PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers, I Know You're Reading This!


LittleBears Suck
01-06-2004, 07:38 PM
Phil Rogers's column on Pete Rose (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-040105rogers,1,6991899.column?coll=cs-home-headlines)

Phil, your piece is more factual than editorial, more of a biography of sorts. Though I had a few minor disagreements here and there, I enjoyed reading it until...

"I'm in the minority who wouldn't even mind seeing him manage again."

WHAT?

Hall of Fame? Ok. Broadcasting? I guess. But MANAGING??

I don't even know where to start on refuting this.

Pete Rose has done more damage to baseball than anyone in history (I'd be open to Harold Rothstein arguments, but he was not an insider). Let that sink in for a minute. Not Marge Schott, not the Yawkey family, not Kennesaw Landis, not Charlie Comiskey, not George Steinbrenner, not Gaylord Perry (or any cheater), Peter Edward Rose Sr. has done more damage to baseball than anyone in history.

He threatened the credibility of every game he ever bet on, which evidence suggests spanned atleast four years. Upon his getting caught, Rose has taken every public opportunity to slam baseball, even in his moment of admission to his guilt. One can argue that a lifetime ban is unfair (though I'd disagree). But to ban him from a chance at endangering the game's credibility again is anything but unfair. He owes every member of the BWAA, the MLBPA, every owner, broadcaster, John Dowd, Fay Vincent, Bart Giammatti (RIP), the entire Reds organization, and most importantly, every MLB fan a SINCERE apology. Not for betting on baseball, but for hurting the game. The line is faint and gray, but it remains an imperative recognition.

Had Pete Rose never entered an MLB stadium, two things would have happened. One, he would not have been daily reminded of the ramifications of gambling, which add irony and futility to his sorry case. And two, the game would have been better off for the last four decades. In saying this, I am aware that he is the baseball hero to many, and one of the greatest hitters of all time. That, however, is totally separate from his off the field antics, which now we have confirmed stained the game as much as we always knew. While I feel Rose should be recognized for his on-the-field talent with a plaque in Cooperstown, the sum of Rose's contribution to the game is still negative from the damage he has caused it off the field.

For you to suggest that his return should be invited shows you have little clue as to the gravity of his actions. For you to 'not mind' his return evidences how far your perception of his sins are from the reality of their effect on the game. I pray that your perverted perceptions of players' contributions to the game do not affect your annual hall of fame ballot. (And when your ballot includes Valenzuela, Blyleven, and Morris, I pray some more... :gulp: )

---
By the way, I generally enjoy your work, just not this time.

hftrex
01-06-2004, 08:32 PM
Since when has Phil Rogers been known for his logic or common sense?

ondafarm
01-06-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by LittleBears Suck
He threatened the credibility of every game he ever bet on, which evidence suggests spanned atleast four years.

I don't see how. Rose never bet on any game he was playing in or managing in. And there is no evidence he called up managers or players of other teams and tried to convince them to throw games.

Apart from the fact that a player with serious gambling debts might be tempted to shave points or throw games, which I dare say if Charlie Hustle ever tried to do that it would be immediately obvious. I digress. I don't see Rose's gambling as that serious and certainly not worthy of your statement.

If he was betting on basketball would you say the same thing?

Palehose13
01-06-2004, 08:47 PM
Who's Phil Rogers?

Saracen
01-06-2004, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by ondafarm
I don't see how. Rose never bet on any game he was playing in or managing in.

Ummmm.....He admitted to gambling on the Reds while he was managing them.

Unconscionable.

From ESPN: "Rose admits in "My Prison Without Bars," his autobiography due out Thursday, that he gambled on the Reds while managing them."

If you don't think betting on a team while managing them affects how you use your pitching staff, I've got some land in Florida...

progers0826
01-08-2004, 10:31 AM
Sure, it's an extreme position. But I see it as a battle of fun vs. the so-called integrity of the game, and I'm much more a believer in personal intergrity than institutional integrity. Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose. That's up to him. He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return. If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance. He wouldn't be going to a high-profile situation, he'd be going to one of the underfinanced franchises that need help. To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

poorme
01-08-2004, 10:40 AM
I would be ok with it BUT first he would have to come to grips with his problem and go through therapy for gambling addiction. As of now, he doesn't even think he has a problem.

ode to veeck
01-08-2004, 10:55 AM
If you don't think betting on a team while managing them affects how you use your pitching staff, I've got some land in Florida...

