Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Kansas City Star | 11/28/2006 | Sabes says he would decline Hall honor

Next up, Sabes’ defense of O.J. Simpson.

Bret Saberhagen doesn’t hold any illusions about his chances of making it into the Baseball Hall of Fame now that he’s entered his first year on the ballot.

But Saberhagen had some startling words for Hall voters about what he’d do if he got in.

“I’d have to decline,” Saberhagen said by phone. “I wouldn’t accept it unless the Hall decides to put Pete Rose in, which is where he belongs. You’re talking about the all-time hits leader. It’s never been proven that he bet on baseball while he played.”

Jim Furtado Posted: November 28, 2006 at 01:30 PM | 45 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox, royals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. ColonelTom Posted: November 28, 2006 at 01:49 PM (#2247249)
Uh, okay, Sabes. Don't sit around waiting for that phone call...
   2. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 01:50 PM (#2247251)
Paul Kilgus Posted: November 28, 2006 at 8:50 AM (#2247063)

Sure, I'd listen if the Hall of Fame called.
   3. RMc's Daps of the Dope Artists Posted: November 28, 2006 at 01:54 PM (#2247256)
Just for that, we shouldn't even let Sabes visit the Hall of Fame!

Oh, and he should have his kids taken away, of course.

And Mike Crudale.
   4. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:15 PM (#2247275)
Million dollar arm, ten-cent head.
   5. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:23 PM (#2247283)
It's never been proven to me that Bret Saberhagen actually pitched major league baseball. Sure, there's a name at B-R, and Retrosheet has records of someone by that name pitching in games, but I guess I need <u>proof</u>.
   6. SoSH U at work Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:39 PM (#2247303)
I wonder if I was the only one who saw the story on hot topics and wondered why Sabean would decline the HOF.

Not that this makes a whole lot more sense.
   7. CrosbyBird Posted: November 28, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#2247313)
I am inspired by such selflessness. If the Hall of Fame voters choose me, I will also have to decline. It just wouldn't feel right for me to be in the Hall of Fame unless Manny Alexander gets in.
   8. pkb33 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:12 PM (#2247336)
It’s never been proven that he bet on baseball while he played.”

Other than the part where it was proven that he bet on baseball while he was the player/manager, that is.
   9. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:25 PM (#2247355)
Sure, he admitted it, but it's never been proven that he wasn't lying.

How can you take Pete Rose's word for something like that?
   10. HowardMegdal Posted: November 28, 2006 at 03:58 PM (#2247407)
The frustrating thing about this is that I've vowed not to accept election to the Hall of Fame until Bret Saberhagen gets in.
   11. Guapo Posted: November 28, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#2247424)
I think this is the first article posted on Primer that actually made me laugh out loud when I read the intro.

I assumed from the headline this was going to be Saberhagen taking some steroid-related moral high ground type of stance. Boy, was I wrong.
   12. Traderdave Posted: November 28, 2006 at 04:28 PM (#2247447)
re 8


I know this is hair splitting, but didn't the Dowd report only "prove" betting after he stopped playing?
   13. pkb33 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2247478)
I know this is hair splitting, but didn't the Dowd report only "prove" betting after he stopped playing?

No, that's not the case (though it's oft-repeated by those who defend Rose, I realize).

Dowd found that Rose "bet on baseball, and in particular on games of the Cincinnati Reds baseball club, during the 1985, 1986, and 1987 seasons" Dowd Report, page 7.

Pete Rose played in 119 games in 1985 and 72 games in 1986.

One can question the Dowd report, of course, though I've never heard a really serious challenge to its findings.
   14. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 28, 2006 at 05:05 PM (#2247479)
I know this is hair splitting, but didn't the Dowd report only "prove" betting after he stopped playing?

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Rose bet on games while he was playing, not that at this point I'd be exactly shocked to find that out as well.
   15. TVerik. Old Java Rodney. Posted: November 28, 2006 at 05:20 PM (#2247490)
Saberhagen won two Cys, his career ERA+ is 126, and he pitched very well late in his career. He actually wouldn't be the worst pitcher in the Hall.
   16. Los Angeles Waterloo of Black Hawk Posted: November 28, 2006 at 05:28 PM (#2247499)
I'm a big fan of Sabes, but he's being a bit silly here.

