PDA

View Full Version : Pete's Take on the Reds.



Mario-Rijo
12-19-2006, 10:33 PM
This should raise some eyebrows, it did mine. And no one can accuse Pete of all people of not knowing Baseball!


Thoughts on the current Reds?


"My advice to the general manager is, if you think youíve got good pitching, get more, because youíve got the offense and youíve got a pretty solid defense. Now youíve just got to get pitchers that can go out there and keep the ball in the ballpark. Itís a rough place to pitch in, no question about it Ė just like Philly.

"I know the Reds didnít hit in the clutch down the stretch. That happens. But when youíre not hitting in the clutch down the stretch, thatís when you need some 2-1 games and some 1-0 games and 3-2 games. The Big Red Machine couldnít win every night, 10-8. Youíve got to have some of those close games. You had a couple pitchers have good years and itís just going to be interesting to see if they sign any free-agent pitchers. I have a tendency to think they will. Itís just whoís out there and whoís available and who would like to pitch for the Reds? I would, if I was a pitcher. When youíve got some guys that can knock in some runs, it makes your job a little easier."


Hmmm, interesting synopsis! If you wanna read the rest of Pete's interview here is the link to Marc Lancasters Blog.

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/spring/

Spring~Fields
12-19-2006, 11:06 PM
Thanks for the heads up.

Patpacillosjock
12-19-2006, 11:46 PM
its nice to see pete in the media without anybody bashing him..he makes a great point..however we keep getting mediocre pitching..so all the additions havent helped one bit..

also im sure he's referring to starting rotation pitching..it doesnt matter how good or deep your bullpen is if your SP has already given up 5-6 runs

TOBTTReds
12-20-2006, 12:21 AM
and you’ve got a pretty solid defense

Lost credibility there. Just because we added a good shortstop doesn't mean we now have a pretty solid defense. We were crappy last year, now we are just above crappy.

redsupport
12-20-2006, 01:34 AM
pete wants to warm up Rob Murphy and Frank Williams in the pen

MartyFan
12-20-2006, 02:45 AM
In an interview with reporters later in the day he also said....

"I'm a baseball person. I haven't bet on baseball since 1987. When writers talk about that, [they say] let me back in, but don't let me on the field. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that would be in the hands of one of 30 people. And the 30 people are guys that own baseball teams. If you want me to run your show, one thing I'll do is change the attitude around [the team], just like Jimmy Leyland [in Detroit] and just like Lou Piniella will do in Chicago. I'll change the attitude around for a team. I'll put more people in the seats, and you'll go up in the standings."

I feel bad for him in one respect...that he gave up the only thing he has ever really loved because he did something he really enjoyed...but then he tried to protect himself with a lie...still paying the price for bad choices.

Jpup
12-20-2006, 05:55 AM
everyone should be given a second chance.

redsfanmia
12-20-2006, 07:25 AM
everyone should be given a second chance.

Even after he lied for 15+ years and was so arrogant about everything he did? Pete should just go away. Great player, Bad guy.

RedRoser
12-20-2006, 12:00 PM
Even after he lied for 15+ years and was so arrogant about everything he did? Pete should just go away. Great player, Bad guy.

So arrogance and lieing (and before you say it, Gambling on the game) are unforgiveable sins? :eek: But drug (and steroid) abuse, assault, wife beating, DUI, etc. all merit second (and sometimes third, fourth, etc.) chances? :rolleyes:

My Bible teaches that sin is sin and that every sin breaks the heart of God just the same. My God is a god of forgiveness and second chances and would never say that what Pete Rose did or didn't do was unpardonable.

My beliefs teach us to model ourselves after a loving and forgiving God and Christ.

They also teach that if we are going to "stone" someone for their sins, then he who is without sin should cast the first one.

So Pete Rose bet on baseball and baseball and its Hall of Fame is so holy and exclusionary that God's teachings shouldn't enter in?

You're certainly just as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. But before saying someone is a "bad guy," we should certainly look first at the man in the mirror. We're all "bad" guys, having inherited sin natures at our birth.
Doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't all be forgiven and given second chances. It would be an awful, terrible, world---somewhat similar I imagine to what Hell is like---if we weren't given second chances by a loving and
forgiving God of mercy and grace.

Pete certainly made some mistakes, but he was a great ballplayer and I owe my love for baseball to him and my father. I look forward to seeing them both in heaven one day. It's going to be a shame, however, if I don't first get to see Pete Rose back in the game of baseball AND enshrined into the Hall of Fame.

