Marwin Gonzalez Addresses Media, Expresses Regret

My comment you quoted was my first in this thread. Like many of my comments on this site, I throw a bit of my humor onto it. I have since added many others that give my opinion in more plain language and detail.

1 Corinthians 2: 11 - For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?

Marwin knows whether he is remorseful. However, if you say you are remorseful and then also say you won't talk about it anymore, you're not expressing remorse. You're expressing that you want it to go away.

I actually believe he is remorseful, and I think commenters who have questioned what they would have done in the same situation are wise. It's impossible to say the wrong we would do until we find ourselves in the situation where we are presented with "benefits" and don't fully analyze what the potential negatives are if discovered. That's just being human.

I currently work in communications, and for a few years worked in "strategic communications" (you can think of that as similar to public relations). I know why Marwin handled it how he did. That's PR. I get it. But it is not what I would advise.

I think your original point about showing remorse by offering to renegotiate or give some contract dollars back was spot on.

I think your original point about showing remorse by offering to renegotiate or give some contract dollars back was spot on.

I think this is an incorrect attribution. I agreed with the poster who suggested Marwin sell his WS ring and donate to charity. I think that's a fine idea. I'm also ok with some sort of fine, though because the players were given immunity, I think that ship has sailed. Whatever amends a player makes now has to be done outside of MLB's purview.

I think renegotiating a contract would be a legal fiasco, and maybe not even allowed by the union.

I think this is an incorrect attribution. I agreed with the poster who suggested Marwin sell his WS ring and donate to charity. I think that's a fine idea. I'm also ok with some sort of fine, though because the players were given immunity, I think that ship has sailed. Whatever amends a player makes now has to be done outside of MLB's purview.

 

I think renegotiating a contract would be a legal fiasco, and maybe not even allowed by the union.

Fair enough.

I would have said...Yeah they suck and that is why I got the hell off that team asap...If your boss is stealing money at work, sometimes speaking up isn't the easiest thing to do if you need a job. The best thing is to leave and do the Annonie note I guess...I don't think all the Astro players were ok with cheating, but I'm hoping to hear them say this! And if Marwin got more trash can bangs than anyone else, I guess he would have been a better hitter and still be with them....

My comment you quoted was my first in this thread. Like many of my comments on this site, I throw a bit of my humor onto it. I have since added many others that give my opinion in more plain language and detail.

1 Corinthians 2: 11 - For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?

Marwin knows whether he is remorseful. However, if you say you are remorseful and then also say you won't talk about it anymore, you're not expressing remorse. You're expressing that you want it to go away.

I actually believe he is remorseful, and I think commenters who have questioned what they would have done in the same situation are wise. It's impossible to say the wrong we would do until we find ourselves in the situation where we are presented with "benefits" and don't fully analyze what the potential negatives are if discovered. That's just being human.

I currently work in communications, and for a few years worked in "strategic communications" (you can think of that as similar to public relations). I know why Marwin handled it how he did. That's PR. I get it. But it is not what I would advise.

My advice would be different.  Address it and move on.  Keep talking about it only affects the current and this transgression is in the past.  Like serving on a board of directors, the time to debate is during the time allowed for debate.  Once the board makes a decision, it is the boards responsibility to move forward as a united group with that decision per Roberts Rules of Order.

His contract, I'm pretty sure was discussed in another thread.  2017 was an outlier for him and someone discussed that his current deal was more relevant than not.  I'm good with that explanation also.

It's going to be a fun season.  I'm happy we have him.  I'm more happy that he addressed it and I hope that is the end of the distraction for the team.

I threw a “perhaps” in there because the lines get real blurry when trying to rank bad things.

 

Is it worse to be trampled by a herd of water buffalo or get stuck in an elevator with an angry badger or is it worse to live in Nebraska?

 

For the record... It has never been proven that Pete Rose bet against his team. The Dowd report never claimed he did.

 

No bookie is going to take that bet BTW.

 

It would be like me saying “Hey Chief... I’ll Bet you that I will spill this water all over the floor”. And you say “I’ll give you 4-1 odds.” And then I pour the water on the floor and you say “Ok you win this time... let’s go double or nothing.... here’s another glass of water”.

 

I was pretty young during the Black Sox Scandal so the historical significance is lost on me and I’m not the type to hold a grudge.

Hey now...some of us live in Nebraska. At least one of us does. Not naming names or anything.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Mike said, like AT ALL.

 

Don't put words into other posters' mouths, especially when they're that derogatory in nature.

Didn’t mean to do that. When people put things in print, they need to be clear so as not to be misunderstood. I saw the two things side by side—AP's child abuse and Marwin's role in the cheating scandal both being reasons to stop cheering for them—and commented on it. My general opinion is people are overreacting to the Marwin stuff.

I didn't say any such thing. Not even close. I said I wouldn't be rooting for Marwin.

Fair enough. As I said in a post above, I saw the two things next to each other and felt like you were suggesting some sort of equivalence between the two. Sorry if I came off as glib or an a-hole.

I threw a “perhaps” in there because the lines get real blurry when trying to rank bad things.   

Is it worse to be trampled by a herd of water buffalo or get stuck in an elevator with an angry badger or is it worse to live in Nebraska?