As part of the underlying data for which ever position one might take is that Pete claims he never bet against his own team , i.e. he always played and managed the Reds to win regardless.

jabrch
01-08-2004, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by progers0826
Sure, it's an extreme position. But I see it as a battle of fun vs. the so-called integrity of the game, and I'm much more a believer in personal intergrity than institutional integrity. Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose. That's up to him. He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return. If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance. He wouldn't be going to a high-profile situation, he'd be going to one of the underfinanced franchises that need help. To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

I'm with you Phil. I love what Pete could bring to the game. First, before he manages again, I'd like to see him work his way back into things. He could spend time instructing/coaching at the minor league level not as a punsihment, but more to get re-acquainted with the game, the kids who play it, and any changes since he was last involved. But as far as eventually managing again, I'm with you. I miss Pete Rose being around the game. I'm a mark for Pete Rose and I can admit that.

Dadawg_77
01-08-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by progers0826
Sure, it's an extreme position. But I see it as a battle of fun vs. the so-called integrity of the game, and I'm much more a believer in personal intergrity than institutional integrity. Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose. That's up to him. He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return. If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance. He wouldn't be going to a high-profile situation, he'd be going to one of the underfinanced franchises that need help. To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

I agree that dead weight teams, made worse by measures meant to correct it, is a bigger problem then Pete. Pete would be able to add cash to the coffers of Lindner but will he in turn reinvest that money in the club. The major thing is if Pete ever makes a bad choice in managing his club, how many people will ask "I wonder how much he had on the game." Whether the person is joking or not, that thought is damaging to the game.

voodoochile
01-08-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by progers0826
Sure, it's an extreme position. But I see it as a battle of fun vs. the so-called integrity of the game, and I'm much more a believer in personal intergrity than institutional integrity. Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose. That's up to him. He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return. If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance. He wouldn't be going to a high-profile situation, he'd be going to one of the underfinanced franchises that need help. To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

Keeping him out of the HOF won't damage baseball either and there is no guarantee that Pete won't get sucked back into gambling. It is the easiest addiction to hide if you have money because it leaves no outward markings.

Don't weaken the rules that protect the integrity of the game, ever. Pete isn't hurting in any way except for emotionally because of his exclusion from the Hall. Now he knows how everyone who supported him felt all these years.

He's a cheat and a liar. Baseball should distance itself from him.

LittleBears Suck
01-08-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by progers0826
Sure, it's an extreme position. But I see it as a battle of fun vs. the so-called integrity of the game, and I'm much more a believer in personal intergrity than institutional integrity. Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose. That's up to him. He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return. If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance. He wouldn't be going to a high-profile situation, he'd be going to one of the underfinanced franchises that need help. To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

Thanks for replying Phil. I didn't mean to sound personal in my post, strictly baseball, so if I got carried away I apologize.

It seems clear that you're in the "gambling in baseball can be worked with/tolerated camp." I am in the "gambling is the worst thing that can happen to baseball" camp.

I can't understand your camp, and though it appears as if you have an understanding of mine, we're still going to disagree.

TornLabrum
01-08-2004, 06:09 PM
Gambling nearly destroyed the sport three times. It cannot be tolerated. Period.

Chisoxfn
01-08-2004, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by progers0826
Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose.
Gambling would ruin any sport when it comes to the point that people throw the game and ruin the integrity of the game. I'm not a big Bud Selig fan, but he must continue that stance that has been passed on from comissioners when it comes to betting. Look at Shoeless Joe, while I think you could make a case to be in the Hall of Fame, he's yet to be in there. Now if they don't let him in becasue he isn't qualified due to only playing a partial career fine, but he's more eligible in my book than Pete Rose.

Gambling and bringing up a question that a game may of already determined puts Baseball in a place lower then professional Wrestling, which is not a sport, its entertainment. And well, I for one am not going to watch fixed baseball because it wouldn't be amusing. Professional wrestling, that can be amusing.

He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return.
If your implying he should be brought back because of the attention it would bring to baseball, I think your wrong. Their is the addage that bad publicity is still good publicity in certain situations, but in this case it wouldn't be good. I think its fine to have a debate on whether Pete Rose should go into the hall of fame. I'm obviously against it, but when it comes to reinstating him into baseball as well (rather then simply making an exception, making him eligible for the hall, while with-holding his lifetime ban) then it is a mistake, imo.

