From today’s Kansas City Star, on Mike Sweeney:
Sweeney found four bottles of Dom Perignon in his locker after the game. They represented the completion of a promise from last season by Twins outfielder Torii Hunter: a champagne party for sweeping the Tigers in the final series last season, which enabled Minnesota to win the American League Central Division.
This is dangerous. It’s prohibited in Rule 21, Misconduct:
(b) Gift for defeating competing club. 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 or supposed to be or to have been rendered in defeating or attempting to defeat a competing Club, and any player or person connected with a Club who shall solicit or accept from a player connected with another Club any gift or reward for any services rendered, or supposed to have been rendered, or who, having been offered any such gift or reward, shall fail to inform his League President or the Commissioner or the President of the Minor League Association, as the case may be, immediately of such offer, and of all facts and circumstances connected therewith, shall be declared ineligible for not less than three years.
Did Sweeney inform Selig when Hunter made the offer? Did Selig tell him it was okay? Or are we going to see both Sweeney and Hunter sit out for three years? Orrrr is baseball going to ignore this?
Three years seems a harsh penalty, but there’s a reason behind it. As I discuss in The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball, the misconduct rules, which cover gambling, payoffs, and other like behavior, came into being as baseball tried to move away from the close ties to gambling and crime interests that led to the 1919 Black Sox scandal. Howard Rosenberg documents more incidents of these kind of payoffs than I can easily recount in his Cap Anson series, particularly Cap Anson 2: The Theatrical and Kingly Mike Kelly: U.S. Team Sport’s First Media Sensation and Baseball’s Original Casey at the Bat
When teams made friendly bets on who would win a series, it was mostly innocuous, but it was in these same kind of bets and payoffs that some of the worst cheating was forged. By paying off another team to take out a divisional opponent, teams affected the strategies used and tampered with the game’s outcome: if there’s a large monetary reward to beat the team you’re playing today, there’s a huge incentive to do everything you can, even if it means you’ll be much worse off when you face the next team.
Those kind of bets and payoffs led to the constant noise in baseball up to the Black Sox scandal, when many division races were affected (or just as damningly, from a public perspective, rumored to be affected) by one competitor paying a third team, out of the race, to beat their rivals for the pennant. It wasn’t far from paying a team to beat another to paying them to lose to you, and when teams were taking money coming and going from outside sources in other teams, it wasn’t a big jump to take money from gamblers and other interested parties…
This is why baseball put such huge penalties around gambling, and these kind of friendly wagers and promises of gratitude: it’s a remnant of baseball’s hard-won experience fighting corruption. As time’s passed, baseball’s forgotten those lessons. For a long time, baseball wouldn’t associate at all with casinos, even exerting pressure on former players to refuse work as greeters, and now they’re happy to run ads for casinos in stadiums.
We’ll see if they take any action on this violation of the misconduct rule. I’d bet on no.
For a ridiculous amount of additional information on gambling, there’s a whole chapter in The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball, or you can check out the Rosenberg or Ginsburg books for entire volumes devoted to it.
hat tip to Ian for the pointer to the article
Jay Stokes | 21-Apr-07 at 11:48 am | Permalink
Vigilance is good, but a simple metric like: (cumulative value of gifts received / value of annual compensation) might put this in perspective. I doubt 4 bottles of bubbly would really affect performance; my guess is the value of the “side” bets preceding 1919 was much greater, given the minuscule salaries of the time.
DMZ | 21-Apr-07 at 11:52 am | Permalink
Ah, but that’s what they argued initially: it’s just a box of cigars, or a hat, or a team betting on themselves to win the division. Baseball set a zero tolerance rule for a reason, to prevent that slide from recurring.
The rule doesn’t have thresholds. Technically, unless Hunter/Sweeney cleared it with the league, they violated the rule and they face three years out of baseball.
