chasfh

Yes, and not just the old guys who were banned, but also, they could never permanently ban anyone for betting on the game today or in the future. If they can’t manage and control gambling by players within the game itself, how are we, the fans, supposed to trust the outcome of any game or season ever again? Or does that not matter at all because money today? In the end, I’m having trouble seeing how Baseball makes a lot more money by letting Pete back into the game, versus all the extra nonsense they will have to manage by doing so. Even having a Pete Rose-only exception is a fraught decision for them to make, and I think that’s got to be the least likely outcome, because if they did that, no one would ever believe or trust or fear them on anything ever again, especially the people within the game.

But he and the game will also get bad press, lots of it, and it will set a bad precedent with players who may be more likely to believe that betting on a game in which they have a duty to perform isn’t as big a problem as that hypocritical organization that posts the don’t-you-dare poster in their locker rooms tries to bull**** them into believing it really is.

In the end, yes, it’s all about the money. No argument there. That being stipulated, there is a difference between going for one dollar now and only now regardless of the cost in public perception and goodwill and the future prospects of each, versus going for two dollars both now and later by paying attention to what their various target markets think of them. It’s not as though a principled, or even intelligent, organization would go for that single dollar now without giving a flying **** what their market thinks. Even a craven organization like MLB has to be concerned what the future prospects of the business are based on how their actions today affect the perceptions of their target audiences. The way I see it as an outsider with some education and experience in business, Baseball probably has three basic target audiences for the game itself that I can think of: one that loves the game and respects its history and its dedication to integrity of competition and wants to maintain that; one that likes the game on the field but doesn’t care so much about what goes on off of it or anything that went before this game, or this season, or these players; and one that doesn’t care much about or watch the games and use it only as a conduit for laying parlays and other action. The first one mostly hates Pete Rose and wants him to remain out; the last one mostly either doesn’t care or sees Pete as a martyr and wants him back in, if for no other reason than to justify their own approach to baseball; and the one in the middle mostly either doesn’t care, or maybe likes what they perceive about Pete’s grit and hustle and sure, let him back into the game, why not? There could be three other target audiences Baseball has to consider as well: one is the steward of their federal antitrust exemption, the federal government, which consists of shifting elements within who have different opinions about whether Baseball should even maintain this unique privilege; another that doesn’t care about baseball the game or Baseball the business, but who have an opinion about gambling in general and who may apply their pressure on government and maybe their votes based on that; and a third, the corporate community, upon whom Baseball relies on for billions in annual revenue and who care about the impact Baseball’s decision might have on the public perception of their own brands in relation to The Game’s dalliance with gambling in general. Baseball’s calculation, which they are surely noodling in a suite of spreadsheets somewhere, is how important each bucket is and how much revenue will be generated by each, both in and outside the ballpark, today and in both the near-term and long-term future? I guess we’ll have our answer when Manfred hands down his decree. If I had to … ahem … bet on it, I’d bet Pete will still be out. But at this point it’s got to be roughly 50/50.

Torres crushes a bomb. 6-4. Tying run on deck.

No runs given up. That’s a win. But every outing has the potential to be his last ever, including this one.

Kenta Maeda, because sure, why not.

There are a lot of reasons to not reinstate Pete Rose, and I have articulated several of them on MTS and MTF over the years. But one that occurred to me just recently is: if it turns out Baseball refused to reinstate him while he was alive but did so only now that he’s dead, they’re basically admitting that they were interested only in punishing the man rather than punishing the infraction. That’s something small, petty, vindictive organizations do, and it was be a very, very bad look for Major League Baseball to do this. When MLB punishes a player for any infraction, even this one, they have to separate the man from the infraction. The punishment must be equal for everyone, and should never turn on the personality of the convicted. It’s the infraction itself they have to remain focused on, irrespective of who committed it. That’s what principled organizations do, and this is yet one more reason why there is nothing in it for Baseball to reinstate Pete Rose.

Will Vest sure turned into a pumpkin tonight, didn’t he?

Trumps’s got pictures.

I’m mildly surprised that the Trump cabal are not mouthing off about election fraud in Canada and the need to fold them into the US to combat it, or something along those lines lines equally stupid.

Yes. Also, Reinsdorf owns the Bulls as well as the White Sox.

And that’s why Bregman was never coming to Detroit.

It’s one of the reasons I like radio audio overlay over the tv video: I can look away and do other things and still hear the full description. Then when something happens that will likely lead to a replay, I come back to the screen for that moment.

Why would they choose a Bulls motif? 🤔

I would like to be able to go back in time and be in the room when the light bulb went on with Zach.

I’m starting to wonder whether they are purposely driving us into a 1933 Germany-style depression so they can declare a constitutional emergency and starting rounding up people en masse on a discretionary basis

Free-dumb

Totally agree. Maybe Tork fills an established WAR with a WAR that’s competitive to Zach’s, which is obviously valuable in its own right, but the way Zach can fill needs all over the diamond and all throughout the batting order is such a gift, and arguably more valuable to this team.

I’d be skeptical of the claim that anyone could put up 2.0 WAR even before the season starts … 😉 (Sorry, I really am trying to stop doing this kind of thing, but this one was too good and just lying there, so … )

“Fire up the F-16s, boys, we’re headed north …

Just like the god of the Old Testament they revere, Trump rains rains plagues on people they don’t like, so, what’s not to love?

It might be just as likely that they get organized into Trump Militias.

And not the only Zoilo in big league history. Remember this guy? https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/almonzo01.shtml If you do, you're one up on me, because I sure don't.

Even considering this is being posted by Rawstory, it does pass the smell test. Given how lawless those people are anyway, what would be the stopper to their simply carving out certain states, certain cities, certain districts, even certain precincts? Basically, these cuts apply only to states/cities/districts that voted blue, and does not apply to any states/cities/districts that voted red. How hard can decreeing such be? I mean, we're going there anyway, why wait until 2026 to do it?

I hope I live to see the day where this is even a serious question.