If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance.
Simple, INTEGRITY of the game. This is such a major issue and I think I've clammered on about it enough now :D:

To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

Bad Franchises are definately a huge issue, but bringing back an owner that you would have to worry about gambling or making moves so he can increase his chances of winning a bet would absolutely ruin the sport. Like I said above, it would turn baseball into a rather boring rendition of WWF. If we think it sucks that George Steinbrenner can buy the series or at least try to, then just imagine when you have people throwing games. While Pete may be the only one doing it, it absolutely ruins the taste.

I'll say this, if he came back, which I'm fully against, I do agree it would be a necessity to get himself cleaned up. The only thing is, according to the person who did his autobiography with him, whenever they met and discussed things, quite often it was done at a sports book or something along those lines, which shows he's still incredibly addicted.

dickallen15
01-08-2004, 07:02 PM
If Pete Rose were allowed to manage again, he would be under such a strong microscope, there is no way he'd be able to place bets without being caught. There also would be the rumors of him gambling every day. I think the rumors would become tiresome and a burden to him and whoever hired him, and ultimately force him to step down or be removed. He lied for 14 years, insisting time and time again, he never bet on baseball.Let him in the Hall of Fame, where he belongs (I think they should have let him in sooner) but keep him out of uniform and don't let him collect a check from any MLB team. Pete made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.

SluggersAway
01-08-2004, 07:21 PM
At the most, Pete Rose is guilty of leveling out the odds with his knowledge of the game.

A benefit we need more of in these questionable market value and allocation plagued times.

The distortion of relative prices is rampant due to the many more folks that are more ignorant/oblivious than Pete Rose who are betting on games (the same is true for gov when the will of the people is funneled through elections).

Martha stewart and others are in the same boat, their sell signal was a premonition that things were rotten in the state of Denmark, so to speak.

This foresight allows others to get a more accurate depiction of the market.

Yes, Pete might have profited, but this was his own knowledge produced with his blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice.

That other players or managers arent allowed to share their knowledge might be the real crime.

Daver
01-08-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by SluggersAway
At the most, Pete Rose is guilty of leveling out the odds with his knowledge of the game.

A benefit we need more of in these questionable market value and allocation plagued times.

The distortion of relative prices is rampant due to the many more folks that are more ignorant/oblivious than Pete Rose who are betting on games (the same is true for gov when the will of the people is funneled through elections).

Martha stewart and others are in the same boat, their sell signal was a premonition that things were rotten in the state of Denmark, so to speak.

This foresight allows others to get a more accurate depiction of the market.

Yes, Pete might have profited, but this was his own knowledge produced with his blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice.

That other players or managers arent allowed to share their knowledge might be the real crime.

None of that in any way,shape ,or form,makes him any LESS guilty of breaking one of the deepest rooted rules of the baseball code,you ARE NOT allowed to bet on the game of baseball.

SluggersAway
01-08-2004, 07:37 PM
For any manager to win they have to be able to say and believe...

"I bet we'll win."

I can't believe sox fans are so short-sighted.

Good ol' Jerry Manuel certainly would've never bet on sox games even if it is was with monopoly money!

No guts.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Pete Rose is a Hall of Fame Player, nobody can take that away from him.

He played harder than anybody, and in this world that is what counts. Forget IQ, nepotism, cultural disposition. Heart, nerve, guts, passion....that is what really counts.

And Pete was blessed with those virtues in abundance.

Forget these steroid plagued wimps and brutes of today.

Give me real men.

MarqSox
01-08-2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by SluggersAway
For any manager to win they have to be able to say and believe...

"I bet we'll win."

I can't believe sox fans are so short-sighted.

Good ol' Jerry Manuel certainly would've never bet on sox games even if it is was with monopoly money!

No guts.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Pete Rose is a Hall of Fame Player, nobody can take that away from him.

He played harder than anybody, and in this world that is what counts. Forget IQ, nepotism, cultural disposition. Heart, nerve, guts, passion....that is what really counts.

And Pete was blessed with those virtues in abundance.

Forget these steroid plagued wimps and brutes of today.

Give me real men.
What does Pete Rose have in common with steroid-plagued brutes?

