2019 Major League Baseball Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58 ... 68, 69, 70  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 8:07 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
So Arenado wants out of Colorado. GM Jeff Bridich said today that trade talks were being tabled, and then Arenado came out and turned up the heat. Dude is not happy.


Yup. Rockies lost alot of leverage and Arenado has an opt out after 2021. He’s basically a 2 year rental, same as Lindor.

I’d say Lindor has the better contract. He’s cheaper and he doesn’t have an opt out clause. His contract just ends in 2021.

Wonder how much it’ll take to trade for him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
eddiejonze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7192

PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:15 pm    Post subject:

Colorado will be needing a 3b in return, may I suggest Miguel Andujar or Gio Urshella plus pieces?

_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.


Last edited by eddiejonze on Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:45 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:01 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
So Arenado wants out of Colorado. GM Jeff Bridich said today that trade talks were being tabled, and then Arenado came out and turned up the heat. Dude is not happy.


Yup. Rockies lost alot of leverage and Arenado has an opt out after 2021. He’s basically a 2 year rental, same as Lindor.

I’d say Lindor has the better contract. He’s cheaper and he doesn’t have an opt out clause. His contract just ends in 2021.

Wonder how much it’ll take to trade for him.


The Dodgers' most recent 1st round draft pick just happens to be a third baseman, Kody Hoese, and he's already rated as the #7 prospect in the system. The Rockies have no long-term solution at catcher, so you'd think that Ruiz (or Smith) would be of significant interest to them. And, of course, the Dodgers have pitching that they can offer even if they refused to include May or, obviously, Urias. I do wonder if the Dodgers would want Arenado to agree to either not opt out in 2021 or to at least extend his opt-out year, if they are to give up what it will likely take to acquire him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
eddiejonze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7192

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:46 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
So Arenado wants out of Colorado. GM Jeff Bridich said today that trade talks were being tabled, and then Arenado came out and turned up the heat. Dude is not happy.


Yup. Rockies lost alot of leverage and Arenado has an opt out after 2021. He’s basically a 2 year rental, same as Lindor.

I’d say Lindor has the better contract. He’s cheaper and he doesn’t have an opt out clause. His contract just ends in 2021.

Wonder how much it’ll take to trade for him.


The Dodgers' most recent 1st round draft pick just happens to be a third baseman, Kody Hoese, and he's already rated as the #7 prospect in the system. The Rockies have no long-term solution at catcher, so you'd think that Ruiz (or Smith) would be of significant interest to them. And, of course, the Dodgers have pitching that they can offer even if they refused to include May or, obviously, Urias. I do wonder if the Dodgers would want Arenado to agree to either not opt out in 2021 or to at least extend his opt-out year, if they are to give up what it will likely take to acquire him.

Justin Turner might have an opinion on this.
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17197
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:35 pm    Post subject:

eddiejonze wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
So Arenado wants out of Colorado. GM Jeff Bridich said today that trade talks were being tabled, and then Arenado came out and turned up the heat. Dude is not happy.


Yup. Rockies lost alot of leverage and Arenado has an opt out after 2021. He’s basically a 2 year rental, same as Lindor.

I’d say Lindor has the better contract. He’s cheaper and he doesn’t have an opt out clause. His contract just ends in 2021.

Wonder how much it’ll take to trade for him.


The Dodgers' most recent 1st round draft pick just happens to be a third baseman, Kody Hoese, and he's already rated as the #7 prospect in the system. The Rockies have no long-term solution at catcher, so you'd think that Ruiz (or Smith) would be of significant interest to them. And, of course, the Dodgers have pitching that they can offer even if they refused to include May or, obviously, Urias. I do wonder if the Dodgers would want Arenado to agree to either not opt out in 2021 or to at least extend his opt-out year, if they are to give up what it will likely take to acquire him.

Justin Turner might have an opinion on this.


Love JT, but if you can get Nolan you do it. JT could play 1B.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:44 pm    Post subject:

JT said he wouldn't mind moving when the Dodgers were pursuing Rendon. I think the same thing applies for Nolan or Francisco.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
nickuku
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 7844
Location: Orange County

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:00 pm    Post subject:

Arenado's home/away splits scare me.
_________________
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:31 pm    Post subject:

Jeter falls 1 vote shy of being a unanimous HOF selection, and Larry Walker makes it by 6 votes in his final year on the ballot! Really happy for Walker, who was a great player away from Coors Field as well. Seven-time Gold Glove winner. A crime it took this long for him to get in.

