Quick Hits: Vazquez, Mets, Brewers, Rays, O’s

Here are some items of note for Sunday. On this day in 1941, 70 years ago, Joe DiMaggio began his Major League-record 56-game hitting streak, a mark that still stands today and has been largely unchallenged, as Jayson Stark of ESPN.com writes.

  • It doesn't sound like the Marlins are ready to give up on Javier Vazquez, writes Joe Capozzi of The Palm Beach Post. The Fish are paying Vazquez $7MM this year, but he allowed six runs in four innings today to raise his season ERA to 7.55.
  • The New York Post's Brad Hamilton reminds us that on July 1, the Mets will begin paying Bobby Bonilla $1.2MM each year for the next 25 years. New York struck that deal in 1999 to avoid paying the $5.9MM remaining on his contract when they released him.
  • MLB.com's Adam McCalvy writes that despite the offensive woes of Carlos Gomez and Yuniesky Betancourt, the Brewers are sticking with them for the time being.
  • Operating on a tight budget has its advantages for teams like the Rays, writes Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Without extra cash to commit to pricey free agents, clubs like Tampa are rarely encumbered by poorly producing, highly compensated veterans, Sherman explains.
  • Meanwhile, the Orioles would like to emulate the Rays' formula for success, writes Steve Melewski of MASNSports.com.
  • Should the Yankees come to part ways with Jorge Posada in the wake of Saturday's incident, they could use the DH spot to rest veterans like Alex Rodriguez, or they could pursue a new DH like Mets outfielder Carlos Beltran, writes Buster Olney of ESPN.com (subcription needed). Beltran is off to a great start with the Mets this season and could draw interest on the trade market, although Matt Klaassen of FanGraphs recently speculated that Beltran wouldn't yield much more than salary relief for the Mets.
  • Pete Rose is still seeking a second chance to manage, and he thinks it's hypocritical that players and coaches who have used PEDs, abused alcohol and been involved in domestic-violence incidents remain in the game, according to an Associated Press report (via ESPN.com).


64 Responses to Quick Hits: Vazquez, Mets, Brewers, Rays, O’s Leave a Reply

  1. ARod's Ring 4 years ago

     I would never trust Pete Rose as my favorite team’s manager.

    • jtmoore25 4 years ago

      That’s fine, but he has a point. That the MLB is too scared to investigate managers who played and excelled during the “steroid era”, ignore that a 58-year-old manager is still getting busted for cocaine use and yet still keep a legend out of the game who was caught for gambling decades ago, is absurd. Most MLB fans today probably don’t even remember what happened with Rose, and MLB has a lot of skeletons hiding not-so-discreetly in their closet. 

      • HerbertAnchovy 4 years ago

        Must be a pretty large closet. Walk-in?

        • jtmoore25 4 years ago

          Whatever requires repeated congressional subpoenas of former players and officials(!!)

      • buddaley 4 years ago

        There is no analogy. Gambling was an established taboo that everyone knew led to permanent banishment. One can argue that the penalty was too harsh (I don’t think it was given the history behind it, but that isn’t the point). But it was the rule, Rose broke it and was penalized appropriately.

        Whatever you think of PEDs (and I do not consider them cheating, but that too is beside the point), there was no such rule in force at the time. In any case, since permanent banishment was not an established penalty, nor had it any history of enforcement (during the amphetamine era, for example), it is irrelevant to the Rose situation. Players caught using them now are also punished appropriately according to the now established rules, but those accused or discovered prior to such rules being in place do not deserve any punishment nor can their actions be compared to those of Rose. Even if you think they did cheat, that can only be a moral condemnation at this point.

        Incidentally, I think Landis also acted incorrectly when he banished the “Black Sox” after the fact, but once done, the precedent was clear for future violators. Can you imagine what would have happened to the game had investigations been launched in 1920 into which players had “thrown” games due to gambling in the years prior? Chances are rosters would have been decimated if all those discovered had been banished.

  2. LifeLongYankeeFan 4 years ago

    Jesus he gambled MLB he didn’t take steroids to improve his playing performance. He averaged 200 hits for a decade I believe and is the all time hits leader he deserves to be in the hall of fame as far as I’m concerned.

