Rose revisited?

[CorduroyCalves]

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090727&content_id=6083518&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

I get almost as tired of listening to Rose HOF discussions as I do of any discussion pertaining to Barry Bonds. Rose bet on baseball and accepted a lifetime ban from Giamatti. I don't know why Selig would even consider lifting it.

[jjpm74]

From the article, this pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter:

"I think a lot of the guys feel that it's been 20 years now for Pete, and would lean toward leniency and time served," a Hall of Famer familiar with the situation told the Daily News. "If he had admitted it in the first place and apologized way back then, he'd probably be in the Hall by now."

Had Rose not been so obstinate and gotten into a pissing match with the powers that be, he'd be in already. IMO, if he does get reinstated, he will sail in via the VC.

[brett]

From the article, this pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter:

"I think a lot of the guys feel that it's been 20 years now for Pete, and would lean toward leniency and time served," a Hall of Famer familiar with the situation told the Daily News. "If he had admitted it in the first place and apologized way back then, he'd probably be in the Hall by now."

Had Rose not been so obstinate and gotten into a pissing match with the powers that be, he'd be in already. IMO, if he does get reinstated, he will sail in via the VC.


I have a theory that he doesn't want to get in right now, because he makes more money by being left out.

[CorduroyCalves]

I have a theory that he doesn't want to get in right now, because he makes more money by being left out.

I've seen/heard that notion before, and given Rose's fondness of money and the noteriety (sp?) he's recieved by being the black sheep, it wouldn't surprise me.

[538280]

I wouldn't put him in. I think gambling on the game by a paticipant really is so much more serious towards the integrity of the game than something like PED use. Gambling poses a potential conflict of interest problem, and that undermines the whole aspect of baseball as a business, undermines the whole structure on which effort is put out in the game, undermines the whole process of fans paying to see baseball. In short it poses the threat to destroy the legitimacy of all of baseball. PED use does not do this at all-in fact it may enhance the product on the field. Rose's crime is so much more serious than any PED users, and Joe Jackson's crime is even more serious than Roses'. Plus, Rose really deserves no sympathy IMO after he repeatedly lied about the incident, then finally confessed almost 20 years later expecting sympathy. The only reason there would be any sympathy is because you lied for years! Who knows though, the theory Brett mentions could very well be true.

[Brad Harris]

Selig won't reinstate Rose.

The Hall's rule is fine as is.

Baseball's Ineligible List should drop an individual's name upon his death.

Personally, I'd vote for Rose if he were eligible.

[Cougar]

Part of the problem is reinstating Rose almost forces one to reinstate Joe Jackson as well.

The Black Sox have been the cautionary tale for nearly a century now. Get tangled up with gamblers, and there will be no mercy -- you're out. Pardoning Shoeless Joe (and his co-conspirators? Eddie Cicotte?), even at this remove, blurs that line at least a little. That's fraught with risk.

Astoundingly, the only major league player I know of to be banned for gambling since the Black Sox is the very player who hold the record for base hits (among others). (Is there some obscure figure I'm unaware of?)

What a terrible position Rose's selfish irresponsibility has put the game in!

[jjpm74]

Part of the problem is reinstating Rose almost forces one to reinstate Joe Jackson as well.


As far as we know, Pete Rose never bet against his team or conspired to bet against his team. Joe Jackson participated in a conspiracy to bet against his own team. That, IMO is much more inexcusable than what Pete Rose ever did, but Brad's suggestion here is a good compromise for players like Joe Jackson:

Baseball's Ineligible List should drop an individual's name upon his death.

[White Knight]

No way in Hell does he deserve to be reinstated before Shoeless Joe.

[Brooklyn]

I'm all for reinstating him and letting the voters decide if his character will stand in his way

[White Knight]

As far as we know, Pete Rose never bet against his team or conspired to bet against his team. Joe Jackson participated in a conspiracy to bet against his own team. That, IMO is much more inexcusable than what Pete Rose ever did, but Brad's suggestion here is a good compromise for players like Joe Jackson:

He was found innocent, and signed something he couldn't even read, not to mention playing extremely well in that WS.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

He was found innocent, and signed something he couldn't even read, not to mention playing extremely well in that WS.

He was found "not-guilty", not "innocent" because certain evidence disappeared. "Not-guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing.

[Senor Octobre]

As far as we know, Pete Rose never bet against his team or conspired to bet against his team

This is a crucial reason for why I would support Rose's case, but unfortunately it is probably impossible to prove. Also, in the case of Shoeless Joe, I agree with what the White Knight said about him not being able to read what he signed and his batting performance in that series. On the other hand didn't he confess in court? (confirmation?). Either way I think Shoeless Joe payed his price and should be allowed in, but their should be something on his plaque noting his being implicated in the Black Sox scandal.

