PDA

View Full Version : Torii facing suspension?


Over By There
04-24-2007, 09:20 AM
The rule states, "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."


http://www.startribune.com/509/story/1139939.html

The reason is kind of humorous... The article goes on to say that a suspension is unlikely, but he did seemingly break the rule.

Jaffar
04-24-2007, 09:50 AM
I hope Bud does the right thing and suspends his ass for 3 years! I can't really see it being that extreme but I would think some kind of suspension would have to come from this or a HUGE fine or a combination of the two because "not knowing the rules" is not an excuse, maybe Pete Rose should start trying that line (I understand it's not the same thing).

sox1970
04-24-2007, 09:53 AM
Rules are rules. **** him.

Boondock Saint
04-24-2007, 09:56 AM
"Ignorance is no defense." Put his ass in its place.

FedEx227
04-24-2007, 09:56 AM
"There's also a law requiring ducks to wear long pants."

"Let me see that!"

"Well I'll be darned, long pants!"

hi im skot
04-24-2007, 10:04 AM
This hardly seems like a big deal.

Kind of funny, too...

MarySwiss
04-24-2007, 10:16 AM
Although I don't like the guy, my first reaction was "So what? Big deal, champagne." But now that I think about it, they probably do have to punish him somehow. Why should they make an exception for him?

Jaffar
04-24-2007, 10:22 AM
It only sounds like no bid deal because it was a couple bottles of champagne. The problem for the league is the precidence they set here because The rule states, "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." They just have to make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot for a future, more serious occurance.

UserNameBlank
04-24-2007, 10:30 AM
So what is the difference between Torii giving the Royals some champagne versus just saying "thanks?" It sounds very stupid to me. Bud has one roider nearing 600 HR's and another on the verge of breaking the alltime career record. What a joke if anything happens to Torii.

Some of you guys need to lighten up a bit. Torii could have given them any damn thing he wanted to and it wouldn't change the fact that the Tigers lost. It's not like Torii was betting on baseball or doing anything to give KC an unfair advantage over the competition.

Screw MLB if they make a big deal out of this.

UserNameBlank
04-24-2007, 10:33 AM
It only sounds like no bid deal because it was a couple bottles of champagne. The problem for the league is the precidence they set here because They just have to make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot for a future, more serious occurance.
That is a BS rule to begin with. It's not like the Royals would have tried to throw the series if not for a promise of champagne. These guys are making at minimum I think 350grand per season. I'm sure the players aren't going to give a rats ass whether they get some free champagne or not.

"Services rendered" my ass. KC doesn't want to lose games any more than any other team in the league.

*Edit: it would be one thing if cash or valuable property was given as a reward, but I think taking someone out to dinner, buying someone a drink, taking someone golfing etc. is just an friendly gesture and not something that should warrant a serious suspension.

Rowandws33
04-24-2007, 10:43 AM
That rule is just dumb....WOW the commish can take the fun out of anything.

Jaffar
04-24-2007, 10:45 AM
That is a BS rule to begin with. It's not like the Royals would have tried to throw the series if not for a promise of champagne. These guys are making at minimum I think 350grand per season. I'm sure the players aren't going to give a rats ass whether they get some free champagne or not.

"Services rendered" my ass. KC doesn't want to lose games any more than any other team in the league.

*Edit: it would be one thing if cash or valuable property was given as a reward, but I think taking someone out to dinner, buying someone a drink, taking someone golfing etc. is just an friendly gesture and not something that should warrant a serious suspension.

I'm not saying it's NOT a BS rule but it IS a rule. Saying thanks is not a gift or reward either. If they don't do anything they have to remove the rule or at what point do they enforce it?

soxfan13
04-24-2007, 10:50 AM
I hope Bud does the right thing and suspends his ass for 3 years! I can't really see it being that extreme but I would think some kind of suspension would have to come from this or a HUGE fine or a combination of the two because "not knowing the rules" is not an excuse, maybe Pete Rose should start trying that line (I understand it's not the same thing).

Rules are rules. **** him.

"Ignorance is no defense." Put his ass in its place.

I'm not saying it's NOT a BS rule but it IS a rule. Saying thanks is not a gift or reward either. If they don't do anything they have to remove the rule or at what point do they enforce it?

You folks need to lighten up! Yeah fine him but calling for a three year suspension over this is just asinine:rolleyes:

UserNameBlank
04-24-2007, 10:51 AM
I'm not saying it's NOT a BS rule but it IS a rule. Saying thanks is not a gift or reward either. If they don't do anything they have to remove the rule or at what point do they enforce it?
Well they would need to make some changes to it at least. I see why it is there, because you don't want some guy promising another player or entire team a bonus large enough to change the way the game is normally played, but the rule itself is way too black and white.

Of course, with Bud you never know what rules will be taken seriously and what rules will not be. Jason Giambi admitted, in so many words anyway, that he was a roider and somehow he's still playing ball with the Yankees and walking around with a "legitimate" MVP award.