    • Michael Duffy 4 years ago

       Gambling threatens the integrity of the game far more than taking steroids.

      • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

         not really.

      • HerbertAnchovy 4 years ago

        Why? They’re both still forms of “cheating”. 

      • TimotheusATL 4 years ago

        Except for the fact that it doesn’t, you’re totally right. 

      • CitizenSnips 4 years ago

        Didn’t he gamble for his team to win? 

        • Joshua William Novy I 4 years ago

           who is to say that he did? when a gambler is losing they get desperate. He had control of the team he was betting on. He could have easily put in the wrong PH, RP, and etc. he was a great player. but his actions as a manager, his disrespect to the game, dignifies his ban from the game.

      • jb226 4 years ago

        Does it?

        How many people are now accused or suspected of being steroid users because they just happened to be a good power hitter during the steroid era?  How many Hall of Fame considerations are affected, either by suspicions or admissions?

        We are now in the position of wondering whether we should write off an entire era of records because of steroid use or suspected steroid use.  I’d say that affects the integrity of the game a hell of a lot more than somebody gambling, whether he bet on his team or not.

        • If by “we” you mean a few blowhards, writers who covered the 1940’s, and old guys who are mad because their amphetamines weren’t as powerful, then yeah, “we” are.

      • BaseballFanatic0707 4 years ago

        No.

        No.

        Did I mention No? No?

        No.

        Gambling is bad and does threaten the integrity of the game, but PEDs are far worse.

  3. JacksTigers 4 years ago

    Let him in the hall of fame and let him manage. Hell, he isn’t even allowed to be the hot dog vendor. This Pete Rose situation is becoming a thorn in my side. No pun intended. 

  4. metsman 4 years ago

    The idea of Beltran on the Yankees is scary.  As a DH he is more likely to stay healthy as well.  I think when all is said and done, if Beltran is playing around his current pace, teams will be coming to Alderson making offers they probably shouldn’t, because there isn’t another position player rental this year that could come near his potential impact.

    • Lunchbox45 4 years ago

      given his salary thats not true..

      Maybe now because there are still a bunch of teams still overachieving, but down the stretch as teams fall out of contention there will be plenty of players available to be had. 

    • JacksTigers 4 years ago

      There are a couple players that could be traded that have more of a potencial impact. Oddly enough, they are both on the Mets. 

  5. Smrtbusnisman04 4 years ago

    I would let him back in as a hitting instructor or bench coach ONLY. And he is right about a few things: Tony Larussa still mangages despite having been arrested for drunk driving and sleeping at the wheel. What would baseball have done had he been killed in a crash? 

  6. ZeroZeroZero 4 years ago

    Pete Rose wasnt banned from baseball. He voluntarily had himself placed on the ineligible list in return for MLB not issuing a report on Petes gambling, which leads me to believe they had evidence showing he bet against the Reds while he was managing them. I dont believe he is sorry for what he did but rather sorry for getting caught. He has thumbed his nose at MLB ever since all this went down by hanging out in and working for casinos and living in Las Vegas all the while crying about how unfair MLB is being. He certainly has his place in baseball history and I think maybe a partial reinstatement would be ok and allow the Reds to retire his number formally and allow him into the hall of fame (along with Shoeless Joe) but he shouldnt be allowed anything to do with a teams baseball operations.

    • strikethree 4 years ago

       Well, I don’t think they found any evidence of him betting against the Reds. (according to wiki) And when he finally admitted to gambling on baseball, he said he always bet on the Reds — never against. One of the agreements of the voluntary ban was that the MLB would stop on going investigations and declare nothing about Rose’s gambling habits. He might have accepted the ban just to limit the damage and not necessarily because he bet against the Reds.

      I think the most important factor (well at least to me) is if he bet against his team. (ie Black Sox) Also, he would needed to have bet on every Reds game so that there wouldn’t be incentive to “rest” top players in games he didn’t bet on. I think we’ve all made bets on games/competitions we’ve play in. CEO’s are allowed to own tons of their company stocks (which is pretty much the same as betting) so what is the difference here?

      He violated the rules — fine. But, if he never bet against his team and consistently bet on his team, then I believe the punishment has been too harsh. If he didn’t actually cheat to artificially change the outcome of a game, then why punish him as if he did?

