The Astros and Red Sox Punishments

[atomic]

23 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Do you think Hinch would do it the same way if he had to do it over again?

I am sure that depends on whether he finds another job in baseball after this. Also a lot of managers get fired pretty quickly.  

Trembley, Perlozzo, and Mazilli only got one chance to manage.  Hinch was the worst manager in the Arizona franchise history. If he didn't succeed with the Astro's he probably doesn't manage again. I think there is a high incentive to cheat for a manager.   Especially with teams paying less to managers these days.  Buck could afford to be honest as he multiple managerial jobs and had been paid a high salary at those positions. 

[backwardsk]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

I am sure that depends on whether he finds another job in baseball after this. Also a lot of managers get fired pretty quickly.  

Trembley, Perlozzo, and Mazilli only got one chance to manage.  Hinch was the worst manager in the Arizona franchise history. If he didn't succeed with the Astro's he probably doesn't manage again. I think there is a high incentive to cheat for a manager.   Especially with teams paying less to managers these days.  Buck could afford to be honest as he multiple managerial jobs and had been paid a high salary at those positions. 

I think it’s going to be pretty tough for him to get another managerial job, but perhaps he finds himself on a staff down the road.

[atomic]

7 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

I think it’s going to be pretty tough for him to get another managerial job, but perhaps he finds himself on a staff down the road.

Do you think if Lunhow gets a GM job he would hire him? If Lunhow wanted to look like he had nothing to do with the situation most likely he wouldn't hire Hinch.   But who knows he might just want to rub it in the face of MLB. 

[backwardsk]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Do you think if Lunhow gets a GM job he would hire him? If Lunhow wanted to look like he had nothing to do with the situation most likely he wouldn't hire Hinch.   But who knows he might just want to rub it in the face of MLB. 

No, I don’t think he’d hire Hinch if he gets another GM job.  There’s nothing special about him.  It’s a non zero chance that the could reunite, but I wouldn’t put it much higher than that.

[weams]

1 hour ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I mean...are they wrong? If you polled all 30 MLB teams anonymously and gave them the choice A and B how would they vote? 

A. A guaranteed World Series win, but must pay $5M, forfeit four draft picks, and hire a new GM/coach

Get contracted with no payout the next time it happens whether your fault or not

B. No penalty, but no guarantee of a World Series win

How about now. 

[Philip]

2 hours ago, atomic said:

Like I have said intentionally tanking shows poor character. 

 

I don't know people seem on here seem Ok with that. It is one thing to rebuild but Elias isn't rebuilding the major league club.  He didn't make any additions last year and he only signed a short-stop this year even after getting rid of 2 of our top 3 starters and our best position player for dubious prospects. 

To an extent I agree with you but we need to make sure we are understanding the terms: if you mean “deliberately making the team worse for the purpose of losing games” then I completely agree.

I’m not sure Mike is doing that.

It can be argued he is making moves with a disregard for today so that tomorrow will be better. I’m not sure I totally buy that argument, either.

At the moment, however, we have to give Mike the benefit of the doubt. I understand trading Villar and Bundy and I have no problems with the reasoning or the return, and I accept that the team may be weaker in the near future as a result of those trades. But I don’t think either is an example of deliberately weakening the team so as to lose more games.

IF he refuses to bring up a player who is clearly ready and who is superior to him whom he would replace, I will scream as loudly as you do. And that will almost certainly be something to watch regarding our pitching this year.

But that hasn’t happened yet so for now, Mike gets a pass.

[Darkhawk]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

Taubman, Osuna, the Trash Can - kind of concerning he dismisses them as "a couple weird episodes."

Manfred really went at the Astros by describing their baseball operations culture as extremely problematic. I hope Elias hasn't brought that to Baltimore, but you'd have to be pretty naive to not at least be a little suspicious - especially with the way they are tanking and ex-employees are going on the record to complain about him.

Besides Surhoff, were there others? I'm hopeful things are different here but my ears are definitely perked.

[weams]

1 hour ago, Darkhawk said:

Besides Surhoff, were there others? I'm hopeful things are different here but my ears are definitely perked.

It’s only Surhoff and that’s tainted love. 

[weams]

Many Scouts don’t like the new ways of doing things.  And then they don’t like they guys asking for the new ways. 

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, weams said:

Many Scouts don’t like the new ways of doing things.  And then they don’t like they guys asking for the new ways. 

There’s really two issues:

1.   Did these guys get a fair opportunity to show they could handle the new ways before they were let go?

2.   Did the organization do a good job of communicating expectations and letting folks down gently when they were let go?

Surhoff suggested no on both points.    But (1) his opinion might be biased, and (2) sometimes you just need to clean house without putting each individual under the microscope.    

[foxfield]

This doesn't stain Elias imho.  It does take some of the shine off though.  And it makes me rethink some of the articles written by Dan Connolly.  Benefit of the doubt is a funny thing....it works both ways.  But Elias is just doing it the way Houston did it has a whole new sound.  That is not his fault...but is says the Honeymoon may well be over.

[weams]

51 minutes ago, Frobby said:

There’s really two issues:

1.   Did these guys get a fair opportunity to show they could handle the new ways before they were let go?

2.   Did the organization do a good job of communicating expectations and letting folks down gently when they were let go?

Surhoff suggested no on both points.    But (1) his opinion might be biased, and (2) sometimes you just need to clean house without putting each individual under the microscope.    

I assume the later was always the objective.  Besides, you can't just say man, you are too old. 

[MDtransplant757]

5 hours ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I love Reddit. I've posted questions ranging from finance advice to which laptop should I buy and have always gotten seemingly genuine responses/advice. Yes there's plenty of junk on there, but if you stick to the relevant Sub-Reddits it's a very useful tool. And it's 1,000 times better than Twitter, the absolute cesspool of social media. 

Reddit is ok. All depends on the subreddit. Just avoid anything political, gaming or anything related to social issues and you'll be fine. Twitter is the place where mutants and opinions go to die. 

[MDtransplant757]

2 hours ago, foxfield said:

This doesn't stain Elias imho.  It does take some of the shine off though.  And it makes me rethink some of the articles written by Dan Connolly.  Benefit of the doubt is a funny thing....it works both ways.  But Elias is just doing it the way Houston did it has a whole new sound.  That is not his fault...but is says the Honeymoon may well be over.

Elias was running the minors and Mejdal was running the numbers department. Elias was quoted saying that he had no involvement early on in the investigation, meaning he probably told the investigation the same thing. I see no reason to not believe him here. 

[Satyr3206]

I have learned over the years to steer clear of certain conversations. Steroids, cheating, and a few others. I'll crack the occasional joke and stay on the sideline.