Just my opinion. . .:)

---RedRoser

savafan
12-20-2006, 12:09 PM
http://redsox.bostonherald.com/otherMLB/view.bg?articleid=173037

By Associated Press
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - Updated: 07:15 AM EST

CINCINNATI - Pete Rose thinks Mark McGwire should be baseballís Hall of Fame, and hasnít given up hope that heíll get there someday, too.

Baseballís banished hits king said Tuesday that McGwire, who is on the ballot for the first time, ought to be voted in despite his refusal to discuss steroids. Rose isnít eligible for the ballot because of his lifetime ban for gambling.

Rose made the case for McGwire by noting that baseball didnít crack down on steroids until after the 2002 season, by which time McGwire had retired.

McGwire hit a then-record 70 homers in 1998, when his race with Sammy Sosa to top Roger Marisí record drew huge crowds and helped the game reshape its image after labor strife.

"Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, I think they kind of saved the game in (1998) with the home run contest," Rose said. "That home run derby kind of brought baseball back."

Rose himself isnít having much luck with Halls of Fame.

Flu prevented him from flying from the West Coast for a news conference at the Cincinnati Redsí Hall of Fame on Tuesday. The hall is putting together a special exhibit honoring Roseís career.

The Cincinnati native helped the Reds win back-to-back World Series in 1975-76 and broke Ty Cobbís career hit record, finishing with 4,256. He was banned in 1989 for betting on baseball, something he denied for the next 13 years.

He acknowledged betting on baseball in 2002 during a meeting with commissioner Bud Selig. His second autobiography in 2004 made the admission public, but turned off many fans and, evidently, baseballís top executives. The book contained little remorse and was released just before Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley were elected to the Hall of Fame.

"When the book came out, everything kind of went haywire," Rose said Tuesday during a conference call set up because he couldnít travel to Cincinnati.

Roseís eligibility for the ballot ended last year. Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt, a close friend, wrote in a book earlier this year that Rose understands he probably never will be inducted and that heíll almost certainly never be allowed back in the game in any capacity.

"There has been no change in the status of Pete Roseís reinstatement petition," Bob DuPuy, baseballís chief operating officer, said Tuesday in an e-mail.

Rose said he hasnít lost hope.

"Sure Iíd like to go into the Hall of Fame," he said. "More important to me, Iíd like to be back in the game. Iím a teacher of the game."

Rose thinks that if baseball ever reinstated him, some owner would hire him as manager.

"Iím sure there are always going to be things about what I did in the past, but Iím not concerned about that," Rose said.

He was the Redsí player-manager from 1984-86, allowing him to catch and pass Cobbís record. He then limited himself to managing until his banishment in 1989.

The Reds finished second each season from 1985-88, then fell to fifth in his final season. They won the World Series by sweeping McGwireís Oakland team in 1990 under Lou Piniella.

Roseís career is honored as part of the teamís history in various places at Great American Ball Park, which opened in 2003. Thereís a rose garden at the spot where record-breaking hit No. 4,192 landed at old Riverfront Stadium, which was alongside the new ballpark.

Rose hasnít been inducted into the Redsí Hall of Fame, but several of his jerseys are on display. Also, there is a three-story display of 4,256 baseballs, honoring his most famous feat.

A special exhibit opening next March will include the bat and ball from his record-setting hit, other memorabilia and a television documentary. Baseball officials said the exhibit conforms to the terms of Roseís lifetime ban.

"We see this exhibit as very much a celebration of Pete and his career, a way for us to acknowledge the special characteristics he brought to the playing field and made him so beloved in Cincinnati," said Greg Rhodes, executive director of the Redsí Hall of Fame.

Rose hopes that the exhibit is popular and that baseball takes notice.

"That probably would give baseball another reason to consider reinstating me," Rose said. "I know Iíve made mistakes, but a lot of people feel Iíve paid for those mistakes. Itís been 17 years already."

