Cards are the beloved golly-gee honest Midwestern franchise, you can't expect the mediots to want to change that narrative. Facts be damned.
The Cardinal in the Computer System
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
The mistake is in thinking ESPN is a "news" site. It isn't; it's a "sports as entertainment and generating-controversy" site.
The NFL Playoffs are starting; the college football championship is Monday -- those topics are going to dominate what ESPN puts forth. The hacking story is an OTL one-off in comparison, which suffers from several factors that doom it from being a higher priority:
-- It doesn't involve a player. And, even at that, arrests and charges against players who aren't household names gets short shrift
-- It doesn't involve an organization that has a high-profile cache. If this involved the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers or Red Sox, it would be a bigger story. (Yes, the Cardinals are a high-profile team on the field. For what anyone knows about their front office, they might as well be the Indians.) If the Cardinals had just won the World Series, it would be a bigger deal.
-- It involves "computer stuff." The impact of how this affects the Astros or helps the Cardinals can't be explained in 10 words or less.
-- It's the baseball off-season.
-- The story broke (in ESPN terms) "a long time ago." This was just the outcome.
-- This is the legal punishment phase. When (or if) the Cardinals have a draft pick taken away, or are hit with a heavy fine, that makes it juicier for the sports fanbase.
-- It's not going to generate a lot of hits on the website.
Mind you, I'm not saying all or any of these factors have validity ... just that these are some of the reasons it's not as hot-button a topic as some people expect. In the end, it really does come down to ESPN's priorities not being those of a news-presenting organization -- either on TV or through its website. It's not what they do.
The NFL Playoffs are starting; the college football championship is Monday -- those topics are going to dominate what ESPN puts forth. The hacking story is an OTL one-off in comparison, which suffers from several factors that doom it from being a higher priority:
-- It doesn't involve a player. And, even at that, arrests and charges against players who aren't household names gets short shrift
-- It doesn't involve an organization that has a high-profile cache. If this involved the Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Dodgers or Red Sox, it would be a bigger story. (Yes, the Cardinals are a high-profile team on the field. For what anyone knows about their front office, they might as well be the Indians.) If the Cardinals had just won the World Series, it would be a bigger deal.
-- It involves "computer stuff." The impact of how this affects the Astros or helps the Cardinals can't be explained in 10 words or less.
-- It's the baseball off-season.
-- The story broke (in ESPN terms) "a long time ago." This was just the outcome.
-- This is the legal punishment phase. When (or if) the Cardinals have a draft pick taken away, or are hit with a heavy fine, that makes it juicier for the sports fanbase.
-- It's not going to generate a lot of hits on the website.
Mind you, I'm not saying all or any of these factors have validity ... just that these are some of the reasons it's not as hot-button a topic as some people expect. In the end, it really does come down to ESPN's priorities not being those of a news-presenting organization -- either on TV or through its website. It's not what they do.
As Bob Costas might say, "Nothing to see here" and/or "It never went beyond Correa"
It's The Sainted St. Louis Cardinals for Jah's sake
It's The Sainted St. Louis Cardinals for Jah's sake
I totally agree with your main point: this is not the type of story that is likely to generate a huge amount of hits on their website and that largely explains the minimal coverage this story has received. That said, ESPN was being criticized for not even having a link to the story on their main MLB page - and obviously that is not a page that would ever post football stories. None of the sites I reviewed gave attention to the story on their main sports page, but ESPN -alone among all sites - didn't even link to the story on their main MLB page. Considering that this is a relatively slow time for baseball news (for example, the unexciting news that Dan Jennings has been hired as a special assistant for the Nationals GM was given a link) the fact that Correa pleading guilty wasn't seen as link-worthy on ESPN's MLB page seems a bit off.
Clearly, MLB and the NFL are run completely differently. This would be much more interesting if this was, say the beloved Green Bay Packers that were caught doing this.
However, I'd like to see the media frenzy that accompanies the worst scandal in pro sports in years.
(Of course...there won't be)
I don't know, between the Sox international draftees and wanting to set a precedent about hacking I could see pretty major repercussions on this one.
