Day After, Vincent Is Puzzled : Ruling: He says Yankee owner rejected a more lenient penalty, possibly because it involved ‘suspension.’

NEW YORK —  Baseball Commissioner Fay Vincent said Tuesday that, in his opinion, George Steinbrenner agreed to a more severe penalty for his involvement with a known gambler than the one Vincent originally had settled on.

Although Vincent would not specify what his original decision had been, according to one baseball source, Vincent was planning to suspend the New York Yankee owner for two years, a penalty that would have been less severe than the one Steinbrenner finally agreed to.

When Steinbrenner objected to suspension, Vincent came up with an alternative plan that, although semantics would make it appear less stringent, was far harsher. A suspension would have allowed Steinbrenner to return as general partner after two years. Instead, Steinbrenner agreed to a lifetime ban.

Vincent, referring to his original decision only as Plan A, said he was puzzled by the turn of events.

“I found some aspects of yesterday strange,” he said in his office. “They remain strange this morning and I am trusting you (reporters) to figure it out.”

Vincent ruled Monday that Steinbrenner had not acted in the best interests of baseball in his dealings with gambler Howard Spira, whom Steinbrenner paid $40,000, allegedly in return for information on former Yankee Dave Winfield and Winfield’s charitable foundation. Vincent ordered Steinbrenner to give up control of the Yankees.

Vincent said he told Steinbrenner of his ruling and the penalty shortly after 9 a.m. Monday. Steinbrenner and his attorneys raised some concerns, and discussions continued for the next 11 hours.

“We discussed Plan A, and I made notes on a pad and said I would be willing to do this,” Vincent said. “I sent Steve (Greenberg, deputy commissioner) in and gave him seven paragraphs that were seven points that I wrote out that became Plan B. And that became the working hypothesis.”

” . . . I put out a proposal as an alternative that I thought would be more difficult. He chose the one that is more stern than the one originally discussed. From where I stand, I thought the second proposal was more severe.”

When asked if Steinbrenner’s objection to Plan A was to the word, suspension, Vincent replied: “Possibly.”

The penalty finally agreed to is that Steinbrenner be treated as if he has been placed on a permanently ineligible list, with a few exceptions.

Those exceptions allow him to stay in the game as a limited partner. But he does not have the right to apply for reinstatement.

Had he accepted the two-year suspension, he could have applied for reinstatement as general partner.

“Suspension is for a period of time, a finite duration,” Vincent said, adding that when the penalty expires the person usually is reinstated.

“When you are placed on the ineligible list, you are allowed to apply for reinstatement according to Rule 15c. But when you are placed as if you are on the ineligible list, you don’t even have the benefit of 15c.

“You explain to me why (Steinbrenner chose the more severe penalty), and I’ll read your papers.”

Neither Steinbrenner nor his attorney was available for comment. However, Steinbrenner issued a statement Tuesday that said, in part, that he had no desire to return as general partner.

“That will rest with my sons,” Steinbrenner said. “I have other endeavors which I plan to devote most of my available time to now, which are very important to me.”

Steinbrenner said in the statement that his 33-year old son, Hank Steinbrenner, would take over as general partner of the Yankees, subject to approval by three-quarters of the club’s 19 partners and the majority of major league club owners.

In the stipulations of the agreement released by Vincent on Monday, Steinbrenner has to resign as general partner on or before Aug. 20. He is completely restricted from talking to anyone in the Yankee organization on any matter regarding the team or baseball in general. He is also not allowed to attend a baseball game in any manner other than as a patron, which excludes him from sitting in a club owner’s box or any other activity not available to fans in general.

These activities are to be policed by club officials who are instructed to notify Bobby Brown, the American League president, of violations that could result in further penalties for Steinbrenner.

Steinbrenner can seek Vincent’s permission to take part in some functions as a limited partner. These include negotiations or disputes concerning television or radio contacts, concession agreements, government or lease agreements, and banking relationships.

The Yankees have also been put under Brown’s supervision for five years. Brown’s approval is required for the club to hire, fire, promote, demote or reassign any officer of the club.

In addition, Philip McNiff, the director of security for Steinbrenner’s American Ship Building company, is not allowed to perform any service or have any contact with the Yankees. McNiff allegedly headed Steinbrenner’s investigation of Winfield.

Vincent said he is satisfied that Winfield did not know that Spira was a gambler at the time Winfield was associated with him.

“Don’t forget that when Mr. Spira went to Mr. Steinbrenner, it was because he was cut off and disposed of from Winfield,” Vincent said. “The reason Spira went to Steinbrenner is because he was furious that David Winfield dropped him. One difference between the two is that David Winfield decided that Spira was no longer anyone he wanted to associate with, and dropped him. That’s a significant difference.”

Vincent reiterated Tuesday that he was under no obligation to give Steinbrenner a choice, but that he did listen to his concerns.

“The message from this is that you may not conduct an investigation of a player on a private basis without telling the commissioner, and associate with a gambler without telling the commissioner, and certainly not make a payment to a gambler,” Vincent said.

” . . . I think (what Steinbrenner did) is serious, but not serious enough to require a sale. It’s not a science when making judgments. Could somebody disagree? I suppose so. Some feel what I required here may have been stronger than they would think appropriate. I knew that when I got into this.

“I call them as I see them.”