Gregory Pratt

More proof of Ozzie Guillen's evil: http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/artic...sp&c_id=cws

I was talking about character. Puckett was, if I recall correctly, a rapist and a wifebeater, with one being alleged and I believe the other was confirmed through police reports. Molitor was a drug addict. That's what I'm talking about: character. I don't use it to base a player but I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Hall. And there's nothing to suggest that Rose changed the outcome of a game by gambling on them. On the other hand, he changed the outcome of many games with his bat.

"Character" is bulls***. It certainly wasn't in place at the beginning when Ty Cobb got the most votes despite the fact that everyone hated him. Other examples: Paul Molitor. Kirby Puckett. All the known cheaters. "Character." For baseball players. It's nice to have, but it doesn't matter as far as HOF. And by that I mean -- I'd give a guy a point or two for it, but I would never keep a guy out because he was mean to the media or perceived as selfish by teammates.

Two weeks ago, Saturday, my cat got out because of my uncles who were visiting, are irresponsible and negligent. I don't believe in letting my cats out because I don't want them to get FIV or Leukemia (I have three cats) and so I keep them indoors and they're damn good inside. Happy, warm, safe, well-fed, all that -- and I've told them, "Don't let me cats out." I already don't like them. My uncles are some of the worst people in the world. But I've always thought I'd go nuts if they let the cats out. Well, they accidentally let one of them out. The youngest one, and I spent thirty six hours searching for her (two days, but I got a little sleep here and there). For the last ten hours, I was really losing my mind because I remembered that in my neighborhood, there are a lot of gangs, and I know they have dogfights and that to train them they sometimes use "cats" as bait. So, I got on a crusade. I tracked down all the cat footprints I saw on the block, went through yards, talked to people until I finally wound up at the garage of my old house (I moved just right down the block) and I had to crawl in through a small hole in its side and I found my Lina. Moral of the story is, It is wrong to mess with a person's pet. Just wrong.

Every reporter should have a story written about him, or failing that, have about 100 stories written about a story he generated. It’s the best reminder you can get of how easily assumptions, misunderstandings, and sloppiness can creep into the coverage of almost anything, from the weather forecast to a Pope’s funeral. Case in point: Pete Rose, who rather matter-of-factly admitted “I bet on the Reds every night” to Dan Patrick and me on ESPN Radio Wednesday afternoon. To Pete, it was a simple correction of the timeline, an amplification on his previous confessions, a trading of further detail of one sorry sin, in order to expunge another sorry sin. That’s not the way the rest of the media saw it. Fiction: The CBS Evening News had Armen Keteyian put together a package built around Rose’s remarks (if you listen carefully, you can hear me say “ok” as Pete talks – they edited Dan out, the bastards), which ended with Katie Couric’s pithy observation that after what he said to us, Rose’s Hall of Fame chances were now “kaput.” Fact: Pete’s HOF chances have been pretty “kaput” for 18 years now. He certainly didn’t make them any worse, and there’s a slim chance he actually improved them. It took him forever, but he’s owned up to his transgressions and – and I’m saying this as somebody who had no sympathy for him from the time of the ban in 1989 right through to last April – I think that’s enough to merit reinstating him, provisionally. Fiction: a Canadian website headlined this story “Rose Admits He Bet On Reds.” Fact: Well he’s done that before, in his book in 2004 and in a memorable interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC. Last year, with Dan and me, he was downright contrite. He’s still the swaggering smartass who earned the derisive nickname “Charlie Hustle” from Whitey Ford in spring training of 1962, but he finally seems to have gotten it – he was wrong, he needed to admit it, he needed to fix himself. In the interview today he said he frankly doesn’t understand the gambling addiction he had, but he finally understands that he had it. Fiction: a Buffalo radio station reported, at least on its website, maybe on the air itself, that Rose said “he isn’t ashamed to have bet on his team.” Fact: Quite the contrary. Rose was saying he believed in his players, and in the strange way an addiction like compulsive gambling alters one’s perception, he felt he was expressing that conviction while betting. He now seems plenty ashamed of the whole thing. But while he was doing this, betting on the Reds every night seemed to him like an expression of loyalty and pride. Fiction: Sports Net New York – the Mets’ house all-sports station – referred to Rose making an “announcement” while on air to shamelessly promote himself. Fact: Dan and I asked Rose to come on, not to promote himself, but because of something I saw in the media notes handed out by the Reds in Tampa last week. They were to stage, inside their ballpark in Cincinnati, a meet-and-greet with Rose, in advance of the opening of an exhibition at the Reds’ Hall of Fame, inside their ballpark in Cincinnati, paying tribute to “The Hit King.” Needless to say, something like that had to have had baseball’s approval, and it seemed like quite a departure from an outright banishment so strict that when Rose simply showed up at a minor league game five seasons ago and interacted with some of the players, Baseball reprimanded the team and the players. We wanted to know if this was some kind of precursor to baseball fully reinstating him. He wasn’t promoting anything. Fiction: This is being widely seen as a damning admission that his gambling was far worse than we ever thought. Fact: It may be the other way around. It might have been slightly less awful. His admission of nightly betting came up only because, before he came on the air with us, I had repeated the standard history of his gambling while Reds’ manager: that he never bet against his own team, but that he often didn’t bet at all on their games. This, to me, was as great a transgression as the gambling itself, because it left open the prospect that he wouldn’t use his closer or would rest his key players during the games in which he had no wager. To me that was a kind of passive-aggressive game-fixing. Rose was correcting me. Used that term. The emphasis was not “I BET on the Reds every night,” but “I bet on the Reds EVERY night.” To me, that takes a little of the sting out of the process. At least Pete Rose the manager wasn’t subservient to Pete Rose the compulsive gambler. At least the game outcomes weren’t affected because he was saving John Franco until a night he had $500 riding on the result. Anyway, that’s the story. Obviously Dan and I recognized the significance of the remark as soon as he made it. I only wish everybody else reporting the story, second-hand, had a better grasp of its context.

