PDA

View Full Version : Selig may be considering lifting Pete Rose suspension


DumpJerry
07-27-2009, 09:45 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/dp-now-selig-rose-lifetime-ban.j27,0,5246667.story

Ron Karkovice
07-27-2009, 09:48 AM
Good.

the gooch
07-27-2009, 09:53 AM
Didn't anyone see the Michael Jackson love-fest this past month?
Once you're dead, all sins are forgiven.
Until then, keep him out of the ****ing news.

jabrch
07-27-2009, 09:53 AM
I was a huge fan of Pete before he made an ass out of himself. This is a classic case where Pete would have probably been fine if he just didn't lie about it. Come clean early - and the game would have forgiven him.

I hope he makes the HOF. He was amongst the greatest overall players to ever play the game. He didn't hit for power - but he still had 160 HRs on his career. He hardly ever missed a game. He just found ways to do the things that helped his team win.

It's a shame his activities after his playing career ended cast a dark cloud over his great career. Refresh my memory - was there evidence he was gambling while playing also? Or just as a manager?

gobears1987
07-27-2009, 10:05 AM
Once you're dead, all sins are forgiven.

Tell that to Shoeless Joe or hell, what about Buck Weaver? He did nothing and MLB still doesn't forgive him.

twentywontowin
07-27-2009, 10:15 AM
Even if reinstated, I don't see him getting in the Hall until the 15th try on the ballot. Too much controversy surrounding the decision especially amongst the voters.

I do think it's a step in the right direction though.

Lip Man 1
07-27-2009, 10:48 AM
If Pete is re-instated (and I hope he is) he won't be on the regular ballot, it would be up to the Veterans Committee.

Lip

voodoochile
07-27-2009, 10:49 AM
Booooooooo!!!

the gooch
07-27-2009, 10:58 AM
Tell that to Shoeless Joe or hell, what about Buck Weaver? He did nothing and MLB still doesn't forgive him.
true, but I'm talking about today's culture, not 90 years ago or imaginationland.
edit: and I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the way it is.

goofymsfan
07-27-2009, 11:04 AM
Booooooooo!!!

I second this!

g0g0
07-27-2009, 11:08 AM
I'd rather have someone like him in the hall than a lot of these juiced-up shams that are going to become eligible in the near future.

Oblong
07-27-2009, 11:12 AM
Horrible Horrible Horrible.

Time and time again Pete spit on the integrity of the game, he spit on the integrity of those tasked with running the game. He showed no regard to the rules. He flat out lied over and over again for years. He ripped on Giamatti after he died and he made fun of Fay Vincent's disability.

What exactly has he done to warrant being taken off the "Permanently ineligible" list? The only time he came clean was to sell books.

This is a PR gimmick. It's bad enough that baseball tolerated and looked the other way during the whole PED/Steroid issue, now they're going to do this?

Rose is scum.

TornLabrum
07-27-2009, 11:13 AM
Say it ain't so, Bud!

thomas35forever
07-27-2009, 11:24 AM
I'd rather have someone like him in the hall than a lot of these juiced-up shams that are going to become eligible in the near future.
Ditto. At least he never sought to bulk up to break records.

PaleHoser
07-27-2009, 11:29 AM
I admired and respected Pete Rose as a player, but the only way he should be in the Hall of Fame is if he pays admission.

He can't plead ignorance (he certainly can plead arrogance) about what he did wrong since there are signs posted in every clubhouse about placing bets on the sport. He made a conscious choice to ignore them and should continue to pay the price with the ban. For-ev-er, for-ev-er, for-ev-er (fade to black with "Squints" Palledorous).

dagame2005
07-27-2009, 11:52 AM
In my view, he's a dick. However, that should not preclude him from being in the Hall of Fame. Did he break one of baseball's golden rules? Yes, he did. That should keep him from ever being allowed to manage again. But, he is one of the greatest baseball players of all time and should be in the Hall.

Law11
07-27-2009, 12:03 PM
His stats as a player have earned him the right to be in HOF plain and simple.
Place on his plaque banned from the game in 19whatever it was. But to ignore how hard this guy played the game and what he accomplished to me is wrong.

