So, as we found out last night, Josh Lueke is not among the Mariners' call-ups from Tacoma. The Rainiers finished their season yesterday, meaning all those players are free to do whatever, so Lueke's absence is most certainly conspicuous. The immediate response? This is all based on PR, and the Mariners may have no intentions of ever seeing Lueke in Seattle. But I see four possibilities.
1) Legal hoops. Notes Baker:
As for Lueke, his status as a convicted felon on probation through the 2012 season means the Mariners would have needed to apply for permission to have him travel across the border into Canada for the Toronto series and you can't just do that on a whim. Has to be done well in advance.
2) Rest. After throwing just 7.2 innings in 2009, Lueke made more than 50 appearances in 2010 and will be reporting to the Arizona Fall League, so it's possible the team wanted to give him a bit of a break, much as they're doing with Dustin Ackley. Not that they couldn't still call him up and just not use him.
3) Lueke has no place here. This whole organizational tailspin wouldn't have happened the way it's happened were it not for the Lueke acquisition, and just because we haven't seen much negativity to Lueke on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist among the broader fanbase. A lot of fans don't like the idea of supporting Josh Lueke. A lot of players don't like the idea of playing with Josh Lueke. It's entirely possible that the organization has decided that Lueke's pluses aren't worth the drawbacks. Which isn't an entirely unreasonable position, given that he's a reliever.
4) Lueke has no place here right now. I know it's football season, and people aren't really paying much attention to the Mariners anymore, but Lueke is still a fresh story, in that people haven't forgotten what they've read. We're still not very far removed from the height of things. Maybe, instead of deciding they don't ever want him, the Mariners have decided they don't want him up for these final two weeks. Lueke isn't the sort of player you just thrust into everyone's reality. You prepare. For the fans, maybe the Mariners have Lueke make appearances and participate in volunteer programs over the offseason. For the players, maybe the Mariners would rather have Lueke meet them in spring training so the air can be cleared away from the field. The team may just need time to figure out how it ought to proceed.
-----
We'll see about possibility #1 shortly, as the M's return to the states on Thursday. I do not think #2 is very likely, since, again, the M's could always call Lueke up and just have him hang out if they're that concerned about getting him rest. Possibilities #3 and #4 strike me as the strongest, and you know what? I don't think the M's even know for sure what they're going to do. I don't think they've closed the door on Lueke's future in Seattle, but I also doubt they're committed to it 100%. I think they'll have to see. They'll have to monitor how fans respond. They'll have to have conversations and see how potential teammates and coaches respond. They have to figure out if Lueke is worth the trouble. What is the financial impact of having a player with his background on the team? What is the clubhouse or on-field impact of having a player with his background on the team? How good is he now, and how good could he be later? These are complicated questions to which the organization will have to find some kind of answer.
We'll see. I don't even know where I stand. I like talented players, but ultimately, I want what's best for the team, and if the organization determines that promoting Josh Lueke isn't what's best for the team, then that's significant, as they're in a better position to figure that out than I am. What I will say is that, should they decide that Lueke isn't worth it, they're not going to get much back. No other organization is going to surrender much talent to relieve the M's of their problem. What this might as well boil down to is talent + trouble versus nothing at all.
0 recs | 30 comments
For what its worth...
I’ve been following Leuke on twitter for a little while now and he seems to be a God-fearing, optimistic, little do-gooder now. Punctuation and capitalization need some work before he could post here though. Seems he is actively promoting a rehabilitated lifestyle through his public statements on the twitter.
hcoguy - September 22, 2010
Nobody who is actually familiar with Josh Lueke seems to have many bad things to say about him
However, this isn’t about whether Josh Lueke is a good or bad person. This is about how people respond when they hear the word “rapist”, and what the magnitude of that response means to a struggling organization.
Jeff Sullivan - September 22, 2010
As long as the struggling organiztion doesn't say 'no', I think Josh should be okay.
kentroyals5 - September 22, 2010
It speaks volumes that someone not convicted of rape can still be called a rapist.
The Court of Public Opinion sucks.
The Typical Idiot Fan - September 22, 2010
Of course it does, and it always has
It’s a factor, though. How much of one, I haven’t a clue, but it’s a problem if the front office thought they could pull this off without a hitch.
Jeff Sullivan - September 22, 2010
Seems to me...
…hitch or no, the GM level expected a different response from their bosses than what they got.
Obviously not on the same page with respect to this.
rtang - September 22, 2010
He can't.
Not in print!
Joe Metro - September 22, 2010
I think it's probably a combination
The 40 man is full after Mangini was added, and while I guess they could flip someone to the 60 day, the M’s may have thought it was pointless if they’re going to save Lueke for the AFL.
So 1 is a reason not to bring him up now, and if you’re waiting, you run into 2, and then you get to 4, which at least makes you think about 3 and the fact that shuffling the 40 man might bring more attention, so awww fuck it.
marc w - September 22, 2010
He tweeted this a couple hours ago:
Janic - September 22, 2010
Well there you go
Jeff Sullivan - September 22, 2010
#2!!
kentroyals5 - September 22, 2010
#4 sounds good to me.
I still can’t believe a sports organization would totally shun a player based on one incident that most people hardly know anything about. It’s not like he is or ever will be a star player or face of the franchise. He’s a relief prospect. By next year, I bet most people will have forgotten about the whole thing.
b_rider - September 22, 2010
I lean toward #4 myself ...
… and an important piece of information we don’t have is what transpired when Lueke met with the Armstrong, et. al.