Provided they do a through, trustworthy, legitimate investigation and figure out if this is institutional or a rogue employee there could be a wide range punishments. If it's one guy trying to make himself look good or grinding an axe with a former coworker, I think it's perfectly acceptable to not throw the book at StL. If it's systemic than sure. But short of hiring Ted Wells, I think it will be tough to gauge the competency level unless Manfred decides to be completely transparent. I think MLB has probably earned some benefit of the doubt, but ymmv.
umm, aren't the Cardinals probably the most beloved baseball team? World's greatest fans and all.
PP's got a fair take. Manfred showed himself quite capable of moral reasoning in his Pete Rose decision. He has credibility where the NBA has machiavellian whitewashing (Donaghy), the NHL has (mostly-benign) stupidity, and the NFL has pathetic, King Lear-grade mockeries of justice.
I fully expect that a report will be released detailing what evidence exists, if any, that there was institutional direction of Correa's actions - and if so, how that should be weighed in evaluating a team punishment.
I fully expect that a report will be released detailing what evidence exists, if any, that there was institutional direction of Correa's actions - and if so, how that should be weighed in evaluating a team punishment.
46 months in jail for hacking a team's scouting reports? Yikes. That seems ridiculously excessive.
Somewhere Hillary Clinton smiles, while eating the last piece of bread.
Somewhere Hillary Clinton smiles, while eating the last piece of bread.
The only thing that is ridiculously excessive is your penchant for bringing your skewed V&N perspective to other forums.
He got 46 months because it's an open and shut case of major corporate espionage. He'll probably serve about half that and he'll do his time in relative luxury compared with most criminals.
What, exactly, is your issue with the sentence?
It seems way longer than other cases of corporate espionage I've followed, and infinitely longer than the one you apparently get for storing top secret information on an insecure server.
That and the guy is not. A danger to anyone, so I don't want to pay his room and board for 4 years anymore than I want to pay to house people who smoke weed or take money for sex.
I'd prefer a nice large fine, which hurts him in the same way he hurt the Cardinals -- monetarily -- and pays off some government debt rather than creating more.
He reportedly hacked into the Astros system on 60 separate occasions over a 35 day period and caused an estimated $1.7M in harm. He was charged on 12 separate federal counts. He took a plea deal and had seven of the charges dropped in return for a guilty plea on the other five.
The federal (non-binding) guideline for the financial harm alone is 36-48 months. Each of the five counts he pled guilty to carried a maximum sentence of sixty months. So he was facing 348 months on the five counts he pled guilty to, let alone the seven dropped.
He ended up with 46 months and being forced to repay $279k in restitution. He will be eligible for parole after 39 months.
If you read some of the articles and the way the judge handled him in the courtroom, it doesn't sound like he was extremely cooperative or contrite about the whole thing. The judge excoriated him in open court. So, I think he got off pretty light considering what he was looking at. I am aware he didn't kill anyone and I still think he should go to jail. It's not on par with pot or prostitution offenses, though I know you like to be dramatic.
Let me ask you this - if you think he should get off with a fine, what number makes you happy to "pay off some government debt" in any meaningful way and what avenue is he taking to actually pay that fine? When he was last employed he was an early thirties scouting director, probably making low six figures. I highly doubt his career will resume. Unless he has family money, where's that money coming from? Garnishing his wages? What do you think his career opportunities will be when he gets out?
Last edited:
PP was very thorough in covering the issue of the length of the sentence, so I will simply co-sign his remarks.
Beyond that, I normally enjoy your baseball posts. I don't enjoy seeing V&N trolling in baseball forums. Please stop it.
I agree with you in principal to an extent, but if crime becomes purely economic, there's an obvious calculation for the wrongdoer:
- How much $ will I as a wrongdoer make for myself or my employer? (Say 2 million for sake of argument.)
- How much $ will I make personally? (Soft benefits, including promotions, corporate cred, etc.)
- What is the likelihood I will get caught? (Less than 100% certainly, say 25%)
- Therefore, if I only pay a fine, how much of a fine, on average, would I or my employer, have to pay for me to break even (or to not try to do it again)? (2M x 4 = 8M).
