southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Lol. I'm sure all the posters that flipped out for 2 months when they got rid of him will calmly admit they didn't know the full story and that they overreacted. 3 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Nardiwashere said: Lol. I'm sure all the posters that flipped out for 2 months when they got rid of him will calmly admit they didn't know the full story and that they overreacted. You think the Sox traded him because they knew of the gambling issue? 2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 Just now, Chicago White Sox said: You think the Sox traded him because they knew of the gambling issue? DFA'd first, but it absolutely makes sense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said: Lol. I'm sure all the posters that flipped out for 2 months when they got rid of him will calmly admit they didn't know the full story and that they overreacted. I mean, that would be the Sox semi-participating in a cover up, so I sure hope not. Edit: Or they had they to be extra tight lipped and the Phillies decided to chance it, but the Sox accepting cash for him knowing he'd be suspended for gambling looks real bad on the surface. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) Wasn't he mysteriously not showing up due to "family issues" and then they DFA'd him? Sounds like they knew. I'm guessing when they traded him for cash considerations, they disclosed what they knew to Philly. Edited June 4 by Nardiwashere 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, Quin said: I mean, that would be the Sox semi-participating in a cover up, so I sure hope not. Edit: Or they had they to be extra tight lipped and the Phillies decided to chance it, but the Sox accepting cash for him knowing he'd be suspended for gambling looks real bad on the surface. I thought we learned from Clevinger that teams aren't allowed to disclose pending investigations and punishments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 6 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said: Wasn't he mysteriously not showing up due to "family issues" and then they DFA'd him? Sounds like they knew. I'm guessing when they traded him for cash considerations, they disclosed what they knew to Philly. If they did all that, then yeah, this is kosher by Getz and I'll admit that — with 20/20 hindsight — he did the right thing. But you know, that means we also get to applaud Rick Hahn for trading a roider. Good job Rick. (I'm kidding about Rick) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 Just now, Quin said: If they did all that, then yeah, this is kosher by Getz and I'll admit that — with 20/20 hindsight — he did the right thing. But you know, that means we also get to applaud Rick Hahn for trading a roider. Good job Rick. (I'm kidding) "right" also becomes an ethical question. From a roster management standpoint, it was the right thing. From an ethical standpoint if they knew, it was an ultrashitty thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wegner Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 8 minutes ago, Quin said: I mean, that would be the Sox semi-participating in a cover up, so I sure hope not. Edit: Or they had they to be extra tight lipped and the Phillies decided to chance it, but the Sox accepting cash for him knowing he'd be suspended for gambling looks real bad on the surface. I am thinking if the Sox front office was smart, they took that $$ and bet it all on whoever the Palehose were playing at the time......or do you think I need to call 1-800-Gambler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox59 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 18 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said: Lol. I'm sure all the posters that flipped out for 2 months when they got rid of him will calmly admit they didn't know the full story and that they overreacted. Much more likely that they'll try to claim tampering by Getz than admit they were wrong. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, wegner said: I am thinking if the Sox front office was smart, they took that $$ and bet it all on whoever the Palehose were playing at the time......or do you think I need to call 1-800-Gambler? It probably wasn't much money and it isn't like better against the Sox brings big odds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Rodriguez bet $749.09 The ruining of careers over so little moneyMarcano bet more than $150,000 and won only 4.3% of his bets.Kelly bet a total of $99.22Groome bet $453.74 and had a loss of $433.54. Rodriguez bet $749.09Saalfrank bet $445.87 and had a with a loss of $272.64.— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) June 4, 2024 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 morons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 It happened while with the Sox too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Author Share Posted June 4 13 minutes ago, WestEddy said: Rodriguez bet $749.09 4.3% winning percentage? Well we found the one guy making Chris Getz's 25% looking positively championship level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Any chance he conveniently has a translator that had access to all of his money? Oh, he’s just a fringe prospect. Nope then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: DFA'd first, but it absolutely makes sense. Yeah he wasn't with the team at the beginning of the season right? All makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 So the guys who only got a year were proven that they did not bet on teams of organizations that they played for? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestEddy Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Bob Sacamano said: So the guys who only got a year were proven that they did not bet on teams of organizations that they played for? Popeye bet on White Sox game run totals. The one year suspensions did not bet on games in which they were playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 20 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said: So the guys who only got a year were proven that they did not bet on teams of organizations that they played for? I’m guessing it’s more about the materiality. The dude who got the lifetime ban bet $150k whereas Popeye bet $750 total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Nardiwashere said: Lol. I'm sure all the posters that flipped out for 2 months when they got rid of him will calmly admit they didn't know the full story and that they overreacted. What a silly "dunk". You think the Sox knew? They had no clue either. A broken clock is right twice a day. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUSTgottaBELIEVE Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: You think the Sox traded him because they knew of the gambling issue? Yep and I said it at the time it was the only explanation (off field issues) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joejoesox Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said: So the guys who only got a year were proven that they did not bet on teams of organizations that they played for? doesn't have anything to do with if you're part of the whole organization. if you're not a player on the teams roster that you bet on, it's just a 1yr ban. if you are on the team's roster, it's lifetime ban Edited June 4 by joejoesox 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Chicago White Sox said: I’m guessing it’s more about the materiality. The dude who got the lifetime ban bet $150k whereas Popeye bet $750 total. Found it. All the guys who got a year were not on the roster or IL of teams of games they bet on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.