Quote:
Originally Posted by thehef
No offense, but I'm having a hard time understanding this perspective. Both Manfred's report and the owner himself did a pretty good job of indicating that the owner knew nothing of the scheme. Yet you want him punished more than he already was, and seem to be ok with the main offenders facing absolutely zero punishment.
If it's from the perspective of "he should've known," then I think that applies to the GM, but not necessarily the owner. According to the reports, the GM barely knew. So it's pretty reasonable to assume that the owner wouldn't have been informed. So why punish him more than he already was, and let the players completely off? Simply because it's easier?
|
First, I’m not ok with the main culprits not being punished, I just think it will be too hard of a fight for MLB to want the fight. I’d love for them to suspend everyone they say is involved and fight the union. I’m just telling my opinion of why they won’t.
And if you don’t punish the owner more, then there is no deterrent for owners to do anything in the future and can maintain their ‘plausible deniability’. If the NBA can take an ownership away because of racist comments that weren’t illegal and not against any rule in particular other than the don’t make us look bad rule, then MLB can surely find a more severe punishment for an owner who was either too blind to see what his team was doing or knew completely what they were doing and covered his tracks really well.