If we're limiting ourselves to only players that aren't douche-bags, we're going to have a pretty thin roster.
Sure; and I don't think anyone advocated
not signing Callaspo simply because of the aforementioned incident—just noted that it was troubling, even if it resulted in no criminal action.
I also don't really reasonably expect teams to embargo players with bad behavior or criminal misdeeds—if a player is good enough to contribute,
some team will sign him, even if certain others avoid him—but, who knows: if enough consumers find it troubling, and troubling enough to protest with their mouths and monies, maybe that expectation will change.
Meanwhile—though I'm all for second-chances—it might be nice if the league took some of the punitive action out of the hands of individual teams and introduced compulsory suspensions for players found criminally liable for domestic violence (even in cases of pre-trial intervention, which is very common with the wealthy and successful set to which most professional athletes belong); it could be graduated, like substance-abuse penalties, based on the number of infractions. But however it worked out, it'd be nice to have
some mechanisms in place so that teams don't have to balance being punitive with being competitive.
At the very least, the outgoing commissioner—for as proactive as he's supposedly been regarding drug-use—has been seriously inactive on this front. Personally, I find punching ladies a lot more objectionable than popping pills et cetera.