      • ZeroZeroZero 4 years ago

         From John M. Dowd’s wiki page
        ” The report led to Rose’s lifetime ban in August 1989,
        even though “no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the
        Reds.” according to Dowd in 1989, Dowd mentioned in a 2002 ESPN
        interview that he “probably did”.”
        Whether it was gambling for or against his team, the rules of baseball state very clearly that no member of MLB can gamble on baseball and the punishment for doing so was also very clear. There is so many things he could have gambled on, but he gambled on baseball anyway. He got what he had coming to him. Its all speculation on everybodys part whether he gambled for or against his team but if he was willing to make himself ineligible just so that information didnt come out (it was already clear to everybody that this was over gambling so there was no surprise there) then there must have been something pretty damaging to his public image in that report.

  7. Lastings 4 years ago

    If Pete Rose became a manager could you imagine the field day the media would have with all their headlines? “GM Takes a Gamble on Rose… Rose Rolls the Dice… etc.” It’s surprising they wouldn’t push, just for the puns.

  8. The Rays pitching is unbelievable lately….Yankees series coming up should be a good one..

  9. MDMV 4 years ago

     Only the Mets would choose to pay someone $30 mil later instead of $5.9 mil now

  10. LioneeR 4 years ago

     I can’t believe the Bonilla deferral is that much.  What is that 30 million instead of 5.9?  LOL

    They couldn’t get him to agree to somewhere from 6-10 million a few years later?  Well played Mr Bonilla.  Well played.

    • Time value of money. It’s really not as crazy as it looks. It’s already been 12 years since the payment was due, and the last payment will be in 2035, 36 years after the deferral. That last $1.2MM in 2035 is worth just $200k in 1999 dollars at 5%, or as little as $75k at 8%.

      It was a good deal for Bonilla to get essentially a retirement plan, and a decent deal for the Mets — it’s not as simple as looking at the total of all the payments and comparing that to the $5.9 they owed.

      • crashcameron 4 years ago

         wow. that’s some financhical thinking. are you a government accountant. can i pay you today for a burger tuesday? BTW are the yankees still paying the Babe and Lou?

  11. GMwannabe 4 years ago

    who was the Mets GM when this was agreed to?? that is the most absurd thing i’ve ever heard of.. As Lioneer mentioned, perhaps something upwards of 10 million for deferring but 30??? unbelieveable 

    • SRT 4 years ago

      Probably sounded like a good idea at the time.  Defer payment on 5.9, rack up the interest and pay him from that interest and future revenues some 10 years down the road.

      Fast forward to 2011 with the mess the Mets finances are currently in re:  Madoff?
      Ouch.

      • Just did the financial math — $1.2MM payments from 2011 to 2035 are equivalent to $5.9MM in 1999 at a 7.6% interest rate. Particularly compared to 1999 interest rates it’s not a horrible “loan” for the Mets to have taken out at the time. It probably doesn’t seem wise in hind sight, but the sum of all payments makes it look absurd, like GMwannabe said.

    • icedrake523 4 years ago

      That $5M was put in a bank years ago. Every year now they take out however much they owe him. The next year goes by, they get interest on the amount in the account, take out another million to give him. Rinse and repeat.

      • stl_cards16 4 years ago

        So, if they had the 5 mil to put in the bank years ago, why didn’t they just pay the man then and be done with it? 

        • vtadave 4 years ago

           Because they were looking to win, so they spend now and deferred Bonilla’s money until later. Now, we call that “McCourting it”.

          • stl_cards16 4 years ago

            You aren’t using that money to “win now” If you are letting it sit in the bank.  Obviously that was there intention, but the guy that said the money has been in the bank for years drawing interest is more than likely off. 

        • icedrake523 4 years ago

          Because it actually costs less. You can’t compare the $5M to the amount he will make over 25 years.

          • stl_cards16 4 years ago

            You can, in fact somone on here did.  He concluded the 1.2 mil paid yearly between 2011 and 2035 would be equal to the 5.9MM in 1999 at a 7.6% interest rate.  That’s pretty steep.  Not as bad as it seems, but it certainly doesn’t cost less.

