh Leuke just wants to move on.
Controversy!
over 1 year ago
ThundaPC
89 comments
0 recs |
Comments
I find myself doubting Adair saying anything to GMZ other than
FASTBALLS FASTBALLS MOAR FASTBALLS
It only took a decade for the Mariners learn that Google is a good way to find out information.
Progress. Mariners style.

...and now I'm here
Wouldn't surprise me if they all knew about it at the time.
It would surprise me if this made any difference at all.
Frankly, I'm proud of the Mariners for not caring about his off the field issues.
Talent is all that matters. And he appears to have a good deal of it.
You're dead to me.
That seems to be Zduriencik's motivation.
But Howie and Chuck care more about the team imagine and the “family friendly” atmosphere. It’s no surprise to me, at all, that they’re up in arms.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
99 times out of 100 I'd be right with you about the "family friendly" BS
and about how nothing off the field matters. Josh Lueke, based on his past (and with his plea, these are no longer ‘allegations’) is over the line for me and most likely many others. Believe me, I don’t like to stir shit up, and I am the lurkiest of lurkers, but acquiring Lueke is (a) hypocritical of the M’s brass, and (b) not worth the trouble. I love Zduriencik’s moves/philosophy, I was (and am) a big Milton Bradley fan, etc. but this move was at the very least questionable. Talent is all that matters? Really? It may be 99.9% of what matters, but it might be healthy to see beyond talent once every few years.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Milton Bradley allegedly choked his pregnant wife
by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 2, 2010 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
True. It would be bad if this had happened, obviously, but he was not charged with anything.
Lueke did not contest the prosecution’s findings in this case, making him look worse at the very least. Still, I realize it’s entirely possible that Bradley choked his wife and Lueke did not assault the woman. I apologize for implicating Lueke (although LL is not a court of law, it has high standards). The real point I was trying to make, however, is that no matter how performance-minded a front office is, it cannot literally go by the philosophy “talent is all that matters” without pissing off a lot of people, me included. I find Z’s claims that no one knew about Lueke highly disingenuous. In the scheme of things, there’s no way of knowing who’s ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ on this – I just wanted to provide a dissenting opinion that I’m sure a lot of us share.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Please don't get me wrong on one point: I fully understand people's ire with Josh Lueke.
For a lot of people, rape and other forms of predatory sexual misconduct is probably a worse crime than murder (especially man on woman crime). Law & Order: SVU begins each episode with the line “sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous”, and they’re right. For a lot of people, the severity of sex crimes, especially on children, is an unforgivable offense.
So please don’t think I’m just brushing aside the feelings of those who are against the idea of Josh Lueke.
However, I need to remind you that all baseball players are human beings. Human beings make mistakes and do things that other human beings find offensive. I know some people honestly believe this, but baseball players are not flawless godlike figures that have to mandate our beliefs and moralities because they’re in the public eye. Russell Branyan is going to get into an argument with his wife and maybe get angry to the point where he smacks her. Tyson Gillies is going to experiment with and get caught having cocaine on his person. Michael Morse and a host of others are going to be tempted to do steroids in order to get ahead. Pete Rose is going to gamble on baseball. They’re all regular guys gifted with the ability to hit or throw a funny little white ball better than the rest of us. Otherwise, they’re human.
Now, I’m not trying to defend Josh Lueke’s actions. But what we have to do is start accepting the legal system of this country. We established that people have the right to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, to be tried by your peers, and to have a speedy due process. We also established that those who are found guilty are punished by the state and that their punishment shall not exceed that which is mandated by the state.
Josh Lueke committed a crime. Josh Lueke was tried. Josh Lueke was punished. As far as society is concerned, that should be it. The man paid his debt to society. Whether you believe he’s paid his debt to that young lady is irrelevant. Society has determined that Josh Lueke’s illegal activity is over and done with. Whether the crime he was found guilty of fits your mold of justice is irrelevant. You’re not the judge. You’re not the prosecution. You’re not even the jury (unless you were). Whether the punishment he was given fits your mold of justice is also irrelevant.
