Last September, after Tacoma was finished whooping PCL ass, the Mariners called a bunch of guys up to the bigs. Dan Cortes came up. Justin Smoak came up. Mike Carp came up. Greg Halman came up. Matt Mangini came up. Anthony Varvaro came up. Michael Pineda came up, albeit in a non-roster fashion. Josh Lueke stayed put. We wondered.
Last October, after the season was finished, Howard Lincoln and Jack Zduriencik sent out letters to the fans expressing their disappointment, asking for patience, and highlighting the good, even underneath all the bad. Zduriencik talked about the organization's long-term plan of developing from within and named a bunch of the team's best and most interesting prospects. He even discussed the specific category of "hard-throwing pitchers", but neglected to mention Josh Lueke. We wondered.
A few weeks ago, in talking about the Mariners' bullpen depth with Greg Johns, Zduriencik acknowledged Josh Lueke, saying that he likes him while running down some of the various young candidates. This was a new development, and we wondered.
Now, we might not have to wonder anymore. As discussed in this fanpost, Zduriencik offered the following quote when discussing the Cliff Lee trade to Texas:
"We are very pleased with the return in the trade as all four players should be contributors to our current Major League club at present and in our very near future...We view Smoak as a middle-of-the-lineup bat and Lueke as a late-inning guy. Both should be with us in 2011."
Of course, Zduriencik was put in a difficult position, as he was asked about the Lee trade specifically and therefore had to talk about the players he got back. But - has anyone ever asked you if you think before you talk? No one's ever asked that question of Jack Zduriencik. Zduriencik chooses his words as carefully as any executive in the game and is always aware of the message he's sending. And the message he's sending here is a pretty strong one - that Josh Lueke should be a Seattle Mariner during the 2011 season. He could've opted to say something softer. He didn't.
One thing that means is that, as of now, we can probably count on seeing Lueke's fastball and slider in the bullpen sometime soon. This is a guy who flat-out dominated in AA before getting bumped and pitching well in Tacoma. If he's not ready now, he's close, and he stands a chance of making the later innings feel a lot more secure.
The other thing that means is that we'll all probably have to deal with something we'd prefer not to have to deal with. Josh Lueke's history is always going to be there under the surface, and while reactions won't remain as extreme as they'll be in his debut, there'll always be differences of opinion and people who feel very strongly. There'll always be some degree of ugliness. I know we're going to end up with some lousy threads right here, but this won't just be an issue online. It'll be everywhere. It isn't a secret.
One has to imagine that the Mariners spent a great deal of time weighing the Josh Lueke positives and the Josh Lueke negatives. It would appear now that they've decided the upside should be bigger than the downside. It shouldn't be long before we see if they're right.
3 recs | 153 comments
It should be ok, as long as he does well.
I think his success will ultimately determine if his ‘label’ sticks to him or not. If he flourishes, it will be easier to look past the faults. But if he sucks continuously in the majors, you better hope that he’s going down to AAA really fast.
Personally, I think most of the bad PR has passed and the last blow will be dealt on Opening Day (or whenever he joins the club), but there’s no way for anyone to know exactly what to expect. Will Refuse to Abuse still allow the M’s to partake in their program?
Hopefully this thread won’t have to be heavily moderated this morning.
perfectstrat - December 16, 2010
I bet that it will!
Jeff Sullivan - December 16, 2010
I'm just going to get this out of the way because I know everyone's thinking it.
The right spelling is Lueke. One of the biggest problems with him is going to be how often people misspell his name but I hope that he’s able to overcome that and just focus on pitching.
Mariner John - December 16, 2010
I guess you can say he was unlueke to end up with that surname.
thehemogoblin - December 16, 2010
Your score:
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 16, 2010
Oh dear lord.
CapSea - December 16, 2010
Not bad.
SeattExPat - December 16, 2010
Only if he were to play the uluekelele.
Smegmalicious - December 16, 2010
Luekelele works better. would'a rec'd ya if you used that.
scottg02 - December 16, 2010
Yeah. Blown opportunity.
SeattExPat - December 16, 2010
For the life of me, I simply cannot ever spell his name correctly
this is the only player for which this has ever happened
seattlebruin - December 16, 2010
Why is the Rueke pitching?
Kermit. - December 16, 2010
Just try to think of whether he has leukemia or not.
Hopefully the answer is no at all times.
