Mets settle with Castergine

[Lefty Specialist]

[Ceetar]

I'm still unsure why you think it's MLBs job to stick it's nose into the Mets office workplace and it's lawsuits.

Never mind that Leigh can't actually talk to MLB about it.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Here we go...

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: I'm still unsure why you think it's MLBs job to stick it's nose into the Mets office workplace and it's lawsuits. Never mind that Leigh can't actually talk to MLB about it.

Because MLB should not tolerate the kind of demeaning misogynistic behavior Castergine accused Jeff Wilpon of committing -- not on MLB's watch. (See, Sterling, Donald and the NBA).

Do you really need to ask? And don't get me started on those confidentiality agreements.

[nymr83]

don't get you started on an agreement that is mutually beneficial to two consenting parties? ok, sure.

[Guest d'Kong76]

I don't need to hear commishspeak on this matter. The two parties
settled and it's over and done with.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's not that simple. Wilpon shouldn't be permitted to use the NDA to shield himself from the consequences of harming or having harmed others who are not parties to that confidentiality agreement. If MLB decides to investigate the Castergine matter because it frowns upon its owners who commit civil rights violations during the day to day running of their teams, or if a new Jeff sexual discrimination/harassment accuser emerges and wants discovery into the Castergine matter to demonstrate a pattern and history of abuse of the same type, Jeff shouldn't be able to shield himself from those inquiries because he bought Leigh's silence.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: don't get you started on an agreement that is mutually beneficial to two consenting parties? ok, sure.

See my last post. It's not just between Jeff and Leigh.

[batmagadanleadoff]

d'Kong76 wrote: I don't need to hear commishspeak on this matter. The two parties settled and it's over and done with.

It's over? That's some slippery slope you're slipperying up. What other trouble should Jeff Wilpon be allowed to buy his way out of to avoid league punishment? What other bad acts should MLB ignore and keep its nose out of so long as the parties eventually settle? Racial discrimination? Separate water fountains for the "colored" Mets employees? Maybe we'll let Jeff lynch a homosexual so long as he pays off the estate handsomely. Meanwhile, we're supposed to worship at the Jackie Robinson Rotunda that was installed with desperate haste even though about half of the Mets fans could care less about the rotunda and probably wish it wasn't even there in the first place --- and then pretend that the Mets symbolize all of the ideals that Jackie Robinson was supposed to have stood for.

[nymr83]

If Jeff broke laws I hope the authorities come after him. If not, I have very little use for MLB imposing discipline for things that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: If Jeff broke laws I hope the authorities come after him. If not, I have very little use for MLB imposing discipline for things that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

So let's discuss this. What "laws" do you think Jeff should be able to breach or violate at will without being held accountable by MLB? Criminal laws? Civil laws and/or statutes? What if Jeff violates someone's constitutional right that isn't specifically protected by statute? Some other category of "laws"?

And whaddya mean by "things that have nothing to do with the game on the field"? Does that include the day to day business operations of the team? I mean, do you think there would even be a game on the field if MLB couldn't sell a single ticket? Or charge a parking fee? Because I don't see how you can separate the business end from the playing of the sport itself, especially since the sport is essentially a business and the owners are mainly in it for the money. I doubt that the owners spend eight or nine figures in annual team payroll out of the goodness of their hearts. Do you think MLB and the other owners would look the other way if Jeff Wilpon sold David Wright and Matt Harvey jerseys in his own separate deal to keep the money from the sale of those jerseys for himself?

[nymr83]

So let's discuss this. What "laws" do you think Jeff should be able to breach or violate at will without being held accountable by MLB? Criminal laws? Civil laws and/or statutes? What if Jeff violates someone's constitutional right that isn't specifically protected by statute? Some other category of "laws"?

All of them. The relevant authorities in the jurisdiction in question should deal with enforcing the law. MLB should punish only if/when there is a crimial conviction. Temporary suspensions when charges are pending may or not be appropriate depending on the seriousness of the charges (ie rape, murder). MLB certainly shouldn't be playing constitutional lawyer to determine what "rights" a former employee of the Mets might have and also dtermine whether they have been "violated", we have courts for that.

And whaddya mean by "things that have nothing to do with the game on the field"?

thats pretty self-explanatory to anyone who is not being willfully obtuse.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nymr83 wrote: So let's discuss this. What "laws" do you think Jeff should be able to breach or violate at will without being held accountable by MLB? Criminal laws? Civil laws and/or statutes? What if Jeff violates someone's constitutional right that isn't specifically protected by statute? Some other category of "laws"? All of them. The relevant authorities in the jurisdiction in question should deal with enforcing the law. MLB should punish only if/when there is a crimial conviction. Temporary suspensions when charges are pending may or not be appropriate depending on the seriousness of the charges (ie rape, murder). MLB certainly shouldn't be playing constitutional lawyer to determine what "rights" a former employee of the Mets might have and also dtermine whether they have been "violated", we have courts for that. And whaddya mean by "things that have nothing to do with the game on the field"? thats pretty self-explanatory to anyone who is not being willfully obtuse.

You can tell from my prior posts that I don't agree with you. There's an enormous range of conduct, reprehensible and despicable, that isn't necessarily criminal. Your policy would permit the owners, not just Jeff Wilpon, but all of the owners, to systemically engage in racial and gender discrimation, among other things, during the day to day operations of their teams, without interference from MLB, even though the owners and their teams, collectively, are MLB. In Castergine's case, the parties settled before trial. I've no doubt, even though I've no proof and it's just my hunch, that although the settlement amount likely represented an enormous sum of money to someone like Castergine, Jeff Wilpon, and all of the other owners are so fabulously wealthy, that they can afford to foot a settlement of that kind as easily as anybody on this forum can afford to treat themselves to lunch at Burger King. If Castergine's accusations were truthful, Wilpon got off scott free. But MLB is a ruthless business, and they'll ignore incidents like this one until they believe that their pocketbooks are at risk -- just like those manufacturers who won't make necessary repairs to dangerous products until they sense that expenses incurred from legal fees and jury verdicts will exceed the costs of repairs.

[Ceetar]

if someone sues Aramark and Citi Field for watering down the taps, is MLB obligated to come in and make sure they're not scamming customers?

The Oakland Raiders were sued by the cheerleaders for underpaying them, among other accusations. Did the NFL come in and investigate? Did they check the other employees? Maybe they're skimping on the line cooks in the concession stands too.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: if someone sues Aramark and Citi Field for watering down the taps, is MLB obligated to come in and make sure they're not scamming customers? The Oakland Raiders were sued by the cheerleaders for underpaying them, among other accusations. Did the NFL come in and investigate? Did they check the other employees? Maybe they're skimping on the line cooks in the concession stands too.

I wouldn't equate those acts with accusations of civil rights violations. Still, I don't see why the leagues shouldn't investigate. If one team can intentionally water their taps without league oversight, then so can all of the other teams. Does the league want a reputation for permitting its teams to cheat their customers? Isn't in the league's interest to crack down on this behavior? Why do you believe that the business end of the sport should be beyond league oversight? What if the cash strapped Mets ran a heroin ring out of the back of their ticket sales office?

Again, perhaps the league doesn't respond to negative press until their wallets are impacted. Too bad someone can't organize the fans. 'Cause if you can get them to boycott games same way that civic leaders got the riders of Birmingham Transit to boycott their buses in '55, then the leagues would act ethically responsibly.