Mat | 21-Apr-07 at 4:00 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure what relevance this might have, but I’m not exactly sure how concrete Torii’s promise was. I’m having trouble finding links to when he first made mention this. After a bit of searching, the best I can do is this:
This makes it seem like he could have been making it up as he went along. Would it make a difference if this was an after-the-fact gift? That is, Hunter was happy that the Royals had swept the Tigers and decided to reward them? Strictly from the wording of the rule, I guess it looks like it doesn’t matter.
It seems like you could argue that if the players didn’t know when they would be rewarded, it wouldn’t provide an incentive for them to do anything but win all of their games. But, like you say, it’s a slippery slope. A hat here, a box of cigars there, and pretty soon you’ve got incentives for all kinds of stuff that isn’t very good for the game.
eric | 23-Apr-07 at 10:41 am | Permalink
You have got to be kidding. I mean, get a grip.
But if you want to get all lawyerly, look at the rule. The key phrase, “for services rendered”. It is laughable on its face that Sweeney would “render” any services for four bottles of champagne.
The champagne is nothing but a “nominal” token. It’s good for the game to have these little jokes.
In shor, there were no services rendered and this doesn’t even rise to the level of a “gift” or “reward” because its so small that is “nominal”.
JayTee | 23-Apr-07 at 11:14 am | Permalink
A couple of points. First, it was apparently offered as an incentive to KC, not as a disincentive to Detroit to throw the game. What would have been a hypothethical impact, a KC player tried harder? Second, the quote referenced above was made during the postgame celebration. Offering something after the outcome of an event has been decided is hardly a wager.
Chris | 23-Apr-07 at 11:20 am | Permalink
Man I love legalists (I don’t mean that sarcastically - I really like when people delve into the details.)
A few observations:
-Even the *offer* was illegal, before the delivery. The above excerpts are a little unclear on who received the offer. Was it all the Royals? Maybe this is a creative way to contract the league’s worst team
-The word “immediately” is vague. One could argue that the contemporaneous press coverage notified the League. It’s not like it’s being revealed years later in someone’s memoirs on their deathbed. These guys seem to gone public with it the day of the offer and the day of the delivery.
-I wonder if Torii really did know about the rules. He “coyly” mentioned water, which presumably has no value. Or was he just joking about saving himself some money?
-Even if Sweeney returns the actual bottles, he still received the *offer* without notifying the League.
-Torii may have actually notified the League about the original joke, although I can’t imagine they would be okay with following through, in light of the explicit rules and public perception.
DMZ | 23-Apr-07 at 11:31 am | Permalink
On the issue of incentive: as I point out in the post, you can’t offer a team a gift or incentive to win.
And to the quote’s timing: also doesn’t matter. You can’t go giving people gifts after they beat certain teams.
Chris | 23-Apr-07 at 11:35 am | Permalink
PS, this was mentioned in the Star Tribune today, so you may get some Twins fans in here today.
Kevin | 23-Apr-07 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
Mind telling us where this “Rule 21″ appears? It certainly isn’t one of the 10 official rules of MLB.
Sam Scott | 23-Apr-07 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
I’m so happy that Derek Zumsteg exposed this little curfuffle that I think I’ll send him a reward. Cheez Wiz…or mayonnaise. Something in a jar.
Nah - just kidding! It would be illegal for a Twins fan to reward a Mariners fan for exposing the misdeeds of a pair of Twins and Royals players.
Besides, Derek Zumsteg is the SELF-PROCLAIMED winner of the 2004 World’s Smartest Human title. (See http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/04/11/wednesday/index.html). What could I give him that would hold a candle to that? Maybe a Twins sweep of the Mariners in Seattle?
Andrew | 23-Apr-07 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Well, Sweeney didn’t even play in the last game of that series. So if Torii had the INTENT to give an incentive and Sweeney had the INTENT to do, what?, play better baseball (and as a Pro athlete, you shouldn’t need any incentive to win. It’s your job.) then did the good sportsman-like “offer” from Torii Hunter even have an impact on the outcome? If Sweeney REALLY wanted those 4 little bottles of champagne, then he probably would have insisted on playing…or better yet, just gone to the damn store and boughten them himself. This was a joke, a fun way to show gamesmanship. As far as MLB cheating goes, let’s worry about meatheads throwing needles in thier arms and let this rest.
maudio | 23-Apr-07 at 1:55 pm | Permalink
Well, regardless, I don’t see anything happening? Why? Because doing something about this would cause a lot more damage to the public image of MLB than doing nothing. Just put it in the back of the sports pages so players realize they can’t do this in the future, and leave it.