Mariner John - December 16, 2010
Our roster next year could potentially feature
1) A relief pitcher who pleaded no-contest to rape
2) The most hated OF in recent baseball history
3) A 3B who tried to engage in fisticuffs with our manager
4) A SS who was run out of St. Louis on a rail for undisclosed clubhouse issues (which, in all fairness, could be “not being David Eckstein-y enough”)
I feel like these are more ongoing makeup issues than most clubs – as opposed to just general narcissism or unpopular political views. And while I am not one to complain about emphasizing the on-field over the off-field, it is interesting that we’ve become/are becoming an organization that isn’t afraid to handle difficult personalities and situations.
McExpos - December 16, 2010
There's no one in the organization who 1) applies to
unless you think the Mariners are likely to trade for someone who fits that description.
Milendriel - December 16, 2010
You're right, I apologize.
I should have said, was arrested on rape charges and plead no-contest to a lesser offense. I think that is more accurate.
McExpos - December 16, 2010
Big difference...
All it takes is an accusation and a little evidence for the arrest. People can say anything. While Lueke’s past is far from being saint-worthy it is irresponsible to automatically assume he was a rapist. He made a huge mistake but so have I (not regarding rape but serious charges nonetheless) and many other people and I thank my lucky stars and god for second chances because I turned my life around. Glad to see Lueke will be most likely getting an opportunity to do the same.
scottg02 - December 16, 2010
I can just see the headline in the Seattle Times when this happens.
thehemogoblin - December 16, 2010
And before you doubt the veracity of this trade rumor, realize that Tyson is nearly four years younger than everyone's favorite geriatric pitcher, Jamie Moyer.
thehemogoblin - December 16, 2010
That's a truly frightening thought.
The Ancient Mariner - December 16, 2010
Moyer's also older than
Louis C.K.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
I bet Ryan was ousted in St. Louis because he preferred Coors to Budweiser.
bmxnw - December 16, 2010
Who doesn't?
Darth Flamingo - December 16, 2010
Is there a difference?
ToddK - December 16, 2010
Well...
1 is an obvious one that I think has been covered. 2 won’t play a major role on the team and he seems to be trying to fix his attitude/psychological problems. 3 seems to be because no one liked Wakamatsu anymore and Figgins was likely frustrated because of the shitastic season he was having. Obviously not acceptable behavior but I don’t think Figgins has a long history of managerial abuse or of being a problem. 4 was more to La Russa’s asshattery than anything Ryan did. Unless being mustachioed is an offense of some sort.
Mariner John - December 16, 2010
Yes, but that roster doesn't feature
1) Hack Lopez
2) Rob Johnson
3) The Geriatric version of Mike Sweeney and Ken Griffey Jr.
We already had a clubhouse problem last year. It was called being shitty.
Ballard Erik - December 16, 2010
Hey, at least we traded away that coked up deaf kid.*
[*I still think that may have been a setup]
JY - December 16, 2010
I never understood #2.
Guti looks like such a sweetheart.
And I thought Brendan Ryan suffered from “Not Tony La Russa-y enough?”
seamariners85 - December 16, 2010
He has ADHD and was considered a bit hyper for some of the vets from what I heard.
Which is annoying and stupid if you ask me.
Sec 108 - December 16, 2010
Well...
2 is false. Bonds is far more reviled. Anyway, the make up issue about Milton, it would be easier to note that he once told the curent manager to fuck himself by wearing it on a t-shirt.
3 invovled a different manager and Figgy is not typically regarded as a bad club house guy. That club house was pretty fucked, and it really does seem like a case where the management wasn’t doing its job.
4 The problem in St. Louis is the alcoholic megalomaniac who manages the team.
philosofool - December 16, 2010
You forgot an itinerant Canuck who refuses to talk to the media!
bluemax - December 16, 2010
The "itinerant" line makes me feel like I don't know enough about Saunders.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
I think he meant Bedard.
beansandbears - December 16, 2010 via mobile
I know. Everyone knows he meant Bedard.
I don’t know what Saunders defining characteristics are, other than his long legs and low batting average. He bunts well, I guess.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
Wrong Canadian.
Mariner John - December 16, 2010
You know what bugs the hell out of me? People who misrepresent facts.
And people who say Lueke pleaded no-contest to rape. Because he didn’t.
