There are many pieces detailing how the Astros appear to have cheated by using video to steal signs in real-time. Ken Rosenthal and Evan Drellich wrote a lengthy piece for The Athletic with quotes from former Astros’ pitcher Mike Fiers detailing the team’s practices in 2017. The basics are in that piece, but there are a several more that discuss what the team was reportedly doing and how they did it. We don’t yet know all the facts; it is still unclear precisely how long the team engaged in this practice, and who all of the responsible parties are. But what the evidence makes pretty clear is that the Astros stole signs with the aid of advanced technology and relayed those signs to hitters during games. That’s cheating.

What the Astros and their employees might receive in terms of punishment for engaging in that practice is less clear, though multiple precedents have been set to guide the league’s possible enforcement. Perhaps you’re of the mind that the consequences Astros deserve to suffer is to have won fewer games, including their 2017 World Series. But such an extreme result is unlikely. Astros wins and championship banners probably won’t be taken away or vacated like a farcical college athletics penalty. Even when players are caught cheating in the middle of games, the results aren’t vacated. So what might we expect? In looking to past scandals, we can get a glimpse at MLB and Rob Manfred’s approach. There are multiple factors that play into potential punishment, both for individuals and the franchise, but here are a few of the major ones:

Is this the first time a team has been penalized for breaking the rules?

Was the organization cooperative with MLB’s investigation?

How high up the organizational chain does the knowledge and activity go?

For the first factor, let’s consider the Boston Red Sox’s penalty for breaking the rules surrounding signing international free agents. After the club exceeded the allowable pool amount to sign Yoán Moncada, it were restricted from signing any amateur international free agents for more than $300,000. To get around those restrictions, the Red Sox signed less well-regarded players for $300,000 with the expectation that money from some of those lesser players would go to the better players who should have received higher bonuses and were represented by the same agents. When the Red Sox penalty for circumventing the rules came down in 2016, they were prohibited from signing any international free agents for a year, and the players involved were declared free agents, with Boston unable to recoup their signing bonuses, which remained with the players. It was the first time a team had been penalized in this fashion.

Fast forward to the penalties handed down in the Braves case in November 2017. The Braves engaged in a similar scheme as the Red Sox’s, except they did so the year before they spent big on international amateurs. By breaking the rules to stay under their pool level in the 2015-2016 signing period, they were able to spend more in the next period and give multiple players million dollar bonuses, including Kevin Maitan. As a result, the players who were part of the scheme in the 2015-2016 signing period were declared free agents. In addition, the players who the Braves were able to sign in the next period only because of the previous scheme were also declared free agents. The Braves were also unable to recoup the bonuses handed out to these players. This was essentially the same penalty as the Red Sox, except that, because of the way the Braves broke the rules, they lost about ten times more in bonus money. The Braves were prevented from giving out a bonus of more than $10,000 for a year, similar to the Red Sox, but they also received further penalties in the form of a smaller bonus pool in 2020-2021. On top of the organizational penalties, former general manager John Coppolella was permanently banned from working in baseball, while special assistant Gordon Blakely was suspended for a year.

When differentiating the penalties the Braves and the Red Sox received for essentially the same infraction, we can think of the Red Sox’s transgression acting as a warning for the rest of the league. While the Braves’ penalties look a lot more severe, the organizational impact was similar — the difference in severity came in the punishments for individuals. And a cooperative front office matters. When Rob Manfred was asked about potential Cardinals’ penalties for the hacking scandal and how the Red Sox situation compared, he specifically mentioned the Red Sox cooperation as a factor in determining their sanctions: