Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Harsh

Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?

Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?  

107 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Pete Rose be Allowed to Manage?

    • Yes
      53
    • No
      54


Recommended Posts

The problem with the steroid era is that it's not really fair to pin it on a few athletes who broke the record. MLB, the commissioner, owners, GM's, managers, coaches, trainers, and pretty everyone knew what was going on. Baseball was hurting and it wasn't until the Sosa/McGwuire years that it started drawing fans in record numbers. So everyone who knew about PED usage turned a blind eye because they were all making money. The funny thing is, for all the outcry about PED's, its usage hasn't changed the popularity of the sport at all. You'd think that if it was so bad for baseball then no one would watch or go to the games and MLB would be bankrupt. Instead, it's becoming more popular with record attendance and ratings. So why are PED's bad again?

On the flip side, let's say that a bunch of known gambling addicts were allowed to manage MLB clubs. Do you think people would still go to the games?

Bottom line: Kids.

It sets a terrible example for kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bottom line: Kids.

It sets a terrible example for kids.

I know, obviously and I wasn't promoting PED's either. I was just trying to illustrate the point that PED's do not necessarily hurt the integrity of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with the steroid era is that it's not really fair to pin it on a few athletes who broke the record. MLB, the commissioner, owners, GM's, managers, coaches, trainers, and pretty everyone knew what was going on. Baseball was hurting and it wasn't until the Sosa/McGwuire years that it started drawing fans in record numbers. So everyone who knew about PED usage turned a blind eye because they were all making money. The funny thing is, for all the outcry about PED's, its usage hasn't changed the popularity of the sport at all. You'd think that if it was so bad for baseball then no one would watch or go to the games and MLB would be bankrupt. Instead, it's becoming more popular with record attendance and ratings. So why are PED's bad again?

On the flip side, let's say that a bunch of known gambling addicts were allowed to manage MLB clubs. Do you think people would still go to the games?

yoda, you keep trying to counter what I'm saying by going off on tangents. Yes, PEDs increased attendance ratings and popularity, especially during the Home Run Chase.

However, you keep failing to answer this question: Why is it better to alter history artificially than to lose a few games throughout 5 years? Which one will people remember more? Which gave baseball a bigger black eye? I think you know the answer.

I know, obviously and I wasn't promoting PED's either. I was just trying to illustrate the point that PED's do not necessarily hurt the integrity of the game.

Come on dude, you're a lotttttt better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yoda, you keep trying to counter what I'm saying by going off on tangents. Yes, PEDs increased attendance ratings and popularity, especially during the Home Run Chase.

However, you keep failing to answer this question: Why is it better to alter history artificially than to lose a few games throughout 5 years? Which one will people remember more? Which gave baseball a bigger black eye? I think you know the answer.

Come on dude, you're a lotttttt better than that.

How exactly did PED's hurt the integrity of the game? Everyone was in on it. If it really was just Bonds or Sosa then that is a different story. A lot of elite and fringe players/pitchers used them since the beginning of the sport. And everyone knew it.

Do you know from memory who holds various records? I sure don't and I never will until I look it up. I do know that the Black Sox threw the World Series and Pete Rose gambled on baseball while he was managing. I'll never forget that. I know which was a bigger black eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He shouldn't. Not ever. The line he crossed is something you can never come back from, in my mind -- at least professionally. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame for his personal exploits as a player, but professionally, I would never let him back in the sport at all. He doesn't deserve to be in it no matter how sorry he says he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a key difference between gambling and throwing games. It was never proven Pete Rose threw a game. Besides how can you in baseball without the help of the rest of your team? You are one player of 9. Even if you K every AB that wouldn't even come close to guaranteeing a defeat because 8+ other guys still have input. The pitcher is the only position that could pretty much guarantee a defeat. The only way to bet for Rose would be to bet on the Reds not against them as he could have way more influence over whether or not the Reds won than if they lost by his input.

I'm not a fan of Pete Rose by the way. Never say the guy play though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How exactly did PED's hurt the integrity of the game? Everyone was in on it. If it really was just Bonds or Sosa then that is a different story. A lot of elite and fringe players/pitchers used them since the beginning of the sport. And everyone knew it.

Do you know from memory who holds various records? I sure don't and I never will until I look it up. I do know that the Black Sox threw the World Series and Pete Rose gambled on baseball while he was managing. I'll never forget that. I know which was a bigger black eye.