Double06 - December 16, 2010
Aaaand I'm piling on without realizing it.
Double06 - December 16, 2010
Everyone has a past.
Everyone has a past history, some of us, I’m willing to bet the majority of us, have done things we weren’t proud of, but we got over them, grew up, and moved on. If he’s gotten the help needed, done the time required, and fulfilled all of the requirements put on him by both the authorities an the org, then who are we to complain?
MO'toole - December 16, 2010
For everyone's sake I really hope Lueke is successful .
We’ll have a useful, inexpensive reliever, and Lueke will have some of the monkeys off his back. I can’t imagine he’d have as much room for error as someone like Sean White though. He’s going to be an interesting story to follow this year, unless he gets shipped off.
chezbergrur - December 16, 2010
Miracle Mets
erm, Miracle M’s!
tsunamijesus - December 16, 2010
I am happy to see some indication that Lueke will be given a chance with the Mariners this coming year.
It will be good to see some young plus arms in the bullpen instead of the assortment of batting practice applicants we watched last year.
Droid Rage - December 16, 2010
Lueke still could be flipped for somebody
Even if your boss is incompetent, you do challenge him to a fight for not using you the way that you think you should be used in your job. As a retired teacher, I never challenged my department head to a fight when I was assigned to teach the “sweat hogs” (Welcome back Kotter reference), even though I was the person in the department best qualified to teach the advanced courses.
New England Fan - December 16, 2010
That's do NOT challenge
Old guy can’t type
New England Fan - December 16, 2010
The above remark was about Figgy the title was about Lueke
New England Fan - December 16, 2010
I'm not 100% on the details
but Lueke seems pretty comparable to Ben Roethlisberger, at least in terms of severity of crime. Does that seem like an accurate comparison? If so does that change your perception of Lueke?
Slow Country - December 16, 2010
Let us please not go down this road
Matthew - December 16, 2010
Okay folks,
I know I said please and all, but that’s just my folksy Seattle polite way of meaning:
DO NOT FUCKING CONTINUE ALONG THIS SUBTHREAD. IT LEADS NOWHERE GOOD AS CAN BE SEEN
Do we all understand each other now?
Matthew - December 16, 2010
Apologies
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Too much credit to Roethlisberger.
He is a two time alleged after all.
Jack Swan - December 16, 2010
Yeah fuck that guy
d0nkey - December 16, 2010
Had to comment
Big Ben’s case is actually not as bad as Lueke’s. There is strong evidence exonerating Ben in the Georgia case (strong inconsistencies regarding the accuser’s story, third party witnesses, and an utter lack of DNA evidence which is almost impossible if rape occurred). The evidence in both of Ben’s accusations strongly supports Ben not raping anyone. Somehow, two highly untrue accusations = crime.
Ben was railroaded by the media/NFL. It became a large story and was reported unfairly. If you examine the actual documents, you will receive a clearer picture. There is a reason why the D.A. couldn’t bring up charges in that case. But this may be Lueke’s problem. In rape cases, the burden of proof in the court of public opinion often falls on the accused, not the accuser. Lueke’s case looks worse than Big Ben’s; but only two (maybe one) people know what occurred that night. Once again, there is a reason why the D.A. allowed a plead to a lesser crime. Until that is not true, I will operate on the assumption that Lueke is stupid but innocent.
zeke5123 - December 16, 2010
Innocent of what?
We know that he’s guilty of lying to the police. That’s could be considered pretty serious, in and of itself.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Yes. He lied to the police. Hang him.
Oh wait… they didn’t care in the end. He was never charged with anything related to it. Hang him anyway. It’ll make people feel better.
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 16, 2010
Really?
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Page does not exist.
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 16, 2010
Um...no
“an utter lack of DNA evidence which is almost impossible if rape occurred).”
I can think of several ways.
rtang - December 16, 2010
Then you're a long way short of 100% on the details
including the details of what’s actually known versus what’s merely alleged or suspected.
Stop trying to convince everybody to hate the guy. You do. We got it. You don’t need to bang that drum every . . . single . . . stinking . . . time his name comes up.
The Ancient Mariner - December 16, 2010
Then don't speculate
CMC_Stags - December 16, 2010
Josh Lueke did not rape me on the night of February 5th 2006.
Robert - December 16, 2010
You can't hold that against him forever.
Droid Rage - December 16, 2010
Watch me.
