Jump to content

LooseGoose

2019 Spring Training Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

So, MLB is letting a gambling organization call the shots now?  How hypocritical is that?  Gambling has been absolutely forbidden by MLB for years for good reason.  Now that they can make money off of it, it's apparently OK.  

 

I guess they don't mind waking up with fleas.

I am unalterably opposed to any connection between Baseball and gambling. I don't care how much lipstick Manfred puts on that pig, this is a bad, bad precedent. This better not be the slippery slope leading to fixing games at the highest levels.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I guess they don't mind waking up with fleas.

I am unalterably opposed to any connection between Baseball and gambling. I don't care how much lipstick Manfred puts on that pig, this is a bad, bad precedent. This better not be the slippery slope leading to fixing games at the highest levels.

I am similarly opposed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I guess they don't mind waking up with fleas.

I am unalterably opposed to any connection between Baseball and gambling. I don't care how much lipstick Manfred puts on that pig, this is a bad, bad precedent. This better not be the slippery slope leading to fixing games at the highest levels.

I don’t see how this starts anything down the old slippery slope. Gambling already existed. Not sure how this increases a chance at fixing a game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I don’t see how this starts anything down the old slippery slope. Gambling already existed. Not sure how this increases a chance at fixing a game. 

I'm being alarmist more than anything else, but I'm not going to fret about it or ruminate on it. I'll naively whistle past it.

If you were to ask me, "Do you think this will increase the chances of anyone in Baseball fixing games in the interests of gambling partners?", I would not answer with a definitive yes. But I would answer, I can't be sure. After all, Baseball are partnering with gamblers for the expressed purpose of facilitating gambling on the game they are being entrusted to operate with unimpeachable integrity.

The surest way to be certain Baseball would never, ever fix games is for them to flat out repudiate gambling, same way they did almost 100 years ago. Absent that ... I can't be sure.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Shelton said:

I don’t see how this starts anything down the old slippery slope. Gambling already existed. Not sure how this increases a chance at fixing a game. 

Not directly, but it sends a message that MLB is OK with gambling. This could lead to players/managers/umpires having a more cavalier attitude towards gambling.  I see it as similar to the steroids problem.  MLB didn't tell players to take steroids, but they turned a blind eye towards it.  So, why not take a chance?     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 3:54 PM, Tigrrfan said:

Why do players like Miggy over dramatize things like this?  There are probably more people happy with the Harper signing than not.  But apparently negativity and criticism are what Miggy likes to focus upon.  The impression I get is that Miggy cares more about the money than he does about winning.  

Probably he's just answering a direct question about fan reaction to large contracts honestly. If he gave a pat, PC answer, you'd be ripping him for not being honest. I think you care more about drama than Miggy does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has any chance of making fixing games or gambling getting into the sport more likely, but it does mean that MLB is saying "gambling is important and we want to serve them" which is mind boggling to me. Maybe part of the skill of gambling should be figuring out who is likely to play or be rested and betting accordingly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to draw a line in the sand about associating with gambling so be it. 

But this particular new development does not appear to be a negative to me. If anything, I think it helps prevent any sort of funny business. The previous practice of lineups trickling out at inconsistent times and without any sort of oversight would seem to invite the sort of gambling manipulation every is suddenly concerned about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tiger337 said:

Taylor Motter has been signed.  Isn't this kind of over kill?  How much grit does one team need?  

8f505c98-1559-410e-a225-4ca8e376eee6-TM.

He is the second coming of Dan Gladden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pyrotigers said:

I don't think it has any chance of making fixing games or gambling getting into the sport more likely

I wish I could be that sure. I'd be happier for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these kinds of things happen by osmosis over a long period of time.  Nothing about the move leads directly to fixing games, but I think it could change the culture of the game in a subtle way.  I think the sport would be better off if they continued to treat gambling as a taboo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

everywhere else in the world, sports team are SPONSORED by legal gambling organizations.  its not a big deal.  youre just pearl clutching.

the threat of throwing games existed before this and will exist after this.  associations with legal gambling doesnt change anything.  ask tim donaghy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not pearl clutching.  I have long been well aware that sports is all about money just like everything else in the world.  I am not at all surprised about baseball's obvious hypocrisy about gambling.  I liked baseball's past anti-gambling stance even though I knew they would leave it once they could profit from gambling.  They deserve to be called out for their hypocrisy.  And I do think the association with gambling has the potential to change the culture.  I don't know if it will or not.  I would be shocked if there weren't already a good number of games being fixed in sports.  

I don't care if everybody is associated with gambling.  I am anti-gambling because it feeds off people's addictions.  I will never be an advocate of businesses taking advantage of people's addictions.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on working the term "pearl clutching" into the conversation.