If the ban is lifted you are judging a guy on his stats not his character. Well at least you are supposed to. And his stats dont lie. The greatest utility player in the history of the game.

voodoochile
07-27-2009, 12:09 PM
Ditto. At least he never sought to bulk up to break records.

The juicers suck, no question, but there were other reasons they might have done it too, including better pay and winning.

What Pete did was not only clearly spelled out as being against the rules in no uncertain terms, but it directly called in to question the very integrity of the game we watch. Gambling on games leads to point shaving at the least. We've seen this time and time again. Do we really want to go back to the 1919 and before days when throwing the World Series was almost commonplace so mob connected gamblers could make money.

Please don't tell me Pete only bet on the Reds to win. It doesn't matter. Win or lose, gambling on games you compete in is as purely unethical as it comes from a sportsmanship perspective.

Also, if you want to blame the rampant steroid use on someone in baseball, blame Bud. The FBI warned baseball in the early 90's they had a growing problem and they chose to ignore it. The rule they had in place not to do illegal drugs was meaningless since there was no testing going on to back it up.

Edit: Oh and the way the sportswriters are treating the cheats to date seems to imply they don't care for it either.

CWSpalehoseCWS
07-27-2009, 12:11 PM
About time.

Oblong
07-27-2009, 12:11 PM
Rose's accomplishments are well represented in the baseball HOF. He's just not in one particular room.

And what he did as a player and a manager should not be seperated. He stained the game. You wouldn't honor a HOF cop, who happened to go on the take as police chief just because he was a HOF while on the beat. It was between the lines. He was an active participant in the game.

jdm2662
07-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Edit: Oh and the way the sportswriters are treating the cheats to date seems to imply they don't care for it either.

The way Sammy Sosa was worshipped despite being a fraud and a cheat is one of my reasons I ignore the Chicago media.

Meanwhile, Frank was hated because he didn't kiss the media's ass. I'm certainly not saying Frank was totally innocent, but if he kissed the media's ass like Sosa did, he would've been worshipped, too. The difference, of course, Frank was not a cheat and a fraud...

WhiteSoxFTW
07-27-2009, 12:40 PM
If Pete is re-instated (and I hope he is) he won't be on the regular ballot, it would be up to the Veterans Committee.

Lip

And, there has been speculation that they wouldn't vote him in anyway.

Also, I definitely think Rose should be voted in. What he did as a player to earn induction to the HoF is completely seperate from what he did as a manager.

mrfourni
07-27-2009, 12:46 PM
He was given a lifetime ban. Let him in after he dies. That would be fitting justice for that blowhard.

Oblong
07-27-2009, 12:54 PM
He was given a lifetime ban. Let him in after he dies. That would be fitting justice for that blowhard.

It's not a lifetime ban. It's defined as "Permanently ineligible".

Woofer
07-27-2009, 01:36 PM
In my view, he's a dick. However, that should not preclude him from being in the Hall of Fame. Did he break one of baseball's golden rules? Yes, he did. That should keep him from ever being allowed to manage again. But, he is one of the greatest baseball players of all time and should be in the Hall.

I agree, Pete is scum. IIRC, when Pete gambled on baseball, he was a manager. If they cannot prove that Rose gambled on baseball as a player, he should be eligible to be voted into the HOF. He should retain his lifetime ban so that he cannot manage anymore, IMO.

Pete was an automatic shoo-in for the HOF. If he was elected into the HOF, and later was caught gambling on baseball as a manager, would he have been kicked out of the HOF? I do not think that there is any precedence for that.

jabrch
07-27-2009, 01:47 PM
Jason Goff on WSCR the other day made a good point - and I am starting to turn a bit on the whole topic...

The sanctimonous blowhards who enabled the steroid era and Pete should now have to pay for it.

You can't take their role in the game away. Let's forever highlight it.

Make all those who stood silent, knowing how ridiculous the steroid era was, pay for it. Let all those who knew what Pete was doing pay for it.

The HOF is a museum. Museums all over the world show not just the good things, but the bad things in life also. This isn't an art gallery.

