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

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Trump backs Pete Rose reinstatement in wake of Astros sign-stealing scandal

Of course, he does.

Hank Gillette Posted: February 12, 2020 at 03:16 PM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: donald trump, pete rose

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. caspian88 Posted: February 12, 2020 at 03:42 PM (#5923939)
Congratulations to SEC Chairman Rose.
   2. TJ Posted: February 12, 2020 at 03:52 PM (#5923941)
Better let Rose in, MLB, or say goodbye to your anti-trust exemption...
   3. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: February 12, 2020 at 04:04 PM (#5923950)
Sociopathic old white men gotta stick together these days.
   4. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: February 12, 2020 at 04:08 PM (#5923953)
Better let Rose in, MLB, or say goodbye to your anti-trust exemption...
Trump was one of the main forces behind the USFL's attempt to force a merger with the NFL, with the semi-successful antitrust suit that went along with the effort. So he has some direct experience with big time sports antitrust actions and issues.

What would be the practical ramifications of MLB losing its antitrust exemption? I can think of a few obvious ones -- MLB would have less control over who can own a team, owners would be a lot freer to move their teams around the country. The reserve clause would go away and minor league contracts would have to be covered under the CBA, with who knows what effects.
   5. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: February 12, 2020 at 04:26 PM (#5923960)
Better let Rose in, MLB, or say goodbye to your anti-trust exemption...

I think getting rid of the anti-trust exemption would be worth letting Rose back in. No one would hire him for anything, and he's not getting into the HoF anyway.
   6. Zonk Hasn't Learned his Aspirational Lesson Posted: February 12, 2020 at 04:29 PM (#5923961)
What would be the practical ramifications of MLB losing its antitrust exemption?


That really depends on how Chief Justice Ultimate Warrior rules, what Solicitor General Kane asks for, and whether Commerce Secretary Abdullah the Butcher chooses to enforce it.

...well, that plus whether Manfred says nice things about the administration or not. But that's a given at this point, so I'm not sure whether we need to keep mentioning it as an assumption or not.
   7. JJ1986 Posted: February 12, 2020 at 04:40 PM (#5923967)
So I guess Rose was on Fox and Friends.
   8. . Posted: February 12, 2020 at 05:33 PM (#5923985)
He should have been reinstated long ago. And changing the HOF rule to get at only him was pretty much your classic bill of attainder and highly unjust. I detested him as a player and don't think much of him now, but I know bullshit when I see it.(*)

And, yes, the sign stealing was a far bigger affront to competition -- not that it really matters, since he should have been reinstated long before it came to light.

(*) And I have the advantage of professional knowledge of John Dowd, but no more need be said beyond that, other than noting that his extrajudicial statements on the matter would be inappropriate even if accurate, and become preposterous in their inaccuracy.
   9. Greg Pope Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:07 PM (#5923990)
changing the HOF rule to get at only him was ... highly unjust

This I agree with. Rose agreed to the ban understanding that he would be on the ballot, and he surely thought that he would get voted in. Whether he was correct doesn't really matter. Rose got screwed there.
   10. Greg Pope Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:09 PM (#5923991)
No one would hire him for anything, and he's not getting into the HoF anyway.

This is where Harvey's would weigh in and say something like:

"The Reds would hire him as manager 30 seconds after he got reinstated and the city of Cincinnati would love it."
   11. caspian88 Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:16 PM (#5923993)
Rose should have gotten the Hall of Fame's guarantee before he signed the agreement, then. I normally don't expect third parties to agree to adhere to agreements between myself and someone else.

Honestly, Rose should face even stricter bans - no MLB appearances, no retired numbers, no in-game videos, no Reds Hall of Fame, etc. I'd strip him from the All Century Team too, if anyone actually cared about that anymore.

The scumbag deserves nothing.
   12. Traderdave Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:24 PM (#5923996)
This is where Harvey's would weigh in and say something like:

"The Reds would hire him as manager 30 seconds after he got reinstated and the city of Cincinnati would love it."


