Key note, the team suspended Ozzie, not MLB.

John Rocker was suspended 28 games for his comments in an SI article, the union appealed and it was reduced to 14.

If your employer has an issue with how you represent them (which, a manager's comments certainly do), then they have every right to do it.

I'm a big proponent of free speech and people being allowed to say things like this.  But legally, if they don't want him to say things like this, then too bad for him.

I think the key words in the above comment are "like this." The Marlins don't want their employees to say things, "like this." If I worked for them, I would need some guidance about what things are "like this." Can an employee be suspended for having spoken words when he is informed "post facto" that he isn't allowed to speak words "like this."

The team can do what it wants and I don't think there's much of legal argument against the suspension.  I understand financially why the team made this choice.  Still I wish there was more tolerance by both the Cuban community in Florida and for companies in general for differences of opinion -- and let's face it in this incident maybe a sense of humour/perspective about what's really being said. This is a victory for overly-literal mindedness and small mindedness.  Sad.

I'm sure his contract says something about acting professionally or not embarrassing the organization. My employer doesn't spell out what I can and cannot say... but I'm sure if I went to a trade show or something representing my work and started offended people they'd be issuing punishment.

Ah, American politics.  There's nothing like it. 

I would argue that this is something that can happen equally in Canada. It's not just American politics. It's something that was especially stupid to say in Miami but a Canadian could be equally offensive and be suspended for making comments on some sensitive Canadian subject.

As far as the comments themselves, the Marlins were perfectly within their rights to do what they did. As someone already noted, there is probably a catch-all "behaviour" clause in his contract that this action fits within. Because of the special place of the Cuban exile community within Miami politics and culture, the club simply had to do something.

I find it funny because this is like hiring Don Cherry then being shocked, shocked I say when he says something really dumb.

It should be noted that Ozzie called Jay Mariotti a "[censored] fag" last year and it was dismissed as Ozzie being Ozzie (with a nominal monetary fine, I believe).

[Feel free to insert comment about Jay Mariotti.]

As others have said, given the prominence of the Cuban community in Miami and because he was at least implicitly representing the Marlins when he said this, I understand why they felt they had to and have the right to act.

However unsurprising, it's still revealing to see what battles teams choose to fight and not fight.

Yes. Your employer doesn't have to tell you not to embezzle funds, either, or not to alienate key customers. Jobs come with expectations of judgement.

One of the reasons Ozzie was hired was the belief that he would represent the team to the Miami community, and strengthen those ties. Anyone with an IQ over 70 should grok that praising Fidel Castro in Miami (and granted, this was faint praise) is the opposite of that. If Ozzie wasn't so known for shooting off his mouth, it would have ended his tenure entirely. Oddly, his reputation as a loose cannon has bought him some grace.

As it is, he has a lot of work to do, and he is beginning to grasp that.

And guys, if you tally the dead, you'd be better off as a dissident in Pinochet's Chile. Though "better" off in either case is a very relative term. Castro is an unreconstructed monster, and his survival has been a net loss for humanity. The fact that he has a lot of company among Latin American leaders does not change this, or excuse what he or they are. The more interesting question to me is why there is such a deep pattern of producing them in that region, one that definitely crosses ideological boundaries.

"I think the key words in the above comment are "like this." The Marlins don't want their employees to say things, "like this." If I worked for them, I would need some guidance about what things are "like this." Can an employee be suspended for having spoken words when he is informed "post facto" that he isn't allowed to speak words "like this.""


It's rather like the "moral turpitude" clause in a teacher's contract.

You can bet your sweet bippy there's a clause in his contract that says something about not bringing disrepute upon the organization or some such. it's impossible to define all the possible ways one can do that - it's management's judgement


for another example, see the football coach at Arkansas who just lost his job when a motorcycle wreck outed an affair he was having with a young co-worker.


As for "freedom of speech" - doesn't apply here in any fashion. You have no right to freedom of speech with your employer, only with the government.

"Ah, American politics. There's nothing like it. "

A. this ain't politics, it's PR

B. Politics is politics, everywhere people are free enough for their votes to have ANY meaning. I know it's fashionable for those outside the U.S. to assume their sort is superior but...nah.

