Suspending baseball players is a joke, and now MLB pretty much admitted it

It has long been understood that the suspensions handed out to starting pitchers and hitters when an HBP leads to a fight are unfair. A first baseman suspended 5 games misses 5 games. A starting pitcher misses 1, at worst. But the results of Tuesday's Blue Jays-Yankees fight shows MLB knows no one takes them seriously.

Lets recap: Blue Jays batter gets hit by a pitch. Bottom of the eigth, Jay's reliever Carlson throws rediculously far behind Posada. Posada has words with Carlson. Posada would later come around to score from second, and bumps into Carlson, who was coming over to backup home plate if there was a throw. Carlson takes offense, benches clear, punches are thrown. As a result, Posada and Carlson are suspended four games each, Duncan is suspended three, and there are various other fines.

Oh, you heard they were all suspended three games each? Look a little deeper.

What pretty much every news story I've seen on the subject is glossing over is the fact that they were suspended four games, then had the suspensions reduced to three BECAUSE THEY AGREED NOT TO APPEAL! Oh sure, its in the stories, but usually as a throw away line at the beginning, or at the very end where no one will notice it. And I'm left asking, whats the point? Why even bother suspending people?

Sure, baseball has some harsh penalties. If you gamble on the game, you're out for life. Fail three drug tests, and out for life. Now Mike Scioscia might be facing fines for comments about the officiating in last nights Angels-Red Sox game. But the suspensions handed down for fighting and intentionally throwing at an opponent have become the laughingstock of the sports world. A suspended pitcher can immediately sit out a five game suspensions and miss one start, or his start can be pushed back and he won't really miss any. A fielder in an important series can appeal his suspension, enabling him to continue playing until the suspension is heard. Or he can just drop his suspension when the series is over or hes scheduled for a rest anyway, and begin serving his suspension when he or his teams wants him to. Not to mention the fact that appeals are usually successful in reducing a suspension by at least a game. And now this.

What Baseball has pretty much done now is take the appeals process out of the equation. Its as if they said "We know four games is too high, so if you agree to not drag out the appeals process, we'll drop it to three." This sets an interesting precedent for suspensions in the future. Could a starting pitcher now agree to immediately sit a five game suspension, miss four instead, and not even worry about interrupting his routine? Are we headed towards a point where a batter can say "I'll take four games, but only if I can serve them during our series against Kansas City next month"? What needs to be done is finally set up a mandatory length of time for suspensions of this type. Pitchers have to miss three trips through the rotation. Batters sit three games. The appeals system will remain the same, but they can only reduce a suspension one game, and if the appeal is lost, they must sit another game.

After all, if a pitcher intentionally throws at a batter, the pitcher's manager automatically sits one game with no appeal. Why not hold the players a little more responsible for their actions?