Cobb - IN
Rose - IN
Joe Jackson - IN
Mantle - IN
Sosa - IN
McGwire - IN
Bonds - IN
Roids - IN
Gambling - IN
Racists - IN
Rapists - IN
Greenies - IN
Coke - IN

And use the exhibits in the HOF to highlight/lowlight the crap that went on. We can not have a baseball hall of fame that denies entry to some of the greatest performers ever. Ban them from being involved with the game - that's fine. I don't want Rose on the field again. I don't want him in a lockerroom. But the HOF is not part of the game - it is a musuem about the game.

I've done a 360 on this...I used to be dead against tarnishing the HOF with the presence of these scumbags. Now I feel like baseball deserves it. They brought this on themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to just forget it.

spawn
07-27-2009, 01:53 PM
Jason Goff on WSCR the other day made a good point - and I am starting to turn a bit on the whole topic...

The sanctimonous blowhards who enabled the steroid era and Pete should now have to pay for it.

You can't take their role in the game away. Let's forever highlight it.

Make all those who stood silent, knowing how ridiculous the steroid era was, pay for it. Let all those who knew what Pete was doing pay for it.

The HOF is a museum. Museums all over the world show not just the good things, but the bad things in life also. This isn't an art gallery.

Cobb - IN
Rose - IN
Joe Jackson - IN
Mantle - IN
Sosa - IN
McGwire - IN
Bonds - IN
Roids - IN
Gambling - IN
Racists - IN
Rapists - IN
Greenies - IN
Coke - IN

And use the exhibits in the HOF to highlight/lowlight the crap that went on. We can not have a baseball hall of fame that denies entry to some of the greatest performers ever. Ban them from being involved with the game - that's fine. I don't want Rose on the field again. I don't want him in a lockerroom. But the HOF is not part of the game - it is a musuem about the game.

I've done a 360 on this...I used to be dead against tarnishing the HOF with the presence of these scumbags. Now I feel like baseball deserves it. They brought this on themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to just forget it.
I think you mean you've done a 180. Doing a 360 brings you right back to where you started.

jabrch
07-27-2009, 01:57 PM
I think you mean you've done a 180. Doing a 360 brings you right back to where you started.

That's a good point. Or maybe I have done so many 360s that I am dizzy.

Yes - I have changed my mind on this one over time.

spawn
07-27-2009, 01:58 PM
It's not a lifetime ban. It's defined as "Permanently ineligible".
And it was something he agreed to. **** Pete Rose. I don't care about his career numbers. He gambled on his team, lied about it, and didn't tell the truth until he thought he had a chance of being reinstated. He can kiss my ass.

downstairs
07-27-2009, 02:03 PM
This is bad news for Pete Rose. His entire claim to fame over the past 20-ish years has been his HoF ban. Had they just suspended him for awhile, and let him in, no one would be talking much about him.

But because of the over-the-top punishment, the dude has sold countless books, made tons of money off appearances, etc.

I'm starting to believe in the whole concept of "let Rose, Sosa, McGwire, everyone in" to the HoF.

They're part of baseball. An ugly part, but a part.

Trying to ignore that is silly and will backfire.

Moses_Scurry
07-27-2009, 02:16 PM
The difference between Rose and the roiders is that the roiders are all "eligible" for the Hall Of Fame. The voters just aren't voting them in. You can't just say "let the roiders into the HOF!". They are already eligible. They just need the support.

Rose on the other hand has been banned. The writers can't vote him in even if they wanted to. If the ban is lifted, I'd say there's a pretty good chance he won't be in the HOF anyway.

TDog
07-27-2009, 02:44 PM
Tell that to Shoeless Joe or hell, what about Buck Weaver? He did nothing and MLB still doesn't forgive him.

Buck Weaver is more a victim of injustice than Joe Jackson. Certainly more than Pete Rose.

I don't ever see Rose being elected into the Hall of Fame, though.

BleacherBandit
07-27-2009, 02:47 PM
If the Baseball Hall of Fame honors the best players to ever play in the MLB, then it's a sham in my mind and holds no weight. You can't keep Pete Rose out if your purpose is to highlight the best players ever. He certainly was one of them.

The hall is a joke, and I won't set foot into it until they let Rose in.

soxfanreggie
07-27-2009, 03:11 PM
If you want his plaque not to include his time managing and keep him from ever managing again, that's fine. However, he should be in the Hall-of-Fame, unless you're willing to go in and weed out any player who broke the law. To me (again, my own personal opinion here), if you're going to let one in, let them all in.

I do wonder what will happen since he has never been "on a ballot" to start with, if he'll get to spend 15 years on a ballot or if he'd go straight to the veterans committee. If the people that are there to select the Hall-of-Famers think he should be in right now, then let him in. If they don't, then he can wait until another day.

For a man, who as a player, gave it his all for as long as he did, and put up the numbers he did, I'm all for him being in, just leave what he did as a manager off his plaque.

If they let Rose in, I think that could be taken as a precursor to re-evaluating Shoeless Joe as well.

If there's one man, besides Sammy Sosa, I hope isn't elected to the hall, it's Bud Selig. If that man is elected into the Hall, I'm not sure I'd want to go there.

TDog
07-27-2009, 03:27 PM
...

If they let Rose in, I think that could be taken as a precurso to re-evaluating Shoeless Joe as well. ...

Dream on. Reinstating Joe Jackson isn't going to happen.

Jackson's permanent suspension didn't make him ineligible for the Hall of Fame. He got a couple of votes from writers who looked at his numbers and didn't care what he did to damage the game. The Veterans Committee rejected him, too. The Veterans Committee would sooner vote in Ron Santo than Pete Rose, and Santo won't happen either.

Jackson, like Rose, simply doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. Of course, there was no Hall of Fame when Jackson was active, and Rose knew that what he was doing could keep him from an honor he had worked his life to achieve.

DumpJerry
07-27-2009, 03:33 PM
Jackson, like Rose, simply doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.
Regarding Jackson, care to elaborate?

spawn
07-27-2009, 03:33 PM
If you want his plaque not to include his time managing and keep him from ever managing again, that's fine. However, he should be in the Hall-of-Fame, unless you're willing to go in and weed out any player who broke the law. To me (again, my own personal opinion here), if you're going to let one in, let them all in.

Rose didn't break any laws. That's not the reason he's ineligible. I understand people wanting him in, saying his career numbers speak for themselves. Well, the only one at fault here is Pete Rose. I think it has been a well established fact that the one "unforgiveable sin" (up until the 'roid issue) was gambling. That's a fact. So what does Rose do? He gambles on his baseball team. The thing I think most that support him are forgetting is he continued to lie about it for years. He lied becasue he knew what the consequences would be. Another fact that people seem to forget: He accepted being made permanently ineligible. The reason? So Baseball couldn't formally report what they discovered about his gambling. The only reason he admitted to gambling on baseball was because he hoped by coming clean he would become eligible for the HOF, and also to help sell his book. He needs to be kept out of Cooperstown as far as I'm concerned.

BleacherBandit
07-27-2009, 03:37 PM
Rose didn't break any laws. That's not the reason he's ineligible. I understand people wanting him in, saying his career numbers speak for themselves. Well, the only one at fault here is Pete Rose. I think it has been a well established fact that the one "unforgiveable sin" (up until the 'roid issue) was gambling. That's a fact. So what does Rose do? He gambles on his baseball team. The thing I think most that support him are forgetting is he continued to lie about it for years. He lied becasue he knew what the consequences would be. Another fact that people seem to forget: He accepted being made permanently ineligible. The reason? So Baseball couldn't formally report what they discovered about his gambling. The only reason he admitted to gambling on baseball was because he hoped by coming clean he would become eligible for the HOF, and also to help sell his book. He needs to be kept out of Cooperstown as far as I'm concerned.

Just because Pete Rose accepts the fact he's not getting in doesn't mean we do. I'm not arguing on behalf of Pete Rose. I'm arguing on behalf of logic and continuity. The hall of fame was originially supposed to showcase those who earned an induction based on merit not judgement. Until it becomes that, his absence insults my intelligence and reasoning, and I won't stand for it.

dakotasox
07-27-2009, 03:39 PM
Over 80% of people on ESPN think he should be reinstated.

