PDA

View Full Version : Torii Hunter possibly looking at 3 year suspension?



HumnHilghtFreel
04-25-2007, 12:28 AM
I just saw on Baseball Tonight that Torii Hunter is in trouble with the league because he broke "gift giving" rules. Apparently he sent the KC Royals 4 bottles of champagne valued at about $500 a bottle, which I guess is against league rules. They interviewed him and he said that the league notified him there could be repercussions, including the suspension.

fearofpopvol1
04-25-2007, 12:48 AM
Saw this on PTI earlier today. 3 years for that would be pretty laughable. I say fine him and let it be over with.

savafan
04-25-2007, 01:40 AM
Did they say why he sent the champagne to the Royals?

Razor Shines
04-25-2007, 01:44 AM
Did they say why he sent the champagne to the Royals?

Everybody in the American League should send champagne to the Royals, especially teams in their division.

MaineRed
04-25-2007, 01:44 AM
Saw this on PTI earlier today. 3 years for that would be pretty laughable. I say fine him and let it be over with.

Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

If baseball is going to change things up for Hunter, change them up for Pete and let the Hit King in the HOF. Otherwise, see you in 3 Tori.

savafan
04-25-2007, 01:51 AM
Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

If baseball is going to change things up for Hunter, change them up for Pete and let the Hit King in the HOF. Otherwise, see you in 3 Tori.

Is it a mandatory three year suspension for this though? I don't know, what does the rule say?

kxblue
04-25-2007, 03:15 AM
Did they say why he sent the champagne to the Royals?

He sent it because IIRC, the Royals swept the Tigers last year to give the Twins the central crown. No big deal in my opinion, and certainly not worthy of a suspension.

RFS62
04-25-2007, 07:24 AM
Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

If baseball is going to change things up for Hunter, change them up for Pete and let the Hit King in the HOF. Otherwise, see you in 3 Tori.




Yeah, cause that's the same thing.

Give me a break.

rotnoid
04-25-2007, 07:51 AM
From the espn.com article...


Namely, rule 21-b, which proclaims "Any player or person connected with a Club who shall offer or give any gift or reward to a player or person connected with another Club for services rendered ... in defeating or attempting to defeat a competing Club ... shall be declared ineligible for not less than three years."



Sounds like 3 years is a real possibility...

MaineRed
04-25-2007, 08:05 AM
Yeah, cause that's the same thing.

Give me a break.

I didn't say it was the same thing. Apparently there is a rule book somewhere on this stuff. The stuff in the book is either concrete or it isn't. If it is, it is three years for Hunter. If the book isn't considered valid and baseball wants to make revisions to what is in this book as they go all I'm saying is do the right thing and make the revision so that the all time hit leader in the history of baseball be allowed in the stinking HOF for what he did as a player instead of penalizing him for what he did as a manager.

I just don't see how you make em up as you go for some guys but claim "them are the rules" for others. Varying degrees of offenses, or not.

RFS62
04-25-2007, 08:10 AM
So, you would banish him for three years?

bucksfan2
04-25-2007, 08:12 AM
You can't compare Pete to Torii in this situation. You have to deal with intent when dealing with a situation like this. Hunter probably would have not sent the bottles had he known there was a rule against them. He didn't intend to do something against the rules of baseball just did something to say thanks. MLB should have just looked the other way on this one and never brought it to the national spotlight.

remdog
04-25-2007, 08:19 AM
I can see why the rule is in existance (bribery) but certainly the intent was different.

A three year ban could effectively be a lifetime ban for Hunter. Unless he were to play in Japan to keep his skills sharp I would think it would be doubtful he could regain his game in 2010.

Rem

Ltlabner
04-25-2007, 08:23 AM
Did they say why he sent the champagne to the Royals?

Heard Tori being interviewed on the Dan Patrick radio show. The Twins were in the clubhouse watching KC beat the Tigers at the end of the 2006 season and Tori made a joke that "we should send these guys champaign". It becamce a joke on the team and then died out.

On the first road trip to KC this year, someone remembered the joke and reminded Tori. So he he had someone go out and purchase the champaign.

He never told KC about the champaign prior to giving it to them. He never called them up and said, "if you win, I'll give you some champaign". It was never used as an inticement. Hell, he didn't even give them the "gift" in the same season as the game(s) the gift might have influnced.


Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

If baseball is going to change things up for Hunter, change them up for Pete and let the Hit King in the HOF. Otherwise, see you in 3 Tori.

