• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

MLB Pseudo-Season 2020: Roger, Dodgers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jayson1 said:
So the Red Sox just gave him away. I would not want to be a Boston fan right now.

Jason
Click to expand...
According to ESPN, these are the details of the trade >> https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28636934/red-sox-agree-trade-mookie-betts-david-price-dodgers

Red Sox were never going to sign Mookie. Reports are that they offered him $300 million dollar contracts on more than one occastion but he wants Trout-similar money. With all the money they have tied up in other players, they weren't going to offer Mookie that much money for that many years.
I'm reserving judgment until what I see Chaim Bloom does moving forward.
 
Herbert said:
Reports are that they offered him $300 million dollar contracts on more than one occastion but he wants Trout-similar money.
Click to expand...

Every time you see an article that says "X team offered Y player $Texas but he turned it down," it's generally a planted story from the front office trying to drive the price down.

Especially when it comes to the Red Sox.
 
Timby said:
Every time you see an article that says "X team offered Y player $Texas but he turned it down," it's generally a planted story from the front office trying to drive the price down.

Especially when it comes to the Red Sox.
Click to expand...

I know it doesn't involve a second team (usually), but wouldn't that be like collusion? Or at least libel? What about tampering?
 
Cheering for a division rival, I for one would be happy to see the Red Sox down a peg. Now if only the Yankees had spent longer in mediocrity.
 
To quote Admiral Kirk, "I'll say this for him: he's consistent."

Pete Rose uses Astros saga to ask for reinstatement
In a petition sent to the MLB commissioner's office and obtained by ESPN, Rose and his lawyers argue that Manfred has recently opted not to punish players guilty of major game-changing rules infractions and, as a result, should end Rose's 30½-year ban for gambling on baseball while he was manager of the Cincinnati Reds.

The lawyers say that Rose's lifetime ban is "vastly disproportionate" when compared with MLB's punishments of players who took performance-enhancing drugs and the players involved in the sign-stealing schemes by the 2017 Houston Astros.
Click to expand...
Rose, 78, argues now that Manfred has used far less harsh punishments than permanent ineligibility on games-changing rules violations that have affected the integrity of the game.

In particular, Rose's lawyers highlight that Manfred did not punish any players on the Astros for systematically using electronic sign stealing on their way to winning the 2017 World Series.
Click to expand...
Source: ESPN

Oh, Pete. It doesn't matter that sports betting is now legal in all 50 states, or that Manfred and Selig have let other players back in or let them off "lightly" for other offenses. Rule 21(d)(2), and go fuck yourself.
 
I have no problem having Pete Rose banned from working in the MLB but I do think he should be in the Hall of Fame especially if we get to the point where we let known performance enhanced players in like say a Roger Clemens.


Jason
 
No. Players from the steroid era are — from a moral standpoint — no worse than players of decades past who threw spitballs or corked their bat or took amphetamines. It's players using tools at their disposal trying to gain an edge over the other players.

Gambling, and the potential for players to intentionally not do their best, like in the case of the Black Sox, is on a totally different level. We may never know whether Rose ever intentionally played or managed poorly in a game where he also bet against the Reds. But no, he broke Rule 21, and then he willingly accepted his ban. Sorry, no backsies, not even three decades later.
 
Last edited:
Jayson1 said:
I have no problem having Pete Rose banned from working in the MLB but I do think he should be in the Hall of Fame especially if we get to the point where we let known performance enhanced players in like say a Roger Clemens.
Click to expand...

Difference being one was clearly against the rules at the time (and drummed into every major league player), the other wasn't.
 
BillJ said:
Difference being one was clearly against the rules at the time (and drummed into every major league player), the other wasn't.
Click to expand...
You are right. I have no love for the PED users, but the early guys used the stuff when it was not banned by MLB. Rule 21d has been the 1st Commandment since 1920.

Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible.
 
IMO Pete Rose will be inducted into the HOF after he dies.

I'm no Red Sox fan, but they couldn't have asked for much more.

They were never going to pay Mookie "Trout money", so they loose his current salary.
The Price joke of a contract no longer affects their "cap" total. Yes, they still pay about 1/2, but that will be gone in 2 years.

Break.

Paxton undergoes back surgery.... damn, the season hasn't even started yet.
 
I have forgotten. Was Pete Rose into gambling as a player or only when he became a manager? If he wasn't doing it as a player then in theory it wouldn't matter since he would be going in for what he did as a player because he wouldn't have earned it from his manager days.

Jason
 
The Dowd investigation showed that Rose bet on baseball games during the 1985, 1986, and 1987 seasons; in 1985 and 1986, he was still a player-manager (he played 119 games in 1985 and 72 games in 1986), there's no way to separate the two even if you wanted.
 
Herbert said:
:brickwall: Irrelevant. Read rule 21d

http://content.mlb.com/documents/8/2/2/296982822/Major_League_Rule_21.pdf
Click to expand...

Rules can be changed or abridged. Perhaps if they took away his stats for the last two years that would count. Plus some kind of asterisk much like one Roger Maris had that lets people know about the cheating. I think we might be getting something like that as well from others who used steroids and such drugs. Also in addition from still not being able to work in the MLB he can't use being in the Hall of Fame as a means of endorsements. Perhaps sign a contract where MLB can sue him if they think he is trying to sneak around the contract.


Jason
 
Jayson1 said:
I have forgotten. Was Pete Rose into gambling as a player or only when he became a manager? If he wasn't doing it as a player then in theory it wouldn't matter since he would be going in for what he did as a player because he wouldn't have earned it from his manager days.

Jason
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter - Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform, shall be declared permanently ineligible
 
Jayson1 said:
Rules can be changed or abridged. Perhaps if they took away his stats for the last two years that would count. Plus some kind of asterisk much like one Roger Maris had that lets people know about the cheating. I think we might be getting something like that as well from others who used steroids and such drugs. Also in addition from still not being able to work in the MLB he can't use being in the Hall of Fame as a means of endorsements. Perhaps sign a contract where MLB can sue him if they think he is trying to sneak around the contract.


Jason
Click to expand...

I really don't understand your circular logic, here. Go to Cooperstown and walk around the Hall of Fame; Rose's statistical accomplishments are all over it. He simply doesn't have a creepy plaque enshrining him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top