Curt Schilling reached 70%, falling just 20 votes shy, and since next year's class looks weak, it's pretty likely that he'll finally get the call next year. Vizquel reached nearly 53%, suggesting he could eventually get in, and that will be a vote that I disagree with. Bonds and Clemens just barely crossed 60%, but they aren't moving up a ton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:51 pm    Post subject:

I’m not offended by Walker going in, but he was marginal, along the lines of Jim Rice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:34 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I’m not offended by Walker going in, but he was marginal, along the lines of Jim Rice.


Completely disagree. Walker's OPS+ was 141. Rice's was 128. Walker won 7 Gold Gloves, Rice 0. Walker put up about 25 more WAR for his career. They both won MVP's. I don't see how it's close between the two.

By the way, how is Omar Vizquel getting more consideration than Andruw Jones? The argument for Omar is that "well, he's one of the best SS defenders ever." OK, well Jones might be the greatest defensive CF in the history of baseball, and he hit more than 434 homers. There is no question whatsoever that Jones was the significantly better hitter, 111 vs. 82 in OPS+. Jones put up 17 more WAR despite the fact that Vizquel played in nearly 800 more games. Sometimes, narratives are strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 13855

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:12 pm    Post subject:

nickuku wrote:
Arenado's home/away splits scare me.


Last years split stats:

Home: 21 HR, 104 H, 20 2b, 31 BB 45 K, .351/.412/.645 1.057
Road: 20 HR, 81 H, 11 2b, 31 BB 48 K,.277/.346/.521 .866

Would you take .866 OPS and GOAT defense at 3rd? I know I would.

https://www.rotowire.com/baseball/player-splits.php?id=11018
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:59 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I’m not offended by Walker going in, but he was marginal, along the lines of Jim Rice.


Completely disagree. Walker's OPS+ was 141. Rice's was 128. Walker won 7 Gold Gloves, Rice 0. Walker put up about 25 more WAR for his career. They both won MVP's. I don't see how it's close between the two.

By the way, how is Omar Vizquel getting more consideration than Andruw Jones? The argument for Omar is that "well, he's one of the best SS defenders ever." OK, well Jones might be the greatest defensive CF in the history of baseball, and he hit more than 434 homers. There is no question whatsoever that Jones was the significantly better hitter, 111 vs. 82 in OPS+. Jones put up 17 more WAR despite the fact that Vizquel played in nearly 800 more games. Sometimes, narratives are strange.


Walker played his best years in Colorado. He was a good hitter before and after, and on the road, but his home/road splits in his Colorado years were striking. I've seen articles by his supporters trying to minimize this, but most people are going to discount those numbers to some extent.

As for Vizquel, people overrate the value of defense by a shortstop. Bill James had a piece on this somewhere. An elite shortstop will save you a fair number of runs over an average shortshop, but not as many as people imagine. The average major league shortstop is still pretty good, or else he wouldn't stick in the majors as a shortstop. I understand that Vizquel was a wizard, but in my opinion that isn't enough to put him in the Hall of Fame.

As for Jones, while he did hit a lot of home runs, he wasn't that great of a hitter overall, and he had that weird turn in his career where he just quit hitting at all. I'd probably pick him over Vizquel, but I wouldn't put either of them in the Hall. If there was a Hall of Great Fielders, I'd induct them both.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 13855

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:53 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I’m not offended by Walker going in, but he was marginal, along the lines of Jim Rice.


Completely disagree. Walker's OPS+ was 141. Rice's was 128. Walker won 7 Gold Gloves, Rice 0. Walker put up about 25 more WAR for his career. They both won MVP's. I don't see how it's close between the two.

By the way, how is Omar Vizquel getting more consideration than Andruw Jones? The argument for Omar is that "well, he's one of the best SS defenders ever." OK, well Jones might be the greatest defensive CF in the history of baseball, and he hit more than 434 homers. There is no question whatsoever that Jones was the significantly better hitter, 111 vs. 82 in OPS+. Jones put up 17 more WAR despite the fact that Vizquel played in nearly 800 more games. Sometimes, narratives are strange.


Would you put Andruw Jones above Edmonds? Edmonds was bounced out after his first year with 2.5% of the vote. I think he deserved at least another look.

Hard to imagine a career 900 ops CF with 8 GG's fell out like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30621

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:55 pm    Post subject:

I even have Scott Rolen above Viquel to be honest.
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:35 pm    Post subject:

jonnybravo wrote:
I even have Scott Rolen above Viquel to be honest.


Absolutely. Vizquel was a terrible hitter. Terrible. While we're on the subject, I don't think Ozzie Smith should be in (OPS+ career mark of 87). I mean, Andrelton Simmons--a comparable defender to Vizquel at SS--has Vizquel beat in OPS+ by 9 points (Simmons' mark is 91). So on a per-year basis, Simmons has probably been a better baseball player than Omar Vizquel. Does anyone honestly think that Andrelton Simmons should be a Hall of Fame baseball player? I mean, no way!

AH, OPS+ is a stat that takes park factor into consideration. Walker's career road OPS was still .865. As for how much he dominated at Coors Field, I mean, I don't care where you're hitting, but posting a 1.172 OPS is exceptional. Just for some perspective, Vinny Castilla's was .989, and Dante Bichette's was 1.035. Walker was a great hitter, and he was also one of the best defensive outfielders in the league during his prime. If you want to argue he doesn't quite pass your threshold, hey, I think that's a more logical argument. But Jim Rice isn't in his league.

Walker has more career WAR than the average HOF RF and a better 7-year peak WAR than the average HOF RF. I believe he deserved to get in. I wouldn't have voted Rice in. Jack Morris was a travesty. So was Bill Mazeroski.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 7:34 am    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
AH, OPS+ is a stat that takes park factor into consideration. Walker's career road OPS was still .865. As for how much he dominated at Coors Field, I mean, I don't care where you're hitting, but posting a 1.172 OPS is exceptional. Just for some perspective, Vinny Castilla's was .989, and Dante Bichette's was 1.035. Walker was a great hitter, and he was also one of the best defensive outfielders in the league during his prime. If you want to argue he doesn't quite pass your threshold, hey, I think that's a more logical argument. But Jim Rice isn't in his league.

Walker has more career WAR than the average HOF RF and a better 7-year peak WAR than the average HOF RF. I believe he deserved to get in. I wouldn't have voted Rice in. Jack Morris was a travesty. So was Bill Mazeroski.


OPS+ does attempt to adjust for park factors, but it can only do so on a regularized basis. It cannot account for individual results and traits. In fact, your own arguments make the case against Larry Walker. As your numbers show, Larry Walker was not a Hall of Famer when he played anywhere other than Coors Field. His stats got jacked up by Coors Field more than any other player. Larry Walker was perceived at the time as a creation of Coors Field.

As for WAR, it does not even attempt to adjust for park factors. So Walker had a high 7-year peak WAR when he was playing in Coors Field? Yeah, well, that's sort of the point, isn't it?

There's a reason why Larry Walker barely squeaked into the Hall in his final year of eligibility rather than being elected earlier. Everyone knew that he was a marginal candidate and that his stats were exaggerated. I wouldn't have voted for him, but it doesn't offend me that he made the Hall. Jim Rice did the same thing -- he squeaked into the Hall in his final year of eligibility. I'd rate Rice is a better hitter, though I suppose Walker has an advantage on defense. I wouldn't have voted for Rice, either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13709

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:39 am    Post subject:

Looks like MLB offered players immunity for cooperating from the jump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/astros-players-cheated-baseball-wanted-answers-so-they-made-a-deal-11579694400?mod=hp_featst_pos1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:52 am    Post subject:

^ I don't know why reduced punishment wasn't on the table rather than full immunity. Can't fault the players for taking the deal though. Manfred is just a puppet for the owners, and a coward in regards to the players' union.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13709

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:01 am    Post subject:

loslakersss wrote:
^ I don't know why reduced punishment wasn't on the table rather than full immunity.