Jim Shorts
07-27-2009, 03:45 PM
Over 80% of people on ESPN think he should be reinstated.

This surprises you?

ESPN ain't for die-hard sports fanatics anymore.

spawn
07-27-2009, 03:49 PM
Just because Pete Rose accepts the fact he's not getting in doesn't mean we do.
He knew what he did was wrong. That's why he continued to lie about it. He knew the consequences. He didn't want his 'good name" dragged through a gambling scandal, which is why he agreed to it. That's good enough for me.

The hall of fame was originially supposed to showcase those who earned an induction based on merit not judgement. Until it becomes that, his absence insults my intelligence and reasoning, and I won't stand for it.
So then, are you saying all 8 players that were banned because of the Black Sox Scandal should be reinstated?

spawn
07-27-2009, 03:50 PM
This surprises you?

ESPN ain't for die-hard sports fanatics anymore.
Thank you. As much as we bitch about ESPN on this board, I'm amazed someone actually believes this poll has merit.

BleacherBandit
07-27-2009, 04:11 PM
He knew what he did was wrong. That's why he continued to lie about it. He knew the consequences. He didn't want his 'good name" dragged through a gambling scandal, which is why he agreed to it. That's good enough for me.

So then, are you saying all 8 players that were banned because of the Black Sox Scandal should be reinstated?

Being "Reinstated" doesn't mean anything if you're dead.

If Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte get in, I won't turn my head.

Edit: I don't know if Jackson would get in anyways. He only played for 12 seasons before the ban. His BA was .356, which is amazing for the dead-ball era, but since he played only 12 years, he only had 1,772 hits.

spawn
07-27-2009, 04:13 PM
Being "Reinstated" doesn't mean anything if you're dead.
I'm sure their relatives would disagree.

If Joe Jackson and Eddie Cicotte get in, I won't turn my head.
That doesn't answer my question.

dakotasox
07-27-2009, 04:19 PM
Thank you. As much as we bitch about ESPN on this board, I'm amazed someone actually believes this poll has merit.
Seems to me like it measures the opinions of the average American sports fan.

spawn
07-27-2009, 04:22 PM
Seems to me like it measures the opinions of the average American sports fan.
And what exactly does the "average fan" know about Pete Rose and the entire gambling issue?

BleacherBandit
07-27-2009, 04:23 PM
I'm sure their relatives would disagree.

I'm not arguing on behalf of total moralilty. You can't participate in MLB activities if you're not alive.

That doesn't answer my question.

That's because I don't think you understood what my original post was arguing. I'm arguing against the Hall of Fame not enshrining the best players, not the MLB banning people from baseball entirely.

You arugued to this effect that I'm condoning letting the 8 Men Out back into baseball, which would be the case if I was arguing what's typed in bold above. But I wasn't. Plus, I don't know Jackson would be inducted into the hall of fame, or Eddie Ciocotte for that matter, so it wouldn't help my argument to represent them.

dakotasox
07-27-2009, 04:24 PM
And what exactly does the "average fan" know about Pete Rose and the entire gambling issue?
I never said then knew anything about him. I clearly said:
Over 80% of people on ESPN think he should be reinstated.

spawn
07-27-2009, 04:27 PM
I never said then knew anything about him. I clearly said:
Originally Posted by dakotasox http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2302454#post2302454)
Over 80% of people on ESPN think he should be reinstated.


Which is why I clearly said:
Thank you. As much as we bitch about ESPN on this board, I'm amazed someone actually believes this poll has merit.

dakotasox
07-27-2009, 04:29 PM
It has merit because the overwhelming majority of Americans want him in the Hall. It's ridiculous to argue this point.

spawn
07-27-2009, 04:32 PM
That's because I don't think you understood what my original post was arguing. I'm arguing against the Hall of Fame not enshrining the best players, not the MLB banning people from baseball entirely.