KoryMac5
12-20-2006, 01:03 PM
If Pete wants back in the game he has to make MLB put him back into the game. In every interview he says how much he loves baseball and how much he misses it but I never see him out their teaching it to the younger kids. If I was Pete, I would go to the High Schools, the inner city, and teach the game, talk to the kids about what to stay away from. In essence earn some credibility and respect, make people notice you for the good you have done in being a baseball ambassador not just a guy looking to make some money.

guttle11
12-20-2006, 01:06 PM
If Pete wants back in the game he has to make MLB put him back into the game. In every interview he says how much he loves baseball and how much he misses it but I never see him out their teaching it to the younger kids. If I was Pete, I would go to the High Schools, the inner city, and teach the game, talk to the kids about what to stay away from. In essence earn some credibility and respect, make people notice you for the good you have done in being a baseball ambassador not just a guy looking to make some money.


That makes entirely too much sense for Pete to consider it.

George Anderson
12-20-2006, 01:06 PM
If Pete wants back in the game he has to make MLB put him back into the game. In every interview he says how much he loves baseball and how much he misses it but I never see him out their teaching it to the younger kids. If I was Pete, I would go to the High Schools, the inner city, and teach the game, talk to the kids about what to stay away from. In essence earn some credibility and respect, make people notice you for the good you have done in being a baseball ambassador not just a guy looking to make some money.

That would cut into his time spent at the track and the casinos.

terminator
12-20-2006, 01:09 PM
Kory,

Pete has said that he does a lot of that type of thing but doesn't do it for the cameras. He says it wouldn't be sincere then and he's not that kind of person. When I listen to him he strikes me as sincere about that. I can appreciate that as I think it is unbecoming to preen for the camera while doing "charitable" work.

redsfanmia
12-20-2006, 01:19 PM
So arrogance and lieing (and before you say it, Gambling on the game) are unforgiveable sins? :eek: But drug (and steroid) abuse, assault, wife beating, DUI, etc. all merit second (and sometimes third, fourth, etc.) chances? :rolleyes:

My Bible teaches that sin is sin and that every sin breaks the heart of God just the same. My God is a god of forgiveness and second chances and would never say that what Pete Rose did or didn't do was unpardonable.

My beliefs teach us to model ourselves after a loving and forgiving God and Christ.

They also teach that if we are going to "stone" someone for their sins, then he who is without sin should cast the first one.

So Pete Rose bet on baseball and baseball and its Hall of Fame is so holy and exclusionary that God's teachings shouldn't enter in?

You're certainly just as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. But before saying someone is a "bad guy," we should certainly look first at the man in the mirror. We're all "bad" guys, having inherited sin natures at our birth.
Doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't all be forgiven and given second chances. It would be an awful, terrible, world---somewhat similar I imagine to what Hell is like---if we weren't given second chances by a loving and
forgiving God of mercy and grace.

Pete certainly made some mistakes, but he was a great ballplayer and I owe my love for baseball to him and my father. I look forward to seeing them both in heaven one day. It's going to be a shame, however, if I don't first get to see Pete Rose back in the game of baseball AND enshrined into the Hall of Fame.

Just my opinion. . .:)

---RedRoser

Pete also was involved in some drug dealing's if you believe whats been written. I think Pete should be in the Hall but honestly its not going to happen anytime soon, maybe after he is gone but not now.

Phhhl
12-20-2006, 01:58 PM
So arrogance and lieing (and before you say it, Gambling on the game) are unforgiveable sins? :eek: But drug (and steroid) abuse, assault, wife beating, DUI, etc. all merit second (and sometimes third, fourth, etc.) chances? :rolleyes:

My Bible teaches that sin is sin and that every sin breaks the heart of God just the same. My God is a god of forgiveness and second chances and would never say that what Pete Rose did or didn't do was unpardonable.

My beliefs teach us to model ourselves after a loving and forgiving God and Christ.

They also teach that if we are going to "stone" someone for their sins, then he who is without sin should cast the first one.

So Pete Rose bet on baseball and baseball and its Hall of Fame is so holy and exclusionary that God's teachings shouldn't enter in?

You're certainly just as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. But before saying someone is a "bad guy," we should certainly look first at the man in the mirror. We're all "bad" guys, having inherited sin natures at our birth.
Doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't all be forgiven and given second chances. It would be an awful, terrible, world---somewhat similar I imagine to what Hell is like---if we weren't given second chances by a loving and
forgiving God of mercy and grace.

Pete certainly made some mistakes, but he was a great ballplayer and I owe my love for baseball to him and my father. I look forward to seeing them both in heaven one day. It's going to be a shame, however, if I don't first get to see Pete Rose back in the game of baseball AND enshrined into the Hall of Fame.