Robert - December 16, 2010
Superbowl XL sure did though.
Kirk - December 18, 2010
If the PR team handles this correctly and uses Lueke to speak on behalf of the Refuse to Abuse program
This could go smoothly. If they try to ignore it – it could go very badly.
Scruffy Lefty - December 16, 2010
Exactly
Michael Vick did some stuff with PETA as part of his treatment and now he is the top vote-getter for the Pro Bowl. This should be just fine if the team handles PR correctly
tootthekazoo - December 16, 2010
Have Josh Lueke volunteer at women's self defense classes as the refuse they can abuse.
Janic - December 16, 2010
That's good wordplay, but, obviously, the team realizes the PR problem and will do something about it.
But Lueke doesn’t deserve to be constantly berated, if he’s repaid his debt to society.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
While I agree, the Court of Public Opinion doesn't.
That’s why we have PR departments in the first place. Manipulation of the masses is an artform. The real trick is to make people get over themselves. If this idea works, then we can all move on and never have to talk about this stupid fucking thing again.
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 16, 2010
Right, much will depend on how he presents himself
He hasn’t made any public appearances or spoken to the press since he came over, as far as I know. I imagine there is a way for him to say all the right things and do all the right things to mend the damage. I do hope he’s able to, not just because I would like him pitching for us, but because I would also like to be convinced that he does have remorse/regret about what he allegedly did, and that he has learned a lesson.
n8tron3030 - December 16, 2010
Well, he's kinda public,
I mean, he has a Twitter account full of Bible verses. And this gem:
yuniform - December 16, 2010
we could make that decision right now if we wanted to
That’s why I just leave it alone.
Jo-Jo - December 19, 2010 via mobile
"Gary Sheffield is probably not going to be a Seattle Mariner "
have you asked him? He might surprise you.
msb - December 16, 2010
I know, doesn't Jeff always remind us that we aren't in the M's front office and never know what GMZ is actually trying to do?
seattlebruin - December 16, 2010
So, good use of the word "probably?"
yuniform - December 16, 2010
I hate it when I miss really obvious things >:(
seattlebruin - December 16, 2010
What I'm curious to know...
is how many of the, and this probably isn’t the best word to use, “mainstream” Mariners fans even know about the Lueke situation. Obviously the online community has heard a good deal about it, but I feel like the regular Joe Blow Mariners fan probably hasn’t even heard of Lueke, let alone the whole story of the criminal charges against him. I could be wrong, but it seems like his story hasn’t made it past articles on Mariners writers websites and sites like LL and USSM. I have to imagine the readers of all those sites represent a somewhat small portion of the Mariners fanbase.
ScottBrowne - December 16, 2010
You're incorrect in thinking that this story hasn't made it past beat writers and M's bloggers.
It was a pretty huge story. Both the Stranger and the Weekly covered it fairly heavily.
Aaron Campeau - December 16, 2010
Okay, thanks for the info.
I really wasn’t sure how far it had spread. I still feel like a good portion of fans either haven’t heard about it or will forget by the time that Lueke is on the team. Maybe I’m just hoping for the best outcome on this.
ScottBrowne - December 16, 2010
I think you're right in that most will have forgotten, but enough will remember that it could very well be an issue.
Aaron Campeau - December 16, 2010
KJR 950 exists for reasons like Lueke.
This has and will get airplay like you wouldn’t care to believe
Matthew - December 16, 2010
Yep.
And look at the comments section on the MLB.com story. Lueke is mentioned five times in the story, none of them surrounding his past, but it’s all that anyone’s talking about in those comments. And these comments.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
Lueke will probably help our pen out
quite a bit. I like his fastball.
So see, you’re wrong, I didn’t even mention his history of sexual as…
Craptastic-J - December 16, 2010
I see your point
Craptastic-J - December 16, 2010
Christ, the Stranger covered it? I can only imagine how that story went.
Joe Metro - December 16, 2010
I can't find a Stranger story, actually.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
And if the Stranger and the Weekly covered it,
Then most likely a lot of non-sports fans have seen the story and now know about it, so it may become more of a public issue than if it was just Mariners fans that had a problem. Non-sports fans will view him being on the team as a negative thing, just another case of “athlete with criminal problems being allowed to play simply because he’s good.”
tootthekazoo - December 16, 2010
Non-sports fans provide revenue
I’m sure there are studies done on frequency of game attendance and the such, but I get the impression that a lot of people who might consider themselves ‘non-sports fans’ provide a decent portion of attendance for the Mariners.