That's right.

The HOF is a slimy little place. It's sanctimonious, it's disingenuous, it's political. Pete Rose should be in for his achievements. Shoeless Joe, too. Why don't we kick Ty Cobb out for being a bad guy? Besides, I think a lifetime ban from playing the game should have nothing to do with being kept out of the HOF.

Hypothetically: What if it comes out that, say, Greg Maddux is a crackhead. Are we going to keep him out of the hall because that's "messed up" or something? Keep him out for the kids? What if, say, it comes out that Mariano Rivera gambled on his own performances. "I'll bet I can save this game." Should he be kept out? I can't understand why Pete Rose isn't a HOFer. Because MLB wants to make a point about gambling? about lying? as if this organization of Jeff Loria's and Barry Bonds' is some living breathing allegory? I'm all for players being role-models but I don't think Kirby Puckett's violence against women should keep him from the Hall. I don't think Paul Molitor or Tim Raines' drug use should keep them from the Hall. I don't think Pete Rose' gambling should keep him from the Hall. Guess I'm just crazy.

He has to make the team. Rule Five guy. He'll be on the bench and then put in once Griffey injures himself again.

Scotty Po played well today.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 01:28 PM) Because some of our fans give up on players so damn early and it's just a reminder of that fact that some players do indeed take time to develop. I've never said I give up on him. I just flat-out don't like him or think he can hit particularly well. Floyd on the other hand -- comparing him to Halladay, hah.

Why does every bad-but-young Sox player have to be compared to the best players in the game? Justin Morneau! Roy Halladay!

They are facts, per se, but they're misleading as well. We might see BA go on like these guys -- I doubt it -- or we might see BA go on to be a little below league average -- probably -- or we might see him go up there and fail completely again. We won't know for awhile. I really just think he belongs in AAA for a while longer.

We had to send Rowand down a few times. It was ultimately good for him. Might be a nice wakeup call for BA if he gets sent down. And if it totally destroys his confidence? He was never fit for the big leagues to begin with, then.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 01:00 PM) I agree but isn't this pretty much true for most manager's and coaches. If they don't like your work habits, attitude, tlaent or whatever you aren't going to play. This isn't only Ozzie. He seems to give most players a shot before he goes this route. It's up to the player to change what the manager perceives as " the problem." The problem I would have is if Ozzie doesn't communicate to the player what the problem is. But he seems to do that even if people don't always agree with the method. He is the manager, they are the players. Until he is no longer the manager they need to do what he thinks is best. Very good post. Also: I didn't know that Brian Anderson was the next Justin Morneau.

It's pretty easy to pick apart the comparison because even when he was having rough outings Contreras had electrifying stuff and he had a track record of success with Cuba. Floyd's stuff is good, not dynamite, and he's not a dominant pitcher at any pro level.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 06:40 AM) The answer to Floyd seems pretty obvious by reading just a little bit about what others had to say about him, and reading his quotes in the paper. The kid has zero confidence, and is too busy thinking instead of pitching. They need to do like they did to Contreras and empty his head, and focus on throwing the sign. That's it, nothing more. This kid is worrying about who he faces, what others think of his pitches, etc, and he is self-admitedly confused. The problems are all in his head. Contreras has three times the stuff Floyd does. And Contreras being "solved" was a lot different. First: he was never as bad as Gavin Floyd. Second: his problems were sometimes mechanical, sometimes worryful over his family in Cuba, moreso than lacking confidence, playing "scared" or thinking too far ahead.

Right. Ozzie Guillen just hates young players. See: Ryan Sweeney, Jon Garland, Danks, Boone Logan who he gave a great chance to last year. Anderson probably belongs in AAA for another half-season. I don't see how some of you don't see that.

All I'm saying is, I never remember you saying it. Got any links? That's what I'm thinking.

I want to face you again Papi. Also: all drug addicts suffer relapses. I stand by that. Can't just up and quit.

I didn't mean that I expect him to have another relapse. I'm rooting for him not to, as I made clear, and I don't think he will. I was responding to the comment that, hey, he's had a lot of relapses by saying -- all drug addicts do. "I quit." Next day, you're lying on the floor with crack running through your system. Hamilton's a born-again Christian, so he did experience a rebirth, and I imagine that having kids now helps, too.

All drug addicts relapse over and over.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 06:02 PM) I don't know....the fences in Charlotte are pretty small. And I couldn't agree with you more that we could really use Garcia this year. You make a great comparison to Loaiza and his cutter. The thing I said all last year is that no matter how annoying Garcia was, I guarantee he tries harder during his FA year. I can't recall a single time you saying that once, let alone more than three times.

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 08:19 AM) Mike North asked Rowand if KW has ever told him about any plans to bring him back to the club, and Rowand said that he can't comment on that at this time. If you listened to the whole interview, Rowand gave off the vibe that he's not going to be with the Phillies for much longer. And the whole "why would we need him instead of Anderson question" can be answered by this: KW, Ozzie, and the whole organization love Aaron Rowand. Brian Anderson....not so much. You know, I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Like when you said that Ozzie's comments about McCarthy had to be "listened to" to understand the "contempt" he had for McCarthy. Rowand can't comment on that kind of thing. You complain that the Sox should learn to shut up, and Sox players -- and when a former player won't answer honestly, you jump all over it as proof that KW will be getting him back at any moment. This is a non-story.

Great avatar.