A lawyer (I don’t remember who, bear with me) once said: “If the Court of Public Opinion went to trial, it would lose every time.” That’s because emotional and irrational thinking benefits no one in society. Please start to embrace that concept. I’m not saying you can’t ever be mad with someone for something you find repulsive, just remember that we all agreed to live in this society with society’s rules and you don’t get to disregard them just because you don’t like the outcome, or justice, of a particular case.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
I'm not claiming that it's not Lueke's right to play baseball, and it's not the M's right to acquire him.
I’m not disregarding anyone. I’m saying that in this particular case, I feel (and I’m sure the Times commenters felt, idiots as they may be) that this was not a good move, and that talent is not all that matters.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think you read my whole post.
I know it’s in the “tl;dr” territory, but my point was to get out of touch with what you feel and to start thinking rationally. Lueke, the human being, made a mistake. Lueke, the baseball player, hasn’t.
Your feelings that Lueke wasn’t a good acquisition is because of your feelings for his crime. You’re struggling with the idea that you’ll have to root for a team, or cheer for a player, who has done something you find utterly inexcusable. I understand that. It does feel like you’d have to make a deal with the devil.
But sometimes that’s what we do. You’re not going to like every baseball player that the Mariners acquire. You don’t have to root for them either. You can just pretend that’s Mark Lowe out there on the mound still, if you wish. I just don’t think you should let this bug you to the point where you start questioning whether you want to win over whether you want to feel good about your team.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, obviously a lot of this goes into my personal feelings and those of others.
There are things Lueke could do that would change my opinion of him. I don’t want to go into specifics, because that would approach LLLJ territory. The fact remains that no, I will not be inclined to support Josh Lueke. I am not the only person who feels this way. This does not mean that I am right or wrong.
99.9% of the time my Mariners fandom is related to wanting the team on the field to win. I always disliked Willie Bloomquist. I do not believe in ‘grit,’ etc. I want the M’s to put their best team on the field without much regard to personalities, clubhouse politics, etc. I have wanted this for the 20 years out of my life I have followed this team.
I did read your post. I do believe in the legal system. I fully support Josh Lueke in whatever he wants to do within the bounds of the law, knowing that he has paid the debt that the court decided for him. That does not mean I have to like him. That, really, is all.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions
One last thing:
There are things Lueke could do that would change my opinion of him. I don’t want to go into specifics, because that would approach LLLJ territory.
Actually, I think this is relevant. I’ve said a couple of times that the Mariners are going to have to do a huge PR thing with Josh Lueke to get fans behind him.. While I’ve had my own ideas, and others have been thrown about, other ways that Josh Lueke could redeem himself in the eyes of the fans should be embraced.
One of the most rational thought processes is “what would it take to change my mind” or “what would it take to prove my beliefs right / wrong”. If you can’t answer that question, there’s no reason to even discuss it with you. But you obviously can. I’d like to hear it.
That is, unless it starts getting into something like turning him into a eunuch. Then we’ve entered some bad territory.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, new details could emerge to exonerate him. His behavior since has not helped, however.
No matter what, we won’t 100% know one way or the other. If he did it, though (and it’s not exactly unlikely),
1 – admit it
2 – be genuinely contrite about it
3 – don’t do it again.
That’s pretty much it. I’m not going to be totally rational about it, but no human being is totally rational about anything, especially about sports. I’m not a judge or juror, just an M’s fan.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions
A couple of things.
What about his behavior since has bothered you? I haven’t heard of him doing anything since then but keep his nose clean.
As for the specifics:
1 – Admitting it would only be if he was guilty of more than what the judge ruled. He contends the sex was consensual. If that is the truth, then he’s already “admitted” it.
2 – One again, you’re speaking as if you’re sure he’s guilty of more. He’s already stated what happened, in his words. She has not offered much of a conflicting opinion (she was, after all, passed out).
3 – Since the only way we can ever be 100% sure he’ll never do something like this again is to die, this is a bit hard to do. What it comes down to is a perception of trust that he wont do it again. Even if he says he wont, that doesn’t mean people will trust him.
I understand your caveat about being irrational, and while all three items seem like rationality, there’s still enough irrationality in there for them to almost be unreasonable.
Sorry if I sound rude. I’m just trying to help.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Incoming strawman.