Just my opinion. . .:)

---RedRoser

Beautifully written. I couldn't agree more.

Doc. Scott
12-20-2006, 02:50 PM
Kory,

Pete has said that he does a lot of that type of thing but doesn't do it for the cameras. He says it wouldn't be sincere then and he's not that kind of person. When I listen to him he strikes me as sincere about that. I can appreciate that as I think it is unbecoming to preen for the camera while doing "charitable" work.

Right, but his gambling at the casinos and track pretty much forces him to pursue the more publicly craven avenues of profit (witness the book, autographs in Vegas, etc.). Staying away from the black hole of gambling would enable his public perception to rise because he'd only be in the news for the good works.

Chip R
12-21-2006, 01:20 AM
OK, for those of you who are OK with baseball banning Rose, whether you are a fan of his or not, would you be in favor of them allowing the Reds to retire his number and put him in the Reds HOF? He isn't reinstated in baseball - so he can't get a job there - and is still ineligible for Cooperstown but the Reds would be allowed to honor him.

George Anderson
12-21-2006, 01:31 AM
OK, for those of you who are OK with baseball banning Rose, whether you are a fan of his or not, would you be in favor of them allowing the Reds to retire his number and put him in the Reds HOF? He isn't reinstated in baseball - so he can't get a job there - and is still ineligible for Cooperstown but the Reds would be allowed to honor him.

No doubt his number should be retired and yes he should be in Cooperstown.

I was a staunch supporter of his years ago but with the latest events I have seen what a truly, rotten S.O.B. he truly is. Anyone who lies for 16 years and then offers to tell us the details as soon as we buy his book for $29.95 just to me isnt a very good person.

But having said all this, the HOF has a lot of rotten S.O.B.'s in it so yes Pete belongs!!!

Chip R
12-21-2006, 01:37 AM
But having said all this, the HOF has a lot of rotten S.O.B.'s in it so yes Pete belongs!!!


But I'm only talking about the Reds HOF, not the one in Cooperstown. In this scenario, he can't go in there.

George Anderson
12-21-2006, 02:18 AM
But I'm only talking about the Reds HOF, not the one in Cooperstown. In this scenario, he can't go in there.

Sure he belongs in the Reds HOF.

jbran1114
12-21-2006, 02:29 AM
Pete Rose is a dirtbag. And should be a Hall of Famer.

BuckWoody
12-21-2006, 10:18 AM
OK, for those of you who are OK with baseball banning Rose, whether you are a fan of his or not, would you be in favor of them allowing the Reds to retire his number and put him in the Reds HOF? He isn't reinstated in baseball - so he can't get a job there - and is still ineligible for Cooperstown but the Reds would be allowed to honor him.
I can't believe that Castellini isn't being very proactive with the commissioner's office on this front. If the fines and penalties weren't exorbitant, I'm sure the Reds would have already inducted Pete into their HoF. They consulted Lord Bud before they went ahead with plans for the Pete exhibit in the HoF and allowing Pete to take part in the opening. According to this morning's Enquirer:

Castellini said the idea for a major Rose exhibit came from the Reds Hall of Fame board. He approved it and allowed Reds Hall of Fame and Museum director Greg Rhodes to take the case to MLB.
If they consulted the commissioner for that, I'm sure they've broached the subject of number retirement and induction with him. Since he granted permission for this, maybe he's gradually softening his stance. I don't think the commissioner's office will ever fully reinstate Pete nor make him eligible for Cooperstown but just maybe there might be a chance for the Reds HoF.

In addition, for all practical purposes, Pete's #14 is retired by the Reds...it's just not "official". Pretty much the same for Davey's #13 too. I'd imagine there would be quite the firestorm of controversy if someone actually took the field wearing one of those two numbers, especially Pete's.

minus5
12-21-2006, 10:43 AM
Has anyone seen this yet from this morning's Enquirer?

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061221/SPT04/612210341/-1/CINCI

Castellini: Rose on his own
Reds CEO says team's exhibit not pitch for legend's reinstatement
BY JOHN FAY | JFAY@ENQUIRER.COM

Reds chief executive officer Bob Castellini was all for his people taking Pete Rose's case to Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig as far as the Reds Hall of Fame and Museum was concerned.

But don't expect Castellini to take up for Rose regarding reinstatement into Baseball.

