There’s just no way. The only thing the folks pro-banning had going for them was that MLB was being steadfast on the issue, and that gave the impression of an unmoveable object. If they reinstate Rose, there’s zero reason to ban him again, barring compelling new evidence.
Reinstating Rose is the popular thing to do, and that’s why baseball is/might be doing it. Something like 70% of baseball fans want Rose reinstated. So they’ll (probably) reinstate him.
Julie
I argue that Rose should be in the Hall, but not in baseball again.
Can’t have one of the other. It’s coming as a set.
Selig must need Lindner’s vote for something downstream.
Some small satisfaction:
I went up to a coworker who has always argued that Rose shouldn’t have been banned. I said, “Hey, looks like you might be getting your wish. Rose may be the manager of the Reds in 2005!”
He groaned. “But he sucked as a manager!”
Serves you right.
Yeah, he sucked his last 5 seasons as a player, too.
OPS
82 .683
83 .602
84 .696
85 .724
86 .586
It was so damn clear that he was holding on solely to break the record.
Damn him.
This is the thing that bugs me, you CAN be in the Hall and still be banned from being active in MLB. Why can’t that be done, other than some arbitrary rule?
IMHO, most of the people who wanted him ‘reinstated’ really just wanted him in the Hall. Like spooje said, he should be in the hall, not in MLB.
The only thing that keeps him from the Hall of Fame is the rule that anyone on baseball’s ‘ineligible’ list is barred from appearing on the ballot. So if he’s reinstated to MLB he’s eligible for the writers to vote him in.
Right, and if the Hall changed their rule, we could have Pete happily IN the HOF, where he probably belongs, and OUT of MLB, where he also belongs.
Sure, they can vote him in, but I don’t know that they would. Reinstating him to the eligible list removes a barrier, but there are a lot - a LOT - of writers who will never vote him in.
Fans may want him back, misguided or no, but IMO there’s a good chance the writers still won’t vote him in. Do you think he has the required votes? I’m not certain of that, nosiree.
I’d say probably. It’s definitely not certain, mostly because the writers tend to be an unpredictable lot.
But I’d guess that he would have the votes and would get in with no problem.
I’m just basing this on various articles I’ve read in support of or damning Rose over the past ten years. Of course, if it becomes a reality, I’d expect some of those opinions to change–some who said Rose belongs in would probably change their minds, and vice versa.
But I think he’d make it in with no problem.
Julie
No way. There’s no way he makes it in with no problem. Absolutely not. Are you saying you’ve read more articles supporting him rather than damning him?
I’m not saying he’d never make it in - but no problem? He might get in on the third try. He might get in on the first try by a very close vote. But to get in with no problems? No chance.
He’s only got until 2006 voting to get in. After that he has to wait again for the Veteran’s Committee.
I hope you’re right. I don’t think you are, but I hope so.
I’ve read far more articles in support of Rose than damning him. Far more. These articles range from “he’s guilty, but I don’t care” to “he didn’t do it!” to “he belongs in the Hall no matter what” to “he belongs in the Hall if he’ll just apologize.”
Heck, even I who loathes the man beyond all reason, even I think he belongs in the Hall for his achievements. And if MLB decides that his crimes are so slight that he won’t even be kept from managing again, then surely his achievements as a player are all that matter?
The reason he’s not in the Hall now is that the Hall changed their rules to make those on MLB’s permanently ineligible list also ineligible for induction. He wasn’t going to get elected for his managing anyway, just his playing, and his playing warrants election (much as it pains me to say it).
There will be a few who will not vote for him in order to “send a message” or “punish him,” but they will be just that–a few.
And he won’t be eligible for a third try, if I remember my election rules (which I probably don’t).
Julie
Well, the rules are that you stay on the ballot as long as you get a certain percentage of the votes (5%?) and then after a certain number of years you come off the regular ballot and can be voted in only by the Veteran’s Committee. But then again, didn’t they just change that around, too?
This is absolutely disgusting. Selig knows it, Rose knows it, and everyone who is able to parse the idea “you bet on baseball, you’re banned for life” knows it.
I bet this’ll be the topic on Around the Horn and PTI today, and I bet some fucknugget will take the view that it’s good for baseball.
I hope whoever does that gets throttled by everyone else.
I don’t even want to think about Pete Rose being in the hall. That is one of the most repulsive things that could happen right now (relative to baseball, anyway).
I believe the rules are that you’ve got 20 years from your last game in MLB. For Rose, that would mean 1986.
But all he has to do is talk the Reds into letting him suit up for one game and the clock would reset.
Julie
The commissioner doesn’t have to allow a player to suit up if he believes it’s just for a publicity stunt - you know, that old “best interests of baseball” bit. That’s why Minnie Minoso is always turned down when he wants to suit up - he has that streak going of appearing in a pro baseball game for seven decades or so. He wanted to suit up for the White Sox but the commissioner wouldn’t let him.
I’m not saying Selig would deny Rose that, but it’s plausible because there’s a precedent.
Last game as a player or as a manager/coach, jsgoddess? I’m not yet convinced that the Reds would let him have a pinch-hit at-bat, though it would, at the very least, require a five-year wait until he could be voted in, unless they do for him (which IMO he doesn’t deserve) what they did for Clemente.
And in that time the Hall could certainly pass a rule about anyone who had ever been ineligible for the hall never being eligible regardless of their current position on that (in)eligibility list.
But that would be Pete Rose Rule 2. Gosh, that would be so unfair to him.
I hope you can all feel how disappointed I’d be about that.
As a player. I’m going to go see what I can find.
Okay, the rules are:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm
So, between five and twenty years since appearing as a player.
Julie
You’re right. I’m getting carried away by negativity and my intense hatred for Selig and Rose.
In my defense, if it’s a stupid idea, Selig would love the hell out of it.
Julie