Just saying that their opinion of the team matters from a PR perspective.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Plus didn't our resident Times shit stirrer have a big story about it?
I’m sure he’ll have another story about it before the season starts.
Mariner John - December 16, 2010
Yes he did.
And he wasn’t the only one who copy / pasted the phrase “arrested for rape but plead to a lesser charge” in their article.
It may be a fact that he was arrested on the charge of rape, but since he wasn’t convicted of it, it is basically an intentionally misleading term. They want people to read the word “rape” and ignore the rest, and it works, as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread alone.
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 16, 2010
It's misleading?
I’m not trying to cause a
#$#storm here, or be difficult, but what phrase would you prefer?From a news perspective it is certainly relevant that someone is ‘accused’ of rape, which is basically what the arrest meant (and that there was at least a smidgeon of evidence to back up the accusation as possible. Personally, when I see ‘arrested for rape’ I think ’someone accused that person of rape.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
That places you in the minority
A large number of people believe that anyone accused of a heinous crime likely committed it. Just looking at this thread, people equate Lueke with sexual assault, which is quite unfair. They associate other athletes with it as well. Until the evidence is significant to suggest rape, I believe it is poor form to attach that label to someone.
zeke5123 - December 16, 2010
Perhaps, but I'm not sure that's in the phrase
I was just pointing out that the news organization is in kind of a bind there with regard to the phrase they use. “Lueke was arrested for rape” is a technically accurate description of an event that happened. I’m not sure the use of that phrase is ‘intentionally misleading’ on the part of the media. The kind of biases you mention also arrive if you said “Lueke was accused of rape” or similar phrases.
I’m also not sure it’s ‘unfair’ to equate Lueke with sexual assault. People can look at reports of an event and draw conclusions that shape their actions. ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ is a standard to send someone to jail, it is not a standard I am forced to use in deciding if I like someone, want someone on a team I am a fan of, or personally think that it’s likely they did something.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
It's a standard you are forced to use when bringing it up here though.
Matthew - December 16, 2010
Good to know
I really don’t have an interest in highly politicized rape and criminal justice discussions on a baseball blog, so this kind of standard is probably best. But, I’m inclined to think that this could exclude valid and reasonable opinions. Like:
“I think it is more likely than not that Lueke committed sexual assault, so his presence on the team makes me less likely to (give Mariners $)”
Which is far from “unfair” in my mind. It would be unfair to throw him in jail on such a standard.
This would be a problem when discussing almost any off the field issue. Most steroid use can’t be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. I apologize if, as I suspect, this has already been talked to death.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
We don't condone steroid speculation either. We have spoke out against it fairly often.
Matthew - December 16, 2010
Whatever the standard, we need to come to terms with it.
Going forward, no matter how we all feel, I think that we are going to want to speak of him without having to bring this up every effing time. If that is the standard, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and we are all to treat the situation accordingly at least for the purposes of shooting the shit about a pretty bad baseball team on a blog, then fine. I think if we agree with that, and if that’s the line we decide to draw, we can all move on together. This whole business, to some degree, begins to tread on the “no politics” rule which I appreciate as a highly political person myself. It keeps everything from going to shit. It’s social politics, or gender politics, or whatever you want to call it. But politics it is. And it has no place here. This is my sanctuary from all of that. It’s part of why this blog matters to me. And it’s a big part of why baseball matters to me.
I know some of us have strong feelings about the subject in our private lives. But for the purposes of this community, at some point, we need to move on. It’s good that Jeff brought this up civilly in a post, so that we don’t have to keep sniping around the edges about it, and so that we can finally get it off of our chests. But I think that going forward, trusting what I assume to be a well educated and well qualified judge’s opinion can be a workable standard here.
If this is our understanding, that the court said what it said, and he is free to go, then fine. If we all want to carry that understanding forward, for the purposes of enjoying a baseball blog, then fine. It does not mean you have to have that as your personal opinion. But we need to acknowledge it, and move on, together, with an understanding that it cannot and should not be allowed to ruin this.
SeattExPat - December 16, 2010
No if, what I said is the standard of LL.
Matthew - December 16, 2010
I'm agreeing with you pretty aggressively.