"You can't read that into this," Castellini said. "We don't want to try to buck the commissioner on that. Pete deserves to be honored by the Reds Hall of Fame. And he is. About 15 percent of the exhibits involved Pete. He's an integral part of the (Reds) Hall of Fame."


Rose is about to become a bigger part. The Reds on Monday announced the biggest display to date at the Reds Hall of Fame and Museum will be dedicated to Rose and will open in March. Rose was cleared by MLB to participate in the opening and said he hoped it would be a step toward reinstatement. Rose has been banned from Baseball since 1989 for gambling.

Castellini said Rose was on his own as far as that was concerned. "We're not part of that fight," Castellini said.

Castellini said the idea for a major Rose exhibit came from the Reds Hall of Fame board. He approved it and allowed Reds Hall of Fame and Museum director Greg Rhodes to take the case to MLB.

"They had a long conversation," Castellini said.

Rose is not being paid for participating and has gone out of his way to help the Reds with the project.

As for the current Reds, Castellini said more moves may be coming.

"We're out there looking," he said. "The money that's been thrown around is unbelievable, and in some cases irresponsible. But we'll do something when the time is right. We're looking."

savafan
12-22-2006, 02:29 AM
In addition, for all practical purposes, Pete's #14 is retired by the Reds...it's just not "official". Pretty much the same for Davey's #13 too. I'd imagine there would be quite the firestorm of controversy if someone actually took the field wearing one of those two numbers, especially Pete's.

You mean besides Petey Jr. right?

BuckWoody
12-22-2006, 09:13 AM
You mean besides Petey Jr. right?
Absolutely. ;)

And if there is a Davey Jr., he could probably get away with wearing #13 too. :thumbup:

EddieMilner
12-22-2006, 01:23 PM
So arrogance and lieing (and before you say it, Gambling on the game) are unforgiveable sins? :eek: But drug (and steroid) abuse, assault, wife beating, DUI, etc. all merit second (and sometimes third, fourth, etc.) chances? :rolleyes:

My Bible teaches that sin is sin and that every sin breaks the heart of God just the same. My God is a god of forgiveness and second chances and would never say that what Pete Rose did or didn't do was unpardonable.

My beliefs teach us to model ourselves after a loving and forgiving God and Christ.

They also teach that if we are going to "stone" someone for their sins, then he who is without sin should cast the first one.

So Pete Rose bet on baseball and baseball and its Hall of Fame is so holy and exclusionary that God's teachings shouldn't enter in?

You're certainly just as entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine. But before saying someone is a "bad guy," we should certainly look first at the man in the mirror. We're all "bad" guys, having inherited sin natures at our birth.
Doesn't mean however, that we shouldn't all be forgiven and given second chances. It would be an awful, terrible, world---somewhat similar I imagine to what Hell is like---if we weren't given second chances by a loving and
forgiving God of mercy and grace.

Pete certainly made some mistakes, but he was a great ballplayer and I owe my love for baseball to him and my father. I look forward to seeing them both in heaven one day. It's going to be a shame, however, if I don't first get to see Pete Rose back in the game of baseball AND enshrined into the Hall of Fame.

Just my opinion. . .:)

---RedRoser

Pete was my hero growing up, no question about it. His love for the game helped me love the game as well. However, I have not yet forgiven Pete.

When Pete denied that he bet on baseball, I believed him, because he was a hero to me. I stood behind him and always defended him for 15+ years. Then one day he decided that he wanted to come clean and tell the truth. What he didn't realize during his 15+ years of lying, is that he made me a liar. I am perfectly happy taking the blame for sins I created, but I sinned due to the fact that he didn't care enough about his supporters to be honest.

Pete Rose cares about himself more than anything else (even baseball) and thats why he was a great player and thats why he is a bad person.

reds44
12-22-2006, 01:25 PM
Lost credibility there. Just because we added a good shortstop doesn't mean we now have a pretty solid defense. We were crappy last year, now we are just above crappy.
We'll you have a great up the middle D if you move Griffey to RF.

Highlifeman21
12-23-2006, 04:51 PM
OK, for those of you who are OK with baseball banning Rose, whether you are a fan of his or not, would you be in favor of them allowing the Reds to retire his number and put him in the Reds HOF? He isn't reinstated in baseball - so he can't get a job there - and is still ineligible for Cooperstown but the Reds would be allowed to honor him.

I somehow have a feeling Bud and the MLB boys would do something to prevent Pete's number being retired, and him being put into the Reds HOF.

