Re-instate Pete Rose? Never! Never, ever, ever! Let him rot.
I’d have a lot more sympathy for Pete Rose if not for the fact that
-
Ever since the Black Sox scandal, MLB has sent a representative to every club, every year during spring training to tell every player, coach, manager, trainer, clubhouse attendant and batboy “You don’t bet on baseball. Not even your own team. Period. Do it and you’ll be thrown out of the game.”
-
Rose lied about it for years. And even after he was confronted with the evidence he didn’t show what I consider great remorse.
I’ve said before, I have no problem with Pete Rose getting his lousy plaque on the wall at Cooperstown.
What CAN’T be tolerated, EVER, is Pete Rose getting another job in baseball.
He’s now getting too old to be considered for a managing or front office job, anyway.
I’d support the lifetime ban if it could be shown that Rose threw games. I really don’t think Charlie Hustle did that. Betting on himself to win was against the rules, and deserved punishment, but not the equivalent of the death penalty for baseball purposes.
Why not? Gambling on the game is a huge transgression. He gambled on games that he was managing. Would he take more risks with a player if he could win money? Perhaps he kept a pitcher in too long. I don’t care much about gambling. But when a manager does it, it is a much. much bigger sin. Then of course he lied and lied and lied.
There’s not really a conflict between a manager wanting to win his bet, and wanting his team to win. The goal is winning, and both motivations further that goal. Not saying betting on his own team was a good idea…it wasn’t, but it also wasn’t a “Black Sox” level disgrace to the game.
In the short term, yes. In the long term - absolutely not. If Rose put $1000 down that Tom Browning will beat the Phillies one night (as an example), guess what Rose is going to do to Browning’s arm. He’s going to drive it into the ground. And if Browning can’t go out, then he’s going to put in Franco, regardless of whether or not he needs the night off. Sure - they may win tonight. But by September, you’re messing with the integrity of their health.
I disagree. A manager is not the same thing as a non participant gambler. he is actively involved in the game. And as I suggested ,he could make moves that might hurt his team long term in order to win a game he bet on. I find it very disgraceful . He knew what danger he was putting the game in. Yet he gambled anyway. Screw him.
(Caveat: Not a MLB fan)
I’ll never get the amount of wailing that this issue generates. If he bet on his team to lose, that’d be an absolutely unforgiveable offense – but betting on your team to win? Give me a damn break. Yes, it’s a relatively big deal, and if he was booting from the sport for it, that’s fine. But keeping him out of Cooperstown cheapens the entire institution. There’s no question he would be in the HOF if not for the gambling, so put him in there already and stop making a mockery of Hall.
What proof do we have that he did not bet against his team? His word? That is not worth much.He lied about gambling. He very likely lost a lot of money. How desperate was he to make it back? We may never know ,but he should suffer for his sins.
The problem is knowing what really happened. Unless the facts are made public, we only have Rose’s word that he didn’t bet against his own team. The word of a gambling addict is hard to take.
On the other hand, I’m in the camp that says he should be in the HOF for his play on the field. I agree he shoud never be allowed to work in baseball again, but Cooperstown is not empty of rule breakers and generally not nice people.
And Babe Ruth wouldn’t be in the HOF if it wasn’t for all of those home runs. What’s your point? He broke the rules, and faced the exact same penalty those before him did. Character is specifically mentioned on the ballot as a category in which a player to be judged. He leads the MLB with a career -27.4 in that statistic.
This may be too nitpicky, but as to the character issue, here’s the official rule:
Bolding mine. Now, Rose may or may not have been known to gamble while he was a player, I’m really not sure. But if it only came out that he did it while managing, this rule may not apply. Again, it’s an extremely fine line.
Others with known character flaws, like Ty Cobb, are in, so it’s obviously not a complete obstacle.
Where’d you find that? Cooperstown’s website is atrocious (but not nearly as bad as the BBWAA’s).
That’s a pretty fine nitpick. 
I don’t have much faith the writers would be able to make that distinction. (I mean - hey - if they are capable of voting for Edinson Volquez a year after his eligibility expired for Rookie of the Year, they sure as hell can’t tell the difference between player and manager!)
The BBWAA added another rule, barring anyone from the ballot who is not in good standing with MLB (aka the Pete Rose Rule), to take away the temptation.
Giamatti did state at the suspension announcement that Rose could make his way back in if he showed remorse, “reconfigured his life” or words to that effect, and generally checked off the box labeled “Kid have you rehabilitated yourself?” If Rose really has met the spirit of those conditions, I do think it would be spiteful for MLB not to follow up on its own part. I certainly wouldn’t trust Selig to make that judgment himself, but if the owners collectively can rubber-stamp it, then it’s hard to say no.
The Hall includes Cobb and Speaker, who actually did conspire as managers to throw a game - once that we know of. If they’re in, Rose should be in too. I wouldn’t object to a footnote on each of their plaques, though.
Here’s the link: http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/bbwaa.jsp
Right – which he did on the baseball diamond, just like (and here’s where not being a MLB fan hurts my debate – I know Rose was really, really good at something…stealing bases, maybe? Anyway…). Rose’s transgressions have no solid link to anything that happened in the game of baseball, so I see no reason to keep him out of the Hall. Away from the sport itself, fine. But not having someone who was (the best at? one of the best at?) (yeah, I think it was the base-stealing thing) in the Hall cheapens it.
Correct. As it stands now, Rose is not eligible. If he gets taken off the ineligible list, then it will be up to the writers to decide.
Ruth was a great pitcher, but he never would have gotten into the Hall of Fame on his pitching resume (unless he had dedicated himself to it and not been a full time fielder, but that’s speculating on what his career numbers would have been like). If it helps, you can replace the above with “Ripken, if not for the streak” or “Ryan, if not for all those Ks”.
You mean other than the games he bet on that he played a role in? You can try to make the argument that managers don’t have that big of an effect on the outcome of the game. That’s fine (and supportable). But claiming gambling on a game you are involved in isn’t linked to anything “in the game of baseball” is absurd.
Getting to first base. He was the all time hit leader.
If I bet you $1000 that you couldn’t make the last post in this thread (not counting a mod closing it), wouldn’t you do everything you could to keep posting to it? Would that have an effect on this thread? Of course it would.
Absolutelty.
Nope. Not if that were already my goal.
However, in rereading your earlier posts, I now understand your point a bit better. The problem isn’t so much that he bet on his team to win, the problem is what lengths he’d go to to make sure it happened. I hadn’t considered that he may end up sacrificing the long-term in order to pick up a (what is to him) big-money win.
That said – Rose, say you’re sorry. Selig (or whoever has the say), move on and let the man in.