Background

Phase 2 wantlist hit cleared. The September 15, 2017 statement is doctrinally significant for two reasons. First, it is the modern bright-line statement of the 'electronic-device' distinction in sign-stealing enforcement — the substantive holding that sign-decoding itself is permissible but use of electronic equipment to do so is not. Second, the closing 'future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks' is the explicit Commissioner-level warning that the January 13, 2020 Astros decision invoked when imposing first- and second-round-pick forfeiture in 2020 and 2021. Procedural note: the public statement is silent on the specific dollar amounts of the Red Sox and Yankees fines. The fines themselves were 'undisclosed amounts.' Contemporaneous press reporting put the Red Sox fine somewhere in the low six figures (industry-press estimates of $100,000-$500,000 were widely reported but never confirmed) — the actual figures remain officially undisclosed. Adjacent later document: the April 22, 2020 'Decision of the Commissioner in re Boston Red Sox' separately addressed (a) Alex Cora's 2017 Astros role (Cora was the Astros bench coach during the 2017 events documented in this statement and the January 13, 2020 Astros decision; he became the Red Sox manager in 2018) and (b) the 2018 Red Sox replay-room conduct — and is a natural Phase 2 follow-up acquisition target alongside this statement and the Astros decision.

Key provisions

• Disposition (Red Sox): fined an undisclosed amount, to be donated by the Commissioner's office to hurricane relief efforts in Florida.
• Disposition (Yankees): fined a 'lesser undisclosed amount,' also donated to hurricane relief efforts in Florida.
• Rule applied: MLB Regulations prohibit the use of electronic equipment during games and state that no such equipment 'may be used for the purpose of stealing signs or conveying information designed to give a Club an advantage.'
• Red Sox violation: 'During the 2017 season the Boston Red Sox violated the Regulation quoted above by sending electronic communications from their video replay room to an athletic trainer in the dugout.'
• Yankees violation (separate): 'During an earlier championship season (prior to 2017) the Yankees had violated a rule governing the use of the dugout phone... the violation occurred because the dugout phone technically cannot be used for such a communication.'
• YES Network allegation: 'During that investigation, we found insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the Yankees had made inappropriate use of the YES Network to gain a competitive advantage.'
• Forward-looking warning to all clubs: 'All 30 Clubs have been notified that future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks.' (Directly applied 28 months later in the Astros decision.)

Notable provisions

At the outset, it is important to understand that the attempt to decode signs being used by an opposing catcher is not a violation of any Major League Baseball Rule or Regulation. Major League Baseball Regulations do, however, prohibit the use of electronic equipment during games and state that no such equipment 'may be used for the purpose of stealing signs or conveying information designed to give a Club an advantage.'— Commissioner's statement regarding Red Sox-Yankees violations, Sep. 15, 2017

Based on the investigation by my office, I have nonetheless concluded that during the 2017 season the Boston Red Sox violated the Regulation quoted above by sending electronic communications from their video replay room to an athletic trainer in the dugout.— Commissioner's statement regarding Red Sox-Yankees violations, Sep. 15, 2017

Moreover, all 30 Clubs have been notified that future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks.— Commissioner's statement regarding Red Sox-Yankees violations, Sep. 15, 2017

Further context

Commissioner's Statement regarding Red Sox-Yankees Violations (Sep 15, 2017)

The immediate doctrinal predecessor to the January 13, 2020 Astros decision. Establishes the "electronic-device" line in sign-stealing enforcement and the warning that future violations would draw draft-pick forfeiture. Phase 2 wantlist hit cleared.

The substantive holding, in one sentence

Decoding an opposing catcher's signs is not itself a violation of MLB Rules; but use of electronic equipment to do so is — and the Red Sox crossed that line in 2017 by sending text messages from their video replay room to an athletic trainer in the dugout.

What's doctrinally important

Two things.

1. The bright-line "electronic-device" rule. Manfred articulates the distinction that has structured every subsequent sign-stealing investigation: the means (electronic equipment) is the violation, not the end (decoding signs). The same line shows up at the top of page 2 of the January 13, 2020 Astros decision, where Manfred quotes this statement at length before applying it to the trash-can-banging conduct.

2. The forward-looking warning. "All 30 Clubs have been notified that future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks." Twenty-eight months later, the Astros decision invoked exactly that escalation — first- and second-round-pick forfeiture in 2020 and 2021.

Verification status

needs_review — primary-publisher MLB.com press release retrieved via web_fetch and saved as plain text. Wayback snapshot pending. Confirmation against contemporaneous independent reproductions (CNBC, Sports Illustrated, NBC News all carried the verbatim statement in September 2017) deferred.

Related documents in the archive

• 2020-01-13_decision_manfred-astros-sign-stealing.md — the immediate doctrinal successor; explicitly quotes this 2017 statement on page 2.
• ../antitrust-and-courts/1978-04-07_caselaw_finley-v-kuhn.md — the foundational federal appellate ruling on Commissioner's best-interests authority.

Related documents

Related documents

Manfred Astros sign-stealing decision (Jan 13, 2020), Finley v. Kuhn

Source provenance

• Primary source