  12. xhausted_grad 4 years ago

    pete rose has a very serious gambling addiction that ruined his life.  he constantly lied to the media and the fans about his addiction, instead of setting an example by seeking treatment.  it would be be very naive for us fans to believe that rose, an active addict in glaring denial, did not bet against the reds after all of the lies he has fed us over the years.  if he was truly wise about recovery, he would consider the ban as a blessing since that would be one less temptation he would have to deal with in relapsing.  instead, he continues to sound off unabashedly about how his actions were less in scope than the use of PED’s.  that is like a rapist complaining that a murderer got a less severe sentence.

  13. Blue387 4 years ago

    I left a comment earlier but it’s being moderated. In short, this Bobby Bonilla story is an old story which has been out a while. The GM was Steve Phillips. It was to save money to acquire Mike Hampton and Derek Bell which helped the Mets get to the World Series in 2000. When Hampton signed with the Rockies, the Mets gained a compensatory draft pick and selected a third baseman from Virginia named David Wright. Go look it up.

    • start_wearing_purple 4 years ago

      I have no clue if you’re trying to defend the Bonilla deal or if you’re doing some kinda of “six degrees of separation” game.” game.

  14.  Who was the Mets GM, Jim Hendry?

  15. ARodinyourPujols 4 years ago

     That Bonilla deal never gets old. 

  16.  Yes im back from my suspension!

  17. northsfbay 4 years ago

    Pete Rose is a gambling addict in denial. The straw man argument or the two wrongs make a right is the normal excuse an addict will give you to justity their addiction. He knew the rules. He broke the rules. Now he has to suffer the consequences. Some gambling addicts have to stop the gambling to live a normal life and they can’t change the past.

  18. If the Yankees truly are to part ways with Posada, wouldn’t it make more sense to promote Jesus Montero than trade quality prospects for Beltran and his hefty contract?  Oh wait, I forgot we were talking about the Yankees here…

    • Yankees420 4 years ago

       No one is giving “quality prospects” for the chance to take on Beltran’s contract, even the Yankees.

      • We’ll see what happens.  But the Yankees are in need and the Mets aren’t just going to give him away, even if it does alleviate payroll obligation. 

  19. on the Pete Rose comments….he is right plain and simple…he bet on the outcome of games , david ortiz did steroids and hit how many walk off home runs ???…point is there both guilty of the same thing and if ortiz can still play there is no reason Rose should not be allowed in baseball

  20. Joshua William Novy I 4 years ago

     I think as a manager who bets on his game is much worse then coke use. Who is to say he didn’t bet against his team? not every game but when he needed some bookie money. Say he put in the weaker line-up in or the weaker RPs. That being said cocaine use is inexcusable and any players/managers caught using should be banned. The youth should not be allowed to think its okay to get high if later all you have to do is say “i’m sorry”. PED users are cheats, bad role models, and hacks. yes.. i am a baseball purest

  21. vtadave 4 years ago

    As for betting against his own team, the Dowd Report would have uncovered this I’d think…

  22. johnsilver 4 years ago

     It could be still covered up, one never knows about MLB. Owners are still top secretive regarding true operating profits/losses and Rose betting on the Reds could be one of the many facts still in a file hidden away in the MLB archives.

    As for Washington using coke and being busted, yet pretty much getting a slap on the wrist compared to Rose.. It is an irony..True.. A player getting busted for coke would be one thing and a short suspension, but Washington is/was etc.. A manager and in a position of trust and SUPPOSED to be setting an example as a leader to his players.

    It was beyond inexcusable for him to not be suspended for at least maybe half a season, maybe even a full season for his transgression. If this had happened during the tenure of a Commisioner other than the loco Selig have a feeling a much stiffer penalty would have occurred and the Rose banishment as well would have never happened.

  23. He needs to set an example for grown men? As Charles Barclay says, “I am not a role model, but if I was one, I’d be turrble, just turrble.”

  24. Right. He drank from the “other” pot of coffee, huh?

  25. johnsilver 4 years ago

     Times change. Now it is pretty much ok and there is no role models. Why entire cities have massive drug problems that were not seen before.

    It all begins with steps

Leave a Reply