Max wrote:

So the idea that Theriot is an offensive upgrade is a defensible one, but barely, and Mozeliak would look like an idiot if he were trumpeting that to be the case, without some supporting rumors that there was more to this acquisition than meets the eye.  Thus, we get the story that Ryan was a clubhouse cancer.  Everyone knows this is true.  Why?  We heard rumors from 2009 that he was a hyperactive guy who behaved like he was ADD.  We heard rumors that La Russa found him annoying.  We heard rumors that he might have poisoned Rasmus against the veterans.  We saw one on-field incident where Carpenter (a guy who is increasingly known for his on-field outbursts) yelled at him. 

Suppose you were representing a company who was being sued by a guy claiming to have been wrongfully fired.  The company claimed he was a well-known problem who had to go.  The evidence you had to defend your client's claims was the same as the evidence we have that Ryan was a clubhouse cancer.  Do you like your chances?

So you believe they started "circulating rumors" in 2009 to set up a trade in December 2010.  Yeah, that makes sense.

To answer you last question, I love my chances.  I actually just successfully tried virtually the exact same case.  Briefly, here are the facts.

Employer- Hospital
Employee/Grievant- Therapist in Behavioral (Mental) Health unit
Witness #1- Supervisor.  Friend of Grievant for 20 years and the person who recommended Grievant for job
Witness #2- Co-worker
Witness #3- Co-worker
Witness #4- HR representative

Termination Incident:

- Grievant fired for making inappropriate comments toward co-workers during a meeting.  The purpose of the meeting was to distribute information regarding open-enrollment for health insurance coverage (a fairly benign meeting).  When a handout was passed around, Grievant reached for the handout, but another co-worker reached it first.  At that time, Grievant stated that she needed to leave "before I kill someone," and stormed out of the meeting slamming the conference room door behind her on the way out.

Employer's main evidence:
- 2007 performance appraisal which showed the Grievant to be a generally exceptional clinician but who displayed "narcissistic tendencies and needed to improve her inter-personal relationships with co-workers and communication skills."
- 2008 performance appraisal which generally repeated the 2007 appraisal
- Employee counseling involving an incident where Grievant was accused of speaking unprofessionally toward a patient
- Employee counseling involving an incident where Grievant was accused of speaking unprofessionally toward a patient
- 2009 performance appraisal similar to the previous 2 appraisals

Employee's main evidence:
- Letters from patients complimenting Grievant and the treatment provided while under her care.

Summary of testimony:
- Supervisor testified that she had suggested Grievant apply for the job and recommended Grievant be hired.  In supervisor's opinion, Grievant acted like she was better than her co-workers and tended to speak in a condescending way to them.  When challenged by a co-worker or patient, Grievant tended to snap and respond inappropriately.  Grievant was an excellent clinician who volunteered to take extra shifts and developed programs that helped patients.  However, Grievant's behavior created a work environment that was difficult to work in.  Supervisor discussed this with Grievant on numerous occasions, but each time Grievant denied any responsibility and blamed problem on co-workers' jealousy because Grievant was a superior employee.  Supervisor did not witness any of the disciplinary or termination incidents, but had investigated each and believed the termination justified.
- Witness #2 personally witnessed the incident with the patient that led to the first employee counseling and the termination incident.  Witness #2 testified about the difficulties working with Grievant.
- Witness #3 testified that she was the first person to see the patient involved in the second employee counseling incident and testified as to the patient's demeanor after her interaction with Grievant.  Witness #3 was also present for the termination incident and also testified about her difficulties working with Grievant.
- Witness #4 testified about the process of trying to get Grievant to improve her behavior and Grievant denying the existence of a problem, choosing instead to blame her co-workers
- Grievant testified about her 20+ years experience as a therapist, her relationship with Supervisor and her experience at Hospital.  She denied any problem with her behavior and claimed that others had simply over-reacted because they were jealous.