You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to avoid any and all consequences of your chosen speech. Guillen picked a bad thing to make a joke about - in Miami. I think it's OK to have begrudging respect for Castro - lacking a personal connection to it, it's easy to forget about the terrible things a dictator has done, and just be amazed that they pulled it off. Lots of people "love" historical figures that did terrible things - it's easier when the things are deep in the past. But Castro isn't actually gone yet, and most of his direct victims are still around (or are dead within living memory).

If I'm Miami, I'd worry more about his recent comments indicating that he gets drunk after every single game, and has been doing this for his entire career (playing included, apparently).

I was going to post that what Ozzie really meant was that he admired Castro's homophobia, but that seemed to me to be well past the Gottfried line (50% offence, 50% humour).  In all seriousness, I suspect he meant that he admired Castro's ability to survive in the face of a much bigger and stronger opponent. 

My reference to "American politics" concerns the uniquely American approach to Cuba which has been present since Castro arrived on the scene.  This approach had nothing to do with the expat community in Florida.

A funny thing is if he said that here in Toronto (scary thought, having him run the Jays) he'd probably be praised by many locals, or at worst ignored as stating something that was obvious (that Castro is impressive for surviving all these years when so many other dictators around the world, who have provoked the US less, have been unable to survive). Btw, not saying that Castro should be admired overall, just his ability to survive much like a cockroach.

Let's remember that Ozzie got suspended for something he said, not did. And I do not think the rights of an employer to fire or suspend an employee are absolute. If someone says something innocuous that an employer takes offense to and the employee gets fired, there could be a wrongful dismissal suit in the works.

Those who said it was the Marlins who suspended him - please refer to the quoted passages - MLB endorsed the action. MLB/Selig has final say about everything the teams do.

It's all about the Benjamin's.  Follow the money.

Guillen's statement could cost the Marlins at the gate and on TV.  Therefore Guillen had to be sacrificed.  I don't think it would be an issue in 29 other MLB cities. 

It is an attack on free speech but don't believe what you read about free speech being protected in the USA, it depends on what you are free speeching about.

You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to avoid any and all consequences of your chosen speech.  Guillen picked a bad thing to make a joke about - in Miami. I think it's OK to have begrudging respect for Castro - lacking a personal connection to it, it's easy to forget about the terrible things a dictator has done, and just be amazed that they pulled it off.

This pretty much nails it.  Well said.

If I have no affiliation with anyone and I say something like that and am thrown in jail because of it, then we can talk about attacking freedom of speech.

I wonder what John Farrell could possibly say about foreign policy that would get him in trouble here.  I suppose if he pulled a Rumsfeld and said that Hitler did some good things, that would do it.  Personally, I would expect management to take him aside and say, "John, you're here to manage a ballclub not to spout off your political opinions and piss off many of our fans in the process.", and then a warning letter if he did it again.  Progressive discipline and all that.

It is true that part of a manager's job is media relations. 

The freedom of speech is not absolute and given that there is no government involvement in the suspension I am puzzled by this meme. Guillen's comments, while considered simply bad taste in almost any other demographic, are considered reprehensible and hurtful by a rather large and influential community within the Marlin's consumer base. Whether or not you believe the suspension was warranted, the Marlins were certainly well within their rights to take disciplinary action in order to protect their business. Of course, this also ignores the hypocrisy in which has been their complete lack of effort to protect their business since Loria assumed ownership but that is a different kettle of Boliche.

A question, if people consider the suspension an attack on free speech, aren't any restrictions on expression by any entity an attack as well? As stated within the Batter's Box own Ground Rules, any poster that decides that the views I have just expressed are idiotic and subsequently attacks my opinion with a litany of profanity could lose their right to post on this site. Would that not be considered an attack on free speech by that standard?

The Marlins were absolutely within their rights to do what they did. When you represent a company or organization, you have to realize what you say may have consequences, especially when they will have a direct negative impact on said company or organization.

And robert, to use your Truman analogy, if I was managing a club in Nagasaki, the last thing I would say to a reporter is that Truman was correct in dropping the bombs. On the other hand if I were managing a club in Nanking, the last thing I would be discussing is how wrong it was for Truman to have dropped those A-bombs.

