Why is Mike Scott even on the roster/playing?

[sturt]

Until he confesses in court there is nothing to be done.

Yep. And, until there's a court date, there will be no such confession or verdict.

[Q45T]

Well he looked good out there... 

[macdaddy]

The fact that he is playing is a good sign that there will be some kind of plea deal to lesser charges.   If the Hawks were sure that he'd be suspended for two years they wouldn't waste their time.   Plus if every player who was awaiting trial wasn't playing I could probably try out for at least the D-league.  

[sturt]

It's all conjecture... that is, except for what the CBA mandates.

Again again... it serves the Hawks no good to cut Scott, since it just creates a new hole in the roster, and one for which there is no similar talent available to fill the void, not to mention, one for which they would have no way of replacing the $3.3m number on the salary cap spreadsheet.

And again again... if you're going to have him on the roster, why would you not use him? Why, without a court date confirmed and without one likely (evidently) to be confirmed for awhile yet, would you assume you won't have him for the entire season... or even just the first month?

And and again again... the CBA mandates what the CBA mandates. I don't get this idea that somehow the NBA is going to look the other way and make themselves out to be spineless, all over a guy who isn't even a starter, let alone Michael Jordan. The Hawks are doing what the Hawks are doing, imo, not because they have some notion that he's going to be let off the hook, but because they recognize it makes no sense for them to approach this in any other way than they're approaching it... and there's a distinct chance seemingly that Scott wouldn't have a court date until late in the season, or even after the season.

Why's that important? His salary isn't guaranteed for next season anyhow. So, from a cold front office perspective, if we can get through this season, or even most of it, without a court date, that's lemonade.

 

[mtnbayou]

Never carry more than an ounce Mike, usually stiffer penalties in the anti-pot states.  I hope he at least had some super dank.  Now riding around (or having) the Molly is just plain not smart.

[Duff_Man]

Pro athletes don't go to jail, silly!

[nitte]

Pro athletes don't go to jail, silly!

That's what Michael Vick was thinking

[macdaddy]

Does the average person go to jail for this offense thought?   I think not.   Check this out:

 

http://patch.com/georgia/cartersville/two-molly-defendants-plead-guilty

 

So 7 people arrested with large quantities of molly with intent to distribute.    The guy who is obviously a drug dealer gets 5 years in prison and 25 years probation.    That's for possession of "large quantities" of molly and weed with intent to distribute.  Five of the other 6 got their charges dropped.   And one got basically nothing.  

[sturt]

I don't get the conversation about going to jail.

Doesn't matter to the CBA.

Conviction of anything with regard to the Molly, as that is categorized as a "drug of abuse," means 2 years suspension. Conviction. So, even merely getting a $1 fine... even getting probation... even merely being told "guilty, but just don't do it anymore, okay?"... 2 years is what the CBA prescribes.

We can argue whether the justice system will follow-through with prosecution... though given the video confession, it's difficult to understand how they could justify not doing so. We can argue whether Scott will change his story, and whether his brother ends up taking the hit, instead. And, we can argue whether the NBA will enforce what they seemingly pursued putting into the CBA in the first place.

But we can't argue what the CBA says.

[macdaddy]

I don't get the conversation about going to jail.

Doesn't matter to the CBA.

Conviction of anything with regard to the Molly, as that is categorized as a "drug of abuse," means 2 years suspension. Conviction. So, even merely getting a $1 fine... even getting probation... even merely being told "guilty, but just don't do it anymore, okay?"... 2 years is what the CBA prescribes.

We can argue whether the justice system will follow-through with prosecution... though given the video confession, it's difficult to understand how they could justify not doing so. We can argue whether Scott will change his story, and whether his brother ends up taking the hit, instead. And, we can argue whether the NBA will enforce what they seemingly pursued putting into the CBA in the first place.

But we can't argue what the CBA says.

Right.  And i don't think anyone is arguing what the cba says.   You did a great job of pointing out all the directions this can go though.  So you can't argue that he WILL get 2 years suspension either.

[sturt]

Right.  And i don't think anyone is arguing what the cba says.   You did a great job of pointing out all the directions this can go though.  So you can't argue that he WILL get 2 years suspension either.

Right. And, I didn't. :D

I suppose my point of that last post is this: The jail conversation seems a diversion from what matters to us selfishly as fans (ie, the situation's ultimate effect on his availability to play).