Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts


11 minutes ago, Keepleyland2 said:

We should have cheated in 06 and 12

I know, this is what I’ve been thinking too. apparently, great minds think alike.

Share this post


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

I don't know, I don't think its very enjoyable.  I mean, I clearly don't have an issue making snarky comments, but that's just because I'm a peckerhead.  I think it's good that this is out in the open and MLB has to deal with it.  But it probably shouldn't have come to this.  It seems like current technology of cameras (which isn't really all the new anyway) and video rooms right outside of the dugout (relatively new with replay) should have been dealt with at the very latest with the Apple watch thing.

Hey cas.. i thought i was the peckerhead?

 

i love the idea that a month before spring training the sux, stros and mets all need to find a manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mike06181 said:

Hey cas.. i thought i was the peckerhead?

This board consists wholly of peckerheads. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mike06181 said:

Hey cas.. i thought i was the peckerhead?

Is, not was.

Clearly peckerhead is my word of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, its really 1 and 1A if you want to try to compare those terms.  Grumpfart seems a little more isolated to older mentals, whereas peckerhead seems a bit more all encompassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Casimir said:

I mean, its really 1 and 1A if you want to try to compare those terms.  Grumpfart seems a little more isolated to older mentals, whereas peckerhead seems a bit more all encompassing.

So, it is possible one might be a peckerheaded  grumpfart? Cool!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bobrob2004 said:

I'm kinda enjoying the silence of Verlander in all of this.  He was the most vocal of cheating before he went to the Astros and now he is in the middle of the biggest scandal since the Black Sox.  

It has been my understanding that MLB players have been under a "gag order" direct from the commissioners office regarding.  And since there are still ongoing investigations ..players have no choice but to remain silent.

If, or when, JV eventually speaks out ..I am confident he will deny any knowledge of the scandal. 

Or, would it surprise anyone if he eventually shares credit (or partial credit) for the cheating having ceased early 2018?

Share this post


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

It is hypocritical.  The players get banned if they are associated with gambling.  So, why is it OK for MLB to do it?

 

It's not hypocritical to tell the players they can't gamble on the sport they play while also having a gambling organization sponsor the games.  One is about the perceived integrity of the game - not allowing players to throw games or make it seem like the product is a sham.  The other is about letting the fans of your product enjoy another aspect of it: wagering on who wins.

I don't see how that is hypocritical of baseball in the slightest.

Half of the teams in soccer Europe are sponsored by gambling organizations (mostly Asian ones).  You can go to the game and gamble in the concourse at halftime if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

It isn't close.

Grumpfart >>>>>>>>>>> Peckerhead

They are different things.  Somebody can be a grumpfart without being a peckerhead.    

Share this post


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

It's not hypocritical to tell the players they can't gamble on the sport they play while also having a gambling organization sponsor the games.  One is about the perceived integrity of the game - not allowing players to throw games or make it seem like the product is a sham.  The other is about letting the fans of your product enjoy another aspect of it: wagering on who wins.

 

That sounds like corporate BS to me.  They are making money off it, so it's OK.  

But if Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle want to profit off their names at a gambling casino, they get banned from the game.  .  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

We should have cheated in 06 and 12

Who says we didn't?

This whole "wide spread" thing confuses me. How much of a halfwit do you have to be to think 15 or 20 players on a team will never speak up within a few years? If more than 2 people know you're cheating (or lying), chances are the secret will get out. Total Morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sports_Freak said:

Who says we didn't?

This whole "wide spread" thing confuses me. How much of a halfwit do you have to be to think 15 or 20 players on a team will never speak up within a few years? If more than 2 people know you're cheating (or lying), chances are the secret will get out. Total Morons.

PEDs

Share this post


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

That sounds like corporate BS to me.  They are making money off it, so it's OK.  

But if Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle want to profit off their names at a gambling casino, they get banned from the game.  .  

Or society has changed. Gambling is much more acceptable now. 

Share this post


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

That sounds like corporate BS to me.  They are making money off it, so it's OK.  

But if Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle want to profit off their names at a gambling casino, they get banned from the game.  .  

Well, yeah, the employer typically gets to set the rules by which their employees need to perform (and often time these rules are bargained for). And I don’t think it’s hypocritical to accept a sponsorship deal agree to provide data or whatever to gambling orgs, while at the same time prohibiting the people affecting the outcomes of the games from entering into a financial agreement where they may be incentivized to perform differently to the benefit of their sponsor. There is much more likelihood of abuse on the part of the players. 
 

Now, you could certainly argue that the league could still do things to affect an outcome of a game to benefit their sponsor, but that seems much tougher to pull off and would require a certain level of conspiracy. But you could say the same thing regarding the league wanting Chicago and New York in the World Series. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Former Cy Young winner Jack McDowell is saying publicly that Tony LaRussa oversaw a cheating scheme when he was managing the White Sox in old Comiskey. It apparently was done by triggering a light on the Gatorade sign in the outfield. I guess you could say this is a breaking story. Interesting. I’m sure LaRussa won’t get much sympathy. 

Share this post


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

Well, yeah, the employer typically gets to set the rules by which their employees need to perform (and often time these rules are bargained for). And I don’t think it’s hypocritical to accept a sponsorship deal agree to provide data or whatever to gambling orgs, while at the same time prohibiting the people affecting the outcomes of the games from entering into a financial agreement where they may be incentivized to perform differently to the benefit of their sponsor. There is much more likelihood of abuse on the part of the players. 
 

Now, you could certainly argue that the league could still do things to affect an outcome of a game to benefit their sponsor, but that seems much tougher to pull off and would require a certain level of conspiracy. But you could say the same thing regarding the league wanting Chicago and New York in the World Series. 
 

They didn't do anything illegal and it may be standard operating procedure in the business world, but I still see it as hypocritical. MLB has aggressively tried to separate itself from gambling for over a century, but now it's OK because it's a business deal where they can make money.  With this deal, they are saying that gambling on baseball is OK and are actually encouraging it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

Or society has changed. Gambling is much more acceptable now. 

when businesses can profit from it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You go from banging on trashcans to Apple Watches to jersey buzzers. I'm just laughing at the absurdity of it all.

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...