The article breaks down the "why" pretty well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:30 am    Post subject:

That's behind a paywall. From the snippet that is visible, it sounds like there was a deal cut with the union. That makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13709

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:59 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
That's behind a paywall. From the snippet that is visible, it sounds like there was a deal cut with the union. That makes sense.


Quote:

In a scathing investigatory report released last week, Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred repeatedly refers to the Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme in 2017 and 2018 as “player-driven.” Yet Manfred also declared: “I will not assess discipline against individual Astros players.”

So while Manfred suspended Houston general manager Jeff Luhnow and field manager A.J. Hinch for the 2020 season—they were later fired—no active players were even named for their involvement. Manfred justified that decision by saying it would have been “difficult and impractical” to punish players, given that virtually all of them had knowledge of or were involved in the operation to use technology to illicitly obtain and relay opposing catchers’ signals.

But there is a simpler explanation for why no players were penalized: The league and the MLB Players Association struck an agreement early in the process that granted immunity in exchange for honest testimony, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The league was quick to make such an offer, these people said, in part because it did not believe it would win subsequent grievances with any players it attempted to discipline. That’s partly because of a bureaucratic shortcoming: The Astros’ front office never discussed with players the league’s admonitions against using electronic devices to steal signs, according to Manfred’s statement.

The deal is a sign of MLB’s desire for a speedy and conflict-free investigation, the continuing power of the baseball players’ union and the fragile state of the sport’s labor relations. The promise of amnesty allowed the league to interview 23 current and former Astros players during the two-month investigation.

The result is a situation that led to the harshest penalties in recent baseball history—none of them directed at the people Manfred said actually committed the offense. That has attracted public criticism even from some players who are members of the union.

The nature of the Astros’ sign-stealing operation became public in a Nov. 12 story published by The Athletic, prompting MLB to launch a formal inquiry. But the genesis of the pact between the league and the MLBPA goes back to Sept. 15, 2017, when Manfred announced that he had fined the Boston Red Sox for transmitting signs from their replay review room to individuals in the dugout wearing smartwatches.

That same day, Manfred issued a memo to all teams reiterating that using electronic equipment to steal signs was a violation of league rules and that future transgressions would be met with severe discipline. He specifically said that GMs and managers would be held accountable for the conduct of their charges. Another memo sent out in March 2018, attributed to chief baseball officer Joe Torre, expanded on the prohibition.

Manfred said that despite receiving those memos, Luhnow never forwarded them to or addressed their contents with the players and field staff, nor did he “confirm that the players and field staff were in compliance with MLB rules and the memoranda.” Through a spokesman, Luhnow declined to comment.

This was an important fact for MLB if it had wanted to try to discipline players. Penalties would have been met with grievances by the MLBPA—grievances that the league believes it would have lost, people familiar with the matter said.

After all, Manfred said, Hinch knew the sign-stealing was going on and didn’t stop it. Bench coach Alex Cora was an active participant in the plots. So was outfielder Carlos Beltrán, a respected veteran. Therefore, the union could have successfully argued in a grievance hearing that the players didn’t know they were in the wrong, since their superiors never directly informed them and even appeared to condone their behavior. (Cora and Beltrán both lost their jobs last week as the manager of the Red Sox and New York Mets, respectively.)

MLB wanted to avoid grievances altogether because of how they would have hindered the investigation. Under the collective bargaining agreement, the MLBPA couldn’t stop MLB from interviewing players in relation to the case. But the union could exert some influence on the scheduling of those interviews, potentially grounding the entire investigation to a halt.

Once the parties did talk, players might not have been forthright in their responses if they feared repercussions that would impact their earnings or playing status. Almost no active players, for instance, cooperated with the Mitchell Report, which looked into the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. That investigation took 20 months before its release in 2007. Because players spoke freely this time, MLB wrapped up its dive into the Astros and took decisive action in two months.

A person familiar with the matter said that MLB determined quickly that it didn’t intend to pursue suspensions for active players. One reason for that, this person said, was MLB’s belief that it would be inappropriate to punish teams who have since acquired players who played on the 2017 Astros. For example, the Minnesota Twins had nothing to do with what the Astros did, so why should their championship aspirations potentially be derailed because they signed Marwin González last winter? (Limiting discipline only to players still on the Astros would’ve been a nonstarter in a grievance.)