Robin Hood was a nice guy. He still robbed people. To the nobles, he was a thief and a scoundrel. To the poor, he was a hero and a savior.
Josh Lueke is a nice guy. He still committed a crime. To some, his crime is inexcusable. To others, it’s over and done with.
I guess my point here is that niceness is irrelevant. Perception is the problem.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
The way I see it, what's done is done.
He served his time. That was enough for the government, and it’s enough for me. We don’t know what happened. We never will. It’s a he said/she said. Anyway, I hope more people understand this, because it saddens me the way that a lot of people are looking at it right now. Josh Lueke is a baseball player, a good one at that. I think he should just get to play. Also (OT, but whatever), was Robin Hood real? Because I used to think he was, and then I think I read he wasn’t.
Milton Bradley is my hero.
I understand your points and I agree with them.
As for Robin Hood, I do believe the character was loosely based off someone like him. But I don’t believe he actually existed.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, admittedly I'm probably not being as thorough as I should be.
Mostly, based on what I’ve heard about the case, and yes, from his Twitter feed, I just don’t feel inclined to like him at this point. And whether I end up liking him or not at some point down the line, by whatever criteria I devise for myself, I don’t want this to be about my personal feelings about Josh Lueke (that’s why I was talking about LLLJ, and other TOS violations). Anyway, I don’t see why by disliking some Mariners, I am getting in the way of supporting the team (after all, I loved Manny Ramirez when he was on the Red Sox for some reason, and I hated the Red Sox.)
I more wanted to express the opinion, that 1, I thought Z did not handle the situation well, and 2, going off Goose’s original post, that the front office should not operate by the maxim that nothing else matters but talent. Some LLers believe this; some don’t. It just struck me. And I don’t understand why we must always let our rationality win over our emotions in something as cosmically irrelevant as rooting for the Mariners.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
And also, what on earth is emotional and irrational thinking if not sports fandom?
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Touche.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I hope you're being facetious.
If not, well, agree to disagree.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
To expand a little bit, the job of a Major League Baseball team is to do 3 things:
1.Win baseball games.
2.Make money
3.Entertain
- by itself takes care of numbers 2 and 3. Therefor, really the sole purpose is to win games. You need talent to win games.
You're dead to me.
I really disagree, Goose
in most cases, I’m much more entertained watching players I like and care about.
It’s true that winning is first and foremost, but it’s much easier to root for likeable players.
I am the opposite.
As long as the team isn’t filled repeat offenders I do not give a fuck what they are like. Win me some fucking games and stop wasting my money. We will never become pals so I really am tired of the nice guy bullshit. Crappy players are never interesting.
by Sec 108 on Sep 2, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 10 recs
This may be the point of an MLB team.
This is not necessarily the be-all and end-all of sports and why people watch them and contribute money to them.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Obviously there are exceptions, like for example of what seattlebruin pointed out,
however, by and large I’d say the majority of sports fans watch them and contribute money because they want to see their team win.
I’d hazard a guess that for every fan that is offended because of Josh Leuke and refuses to contribute money because of his off the field actions, that there are 10 fans that will contribute money because Josh Leuke is a good baseball player and helps his team win.
You're dead to me.
Ehh... I think you're underestimating the heinousity of sexually based offenses amongst the public.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Normally yes, but considering the history of terrible people that were good baseball players
and of the fact that they never had any real effect on attendance, I’d say that as long as you are good and you are winning, fans will support you, even grudgingly so.
You're dead to me.
My overall point is that no General Manager worth his salt should be turning down good players based on things other than baseball.
So long as it doesn’t effect their ability to play baseball.
You're dead to me.
Your main point I agree with.
I’m just saying that a sex offender could get booed out of town pretty quick.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm fairly convinced Z isn't.
Howie & Chuck on the other hand…
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions
So, in other words, if a player is skilled and popular,
nothing else matters? Ever? By default, the team must support him?
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't even care if he's popular. Just skilled.
And support him? Nah. I’m not saying people need to support him. I’m not. But the team would of been foolish not to try and acquire him.
You're dead to me.
I agree that in general the team should be 99.9% focused on talent above all else.