(that Castro is impressive for surviving all these years when so many other dictators around the world, who have provoked the US less, have been unable to survive)

This wasn't where Ozzie got himself in trouble. The fact that he said "I love Castro" was what killed him. Those three words can be put into any tweet, headline or news ticker, and context no longer matters. You really can't unring that bell once it's out there. What he said wasn't quite Al Campanis-level stupid, but coming anywhere near something pro-Castro is just stupid, stupid, stupid. If he had said it anywhere else, except for maybe New York, this would have just been another "Ozzie-being-Ozzie" moment.

I wonder what John Farrell could possibly say about foreign policy that would get him in trouble here.

Nothing?  Delgado had his anti-Iraq war protests, and Canadians were cool with it.  He got some boos in the US, but freedom of speech is genuinely celebrated in Canada.  In the US, challenging someone's opinions (on abortion, foreign policy, religion, Israel, you name it) is a political move.  When Delgado was doing his protest, there were US government emplolees getting fired for expressing concerns about a war that history has demonstrated was fought on false pretenses. 

Guillen's situation was sadly predictable.

"It is an attack on free speech but don't believe what you read about free speech being protected in the USA, it depends on what you are free speeching about."

insert graphic of head banging against wall here.

First amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

***CONGRESS*** shall make no law ...infringing the right of free speech.

The 14th amendment expands that understanding to all jurisdictions of GOVERNMENT.

There is no such thing as free speech - in any country in the world - in the private sector. It does not apply to this subject in ANY sense.


It IS true that there are official and unofficial limits to free speech(national security, for instance) - as there are in EVERY country. But all of that is irrelevant to this incident.

"And I do not think the rights of an employer to fire or suspend an employee are absolute."

Absolute? No.

but very broad when you can make the case that the words affect your ability to do business.

I wonder what John Farrell could possibly say about foreign policy that would get him in trouble here.

By "here", I assume you mean Canada. Depends what you mean by "trouble". As has already been mentioned a couple of times - if Ozzie's still in Chicago, it's probably not as much of an issue. Plus, I don't think Ozzie's comment was about "foreign policy". It was a statement of admiration for someone who is not really an admirable person, on the whole, in an area where lots of people directly affected by that person reside.  Also, I'm assuming you DON'T mean just "in trouble with Rogers" - I'm sure any number of comments about Ted Rogers, or how the CRTC should totally make Rogers/Bell/etc charge less for internet/cell/tv or that Rogers is monopolistic would be sufficient to get him reprimanded internally or fired.

Anytime you have an area with a large group of people with shared attributes, certain opinions can cause trouble.

For example (leaving aside the obvious war criminals/holocaust/ethnic cleansing comments): let's say John Farrell is coaching les Expos instead. Any number of statements regarding the 7 years war, how Charles de Gaulle's famous "Vive le Quebec libre" was offensive, or how Quebec is dragging down Ontario, and he wishes the 1995 vote had been in favor of "yes" and that they'd be gone already or that French is a stupid language and sounds even worse than german (I'm german, I'm allowed :-), that Trudeau or Levesque were losers, etc, etc... Anything along that line would be sure to draw lots of ire in Quebec (or, probably, Ottawa as well).

John Rocker-like comments about immigrants/multiculturalism would probably not be well received by the Toronto community (or AA).

Something like "we'll kill those Yankees like the British took care of the Metis in 1837" would raise some eyebrows.

Expressing praise/disdain for Don Cherry would rankle many (one way or the other). Saying that hockey was a lesser sport than football, baseball or basketball would upset many Canadian sports fans.

Politics: "Stephen Harper is the only hope Canada has of ever becoming a little like the glorious US - why did you ever get rid of Mulroney??" "Mike Harris was the best premier Ontario ever had." "Bob Rae was the best premier Ontario ever had", etc...

And then there's the piece de resistance: Now that I've been in Canada a little while, I can see that Canadians are really just American wannabes who are too chicken sh*t to speak up for their own rights or stand behind their opinions. All their talk of tolerance is just a smoke screen to cover up the fact that they have no self-confidence and can't make up their minds about anything without having the media feed it to them. The few who do have to leave for the US to get away from all the mediocrity. Not to mention that the US could invade Canada at any time, and they only reason we haven't done so is that we don't need anymore whiny, self-entitled welfare snots who are afraid of a hard day's work...

(sorry that most of my political examples are older - after 8 years of getting beaten over the head with politics here in California, my desire to read MORE about politics isn't what it used to be...)

Nothing?  Delgado had his anti-Iraq war protests, and Canadians were cool with it.