Apples and oranges.

The context of the gift rule is to avoid the outcome of games being changed under the inticement of gifts or other rewards. Tori's season late gesture had no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the KC/Tigers ball games since KC never even knew about the joke going on in the Twins clubhouse and the gift wasn't delivered until 4 or 5 months later.

The context of the betting rule is to avoid the outcome of games being changed under the inticement of winning said bets. Can you say that Pete betting on his team nightly didn't impact the outcome of a single game? And before you answer, Pete claimed for years he never bet. Then he claimed he only bet a little. Then he claimed he bet only on his team. Then he claimed he only bet on his team every night to win. So if he said his betting never effected the outcome of a game, would you believe him?

Tori's gift has zero to do with Pete's betting. Zero.

TheBigLebowski
04-25-2007, 08:31 AM
In my opinion, one of our society's biggest problems these days is it's complete and total lack of common sense.

Common sense tells you that a player sending over bottles of champagne to another team because they helped your team win a pennant and betting on the outcome of a professional baseball game with which you are directly involved are two COMPLETELY different things, regardless of what may be on the rule books. One seems harmless in nature; it is patently obvious on it's face that the other is completely wrong.

I love Pete as much as the next Reds fan and I do believe he should be in the HOF but, this is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in quite some time.

919191
04-25-2007, 08:36 AM
Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

If baseball is going to change things up for Hunter, change them up for Pete and let the Hit King in the HOF. Otherwise, see you in 3 Tori.


I guess the sign forbidding champagne gifts hangs right next to the sign forbidding betting on games in every clubhouse?

Pete knew. Torii didn't. One wasn't innocent of contempt of the rules, One was.

George Anderson
04-25-2007, 08:37 AM
The players union will never allow a three year suspension.

Jharb74
04-25-2007, 08:44 AM
Didn't Dunn buy a bottle of something for that Pirate outfielder, earlier this year? I think it was when a ball hit off the heel of his glove and ended up a homerun, for Dunn. How is that any different?

Ltlabner
04-25-2007, 08:48 AM
Didn't Dunn buy a bottle of something for that Pirate outfielder, earlier this year? I think it was when a ball hit off the heel of his glove and ended up a homerun, for Dunn. How is that any different?

You are exactly right. Xavier Nady, IIRC. And yes, Dunn was reported to have sent him a bottle of Vodka as a "thank you gift".

So for those who are using the Hunter incident to rattle the sabers on Pete's behalf, they might want to consider their actions as it may result in us losing Dunn for 3 years. But, as they like to remind us, rules are rules so I'm sure they will not be too upset to say good bye to Dunn for a while.

Unassisted
04-25-2007, 08:55 AM
The players union will never allow a three year suspension.

The union can squawk all it wants to, but this is a case where the rulebook trumps the union contract. This case will come down to whether MLB decides to hold Hunter to the letter of the law. I predict that Hunter gets a much shorter suspension because of his well-documented intent.

George Anderson
04-25-2007, 09:00 AM
The union can squawk all it wants to


MLB has a history of showing no spine when it comes to butting heads with the players union. Don Fehr wont lay down and let a player be suspended for 3 years over something as silly as this. Regardless I cant see MLB enforcing as three year ban, but if they should the union will not squawk but bite very hard!!

registerthis
04-25-2007, 09:01 AM
Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

:laugh:

That's nice, with the hardline stance you're taking on this and all...but no way, no how does baseball suspend Hunter 3 years for such a trivial offense. In fact, they won't suspend him at all. My guess is, a monetary fine is the extent of what you'll see. First of all, a suspension for something so trivial would be a PR debacle. From a more tangible perspective, though, the Player's Union would no doubt step in, leading to a protracted, messy ordeal that baseball would take years to live down. In other words: it ain't happening.

registerthis
04-25-2007, 09:04 AM
The union can squawk all it wants to, but this is a case where the rulebook trumps the union contract.

Yes, and I'm sure that MLB would love nothing more than the stigma of issuing a 3 year suspension to a player who sent a mocking gift to an opposing team. Common sense will prevail here, ultimately.

durl
04-25-2007, 09:13 AM
Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

See "Rules, Odd and Unusual" or "Rules, Overexaggerated Penalties for Trivial Matters."

Baseball likes to be it's own worst enemy at times.

And I will resist the urge to turn this into a "Pete was unfairly treated by the Commissioner" thread.