Well, Pete Rose is currently ineligible, due to his gambling problems, which is the reason he isn't enshrined. The two are related. For Rose to have the chance of being enshrined, he has to be made eligible. Becasue of his gambling on his team and the subsequent years of lying about it, I see no reason for him to be made eligible.

kobo
07-27-2009, 04:33 PM
And what exactly does the "average fan" know about Pete Rose and the entire gambling issue?
Probably enough to form an opinion.

spawn
07-27-2009, 04:34 PM
It has merit because the overwhelming majority of Americans want him in the Hall. It's ridiculous to argue this point.
So you say the average fan probably knows nothing about Rose, whomyou say comprises the voters in the poll, and that means the poll has merit. Yep. That makes a LOT of sense.

BleacherBandit
07-27-2009, 04:34 PM
Well, Pete Rose is currently ineligible, due to his gambling problems, which is the reason he isn't enshrined. The two are related. For Rose to have the chance of being enshrined, he has to be made eligible. Becasue of his gambling on his team and the subsequent years of lying about it, I see no reason for him to be made eligible.

I think there should be some dissemination between the two. I'm not condoning Pete Rose being made manager of the Reds, I'm just saying he should be enshrined in the HOF. It's a shame that he has to be banned from the whole shabang.

EDIT: I mean, I can understand why you ban him from the MLB. He's proven that he is a liar and a gambler and I don't think you give him any form of credence to that effect.

However, there is no way being unreliable and shifty hurts the HOF. You can't gamble against it. I'm just tired of the feeling that the HOF is based on somebody's morality rather than talent and accomplishments.

voodoochile
07-27-2009, 04:37 PM
It has merit because the overwhelming majority of Americans want him in the Hall. It's ridiculous to argue this point.

Only if that poll is scientific which I highly doubt it is.

Also, how many people have voted would be a major indicator as well as the demographics of those voters. I would bet the vast majority of those voting in an ESPN poll are male and between 14-25 years of age.

dakotasox
07-27-2009, 04:55 PM
So you say the average fan probably knows nothing about Rose, whomyou say comprises the voters in the poll, and that means the poll has merit. Yep. That makes a LOT of sense.
I never said the average fans probably knows nothing about Rose, so don't put words in my mouth.

Jim Shorts
07-27-2009, 05:05 PM
It has merit because the overwhelming majority of Americans want him in the Hall. It's ridiculous to argue this point.

I didn't vote in that poll. Hell, I'd even guess that less that 25% of the people that posted in this thread voted in that poll.

That is not an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Your circle of friends may all watch sportscenter religously and that's great but if you think ESPN represents the overwhelming majority of American's, I'd like to sell you a bunch of stuff.

dakotasox
07-27-2009, 05:11 PM
I didn't vote in that poll. Hell, I'd even guess that less that 25% of the people that posted in this thread voted in that poll.

That is not an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Your circle of friends may all watch sportscenter religously and that's great but if you think ESPN represents the overwhelming majority of American's, I'd like to sell you a bunch of stuff.
ESPN as a company doesn't represent the majority of Americans. But the people that visit their site do.

Oblong
07-27-2009, 05:12 PM
What portion of those 80% think that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job? Probably a lot.

Heck, there's people who think Rose getting kicked out of baseball and Rose going to jail are related items. You'll hear arguments, even by talk show hosts, along the lines of "He paid his price to society."

There were a lot of writers who changed their mind on Rose once he admitted to betting no baseball. That was not what he was expecting when he "came clean".

I just do not see how you can enshrine someone who is kicked out for breaking the #1 rule for membership. It wasn't a civil infraction where you pay a debt to society and everybody moves on.

The only thing Bud Selig can do about the HOF is either take him off the permanently ineligible list or to somehow convince the HOF to reovke their rule about HOF membership.

What's the point in having rules if they're just going to be disregarded over popular opinion and market research?

InKennyWeTrust
07-27-2009, 05:48 PM
Another fact that people seem to forget: He accepted being made permanently ineligible.
Not exactly. He agreed to be banned from the game, but he could have still gone into the independently-owned Baseball Hall of Fame. But the HOF added a rule in voting a couple years later, making those on the banned-for-life list ineligible for the ballot.

