Poll: what do you think of the Astros’ punishment?

[DrungoHazewood]

17 hours ago, SteveA said:

Yeah, and what does it really mean?   The fans still remember the championship, and the celebration.   Do USC fans feel any different about the 2004 national championship because it was "vacated"?   I don't think so.   I guess they can't fly a flag over the football field, or display a trophy in a trophy case.

The Astros championship will now be tainted in a lot of people's minds, and not in others.   Making some official statement that there was no champion that year, what does that really add?   Are you going to declare the Dodgers the champions now?   Are they going to have a parade for them in LA?

It's meaningless and I'm not sure what the people calling for it really are asking for.

I'm not in favor of airbrushing out history.  The titles happened.  You can't pretend that they didn't.  I was at a 2004 game at FedEx where USC beat Virginia Tech.  For some reason they get to keep that win, but not several others from that season and the next.  Nevertheless, all those games happened, millions of people saw them, and it's silly to play make-believe they didn't.  

[DrungoHazewood]

23 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I've said before that the issues I have is with the lack of guidelines in place and how this ruling doesn't follow established precedent.  If I were to exclude those factors and just look at it from a punishment standpoint I don't think it is out of line.

All they would have had to do was after the Apple Watch incident make it clear that future violations would result in suspensions for the executives involved and the forfeiture of draft picks in addition to the fine the Red Sox were subject to.  But MLB won't do that.

It's my understanding that the rules didn't set forth a specific punishment for violating the ban on electronic equipment in the dugout.  To me that's the main difference between this and gambling.   A lifetime ban has been the punishment for gambling since at least 1877.  Jim Devlin was banned in the '77 Louisville scandal, and spent most of the 1880s literally begging for reinstatement, destitute and living on the streets before dying of the consumption.

What's the punishment for electronic sign stealing?  I don't know, but in most cases it's been nothing.  To me it's unprecedented to impose draconian penalties for something like this.  Loss of draft picks seems somewhat reasonable.

[NCRaven]

MLB sent a memorandum to all of the teams outlining what was not allowed.  One of the reasons that Luhnow was hit hard was that he failed to ensure that the memorandum was distributed to staff and players and to reinforce the league's position on the issue.  He basically showed a disregard for the issue.  Having the punishment be flexible based on the individual circumstances seems reasonable to me.

[Number5]

40 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's my understanding that the rules didn't set forth a specific punishment for violating the ban on electronic equipment in the dugout.  To me that's the main difference between this and gambling.   A lifetime ban has been the punishment for gambling since at least 1877.  Jim Devlin was banned in the '77 Louisville scandal, and spent most of the 1880s literally begging for reinstatement, destitute and living on the streets before dying of the consumption.

What's the punishment for electronic sign stealing?  I don't know, but in most cases it's been nothing.  To me it's unprecedented to impose draconian penalties for something like this.  Loss of draft picks seems somewhat reasonable.

So we should take the vote away from women and hang horse thieves because that's what they did in 1877?

The hypocrisy of banning Pete Rose for life while - at the very same time - quietly slapping the wrist of an umpire that gambled and was indebted to illegal bookmakers is a black stain on the game that receives incredibly little notoriety.  The same umpire a decade or so later pretended not to see a fan reaching out onto the field of play to interfere during an ALCS game, despite being positioned in such a way to have to have seen it unless his eyes were closed.  Said umpire was later actually promoted to a supervisory position, only to be summarily dismissed under suspicious circumstances in another playoff series.  Failure to hold umpires to a standard of integrity at least as high as the standard set for players is inexcusable.

[DrungoHazewood]

49 minutes ago, Number5 said:

So we should take the vote away from women and hang horse thieves because that's what they did in 1877?

The hypocrisy of banning Pete Rose for life while - at the very same time - quietly slapping the wrist of an umpire that gambled and was indebted to illegal bookmakers is a black stain on the game that receives incredibly little notoriety.  The same umpire a decade or so later pretended not to see a fan reaching out onto the field of play to interfere during an ALCS game, despite being positioned in such a way to have to have seen it unless his eyes were closed.  Said umpire was later actually promoted to a supervisory position, only to be summarily dismissed under suspicious circumstances in another playoff series.  Failure to hold umpires to a standard of integrity at least as high as the standard set for players is inexcusable.

No, we should ban the umpire for life, not celebrate Pete Rose.  Following good ethical practices isn't old-fashioned, it's just right. 

Are you actually suggesting that rules against gambling on games a person is involved with are the same as denying people the right to vote?  I'm at a loss as to how that makes any sense at all.

[atomic]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The slight nuance separating the two things is that gambling on baseball has been explicitly called out as a banning offense since the 1800s, while the rules are totally and completely silent on losing today to win more tomorrow.

Your position is that you should get the death penalty for murder because the law allows for that, but the death penalty should also apply to things that are currently legal but that you don't like.

This isn't related to murder.  This is about ruining the sport of  baseball.  Who is more likely to ruin the game. Pete Rose betting on his own team or a bunch of teams losing on purpose?