After a 3 day arbitration, the arbitrator upheld the termination.  Here's the most illuminating part of the opinion:

"While Grievant denies that her conduct warranted any disciplinary action, let alone her termination, the Arbitrator does not find these denials credible.  Grievant's conduct was documented in both her 2007 and 2008 performance appraisals, neither of which were disciplinary.  These presented opportunities for Grievant to modify her behavior to meet the reasonable expectations of her supervisor and employer.  Instead, Grievant denied the need to change her behavior and placed responsibility for the problems with others.  Grievant's unmodified behavior resulted in two separate incidents involving patients who eventually complained to management about their interactions with Grievant.  While Grievant encourages the arbitrator to consider the mental status of these "witnesses," the Arbitrator must also consider the fact that one of these incidents was witnessed by a co-worker and the other incident, though not witnessed by anyone other than the patient, is entirely consistent with the behavior previously documented.  I find it more likely than not that discipline was warranted in both of these early instances and note that both were upheld through prior grievance proceedings.

Grievant does not deny the incident which ultimately led to her termination, rather her argument appears to be either that she should not have received the previous disciplinary counselings and thus the final incident does not justify her termination or, alternatively, that the final incident was not sufficiently serious to merit any disciplinary action at all.  The Arbitrator does not find either of these arguments persuasive.  It is completely reasonable for an employer to expect its employees to maintain a level of professionalism in their inter-personal interactions.  It is even more reasonable for an employer to expect an employee to maintain an appropriate level of decorum with its patients.  Here, Grievant created an atmosphere where anyone who worked with her felt, in the words of Witness #2, as if they were "walking on eggshells."  Employer provided Employee ample opportunity to modify her behavior, but she saw no need.  Moreover, Grievant's testimony during the arbitration calls into question whether, even now, she realizes that this situation was brought on by her own behavior rather than that of her co-workers.  I am persuaded by the Employer's argument that if reinstated, it is reasonable to assume that Employee will continue to conduct herself as she did throughout her employment--including her complete lack of professionalism to her co-workers and patients.  That Employee was an excellent clinician (a fact not disputed by Employer) is not enough.  Accordingly, I find that the termination was taken for just cause and Employee's grievance is denied."


Substitute Larussa for the supervisor, Carpenter and Rasmus as the co-workers and Moz as the HR person and I think you've got pretty much the same case.

Max touched upon the notion that Ryan has ADD symptoms. I swear I recall reading somewhere that Ryan was diagnosed with ADHD and takes medication for it, but I couldn't confirm that anywhere via a Google search.
Does anyone have any information that might corroborate an ADHD diagnosis for Ryan?

My previous message is a reply to Fors' post -- No. 80. I think me and Darth were submitting at the same time because it took forever. It could also be my crappy computer, too.

tkihshbt wrote:

My previous message is a reply to Fors' post -- No. 80. I think me and Darth were submitting at the same time because it took forever. It could also be my crappy computer, too.

TK, I would agree that of the two, Craig is much more likely to be the impact bat they need than Freese.  Even when he was healthy last season, Freese seemed much more of a "gap power" hitter than a power hitter.  And I'm not very convinced Freese can stay healthy.

My friend with the team made the same comment about Craig needing to play every day to be effective.  Something about his swing or his set-up that required constant repetition.

Mags wrote:

Max wrote:

and here's a very informative analysis by Goold about Theriot, Ryan, Schumaker, and what the Cardinals need to do:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_f873d9b4-fd71-11df-a990-0017a4a78c22.html

Here's another article by Goold that is more informative than insightful:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_802699cc-d866-11df-b8b8-0017a4a78c22.html

What he fails to do is to make the point that the Cardinals can go with an Eckstein/Theriot shortstop with Scott Rolen at third.  With anyone else, it's a different story altogether.  I don't think Freese is that good even when he's healthy and I'll be very surprised if he plays more than 80 games this year.  I don't see anyone else in the picture, at home or abroad, who wouldn't be a further step down.

So, Mo has a problem.

p.s.  I do think that Brendan Ryan's much vaunted defense is overrated.  As I've written here before, I was ecstatic when the Cards unloaded Templeton for Smith without having any idea how great Ozzie's range would be and how much his offense would improve.  No matter how great a shortstop's arm and range, he can destroy the morale of a pitcher by not playing in the right position or by screwing up the play that he should be able to make.

That was a good read.  Thanks, Mags.  Two things stand out.  One was the dig at La Russa: "The hot-corner quagmire started, as so many things do these days, with manager Tony La Russa."  That's one of those issues where something that is true can be spun different ways.