BurgervilleBuck
04-25-2007, 09:19 AM
I think the point some are trying to make is that if you're going to hold some folks to the law, you have to hold them all. And while I agree that Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, I don't think it works in this matter. I understand why some think so, though.

Perhaps, MLB is just getting back at Hunter for the big stink he raised over everyone wearing #42 a few weeks ago.

Degenerate39
04-25-2007, 09:25 AM
Baseball has the dumbest rules.

Ltlabner
04-25-2007, 09:27 AM
I think the point some are trying to make is that if you're going to hold some folks to the law, you have to hold them all.

I agree. If Tori had called up KC and said, "if you win this game, I'll give you 4 bottle of champaign" it would definatley break the rules. If he said in an interview on ESPN, "if KC beats the Tigers, I'll give them some nice champaign" it would definatley break the rules. If he purchased a billboard in KC that said, "here's what I'll do if you win" it would definatley break the rules. If he did any of those things, he should be "held to the law".

He didn't do any of those things, however. KC didn't know about the "offer". The offer was a complete joke amongst some players in the clubhouse. And the gift was delivered so long after the games in question that there could not have been any influence on the outcome of the games.

dabvu2498
04-25-2007, 09:28 AM
Maybe, if Torii sends Bud some champagne...

paulrichjr
04-25-2007, 09:30 AM
Hasn't this been settled anyway? I thought the Twins called the Royals and got the gift back before the team had been given it.

IslandRed
04-25-2007, 10:29 AM
I agree with most of the posts in this thread. A rulebook is a means to an end, not an all-powerful tome to which we must be slaves. No rulebook has ever been written that can cover every situation and nuance and is free of unintended consequences. Life still requires discretion and judgment. Unfortunately, in our society, that doesn't happen as often as it should because people either can't think or won't take the responsibility for making the common-sense decision. Heaven forbid someone accuse us of being "unfair."

CaptainXX
04-25-2007, 10:34 AM
Hasn't this been settled anyway? I thought the Twins called the Royals and got the gift back before the team had been given it.

From what I have heard, this is correct. The champagne was never opened or distributed and the Royals have agreed to return it. Apparently if that happens, the whole thing will be forgotten.

BurgervilleBuck
04-25-2007, 10:41 AM
From what I have heard, this is correct. The champagne was never opened or distributed and the Royals have agreed to return it.
How would they know it's the champagne if they don't open it?:evil:

BuckWoody
04-25-2007, 12:53 PM
I just heard that they have settled this.

Hunter has accepted a lifetime ban from the postgame beer cooler and in exchange will have to neither admit nor deny his guilt in the champagne buying incident. In addition, Torii Kedar Hunter will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Torii Kedar Hunter provided some seriously nice bottles of champagne to the Kansas City Royals baseball club.

At the conclusion of the press conference Bud Selig was quoted as saying, "The banishment for life of Torrii Hunter from post game suds is a sad end of a sorry episode. One of the game's great players has engaged in an act which stains the game (not to mention the Royals' jerseys), and he must now live with the consequences of this act. There is absolutely no deal for reinstatement. Oh by the way...he did it, there's no doubt in my mind."

Now we all just need to put this behind us and go about the business of baseball. ;)

bucksfan
04-25-2007, 01:02 PM
In my opinion, one of our society's biggest problems these days is it's complete and total lack of common sense.

Common sense tells you that a player sending over bottles of champagne to another team because they helped your team win a pennant and betting on the outcome of a professional baseball game with which you are directly involved are two COMPLETELY different things, regardless of what may be on the rule books. One seems harmless in nature; it is patently obvious on it's face that the other is completely wrong.

I love Pete as much as the next Reds fan and I do believe he should be in the HOF but, this is one of the most ridiculous things I have read in quite some time.

Agreed 100%.

George Anderson
04-25-2007, 01:05 PM
Baseball has the dumbest rules.

No I would say the NCAA and the NFL has MLB beat in the dumb rule department.

Cyclone792
04-25-2007, 01:40 PM
Baseball has the dumbest rules.

Actually, IIRC this was a Landis rule, and it's a rule that nipped in the bud a fairly serious problem in baseball when it was instituted. It may not make a whole lot of sense today, but 80+ years ago this rule was instrumental in helping clean up and save baseball from gambling activities.