I agree that acquiring Lueke may well help the team’s won-loss record and bottom line, even in very small amounts. I disagree that this somehow means that talent is all that matters. To the team, maybe. But not, necessarily, to some or most fans. Just because we are all huge Mariners fans does not mean that to all or most of us, talent is all that matters.
by shinallsrevenge on Sep 2, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Baker's article seriously sounds like he made the whole damn thing up.
“He said this, and we said nuh uh, and then the Rangers said WOAH and I tried to convince Jack that he was a rapist and blah blah blah Adair said blah blah and then blah blah blah blah blah give me page hits.”
I am going to come into your house at night and rec up the place.
by HititHere on Sep 2, 2010 10:13 AM PDT reply actions 7 recs
The more people talk about something like this, the more Josh Lueke becomes some sort of victim, just focus on how he's a baseball player please.
Oh, and they should call ’em Luekies.
Let's not talk about Josh Lueke and victimization...
It’s inappropriately ironic.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I will be really pissed if we somehow lose Josh Lueke over this.
Unlikely, but you never know. Also these Seattle Times users really want blood over this.
Milton Bradley is my hero.
And they're probably going to win.
Which means Josh Lueke gets traded for a Ramon Santiago because Zduriencik has no leverage.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions
BTW, I hope Rick Adair never gets hired by another team ever again.
Now that he’s fired he wants to air some dirty laundry and make his former team look bad? Yeah, that’ll help your future prospects, Rick. Every boss is going to want to hire someone who’ll willingly tell your bad secrets.
Also:
But Daniels said the Mariners could have sent Lueke back. “We offered several times to reacquire Lueke in a separate transaction — an offer originally made the same night the deal was announced,” he said in an e-mail to The Times. “That offer stands.”
I’m sure this is true. And while Daniels might be playing the nice guy here to help out, somehow I doubt he’s going to give back a player of equal value for Josh Lueke. If the M’s take this offer and end up with less, then the whole deal looks worse and not because of what Jack Z did, but because H&C are fucking cowards and squeamish about someone with a negative history.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 1:39 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
On one hand, he's a rapist.
On the other hand, he’ll probably be a really good reliever when he hits the majors.
You want your team to win, but this does make rooting for him a hell of a lot harder.
He is, however, a false imprisoner with violence. And was punished for it.
Move on.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions
So if it finally comes out that Lueke has reached a settlement in his civil suit with this woman
and that she is paying him damages, this all goes away? All of your outrage against him for being a rapist, all of the great comments about him all vanishes into thin air?
Be very careful of the story you are getting in all of this. There is much much more to this than what is in the papers..
Has anyone even thought to ask if something like this has happened before in her past? This is not anywhere near as cut and dry as it sounds…
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
Let's not get into blaming the victim. That's even worse than what you're actually saying.
Besides, there is no civil suit. The victim has never filed one (per Baker’s post).
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions
The victim never has
did you check to see if Lueke has or if there is a settlement in discussion?
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
No I haven't.
If he has done it outside of a civil trial or a court of law, then it is not public record, so there would be no way to do so unless someone involved leaked it to the press.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
You have brought this up in prior threads if I remember correctly.
May I ask what makes you think there is some sort of settlement or civil suit in the works?
by drblacknwhite on Sep 2, 2010 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
comments from several Rangers minor leaguers and comments from Lueke himself
there is a lot more to this and people a making hasty judgements
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
Surely a handful of anonymous commenters on the internet will get to the bottom of this mess and reach a meaningful conclusion
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 2, 2010 3:32 PM PDT reply actions 7 recs
Cynical.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
To expand on that a little
Here’s what we know about what happened: A few people got blind drunk together, memories about what happened are unclear, but something regrettable and unfortunate occured. The entire affair has been in and out of court, which meted out its punishment.
We, knowing precious little about what transpired, are left in a position where we have to have faith in the criminal justice system and be watchful that nothing remotely close ever happen again. Based on Lueke’s tweets, I guess that nothing remotely close ever will.