I can't see anything bad happening to Torii though because if MLB did decide to punish him there would certainly be a negative blacklash on MLB. I'm guessing that instead of taking this opportunity to lay the groundwork for some changes to the rule, Bud will just do what he always does: pretend nothing happened and hope it disappears.

Jaffar
04-24-2007, 10:56 AM
Well they would need to make some changes to it at least. I see why it is there, because you don't want some guy promising another player or entire team a bonus large enough to change the way the game is normally played, but the rule itself is way too black and white.

Of course, with Bud you never know what rules will be taken seriously and what rules will not be. Jason Giambi admitted, in so many words anyway, that he was a roider and somehow he's still playing ball with the Yankees and walking around with a "legitimate" MVP award.

I can't see anything bad happening to Torii though because if MLB did decide to punish him there would certainly be a negative blacklash on MLB. I'm guessing that instead of taking this opportunity to lay the groundwork for some changes to the rule, Bud will just do what he always does: pretend nothing happened and hope it disappears.

I agree with you completely and should have used some teal to be more clear but I hate Tori Hunter without knowing him personally so I won't get upset if Buddy brings down the hammer.

D. TODD
04-24-2007, 10:59 AM
Please! No suspension is called for. This is not the INTENT of the rule. Use some common sense when enforcing a rule/law. This is a non-issue.

Irishsox1
04-24-2007, 11:02 AM
My question is why would Hunter feel the need to give them something? That in it's self is a stupid thing. Hunter should keep is nose out of other teams and giving them gifts. Last time I checked the Royals were paid professionals and don't need his gift.

Hunter should be suspended for three games and the Twins and the Royals should be fined. I know that his gift is innocent, but this "payback" thing can spin out of control if it's not dealt with. And the example I'm thinking of is Torii Hunter takes out Jamie Burke on a cheap slide at home, Jamie Burke gets some no name pitcher that he knew from the minors who is on the Brewers to throw at Hunters head. Burke sends the guy some champagne, Hunter can't see out of his left eye.

UserNameBlank
04-24-2007, 11:11 AM
My question is why would Hunter feel the need to give them something? That in it's self is a stupid thing. Hunter should keep is nose out of other teams and giving them gifts. Last time I checked the Royals were paid professionals and don't need his gift.

Hunter should be suspended for three games and the Twins and the Royals should be fined. I know that his gift is innocent, but this "payback" thing can spin out of control if it's not dealt with. And the example I'm thinking of is Torii Hunter takes out Jamie Burke on a cheap slide at home, Jamie Burke gets some no name pitcher that he knew from the minors who is on the Brewers to throw at Hunters head. Burke sends the guy some champagne, Hunter can't see out of his left eye.
Why should the Royals be suspended for taking some free champagne? Hell, who wouldn't?

I think you're going a bit too far with the payback scenario. Payback is a part of baseball and dependant on the way a manager runs a team. Certain managers are more aggressive in delivering "payback" than others.

Hunter's play was clean. He railroaded the catcher, pissed a lot of people off, but so what. He had the drive to railroad the catcher and put himself at risk just as much as he put Burke at risk to be called safe at home. Was it necessary? No, but so what. It's baseball.

Also, people get beaned in retaliation almost every day in baseball. When a pitcher takes it upon himself to throw at someone's head though, it has nothing to do with "payback" for previous actions on the field and clearly shows malicious intent. That is why pitchers who do so and given heavy fines and suspensions as opposed to just being thrown out of the game like everyone else.

sox1970
04-24-2007, 12:18 PM
You folks need to lighten up! Yeah fine him but calling for a three year suspension over this is just asinine:rolleyes:

Tounge in cheek. Does everything require teal?

CHISOXFAN13
04-24-2007, 12:20 PM
That rule is just dumb....WOW the commish can take the fun out of anything.

Selig is a tool, but you are nuts if you think he created that rule.

FedEx227
04-24-2007, 12:23 PM
Selig is a tool, but you are nuts if you think he created that rule.

But your forgetting everything wrong about baseball is because of Bud Selig. He is the first and only commish in MLB history.

HotelWhiteSox
04-24-2007, 12:25 PM
So I guess we should let it go if some guy tests positive but he didn't know he was taking in anything illegal. The rule is there, it states exactly what he did, suspend his ass

spiffie
04-24-2007, 12:45 PM
Bye bye Torii. See ya in 2010.

soxfan13
04-24-2007, 01:11 PM
Tounge in cheek. Does everything require teal?

Yes actually is does on this site.

Eddo144
04-24-2007, 06:57 PM
As a few people touched on, precedence is the issue here. While a three year suspension seems ridiculous, the league has to punish Hunter somehow (if it was up to me, a medium-sized fine).

Compare MLB and the NFL. One league is incredibly well-run, while the other leaves quite a bit to be desired. The well-run league is strict in its punishments: fines for wearing different shoes or endorsing a non-league sponsored product at a league event, a consistent drug policy, etc. If you don't enforce the "stupid" rules, then players will keep pushing further and further, with the defense always being "You didn't punish the last guy."

To modify a previous example, let's say Selig does not punish Torii Hunter. Now imagine that Chipper Jones agrees to play $10,000 to any pitcher on another team who throws at the heads of Mets players, and Selig decides to punish him. When Jones appeals the punishment, he can point to the non-punishment of Hunter as a precedent, and would likely win the appeal, as precedence means the world in legal matters.

voodoochile
04-24-2007, 07:25 PM
That rule is just dumb....WOW the commish can take the fun out of anything.

The rule isn't dumb, it is designed to prevent player A from offering a gift to a player B on another team to help Player A's team win the game. If done in advance it might destroy the integrity of any playoff race.

Hope they don't drop a huge bomb on TorIIIII. It seems like an innocent mistake and it's not like he offered the Royals Champagne to roll over and play dead for the Twinkies last year. Still, at least a fine is probably forth coming and they might suspend him for a game or two, but any more than that is using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito, IMO...

Jurr
04-24-2007, 07:27 PM
The rule isn't dumb, it is designed to prevent player A from offering a gift to a player B on another team to help Player A's team win the game. If done in advance it might destroy the integrity of any playoff race.

Hope they don't drop a huge bomb on TorIIIII. It seems like an innocent mistake and it's not like he offered the Royals Champagne to roll over and play dead for the Twinkies last year. Still, at least a fine is probably forth coming and they might suspend him for a game or two, but any more than that is using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito, IMO...
Definitely. It was all in good fun. It makes sense why you would fine the guy, as you have to make a point. However, given the context of the situation, it would be ludicrous to really throw the book at this guy.

voodoochile
04-24-2007, 07:28 PM
My question is why would Hunter feel the need to give them something? That in it's self is a stupid thing. Hunter should keep is nose out of other teams and giving them gifts. Last time I checked the Royals were paid professionals and don't need his gift.

Hunter should be suspended for three games and the Twins and the Royals should be fined. I know that his gift is innocent, but this "payback" thing can spin out of control if it's not dealt with. And the example I'm thinking of is Torii Hunter takes out Jamie Burke on a cheap slide at home, Jamie Burke gets some no name pitcher that he knew from the minors who is on the Brewers to throw at Hunters head. Burke sends the guy some champagne, Hunter can't see out of his left eye.


This is a valid point. What if the gift were cash? Lots and lots of cash? Say TorIIIII offered the Royals $10K apiece to win that series? Think some of the Royals might have been rougher on the kittens? What if someone got hurt as a result and it helped the Twinkies win the division?

I know that didn't happen, but if you let it completely slide, you open the door to someone doing something just like this in the future.

SoxSpeed22
04-24-2007, 09:40 PM
The best part about this whole thing is the end result. He bought the Royals champagne for sweeping the Tigers and all that resulted from it was the Twins shortening their offseason by 5 days while the Tigers went to the World Series. Live and learn, right?

soxfanreggie
04-24-2007, 10:48 PM
While I think 3 years is too much for this violation, he clearly broke a rule. The problem with letting someone off scot-free in a situation like this is that anyone can them claim ignorance of something, like the steroid example. I was thinking of a fine around $25,000, with a warning to all major league players that harsher penalties will be handed out in the future. This is a situation where you can let players know that rules, no matter what the intent, are not meant to be broken.

If you are driving 75 MPH because that's your state's speed limit and get pulled over because the state you're in has a speed limit of 55, you will get a ticket. Your intent may not have been to speed, but you're still goign to get punished with a ticket. Hunter should minimally be fined.

Dan the Man
04-24-2007, 11:07 PM
As soon as I saw some posts like "Screw him... rules are rules... see ya in 2010" I wondered what we the Sox fans would say if this happened to Jermaine Dye. I'm sure most responses would be more along the lines of "Oh come on, it was a nice gesture, this is ridiculous, what a BS rule..."

Nellie_Fox
04-25-2007, 01:29 AM
MLB is between a rock and a hard place. I'll be very interested to see how they handle this. "Shall be..." is mandatory language. If it said "May be disqualified for up to..." they'd have some wiggle room. But with the mandatory language, I kind of think they either have to say he didn't violate the rule, or enforce it. If they say "well, yeah, he violated it, but we're not going to follow our own rule" that really leaves them hanging out for the future.

chisoxmike
04-25-2007, 01:30 AM
As dumb as the rule is...

:praying:

ilsox7
04-25-2007, 01:31 AM
MLB is between a rock and a hard place. I'll be very interested to see how they handle this. "Shall be..." is mandatory language. If it said "May be disqualified for up to..." they'd have some wiggle room. But with the mandatory language, I kind of think they either have to say he didn't violate the rule, or enforce it. If they say "well, yeah, he violated it, but we're not going to follow our own rule" that really leaves them hanging out for the future.

This is certainly a true test of spirit of the law v. letter of the law.

MUsoxfan
04-25-2007, 04:30 AM
I recall the Cubs sending a bunch of Malnati's pizzas with some other stuff up to Milwaukee for defeating the Astros and sealing their division championship in '03. I don't remember seeing a story about that back then. It's a stupid rule equivalent to jaywalking that should never be enforced. Drug rules start at a few games and something like this warrants 3 years....oh please.