MLB teams/players would receive certain dollar bonuses based upon the performance of the team in any given season. Obviously it's rather well-known for teams and players to be rewarded with a bonus for winning a World Series and/or league pennant, but teams/players also received smaller bonuses for finishing in second or third place in their league, termed as "second place money" or "third place money" in those days. Remember, players during this time period made paltry sums of money for playing baseball, and many of them had to work offseason jobs just to make enough money to survive. Any type of bonus for finishing in second or third place was highly sought after.

During the end of each season, even if the pennant winner was locked up, bribery and other shenanigans would ensue if there was a battle for second and/or third place in each league. Teams and players would bribe players for other teams to help them win second or third place money. This may not seem to be much of a problem on the surface - a gift for a team doing what they're supposed to do via winning - but it was a quick gateway to fixing games. And fixing games is exactly what this exact type of bribery ultimately led to in some instances (see the Cobb-Speaker-Wood Affair as an example).

The institution of this specific rule in this case was made to help eliminate one of those main gateways to fixing games, hence the severe punishment of a three year ban.

Joseph
04-25-2007, 01:44 PM
So I take it we should suspend say Sean Casey for buying Dunn dinner in Pittsburgh last year?

[I'm not saying it did happen, I'm just using a random example of which something similar has surely happened over the years.]

savafan
04-25-2007, 01:48 PM
Wait, let's rehash that Sheffield/Bonds story. Is there something in there that we can drudge up to ban Barry? ;)

Bobcat J
04-25-2007, 02:14 PM
From a PR standpoint banning Hunter for three years for a seemingly minor and unintentional infraction, while letting Bonds and other known steroid users continue to play, would be disaster.

I'm not saying that this means they wouldn't suspend Hunter, (I think Selig and Co. have an amazing capacity for stupidity) just saying MLB's media relations department would be working overtime.

durl
04-25-2007, 02:15 PM
Actually, IIRC this was a Landis rule, and it's a rule that nipped in the bud a fairly serious problem in baseball when it was instituted. It may not make a whole lot of sense today, but 80+ years ago this rule was instrumental in helping clean up and save baseball from gambling activities.

Good post. The rule was very important in it's day.

Baseball simply needs to look at it's policies and keep them relevant. Today, players don't have to take jobs in the winter in order to provide for their families so isn't the basic premise of the law just plain moot? I'm all for rules that prevent players from throwing games directly. The rule book just needs to be updated and made more relevant for the state of the game today.

Rose was booted using an old Landis rule that came about because a team threw the Series in order to make a buck on the side. Rose broke a rule, but he didn't do what the Black Sox did.

joshnky
04-25-2007, 02:23 PM
they might want to consider their actions as it may result in us losing Dunn for 3 years.

There are a few people on here who might not think thats a bad thing.

Matt700wlw
04-25-2007, 03:20 PM
The union would not let this happen.....nor should they. It's too stupid.

I've never heard of this rule, and I bet the players probably haven't either.

Caseyfan21
04-25-2007, 04:57 PM
Bud doesn't need another reason to make people hate him. I don't think much will come of this. Maybe a fine and a couple game suspension at the worst.

TC81190
04-25-2007, 05:06 PM
Yeah, cause that's the same thing.

Give me a break.

Seriously.

Chip R
04-25-2007, 06:45 PM
During the end of each season, even if the pennant winner was locked up, bribery and other shenanigans would ensue if there was a battle for second and/or third place in each league. Teams and players would bribe players for other teams to help them win second or third place money. This may not seem to be much of a problem on the surface - a gift for a team doing what they're supposed to do via winning - but it was a quick gateway to fixing games. And fixing games is exactly what this exact type of bribery ultimately led to in some instances (see the Cobb-Speaker-Wood Affair as an example).



If I were Hunter, I'd want the same kind of punishment Speaker and Cobb got.

cincinnati chili
04-25-2007, 10:03 PM
Do any of you get Lee Sinnis' daily ATM Reports? Here's what he wrote today


Twins CF Torii Hunter was suspended for 3 years for violating MLB's rules against bribery and rewards of other teams.

At least that's what would have happened if MLB has any integrity and credibility in enforcing their rules. Last year, Hunter said he would buy a champagne for the Royals if they helped them win the division title, by beating the Tigers at the end of the season. This weekend, Hunter sent 4 bottles of champagne to Mike Sweeney.

According to MLB Rule 21-b, "Any player or person connected with a Club who shall offer or give any gift or reward to a player or person connected with another Club for services rendered ... in defeating or attempting to defeat a competing Club ... shall be declared ineligible for not less than three years."