Oh well.
   17. Garth found his way to daylight Posted: November 28, 2006 at 05:34 PM (#2247505)
Bret Saberhagen is misinformed like a stupid idiot! I've never been misinformed once. Not once. Nope.
   18. Halofan Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:12 PM (#2247613)
Rose AGREED to the ban.

Isn't that a red flag that he had more to hide?

Like throwing games (and the post-Rose 1990 Reds world championship begs for an investigation into 1988 and 1989).
   19. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:52 PM (#2247651)
thought I'd let you know that I've already notified Stockholm that I won't accept the Nobel Prize until they rescind Kissenger's

(I wonder who's Kissinger now)
   20. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: November 28, 2006 at 07:54 PM (#2247654)
I've never been misinformed once. Not once. Nope.

"Misinformed"? What, did he come to KC for the waters? Try "uninformed" for something more like the truth, or perhaps "willfully ignorant".
   21. Spahn Insane Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:22 PM (#2247679)
Ex-ballplayers are stupid attention whores.
   22. buddy34 Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:28 PM (#2247684)
i thought quisenberry was the guy with the brain tumor.
   23. AJMcCringleberry Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:36 PM (#2247691)
I will not have sex with Jessica Biel until she dumps Jeter. Sorry Jess, but that's the way it's gotta be.
   24. The District Attorney Posted: November 28, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#2247703)
Saberhagen knows that he has to dispose of the betting ban before he can challenge the bleach-gun ban.
   25. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 28, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2247746)
It's a credit to Primates that my three immediate come-to-mind jokes were already posted before I could even get here.
   26. Cris E Posted: November 28, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#2247864)
Next year is an odd so he'll be smarter around HoF election time.
   27. Johnny Tuttle Posted: November 29, 2006 at 01:36 AM (#2248032)
And then Cris E raises the bar.
   28. Zach Posted: November 29, 2006 at 02:10 AM (#2248058)
Ex-ballplayers are stupid attention whores.

He's a popular ex-Royal from their glory years who's on the ballot for the first time this year. I doubt he initiated the interview.
   29. Rear Admiral Piazza Posted: November 29, 2006 at 02:25 AM (#2248072)
I'm not accepting any phone calls from the Hall until all of you give me blowjobs. So start lining up.
   30. Crispix Attacksel Rios Posted: November 29, 2006 at 02:43 AM (#2248084)
“But whether or not I get in, or whatever happens, I don’t think that will define my career in my mind. I felt I gave it everything I had at all times. I’m not one of those guys who would go around and advertise it if I got in. There are some guys who will sign their name and then sign ‘HOF’ underneath it. That wouldn’t be me.”

I think it would be good if he started signing his name with "HOF" underneath, and then said he would keep doing it until Pete Rose was elected to the Hall.
   31. cardsfanboy Posted: November 29, 2006 at 02:51 AM (#2248091)
I have never really cared for the argument that try to defend rose by defending whether he was guilty or not. I'm all for pete rose in the hof, but I don't for a second think he is innocent of what he was accused of and I don't for a second think he should ever have a job where he can make decisions for a major league team.

but I'm glad to see some players taking the other viewpoint, it was getting kinda one sided for a while there.
   32. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:01 AM (#2248097)
I'm a big fan of Sabes, but he's being a bit silly here.

Oh well.


What are the odds he makes this statement if he thought he actually stood a chance of election? Million to one? Worse?
   33. Brandon in MO (Yunitility Infielder) Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:02 AM (#2248098)
I won't accept admission to the Hall of Fame until Neifi Perez is admitted.
   34. Chris Dial Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:04 AM (#2248099)
Rose AGREED to the ban.

Isn't that a red flag that he had more to hide?


No, that's not the case (though it's oft-repeated by those who despise Rose, I realize).
   35. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:18 AM (#2248105)
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Rose bet on games while he was playing, not that at this point I'd be exactly shocked to find that out as well.
Rose bet on games while he was playing; I have no idea where the myth sprung up that he only bet on games as a manager. The Dowd report is clear. (Now, I can understand people questioning the Dowd report for one reason or another; what I can't understand is why so many people have no idea what it says at all.)
   36. pkb33 Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:20 AM (#2248107)
No, that's not the case (though it's oft-repeated by those who despise Rose, I realize).

Why, exactly, do you think he took a deal other than this reason? I don't think there's even a slight shadow of a doubt that's why he took the deal.

Also, Dowd very much believed Rose had more to hide---both from the baseball investigation and federal authorities. Dowd believed Rose bet against the Reds in other games not fully investigated in the primary report. And Rose's lawyer insisted that MLB cease investigating as a condition of Rose's accepting the ban. Is that a clause you think has value other than Rose not wanting further exposure, from MLB or federal authorities investigating?

Puzzling.
   37. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:24 AM (#2248110)
PKB -- for me, the most compelling factor is that unlike in a normal negotiated plea bargain, which involves an admission in exchange for leniency, Rose accepted the maximum punishment. If MLB had kept investigating, and found conclusive proof that Rose was laying down bets on the Reds, they couldn't have done any more to him than they actually did.
   38. pkb33 Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:31 AM (#2248114)
Exactly----it simply makes no sense.

Well, almost no sense. You can make the argument that Rose's lawyer told him that MLB would find something that the FBI/IRS wouldn't and thus, that he should cut this deal to limit his criminal exposure. But that's preposterous in his context---if it were international, or if it involved parties much more likely to speak to Dowd than the Feds, maybe...but that's clearly not the situation here.

Rose has argued he took the deal because he thought he could apply for reinstatment in two years or whatever it was and get back in. He may or may not have thought that, but it's just about impossible that his lawyer actually told him that he'd get approved for reinstatment, and that the best plan was to cop to this.

Unless, of course, there was a lot more to hide and everyone in the room---Dowd, Bart, Rose, and his lawyer---all knew it.
   39. Chris Dial Posted: November 29, 2006 at 04:20 AM (#2248149)
If MLB had kept investigating, and found conclusive proof that Rose was laying down bets on the Reds, they couldn't have done any more to him than they actually did.

Of course there was. They could have made a finding that he bet on baseball.

Rose has argued he took the deal because he thought he could apply for reinstatment in two years or whatever it was and get back in. He may or may not have thought that

One year, IIRC.

And why not? Part of the agreement was that there would be no finding he bet on baseball, which Giamatti IMMEDIATELY violated in spirit (Giamatti wasn't commissioner only "on the clock" - he wasn't entitled to publicly voice a personal opinion while in office).
   40. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 29, 2006 at 04:22 AM (#2248151)
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that Rose bet on games while he was playing, not that at this point I'd be exactly shocked to find that out as well.

Rose bet on games while he was playing; I have no idea where the myth sprung up that he only bet on games as a manager. The Dowd report is clear. (Now, I can understand people questioning the Dowd report for one reason or another; what I can't understand is why so many people have no idea what it says at all.)


I'd simply forgotten that, and thanks for refreshing my memory. You spared me a 30 ft. walk into the next room and the two minutes it would have taken me to check it out myself.
   41. John Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: November 29, 2006 at 04:45 AM (#2248171)
Giamatti wasn't commissioner only "on the clock" - he wasn't entitled to publicly voice a personal opinion while in office

Well, he's certainly entitled to do it, but it's hardly within the spirit of the agreement, which I guess is your main point. That's the thing in Fay Vincent's book The Last Commissioner that I like the least... Vincent who is so forthright about a lot of things just skates over this part.

Vincent, though, who loves Giamatti but is otherwise pretty evenhanded (except for one time where he calls Rose a "criminal" because of his little tax evasion conviction), has no doubts that Rose was betting on baseball games and he points out that Rose was making bookie calls in the middle of the summer... when there is no basketball and no football, and Rose didn't play the ponies with the bookies, but at the track. So what's left?
   42. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 29, 2006 at 06:33 AM (#2248236)
Well, almost no sense. You can make the argument that Rose's lawyer told him that MLB would find something that the FBI/IRS wouldn't and thus, that he should cut this deal to limit his criminal exposure. But that's preposterous in his context---if it were international, or if it involved parties much more likely to speak to Dowd than the Feds, maybe...but that's clearly not the situation here.
Right; I've heard that argument before, and I think it borders on the frivolous. Hey, I know John Dowd was aggressive, but does anybody really think he (without subpoena power) was going to dig up more evidence than the IRS would be able to do? I mean, heck, they brought down Capone and Balco!


Of course there was. They could have made a finding that he bet on baseball.
Which would have resulted in... exactly the same punishment as Rose himself agreed to.
Rose has argued he took the deal because he thought he could apply for reinstatment in two years or whatever it was and get back in. He may or may not have thought that

One year, IIRC.
Yes, one year. But just to be clear, that wasn't something special Rose negotiated; that's the same right every single person who is banned (under the BioB clause -- PEDs have their own rules) has. Rose's lawyer was just being thorough in clarifying that this right still applied to Rose even though his ban was agreed to rather than imposed.