- If I get assessed a fine, how likely is it that I'll actually be able to pay, or that my employer would? Meaning, could I just continue to live, work for someone, somewhere, take my vacations, go the beach, and not be sent to debtor's prison (which does not exist)?
Details on the hacking scandal were unsealed by a federal judge earlier this week. Some snippets:
MLB is going to let the Cardinals skate by on this, aren't they?
If the Red Sox lost their ability to sign international amateurs for '16-'17 for playing games with signing bonuses, then the Cardinals should lose a significant part of several drafts.
If the Red Sox lost their ability to sign international amateurs for '16-'17 for playing games with signing bonuses, then the Cardinals should lose a significant part of several drafts.
Punishment handed down today. Link
Cardinals send their second and third picks in this year's draft to Houston (their first going to CHC for signing Fowler), plus a $2m fine (not going to Houston).
Correa gets essentially a lifetime ban, and St. Louis also loses the bonus money associated with their forfeited picks.
Cardinals ownership released a statement, as well:
“We respect the Commissioner’s decision and appreciate that there is now a final resolution to this matter,” said [Chairman William O. DeWitt Jr.] “Commissioner Manfred’s findings are fully consistent with our own investigation’s conclusion that this activity was isolated to a single individual.”
Cardinals send their second and third picks in this year's draft to Houston (their first going to CHC for signing Fowler), plus a $2m fine (not going to Houston).
Correa gets essentially a lifetime ban, and St. Louis also loses the bonus money associated with their forfeited picks.
Cardinals ownership released a statement, as well:
“We respect the Commissioner’s decision and appreciate that there is now a final resolution to this matter,” said [Chairman William O. DeWitt Jr.] “Commissioner Manfred’s findings are fully consistent with our own investigation’s conclusion that this activity was isolated to a single individual.”
I suppose the concept is a warning to other teams. Try to sabotage a rival, you'll not only get dinged but the other team will benefit
Aren't 28 other teams getting screwed over too though? It still is quite the deterrent. It said he caused an estimated $1.8mil in damage. What is slot value for their 2 picks?
Also regarding the Redsox losing their ability to sign 16-17 IFA's, they were already capped to 300k a signing anyway. Seems a bigger punishment than it was.
edit: Maybe the picks have to go somewhere and they can't just be removed given how the draft is set up. I dunno.
Re: The picks
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 35m35 minutes ago
Pick 56 in last year’s draft was assigned value of $1,141,600. Pick 75 was $851,900. 2017 values will be added to #Astros’ pool.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal 35m35 minutes ago
Pick 56 in last year’s draft was assigned value of $1,141,600. Pick 75 was $851,900. 2017 values will be added to #Astros’ pool.
Thanks for correcting. I wonder if the $2m is MLB's way of reallocating bonus slot money ($1,993,500), or if it's a separate line item?
Someone on twitter pointed out that $2m is the max fine allowed of a team by the commissioner's office. Just coincidence that it's nearly the slot value in this case.
And what's to stop them from signing a big ticket FA next year or any year they decide to take the pick? I forgot the rule changes so maybe it's not an issue after this season anyway.
Top three picks for a couple years would seem fair to me.
Plus another suspension or two. Obviously Correa got lifetime ban but a 3-6 month suspension for his superiors seems about right. Assuming MLB felt they were completely unaware and had little way of knowing.
Plus another suspension or two. Obviously Correa got lifetime ban but a 3-6 month suspension for his superiors seems about right. Assuming MLB felt they were completely unaware and had little way of knowing.
I would guess the picks could be removed. But I don't see why they should be. The 28 other teams won't be drafting any later than they would have otherwise. They're not getting any benefit from the punishment, but they're not losing anything, either.
Correa issued a statement on Twitter. Basically accusing MLB of unfair treatment of the Cardinals because "the Astros did it to us first".
Yikes. Has that been part of the story thus far? Or is Correa drawing a false equivalency here and I am misremembering?
That's always been his defense.
Feds didn't buy it. MLB didn't buy it. And while I'm loathe to agree with MLB, based on what I've read, I don't buy it.