There's no ambiguity there. The rule is perfectly clear. This is a serious rule, put in effect because of many incidents in the early parts of the 20th century when players paid players on other teams bonuses for beating other teams to help them either win the pennant or just move in the standings (since World Series money also goes to teams in other places in the standings).

At first I thought this was tongue-in-cheek, but after further consideration, I'm pretty sure he's being serious.

Especially considering Sinnis is an attorney, this sort of thinking is downright frightening. There are tons and tons of antequated laws/ordinances in our states and municipalities, as well as outdated bylaws in private organizations. He should know this.

It matters not that the rule is clearly STATED. It was intended for an entirely different purpose. The purpose was NOT to suspend superstar players from the game for three years, after said superstar players made lighthearted public wagers that actually promote the game.

I nominate Sinnis for ****** of the universe.

RFS62
04-25-2007, 10:24 PM
Sinnis sure seems a little tightly wrapped these days.

sonny
04-26-2007, 03:25 AM
I nominate Sinnis for ****** of the universe.

I second that.

Redsland
04-26-2007, 11:18 AM
Any sanction of Hunter in this case presupposes that the Royals would not have been trying to win without the bribe. Say what you want about the men in the front office, but I doubt that's true of the guys in the clubhouse.

M2
04-26-2007, 11:26 AM
I nominate Sinnis for ****** of the universe.

He'll have to throw down with John Edwards for it, but Lee tries real hard all the time. You have to repsect that kind of commitment to ******ry.

M2
04-26-2007, 11:27 AM
Any sanction of Hunter in this case presupposes that the Royals would not have been trying to win without the bribe. Say what you want about the men in the front office, but I doubt that's true of the guys in the clubhouse.

Sure, be reasonable about it.

Redsland
04-26-2007, 11:44 AM
He'll have to throw down with John Edwards for it, but Lee tries real hard all the time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/John_Edward_awarded_on_South_Park.jpg

MaineRed
04-26-2007, 12:20 PM
If this rule is outdated, why is it still in the rule book? If it doesn't belong there, then get rid of it. But don't keep it around just in case and then use excuses like, "he didn't know" or "the rule doesn't apply anymore" when the rule is breached. Doesn't baseball have more than enough lawyers to stay up to date on THEIR rule book?

Do I think it deserves a 3 year suspension? No, I don't. But I'm not the organization that has a rule book with such punishment printed in it for such offenses. Baseball is. I didn't make up the rule, they did. But now they don't want to enforce for the reasons given. Then junk it and let other players do it or re-write the rule to come up with an up to date punishment.

My point with Pete Rose is this. He can't be in the HOF because of a silly technicality. Nobody wants Pete the manager in the Hall and I don't believe baseball thinks Pete was betting on games while he was playing. Of course it isn't the same thing with Hunter as it is Rose but both broke rules where there are punishments for such offenses already in place. Pete is serving his.

M2
04-26-2007, 12:31 PM
My point with Pete Rose is this. He can't be in the HOF because of a silly technicality.

Pete's technicality, in baseball terms, is the difference between murder one and manslaughter. The crime is still egregious.

Hunter's in the misdemeanor area of offenses. A fine and a stern talking to should suffice.

durl
04-26-2007, 01:41 PM
Pete's technicality, in baseball terms, is the difference between murder one and manslaughter. The crime is still egregious.

Was it really that egregious?

Pete was banned using a rule that came about because a group of teamates conspired with organized crime figures to throw the World Series in a time when players didn't make the huge sums of money they make today.

Pete never threw a game but he is still treated as though he did. It went from "The Black Sox throwing the Series for organized crime figures to make lots of money from gambling is egregious" to "Betting on your team to win is egregious." I see them as very different things.

To me, this Hunter thing is no different. The rule was meant to do a particular thing, but it is stretched far beyond it's intent.

Triples
04-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Someone should start a poll on whether or not something or anything will happed to Hunter. My votew would be that nothing will happen. There really is no rules violation. He did not send the champane in an effort to entice another player to lose (or win). In order for that to happen the gift would have had to have been given prior to the the incident. It happened 5 months later as a joke. If baseball starts enforcing rules in this manner, there will be NO players left to play including minor leaguers. Point in fact, been to a minor league game lately? Did you know that there is a rule that expressly prohibits the use of any kind of tobacco by minor league players.? Anyone notice how many guys have a can of Skoal in their back pocket or a pinch in their lower lip? They're not even trying to hide it. Even the coaches and managers are chewing, and I would wager a guess that that the umps are too. Granted, using tobabacco isn't a 3 year supspension but it is an immeditate heave ho from the game and it doesn't happen. Bottom line is there are a hundred little picky rules that get broken and the teams/league turns their back becasue they are harmless. Betting on games (especially all of them) is not harmless.