Well, sure - he was talking about the US. US-bashing is the #1 sport in Canada, even over hockey. I'm not saying it's all ill-founded, but if there's one way to ensure yourself of popularity in Canada, go against something in the US..

Now imagine if the CN tower had been hit instead. I'm sure Canadians would have a totally different viewpoint of everything involved with those events.

Hard to come up with a good Canadian parallel to praising Castro. Back in the 70's praise for the Quebec separatist movement might have done it, but today? Hrm. Hard to say what could reach that level via praise for an individual or group that is still kicking. Castro for example has many supporters. Both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict have supporters (very polarized so any comments would anger a large group) but picking one or the other wouldn't be enough. Heck, being pro-George Bush would anger a lot of people here while being anti would anger a lot of others.

Just saying something positive about any currently living group and getting in trouble here in Canada ... just cannot think of one that would be as universally condemned as anything involving Castro would be in Florida.

I'm sure praising Al-Qaeda would set off a firestorm in Canada, and rightly so. And I don't think it would be only a 5 game suspension.

Wasn't it just a year or two ago that someone was fired at a Canadian sports entity for tweeting his opposition to gay marriage? Strange what free speech we will tolerate, or not.

Anyone in the public eye should try to control what they say. If Ozzie spoke without being asked about Castro then his mistake was being careless. If he was asked about Castro he should have said no comment. The reporter should then have been cautioned in private to ask questions about the game.

IMO Ozzie has to win as do all the NL East teams except NYM. All these teams have made expensive commitments so results are expected, but there are only 3 playoff spots available. I think they are all on a short leash.

Great respect, but I don't think Americans need political lectures from Canadians. If you like countries with dictators, countries that you can flee at night on a boat, your preference is your prerogative. Miami has numerous ex-Cubans who feel differently and as Tamra has already pointed out, freedom of speech regulates the state, not the actions of private companies against employees who undermine the business with their public comments.

The whole thing is kind of ironic..

He was brought in specially to connect with the Latin community... And he has done the opposite..

I would like to think they had their PR people brief him about how Castro is kind of a sensitive issue.. But unfortunately Ozzie is an idiot..

He once said about Alex Rios encounter with a 13 year old boy...

“If you put yourself in Alex Rios’ shoes, that kid is lucky it wasn’t Ozzie,” Guillen said. “I would beat the (bleep) out of him and the guys."

Ya that's right... Ozzie said he would beat up a 13 year old boy, and nobody cared... Must have been a slow news week..

There are literally hundreds of reasonable candidates for a managerial job.. Probably thousands.. Heck, St Louis made a guy manager who hasn't even managed a game anywhere... Maybe I put too large of a discount on the effect of a manager, but I will never understand why a team would want to deal with a manager who can create so much PR damage....

Great respect, but I don't think Americans need political lectures from Canadians.

I tried but failed to understand what this means.  Why can't Canadians can't talk about America?  What is it about America that makes America not need critical thinking from anyone?  I always thought open dialogue was at the center of a good government.

Now imagine if the CN tower had been hit instead. I'm sure Canadians would have a totally different viewpoint of everything involved with those events. If the CN Tower was hit Canadians would have a different view of the US testing missiles in PR?

Now imagine if the CN tower had been hit instead. I'm sure Canadians would have a totally different viewpoint of everything involved with those events. If the CN Tower was hit Canadians would have a different view of the US testing missiles in PR?

No, Canadians would have a different view of the war in Iraq. Delgado was protesting multiple issues, AFAIK..

Who knows?  When polled in 2003, New Yorkers were split on the war in Iraq, with almost half not accepting the administration's view that there was an association between 9/11 (which they as New Yorkers had directly experienced) and the "WMDs" which the administration said Iraq possessed.  New Yorkers were much less supportive of the war than Americans as a whole.

Now, how about those Blue Jays.

Now, how about those Blue Jays. Indeed. This thread is a good reminder why the Box does not have political discussions.

Clearly, the box does have political discussions - it's having one right now.

As always, Dave Zirin is a fascinating read on the intersections of sports and politics, and he's got some interesting thoughts on the Guillen situation. 

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2012-04-09-717/index.html

Whereas Luke Scott....

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7800493/the-idiocy-ozzie-guillen-cuba-mess

I bet there are more people upset ove Luke Scott calling Fenway a dump than over his political statements.