OnlyBucs

This is a discussion of a pending investigation about our starting 3rd baseman. As information comes available. Since the other thread got locked.



Kang seems to be seeing less time since the allegations were made. Still playing, but Freese being red hot makes it easy to sit him down for now

The other thread got locked because it got off the topic of Kang and became very nasty. If this one gets similarly nasty is will also get locked.

I'm sure Dog will be along soon enough to dig himself a big hole, and keep digging.

Boy has Freese been a godsend.    Hes basically having a career year, or on pace for one through the first half.



I figured he would do his normal thing, which is a solid 3bman, and he did that through May but June- july he has rocketed to a new level of productivity.



Kang is a great, great player, as fortunate as we were for finding Freese on a 1 year deal, sure would have been nice to get him on a 2 year. Unless he falls off significantly, he will have starting 3b money next year somewhere else.



The glove at 3b is pedestrian, but OK.    His hitting has been very good, and suprisingly even good vs RHP

5468654D6F6F7365000 wrote: I'm sure Dog will be along soon enough to dig himself a big hole, and keep digging.


Nope. You are wrong again.

Hey Moose,



Your comment about Dog is what we Admins consider baiting. Warning Moose, another comment will get you set down for a bit.



Dog, you must just ignore comments like that one and move on. If you continue to respond to obvious baiting then maybe you need a few days on the bench too.



Simply, shut the heck up both of you. There has been no additional news on the Kang incident so there is not need to discuss it further until something about it breaks from the team or the Chicago authorities.

Can I have some clarity on which rules are enforced more than others? Seems like a poster is playing moderator and being highly offensive, but that was ignored.



Also, how do you block posters?

Question regarding hypothetical situation related to Kang.



If a team decides to put a player on paid leave for something like this, is there any sort of roster relief or does such a leave mean a team still needs to carry the player on the 25 man? Is there any sort of status in the bargaining agreement that would allow another player to replace the accused on the roster?

Interesting question dmetz. Not to sound like a smartalec but why don't you try a Google search or something like that and see what you can find out. But I would think even if they could put him on some kind of "leave list" it would not be a paid one and if that happens I would assume the MLBPA would shout holy crap about it.



It is not something that I would like to see them do as there is nothing more than an accusation of something happening.

5B525A4B453F0 wrote: Question regarding hypothetical situation related to Kang.



If a team decides to put a player on paid leave for something like this, is there any sort of roster relief or does such a leave mean a team still needs to carry the player on the 25 man?    Is there any sort of status in the bargaining agreement that would allow another player to replace the accused on the roster?


They could put him on the restricted list and agree to pay him. Only negative to Kang is he will not accrue service time.



If they wait until August to put him on the list, his season is over.



He would end up on the restricted list anyway if he is suspended by MLB (but would accrue service time).