TeamSelig
04-26-2007, 02:03 PM
Hopefully nothing happens to him. Dumb rule.

registerthis
04-26-2007, 02:11 PM
If this rule is outdated, why is it still in the rule book?

The same reason you can't wear trousers with pockets in Rochester, Minnesota.

No one's ever bothered to remove it.

registerthis
04-26-2007, 02:15 PM
Pete never threw a game but he is still treated as though he did. It went from "The Black Sox throwing the Series for organized crime figures to make lots of money from gambling is egregious" to "Betting on your team to win is egregious." I see them as very different things.

They're not at all. Gambling--of any type--calls into question the integrity of the contest. Did Pete manage differently on the nights he *didn't* bet on the team? Was he more motivated with the more money he had bet? How do we know he never bet against them?

Gambling is the cardinal sin of athletics. It turns an otherwise legitimate contest into nothing more than a WWE spectacle, and baseball is right to have strict rules against it.

What Hunter did, however, was nothing remotely close to this--unless you think that the Royals played harder thinking that they had some champagne bottles coming their way if they won.

Triples
04-26-2007, 02:29 PM
I'm not sure I would agree that its such a dumb rule that should be eliminated. Imagine some guy making league minimum being asked to take a dive for a couple hundred grand (please don't tell me that some of the big kids couldn't afford it). They just need to clean up the language so that a couple of bottles of booze sent as a joke 5 months post occurance doesn't bring down the wrath of the commissioner.


The same reason you can't wear trousers with pockets in Rochester, Minnesota.

No one's ever bothered to remove it.

bucksfan2
04-26-2007, 02:43 PM
This is a stupid interpretation of this rule and someone in MLB should have just brushed this aside. Apparently he gave the bottles of champagne to Mike Sweeney who I am sure isn't hurting for loot. What happens if a player takes one of his former teammates out to dinner because they swept a rival or he reached a certain milestone. Could one of Mark Burhle's former teammates not send him a cigar or a bottle of champagne for his no hitter? This intrepretation is just stupid.

Slyder
04-26-2007, 02:51 PM
Anyone remember the George Brett Pine Tar Bat vs the Yankees??? Thats about where this falls on the scale. An archaic rule taken out of context of the initial reason it was put in there. Hunter was just trying to be funny, not affect the outcome of anything let it go, slap on the wrist (fine) and be done with it.

Yachtzee
04-26-2007, 03:00 PM
They're not at all. Gambling--of any type--calls into question the integrity of the contest. Did Pete manage differently on the nights he *didn't* bet on the team? Was he more motivated with the more money he had bet? How do we know he never bet against them?

Gambling is the cardinal sin of athletics. It turns an otherwise legitimate contest into nothing more than a WWE spectacle, and baseball is right to have strict rules against it.

What Hunter did, however, was nothing remotely close to this--unless you think that the Royals played harder thinking that they had some champagne bottles coming their way if they won.

Actually, I think it is fair to recognize there is some difference between actively conspiring to throw games and just betting on one's team in a contest. In betting on your team, you call into question the integrity of the contest. In throwing the game, there's no question about it, the contest has no integrity. I think Bart Giamatti recognized that too. While he put Pete Rose on the "Permanently Ineligible" list, he held out the possibility of reinstatement and admonished Pete to "reconfigure his life." I feel that was a signal to Pete that if he took responsibility for his acts, sought help for his gambling addiction, and proved that he had truly changed his ways, reinstatement was a real possibility. For throwing games, the Black Sox got permanent ban with no possibility of parole. It has always seemed like Pete could get paroled if he just changed his ways. Unfortunately, that has never happened.

If you think about it too, the rule prohibits even so much as associating with gamblers. I believe Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays spent time on the "permanently ineligible" list because they took jobs as casino greeters. But their punishment was of a short duration. I think the baseball powers that be recognized the difference between actively betting on baseball and standing at the front of a casino to greet the customers.

In this case, Torii Hunter was clearly joking, so one interprets the rule to include an intent requirement (and MLB is free to interpret it's own rules), then there is no need to impose the 3-year minimum ban on a player for an offense that was clearly meant in jest.