I'm ok with MLB banning Rose. I don't think I'd be ok with the Reds trying to honor him in some fashion. I think the Reds should keep Rose no closer than an arm's length.

Chip R
12-23-2006, 06:03 PM
I somehow have a feeling Bud and the MLB boys would do something to prevent Pete's number being retired, and him being put into the Reds HOF.



But I'm saying what if they said it was OK.

Highlifeman21
12-23-2006, 06:53 PM
But I'm saying what if they said it was OK.

I guess I can't fathom the possibility. Bud has made it his agenda to make sure Rose never gets back into baseball in any avenue.

Chip R
12-23-2006, 08:21 PM
I guess I can't fathom the possibility. Bud has made it his agenda to make sure Rose never gets back into baseball in any avenue.


No, it probably won't happen but it's just a hypothetical.

Cyclone792
12-23-2006, 08:53 PM
OK, for those of you who are OK with baseball banning Rose, whether you are a fan of his or not, would you be in favor of them allowing the Reds to retire his number and put him in the Reds HOF? He isn't reinstated in baseball - so he can't get a job there - and is still ineligible for Cooperstown but the Reds would be allowed to honor him.

Interesting question, and one I'm not sure about.

The Philadelphia Phillies have a "Wall of Fame" instead of a Hall of Fame, and Pete Rose has not been elected into that. Whether or not Rose's omission from their Wall of Fame is related to him being banned or because voters feel he didn't do enough while in a Phillies uniform, I have no idea. Either way, he's not in there.

I searched for some precedent on this with the White Sox and some of their players banned from the Black Sox Scandal, but I'm not really sure I found any. The White Sox had a couple players banned in the Black Sox Scandal who were good enough to qualify for an individual team Hall of Fame, including guys such as Joe Jackson, Buck Weaver, and Eddie Cicotte.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge - and I could be wrong - I don't think the Chicago White Sox even have a team Hall of Fame. They have retired numbers, but players didn't wear uniform numbers prior to the uncovering of the Black Sox Scandal and thus any player from that era could not be honored in that manner. The biggest "honor" I could find for the White Sox that included players without uniform numbers was a Chicago White Sox official "Team of the Century," which was unveiled in September, 2000. The entire trio of Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte, and Buck Weaver were on that "Team of the Century" for the Sox.

However, the Cleveland Indians do have a team Hall of Fame, and Joe Jackson was inducted into that way back in 1951. Of course, Jackson played for Cleveland prior to the Black Sox Scandal, and his involvement in the Black Sox Scandal had nothing to do with the Cleveland Indians franchise and Jackson's accomplishments while with them.

Falls City Beer
12-23-2006, 09:02 PM
All this FO does is ***** about money. What a joke. First Lindner, now Castellini. Every single press clipping this offseason since the FA signings has been nothing but griping about contracts.

Just shut up. No one cares, and no one is sympathetic, Bob.

Shut up and get a winner on the field. Or sell the team.

redsfanmia
12-23-2006, 09:13 PM
All this FO does is ***** about money. What a joke. First Lindner, now Castellini. Every single press clipping this offseason since the FA signings has been nothing but griping about contracts.

Just shut up. No one cares, and no one is sympathetic, Bob.

Shut up and get a winner on the field. Or sell the team.

Castellini is committed to putting a winning team on the field as long as it fits within his tight budget and he can still make a profit.

Highlifeman21
12-23-2006, 09:19 PM
Interesting question, and one I'm not sure about.

The Philadelphia Phillies have a "Wall of Fame" instead of a Hall of Fame, and Pete Rose has not been elected into that. Whether or not Rose's omission from their Wall of Fame is related to him being banned or because voters feel he didn't do enough while in a Phillies uniform, I have no idea. Either way, he's not in there.

I searched for some precedent on this with the White Sox and some of their players banned from the Black Sox Scandal, but I'm not really sure I found any. The White Sox had a couple players banned in the Black Sox Scandal who were good enough to qualify for an individual team Hall of Fame, including guys such as Joe Jackson, Buck Weaver, and Eddie Cicotte.

Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge - and I could be wrong - I don't think the Chicago White Sox even have a team Hall of Fame. They have retired numbers, but players didn't wear uniform numbers prior to the uncovering of the Black Sox Scandal and thus any player from that era could not be honored in that manner. The biggest "honor" I could find for the White Sox that included players without uniform numbers was a Chicago White Sox official "Team of the Century," which was unveiled in September, 2000. The entire trio of Joe Jackson, Eddie Cicotte, and Buck Weaver were on that "Team of the Century" for the Sox.