BadBobbyJenks
07-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Good, when he was a player he was one of the best to ever put on a jersey.
He can have a place next to a number of scumbags already in the Hall.

russ99
07-27-2009, 06:28 PM
I was a huge fan of Pete before he made an ass out of himself. This is a classic case where Pete would have probably been fine if he just didn't lie about it. Come clean early - and the game would have forgiven him.

I hope he makes the HOF. He was amongst the greatest overall players to ever play the game. He didn't hit for power - but he still had 160 HRs on his career. He hardly ever missed a game. He just found ways to do th things that helped his team win.

It's a shame his activities after his playing career ended cast a dark cloud over his great career. Refresh my memory - was there evidence he was gambling while playing also? Or just as a manager?

My memories of Mr. Rose as a player are very different. He set the hit record while juiced up on speed. You're right- he'd do anything to win.

How different is he than Bonds, McGwire & Sosa?

Oblong
07-27-2009, 06:31 PM
Not exactly. He agreed to be banned from the game, but he could have still gone into the independently-owned Baseball Hall of Fame. But the HOF added a rule in voting a couple years later, making those on the banned-for-life list ineligible for the ballot.

"Permanently Ineligible" is a baseball term. Players like Rose, Jackson, Cicotte, etc. are placed on that list. It's not "Banned for life". It's permanent.

The HOF did add the rule shortly before Rose would have been eligible stating that anybody on baseball's permanently ineligible list is also ineligible for for enshrinement. The BBWAA didnt' like it because they felt like they should be trusted to make that call themselves. The HOF said "Well, it's our HOF and we allow you the privilege to vote. If you do not like it then we'll pick another method."

Rose agreed to go on that list so that we would not learn the full details of how far deep he was into shady things. He was saving his own face, figuring he could use public opinion to sway things. Or he got very bad advice from his lawyers. Another consideration is that he just wanted the episode behind him so that he could go on earning through his card shows and memorabilia because he owed so much money to people.

and I bet the Veterans Committee knows less about all of this than we do. I'd rather have the American Idol voters decide who gets into the HOF than those guys.

voodoochile
07-27-2009, 06:48 PM
ESPN as a company doesn't represent the majority of Americans. But the people that visit their site do.

So you don't think Reds' fans might be stuffing the ballot box? Heaven forbid fans of a team or player should try to influence meaningless Internet polls. I mean whoever heard of such a thing. You'd need an army of fans at the least I would think...:tongue:

TDog
07-27-2009, 07:04 PM
Regarding Jackson, care to elaborate?

With all due respect, isn't it obvious?

Jackson was at the center of a scandal that almost destroyed major league baseball. He accpeted more than a year's salary with the understanding that he would play to lose.

People can question whether he played to lose. People can also question whether there would have been any money for anyone else to play to lose if Jackson hadn't agreed to accept it.

But his play during the series, while many debate it, is just as irrelevant as the belief by some that members of the Cubs were paid to lose the 1918 World Series, partially excusing Jackson's actions. More relevant is that Jackson wasn't excluded from the Hall of Fame because he was permanently ineligible. When they founded the Hall of Fame, Jackson simply was considered unworthy.

You could make a better argument for Buck Weaver's reinstatement and enshrinement, and his career batting average was well-under .350.

the gooch
07-28-2009, 03:00 PM
I think ESPN should poll how many people want to hear this assclown give a HOF induction speech. I believe the numbers would go down.

Also, the announcement of "Considering" is just market research.

Railsplitter
07-28-2009, 04:28 PM
If the gambling thing regarding Pete Rose had surfaced two years later, he would have been in the Hall of Fame.

I can understand not letting him manage, coach or have any position of responsibility on a big-league club, but keeping the all-time hits leader out of the HoF over something after his playing days were over is nonsense.

TDog
07-28-2009, 04:42 PM
If the gambling thing regarding Pete Rose had surfaced two years later, he would have been in the Hall of Fame.

...

And wouldn't that have been embarrassing for the baseball Hall of Fame.

Considering that his indiscretions were so egregious that he agreed to a permanent suspension in exchange for his indiscretions not being made public, baseball is lucky that they surfaced before he was elected into the Hall of Fame.