That was true a decade or two ago but he's pushing 80 and a good chunk of the folks in Cincinnati who'd have cheered his hire are in Florida or in the cemetery.
   13. Traderdave Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:26 PM (#5923998)
Would cancelling the anti-trust exemption be a legislative act, executive order or a new court decision?
   14. Greg Pope Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:38 PM (#5924000)
Rose should have gotten the Hall of Fame's guarantee before he signed the agreement, then. I normally don't expect third parties to agree to adhere to agreements between myself and someone else.

Nevertheless, there had been players on the permanently ineligible list for 60-some years and all of them had been technically eligible for the Hall. I think that Pete believed he would get voted in anyway, which we'll never know. I just agree with SBB* that the Hall rule was unjust.

*On this one point. The rest of the post is just stupid.
   15. Jeff Frances the Mute Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:45 PM (#5924002)
That was true a decade or two ago but he's pushing 80 and a good chunk of the folks in Cincinnati who'd have cheered his hire are in Florida or in the cemetery.

This is my thought too. You would have to be at least 50 years old to have any memories of Pete as a good player and ~80% of the population of Cincinnati is younger than this.
   16. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 12, 2020 at 06:50 PM (#5924004)
Rose got screwed there.
Rose essentially pled ‘guilty’, skipping his opportunity for a hearing, because there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt and that he had lied repeatedly. It had nothing to do with his Hall of Fame prospects, just his ability to continue to hoodwink the gullible.
   17. majorflaw Posted: February 12, 2020 at 08:01 PM (#5924019)
“ That really depends on how Chief Justice Ultimate Warrior rules, what Solicitor General Kane asks for, and whether Commerce Secretary Abdullah the Butcher chooses to enforce it.”

You realize two out of those three are no longer with us, right?
   18. greenback slays lewks Posted: February 12, 2020 at 08:09 PM (#5924020)
I've been to a few recent Reds games when Rose was in attendance, and it's pretty clear his favorability rating is sky-high, as the scoreboard director (or whatever the title is) makes a point of showing Rose's ugly face. It's not surprising that he remains popular as Marty Brennaman banged a ####### drum for Pete Rose all the way to the bitter end. So the idea that younger Cincinnati is unfamiliar with the cause is kinda ludicrous. If anything, it's the other way around, that there's been a relentless argument in Cincinnati for Rose's inclusion, as the counter-argument faction has all moved on.

I wonder what John Dowd thinks of this particular development.
   19. The Duke Posted: February 12, 2020 at 08:17 PM (#5924022)
I wonder what kind of % that Rose would get today if he were on the writers ballot. Would he get the bonds/Clemens treatment, the Jeter/Rivera treatment or the Sosa/McGwire treatment?. I’m guessing higher than sosa/McGwire but lower than bonds/Clemens
   20. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 12, 2020 at 09:18 PM (#5924026)
Re: #17--
One of three. Kane and Abdullah are both alive.

Unless you meant that justice and commerce are now dead, which isn't as far-fetched as it should be.
   21. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: February 12, 2020 at 09:29 PM (#5924031)
So the idea that younger Cincinnati is unfamiliar with the cause is kinda ludicrous. If anything, it's the other way around, that there's been a relentless argument in Cincinnati for Rose's inclusion, as the counter-argument faction has all moved on.

I don't think this is right. I haven't lived there for a while but from what I've gathered from cousins and friends there is that he's not beloved by those under 45 or so. They are certainly familiar with him; he and his name are inescapable.
   22. Walt Davis Posted: February 12, 2020 at 10:03 PM (#5924042)
You would have to be at least 50 years old to have any memories of Pete as a good player and ~80% of the population of Cincinnati is younger than this.

36% of the Cincy MSA population is 50+ (I believe those are 2018 estimates). That's in line with the US proportion. Although the proportion born 1970 or earlier will obviously decline over time, the proportion aged 50+ in year X will be going up for some time in Cincy as with pretty much everywhere in the US.

The US age distribution is basically flat from 0 to 64 years old. For 5-year age groups, the smallest of these (in the 0-64 range) is the 0-4 years old group. There are more people aged 60-64 than 5-9; more 55-59 than 15-19. From 25-29 down, you see decreases.
   23. SoSH U at work Posted: February 12, 2020 at 10:36 PM (#5924049)
he and his name are inescapable.


