Tiger337

It won't go unnoticed especially if the president talks about it endlessly, but it won't cause them to lose their target audience. Are you going to stop watching baseball because Pete Rose was re-instated? As far as I am concerned, they have already lost their moral authority on gambling by promoting gambling every chance they get. I understand the distinction between Rose gambling and fans gambling, but the hyprocrisy is too thick. The game is now so hopelessly connected to gambling that players or managers fixing games (or the suspicion of such) is inevitable and it will be all MLB's fault.

I am pretty sure he was blackballed out of the game at the end but he is not officially banned. The writers and now the Veterans Committee are keeping him out.

They are going to draft the player with the best long-term potential whether it be a high school or college player.

They could let him in to make Trump happy or to appease their gambling partners. I don't think it will cause any big damage to the industry. I don't think the world cares about Pete Rose anymore. It's just baseball nuts like us who care.

I think there is a good chance they will let him in. The only target audience that cares about keeping him out is the one that's going to keep watching regardless. Good luck to him getting into the Hall of Fame though. If they won't let Bonds and Clemens in, they won't let Rose in either.

There is no honor nor principles in MLB. It's all about money.

The best part of the plan is that the people who might want those jobs are all being deported or no longer allowed into the country. I guess they take all the trained medical scientists who lost their jobs and put them into these factories. I am sure they'll all be highly motivated.

These look pretty crazy. Dodgers number 9?

He backed down or he was paid off?

Emgaging in strategic uncertanty! Sounds like a nice way of saying "Has no clue and does stupid ****"

If having an ignorant authoitarian madman as the President is escaping a bullt, then we escaped a bullet. He's an absolute disgrace.

It's probably not going to roll over on them unless our economy tanks.

She has only played in Independent Leagues and her career ERA is 12.04. Are the Tigers playing them soon?

I don't remember him. If he played 30 years earlier, I probably would have.

My favorite one year wonder is Zoilo Versalles - A Twins shortstop who never had a WAR greater than 2.5 until he had 7.2 WAR and won the MVP in 1965. The next year, he had 1.3 WAR and then -1.6 WAR. Overall, he played 12 years with 12.6 WAR. He accumulated 57% of his career WAR in that one season. https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/versazo01.shtml

To be fair, he and his children are American people. So, he wouldn't be lying.

None of them for a rental. I wouldn't trade top 100 prospects unless they were getting someone who could help beyond this year.

They were different eras. It was a rule change just like extra inning runners was a rule change. Playing without gloves would be dumber than extra inning base runners because it would be dangerous. However, I still consider the latter to be unacceptable. And now that the Tigers have their most exciting team since perhaps the 80s, it just becomes more annoying to be distracted by that monstrosity.

They do it in Spring training whch is also when the WBC is played! Anyway, I don't think the way they did something in the past has to always stay the same. It would be stupid if they still played without gloves for example. When the old way of doing things becomes impractical, then they can consider making a change. However, I don't believe in fundamentally changing the rules of the game without a really good reason. Even the DH was not a fundamemtal change in the way the game is played. The game is still played the same way. It's just a role change.

Skubal doesn't know how to win.

The WBC and olympics are tournaments, not regular season. WBC is really just an exhibition played by players not in peak baseball condition. Baseball in the Olympics is pretty much the same. Ties may be boring but they do not change the rules of the game for the purpose of a cheap gimmick. Ideally, I'd like to see them keep playing the game the same way baseball is meant to be played until there is a winner. The purpose of ties would only be to save pitching staffs. Ties were part of the early years of the game before they had lights. Ties are not ideal, but they are acceptable to me. Extra inning baseball is not real baseball and I have ittle interest in watching it. Thus, the winner is not a real winner. I'll take a tie over that.

I'd prefer they end in a tie after 12 innings, but having the base runners after 12 innings is preferable to what they are doing now. Extra innings are fun without the base runners. The only real problem is that they mess up pitching staffs.

It was not in the international rules prior to its introduction to America. It was just a gimmick used in tournament games. It's still not used in regular season games internationally. In Japan and Korea, they have three extra innngs and if the game is still tied after 12 innngs, then it's a tie. That's the way to do it. You can protect pitching staffs without bastardizing the game with cheap gimmicks.

The Tigers now have a better record than the Dodgers. It's so unfair!

It's bad enough reading things in my own voice. The f word means everything from bad to good now. ****, yeah!