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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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