If someone’s banned from ever working in baseball again, why would you want them in the HoF? That seems like a bizarre attempt to finesse the gambling issue.
The reason to keep him out of the HoF remains the fact that he was betting on his own team, and getting in hock to mobsters, while a player and manager. His continued gambling is sufficient reason to refuse to reopen consideration of any other avenue back into the game.
I’d argue that Rose can be banned by MLB and still have a plaque in the Hall. There is no requirement that the HOF abide by any decision MLB makes. I think it would be fascinating to place him on the ballot and see just what the BBWAA does. And I really don’t like the BBWAA.
If I recall correctly the evidence was basically one disgruntled guy.
There is, conversely, an absolute mountain of evidence against Rose.
Good idea. No need to limit it to football. We need places for Lance Rentzel and the like.
ETA: And Lance Armstrong, Oscar Pitorius, there’s gotta be a lot more.
Rae Carruth. Aaron Hernandez. Or anybody on this list.
Mere gamblers, though? Piffle.
He’s already in the WWE Hall of Fame, where his accomplishments were just to get repeatedly tombstoned by Kane once a year for a few years in a row. Surely, his baseball accomplishments deserve more recognition than that, regardless of his extracurricular vices. And I will continue to call you Shirley until I tire of it.
I have been boycotting baseball ever since Pete Rose’s ban. I felt it was wrong then, I feel it’s wrong now, and I’ll feel it’s wrong until the day I die. I know I’m only one person, and my boycott doesn’t really affect anything, but you gotta do what you gotta do sometimes. I can’t even tell you who won this past world series, or who won any since 1990.
P.S. While we’re at it, let shoeless Joe in!
Craig Calcaterra pointed out that Manfred seems to present that as an option in his letter to Rose. I wouldn’t be surprised to see MLB under Manfred try to distance itself from the HOF in the coming years. They’ve gotta be tired of the constant drama surrounding the HOF.
MLB rather loves the Hall of Fame, inasmuch as it’s literally a charitable foundation that incidentally serves as a gigantic advertising scheme for MLB.
Manfred is, rather, presenting the truth of the matter and the most logical solution to appease those who feel Rose’s exclusion from the Hall is unjust.
For all of those who want Pete in the HOF, how do you rationalize the argument that allowing Pete in the HOF would send about as strong a signal could ever be sent to anyone interested in Baseball (particularly the kids) that if you are good enough, the rules don’t apply to you?
Surely, the achievements of one player can be sacrificed to insure everyone knows that, in Baseball, everyone has to obey the rules. It doesn’t matter who you know, how well you can play the game, or how pretty your face is, the rules apply to you. Whether you have played in 3,562 games, or this is your first ML game, everybody plays by the same rules.
He can still be banned from baseball, so the rules would still apply. He belongs in the HOF for his playing career. He belongs outside of MLB for his gambling.
I kind of agree. But the HOF can make up their own rules, although they could be better rules. Pete is in the record books. What he accomplished on the field can’t be erased from there. We’re arguing about an arbitrary honorarium, and it’s one that isn’t under the control of MLB. Even if MLB forgives him the HOF doesn’t have to.
I haven’t read this entire thread.
Pete will be in the HOF! The only question that remains is, will it happen while he is alive or when he is dead?
I support the decision to uphold Rose’s ban, but, to play devil’s advocate, there is a sense in which Rose is banned for being a bad person.
Giamatti’s line when initially banning Rose was that baseball might look at lifting the ban if Pete Rose “meaningfully reconfigures his life,” and I bet that’s true. Of course, Rose has done no such thing. He still lies and says stupid shit about baseball, he still gets up every day and goes to work in a Las Vegas casino (signing memorabilia), still gambles on baseball and other sports, and (at least until recently) he was still going to Cooperstown during HoF induction ceremonies and signing autographs down the street, this thumbing his nose at the league and distracting from what they consider a sacred day. Basically he still behaves like kind of a scummy asshole (i.e., a bad person), and if he’d quit all that bullshit 15 years ago, I’d (illicitly) wager large sums that he’d be in the Hall today. (He might even have gotten another shot at managing, though I’m skeptical.)