SeattExPat - December 16, 2010
Moving on seems ideal
But what I see when this issue comes is references along the lines of “everyone makes mistakes” or “we all have a past” or “he deserves a chance” or “I’m glad he’ll get a shot”.
I do not consider comments like this falling under ‘moving on.’ The mirror images of these comments if he were traded would not be ‘moving on’ and would probably get a bunch of flak (comments like ‘good riddance’).
But, I’m more than willing to swallow that tiny annoyance in an interest of moving on. And why I tried to focus my comment to one about media phrases, basically saying that the biases are built into the reader, not necessarily the use of “arrest.”
Ultimately it’s a very interesting topic that can be given extensive discussion, but on another blog, somewhere far far away.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Three different people in my family can hopefully gauge the mainstream fan knowledge of him.
My mom who loves the Mariners but only occasionally gets to watch or listen to them has no idea who Lueke is.
My Grandpa who watches every game every year on tv and used to get Yuniesky Betancourt and Adrian Beltre mixed up sometimes because they kind of look the same, doesn’t even know he exists.
My Grandma who typically goes to a few Spring Training games each year thinks he’s a rapist, but knows nothing else about him.
My little sister who is trying to get into sports knows who he is and kind of has an idea of what is going on with him but is far off the trail is confused about his whole situation.
chezbergrur - December 16, 2010
I thought Leuke threw a split, not a slider
I picked up the MiLB.tv package this September to watch Tacoma’s playoff games, and he was throwing what looked to me like a devastating, Putz-like splitter. I mean, it was nasty. If it was a slider, that’s possibly the best slider I’ve ever seen.
Any prospect gurus want to chime in? Does pitch f/x data exist for the PCL that might shed some light on Mr. Leuke’s soft stuff?
chaney - December 16, 2010
I believe he throws a splitter too, but prefers the slider
Jeff Sullivan - December 16, 2010
I should box myself for rec'ing this
d0nkey - December 16, 2010
He says on Twitter that he throws both.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
No pitch fx data for the PCL.
You can get it for the AFL, however, which Lueke participated in this year. You’ll see a lot of change-ups there that behave a bit like Lincecum’s change (which is a totally different animal from, say, Jamie Moyer’s change-up).
It’s very splitter-y, it’s true. It’s thrown a bit slower, and the gap in speed is a bit greater, than the gap between Lincecum’s FB and CH.
marc w - December 16, 2010
Thanks for looking that up
Seems to confirm what I thought I saw. And hell, anyone who can make a ball move like Lincecum’s ball is doing pretty well for themselves.
Incidentally, I know Lincecum calls that pitch a changeup, but if you watch him throw it in slow motion, he’s using a splitter grip. Reminds me a bit of Satchel Paige saying he threw the midnight creeper and the trouble ball, but eh, semantics. A splitter [em]is[/em] essentially a type of changeup, I suppose.
chaney - December 17, 2010
Considering it's called a split-finger fastball
it would seem odd to call it a type of changeup.
The Ancient Mariner - December 17, 2010
From now on I'm calling it the magic-finger trouble ball
chaney - December 17, 2010
It is definitely an off speed pitch though.
The name was made up by baseball players and coaches so take it for what it is worth.
Sec 108 - December 17, 2010
I'm excited to see how well he fares at the major league level.
Even AAA batters were pretty hopeless. I think he looks to slide right in there next to League as one of the go-to bullpen guys.
lailaihei - December 16, 2010 via mobile
Put a team of convicted murderers on the field for all I care
JUST GIVE ME A FUCKING WORLD SERIES!
d0nkey - December 16, 2010
Then we'd have the real murderer's row.
chezbergrur - December 16, 2010
They'd be shiving umps for making the wrong calls.
russak - December 16, 2010
The Longest 30 Yards?
tootthekazoo - December 16, 2010
The Longest Bedard
MT Olson - December 16, 2010
LOL!
Jeff Sullivan - December 16, 2010
No chatspeak!
Oh wait…
scottg02 - December 16, 2010
I think Ray Lewis would be a good power hitter
bluemax - December 16, 2010
Thats one thing I never understand when it comes to talking about Lueke, Michael Vick Etc.
Ray Lewis killed a man, yet he is still one of the most celebrated athletes around. He literally killed a man and nobody cares.
themanleyman - December 16, 2010
Whuh-oh.
