Quote:
Originally posted by BaseballMan
Yes i know betting for his team to win could be bad too in the way he handled players. But isnt that what players are taught, to win every game one at a time. I guess i would rather have a manger trying to win every game than one who is too worried about injurys that he doesnt use his best players enough till its too late.
|
The way I see it, if he was betting on his team to lose, it would be exactly the same problem: it still the players that decide the result, but Rose stills has an influence. I think its just as bad both ways - either way, you're involved in influencing the result of a gamble on your own team.
Rose could make his team lose exactly the same as he could make them win - the influence he exerts would be the same (a good pinch-hitter or a bad pinch hitter, good reliever or bad releiver). They are the same moral and legal crime in my book - it makes no difference to the gravity of the crime.
Only when the BlackSox's individual bans are rescinded should Rose lose his. When Shoeless Joe is Hall-eligible (although I don't think he should make it), so should Rose be (who is obviously worthy).