If I were in their position, I would weigh very heavily what kind of impression I formed of him during that meeting. He would have a high, but not impossible, hurdle to get over
And the barrier would be a lot higher than mere sorrow, no matter how deep, genuine, and heartfelt that contrition might be. Redemption requires more than contrition.
Steve Nelson - September 22, 2010
What if he's innocent?
I wasn’t present for these events but I’ve read several articles and the details made public out of the police report and the term ‘reasonable doubt’ certainly comes to mind. The only thing I’m fairly sure he’s guilty of is being young, drunk, and showing poor judgement – as was the young lady, regardless of what happened after the fact – but those are fixable flaws.
I hope the Mariners do give him a chance if his play warrants it, and I’ll root for every strikeout.
Azimeir - September 22, 2010 via mobile
He's not legally innocent. Innocent people are not sentenced and put on probation
Pleading “no contest” to lesser charges is the same as a guilty plea. In pleading “no contest” the defendant is explicitly acknowledging and conceding that had the case gone to trial he or she would have been convicted and found guilty. It’s simply a legal device to avoid the formality of a court trial.
As far as the court is concerned he pled guilty. That is why he is on probation. Probation is only offered to people who have been convicted of a crime; people who are innocent under the law are not sentenced to jail and put on probation after serving time.
The prosecutor did drop the rape charge. He is legally innocent of that charge, only under the “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal threshold. He is however legally guilty of “false imprisonment with violence”.
Under a lesser threshold, such as the “preponderance of evidence” that would apply in a civil action, he most likely would have been found liable for his actions.
Steve Nelson - September 22, 2010
Tsk, Steve
You cannot assert likelihood unless you’ve seen the evidence, which I am assuming you have not.
Graham MacAree - September 22, 2010
You are correct that I have not seen the evidence in this particular case ...
… but from my previous exposures and interactions with the legal system, if a case is does not clearly surpass a “preponderance of evidence” threshold, the DA’s office doesn’t waste time with the case since their chances of obtaining a conviction under “reasonable doubt” at that point are slim. For the case to have proceeded as far as it did as a rape case before being pleaded down indicates that the decision making in the Kern County DA’s office was whether the evidence rose to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Under the circumstances of this case, working with what we do actually know about the case and the decisions made by the DA’s office, I think it is most likely that he would lose a civil damages under a “reasonable doubt” standard case were such a case to be pursued and deemed appropriate by a court. I’m not saying that such a case would certainly be won: I’m saying that is the most likely result, just as the most likely result of putting Rob Johnson behind the plate is a surfeit of passed balls.
Steve Nelson - September 22, 2010
As someone who once plead no contest and yet was 100% innocent I find this offensive
and ignorant of how the process works. Sometimes you take a path to save time, money and also to avoid things possibly turning out worse because you have no witnesses to back you up.
Sec 108 - September 23, 2010
An important piece of information we don't have is
just about everything to do with this situation and I wish more people would speak like they realize that.
Matthew - September 22, 2010
Of course these are not mutually exclusive and most likely all figured into the decision
Bearskin Rugburn - September 22, 2010
#1 is a crappy situation.
I had a misdemeanor mark on my record that kept me out of Canada for 10 years. After 10 years they don’t care about it. But with less than 6 months to go before it had been 10 years, they wouldn’t let me into Canada.
I would have had to go through some hoops to be “de-criminalized”. That would’ve cost me some money, and it would have to be approved by the Canadian government. So #1 might still end up being a factor depending on how Canada views his criminal history. He may not be able to play in the majors til his 10 year period is over, I have no idea.
d0nkey - September 22, 2010
On the bright side, a similar law kept Paris Hilton out of Japan.
On the not so bright side, it meant she had to come back to the United States.
Patrick Stites - September 22, 2010
I'm in a similar situation.
I’d imagine that his situation would be even more difficult. But worst case scenario, he could play in the majors and simly skip the occasional Canada trip (or be traded to the NL I suppose).
Thingray - September 22, 2010
No, he can play in Canada, he just need to jump through those hoops you mentioned.
It costs money, but it’s minimal for anyone on an MLB salary, and more importantly, it takes time. This is something he may need to look into now for next season.
marc w - September 22, 2010
Maybe it's just me...
If it is 4, I really wish they brought him up now. This season blows. Everything is clearly in disarray. If they bring him up now, they’d get the inevitable media shitstorm. Eventually it would die down, at least to a degree.
However, if he makes the team out of spring training, they have to deal with the media shitstorm right out of spring training. It doesn’t seem like the type of distraction you want to deal with right at the beginning of a season, especially with a young team. It automatically sets the tone of the clubhouse as really shitty.
Fuckmikereilly - September 22, 2010
Who cares what teammates and coaches think?
As these Mariners have proved many times clubhouse chemistry does not mean anything. Winning creates good chemistry not the other way around. If the M’s are winning with Lueke contributing the clubhouse will be fine and he will be accepted.
Justin Pieper - September 22, 2010
Clubhouse chemistry may or may not mean something.
These Mariners have proved nothing regarding that
Matthew - September 22, 2010
We're still talking about this?
I think this was a huge non-story until it suddenly became the only thing worthy of writing about in September. Who cares about is transgressions in the past? If they were bad enough to bring a rape conviction, then he would be in jail. If he can pitch a baseball better than the players we have, I want him on my team. Let stop speculating because no one knows.
kstreetdawg - September 22, 2010
But if we stop speculating what will we do?
Watch…. baseball games?
JY - September 22, 2010
The horror...
misterjonez - September 24, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.