Do you guys seriously think MLB would suspend players for 3 years for something like this? These aren’t laws, they are rules of MLB. Therefore, if the MLB deems it to be out of their interest to enforce their own rules, so be it. Politics and public image are a lot more relevant to their bottom line anyways.
DMZ | 23-Apr-07 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Lemme catch up–
It’s Rule 21 of MLB, the rules of how the leagues are organized and run, not the rules of how the game is played.
The “World’s Smartest Human” thing is a joke, as you’d see if you read the whole thing — the gag is that I cheated on my author bio.
Whether I think anything will happen - that’s not at all my point. I thought it was interesting to point out that this kind of gift/incentive/bet is expressly prohibited by the rules, and talk about why that is.
I certainly don’t expect that baseball’s going to toss them both for three years.
CalFly | 23-Apr-07 at 6:51 pm | Permalink
DMZ, call me when you get your JD and pass the bar exam. It’s not fun trust me. The rule is so poorly written it is practically unenforceable.
I could argue Hunter did not violate Rule 21.
Parsing out the rule we come up with 3 reasons Hunter might be liable:
1. Hunter Offers (or gives) a gift to a player FOR SERVICES RENDERED.
2. Offers (or gives) a gift to a player for services SUPPOSED TO BE RENDERED
3. Offers (or gives) a gift to a player for services TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED.
Let’s analyze each case
1.The rule is ” for services rendered.” It does not say “to render services”, the text of the rule suggests that that Sweeney would need to have actually rendered services for Torri, for Torri be found in violation of the rule. Can anyone point to specific actions that suggest Sweeney rendered services?
2. This part of the rule is broken if one player agrees to render services and the other player either offers payment or gives payment before the services are actually rendered. Would Hunter’s unilateral statements be enough to claim that Sweeny services were supposed to be rendered? Doubtful.
3.”to have been rendered”. same problems as before.
My arguments aren’t without their flaws but the rule is ambiguous enough to make it unenforceable against all but those who actually gave or offered property to a player who RENDERED or PROMISED TO RENDER SERVICES.
Brian | 24-Apr-07 at 5:59 am | Permalink
Fun to see that you’re making a real impact… from ESPN.com:
“And after “The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball Blog” reported the violation, the Twins got a phone call from the commissioner’s office about the proffered bubbly. And the Twins found themselves in an awkward position — having to call the Royals to ask that the champagne be returned.”
Buddydave | 24-Apr-07 at 6:22 am | Permalink
“I certainly don’t expect that baseball’s going to toss them both for three years.”
But you certainly talk like you want them to.
And you certainly enjoyed tattling on them.
Chris James | 24-Apr-07 at 6:48 am | Permalink
If any team wants to offer extra incentive for the Royals to win. I am all for it. We need all the help we can get. Seriously, Hunter offered the bubbly after he heard that the Royals had won, which allowed the Twins to win the division. This was not a case where the Royals were offered extra to win a game. Shame on the Cheater’s Guide for reporting a congratulatory thank you. Mark one for the TO’s and Barry Bonds of the world.
billT | 24-Apr-07 at 6:56 am | Permalink
I see that this story has been picked up by ESPN. Pretty cool.
Also, fans of teams involved with incidents brought up on this blog who come in here and act like the author has some personal vendetta against them or their favorite team need to get a better grip on reality.