I’m with you on the continued gambling, but not on the memorabilia stuff. Nothing wrong with that, and the guy has to make a living somehow.
The key thing about that, though - and Manfred called back to that wording - is not that Rose has to be a nice person, it’s that he has to no longer be a risk to MLB.
The fact that he acts like a scummy asshole is beyond doubt, but lots of MLB players, managers and owners are assholes. The problem with Rose is that his scum asshole behavior makes you think “I bet that arrogant ass would keep betting on his own games if we let him back in.”
True. How is a guy supposed to live on a 165k/year pension?
Baseball is just a cash machine for Rose. Put him in the Hall when he’s dead.
To use a crude analogy…
Suppose Pete Ross’s wife had divorced him for a long history of adultery. Suppose then that Pete denied everything, and told all his friends in the media “I never, ever cheated on her. She’s been totally misled by a corrupt private eye named Dowd. I was a model husband, and I treated her like a queen. She needs to take me back.” And all of Pete’s friends leaned on his wife to take him back.
Meanwhile, some other friends told Pete, “She still loves you, and she WANTS to forgive you and take you back… but only if you admit what you did, tell her how sorry you are, and promise to change.”
Ten years later, he writes a book saying, “Okay, I DID cheat on my wife, but only a few times. I know I’m supposed to be filled with remorse, but I’m not. Now, take me back, Damn it!”
Think that would melt her heart? Me either.
At that point, imagine that Pete’s fans CONTINUED to insist she take him back. “Lots of guys have been worse husbands than him,” they say. “And he only cheated a few times!”
How do THEY know he only cheated a few times? They have only Pete’s word for it, and his word is worthless! But they still parrot whatever Pete says.
At long last, rumors arise that Pete’s ex has agree to meet with him. She asks if he still screws every bimbo he meets. He says no, then admits he does.
Think his wife is dying to take him back now?
What if his wife’s sister won’t let her kids call him Uncle Pete anymore even though they love him?
If there are nieces and nephews who still wuuuv “Uncle Pete” in spite of all he’s done, that’s their business. When they grow up, they can invite Uncle Pete over for Thanksgiving, send him birthday cards, whatever.
But they DON’T get to keep telling Pete’s ex that he needs to forgive the creep and take him back. They don’t get to tell his ex “Uncle Pete never cheated on you. Besides, he only cheated a few times. And anyway, Cousin Joe cheated on HIS wife. And hey, what’s the big deal about cheating, anyway?”
See, THAT is the most irritating thing about Pete’s diehard fans. They will make ANY excuse for him, even if the excuse they offer completely contradicts the last excuse.
For years, they swallowed Pete’s lies and screamed, “Pete is innocent, and John Dowd is a vindictive bastard who was out to get him.”
When Pete finally admitted that he DID bet on baseball, those diehard fans should have been FURIOUS at Pete for lying to them! But no, they CONTINUED defending him, saying, “Pete only bet on the Reds to win, which isn’t really so bad.”
Er… how do THEY know Pete only bet on the Reds to win? They only have Pete’s word for it, and we KNOW Pete is a goddamn liar!!! But it doesn’t matter. If Pete says he only bet on the Reds to win, his fans will parrot his line til Doomsday.
Thing is, Pete’s fans just don’t CARE if he’s guilty. They just don’t CARE if he’s a cheater and a scumbag who broke baseball’s most fundamental rule and then lied to their faces about it. I’m pretty sure that, deep down, most of them KNOW he got what he deserved. But even when they acknowledge that, they can’t help justifying their hero by trashing everybody else’s heroes!!!"
Can you not see that the following arguments are completely contradictory, and wholly incompatible with each other? But Pete Rose fans invariably make ALL of these arguments, in succession.
“There’s no proof that Pete Rose ever bet on baseball. Besides, he only bet on the Reds to win. Besides, what’s wrong with gambling? Besides, Ty Cobb was a racist and Hank Aaron popped greenies…”
I repeat now **Astorian’s “Besides” Theorem:
**
“When used in a debate, the word ‘besides’ translates as EVERYTHING I JUST SAID A MOMENT AGO WAS BULLSHIT AND I KNOW IT.”