Post#62 » by moocow007 » Mon Jan 20, 2020 6:22 pm
Oh it's pretty clear Manfred chickened out on the "harsh" punishment he was threatening.
I mean let's take look at what he did and didn't do and you'll see that it wasn't harsh at all...
1. Suspensions
So he suspended the GM and the manager but left both the owner and the players unscathed.
Considering that this is basically the first big scandal after he himself laid out that rule prohibiting electronic device use for cheating, you would think that the logical move would be the "set an example" so harsh that no one would ever think about doing it again right? What better example can you set other then punishing the guy all the way at the top? Talking about the owner here. What better lesson learned could their be than to ban the owner for the actions of basically EVERYONE under him? It's not like no owner has ever been banished before so Manfred wouldn't have been going into uncharted territory here. Both George Steinbrenner and Marge Schott have been banned.
Next up on the "set an example" totem pole would be the guy (or guys) that actually did the cheating. Talking about the guys actually aiming and firing the gun. Again, Manfred wouldn't have been going into uncharted territory either since players right now are being suspended for cheating and/or breaking ML rules regularly now. Talking of course PEDS and domestic violence (both of which, like cheating via electronic devices, are part of the rules of MLB). Multiple players have received anywhere from half season to life time bans for said actions (depending on severity and recurrence). Even if you levy just a small suspension (20 games?) for guys that were caught cheating right now, what it does is sets the stage for a MUCH HARSHER penalty if these guys cheat again.
But no. Manfred let the big boss ultimately responsible for the empire as well as the guys that actually performed the crime off Scott free. Why? My guess is because he didn't have the balls to go up against the MLPA and he didn't want to risk upsetting the owners who ultimately fund the business of baseball. Had he gone up against either he'd have likely had a long protracted back and forth that it's clear he wanted to avoid.
2. Fine
Manfred fined the Astros $5 million. Is that a lot? Of course to the average eye that may seem to be a lot, but we're not talking about the average Joe here.
So Forbes recently came out with the top 20 richest owners in baseball. All but 1 of these owners (individuals be it the sole owner or the primary share holder) were worth in excess of $1 billion with the top 10 well north of $1 billion. $5 million is what these guys would spent at auction on something valuable that they can keep for posterity and bragging rights. Like a Renoir painting, like a one of a kind car, a prized race horse or...say...a World Series ring. Likewise, the revenue a team makes for a playoff series and especially a world series (shares, ticket sales, concession sales, etc., etc., etc.) is MUCH MORE than $5 million.
FYI...$5 million is usually what a team spends on a utility guy with the expectation that he may not contribute much or may even be jettisoned if the team needs something more.
So while, yes, $5 million is still a lot even for billionaire owners, but it's hardly enough to 'set an example' to those owners.
3. Draft Picks
Manfred took both 1st and 2nd round picks for 2020 and 2021 away from the Astros.
So as every semi-knowledgeable baseball fan knows, the best teams pick at the bottom of each round. That's baseball's way of competitive balance when it comes to drafts right? Well the Astros still are one of the top teams in baseball. They are projected to have the 3rd best record by most every single stat and gambling site for the upcoming 2020 season. So what we are talking about is basically the projected 27th pick and 68th pick (due to sandwich picks being dished out) in the upcoming draft and likely comparable for the 2021 draft. If this was the NBA we'd be talking about picks that are usually sold for about $3 million or that top teams use to pick guys that will never come to the NBA. Now said picks are more valuable to baseball but that's NOT where it would have hurt a team like the Astros if Manfred really was dead serious about "setting an example".
What would have hurt the Astros more would be to take away their International Bonus Pool money and/or their ability to sign any international amateur free agents for the next 2 years. Why is that? Cause unlike the First Year Player Draft where the bottom feeding teams get the best players, the top teams usually get the best players when dealing with the international amateurs. Top teams with huge resources (like the Astros, the Yankees, the Dodgers, the Red Sox, etc, etc, etc,) have invested heavily into infrastructures that find and sign the best international talents over the smaller market teams. This is where they get their Jasson Dominguez level talent. You want to REALLY punish a big market team (like the Astros), you do it here.
So, no again, smoke and mirrors. He picked the option that would hurt the Astros less in terms of long term success.
BOTTOM LINE
So what is Manfred really doing here then?
He's basically doing his best to do as little as possible while showing the world that he's doing everything he can. This is about as good a job of sweeping this under the rug as he could do given that the world knew full well what the garbage was.
It's why he put that gag order on teams to not comment about the latest Altuve/Bregman scandal. I mean think about it, who would have thought that you could use tiny buzzers attached by a thin wires under jerseys before it actually came out? No one right? And yet, somehow his team already looked into it and found no indication of said buzzers? Who'd he hire? Sherlock Holmes?
It's pretty clear what he's trying to do.
$5 million is a HUGE sum for the average Joe
It's coming because the technology is coming. 
