Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member today and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Red Sox penalties announced (loss of 2020 2nd round pick, replay operator banned through 2021)


mmc

Recommended Posts

Just now, Stradling said:

Have they said what they did wrong?  

The MLB's official findings report isn't out yet (will be released this afternoon), but they basically only found one Red Sox employee (Watkins) guilty of any wrongdoing (I find that hard to believe), which is why their punishment is much less severe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that people hate Manfred and his handling of things.  That being said how do you get upset at him for not suspending the players when there was no way of getting them to admit it without immunity?  They got the information based on immunity and it still feels like there are a lot of things we don’t know.  Sure we have the trash can bangs and those are legit.  But without immunity how do you get to the bottom of it?  The players union would have gone to war with any suspensions of players based on those trash can bangs and no other evidence of player involvement.  I have yet to see a picture or video of a player banging a trash can.  To me it seems as though without immunity you might have been able to do what they did which was suspend the manager and GM.  I guess they could have banned those two, but then you are going to court and MLB has to decide if they want to go to trial, which they wouldn’t want.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I get that people hate Manfred and his handling of things.  That being said how do you get upset at him for not suspending the players when there was no way of getting them to admit it without immunity?  They got the information based on immunity and it still feels like there are a lot of things we don’t know.  Sure we have the trash can bangs and those are legit.  But without immunity how do you get to the bottom of it?  The players union would have gone to war with any suspensions of players based on those trash can bangs and no other evidence of player involvement.  I have yet to see a picture or video of a player banging a trash can.  To me it seems as though without immunity you might have been able to do what they did which was suspend the manager and GM.  I guess they could have banned those two, but then you are going to court and MLB has to decide if they want to go to trial, which they wouldn’t want.  

I really don't understand this take.

How often is immunity given in the real world? MLB should've hired an experienced prosecutor to go in and investigate rather than have Manfred walk in and beg for information. The evidence is already out there for all to see on video, I don't know what else you need. The members of the players union are the victims here and they are the ones who are most upset with the lack of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I get that people hate Manfred and his handling of things.  That being said how do you get upset at him for not suspending the players when there was no way of getting them to admit it without immunity?  They got the information based on immunity and it still feels like there are a lot of things we don’t know.  Sure we have the trash can bangs and those are legit.  But without immunity how do you get to the bottom of it?  The players union would have gone to war with any suspensions of players based on those trash can bangs and no other evidence of player involvement.  I have yet to see a picture or video of a player banging a trash can.  To me it seems as though without immunity you might have been able to do what they did which was suspend the manager and GM.  I guess they could have banned those two, but then you are going to court and MLB has to decide if they want to go to trial, which they wouldn’t want.  

Glad you aren't a district attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Blarg said:

He didn't need to give them immunity, he chose to so he didn't have to suspend dozens of players. The evidence didn't require any players to admit to wrongdoing. 

This. And his surliness and righteous indignation after the punishment was announced only made it worse. Choosing to grant immunity to Astros players while threatening measures against any opposing pitcher who threw at them is ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I get that my take on it isn’t popular.  I also saw a players union defend and win a grievance with Hamilton when he admitted doing coke.  My actual belief is if Manfred suspended players without indisputable proof MLB would lose to the players union.  We all know what the trash can bangs were, but that wouldn’t be enough in court.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Yea, I get that my take on it isn’t popular.  I also saw a players union defend and win a grievance with Hamilton when he admitted doing coke.  My actual belief is if Manfred suspended players without indisputable proof MLB would lose to the players union.  We all know what the trash can bangs were, but that wouldn’t be enough in court.  

I think most players are willing to defend their right to not get in trouble for taking drugs in violation of their contract. We saw the union bend on the issue of testing for PEDs though. This is much more the later than the former. Worst case scenario for MLB was that the union stuck by their guys and the owners end up painting the players and the union as the bad guys which puts them in better negotiating position for the new CBA next year. This outcome was probably the worst for all parties except the Astros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AngelsFaninGA said:

Considering the overwhelmingly negative response against the Astros, would the players union really have defended them that much? I don't think the union would unilaterally defend players over any issue, especially one that benefited a small group of players at the expense of the rest.

Yes the players union would.  It is their sole responsibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand with the CBA you can't go after the players.  Facts are, the Astros and Red Sox were caught cheating.  And yet, Astros were fined $5 million, and lost their first and second for 2 years.  The Red Sux were stripped of one second rounder.  

Regardless of the players that were involved, the teams should have been penalized equally.  Right now, the optics look like favoritism towards the bigger market team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to read the article before making a snap judgement.  It's definitely less egregious than the Astro's, though I do smell some bullshit here.  Cora is the ring leader in Houston but has no knowledge in Boston, no way.  Why was the sign-stealer's office moved near the dugout, that was just random?  But basically the whole Red Sox organization threw this one analyst under the bus.  I'd expect him to come out to the press if he felt others were involved, but the article says it as his job to steal the signs (legally, not in real time), and he took it upon himself to update his info with the live feed.  

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...