Presumably, the high salaries and the threat of a career ending on a slump for many of the players inoculates the game against insider throwing of games, although that didn't stop Pete Rose, did it? Donaghy is a special case in that he wasn't making the millions the players make, plus he could directly affect the game with sketchy calls. The nature of basketball provides a fair amount of leeway for subjectivity in official's calls that makes throwing a call easier to mask. It's a lot harder to mask an intentionally blown call in baseball, even on balls and strikes.

I'm not expecting games to be thrown in the majors—again, I'll be naively whistling past the whole thing—but like tiger337 says, the permission of gamblers to hang around the game as welcome partners changes the culture in a way I dislike, and that I believe is unnecessary.

And those leagues you're referring to being sponsored by legal gambling organizations? I presume you mean soccer? There's massive game fixing activity at every level of that sport, all the way up the World Cup and Champions League, and I'd bet the presence of legal gambling organizations in the game contributes, if only a little, to removing the internal deterrent people in the game would normally feel to participating in that. After all, the kids are alright, but if daddy brings the Playboys into the house, you can bet the kids are going to do everything they can to look at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t recall a lot of discussion about the MLB agreement with MGM when it was announced back in November. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be against MLB associating with a gambling enterprise necessarily. At the same time, MLB is not a unicorn. The NBA and NHL have similar arrangements. The agreement doesn’t have to be a negative. It could just as easily be a benefit to MLB to have a formal agreement with a gambling organization. For one thing, MLB can receive information and analysis from MGM regarding certain gambling trends that could help identify something suspicious. 

Gambling is already associated with baseball, just like it is with other sports. 

With regard to the recent news regarding lineups needing being to be submitted to the commissioner’s office before being made public, I don’t see this as a negative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

It's not pearl clutching.  I have long been well aware that sports is all about money just like everything else in the world.  I am not at all surprised about baseball's obvious hypocrisy about gambling.  I liked baseball's past anti-gambling stance even though I knew they would leave it once they could profit from gambling.  They deserve to be called out for their hypocrisy.  And I do think the association with gambling has the potential to change the culture.  I don't know if it will or not.  I would be shocked if there weren't already a good number of games being fixed in sports. 

I'm not sure that fixing games is necessarily the biggest deal.

The bigger problem in global sports I think has probably moved on to be spot fixing - so fixing specific events. It's certainly been a problem in both cricket and soccer - I remember seeing years ago a match where the kick off ended up 10 rows in the stands - spot betting on the time of the first throw in. These things are rather more fixable as well.

Whether that sort of thing is likely to be a problem in baseball I don't know. But I reckon if you see the first three batters walked in an innings that could be a sign (either that or we're putting a particularly awful pitcher out there...). And if Miggy starts hitting lead-off then I reckon they've gotten to Gardenhire.

My gut feeling is that this is something that is more likely to impact properly global sports, but I might be wrong. Iirc it tends to come more from an east and south-east Asian base which my gut feeling says would be less interested in baseball than other sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traylor Motter looked familiar to me, based on the hair obviously, and yes, that was him with the Rochester Red Wings when I saw them play the Mud Hens last August.  We had front row seats near the visitors on deck circle.  

I didn't realize he was so old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shelton said:

Gambling is already associated with baseball, just like it is with other sports. 

 

Sure, but baseball has taken a non-gambling stance for decades.  They even banned two iconic stars - Mays and Mantle - simply for appearing at casinos as greeters and autograph signers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Sure, but baseball has taken a non-gambling stance for decades.  They even banned two iconic stars - Mays and Mantle - simply for appearing at casinos as greeters and autograph signers.  

Cool. That was dumb, and it’s 2019.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if a lineup is submitted to the commissioner's office and then 30 minutes before the game the manager changes his mind?  We've seen last minute changes occur.  

I don't like this but is it standard in other sports?  I can't argue against it but I don't like it.  Frankly anyone who bets on baseball is an idiot anyway.  There's no winning in that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Oblong said:

What happens if a lineup is submitted to the commissioner's office and then 30 minutes before the game the manager changes his mind?  We've seen last minute changes occur.  

I don't like this but is it standard in other sports?  I can't argue against it but I don't like it.  Frankly anyone who bets on baseball is an idiot anyway.  There's no winning in that.

 

 

The NFL has its injury reporting requirements. 

As for changing a lineup, I imagine they will just change it. To the extent that practice is abused, I would assume that there would be a discussion with that team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Oblong said:

Frankly anyone who bets on baseball is an idiot anyway.  There's no winning in that.

 

 

I agree.  It's too variable from game to game.  Seems like too much risk for either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...