Aaron | 24-Apr-07 at 7:16 am | Permalink
Derek-
ESPN’s on it, and this blog’s been referenced again:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2847416
Kudos! Here’s to hoping this leads to even more press for a fine book.
msb | 24-Apr-07 at 7:45 am | Permalink
well, obviously, MLB does care:
per ESPN: “And after “The Cheater’s Guide to Baseball Blog” reported the violation, the Twins got a phone call from the commissioner’s office about the proffered bubbly. And the Twins found themselves in an awkward position — having to call the Royals to ask that the champagne be returned. “
david h | 24-Apr-07 at 8:21 am | Permalink
Dude, you totally made a good thing into a bad thing.
Jordi | 24-Apr-07 at 8:32 am | Permalink
I remember reading about teams doing this a lot in the “Golden Ages” of baseball. Teams such as the Brooklyn Dodgers would sent incentives to other teams so they play harder against the the NY Giants, stuff like that. If it is reward based, I don’t see the problem. What better way to say thank you?
eric | 24-Apr-07 at 9:02 am | Permalink
Ok, I looked at this rule again. It is *clear* to me that this rule is meant to encompass bribes or rewards only. The reason that the rule *appears* to cover gifts after the fact is that the gift or reward would be evidence of some sort of promise or bribe *before the fact*.
Here, because it is simply laughable that such a nominal gift would affect the game, the after the fact gift is just that.
Young | 24-Apr-07 at 10:02 am | Permalink
It’s useful to excise excess language when interpreting a rule. Here:
“Any player connected with a Club who shall give any reward to a player connected with another Club for services rendered in defeating a competing Club, shall be declared ineligible for not less than three years.”
Matt | 24-Apr-07 at 10:13 am | Permalink
As a Tigers fan, I am outraged by the actions of Torii Hunter. If not for this gift, the Tigers would have an AL Central Title under their belts. Because of this outrageous gift of champagne, the Royals outpitched, outfielded, and outhit the best team in baseball over the last 3 games of the season. It also inspired them to get out of the bases-loaded, one out jam in the bottom of the ninth with the game tied on the last day of the season.
Woo | 24-Apr-07 at 10:40 am | Permalink
I wouldn’t be shocked to see Selig suspend Hunter for a few games…I’m sure this won’t get washed away with a warning like it should.
This would be a great chance for Selig to get revenge on the Twins team he tried and failed to contract.
Besides, sports leagues don’t care about small markets. Remember when the NBA penalized the Timberwolves their next 5 first round draft picks because they signed an under the table deal with Joe Smith? They never would have done that to the Knicks or the Lakers. So, why not suspend Hunter and hurt the Twins? It’s not like it’s A-Rod.
Nick Woods | 24-Apr-07 at 12:13 pm | Permalink
Derek, people like you make me sick. I’m a law student and I STILL find this issue unbelievably undeserving of serious discussion and analysis.
I agree with the post that mentioned the “promise” was for past consideration… also, I agree that Selig won’t anger the fans and should be worried about players injecting themselves with steriods… but then again this is the same commissioner that sanctioned the deplorable direct tv deal…
dw | 24-Apr-07 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
Michael Wilbon just called you “worse than the PETA people… they should be banned from America right now.” Congrats!
Eric | 24-Apr-07 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
Really? Really… This kind of a stupid thing to talk about stuff like this doesn’t matter all it does it ruin pro athletes day to day lives. Give these guys a break let them play ball and enjoy doing it. Are these guys gonna try to say that A-rods 14 homers don’t count on the all time list next or what. Get a life and give pro athletes a break they’re people to.
Ron | 24-Apr-07 at 2:38 pm | Permalink
Rule 21. What a joke.
mc | 24-Apr-07 at 3:14 pm | Permalink
Some people need to get a grip. Mostly the people migrating over here from ESPN. Anyone who’s read DMZ’s writing for any amount of time knows he writes intelligently and isn’t out to stir up any controversy. Yet another thing he found interesting and decided to share. Its not like he’s leading the witch hunt.
doug | 24-Apr-07 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
yea he also edits and chooses what blogs to publish…a real upstanding type guy…he can dish it but he can’t take it…a sad individul
Christopher Michael | 24-Apr-07 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
Derek you struck a nerve. I didn’t know Twins fans were so uptight.