I can't believe you don't think PEDs are against the morals of the game. Are you kidding me? I mean, tolerating them is one thing, but thinking they're benign? I don't know about that.

Yes, I know most records because they reflect upon the greatest players the game has seen. Young, Ryan, Bonds, Rose, Cobb, Wilson, etc. Those are all people you should be very familiar with for doing very special things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't believe you don't think PEDs are against the morals of the game. Are you kidding me? I mean, tolerating them is one thing, but thinking they're benign? I don't know about that.

Yes, I know most records because they reflect upon the greatest players the game has seen. Young, Ryan, Bonds, Rose, Cobb, Wilson, etc. Those are all people you should be very familiar with for doing very special things.

I think you are just really naive. PED's have been around for looooong time. It didn't just start 10-15 years ago. Technology advances at such a pace that detection will always lag. Right now people are developing drugs or enhancers. I'm sure there are players who are still using them. That's why player are still getting suspended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you are just really naive. PED's have been around for looooong time. It didn't just start 10-15 years ago. Technology advances at such a pace that detection will always lag. Right now people are developing drugs or enhancers. I'm sure there are players who are still using them. That's why player are still getting suspended.

There's evidence that PEDs were around during the Dead Ball Era; trust me, I know more about this stuff than you do. Do me a favor and don't assume things.

Anyway, we're really deviating from the point of this post and you still really haven't answered my question. Why is it that cheating to break records is more benign than gambling and possibly (it's never been proven) losing a few games? A few games, keep in mind, that wouldn't have changed the outcome of the season. Yes, the basic principle of the matter is that Rose stabbed the essence of the game through the heart if he did "force" his team to lose, but cheating is quite a grandiose foundation of evil itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok gents, lets keep this on topic. You can argue your opinions, but please refrain from getting personal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok gents, lets keep this on topic. You can argue your opinions, but please refrain from getting personal...

Ah, come on, Fenway, you're being naive if you think an argument can be held without acrimonious feelings. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's evidence that PEDs were around during the Dead Ball Era; trust me, I know more about this stuff than you do. Do me a favor and don't assume things.

B)

Anyway, we're really deviating from the point of this post and you still really haven't answered my question. Why is it that cheating to break records is more benign than gambling and possibly (it's never been proven) losing a few games? A few games, keep in mind, that wouldn't have changed the outcome of the season. Yes, the basic principle of the matter is that Rose stabbed the essence of the game through the heart if he did "force" his team to lose, but cheating is quite a grandiose foundation of evil itself.

How do you know he bet on just a few games? How do you know that one game would't affect the outcome of that season?

"I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team. I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl.../15/74426.shtml

But hey, you are free to assume and believe whatever you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, come on, Fenway, you're being naive if you think an argument can be held without acrimonious feelings. B)

Well played...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B)

How do you know he bet on just a few games? How do you know that one game would't affect the outcome of that season?

"I bet on my team every night. I didn't bet on my team four nights a week. I bet on my team to win every night because I loved my team, I believed in my team. I did everything in my power every night to win that game."

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articl.../15/74426.shtml

But hey, you are free to assume and believe whatever you want.

Wait, he bet on his team every night? Not against (like you vehemently stated over and over)?

Now I'm really confused as to what you're arguing. I think you're proving my point for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, he bet on his team every night? Not against (like you vehemently stated over and over)?

Now I'm really confused as to what you're arguing. I think you're proving my point for me.

Not sure how I am proving your point Harsh. Over the years, we learned two things about Rose: he's a gambling addict and a pathological liar. I believe him when he says that he bet on every game but contrary to what he says, he placed his bets on the winner (not the Reds every time). He didn't gamble because he believed or wanted his team to win. He gambled because he wanted to win his bets. That's generally what gamblers do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure how I am proving your point Harsh. Over the years, we learned two things about Rose: he's a gambling addict and a pathological liar. I believe him when he says that he bet on every game but contrary to what he says, he placed his bets on the winner (not the Reds every time). He didn't gamble because he believed or wanted his team to win. He gambled because he wanted to win his bets. That's generally what gamblers do.