The second thing is my oft-repeated observation that in the Jocketty days, we were dumpster diving for a few, not key spots: 2B, back of the rotation starter, a bullpen guy here or there.  Since 2006, and with the flat payroll limiting the team's ability to acquire existing talent, and making failure's like K Greene and Kennedy mortal, it seems we are trying to fill too many roles through dumpster diving and we wind up midseason with more problems than can be reasonably fixed.

Mags, pat yourself on the back because you were right on with that assessment. And for whatever reason, people were writing Craig off after his first 20 plate appearances when he got just one hit. In those 20 PAs, eight or nine were line drive outs. Line drives turn into hits at a higher rate than either ground balls or fly balls. He was just unlucky. I tried telling people at Cards Talk to be patient on the guy, but nobody would listen.

And I'm not very convinced Freese can stay healthy.

Nor am I.

forsberg_us wrote:

Not true.  In my case, I have first hand eye-witness accounts.

Actually, that depends on whether you are viewed as a witness or a trier-of-fact.  If you are the trier of fact, your sources are the witnesses with first hand knowledge.  If we are the trier of fact, you are the witness and your sources are out of court declarants whose credibility we must judge.

On the other hand, if this is merely a probable cause hearing, you have certainly provided sufficient indicia of the informant's reliability for a warrant to issue.

Last edited by Mags (12/02/2010 4:03 pm)

forsberg_us wrote:

Max was asking how I would feel about taking the case to trial.  From what I've been told, the employer (i.e., the Cardinals) would have plenty of eye-witness accounts to rely upon.  That was all I was trying to say.

And you made a very good one.  Damn I'm glad to be able to look at things from a distance.

That's one thing that always gave me real problems -- how much to trust my own judgment in assessing my client's credibility.  In one sense, there's the ideal that a lawyer ought to bend over backwards to make sure every client gets his case heard.  I'm always worried about the guy who seems to be a paranoid fruitcake turning out to be someone that people really are out to screw over.

The secretaries at my law firm had adopted the practice of referring all walk-ins to the newest lawyer in the firm if they didn't request a particular lawyer.  Since I got the last vacant office for two years, I had lots of those.  As you might guess, I became very popular with my friends who handled divorces thank to the many referrals.  But one day I got a guy who turned out to have escaped from the mental hospital at Benton.  As we were riding up the elevator, he was telling me that he had no cash to pay my fee but had lots of royalties from music he had written that he would assign to me.  He then shut the door and pulled his chair up very close to me.  He then explained that he had this problem keeping his hands off the private parts of young boys and that a bus driver had told on him.  And now the FBI was poisoning his food at the hospital, causing him to have heart attacks.  Then he jumped up and said, "You've got to get me in a hospital right away.  I'm having them heart attacks."

I'll save the rest of the story for our next group gathering if I live long enough.

Mags wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Not true.  In my case, I have first hand eye-witness accounts.

Actually, that depends on whether you are viewed as a witness or a trier-of-fact.  If you are the trier of fact, your sources are the witnesses with first hand knowledge.  If we are the trier of fact, you are the witness and your sources are out of court declarants whose credibility we must judge.

On the other hand, if this is merely a probable cause hearing, you have certainly provided sufficient indicia of the informant's reliability for a warrant to issue.

Damn it!  Did I just pull a KC?!?

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

Max touched upon the notion that Ryan has ADD symptoms. I swear I recall reading somewhere that Ryan was diagnosed with ADHD and takes medication for it, but I couldn't confirm that anywhere via a Google search.
Does anyone have any information that might corroborate an ADHD diagnosis for Ryan?

Yeah the post ran a story once on his troubles focusing.  I dont know if they called it ADD or not but it was pretty clear.

Thanks. I couldn't find it despite a couple of searches. ADHD is, as they say, a horse of a different color. And I would imagine that a person who has it would probably discover pretty quickly a baseball dugout is one of the worst places in the country to try to manage that particular condition.

I am on board with keep Ryan and removing his voice box.  I understand the faults take he has.  He isnt a good hitter but neither is Theriot.

APRTW wrote:

I think the odds have increased that Jay or Craig is included in the coming Ryan trade.

Could be, but on the other hand that looks like a classic La Russa platoon situation.