Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

[metsbats]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7456666

Interesting article on Fox sports posing the question who is baseball's biggest villain Pete Rose or Barry Bonds.

I'm surprised of the choice.

To me Bonds would be the bigger villain because he broke one of Baseball's most hallowed records allegedly on steriods however Pete Rose broke Ty Cobb's (another candidate for Baseball's biggest villains) all time hit record on pure natural ability.

What do you think?

David

[staindsox]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

My vote is for Rose because he was a manager when he was gambling. Even if he only bet on his team to win, he could overuse his bullpen to needlessly over-protect a win to cover his betting, which would deplete the bullpen, which may me needed later in close games in which Rose wasn't betting. As much as I despise Bonds, he's a solo act...Rose could sink an entire team as a manager. I vote for Rose because his crimes were in the capacity of a manager.

[Rob L]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

My vote is for Bonds. He was only able to break baseball's most hallowed record by cheating.

Although what Rose did as a manager was despicable, his record as a player was second to none. Plus, it wasn't like the team he was managing was possibly bumped from playoff possibilities because he may have over-extended his club to win a bet (the Reds sucked).

Just my 2 cents.

rob L

[tym]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

Great question!

Back in the day there are a number of stories of players taking speed, pre 1970's, bottles of green/blue pills for anyone that wanted one sitting out in the open.....and those who didn't. I think that a person that manages a team and has the ability to call how the game gets played and is a known gambler is probably a little more of a problem then one that did roids.

Bonds could play the game (field and hit for average), he has tanted the HR record but based on the world series championships his teams has not won, not much of a issue. The 1990-2000 cheat that is the next generation of speed is roids.
Regards,
Ty

[tym]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

oh and one other thing....I have sat down to dinner with Pete Rose....good man, but driven to say the least.

I dont know how anyone can say that he did or didnt do speed during his player days with out really knowing him is beyond me, and if he did thats not natural....

Regards,
Ty

[bigjimsguitars]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

Not even close to me, Bonds is the bigger villian. Betting is an illness or addiciction and he never bet against his team! As already stated, Rose played the game naturally and not enhanced and played it with every fibre of his being.

Bonds, well....

[tym]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

Naturally? okay forgot you were there.....and you are probably right he never did anything in pill form to get amped for a game like all those other guys during his period, wasn't illegal, but wasn't natural. 1999 steriods werent illegal either.....

To me the fundamental problem is about leadership, not drugs. Bonds did not have the influence on a game that Rose had as a manager and what Rose did was against MLB policy when he did it.

I am done with this thread, it really doesn't matter what we think at the end of the day they where both great players that screwed up and tainted baseball while they were at it.
Regards,
Ty

[godwulf]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

My vote is for Rose because he was a manager when he was gambling. Even if he only bet on his team to win, he could overuse his bullpen to needlessly over-protect a win to cover his betting, which would deplete the bullpen, which may me needed later in close games in which Rose wasn't betting. As much as I despise Bonds, he's a solo act...Rose could sink an entire team as a manager. I vote for Rose because his crimes were in the capacity of a manager.

To my mind, this is really a stretch. What you're saying, in effect, is that Rose might have hurt his team by trying too hard to win certain games, potentially and in theory causing his team to lose certain other games, resulting in...what? A losing season? Would he have made enough money gambling on those games to have compensated him for getting fired for being a losing Manager? If I were a team owner, I wouldn't give a damn for any Manager of mine who wasn't willing to bet his own money on the team he helmed.

Bonds is not only the bigger villain by a wide margin, he's the worst thing to happen to Baseball in living memory.

[33bird]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

Barry Size 8 head Bonds for sure. Rose bet for his team to win. Bonds cheated for all of his best seasons, and for sure effected the outcome of more games by juicing than Rose ever did by betting on his own team.
Greg

[skyking26]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

Without reading the other posts, I will answer giving my own unswayed opinion.

I personally think I prefer Rose and feel that his off the field gambling sickness should not be held in account to what he did on the field. I see him in the Hall one day. Bonds, however, used drugs to enhance his abilities and inflate his numbers. I view that altogether differently...

RK

[Rob L]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

I think we need to separate Rose as a player and Rose as a manager. As a player, one of the best; as a manager, a gambling addicted problem. Comparing a manager to a player to determine who is the bigger villian is like comparing apples to oranges.

Now, let's see what happens when Bonds becomes a manager

Rob L

[tym]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

To my mind, this is really a stretch. What you're saying, in effect, is that Rose might have hurt his team by trying too hard to win certain games, potentially and in theory causing his team to lose certain other games, resulting in...what? A losing season? Would he have made enough money gambling on those games to have compensated him for getting fired for being a losing Manager? If I were a team owner, I wouldn't give a damn for any Manager of mine who wasn't willing to bet his own money on the team he helmed.

Bonds is not only the bigger villain by a wide margin, he's the worst thing to happen to Baseball in living memory.

I tried to stay out...but you are assuming he didn't impact the point spread...also he lied and said he didn't gamble in the beginning, then changed that and said he didn't bet on his team. Once proven a liar he is done, and the MLB rules were in place, his team or not. He bet, he broke a known rule.

I will always have both in my collection, they will always both be tainted...they get what they deserve. But Rose was supposed to set a example for the younger players he manged and follow the rules that were published, and Bonds....well he was wrongfully doing what others did before him. He didn't invent roids!
Respectfully,
Ty

[tym]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

I think we need to separate Rose as a player and Rose as a manager. As a player, one of the best; as a manager, a gambling addicted problem. Comparing a manager to a player to determine who is the bigger villian is like comparing apples to oranges.

Now, let's see what happens when Bonds becomes a manager

Rob L

Good point. But corrupt rule breakers don't appear over night. A man is measured by all the acts he has performed while on this planet, remember his slide in the 1970 all star game that ruined his so-called friends career? Thats the Fosse event. Take the time to look at issues during his playing days as well and you will find things that are questionable.

[Rob L]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

Good point. But corrupt rule breakers don't appear over night. A man is measured by all the acts he has performed while on this planet, remember his slide in the 1970 all star game that ruined his so-called friends career? Thats the Fosse event. Take the time to look at issues during his playing days as well and you will find things that are questionable.

True, it shows he was a hard nosed player but he wasn't breaking rules in his playing days (that we know of, of course). Hell, Ty Cobb was a liar and a cheat when he was a player (and subsequently a manager) but he is not villified the way Rose is. That being said, the Fosse hit in the All Star Game was brutal. BTW, I hope I am not sounding like a Rose homer because I never liked the guy in his playing days or now.

Rob L

[tym]

Re: Who's the bigger villian: Rose or Bonds?

True, it shows he was a hard nosed player but he wasn't breaking rules in his playing days (that we know of, of course). Hell, Ty Cobb was a liar and a cheat when he was a player (and subsequently a manager) but he is not vilified the way Rose is. That being said, the Fosse hit in the All Star Game was brutal. BTW, I hope I am not sounding like a Rose homer because I never liked the guy in his playing days or now.

Rob L

No you are not, nor do I like one over the other in the end. Having met them they both have room for growth.

I find it hard to believe he didn't bet until he moved to mngt though, thus I think he probably broke the rules as a player too. It has not be proven that Bonds took roids after baseball made them illegal, or for that fact during the illegal period yet. I think we can assume he did based on physical growth factors and the numbers, but the same can be said for Rose and his gambling addiction.

But you got to admit this is a very compelling topic to debate ...oh and yes Cobb!

cheers,
Ty