With suspensions off the table, it became clear that it would benefit the investigation, the league and the union to simply focus on arriving at the truth. There were no intense negotiations; the league offered immunity essentially from the outset. The same rules will apply to the ongoing investigation into the Red Sox, who have been accused of illegally stealing signs during their run to a World Series title in 2018, with Cora as their manager.

By working with the MLBPA on this issue, MLB avoided sparking another fight in what has been a contentious period between the league and the union. The slow pace of the free-agent markets after the 2017 and 2018 seasons caused massive outcry by the players and their representatives, sinking baseball’s labor relations to their lowest point since the strike of 1994.

Though this off-season has seen a more robust employment market, tensions remain high as the two sides prepare for what is expected to be a tough CBA negotiation after the 2021 campaign.

It appears not every player agrees with that course of action. Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Alex Wood said on Twitter: “The fact that there hasn’t been any consequences to any players up to this point is wild.” Other players have expressed similar discontent.

Union officials recognize players are emotional about this issue, especially the Dodgers: They lost in the World Series to the Astros in 2017 and then to the Red Sox in 2018. Those who weren’t part of the investigation weren’t told that players were granted immunity.

That might not be the case if this form of cheating continues to be an issue moving forward. MLB expects to unveil a revised policy designed to combat technology-assisted sign-stealing before opening day, following negotiations with the MLBPA. It could include agreed-upon penalties for players in the future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SGV-Laker fan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2013
Posts: 8842

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:22 pm    Post subject:

let the Asstros players yapping away all they want. they're showing their stupidity for speaking out about unity, rather than just shut the hell up and not saying anything. they're cheaters and also not very smart especially for their hitters as they WILL get hit a lot next season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:22 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
The league was quick to make such an offer, these people said, in part because it did not believe it would win subsequent grievances with any players it attempted to discipline. That’s partly because of a bureaucratic shortcoming: The Astros’ front office never discussed with players the league’s admonitions against using electronic devices to steal signs, according to Manfred’s statement.


I've seen this reported before. It just makes me angrier.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 11853
Location: LA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:05 pm    Post subject:

If I'm a documentary maker I'm trying to get a deal with netflix regarding this scandal ASAP. People would watch the hell out of it if it's done well. Plus it could educate people on how much of an impact the cheating had - something that appears to be lost on a lot of people are apathetic about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16026

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:15 pm    Post subject:

Quote:

In a scathing investigatory report released last week, Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred repeatedly refers to the Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme in 2017 and 2018 as “player-driven.” Yet Manfred also declared: “I will not assess discipline against individual Astros players.”

So while Manfred suspended Houston general manager Jeff Luhnow and field manager A.J. Hinch for the 2020 season—they were later fired—no active players were even named for their involvement. Manfred justified that decision by saying it would have been “difficult and impractical” to punish players, given that virtually all of them had knowledge of or were involved in the operation to use technology to illicitly obtain and relay opposing catchers’ signals.

But there is a simpler explanation for why no players were penalized: The league and the MLB Players Association struck an agreement early in the process that granted immunity in exchange for honest testimony, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The league was quick to make such an offer, these people said, in part because it did not believe it would win subsequent grievances with any players it attempted to discipline. That’s partly because of a bureaucratic shortcoming: The Astros’ front office never discussed with players the league’s admonitions against using electronic devices to steal signs, according to Manfred’s statement.

The deal is a sign of MLB’s desire for a speedy and conflict-free investigation, the continuing power of the baseball players’ union and the fragile state of the sport’s labor relations. The promise of amnesty allowed the league to interview 23 current and former Astros players during the two-month investigation.

The result is a situation that led to the harshest penalties in recent baseball history—none of them directed at the people Manfred said actually committed the offense. That has attracted public criticism even from some players who are members of the union.

The nature of the Astros’ sign-stealing operation became public in a Nov. 12 story published by The Athletic, prompting MLB to launch a formal inquiry. But the genesis of the pact between the league and the MLBPA goes back to Sept. 15, 2017, when Manfred announced that he had fined the Boston Red Sox for transmitting signs from their replay review room to individuals in the dugout wearing smartwatches.

