Reserving Judgment... But What Did the Sox Do and How Bad Will They Get Hit?

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
46,905
Is the person in charge of doing the notifications sick or is it the person who was drafting the press release?
 

nattysez

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
4,665
Boy would I like to better understand the context here. This doesn't sound great -- note especially the bolded. Edited to add: Never mind -- this is likely (hopefully) just a reference to the Apple Watch shenanigans.

A lawyer for the Red Sox on Friday morning suggested that MLB already has made a conclusion on whether the team in 2018 violated baseball’s ban on in-game use of electronics. The attorney declined to admit that the Red Sox illicitly stole signs using electronics.

“We do not admit that,” Lauren Moskowitz of Cravath, Swaine & Moore told the judge when he asked her, “Do you admit or not that the Red Sox violated the rules?”

The interaction occurred during a one hour, 47-minute oral argument on whether lawsuits brought by fantasy sports contestants over the sign-stealing scandal should be dismissed. The Red Sox, along with the Houston Astros, and MLB are defendants. The arguments were made telephonically.

“That’s interesting,” Judge Jed Rakoff replied. “So you think the commissioner of baseball was just off base in your view?”

MLB has yet to issue a report or prospective discipline against the Red Sox for after sources told The Athletic that the team used its video replay room illegally during its 2018 championship campaign.

Nevertheless, Moskowitz replied, “Your Honor, I think that there are distinctions between what the Red Sox believe occurred and what the commissioner found. And I think that certainly they’re entitled to disagree that that activity happened at the club level. Certainly, we did find on certain occasions in 2017, that this electronic device was used to communicate sign information.”
 
Last edited:

JBJ_HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2014
389
That is a weird story to read, but assuming it true and just poorly written, is there going to be a big shoe to drop because the lawyer says, "and I think that certainly they’re entitled to disagree that that activity happened at the club level."

What's club level? Heyman already said Dombrowski is clear.
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
4,846
That is a weird story to read, but assuming it true and just poorly written,
Yes, the complaint generally alleges actions knowingly taken between 2017 (the apple watch) and continuing to 2019. The motion to dismiss seems to treat these as a similar group of potential wrongful conduct, and argued that at least by 2017 the plaintiff was aware this sort of activity was occurring.

In filings with the Manhattan federal court on Friday night, the defendants said courts have repeatedly dismissed legal claims by disgruntled sports fans who said they were harmed by rules violations.
They also said the five plaintiffs knew as early as Sept. 2017 that sign-stealing was occurring, when baseball commissioner Rob Manfred fined the Red Sox for using an Apple Watch to capture signs from the New York Yankees.
In the motion, the parties have to take facts as alleged or not disputed, so the Judge was in my view simply asking if the Sox were acknowledging that they did do something wrong, and it seemed to be a reference to the 2017 conduct. Without the whole transcript, I assume this is to see if all parties agree that the 2017 punishment was actually notice to the plainitiffs, or if that is in dispute. That seems to be the narrow question for purposes of his ruling on the motion.

Lauren Moskowitz, an attorney for the Red Sox, noted that teams are allowed to use legitimate methods to decode their opponents’ signs.
“There’s all sorts of rules, and interference, too,” she told Rakoff. “These are all rules that are routinely part of the game, and where do you draw the line?” She said the court “is not a place to enforce those rules.”
Rakoff asked if she admitted, then, that the team had broken the rules.
“We do not,” she said.
“Well, that’s interesting,” Rakoff said. “So the commissioner of baseball was just off base, in your view?”
Moskowitz said the club acknowledged an electronic device was used but that “they’re certainly allowed to disagree there was activity at the club level.”
"Your Honor, I think that there are distinctions between what the Red Sox believe occurred and what the commissioner found," Moskowitz told Judge Jed Radoff. "And I think that certainly they're entitled to disagree that that activity happened at the club level. Certainly, we did find on certain occasions in 2017, that this electronic device was used to communicate sign information."
Also, the case has had no discovery whatsoever, so there is no practical way for the parties or Judge to know what the Commissioner "found" in this latest investigation. He's referring to the 2017 Apple watch one.
 
Last edited:

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
46,905
Yes, the complaint generally alleges actions knowingly taken between 2017 (the apple watch) and continuing to 2019. The motion to dismiss seems to treat these as a similar group of potential wrongful conduct, and argued that at least by 2017 the plaintiff was aware this sort of activity was occurring.



In the motion, the parties have to take facts as alleged or not disputed, so the Judge was in my view simply asking if the Sox were acknowledging that they did do something wrong, and it seemed to be a reference to the 2017 conduct. Without the whole transcript, I assume this is to see if all parties agree that the 2017 punishment was actually notice to the plainitiffs, or if that is in dispute. That seems to be the narrow question for purposes of his ruling on the motion.





Also, the case has had no discovery whatsoever, so there is no practical way for the parties or Judge to know what the Commissioner "found" in this latest investigation. He's referring to the 2017 Apple watch one.
“Off base” - Rakoff is such a publicity hound. At least the Sox use the best firm in the world.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
4,113
This is just ridiculous. They've got pretty much nothing at all to do. Just put it out there already.
 

edoug

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,389
This is just ridiculous. They've got pretty much nothing at all to do. Just put it out there already.
I used to be neutral about Manfred. Having to deal with kind of unique problems and all that. Now I'm firmly in the he must go group. It's in the best interest of baseball.
 

Devers1stBeer

Member
Silver Supporter
Mar 26, 2020
8
I used to be neutral about Manfred. Having to deal with kind of unique problems and all that. Now I'm firmly in the he must go group. It's in the best interest of baseball.
Same here.
From a PR standpoint, it's bad for the league as a whole to drag this out. Sitting on this makes it feel like a Goodell-ish vendetta scenario...
 

edoug

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
3,389
Same here.
From a PR standpoint, it's bad for the league as a whole to drag this out. Sitting on this makes it feel like a Goodell-ish vendetta scenario...
Yeah, it is reprehensible.
Congratulations on becoming a new member.
:fonz: