Uh, okay, Sabes. Don't sit around waiting for that phone call...

Paul Kilgus Posted: November 28, 2006 at 8:50 AM (#2247063)

Sure, I'd listen if the Hall of Fame called.

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.

Million dollar arm, ten-cent head.

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>.

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.

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.

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.

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?

The frustrating thing about this is that I've vowed not to accept election to the Hall of Fame until Bret Saberhagen gets in.

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.

re 8


I know this is hair splitting, but didn't the Dowd report only "prove" betting after he stopped playing?

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.

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.

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.

I'm a big fan of Sabes, but he's being a bit silly here.

Oh well.

Bret Saberhagen is misinformed like a stupid idiot! I've never been misinformed once. Not once. Nope.

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).

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)

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".

Ex-ballplayers are stupid attention whores.

i thought quisenberry was the guy with the brain tumor.

I will not have sex with Jessica Biel until she dumps Jeter. Sorry Jess, but that's the way it's gotta be.

Saberhagen knows that he has to dispose of the betting ban before he can challenge the bleach-gun ban.

It's a credit to Primates that my three immediate come-to-mind jokes were already posted before I could even get here.

Next year is an odd so he'll be smarter around HoF election time.

And then Cris E raises the bar.

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.

I'm not accepting any phone calls from the Hall until all of you give me blowjobs. So start lining up.

“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.

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.

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?

I won't accept admission to the Hall of Fame until Neifi Perez is admitted.

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).

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.