For those who want to lump this in with Pete Rose, look again at the intent. Torii Hunter was clearly just messing around. It's highly unlikely, with player salaries being as they are, that major league baseball players are going to put out any extra effort for a few bottles of champagne. On the other hand, no one could reasonably believe that Pete was just joking around when he bet money on the Reds.

MrsHammer
04-26-2007, 03:25 PM
Bad Karma?



Hunter hit in mouth by pitch

April 26, 2007

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Twins star Torii Hunter was hit by a pitch in the mouth from Kansas City's Zack Greinke on Thursday and was taken to a hospital, where he received three stitches.

Hunter was cut on the inside of his mouth. He was listed as day-to-day.


Leading off the bottom of the second inning, Hunter took a 2-2 fastball directly to the mouth. After gathering himself, he took a couple of steps toward Greinke.

Hunter then dropped to the turf near home plate as manager Ron Gardenhire and Minnesota's medical staff ran onto the field.

A stunned-looking Hunter needed a towel to clean up the blood, and Greinke and Royals infielders came over to check on him. After a few minutes, Hunter walked off the field on his own power and received a standing ovation. Jason Tyner ran for him and replaces him in center field.

Hunter began the day with a 12-game hitting streak and was tied for the major league lead with 13 doubles. He was batting .315 and tied for the team leads with four home runs and 16 RBIs.

dman
04-26-2007, 04:35 PM
Bad Karma?


Quote:
Hunter hit in mouth by pitch

April 26, 2007

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Twins star Torii Hunter was hit by a pitch in the mouth from Kansas City's Zack Greinke on Thursday and was taken to a hospital, where he received three stitches.

Hunter was cut on the inside of his mouth. He was listed as day-to-day.


Leading off the bottom of the second inning, Hunter took a 2-2 fastball directly to the mouth. After gathering himself, he took a couple of steps toward Greinke.

Hunter then dropped to the turf near home plate as manager Ron Gardenhire and Minnesota's medical staff ran onto the field.

A stunned-looking Hunter needed a towel to clean up the blood, and Greinke and Royals infielders came over to check on him. After a few minutes, Hunter walked off the field on his own power and received a standing ovation. Jason Tyner ran for him and replaces him in center field.

Hunter began the day with a 12-game hitting streak and was tied for the major league lead with 13 doubles. He was batting .315 and tied for the team leads with four home runs and 16 RBIs.



I know that Hunter is no angel, but I saw this and couldn't help but wish that this happened to Barry Bonds.

IslandRed
04-26-2007, 04:37 PM
If this rule is outdated, why is it still in the rule book? If it doesn't belong there, then get rid of it.

That's a fair point. I think MLB is well within its rights to look at the specific situation and say applying the rule as written would be a gross injustice. But if the rule doesn't say what they mean, they should rewrite it so it does.


Doesn't baseball have more than enough lawyers to stay up to date on THEIR rule book?

You'd think, but no rulebook ever written has covered every possible combination of circumstances. Believe me, the government's tried. There will always be a need for judicious people to look at the application of a rule to a specific situation and say "no, that's stupid." And then adjust the rules and move on.

M2
04-26-2007, 05:26 PM
Was it really that egregious?

Pete was banned using a rule that came about because a group of teamates conspired with organized crime figures to throw the World Series in a time when players didn't make the huge sums of money they make today.

Pete never threw a game but he is still treated as though he did. It went from "The Black Sox throwing the Series for organized crime figures to make lots of money from gambling is egregious" to "Betting on your team to win is egregious." I see them as very different things.

To me, this Hunter thing is no different. The rule was meant to do a particular thing, but it is stretched far beyond it's intent.

A) Pete was directly involved with the sorts of folks who try to engineering game fixing. That's pretty egregious. That association alone brings the integrity of the game into question.

B) I don't assume we've ever heard or that we ever will hear the truth from Pete Rose on this matter. So I don't engage in "Pete never" or "all he did" lines of thinking. I used to, but I don't anymore. I don't put anything past him and I consider everything he says on the matter to have a self-serving purpose. He's a bad guy who knowingly flouted baseball's sternest rule and he deserved a serious punishment as a result. Like I said, you can debate it along manslaughter vs. murder one lines, but a lifetime coaching ban and keeping him off the HOF ballot for a good chunk of time strike me as fair.

