Balta1701 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 QUOTE(BearSox @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 06:28 PM) who cares... I could see if it was almost like bribes for beating up on such team, to give them more motivation or something, but this was probably a cheap bottle of champagne all out of jest. This shouldn't even be an issue. According to Hunter on the Dan Patrick show, he spent at least $500 on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 4 bottles for 25 players? The Twins...such tightwads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 QUOTE(vandy125 @ Apr 24, 2007 -> 06:09 PM) I agree that it should be enforced in some manner, but not the 3 years. That would be ridiculous. Come on Kalapse a Ferrari vs some bubbly? You can come up with a better example than that. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Give back the champagne, fine Hunter and give the fine to a charity. Make the fine large enough to be significant (not 5k), so that the message gets across. Maybe, at worst, suspend him one game to really nail the point home. But anything more than that would be a real shame, I think. The spirit of the rule seems clear - no team/person should be interfering with play between two other teams. The reward was not on the table prior, so it wasn't going to effect the Royals' play anyway. And does anyone actually think it will effect the Royals' play in the future either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Hunter didn't intentionally break a rule. It really would be absurd if he was punished in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) Hunter didn't intentionally break a rule. It really would be absurd if he was punished in any way. Ignorance of a rule/law is no excuse for breaking it. There is cause for leniency here, but I would like to see something, if nothing else a small fine, handed out. Either that or just get rid of the rule. Edited April 25, 2007 by Balta1701 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxin' Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 The MLB should get in trouble for handing out the World Series trophy, the Cy Young, and the MVP if Torii gets suspended for sending champagne. Kalapse you can not be serious, stop messing around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 11:12 AM) According to Hunter on the Dan Patrick show, he spent at least $500 on it. Well, for someone who makes as much Hunter, that is cheap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) The MLB should get in trouble for handing out the World Series trophy, the Cy Young, and the MVP if Torii gets suspended for sending champagne. Kalapse you can not be serious, stop messing around. What specific MLB club is MLB connected with? Look at the specific rule itself 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." Again I ask, what MLB club is MLB connected with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 04:42 PM) Look at the specific rule itself Again I ask, what MLB club is MLB connected with? Well, technically all of them in some fashion...currently most specifically the Brewers. But it's a stretch either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxin' Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 06:42 PM) What specific MLB club is MLB connected with? Look at the specific rule itself Again I ask, what MLB club is MLB connected with? All of them, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 10:23 PM) All of them, obviously. no, MLB is an entity, and they are not members of any organization at all. That's what the rule suggests. You are flat out misinterpreting their words. Besides that, the Cy Young, MVP, and World Series awards merely signify that they've won; they are not gifts, but rather rewards. It's not a gift if MLB has to give it to them by rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 25, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) no, MLB is an entity, and they are not members of any organization at all. That's what the rule suggests. You are flat out misinterpreting their words. Besides that, the Cy Young, MVP, and World Series awards merely signify that they've won; they are not gifts, but rather rewards. It's not a gift if MLB has to give it to them by rule. Are you sure your not the one misinterpreting it. And anyways, does it really matter. If you read the rule you obviously know what its supposed to mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 It's not one team/player offering a reward or gift to another team/player. It's the league itself offering a reward or gift to a team/player. That should clarify what is meant by the rule and what I was trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxin' Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 03:23 AM) It's not one team/player offering a reward or gift to another team/player. It's the league itself offering a reward or gift to a team/player. That should clarify what is meant by the rule and what I was trying to say. Who cares about all this? Stop being so defensive, it doesn't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 26, 2007 Share Posted April 26, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 06:22 PM) Who cares about all this? Stop being so defensive, it doesn't matter. You brought it up, so someone cares about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 Personally I could give two craps, especially since the comment about champagne was said after the effect. But thats just me. I know the rules are made for a reason but I don't think that reason was to prevent what Torri did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxin' Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 06:25 PM) You brought it up, so someone cares about it. ? Southsider started the thread. I wish Soxtalk went back to the days of early 2005 and before.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I would probably find it funny if Bonds bought Beckett a Ferrari. I find it kind of funny Hunter bought the booze. There was no bribe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Apr 26, 2007 -> 10:03 PM) ? Southsider started the thread. I wish Soxtalk went back to the days of early 2005 and before.. I'm not talking about Hunter, I'm talking about MLB giving out trophies. You did bring that up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 27, 2007 Share Posted April 27, 2007 I'm not certain how to write the rule to eliminate the obvious stuff that is wrong from the minor that clearly would not have an effect on the game. Do we think that for a moment a team would play harder if they knew four bottles of Champagne were up for grabs? How many bottles were showered on the Sox in 2005? If this was Mark Buerhle getting fined and/or suspended we'd be up in arms like you wouldn't believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.