And that argument really makes no sense; Rose (and his lawyer) would have had to have been delusional to think that MLB would have gone to all that trouble to prove that he bet on baseball, and then said, "Shrug, nevermind. We'll only suspend you for a year." What on earth did baseball have to gain from that? If they thought a one-year suspension was appropriate, why wouldn't they have just, you know, suspended him for a year?
And why not? Part of the agreement was that there would be no finding he bet on baseball, which Giamatti IMMEDIATELY violated in spirit (Giamatti wasn't commissioner only "on the clock" - he wasn't entitled to publicly voice a personal opinion while in office).
Why not? Well, the reason I stated above.

As for your comments about Giamatti,
(1) I don't see what that has to do with the issue of whether he would be reinstated in a year, for the reason I state above; (It may pertain to whether Rose had a legitimate complaint about Giamatti, but that's separate.); and
(2) You're incorrect. Part of the agreement was that there would be no <u>FORMAL</u> finding (or determination) he bet on baseball. The very fact that the underlined word I mention is in there implies that Giamatti is sometimes "off the clock" and can give his personal opinion on the subject.
   43. pkb33 Posted: November 29, 2006 at 02:58 PM (#2248377)
Well, it's safe to say that I still haven't heard a remotely credible explanation of why Rose took a LIFETIME BAN other than not wanting to have additional discovery occur.

Chris, amongst the many falsehoods (Giamatti is the one who violated the spirit of the agreement---are you high?) there the most simple one that demonstrates the foolishness of your position is this: what do you think the purpose was of Rose not wanting a formal finding he bet on baseball, exactly? He got the same penalty as if he did, and he didn't ask for the investigative report to be sealed. These are thigns that are very common in plea deals or corp investigations.

Seems pretty clear to me why he didn't seek these two things: he didn't have any leverage---they had him dead to rights, everyone in the room knew there was more where it came from, and Rose wanted it to end. So he agreed to a lifetime ban and then immediately began lying about it, hoping that enough suckers wouldn't look at the details and would buy his tale of woe.

Some smart people did, too, at least initially...Bill James most obviously. But pretty much all of them took a closer look and realized it just wasn't so, really.
   44. pkb33 Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:08 PM (#2248388)
Oh, and Rose then later took a big book advance to admit the betting.

But he was only trying to avoid a formal finding on the exact same point, right?

Please.
   45. Spahn Insane Posted: November 29, 2006 at 03:13 PM (#2248391)
He's a popular ex-Royal from their glory years who's on the ballot for the first time this year. I doubt he initiated the interview.

Fine. I still think he's being disingenuous and grandstanding, knowing full well that he has no chance of actually being elected, and therefore no chance of having to put his money where his mouth is.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCardinals prospect Griffin Roberts suspended 50 games for a drug of abuse
(6 - 11:00am, Dec 16)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogRed Sox owe $12 million in luxury tax, showing why they'd want to shed payroll
(2 - 10:28am, Dec 16)
Last: jmurph

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(195 - 10:17am, Dec 16)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogPadres get Ian Kinsler to play all over infield - The San Diego Union-Tribune
(13 - 10:09am, Dec 16)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogWhy gambling used to scare baseball and why it doesn’t anymore
(45 - 9:34am, Dec 16)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3703 - 9:29am, Dec 16)
Last: JC in DC

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(494 - 9:17am, Dec 16)
Last: DanG

NewsblogTHE HALL OF FAME VALUE STANDARD (Bill James rank 25 worst players in HOF & 25 best not in the HOF)
(93 - 8:18am, Dec 16)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogYankees To Sign J.A. Happ
(36 - 12:16am, Dec 16)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogThe Athletic: What It's Like to Cover an Indians Three Team Trade on a Flight with the Front Office and No WIFI
(5 - 12:08am, Dec 16)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(355 - 11:12pm, Dec 15)
Last: Quaker

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot
(14 - 10:30pm, Dec 15)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2018 - January 2019)
(92 - 10:13pm, Dec 15)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(352 - 9:58pm, Dec 15)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSome MLB front offices are starting to embrace an out-of-the-box idea to boost trading at the winter meetings
(36 - 7:37pm, Dec 15)
Last: cardsfanboy

Page rendered in 0.3590 seconds
46 querie(s) executed