His name is only escapable if you avoid the riverfront entirely.
   24. Walt Davis Posted: February 13, 2020 at 12:24 AM (#5924062)
By the way ...

75. Walt Davis Posted: February 07, 2020 at 01:10 AM (#5922564)
I assume Trump will be giving Rose a medal of freedom if he needs a few more Ohio votes.
   25. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 02:26 AM (#5924079)
Trump also talked about Joe Paterno being unfairly persecuted during stump speeches in PA last election cycle, so this is pretty unsurprising.
   26. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 08:07 AM (#5924087)

but I know bullshit when I see it.(*)
Game recognizes game.
   27. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 08:14 AM (#5924088)
Solicitor General Kane


And Kane is actually already in politics, he's the mayor of Knox County in Tennessee. He's a Libertarian leaning Republican.
   28. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 08:18 AM (#5924089)

Nevertheless, there had been players on the permanently ineligible list for 60-some years and all of them had been technically eligible for the Hall.
They were de jure eligible, but de facto ineligible. As I've pointed out before, look at the contrasting treatment that Hal Chase (obvious crook, but never banned) and Joe Jackson (banned) got from the voters. Chase got support; Jackson did not.
   29. Zonk Hasn't Learned his Aspirational Lesson Posted: February 13, 2020 at 08:54 AM (#5924099)
They were de jure eligible, but de facto ineligible. As I've pointed out before, look at the contrasting treatment that Hal Chase (obvious crook, but never banned) and Joe Jackson (banned) got from the voters. Chase got support; Jackson did not.


That's so unfair, Sad, even to Chase.

Some say that Chase acted inappropriately as early as 1910, but others say he was defensively PERFECT. He stood up to the elites like Charles Comiskey. In any case, Chase concluded his Major League career after the 1919 regular season ended and nothing bad happened afterwards and then Mexico paid him.



   30. Greg Pope Posted: February 13, 2020 at 08:55 AM (#5924101)
They were de jure eligible, but de facto ineligible.

That's my point (if I understand your terms). Rose thought he would be on the ballot. There was no reason to think that he wouldn't. He probably believed that he would get voted in. I don't think he was correct, but it's his right to think that. He signed the agreement "knowing" that he would be eligible for the HOF and thinking he would get voted in. If he takes that chance, that's on Rose. The HOF not putting him on the ballot was unfair to him.

I understand that the HOF and MLB are different and there was no guarantee. I also think that everything else that happened is his own damn fault. For example, the agreement says that he can apply for reinstatement after a year. If he thought he would get reinstated, that's on him. I don't think he should ever be let back in. I agree with caspian that he shouldn't have been allowed to be on the All-Century team, have his number retired, etc. But in this one particular aspect, he got the shaft.
   31. SoSH U at work Posted: February 13, 2020 at 09:01 AM (#5924103)
He signed the agreement "knowing" that he would be eligible for the HOF and thinking he would get voted in. If he takes that chance, that's on Rose. The HOF not putting him on the ballot was unfair to him.


I don't agree. The prevailing wisdom was that permanent ban = Hall ban. Pete knew that.
   32. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 09:34 AM (#5924113)
Rose thought he would be on the ballot. There was no reason to think that he wouldn't. He probably believed that he would get voted in.


Rose probably thinks he's going to heaven, too, but that doesn't mean that they're under any obligation to crank open the pearly gates.

Pete Rose's sloppy and delusional thinking is not MLB's problem, or the Hall's problem. It is Pete Rose's problem exclusively.
   33. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 13, 2020 at 09:34 AM (#5924115)
Rose essentially pled ‘guilty’, skipping his opportunity for a hearing, because there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt and that he had lied repeatedly. It had nothing to do with his Hall of Fame prospects, just his ability to continue to hoodwink the gullible.

What was the worst that could have happened to him if he fought it to the end?
   34. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 09:39 AM (#5924121)
What was the worst that could have happened to him if he fought it to the end?