They both broke the rules. Only Rose broke THE rule, whereas the steroid users merely broke A rule. Rose knew that gambling on baseball was grounds for a lifetime ban, yet he still did it. He's gotta take responsibility for his actions, and that means he's forever banned.

Hokiesox
01-09-2004, 07:43 AM
Judge Landis actually cleaned up the game. Do the research. I spent a whole year doing an academic independent study on the man and the office created for him. The myths and stories don't hold up. The NYT from the 1920's told baseball fans they could comfortably go back to games knowing Landis was in charge.

Call his reforms heavy handed and spiteful, but he cleaned up the game in its darkest period and got people to come back to ballparks.

Twin Killing
01-09-2004, 09:29 AM
I am no fan of Rose the person. I will not read his books, watch his interviews, or contribute in any way to his sympathy campaign. However, he should be in the HOF for his accomplishments as a player. You can't ignore them.

I don't believe he should have any involvement in the playing of baseball games in any capacity, be it managing, front office, or anything else. Beyond that, I don't really care.

MarqSox
01-09-2004, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Hokiesox
Judge Landis actually cleaned up the game. Do the research. I spent a whole year doing an academic independent study on the man and the office created for him. The myths and stories don't hold up. The NYT from the 1920's told baseball fans they could comfortably go back to games knowing Landis was in charge.

Call his reforms heavy handed and spiteful, but he cleaned up the game in its darkest period and got people to come back to ballparks.
It's widely accepted that Landis covered up evidence of throwing games by Ty Cobb and several other players of the era. Did you find any proof either for or against this theory? If so, please explain.

KingXerxes
01-09-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by progers0826
Sure, it's an extreme position. But I see it as a battle of fun vs. the so-called integrity of the game, and I'm much more a believer in personal intergrity than institutional integrity. Pete Rose is not going to ruin baseball, although he might very well ruin Pete Rose. That's up to him. He's paid a severe price for his lack of judgment, he brings a unique perspective to baseball and would be watched extremely closely if he did return. If Carl Lindner or another owner is willing to put him in charge of a team, I see no reason why he shouldn't get a chance. He wouldn't be going to a high-profile situation, he'd be going to one of the underfinanced franchises that need help. To me, bad franchises, those that lose year after year after year, are a much greater threat to baseball than a manager with a gambling problem (who would be required to undergo ongoing treatment as a condition of his return). I'm not saying I'm right and everybody else is wrong; this is just the way I see this one.

I can just see the headlines:

PETE ROSE HIRED TO MANAGE TIGERS

Phil Rogers writes a column something to the effect of what is posted above, meanwhile with Opening Day approaching the Tigers are +270 in the opener at Kansas City. The next day:

TIGERS IMPLODE - LOSE IN 9th

Phil Rogers writes about how remarkably level-headed Rose seemed in the clubhouse after the game even though he went through four pitchers in the ninth while the Tigers gave up 6 runs to lose. Particularly interesting was how Rose didn't get mad when constantly being asked about the seven intentional walks he issued after getting the first two outs in the ninth. "It's all about fun, " was Rose's response. Then the next day, the line is showing the Tigers at a +480.

BLASTED AGAIN!

The headline pretty much says it all. Down 2-0 after the second inning, Pete Rose inserted an injured Dean Palmer as pitcher in order to save his bullpen from what Rose describes as a "nuther sure loss" as the team went on to lose 22 - 0. When Phil Rogers asks Rose how he's holding up under the media strain he gets, "Well it's tough - but it's all about fun for me, and that's what it really should be about anyway.....fun for me." as a response. Meanwhile, Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas posts Detroit as a +12,650 in the series finale against Kansas City. The next morning the headlines read:

WHERE'S PETE?

Upon being swept by the Royals by a final score of 47-0, it seems Pete Rose's whereabouts are unknown. There have been some unconfirmed sightings of Rose waiting in-line at a Southwest Airlines ticket counter, with a legal sized envelope stuffed full of smallish scraps of paper, demanding an immediate flight to Las Vegas. In other news, The Las Vegas Sports and Betting Authority has placed a moratorium on any wagering involving the Detroit Tigers. Phil Rogers writes that morning about how the "fun is back into the game now that Pete Rose's unique perspective is back in it - no matter where that perspective may be at the moment."

KingXerxes
01-11-2004, 12:17 PM
Bob Verdi - in Sunday's Trib - totally slams Rose, and then decides that he should be in the HOF. Is there some sort of disconnect here that I'm missing?