And why do you think they don't want managers or players to bet on baseball?  They don't want them to lose on purpose.  And that is what Elias is actually doing. 

[Number5]

45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

No, we should ban the umpire for life, not celebrate Pete Rose.  Following good ethical practices isn't old-fashioned, it's just right. 

Are you actually suggesting that rules against gambling on games a person is involved with are the same as denying people the right to vote?  I'm at a loss as to how that makes any sense at all.

I beg your pardon.  I didn't say anything of the kind.  My point was and remains that It was highly hypocritical to ban Pete Rose for life and quietly slap the wrist of Richie Garcia at the same time.  That is NOT an endorsement of Pete Rose.

I also made the point that your comment that what was done in 1877 was somehow pertinent was just plain silly.

[NCRaven]

8 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I also made the point that your comment that what was done in 1877 was somehow pertinent was just plain silly.

No.  The historical reference simply puts the Pete Rose ban in context with the history of the game.  It wasn't an isolated incident.  The ban has been in place and used over a long period of time.  The comment was pertinent.

[Number5]

7 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

No.  The historical reference simply puts the Pete Rose ban in context with the history of the game.  It wasn't an isolated incident.  The ban has been in place and used over a long period of time.  The comment was pertinent.

I disagree.  If anything, it is very much out of context, given the sea of differences between the game and the organization and administration thereof between 1877 and the modern day game.  Again, how we punished horse thieves in 1877 is not pertinent to today.  Well, I've made my point that life's situations in 1877 are irrelevant to this discussion, and certainly nothing has been said here to change my mind on that.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

This isn't related to murder.  This is about ruining the sport of  baseball.  Who is more likely to ruin the game. Pete Rose betting on his own team or a bunch of teams losing on purpose?

And why do you think they don't want managers or players to bet on baseball?  They don't want them to lose on purpose.  And that is what Elias is actually doing. 

There's a large difference between not putting in the resources to make a 55 win team into a 70 win team, and the manager putting in his 11th-best reliever or burning through tired players because they have to lose/win today's game because somebody has money on it.  Also, not productive to have the ethically corrupt manager of the Reds in debt to mobsters.

The threat of running a team based on betting is far, far worse than Mike Elias pooling resources to expend later when it matters.

[DrungoHazewood]

28 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I beg your pardon.  I didn't say anything of the kind.  My point was and remains that It was highly hypocritical to ban Pete Rose for life and quietly slap the wrist of Richie Garcia at the same time.  That is NOT an endorsement of Pete Rose.

I also made the point that your comment that what was done in 1877 was somehow pertinent was just plain silly.

Agreed - slapping Richie Garcia's wrist was stupid.  He should have been punished severely.

I don't see how it's silly to continue to follow long-established rules against unethical behavior.

[NCRaven]

4 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Again, how we punished horse thieves in 1877 is not pertinent to today.  

But, how do we punish horse thieves today?  10 lashes with a buggy whip? 

[DrungoHazewood]

20 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

No.  The historical reference simply puts the Pete Rose ban in context with the history of the game.  It wasn't an isolated incident.  The ban has been in place and used over a long period of time.  The comment was pertinent.

Players, managers and the like have stolen signs and used devices to steal signs for eons.  They've never been subject to severe punishment.  It's been treated like bat corking or ball scuffing.  Misdemeanors.

Baseball has consistently enforced strict punishments on gambling.  

It would be unusual to suddenly elevate crimes long treated as misdemeanors to felonies.

[NCRaven]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Players, managers and the like have stolen signs and used devices to steal signs for eons.  They've never been subject to severe punishment.  It's been treated like bat corking or ball scuffing.  Misdemeanors.

Baseball has consistently enforced strict punishments on gambling.  

It would be unusual to suddenly elevate crimes long treated as misdemeanors to felonies.

Video surveillance doesn't have a long existence within the game.  The technology to see the signs and then transmit the information to the dugout and then the players on the field simply didn't exist.  Even today, if a player on secondbase sees the sign and signals to the hitter, it is not a violation, i.e., not even a misdemeanor, much less a felony.  It's the introduction of technology that is a big change.  You don't even need to get a player to second if you can simply put a camera in centerfield.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

But, how do we punish horse thieves today?  10 lashes with a buggy whip? 

Death by hanging is well beyond the maximum penalty.  Point is, 1877 is just plain not comparable to 1990 or today.  The 1919 World Series would have been a better comparison for Drungo to have pulled up from the past, IMO.  The Karras-Hornung one year ban in the NFL is more pertinent than 1877 baseball, but is also not quite relevant, given that it is a different sport with a different organization.

I think that perhaps you and Drungo are somehow perceiving my comments as being in defense of Pete Rose.  They are not.  I have no problem with his banishment.  I remain outraged at Garcia's not being punished in kind at the same period of time.  If anything, umpires should be held more accountable than players and managers, not less.  The very heart of the game is attacked when an umpire is illegally and unduly influenced.  For an umpire to be indebted to illegal bookmakers creates an obvious probability of impropriety.  It has certainly raised questions concerning Garcia's perplexing non-call in the 1996 ALCS.