Well, presumably he was implicated in something even worse than betting on baseball, and he was scared of the consequences of that if MLB unearthed and published evidence of it. Maybe drug trafficking, or run-shaving/game-fixing? There's already some evidence of the former, and the latter is only a step or two further across the line than what he was already documented to have been doing.
   35. Ron J Posted: February 13, 2020 at 09:56 AM (#5924128)
#9 No he didn't. He assumed he'd be on the ballot but it's never been under the control of MLB.

As for changing the rule specifically for Rose, well the HOF's official explanation was that it was always a defacto rule that they formalized. (there used to be an FAQ about this. They took it down years ago but you could find it with archive.org)

And you can see evidence of this in the respective vote totals of Hal Chase and Joe Jackson. Almost nobody doubts that Chase was corrupt, but he was never formally banned by MLB (though the PCL did ban him). Literally nobody doubts that Jackson was the greater player but Chase got far more support. A mysterious level of support to modern eyes, but he was a major star back in the days of erratic record keeping.

EDIT: Missed DMN making the same points
   36. Ron J Posted: February 13, 2020 at 09:59 AM (#5924129)
#33 John Dowd argued it would get him killed. That his mob connections would become a matter of public record and he'd be forced to testify against some mob figures.

And yes, as I've said before Dowd always sounds like a loon when he talks about Rose.
   37. Greg Pope Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:01 AM (#5924131)
I don't agree. The prevailing wisdom was that permanent ban = Hall ban. Pete knew that.

Rose probably thinks he's going to heaven, too, but that doesn't mean that they're under any obligation to crank open the pearly gates.

I'm saying both of those things. If Pete was put on the ballot and not voted in, then spent the next 30 years crying about it, I'd have no problem. Just because he thought he would be in doesn't mean anything and is his own issue. I just have a problem with the HOF changing the rules to keep him off the ballot.
   38. Traderdave Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:27 AM (#5924140)
Rose of course wants to be in the HOF, anybody would want that, but what he wants & needs even more is M-O-N-E-Y. Money is the fuel that his gambling addiction runs on, and Rose has notably never "reconfigured" his life. Gambling is who and what he is.

For a while he clung to the hope of reinstatement so he could manage the Reds for a nice salary. And there was a time when that would have been a likely outcome of reinstatement, but not even an addled franchise like the Reds hires an octogenarian has-been to manage.

He cares about Cooperstown only insofar as he can monetize it, through appearance fees, a book and movie deal (and a Charlie Hustle movie could be great if done right) and anything else that will earn him a nickel that he can then cycle through various Vegas sports books.
   39. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:41 AM (#5924147)
I just have a problem with the HOF changing the rules to keep him off the ballot.


Why do you have a problem with that? It's not a rule that applies exclusively to Rose - any ineligible players will be treated in the same way that he is.
   40. My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:45 AM (#5924148)
And Kane is actually already in politics, he's the mayor of Knox County in Tennessee. He's a Libertarian leaning Republican.


Jesse The Body was governor of Minnesota.

Linda McMahon has run for Senate in Connecticut a few times.

Anyone else?
   41. Nakagura775 Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:47 AM (#5924149)
Why do people care about the HOF so much? Never understood that.
   42. Ziggy is done with Dominican discotheques Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:48 AM (#5924151)
Pete Rose being treated unfairly is about the least upsetting of the world's injustices. Heck, it's one that I might actively support.

As for money, it seems likely that Pete makes more money being outside of the hall than in it. As long as he's not in the hall he's a story - the kind of thing that sells books (Amazon shows nine books authored by Rose), that gets you invited to card shows, that sells memorabilia, etc. Once he's in the hall, he's another guy who was good in the 70s.
   43. Zonk Hasn't Learned his Aspirational Lesson Posted: February 13, 2020 at 10:57 AM (#5924154)
Rose is and has always been thoroughly unrepentant. The difference between allowing him entrance into the HoF now and say, hypothetically, after he dies is strictly a matter of Rose's own personal satisfaction.

If he showed the slightest hint of regret or remorse, I'd be more inclined to throw him a bone for his final years.

But - he hasn't, so #### him.

If the HOF/VC/some combination thereof wants to reconsider a deceased Rose (and Joe Jackson; hard to see how you do one without the other), have at it...
   44. reech Posted: February 13, 2020 at 11:02 AM (#5924156)

Jesse The Body was governor of Minnesota.

