He was placed on the Restricted List once the State Dept. revoked his Visa. As I understand that’s an administrative function allowed by baseball that allows an organization to retain the rights to a player while removing that player from any active participation in your system.

It’s quite possible that the money in question is the salary that they didn’t pay him this year while he was on the restricted list. If so, then I believe baseball rules would favor the Giants in this case (he was suspended or kicked out, because of his situation he couldn’t show up for work).

On a larger issue, if a kid who got a $2mil signing bonus a few years back is worried about 10k, then I think I’m getting some insight into how his legal case proceeded.

Bottom line…if you’re unable to work, then it’s not the employer’s fault that he didn’t get paid. That’s what happened.

I don’t know if there’s a truly guilty party in all of this, assuming positive intent that the cops pursued who they thought was guilty to the best of the evidence they had, but I think the Giants are far down on the list of responsible parties.

They could petition the State Dept. and give testimonials and other forms of persuasion. But they have no power over the decision.

I don’t believe either Simon or Urbina were actually arrested, only blackmailed.

The shots will be flowing — and ringing out — in the DR.

He did pay off the family. From what I understand, it’s common practice to do that, if the accused person is wealthy. I’m not saying that excuses what happened, though.

I don’t know if its like this in the DR, but in the US the amount of evidence needed to go to trial is significantly less than that needed to secure a guilty verdict. In other words, there’s usually more evidence against a person found innocent at trial than against someone who never got one.

“He absolutely murdered that ball.”
“If it’s the bottom of the 9th and the Giants have one last shot to tie it up., Villalona is just the guy you want taking that shot.”

That’s the thing. I could make an argument that he’s innocent and that he’s guilty. Like I said above, paying off the family doesn’t look good, but it’s a common practice in the DR. He could have been rolling with some no-good idiots in his posse and someone decided to shoot a gun and look cool, and blamed Villalona for it. Maybe he thought he could shoot a gun and look cool because he was a baller. All of these scenarios are likely. None of them stand out to me as what really happened.

Do you assume his guilt?

Those were the days.

I sure hope that this ordeal gives him a much needed overhaul. He’s undoubtedly talented but never could harness that talent. I think this type of thing would be the wakeup call he needs.

Simpson and Anthony were tried, so lots of evidence was presented. In fact, Simpson lost his civil trial and Anthony was just found responsible for her daughter’s death. Villalona hasn’t been tried, and the evidence against him is heavily tainted by the strong possibility of extortion. The cases have absolutely nothing to do with one another. If Villalona comes back to play baseball, and does so well, the fans seem to me—suppress your fit of the giggles here, please—likely to ascribe the accusation to extortion, and to cheer him on. He would have a future to win favor from his clientele, as Simpson and Anthony don’t, I assume. If Villalona comes back and plays badly, no one will care whether he shot someone in a bar or not.

People don’t presume innocence. They’re supposed to, but they don’t.

Every media-fueled and celebrity trial confirms this. OJ Simpson, Casey Anthony, Laci Peterson, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, R. Kelly – it doesn’t matter whether they’re found guilty or innocent, everyone ALWAYS thinks they’re guilty beforehand and continues to no matter what the verdict.

I won’t prolong this discussion past this comment, dude. We agree, except about the sadness, maybe. What you think is sad, I think is rational. But we apparently agree that no one will really care whether he has killed someone or not. A substantial number of the general American public, we seem to agree, doesn’t care about proof, whether it’s a court case, evolution, or the Copernican system. On this principle, fans on the road will produce whatever catcalls come to mind, whether true wholly or in part or not at all, as long as they are nasty enough to satisfy the catcallers. If a player reputedly gets cuckolded or has a nose like Cyrano de Bergerac’s or (when I was a kid) happened to be black, that would be the substance of catcalls. A suspicion or accusation or rumor will do as well as a fact. Fans at home will defend him, and—this was my carelessly stated point—those Giant fans (the only ones I care about) would be able, overwhelmingly, to have clear consciences in defending Villalona, for the reasons stated. I’m sorry I didn’t say Giant fans in my first post, and am glad to have the opportunity to correct my lapse.