ThundaPC - December 16, 2010
I think I'm more excited about Smoak in the middle of the lineup.
MT Olson - December 16, 2010
It's possible the team still wants to flip him.
Talking him up in the media is a good way to raise his trade value. Insofar as he will never play for the team, the club’s opportunity cost for trading him is zero, and teams will exploit that to give as little as possible to get him. (Aside: I think M’s fans overrate the willingness of other clubs to roster a guy with his past.)
philosofool - December 16, 2010
I'm pretty sure trade value doesn't work that way.
Sec 108 - December 16, 2010
So teams happily pay "what a guy is worth"
and ignore the possibility that he might trade for significantly less?
philosofool - December 16, 2010
Teams are not dumb enough to add perceived value to a player based on what a GM says to the media.
Sec 108 - December 17, 2010
sounds like a guy with upside
Rangers might have thrown him in as a way out of a PR mess. If the M’s play him, weather his bad PR time, transform him into a “Refuse to abuse” guy…
and he pitches lights out… we flip him to another club who no longer has to deal with the PR, but gets a great arm.
Or keep him. But I’m guessing he’d have good trade-bait potential.
run_dmo - December 16, 2010
In conclusion, good players = good trade bait.
yuniform - December 16, 2010
Yep
Arlington Stadium Legend - December 16, 2010
In the Cliff notes of your conclusion
good players = good
seattlebruin - December 16, 2010
His good arm doesn't seem to ever have been in doubt
My point is that, ironically, the upside might actually come from the bad PR, and that he might only become good trade bait after the PR storm.
run_dmo - December 16, 2010
Measuring PR risk
I think in considering the Lueke as a potential PR issue, people here tend to treat the risk as one of dealing with past events. But anytime there is a past event there is a risk of future events.
The emphasis is on ‘risk’ because I’m trying to be as neutral here as possible. Whatever you think might have happened, there is at least some percentage chance that it was something pretty bad (and your opinion can dictate what that ‘it’ was and what that chance is). Then, within that first percentage, there is some percentage chance that Lueke will be involved in something like that again.
Even if those numbers are very low, it still represents a PR risk. Personally I think this risk is a higher expected PR cost than dealing with the past event. A combination of the numbers I plug in above, and a believe that this will generally blow over among Mariners fans.
For me, the team doesn’t need to be as worried about the PR to cover up past character issues, it has to be doing its due diligence to ensure that Lueke doesn’t have any future issues of any kind.
This will all blow over. But if he gets in any kind of trouble for almost anything, it has the chance of blowing up. That’s the real cost.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Okay, I had to reword this comment about a half dozen times, but I think I've got it now:
Could you please explain to me what that would entail?
Joe Metro - December 16, 2010
Sure
It would depend on their assessment of character and personal life, so an assessment of that would have to be done first. So these are just examples, some of which may not be appropriate, depending on what the team thinks the odds are of certain events (I think it helps to think in terms of probabilities).
1. have him see a counselor. No matter what Lueke has or has not done, these events are sure to weigh on him in some serious way. This could lead to serious depression, or substance abuse, or any number of issues.
2. Limit his allowed or encouraged behavior. I don’t know much about baseball contracts, but I know that NFL players have all kinds of crazy clauses. Maybe Lueke needs to be strongly encouraged to limit his drinking or his partying.
3. Watch his associations. The team could more carefully look at who he’s hanging out with. Just as a general risk assessment.
These are just examples, and they have nothing to do with what he has and has not done, and everything to do with the fact that he is a higher PR risk.
If Franklin Gutierrez was arrested for DUI (as an example) it would be bad news, but it would blow over. If Lueke is arrested for a DUI, I would imagine there would be a more serious PR problem.
Therefore, even if Lueke is not more likely to get into any trouble than any other player he is still a higher risk, because if he gets in trouble the cost is higher. That’s all I was trying to say in the original comment.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
Fair enough.
Joe Metro - December 17, 2010
As long as he can help us win, I say bring him up.
We need talent, he’s got talent. I care very little about a player’s off field activities. I care if they can play baseball.
Smegmalicious - December 16, 2010
On to really important stuff
I let it go the first time, but this is the second time you used the word “whooping” incorrectly. Whooping is what morons do when then want everyone to know they’re having a good time. "Woooooo! Woooooo! The word you want is ‘whuppin’, which is Redneck for the English word ‘whipping’.