Linda McMahon has run for Senate in Connecticut a few times.

Anyone else?



WWE HOFer Trump is POTUS (and a POS)
Linda McMahon was Administrator of the Small Business Administration under previously mentioned POS
Jerry Lawler is The King of Memphis
   45. John Northey Posted: February 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM (#5924160)
Well, as if I needed more reasons not to like Trump and Rose. Peas in a pod I guess, both very good at screwing up.
   46. Greg Pope Posted: February 13, 2020 at 11:27 AM (#5924169)
Why do you have a problem with that? It's not a rule that applies exclusively to Rose - any ineligible players will be treated in the same way that he is.

Are you seriously suggesting that the rule wasn't put in place because of him? Obviously it's not exclusive but they didn't feel the need to create the rule 2 years earlier when Field of Dreams came out. They created the rule after Rose got banned.
   47. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 11:49 AM (#5924176)
Are you seriously suggesting that the rule wasn't put in place because of him?


No, but why should that matter? It's a fair, reasonable, universal, and consistent standard that codified what had long been the institution's unwritten practice.
   48. Ron J Posted: February 13, 2020 at 11:49 AM (#5924177)
#46 No, they formalized the rule after reading a spate of "going to vote for Rose" articles. Why no "not on the ballot if banned" rule at the time when they went through this with Jackson (and I suppose Cicotte -- he had a marginal case I guess)? No ballots back then.

   49. Lassus Posted: February 13, 2020 at 11:52 AM (#5924178)
Why do people care about the HOF so much? Never understood that.

This is like me not understanding why Catholics care about Jesus so much. Come on.
   50. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: February 13, 2020 at 12:46 PM (#5924204)
King of Memphis Jerry Lawler actually ran for a demotion to the Mayor of Memphis, finishing 3rd in the election.

Rick Steiner was disqualified from the ballot when he tried to run for a local election, because he ran as Rick Steiner instead of his real name, Robert Rechsteiner. So Steiner ran as a write-in candidate, and won.

Killer Bee B. Brian Blair won a county seat in Florida. Bob Backlund ran for the U.S. House in Connecticut but lost. Rhyno ran for a state Representative seat but lost.

Overseas, Ludvig Borga was elected to the Parliament in Finland. Japanese wrestlers who have been elected to Japan's national Congress include Antonio Inoki, Hiroshi Hase and Atsushi Onita. Hase was later chosen by Shinzō Abe for a Cabinet seat.

The Great Sasuke was elected to his Iwate Prefecture assembly, and wore his wrestling mask throughout his tenure. But to show respect for his new job, he switched from his gaudy ring mask to a more subdued design that included the official emblem of the prefecture.

The Great Sasuke doing the people's work
   51. . Posted: February 13, 2020 at 12:52 PM (#5924211)
No, but why should that matter?


Google, "Bill of Attainder." (Truth be told, I'm not exactly hopeful that the Anglo-American legal tradition will carry any weight with you, but that's why it "should matter.")

It's a fair, reasonable, universal, and consistent standard that codified what had long been the institution's unwritten practice.


It was no such thing. It was a "rule" put in place to address the case of one man and one man only.

Well, presumably he was implicated in something even worse than betting on baseball, and he was scared of the consequences of that if MLB unearthed and published evidence of it. Maybe drug trafficking, or run-shaving/game-fixing? There's already some evidence of the former, and the latter is only a step or two further across the line than what he was already documented to have been doing.


No, there's no basis whatever for anything like that to be a "presumption."

Generally speaking, it's really not particularly appealing (*) to carry this much bile toward a baseball player guy who you don't even know. But maybe that gets you some kind of imaginary brownie points with the baseball poets or something, I don't know.

(*) And, though I'm not a licensed doctor, probably not particularly healthy.
   52. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 01:27 PM (#5924220)
Google, "Bill of Attainder."
Unfortunately FLTB hasn't taken his own advice, so he doesn't know what that term means. Bills of attainder were legislative findings of guilt (without the need for the whole pesky trial thing). That isn't even remotely relevant or analogous to what we're discussing.
   53. Traderdave Posted: February 13, 2020 at 01:42 PM (#5924226)
I had to log out to see the previously ignored post about bills of attainder.

