Edgy MD

Edgy, why are you cracking up at work? To A Picklehead by Joelmon I have fun Kiss my ass if you don't like how I talk or write you picklehead, I care less. Now email me you dick

themetfairy wrote: You're reaching, and you know it. For what? themetfairy wrote: He signed off on this ban while represented by counsel in the face of more evidence than will ever be made public. I certainly don't argue with that. themetfairy wrote: And now we're learning that he gambled on baseball while he was a player, which is something that he has lied about for the past twenty or so years. I don't and haven't argued with any of this. themetfairy wrote: There is nothing that convinces me that his lifetime ban was unwarranted or that it should be reversed. If you feel otherwise then I will respectfully disagree with you. I certainly haven't argued that at all. Does anybody else think I have? Legal system. System of penalties and justice. Among the other things I haven't argued is that MLB "is" a legal system. But they have a system of discipline and penalties which we are now discussing. I think their system of discipline should be just and open and modeled on best practices and not arbitrary. I think it serves the game and the employees and the fans well. I certainly agree with Marcus Giammatti. He's setting specific criteria for Rose to pursue. ("And without those, there is no second chance.") Good for him.

Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou! Sorry. I'm not sure why that upset you. I'm trying to contrast one legally system with another. Do you really think that Pete has gotten an unfair shake in all of this? Really? Just because he's guilty doesn't mean the system is just or open or isn't arbitrary.

themetfairy wrote: It's not a question of MLB not giving him clear criteria. Lindsay Lohan knew what she had to do to get into society's good graces. It seems to me that ballplayers should have the same roadmap. themetfairy wrote: It's that he has never been able to demonstrate any level of sincerity or trustworthiness. Well, yeah, he's a jerk who's been morally adrift for a long time. I don't think any of us would argue. themetfairy wrote: Those have to be part and parcel of any discussion of reinstatement, and IMO he's never going to be able to show those qualities. Exactly. Here, you are setting criteria. Demonstrate sincerity and trustworthiness. If he's not going to meet them, he's not. That doesn't mean there's no point in setting them. Else, they are arbitrary, and there's no justice in that. For him or any person that preceded or follows him before baseball's system of justice. Steinbrenner's ban is lifted, his is not. Why? I don't know. What were the criteria? Nobody knows. themetfairy wrote: He broke a cardinal rule of baseball, as a manager and apparently also as a player, and he signed off on his lifetime ban in order to keep the evidence of his deeds from being publicized. I can't see how MLB is the bad guy in this scenario. I don't think it's an accurate characterization of my point to suggest that I'm arguing "MLB is the bad guy." Rose's sins are indeed clear.

Centerfield wrote: What would the criteria be? Contrition? Demonstrating you are reformed? To me I picture the parole scenes in Shawshank. Whatever the standard, I don't see Pete as having much of a chance. It also doesn't help that he comes across as a dick. That's it, isn't it? To me, the criteria are not as important as MLB being explicit about them. "Thanks for your application, Mr. Rose, but as far as we're concerned, we cannot consider your application until we have documentation that you've attended Gambler's Anonymous meetings at least weekly for a period of at least five years. We additionally demand you open your books for a period of the same to an auditor of MLB's choosing but at your own expense. We would additionally like to see you climb the Matterhorn; cure Ebola; and come up with a cheap, abundant clean-burning energy alternative." They can be reasonable criteria, they can be unreasonable. Simple or hard. But at least he'll know what he has to do, he'll either do it or not, and we can move on from an argument where we're all talking about something different. Certainly the courts work this way. Where I think Shawshank Redemption is relevant is the importance of hope. Redemption shouldn't be impossible for anybody. That doesn't mean it should be easy or he'll pursue it. But not being clear about the what he would have to do has served him and baseball poorly.

Wow. Uribe sure felt like a crazy guess when I put it up there.

I certainly don't mean to be lawyeresque. I do mean to be fair and consistent and accurate and just. And I'm being pedantic, certainly. And for that I apologize. But I think it's important to point such things out. "Lifetime ban" and "permanently ineligible" means there is not automatic sunset to the penalty, but it doesn't mean that an application for reinstatement can not be entertained and even granted. Whether it should is certainly another point.

OK, I'll go with Juan Uribe.

The discussion around Pete Rose to not be centered around his eligibility for the Hall of Fame, to begin with. That misses the point of what a ban means, and it artificially changes the stakes of what reinstatement would mean. Beyond that, I disagree with the notion that, by definition, a lifetime ban cannot be lifted. This just isn't true, as evidenced by the fact that banned players are allowed to apply for reinstatement, and some indeed have successfully had their bans lifted.