That same day, Manfred issued a memo to all teams reiterating that using electronic equipment to steal signs was a violation of league rules and that future transgressions would be met with severe discipline. He specifically said that GMs and managers would be held accountable for the conduct of their charges. Another memo sent out in March 2018, attributed to chief baseball officer Joe Torre, expanded on the prohibition.

Manfred said that despite receiving those memos, Luhnow never forwarded them to or addressed their contents with the players and field staff, nor did he “confirm that the players and field staff were in compliance with MLB rules and the memoranda.” Through a spokesman, Luhnow declined to comment.

This was an important fact for MLB if it had wanted to try to discipline players. Penalties would have been met with grievances by the MLBPA—grievances that the league believes it would have lost, people familiar with the matter said.

After all, Manfred said, Hinch knew the sign-stealing was going on and didn’t stop it. Bench coach Alex Cora was an active participant in the plots. So was outfielder Carlos Beltrán, a respected veteran. Therefore, the union could have successfully argued in a grievance hearing that the players didn’t know they were in the wrong, since their superiors never directly informed them and even appeared to condone their behavior. (Cora and Beltrán both lost their jobs last week as the manager of the Red Sox and New York Mets, respectively.)

MLB wanted to avoid grievances altogether because of how they would have hindered the investigation. Under the collective bargaining agreement, the MLBPA couldn’t stop MLB from interviewing players in relation to the case. But the union could exert some influence on the scheduling of those interviews, potentially grounding the entire investigation to a halt.

Once the parties did talk, players might not have been forthright in their responses if they feared repercussions that would impact their earnings or playing status. Almost no active players, for instance, cooperated with the Mitchell Report, which looked into the prevalence of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. That investigation took 20 months before its release in 2007. Because players spoke freely this time, MLB wrapped up its dive into the Astros and took decisive action in two months.

A person familiar with the matter said that MLB determined quickly that it didn’t intend to pursue suspensions for active players. One reason for that, this person said, was MLB’s belief that it would be inappropriate to punish teams who have since acquired players who played on the 2017 Astros. For example, the Minnesota Twins had nothing to do with what the Astros did, so why should their championship aspirations potentially be derailed because they signed Marwin González last winter? (Limiting discipline only to players still on the Astros would’ve been a nonstarter in a grievance.)

With suspensions off the table, it became clear that it would benefit the investigation, the league and the union to simply focus on arriving at the truth. There were no intense negotiations; the league offered immunity essentially from the outset. The same rules will apply to the ongoing investigation into the Red Sox, who have been accused of illegally stealing signs during their run to a World Series title in 2018, with Cora as their manager.

By working with the MLBPA on this issue, MLB avoided sparking another fight in what has been a contentious period between the league and the union. The slow pace of the free-agent markets after the 2017 and 2018 seasons caused massive outcry by the players and their representatives, sinking baseball’s labor relations to their lowest point since the strike of 1994.

Though this off-season has seen a more robust employment market, tensions remain high as the two sides prepare for what is expected to be a tough CBA negotiation after the 2021 campaign.

It appears not every player agrees with that course of action. Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Alex Wood said on Twitter: “The fact that there hasn’t been any consequences to any players up to this point is wild.” Other players have expressed similar discontent.

Union officials recognize players are emotional about this issue, especially the Dodgers: They lost in the World Series to the Astros in 2017 and then to the Red Sox in 2018. Those who weren’t part of the investigation weren’t told that players were granted immunity.

That might not be the case if this form of cheating continues to be an issue moving forward. MLB expects to unveil a revised policy designed to combat technology-assisted sign-stealing before opening day, following negotiations with the MLBPA. It could include agreed-upon penalties for players in the future.


Basically, what the article is saying is that if you cheat as a team, you will not be punished individually.

Think about this, if Luhnow really didn't know and AJ hinch really didn't know, and Cora really didn't instigate it...

If it was a purely player driven scheme, no one would actually get punished...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 56, 57, 58 ... 68, 69, 70  Next
Page 57 of 70
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB