|
If the reason immunity was given was to get the players' cooperation, then Manfred should've gone with: "Give me honest testimony and any suspensions will not exceed a year. However, for those who don't cooperate, longer suspensions - including those for life - will be considered."
Same basic strategy. But no, Manfred simply did not want to do battle with the union. His mistake was thinking that by not engaging the union in a protracted battle, he would be hastening the timeline that this simply goes away. But in reality, by a) not punishing the players, and then, to a lesser degree, b) not seeing to it that Crane and the BlackStros' statements and apologies were comprehensive and sincere - instead of the making-matters-worse sh*t-show that it was - he merely traded one scandal-lengthening timeline for another.
Of course, any strategy that Manfred pursued would've needed the backing of the majority of owners, and who knows if other strategies would've garnered that backing. But I wonder what the union's response would've been if Manfred would've come at them from the outset with a strong, aggressive, and resolute mindset.
As Cobra Mgr indicated, "No one can tell me MLB w/its billions of revenue couldn't hire someone to investigate things and find out what's what. They gave immunity because they were too lazy and cheap." The MLB didn't need the players' cooperation. Clearly, Manfred could've pursued a strategy that involved punishing the players and getting the cooperation of at least some of them. He chose not to. I guess time will tell if he regrets that. I can't imagine he's at all happy with how things have played out so far.
|