For the record... It has never been proven that Pete Rose bet against his team. The Dowd report never claimed he did.

No bookie is going to take that bet BTW.

It would be like me saying “Hey Chief... I’ll Bet you that I will spill this water all over the floor”. And you say “I’ll give you 4-1 odds.” And then I pour the water on the floor and you say “Ok you win this time... let’s go double or nothing.... here’s another glass of water”.

I was pretty young during the Black Sox Scandal so the historical significance is lost on me and I’m not the type to hold a grudge. 

Nebraska. South central Nebraska.

I echo what may have said.  He truly is not sorry, because "flags fly forever."  If he, and all the other players that have and most likely will say they are sorry truly was, they would have pulled the plug before it started.  They only stopped because other teams started to figure it out and would change up sequences.  Rich Hill, even said he would change up sequence every 6 pitches, and that game he dominated the Astros.  So they got to point they started guessing.  

Teams learned what was going on sign stealing, they just did not know the extent of technology that was being used.  I would not be upset if Twins released Margo for his roll in it, much as managers got the axe.  

I think it would be refreshing if someone from the team just said, no I am not sorry we did it, we won so there.  I doubt anyone will, but you know they are all thinking it.  

The apology is meaningless. My opinions will be based on his actions not his words.

It's not subjective. Using technology to steal signs and relay them to the batter in real time is 100% cheating. It's explicitly against the rules. 

 

Your hypothetical scenario is not cheating. Nobody would say that's cheating and it's not against the rules.

 

Well, I should say thank you for this video. He is really clear why this is cheating and how using our own intuition to steal signs is much different. I still wonder exactly what the rule book said, however. Here is an explanation, but all of this arises after the facts, so it's in some ways bogus. I am not saying what the Astros did was justifiable, but they could claim that the rules were not clear enough on what constituted stealing...although some of them felt enough guilt to do a mea culpa. (There are a few articles here and although the video provided is pretty convincing that the rules are clearcut, several of these articles seem to say that the rules were not very clear at all.)

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2821237-mlb-reportedly-adding-rules-for-cameras-video-to-restrict-sign-stealing

https://thebaseballcodes.com/category/sign-stealing/

The sentiment in here that the immunity was justified is hogwash. You don’t pardon capital murder to get details because you’re too sleepy to do the legwork of an investigation. Not to mention, the easiest investigation in the history of investigations. Every square inch of a baseball stadium is likely under surveillance. A guy on Twitter broke it open in an afternoon after work. Mike Fiers knew the whole story and was singing like a canary to the media. Let’s get real, here. There were motives for the immunity beyond some ancillary details, which the commissioners office had no interest in from day 1 (see the “investigations” they performed).

I don't read anywhere "here" that the feeling is immunity for the players was justified. It is just acknowledged as it was part of the process. I certainly don't feel it was justified, but once it is on the table, it is part of the story, and is not something to hold against the player. 

I find the comparison to capital murder....... especially for stealing signs, which people do from second base all the time.... kind of excessive. I don't think there was even bodily harm of any kind involved.

I think this scandal will keep Beltran out of the Hall of Fame and Altuve. I don't see how 75% of voters will vote for these 2.

BtW, Pete Rose was on the HOF ballots for 3 years and he received less than 10% of the vote. If reinstated no guarantee that a future Veterans Committee puts him in.

 I am not saying what the Astros did was justifiable, but they could claim that the rules were not clear enough on what constituted stealing...although some of them felt enough guilt to do a mea culpa. (There are a few articles here and although the video provided is pretty convincing that the rules are clearcut, several of these articles seem to say that the rules were not very clear at all.)

I do agree with you that the written rules weren't necessarily clear at the time. However, baseball (for some reason) has a LOT of unwritten rules. If you as a batter on second base yell, "curveball coming" to the batter at the plate, well, that's not against any rules. But the batter on second base will most definitely get a fastball to the back his next time up. 

Seems like 100% of current and former players also have agreed for years that using technology to steal signs is against the unwritten rules. Now the written rules are clear on this. 

Another unwritten rule is that there's some sort of clubhouse code, where you don't rat out fellow baseball brethren. I totally get loyalty but personally I think this rule is stupid as applied to the astros situation. This is why some people were/are mad at Mike Fiers. 

What did he mean by, “And some other things”?

I'm wondering if Marwin Gonzales would say anything to fellow Twins players if he noticed the Astros were stealing signs against the Twins? How about when I was facing you Berrios I was tipped off.

Oh, he could pretend not to notice.

I do agree with you that the written rules weren't necessarily clear at the time. However, baseball (for some reason) has a LOT of unwritten rules. If you as a batter on second base yell, "curveball coming" to the batter at the plate, well, that's not against any rules. But the batter on second base will most definitely get a fastball to the back his next time up. 

 

Seems like 100% of current and former players also have agreed for years that using technology to steal signs is against the unwritten rules. Now the written rules are clear on this. 

 

Another unwritten rule is that there's some sort of clubhouse code, where you don't rat out fellow baseball brethren. I totally get loyalty but personally I think this rule is stupid as applied to the astros situation. This is why some people were/are mad at Mike Fiers. 

Well-said!