I see the merits in saying he should be given limited reinstatement so that he can have some connection to the game and that he deserves to go on the HOF ballot now, but I don't care if those things ever happen. I saw him play. He was great. Loved watching him. That's enough for me.

Ltlabner
04-26-2007, 05:31 PM
Any sanction of Hunter in this case presupposes that the Royals would not have been trying to win without the bribe. Say what you want about the men in the front office, but I doubt that's true of the guys in the clubhouse.

Especially since the folks in KC didn't even know about the offer.

Hard to be motivated by something you didn't even know existed.

MaineRed
04-26-2007, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by Redsland
Any sanction of Hunter in this case presupposes that the Royals would not have been trying to win without the bribe. Say what you want about the men in the front office, but I doubt that's true of the guys in the clubhouse.

So when this rule was put in place there were teams who weren't trying to win unless they got bribes?

Redsland
04-27-2007, 11:39 AM
Actually, as one of the articles mentioned, teams were throwing games because of bribes.

traderumor
04-27-2007, 03:44 PM
Actually, as one of the articles mentioned, teams were throwing games because of bribes.

It is helpful to remember that ballplayers used to work in the offseason because their salary didn't cover annual cost of living. Much has been written of the Yankees low-balling their guys in the 40s and 50s because they were nearly guaranteed a World Series share. The top stars in the late 60s were barely topping six figures. This rule seems to be in a completely different context and obviously needs updated.

Chip R
04-27-2007, 03:57 PM
Back in the 19th century they used to have a playoff series called the Temple Cup. In some of those series, there were rumors that the players decided who would win the series beforehand and then split the prize money 50-50 - under the table, of course.

durl
04-27-2007, 05:14 PM
A) Pete was directly involved with the sorts of folks who try to engineering game fixing. That's pretty egregious. That association alone brings the integrity of the game into question.

B) I don't assume we've ever heard or that we ever will hear the truth from Pete Rose on this matter. So I don't engage in "Pete never" or "all he did" lines of thinking. I used to, but I don't anymore. I don't put anything past him and I consider everything he says on the matter to have a self-serving purpose. He's a bad guy who knowingly flouted baseball's sternest rule and he deserved a serious punishment as a result. Like I said, you can debate it along manslaughter vs. murder one lines, but a lifetime coaching ban and keeping him off the HOF ballot for a good chunk of time strike me as fair.

I see the merits in saying he should be given limited reinstatement so that he can have some connection to the game and that he deserves to go on the HOF ballot now, but I don't care if those things ever happen. I saw him play. He was great. Loved watching him. That's enough for me.

First, let me say that I don't deny that betting on games is, in the very least, questionable behavior.

A - Perhaps I'm naive here (and anyone can feel free to say so, please) but are there gambling circles active in America that are trying to fix baseball games? Pete's actions were not stellar. I just don't see how they damaged the integrity of the game. The strikes have done a better job of that.

B - Whether we've heard the whole truth from Pete may never be known, but I don't believe we should ban a person from the game because of what we THINK they may have done. We're using a lot of legal analogies, and in the legal system the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And we go back to the original premise of the post. Pete was given his lifetime ban (with potential reinstatement) because he broke baseball's "Rule."...a rule that arguably saved the game almost 100 years ago. This is just my personal opinion, but I believe baseball let "The Rule" grow to mythical proportions. They thought the integrity of the game revolved around "The Rule" while for years ignoring racism, not to mention the multiple strikes, steroids, hugely inflated salaries, tie All-Star games, and Opening Day games in other hemispheres. Pete behaved badly, no doubt. I honestly believe the fans feel he's done far less to harm the game than these other things have done.

Reverend Doo-Rag
04-27-2007, 06:37 PM
Is there any true evidence of his intention? Did he include a card specifying why he sent the champaign? I haven't seen this mentioned. Any rules stating that random gift giving is not allowed? Or did he just famously say he was going to send it, then he did. Maybe that will be his technicality out of this.

Rocket_Fuel
04-27-2007, 06:40 PM
Rules are rules. See Rose, Pete.

If baseball is going to change things up for Hunter, change them up for Pete and let the Hit King in the HOF. Otherwise, see you in 3 Tori.


You're not comparing giving someone champagne to gambling and possibly changing the outcome of games are you?

Rocket_Fuel
04-27-2007, 06:43 PM
I know that Hunter is no angel, but I saw this and couldn't help but wish that this happened to Barry Bonds.


He probably would have just ripped his shirt off and grunted "Bonds mad! Don't make Bonds mad!"