I definitely see where you're coming from. If he had come out from the start and admitted to gambling, there'd be less reason to doubt him when he says he always bet on his team. However, looking at it through his eyes, by admitting the truth, he virtually guaranteed he would never live to see an induction in to the HoF, a job in the MLB, or a clean reputation. I can see why it would take him some time to make a decision of that magnitude and come out with it.

However, I still take him for his word when he says he only bet on his team. I didn't know that he bet every day of the week - thanks for that piece, by the way.

But like I said in my first post - there are skeptics and there are believers. We're clearly on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to taking his word.

I have to ask you, though: Do you really believe he'd be able to get away with gambling again? You don't think every move he would make would be tracked? You don't think bookies would consider him too "hot," and not take his bets if he ever had the urge? If he was somehow given another chance to manage, there is absolutely no way in hell he'd be dumb enough to gamble again. No. Way. The Irish would start celebrating Israeli independence as a national holiday first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should be a hall of famer but shouldnt be allowed to manage a major league team. Possibly a hitting coach...but the commissioner probably wouldnt want that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should be a hall of famer but shouldnt be allowed to manage a major league team. Possibly a hitting coach...but the commissioner probably wouldnt want that either.

the commish cant put him in the hall of fame..all he can do is clear Pete to be voted on....that doesnt mean the sportswriters will put him in...

i think Pete should be in the hall...what he did wrong was after his playing days were over..if he was already in the HOF before this all hit, would they have thrown him out of the Hall? i doubt it...

there is no way he should ever be allowed to manage a major league club and probably have any on the field kind of job...but opening up some role with baseball is something i wouldnt have a problem with...though its hard for me to argue against Pete being a hitting coach if Mark Mcgwire is one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I definitely see where you're coming from. If he had come out from the start and admitted to gambling, there'd be less reason to doubt him when he says he always bet on his team. However, looking at it through his eyes, by admitting the truth, he virtually guaranteed he would never live to see an induction in to the HoF, a job in the MLB, or a clean reputation. I can see why it would take him some time to make a decision of that magnitude and come out with it.

However, I still take him for his word when he says he only bet on his team. I didn't know that he bet every day of the week - thanks for that piece, by the way.

But like I said in my first post - there are skeptics and there are believers. We're clearly on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to taking his word.

I have to ask you, though: Do you really believe he'd be able to get away with gambling again? You don't think every move he would make would be tracked? You don't think bookies would consider him too "hot," and not take his bets if he ever had the urge? If he was somehow given another chance to manage, there is absolutely no way in hell he'd be dumb enough to gamble again. No. Way. The Irish would start celebrating Israeli independence as a national holiday first.

He's a professional gambler Harsh. He was doing this crap as 40+ yo for several seasons. He can't stop even if he wanted to.

Hal McCoy said it best:

the major problem with Rose betting on baseball, particularly the Reds, is that as manager he could control games, make decisions that could enhance his chances of winning his bets, thus jeopardizing the integrity of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's a professional gambler Harsh. He was doing this crap as 40+ yo for several seasons. He can't stop even if he wanted to.

Do you have evidence of him still gambling? I can't say for sure (couldn't find anything when trying to dig it up), but I doubt he's still talking to bookies while publicly declaring he wants to manage.

Edit: Not trying to be a jerk, but I don't give a **** what McCoy said. That point has already been discussed in this thread, and his opinion isn't more qualified than anyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have evidence of him still gambling? I can't say for sure (couldn't find anything when trying to dig it up), but I doubt he's still talking to bookies while publicly declaring he wants to manage.

Edit: Not trying to be a jerk, but I don't give a **** what McCoy said. That point has already been discussed in this thread, and his opinion isn't more qualified than anyone else's.

Does it really matter if he is still gambling or not? He gambled while he was the manager for 3+ years (that was documented). There are so many ways he could gamble today without anyone else finding out about it. Are we so strapped for managing/coaching talent that we have to reinstate a 70 year old ex-con who broke the cardinal rule in baseball?

McCoy sums up exactly how a lot of us feel. At least how I feel anyway. If you don't care then why even bother responding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it really matter if he is still gambling or not? He gambled while he was the manager for 3+ years (that was documented). There are so many ways he could gamble today without anyone else finding out about it. Are we so strapped for managing/coaching talent that we have to reinstate a 70 year old ex-con who broke the cardinal rule in baseball?

McCoy sums up exactly how a lot of us feel. At least how I feel anyway. If you don't care then why even bother responding?