From the department of Things I Never Thought I'd Say or Do: FLTB is just analogizing and comparing a B0fA to the HOF prematurely voting him off the ballot before he was eligible isn't off the mark. The similarities are not absent.

I now return to ignoring Senor . with all previous contempt.
   54. TJ Posted: February 13, 2020 at 02:03 PM (#5924231)
Rhyno ran for a state Representative seat but lost.


I met Rhyno during his campaign. He was going house-to-house in my neighborhood passing out his flyers and such. Stopped to talk with me for a few minutes. He came across as a very nice guy, earnest and open with a desire to serve and at least a working knowledge of the issues of our area. While I did not agree with the majority of his positions, they were not too extreme or potentially damaging and that he had an open mind to other views. I felt he could at least be trusted that his positions were heartfelt, so I voted for him. Hope he gives it another try.
   55. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 02:41 PM (#5924243)
comparing a B0fA to the HOF prematurely voting him off the ballot before he was eligible isn't off the mark


Except insofar as the rule wasn't specific to Rose, and didn't express any opinion as to his innocence or guilt on the whole betting thing, and was well within the scope of something that the Hall has always had the right and ability to do (i.e. determine who is and isn't eligible for selection, and the method by which honorees should be selected).
   56. Traderdave Posted: February 13, 2020 at 03:36 PM (#5924269)
If you don't believe that rule was written with one person in mind, you are warmly invited to my next poker night.
   57. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 04:30 PM (#5924279)
If you don't believe that rule was written with one person in mind, you are warmly invited to my next poker night.
They were obviously inspired to write the rule by one guy, but it was not a rule saying, "Pete Rose is ineligible." It was a general rule, applicable to people who came before and anyone who might come after. If it had said "Pete Rose is ineligible," well, it still wouldn't really be a bill of attainder since it didn't declare him guilty, but at least it would've shared one thing in common with a bill of attainder. (i.e., singling out a particular person).
   58. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: February 13, 2020 at 04:30 PM (#5924280)
If you don't believe that rule was written with one person in mind, you are warmly invited to my next poker night.


Again, I genuinely don't understand why you think that matters. The rule isn't "Pete Rose isn't allowed in the Hall of Fame." It's a clearly defined rule that applies to multiple players, and would also apply to any future players who did exactly what Rose did. It's a rule about conduct, and Rose is just the specific case that demonstrated the need for such a clearly codified rule (which had already been a de facto standard for decades anyway).

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
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOakland Athletics off the radio waves in the Bay Area, commit to A’s Cast stream
(25 - 12:38am, Feb 20)
Last: Tin Angel

NewsblogYankees’ Brett Gardner wants fan making bizarre sexual claims kept away from his family, MLB stadiums
(12 - 12:26am, Feb 20)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2020)
(142 - 12:25am, Feb 20)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogDisciplining Astros not as easy for MLB as Altuve revealing a tattoo
(32 - 12:23am, Feb 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(605 - 11:23pm, Feb 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-18-2020
(36 - 11:20pm, Feb 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(671 - 10:45pm, Feb 19)
Last: Snowboy

NewsblogFeinstein: In the Astros scandal, Rob Manfred has taken a bad situation and made it worse (WaPo)
(7 - 10:43pm, Feb 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogHow will the Red Sox market a Mookie-less team? - The Boston Globe
(74 - 9:06pm, Feb 19)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(1385 - 8:03pm, Feb 19)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogMLB expanding playoff system?
(128 - 7:54pm, Feb 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-19-2020
(61 - 7:28pm, Feb 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogRob Manfred offers little insight, shows contempt for reporters in press conference
(120 - 12:59pm, Feb 19)
Last: Ron J

NewsblogWhitley's new strategy: Less work, more weight
(6 - 1:26am, Feb 19)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogPederson, Stripling back to work with Dodgers after no trade
(8 - 10:10pm, Feb 18)
Last: akrasian

Page rendered in 0.4734 seconds
46 querie(s) executed