There are some stories that I miss discussing on the radio.
The demotion of shortstop Colt Emerson back to Triple A Tacoma is one of those.
The move should’ve been made a month ago, and it’s really hard for me to see an acceptable explanation for why a player as important to the franchise’s future as Emerson was left to wither in the big leagues for as long as he was.
He struck out in 68 of his last 187 plate appearances in the big leagues, 36.4 percent. The fact that I felt relieved when I got to Yankee Stadium on Thursday and saw he wasn’t in the lineup should tell you the Mariners screwed up.
There are other stories that I do not miss debating on the radio.
The addition of cornerback Terrion Arnold is one of those.
Arnold was the 24th overall selection in the 2024 draft. He plays a position where the Seahawks lack proven depth.
In football terms, it’s a no-brainer. Arnold could make the Seahawks significantly better at minimal cost.
However, he is facing eight felony charges in Florida over his alleged role in a kidnapping and armed robbery.
There was a time I believed it was important to debate and hash out just how everyone might feel about an NFL team employing a player who’s facing these sorts of allegations.
That’s back when I was more naive, though.
Now, I can only see the flaws in every side of the argument. I don’t believe there’s a right answer to the question; only different degrees of wrong on every side.
I also know that any discussion of this will ultimately wind up settling into a spot where everyone agrees:
This is a less than ideal situation
The Seahawks are doing what’s in their own best interest as a football team
The fact that people have vouched for Arnold is a positive sign
If Arnold were less capable on the field, he probably wouldn’t be getting this opportunity
So now that I’ve skipped to the end of that particular debate, I’m going to offer a few overall conclusions I’ve reached when it comes to employing professional athletes facing criminal scrutiny.
These do not apply to the case of Arnold specifically. They are more general truths:
“Due diligence” is window dressing
Having people vouch for a player’s character sounds good, but it’s not really all that meaningful. I suppose it’s a good sign the guy’s got friends and/or advocates, but I’ve seen plenty of players get glowing on-the-record recommendations after a legal scrape who turn out to be habitual problems. Jerramy Stevens comes to mind. Speaking from experience, that dude made me believe he turned over a new leaf on two different occasions. (Spoiler: He had not, in fact, turned over a new leaf).
Turns out that some people who habitually do bad things can also be remarkably charming when it comes to convincing others they are, in fact, trustworthy.
Criminal proceedings don’t offer as much clarity as implied
A police officer’s conclusion that someone committed a specific criminal act should not be mistaken for definitive proof that this individual did it. By the same token, a not guilty verdict or a charge being dismissed does not mean the individual was innocent, either.
Our criminal-justice system favors individuals and institutions with resources. Whenever someone says, “We need to let the legal system play out,” I assume that’s rooted in self-interest as opposed to any underlying sense of fairness or justice.
Physical talent muddies all these decisions in the NFL. Every. Single. One.
It’s tempting to portray Detroit’s decision to cut Terrion Arnold in ethical, even moral terms. It’s just as easy to imply that Seattle is hedging on its character criteria.
The truth is that all NFL teams operate with something of a sliding scale.
The Seahawks are signing Arnold because they believe he’s better than any other player that could be acquired at this price point. If a player of equal talent were available for these terms, tie would go to the guy not facing felonies.
Similarly, if Arnold had played better the past two seasons he played in Detroit, I’m not sure the Lions would have ever released him. Instead, not only was Arnold penalty-prone and failing to live up to first-round expectations, but now he was facing criminal charges.
NFL teams are more similar than different in these situations
I’m not saying NFL executives and coaches are lying when they talk about the importance of character in player evaluations.
I’m not saying there aren’t teams—such as the Bengals under Marvin Lewis—that show MORE latitude toward players with a history of criminal charges.
However, I do think that most teams use their character criteria in much the same way the Pirate Code works in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise (i.e. it’s more of a guideline).
Exceptions can be made. Exceptions ARE made.
Ability plays a huge part in that. So does the size of the financial commitment.
I have no objection to the Seahawks signing Arnold. I think that’s consistent with the perspective I’ve had on other instances Seattle has signed players facing criminal charges such as Mychal Kendricks.
I’m also not someone who thinks the Seahawks are operating on a higher moral plane when it comes to decisions like this.