Leopards don't change their spots; tigers, stripes; once a gambler, always a gambler. I understand that's how you feel, but please stop spreading it as gospel. You have absolutely no evidence of Rose still gambling. Not a single shred. Was St. Louis so strapped for managing/coaching talent that they had to hire an ex-juicer who helped damage baseball - a bruise that still hasn't completely gone away? By the way, you still haven't answered my question.

Please stop with the straw man arguments. I didn't say I don't care in general. I said that McCoy's opinion isn't the be-all, end-all; there's no use in rehashing the same point when it's already been raised just because he gets time on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leopards don't change their spots; tigers, stripes; once a gambler, always a gambler. I understand that's how you feel, but please stop spreading it as gospel. You have absolutely no evidence of Rose still gambling. Not a single shred. Was St. Louis so strapped for managing/coaching talent that they had to hire an ex-juicer who helped damage baseball - a bruise that still hasn't completely gone away? By the way, you still haven't answered my question.

Please stop with the straw man arguments. I didn't say I don't care in general. I said that McCoy's opinion isn't the be-all, end-all; there's no use in rehashing the same point when it's already been raised just because he gets time on TV.

Rose's attitude and behavior about the entire ordeal hasn't changed in 30 years. You are right, I don't know for sure but if I were a betting man, he is still gambling.

You need to stop bringing PED's into the debate because it has nothing to do with Rose's choice to gamble while managing. People make decisions in life and are forced to live with them. Why should Rose be treated any differently?

If you bother to read my post, I didn't say that McCoy's opinion is be-all, end-all. I explicitly said he summed it up nicely. Are you purposely being obtuse to draw out this debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rose's attitude and behavior about the entire ordeal hasn't changed in 30 years. You are right, I don't know for sure but if I were a betting man, he is still gambling.

You need to stop bringing PED's into the debate because it has nothing to do with Rose's choice to gamble while managing. People make decisions in life and are forced to live with them. Why should Rose be treated any differently?

If you bother to read my post, I didn't say that McCoy's opinion is be-all, end-all. I explicitly said he summed it up nicely. Are you purposely being obtuse to draw out this debate?

Denying something for a long time, then publicly admitting it isn't a change in attitude?

I'm disappointed that's all you managed to draw from the PED vs. gambling comparison. I only brought it up to illustrate the point that it clearly isn't the same thing as betting money. Right. B) Look - I don't know how many times I need to say this: they both damaged the integrity of the sport. One of the actions resulted in new historical milestones; the other resulted in (if you're a skeptic) A. A few games being lost over the course of 5 years, or (if you're a believer) B. Rose trying to win every game because he bet on his team all the time.

If his opinion isn't the ultimate voice of reason, then there was no need to quote him because that point had been brought up already. I mean, unless you're insulting my intelligence by implying I didn't realize the tenth time the point was contended, I really don't think it was necessary. Sorry it didn't have the resounding effect you were looking for.

That's two posts in a row now that you've claimed I'm drawing out the debate. If you don't want to defend your stance, stop replying. Or do you need the last word?

Also, you still haven't answered my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Denying something for a long time, then publicly admitting it isn't a change in attitude?

I'm disappointed that's all you managed to draw from the PED vs. gambling comparison. I only brought it up to illustrate the point that it clearly isn't the same thing as betting money. Right. B) Look - I don't know how many times I need to say this: they both damaged the integrity of the sport. One of the actions resulted in new historical milestones; the other resulted in (if you're a skeptic) A. A few games being lost over the course of 5 years, or (if you're a believer) B. Rose trying to win every game because he bet on his team all the time.

If his opinion isn't the ultimate voice of reason, then there was no need to quote him because that point had been brought up already. I mean, unless you're insulting my intelligence by implying I didn't realize the tenth time the point was contended, I really don't think it was necessary. Sorry it didn't have the resounding effect you were looking for.

That's two posts in a row now that you've claimed I'm drawing out the debate. If you don't want to defend your stance, stop replying. Or do you need the last word?

Also, you still haven't answered my question.

He only changed his stance when he realized denying wasn't getting him back into baseball.

PED's affect individuals. It tarnished individual records. Gambling affects the game itself. We have no idea how many games were affected as a result of Rose's bets. If you can't see the distinction then I don't know what to tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.