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 2, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Thing I wonder is does this pretty much kill what ever working relationship z has with Texas
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
I guess no
it’s hardly a secret
De Gutibus non disputandum est
by Bearskin Rugburn on Sep 2, 2010 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions
except for the part about Z saying Texas never offered to take him back
and then letting it run in the press that Texas was unwilling to change their mind… That would piss me off if I was a GM.
JD’s like, "you want some fucking pitching? Here’s all the pitching you can stand. Now choke on it, bitches!"- RCCook
They're both telling the truth.
“We tried that on Friday night,” Armstrong said. "But then, on Saturday morning, the Rangers said, ‘No, we’ve already notified the players. The deal stands as is.’ "
But Daniels said the Mariners could have sent Lueke back. “We offered several times to reacquire Lueke in a separate transaction — an offer originally made the same night the deal was announced,” he said in an e-mail to The Times. “That offer stands.”
The Lee / Lowe for Smoak, Beavan, Lueke, Lawson trade was a done deal.
Daniels says he was willing to take Lueke back in a SEPARATE transaction. In other words, a completely different deal.
Maybe there was a reason the Mariners didn’t want to do a separate deal. Maybe they wanted to pull out of the original deal entirely and send Lee to New York instead, but Daniels wasn’t having that. He wanted Lee. So instead of nullifying the original deal, Daniels offered a separate deal to take Lueke back.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh my gosh. I'm completely outraged
The next one that moves gets both barrels
Rob Neyer, with the most level headed view on this subject that I have seen.
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot
Morgan Ensberg for Manager 2011!
AL Scout on Rendon: "I would peg him as a poor man's Jose Lopez."
Since I was not in the room that night I have no place to comment on the quality of Lueke's character
But if he continues pitching like he has, I will love him.
Why is this even a topic?
Even though he pled no contest to a lesser charge, that doesn’t mean he committed rape, or even the charge he pled no contest to. Picture this- You are in jail and your attorney says, “You can contest this rape charge and, oh by the way, while you’re contesting it you’ll stay in jail for a few more months and, if the twelve morons who were too stupid to get out of jury duty convict you, you’ll get ass raped in prison for five years. Or, take this plea deal. You’ll get credit for time served and be released today.” Which are you going to take?
I’m sure you’ll say, “I’m innocent! Keep me in jail for a few more months and let me risk going to prison so I can prove my innocence.” Bullshit, you’ll sign on the dotted line and tell the court you sodomized your mother if you’ll be let out of a Bakersfield jail. Shit, Merle Haggard made a career singing about Bakersfield jails.
I’m not saying he did it or didn’t do. I’m saying you don’t know and neither do I. The girl who was in that room doesn’t know what happened. Josh Lueke knows, and if he did rape someone, I doubt if he’d tell you. And because you don’t know, and Chuck Armstrong doesn’t know, and all those other people don’t know, Geoff Baker’s article is a non-issue.
For those who say he pled no contest to something, so he must have done it, our courts are called courts of law, and not courts of fact, for a reason.
by RustyJohn on Sep 2, 2010 6:00 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Re: your last line.
Yes, this is why journalists are required to say that something “allegedly” happened until a verdict is returned.
Really?
Most of them seem to enjoy making the line “Josh Lueke, who was accused of rape and sodomy” and then later will mention that the plea of no contest to a lesser charge.
They always have to get that “accused of rape and sodomy” int here. For Drama!
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 2, 2010 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't disagree with you but that wasn't really the point of this particular article
by Jeff Sullivan on Sep 2, 2010 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I should have actually put my posting as a reply to someone else's further up the thread...
since it was in response to a prior post.
Personally, I’d be quite pleased if Jack Z knew and intentionally deceived upper management. I can see him rubbing his nice bald head thinking, “Damn, I’d really like to have this guy, but Armstrong will never go for it….hmmm, I’ll just say he was involved in some bar incident and they’ll sign off on it.”
Oh hey look.
Steve Kelley is still an idiot: Link
Milton Bradley apologist
by sanford_and_son on Sep 6, 2010 10:53 AM PDT reply actions
From now on, whenever there's any kind of news lull, we should just talk about Lueke.
Gotta keep them hits a’comin’.
"Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better." - Samuel Beckett Mariners Minors
by JY on Sep 6, 2010 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions














