Should the Hall be separate from MLB?

[Rose4theHall]

If church and state are, shouldnt the game and the hall be?

If this were to happen, players could be banned from the game and not the Hall. Good thing or not?

[KCGHOST]

The HoF and MLB are separate already.

[Captain Cold Nose]

If church and state are, shouldnt the game and the hall be?

If this were to happen, players could be banned from the game and not the Hall. Good thing or not?
It's obvious where you're going, but the HOF is about honoring baseball, particularly at the MLB level. But MLB does not run the HOF. And it's ludicrous to expect the HOF to not give heed to the reason it exists in the first place. The separation of church and state is hardly comparable.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The HOF is independent of MLB, but the HOF wants to cooperate and work with MLB wherever it can. The HOF needs a good working relationship with MLB to stay in business. MLB could form its own HOF and it could diminish Cooperstown in the same way that the NCAA Tournament has ground down the NIT to nothing.

As for Rose for the Hall: The HOF is absolutely correct to deny enshrinement to players currently serving suspension. Election to the HOF is an HONOR, not an entitlement.

That being said, I believe that Rose's suspension should be lifted at some point. Rose bet on baseball, and that is serious, but he did not throw games. Throwing games is a more serious offense, and should have a stiffer penalty. Paul Hornung and Alex Karras bet on NFL games while active, and each were suspended only one year. I believe that punishment was rather lenient, but Rose has been suspended over 15 years now.

But, no, a player on suspension should not receive the honor of enshrinement, and the HOF is wise in its stance.

[Brownie31]

The HOF is independent of MLB, but the HOF wants to cooperate and work with MLB wherever it can. The HOF needs a good working relationship with MLB to stay in business. MLB could form its own HOF and it could diminish Cooperstown in the same way that the NCAA Tournament has ground down the NIT to nothing.

As for Rose for the Hall: The HOF is absolutely correct to deny enshrinement to players currently serving suspension. Election to the HOF is an HONOR, not an entitlement.

That being said, I believe that Rose's suspension should be lifted at some point. Rose bet on baseball, and that is serious, but he did not throw games. Throwing games is a more serious offense, and should have a stiffer penalty. Paul Hornung and Alex Karras bet on NFL games while active, and each were suspended only one year. I believe that punishment was rather lenient, but Rose has been suspended over 15 years now.

But, no, a player on suspension should not receive the honor of enshrinement, and the HOF is wise in its stance.

Fuzzy Bear:

Excellent post. Especially as to suspended players not
bein allowed to enter the HOF.

That said, however, I must respectfully disagree with
you in re Pete Rose. I feel he should never be allowed
in the Hall. He bet on baseball games which should be
enough for a lifetime suspension regardless of how he
bet.

In re the NFL's Hornung/Karras case, this is
not relevant to MLB. The Super Bowl, as far
as we know, has never been "fixed".

As to how he bet, how can we be sure it was not
against his team? I have not followed the Rose case
for years, but unless I'm mistaken, all we have is
his word that never bet against his team.

To paraphrase the old time New Yorkers, with Pete
Rose's word and a nickel, you can ride the subway.

Brownie31

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy Bear:

Excellent post. Especially as to suspended players not
bein allowed to enter the HOF.

That said, however, I must respectfully disagree with
you in re Pete Rose. I feel he should never be allowed
in the Hall. He bet on baseball games which should be
enough for a lifetime suspension regardless of how he
bet.

In re the NFL's Hornung/Karras case, this is
not relevant to MLB. The Super Bowl, as far
as we know, has never been "fixed".

As to how he bet, how can we be sure it was not
against his team? I have not followed the Rose case
for years, but unless I'm mistaken, all we have is
his word that never bet against his team.

To paraphrase the old time New Yorkers, with Pete
Rose's word and a nickel, you can ride the subway.

Brownie31

I'm not looking forward to Rose entering the Hall; he's never been a fave of mine.

I do think the Karras/Hornung analogy applies; each game they bet on in the NFL was 1/14th of the season. Plus, they bet on their own teams. (At least they bet on their own teams to win.) Rose should have his suspension lifted at some point. I believe in the concept of PROGRESSIVE discipline, and a lifetime ban should be reserved for either repeat offenders or guys that throw games.

[Brownie31]

I'm not looking forward to Rose entering the Hall; he's never been a fave of mine.

I do think the Karras/Hornung analogy applies; each game they bet on in the NFL was 1/14th of the season. Plus, they bet on their own teams. (At least they bet on their own teams to win.) Rose should have his suspension lifted at some point. I believe in the concept of PROGRESSIVE discipline, and a lifetime ban should be reserved for either repeat offenders or guys that throw games.

Fuzzy Bear:

Actually, Hornung and Karras got off ridiculously easy.
The problem is the NFL, never having had scandal like
the Black Sox takes gambling way too lightly. To wit,
having the late Jimmy the Greek Snider as a commentator
onTV half time and post game shows.

Conversly, the NFL is much harsher on drug abuse
cases than MLB. A ludicrous example like the late
Steve Howe is unheard of in the NFL. Just ask
Dexter Manley.

I guess it is just a matter of perspective.

Brownie31

[ADunn44]

Rose deserves enshrinement more than anyone else, he was one of the best players in the 70s, and the early 80s

[jalbright]

If we focus only on Pete Rose, you're probably right, ADunn44. But I don't think it's particularly good for the Hall to thumb its nose at the key representative of the sport they're in existence to honor. So, should baseball let Pete back in its good graces? If it does, it should allow him to take a manager's spot or other key front office job (and at his age, it's at least a possibility).

The problem with allowing Rose to do so is that he's shown signs of being a compulsive gambler (he couldn't stay away from betting on baseball despite the possible consequences is just one such sign), and baseball cannot allow him in a position of any influence without significant assurances he would not bet on baseball again. The mere fact Pete denies he's got a gambling problem and insists on his right to continue gambling ensures baseball will not get the assurances it requires. If Pete rectified that issue combined with a more contrite attitude, he'd have a real chance of reinstatement. Also, once Pete is either dead or too old to be a risk for holding a place of any significance in the game of today, baseball's issues in terms of keeping him out would be essentially moot. If Pete got to be a sickly old man, he might well generate some sympathy. If not then, I still would expect that upon his death there will be a move to get him in--and it might succeed in part because of some sympathy at that point.

So for me, Pete stays out of baseball and the Hall until he gets his gambling under control, is dead, or is simply too old or sick to even ever be considered for a position in the game where his gambling problem could once again provide baseball a black eye. Once one of those conditions is met, I'd favor his reinstatement and his election to the Hall.

Jim Albright

[ADunn44]

The HoF and Baseball are 2 sepearate things


Rose should be in the hall now, but back in baseball, NEVER!!!

[jalbright]

But why should the Hall thumb its nose at the only professional representative of the sport still around that the Hall seeks to honor? So long as Pete's in a position to be active in the game, that's precisely what inducting him before he's reinstated would mean. After he's no longer in such a position, if MLB keeps him on the excluded list, I can see value in the argument such a stance by MLB would be vindictive and not worthy of being followed. But right now, you're conceding baseball has every right to do what it's doing. If Pete is to get in the Hall before he becomes a doddering old man, it's up to him to mend his fences with MLB in my book.

Jim Albright