A rule is a rule. Now the fact is that baseball isn’t going to enforce it at all. So it just ends up being a good history lesson and gives everyone an insight of a rule nobody out there knew about.
DMZ | 24-Apr-07 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
Curse me for only publishing this blog! I should publish a blog about all the other players who aren’t cheating! And a blog about… uh, insulting myself, I guess! Yes!
DMZ | 24-Apr-07 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
I don’t understand why pointing out that this potentially violates the rule, and why that rule came about, constitutes a personal attack on someone. I’ve never said Hunter or Sweeney are bad people — in fact, I’ve said quite the opposite. This is about something they did, whether they understood the potential consequences or not.
skipaway | 24-Apr-07 at 4:26 pm | Permalink
If people are unhappy with this incident, they should just lobby MLB to change it.
People should be mad about bad things, not those who point out bad things.
pete | 25-Apr-07 at 9:02 am | Permalink
The thing is, you wrote a book about cheating. A book in which you basically proclaim your love for gaylord perry. Then you accused k-rod of doing the same thing. I don’t even care if he does put something on the ball, it goes against the spirit of your book. This incident was fairly innocent, but caused a lot of trouble.
Basically, you’re being a narc, and everyone hates narcs.
Maxwell | 25-Apr-07 at 9:23 am | Permalink
People should be mad about bad things, not those who point out bad things.
But this wasn’t a “bad thing”. It was a collegial, humorous nod between peers in recognition of an offhand exchange months prior.
The author claims not to have been a “hall monitor” in his past life, but has become one in the present. We put spikes on buildings to prevent pigeons from roosting; Derek Zumsteg gives them a stool.
Petty informers like Zumsteg bleed the game of color in favor of licking the legalistic footnote. For them, it’s a self-enforcement fetish; for the fans, it’s a rain out.
Fat Ted | 25-Apr-07 at 10:56 am | Permalink
I think it’s hilarious that Wilbon hated on you. Should Hunter be forced to sit out 3 years? No. That’s not your problem, you just noticed a slightly humorous rule breaking going on. It’s not like you went and told the MLB to suspend Hunter. Well done and its funny to stuff like this pop up.
Also on Baseball Tonight last night, the one guy mentioned that stuff like this happens a lot in the majors. It was kind of awkward after that was said.
t.s. santos | 25-Apr-07 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Perhaps it’s because your main headline grabbing posts do not have the “potentially” part in them. On this matter: “This is dangerous. It’s prohibited in Rule 21″. On the K-Rod matter: something along the lines of ‘K-rod Cheats’. No in and or buts about it. Beyond implying or accusing them of malicious action with what they are doing you find them guilty of such (basically attacking their integrity) and demand that MLB do something about it. Stop making yourself out to be the inquisitioner, judge, and jury of baseball.
DMZ | 25-Apr-07 at 3:31 pm | Permalink
I did not imply or accuse that there was malicious intent in this incident.
And K-rod did cheat. He had a foreign substance on his uniform. That’s illegal, if tolerated. See those posts and those rule cites.
DMZ | 25-Apr-07 at 3:40 pm | Permalink
Further, I entirely reject the notion that I should stop writing about this stuff because someone thinks it’s better left unsaid, or it’s not interesting, or they think I’m a geek.
I wrote a book about it. It’s interesting. If this isn’t the site for you, well, I’m sorry.
stogie | 26-Apr-07 at 7:53 am | Permalink
Whether or not this blog strives to provide some sort of service, you’re part of the problem,not the solution
DMZ | 26-Apr-07 at 8:37 am | Permalink
I don’t understand how talking about this in the context of baseball’s rules is a problem.
cw | 26-Apr-07 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
Any chance if this happens again you get a chance to talk on some major sports talk show and defend yourself? Because most of the bad rep is from people who haven’t even looked at the blog and assume it to be something its not.
For the record, i hope you keep up the good work, despite all the criticisms.