However, the Cleveland Indians do have a team Hall of Fame, and Joe Jackson was inducted into that way back in 1951. Of course, Jackson played for Cleveland prior to the Black Sox Scandal, and his involvement in the Black Sox Scandal had nothing to do with the Cleveland Indians franchise and Jackson's accomplishments while with them.

Interesting note about the Wall of Fame, out in Ashburn's Alley...

They just added Dallas freakin Clark, but always complain about Michael Jack Schmidt (who was the greatest 3B to ever play the game, IMO).

Now, if they continue to hate MJS, I can't imagine they'll welcome Charlie Hustle with open arms. I know Philly is a very blue collar town and a lot of people like to equate Rose to blue collar, but he has less place in Philly than he does Cincinnati.

Spring~Fields
12-23-2006, 11:15 PM
All this FO does is ***** about money. What a joke. First Lindner, now Castellini. Every single press clipping this offseason since the FA signings has been nothing but griping about contracts.

Just shut up. No one cares, and no one is sympathetic, Bob.

Shut up and get a winner on the field. Or sell the team.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Ltlabner
12-24-2006, 09:24 AM
Castellini is committed to putting a winning team on the field as long as it fits within his tight budget and he can still make a profit.

Yes..how dare he want to turn a profit. What a jerk.

TRF
12-24-2006, 03:45 PM
Yes..how dare he want to turn a profit. What a jerk.


Sorry, but this isn't a big reason to own a team. It's never an owner's primary source of income. Owning a professional sports franchise is an ego thing. Look at the Yankees or Dallas Mavericks. The Reds last owner was richer than Steinbrenner.

If you don't want to field a winner, sell the team turn a little profit and return to baseball fan status. Owners require a different mindset. I'm not saying be irresponsible. I like that the Reds didn't offer 50 mil for the Meche's of this FA class. But make yourself a player for the Zito's.

Ltlabner
12-24-2006, 04:09 PM
Sorry, but this isn't a big reason to own a team. It's never an owner's primary source of income. Owning a professional sports franchise is an ego thing. Look at the Yankees or Dallas Mavericks. The Reds last owner was richer than Steinbrenner.

If you don't want to field a winner, sell the team turn a little profit and return to baseball fan status. Owners require a different mindset. I'm not saying be irresponsible. I like that the Reds didn't offer 50 mil for the Meche's of this FA class. But make yourself a player for the Zito's.

Because it's not his primary source of income he shouldn't make a profit on it? Wow...that's certinally a different way of thinking. So Trump shouldn't make money on the beauty pagents and golf courses, because Manhatten real estate is his primary source of income?

Bottom line, this is a business and like any other BCast should never applogize for turning a profit.

TRF
12-24-2006, 04:17 PM
If turning a profit is his primary reason for owning the team, then he should sell. Whining about money at this stage of rebuilding is offputting to the fans. Show me you want to field a winner. Don't authorize contracts to 39 year old relief pitchers. Don't acquire a Jeff Conine a decade too late. Plus with all the added revenue from the new radio and TV deals, he just comes off as kind of pathetic. KC added a ton of payroll. They did it on the wrong personnel, but they did it nonetheless. And if it translates into 10-15 wins, they can point to that when they market for 2008.

The Reds can say "come watch members of our bullpen apply for their AARP cards."

RedsBaron
12-24-2006, 04:20 PM
You mean besides Petey Jr. right?

I believe that the Reds should retire Pete Rose Junior's number 14.;)

Ltlabner
12-24-2006, 04:26 PM
If turning a profit is his primary reason for owning the team, then he should sell.

The primary reason for owning any business is to turn a profit. There is no other rational reason for owning one.

Now, seeking short-term profits over long-term, doing irresponsible/illegal things to turn a profit, saying you are going to do one thing & doing another, those are all bad things.

But there is no shame in profit.

Handofdeath
12-28-2006, 02:43 AM
Sorry, but this isn't a big reason to own a team. It's never an owner's primary source of income.

No, but it can be a pretty big part. As egotistical as he is and as successful as the franchise was prior to his becoming owner, Jerry Jones has made a TON of money with the Dallas Cowboys.