Jump to content
Frobby

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

What do you think of the Astros’ punishment?  

144 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. What do you think of the Astros’ punishment?


  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 1/20/2020 at 20:32

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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. 

If you could prove definitively, that there was a conscious effort by individuals to lose on purpose, yes all involved should suffer harsh penalties.  

By "losing on purpose", I do not mean "not doing everything you can to win".  For example, making certain decisions involving the roster, etc. which you believe may not give your team the best chance to win, does not qualify.   Like if you play Chris Davis when someone else on your roster, would likely play better.  We might believe Chris Davis stinks, but its not like we are telling Chris Davis to go out there and take three strikes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NCRaven said:

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.

Okay, I get that.  But I'm also in favor of explicitly calling things out ahead of time.  Baseball made a rule that says you can't use electronic means to steal signs.  What they didn't do is say what happens when someone does it.  When they drew up the rule was it seen as a huge deal, or just another thing?  Is it comparable to a spitball, or paying off an ump? 

By remaining silent on consequences they leave it open to debate when it happens, by whomever is in power when it happens.  It's like saying you can't exceed the speed limit, but there's no specified punishment.  We'll leave it up to the judge in traffic court to figure out if the punishment is $50 or $10,000.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I was surprised it was as harsh as it was, and I would've been fine if they went lighter than they did.  Sign stealing has been around the game since it's inception, though the use of technology has taken it to a different level.  I dunno why, but I just don't put this in the same category as using PEDs.  Studying your opponent's tendencies to gain an edge is part of the game, right?  Though I concede that the Astro's and apparently Red Sox stepped over the line, personally I didn't think it was THAT far over the line.  And the dirty little secret is a lot more teams are doing it, maybe most or even all of them.  Though maybe not to the level of Houston and Boston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, GuidoSarducci said:

If you could prove definitively, that there was a conscious effort by individuals to lose on purpose, yes all involved should suffer harsh penalties.  

By "losing on purpose", I do not mean "not doing everything you can to win".  For example, making certain decisions involving the roster, etc. which you believe may not give your team the best chance to win, does not qualify.   Like if you play Chris Davis when someone else on your roster, would likely play better.  We might believe Chris Davis stinks, but its not like we are telling Chris Davis to go out there and take three strikes. 

The Orioles are trying their best to win every game.  They just have a roster of players who often make that very hard, and that's because there are very few incentives and multiple dis-incentives to win 75 games instead of 55.  If baseball is going to take atomic's advice (and they won't) and treat not spending every available dime on current wins as treason, then they need to also change the incentives to do so.  Although I suppose a permanent ban from baseball for all GMs and owners who don't spend every cent on current year wins would be a pretty good incentive, if also terribly difficult to enforce consistently and also harmful to the long-term prospects of mid-to-small market teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, esmd said:

Honestly I was surprised it was as harsh as it was, and I would've been fine if they went lighter than they did.  Sign stealing has been around the game since it's inception, though the use of technology has taken it to a different level.  I dunno why, but I just don't put this in the same category as using PEDs.  Studying your opponent's tendencies to gain an edge is part of the game, right?  Though I concede that the Astro's and apparently Red Sox stepped over the line, personally I didn't think it was THAT far over the line.  And the dirty little secret is a lot more teams are doing it, maybe most or even all of them.  Though maybe not to the level of Houston and Boston.

Maybe the Orioles have been stealing signs using a cutting edge technological scheme, and the last two years they were really had 35-win true talent.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Maybe the Orioles have been stealing signs using a cutting edge technological scheme, and the last two years they were really had 35-win true talent.

Maybe Chris Davis has hearing issues and he can't hear the garbage can bang so he just stands there in the batters' box waiting for it and takes strike three.

All this time we were worried about his eyesight, it was the wrong sense we were concerned about!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Okay, I get that.  But I'm also in favor of explicitly calling things out ahead of time.  Baseball made a rule that says you can't use electronic means to steal signs.  What they didn't do is say what happens when someone does it.  When they drew up the rule was it seen as a huge deal, or just another thing?  Is it comparable to a spitball, or paying off an ump? 

By remaining silent on consequences they leave it open to debate when it happens, by whomever is in power when it happens.  It's like saying you can't exceed the speed limit, but there's no specified punishment.  We'll leave it up to the judge in traffic court to figure out if the punishment is $50 or $10,000.

I’m not sure if you saw my post quoting Manfred’s decision and referencing his Sept. 15, 2017 memorandum.   He didn’t specify the exact consequences, but made clear that they’d be serious and that GM’s would be held responsible.   I’m not necessarily in favor of specifying the exact punishment in advance, lest some team simply decide that the advantage of cheating is worth the specified price.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’m not sure if you saw my post quoting Manfred’s decision and referencing his Sept. 15, 2017 memorandum.   He didn’t specify the exact consequences, but made clear that they’d be serious and that GM’s would be held responsible.   I’m not necessarily in favor of specifying the exact punishment in advance, lest some team simply decide that the advantage of cheating is worth the specified price.   

What if you specify in advance and then the Yankees get caught?  Oh no!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The punishment wasn't severe enough in my opinion. Think the commish should have channeled his inner Kenesaw Mountain Landis. Each team caught cheating like this should forfeit a whole draft class. Bet not many more teams would even think of doing it after that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a manager doesn't use his closer because he's already pitched three days in a row, and the reliever he does use blows the save and loses the game, does that qualify as not trying to win?  Or is it simply trying not to overuse a pitcher so that they can win more games later?  The Orioles not wasting money today on middling talent to win a few extra games instead of using it in other areas, or in the future, to win more games down the road, is a similar situation.  Admittedly on a larger scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

If a manager doesn't use his closer because he's already pitched three days in a row, and the reliever he does use blows the save and loses the game, does that qualify as not trying to win?  Or is it simply trying not to overuse a pitcher so that they can win more games later?  The Orioles not wasting money today on middling talent to win a few extra games instead of using it in other areas, or in the future, to win more games down the road, is a similar situation.  Admittedly on a larger scale.

They are trying to lose a lot of games.  I am not sure what not using a reliever four days in a row has to do with anything.  They could sign a couple of pitchers on the cheap and perhaps a third baseman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't understand an analogy, I have no interest in explaining it too you.  As has already been explained by a number of people, adding a few pitchers on the cheap and a journeyman at third base does not move the needle on making the Orioles a winning team.

Note:  The Orioles have already added Bailey, Rucker, and Stewart, three pitchers "on the cheap."  Not to mention Iglesias at short.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NCRaven said:

If you don't understand an analogy, I have no interest in explaining it too you.  As has already been explained by a number of people, adding a few pitchers on the cheap and a journeyman at third base does not move the needle on making the Orioles a winning team.

Note:  The Orioles have already added Bailey, Rucker, and Stewart, three pitchers "on the cheap."  Not to mention Iglesias at short.  

You can't just make a random statement and call it analogy.  Those guys were all waiver claims besides Iglesias right?  I am talking about signing guys at a million or above.  Anything below that is basically replacement level guys.  So far in 2 years of GM he has signed one guy.  And traded for no one.  I don't want to keep arguing about this as none of you will change your minds. But I am sure if it were another team and the Orioles were actually competitive you would be apt to see it my way. 

I saw many negative comments about the Marlins and even the Astros when they were tanking on here.  And now it seems an epidemic of tanking in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...