GerryR - December 16, 2010
I did not know that!
Jeff Sullivan - December 16, 2010
The Rainiers coughed all over that shit.
Mariner John - December 16, 2010
I'm reminded of Julio Mateo
Now I’m sure Lueke is ten times the pitcher Mateo ever was, but Mateo never pitched another game for the Mariners after it came out that he beat his wife.
And I’d definitely have a really hard time rooting for him. It would be a case of “name on the front of the jersey, not the back.” Everybody makes mistakes, second chances, blah blah blah…this really strains that. A lot of you are saying “We don’t know what really happened that night,” and while that’s true, it cuts both ways. Josh Lueke is probably not a good guy. If he’s a good pitcher, great. Hopefully he’ll be a good pitcher for many years and we’ll never even hear about what he does or doesn’t do when he’s not on the mound.
Aly Edge - December 16, 2010
I'm going to regret this
but what Josh Lueke may or may not have done when he was younger doesn’t say much about whether or not he’s a good guy now.
Jeff Sullivan - December 16, 2010
The difference here is that Mateo's offense occurred while he was on the team
Hence, he probably “wasn’t a good guy” while on the team.
Josh’s offense was several years ago. A lot can happen in a few years.
HititHere - December 17, 2010
My only comment is that regardless of anything that he may or may not have done . . .
It is ridiculous to think that people can’t change. For better or worse.
thewyrm - December 16, 2010
It is also ridiculous to think that everybody wants to change and some....
Only fake it to be accepted and popular.
Tord F - December 16, 2010
...
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 16, 2010
It is almost like when your comments start getting hidden, you should discontinue this line of thought
seattlebruin - December 17, 2010
This is a tough one. I just finished watching a CBS show "What Would You Do?"
I hadn’t seen it before and probably won’t watch it again, but it was interesting.
TrustBaseball - December 17, 2010
By this I only mean, why would comments start getting hidden, just because
“I disagree with them”? I doubt that this is that sort of blog. I believe that people are going to have different opinions on this one, and those opinions are going to be fairly strong. What we have to remember is that it doesn’t have to get ugly. There can be a difference of opinion without disrespect.
TrustBaseball - December 17, 2010
Jeff and other mods reserve the right to hide comments if they do not like them
It’s as simple as that. I respect their right to do what they wish with their blog, and never hold anything against them. If I ran a blog, I would delete some comments I didn’t like too.
I’ve had so many comments hidden here over the years, I’m numb to it! I don’t mind stirring the pot every once in awhile to get a passionate discussion. If a few of my comments get hidden here and there, so be it. It’s not a big deal to me.
Tord F - December 18, 2010
You're admitting to trolling...
The Typical Idiot Fan - December 18, 2010
I'm the artist formerly known as The Marinator
Let’s see what happens now!
Tord F - December 18, 2010
This is precisely why nobody should ever bother responding to you.
Matthew - December 19, 2010
But in baseball we think in probabilities and likelihood
We do it on the field, and when there are costs to the team, you have to do it off the field.
I am not speaking about Lueke here, just general team building.
When you sign a player they are a bundle of probabilities. This site, and others, do an amazing job of analyzing their on the field probabilities. It is always possible that a player has a breakout year, or crashes, but the probabilities dictate how we value that player.
Off the field probabilities include all sorts of things. There is a probability that a player will get hurt in a car accident. A probability that a player will not be liked by the fans. A probability that a player will get into some kind of legal trouble.
This is true of all players, but the probabilities are not equal. Of course any player could get in an accident, but a player with a motorcycle has a higher probability. It’s ridiculous to think that people can’t drive motorcycles without getting into an accident, but the probability is still higher.
There are bottom line reasons why teams in any sport might de-value a guy who presents some kind of PR issue. It isn’t about whether they think a guy can change for better or worse, it is about what the probability is that that player’s cost will out weight the gain.
The problem in a situation like Lueke’s is that estimating those probabilities varies wildly without strong objective measures. Which is why discussion of it is nearly value-less.
Snuffleupagus - December 16, 2010
A question not yet asked.
Assuming he ends up on the team, how will Josh Lueke handle things on his end? The only certainty is that he WILL have shit to handle. There will be questions, drama and nonsense even with the relatively soft touch of the Seattle baseball media.
Personally I’m with Billy Martin:
Big Jared - December 16, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.