Josh Hamilton only has 90 games as a National Leaguer. While he's prolific enough that he can certainly check off a few teams he didn't get as a Red during his teams' irregular visits with National League teams, I imagine the Reds at least still remain on his teams-to-get list. I'll go with Cuddyer. THE BALLAD OF CUDDYER/JOHNOSN by Joelmon He turned down Cuddyer/Johnosn just as I thought he would Horrible idea. Cedeno will be cheaper next year and can still help us if we get Giambi next season AND we'd have Robin's replacement for 2003 and Reed's replacement AND save $ adn be a BETTER team for years Instead, lawton might = $ Reed in arbitrat

Good job by DiComo. Reporting!! It doesn't necessarily hurt!

Any "ban" that has a man ineligible to hand out clean towels in the clubhouse but nonetheless eligible for baseball's highest honor would certainly be toothless.

The problem is that, whatever their relative sins, he's banned from baseball, and they are not. Banned from baseball means banned from the ballot.

Again, I think the last place this conversation should be centered is around whether or not he is enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

And yet, again, players banned for life have long been free to apply for re-instatement. Why grant them that right if there's to be no consideration of that application under any circumstances?

I was thinking about the 'Mon earlier today. If I recall correctly, he hated Hamilton. In the first day after his expected appointment to GM, he had planned to release "Hamiltoe" and sign A-Rod by offering him everything but the tent.

I was looking for anything from Bobby Vee, knowing that he and Hamilton ended badly. Found a lot of memories, mostly culled from The Daily News. �Oh, God, no. No, no. Not Darryl. He�s one of the great guys of all time. I can�t believe it. ... I just can�t believe it. ... He was just a guy who got it. He laughed a lot. He was a uniter, his attitude was infectious. We used to get on him because he talked to a psychic woman � he�d come in and say, �we�re ok, guys, I got the word that we�re going to be fine.� ... �He�'d laugh when we got on him. He was such a part of the great chemistry that we had on those teams. ... Darryl was so proud. He couldn't have been prouder of his boy. Now to hear this, it's so sad.� � Al Leiter Daily News writers reported that Leiter hadn't yet heard a thing when they called I'm for comments. �Darryl always had an upbeat presence. He had a smile when he entered every room. His smile was contagious. ... He was disappointed he wasn�t playing more. But he kept his spirits up, was very professional. Once we were in the playoffs (in 2000), it was either him or Timo (Perez). Timo got real hot, and I stayed with him, and then he got hotter. But Darryl always was a professional about it. I appreciated everything he brought to the team.� � Bobby Valentine �This is so sad. Darryl was such a wonderful, thoughtful person. He was a huge presence on the players� side in the (�94) labor negotiations after I came over as the owners� chief negotiator. I remember sitting up until 4 a.m. in the morning with him one night going over concepts. He was a guy you could work with and one of the big reasons we were able to get a deal.� � Randy Levine "[it's a] horrible tragedy, something that is impossible for us to even begin to comprehend. ... Our thoughts and prayers go to Darryl's family and friends, and he will be greatly missed. Darryl was a wonderful player for our organization, but more importantly, he was a true gentleman and a great friend to many here." � Doug Melvin "Losing a guy like Darryl, you are losing a friend, you're losing a teammate. ... He was a father of three. This is a tough day for all of us. I think what makes it so tough is when you think of Darryl, you think of that smile. He was always upbeat. When you'd see him around here the last couple of years, since 2013, he was always walking around with a smile on his face. Always upbeat. Never had his head hanging down. That is what I choose to remember." � Dan Plesac A list of teammates' tweets are here, mostly saying the same. The Brews were already down a broadcaster after Bob Ueker took liner to the noggin during batting practice. I'm kind of trying really hard not to speculate what the rest of the investigation will reveal.

The question I ask � and maybe actually reading the article might fill me in (and improve my grammar) � is whether intentionally colorful incorrect spellings and usages ("Ya gotta believe," "Let's go Mets" [without a comma], "I hat double-admission double-headers," etc.) get us dinged.

Yeah, I knows, but I can think of worse paydays for a team that considers themselves a starter short.

[fimg=700:2e3rljva]http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-AE901_COUNT_NS_20150622145827.jpg[/fimg:2e3rljva] I certainly don't doubt it for a second.

I'm not sure the timeline is clear (or can possibly be made clear) with regard to when his first baseball bet was made and when his bad habit had escalated to an addiction.

Gwreck wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate). I don't see any room here for easing any ban. (d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year. Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible. As much as the word "permanently" is in there, reinstatement is clearly still possible, whether he deserves it or not. Michael Ray Richardson was banned for life from the NBA. He still sought and obtained his re-instatement after he no longer had the skills to return, just as a point of pride.

Bertolini's Notebook sounds like a pop renaissance historical novel.