[White Knight]

He was found "not-guilty", not "innocent" because certain evidence disappeared. "Not-guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing.

True, but non-guilty also does not mean guilty. He served his lifetime ban, let the writers decide now.

[EdTarbusz]

He was found "not-guilty", not "innocent" because certain evidence disappeared. "Not-guilty" and "innocent" are not the same thing.

Being found not guilty by a Cook County grand jury in 1921 does not sound like a ringing endorsement for someone's innocence in my opinion, especially when the not guilty verdict benefitted a powerful man like Charles Comiskey.

[EdTarbusz]

True, but non-guilty also does not mean guilty. He served his lifetime ban, let the writers decide now.

His ban is permanent, not lifetime.

[White Knight]

His ban is permanent, not lifetime.

He said on his deathbed that he was innocent, why lie in that situation?

[EdTarbusz]

He said on his deathbed that he was innocent, why lie in that situation?

Why accept $5000 before the Series?

[jjpm74]

He was found innocent, and signed something he couldn't even read, not to mention playing extremely well in that WS.

Despite how the movie portrayed Joe Jackson, it is not a fact that Jackson was illiterate:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2005/482.html

We do not know what his level of literacy was. We do know that he was not gullible rube incapable of knowing right from wrong as the film portrays him, however.

[White Knight]

Why accept $5000 before the Series?

Change of heart. I believe he took the money, but played to his fullest. That's still warrants punishment, but not a forever ban.

[CorduroyCalves]

I posted this in another forum, and I think it's worth noting here:

One thing I've noticed over the last couple of days is how many people are willing to excuse Rose and what he did. It's staggering, actually. What I also see are people who try to tie PEDs and cheating to what Rose did, when they're completely different issues. IMO Selig would have chosen stiffer penelties for PED use had he not had to deal with the players union, and there's no way, no way, they would have signed up to allow a player to be banned for a first offense. Back in 1919 when the owners reached out to Judge Landis to help clean up the game, they gave him absolute power to do what he felt was necessary, which included banning anyone for betting on baseball.

To me, what Rose did as a manager was far worse than what Joe Jackson did as a player. As a player, Jackson had control over his actions. As manager, Rose had an influence over lefty/righty matchups, pitching changes, pinch hitters, situational plays, etc. He had control of the entire roster.

IMO there's no way Rose belongs in the HOF.

Not saying anyone here a BBF thinks this way, just more of a general statement.

[EdTarbusz]

Change of heart. I believe he took the money, but played to his fullest. That's still warrants punishment, but not a forever ban.

We'll have to disagree then. I believe that Jackson deliberately underperformed during the 1919 Series.

[SavoyBG]

Reports are that several hall of famers are pushing for Selig to reinstate Pete Rose, including Morgan, Schmidt, Sparky Anderson, and Hank Aaron.

[jjpm74]

His ban is permanent, not lifetime.

What exactly is the wording on his ban?

[brett]

What exactly is the wording on his ban?

Yea I am curious. Does the Hall just agree not to allow in players who are banned by MLB? Do they set their own rules?

The fact that Rose would be in right now if he had done what it took is the reason I am not for reinstating him. I also think that if he is reinstated now it creates a cover for baseball's steroid problems.

[jalbright]

Threads merged. We only need one thread on this topic right now.

[JDD]

There are so many people working against Pete Rose right now, there may be just too many minds to change.

Even if Selig and those running the game cave, he still has to get the votes.

I doubt that will ever happen. Maybe they will put him in after he is dead. It may be enough to never let him enjoy the honor. A posthumous election would do that, and allow us to cleanse everyone else's guilt.

Imagine this opinion becoming popular: yeah, he did enough as a player to make the HOF, but the SOB broke our one big rule. so let's torture him while he is alive and only elect him while he is dead. he gets his turn at us by laughing about the whole thing from the great beyond. but who cares, as we get to write about the gambling on his plaque for future generations to read.

I for one can see that happening.

[White Knight]

OK, let's just say he is reinstated right now. What percentage do you think he'd get from the writers? 25%? 50%? No way is he getting in on his first time up there.

[SavoyBG]

OK, let's just say he is reinstated right now. What percentage do you think he'd get from the writers? 25%? 50%? No way is he getting in on his first time up there.


I agree that the writers would punish him the first year for sure, but I think he'd get in after a while. They also may not even give it to the writers, saying that his 15 years on the ballot have expired already. It may go staright to the regular veteran's committee.

[Ace Venom]

OK, let's just say he is reinstated right now. What percentage do you think he'd get from the writers? 25%? 50%? No way is he getting in on his first time up there.

The BBWAA would not be able to vote for him because his fifteen years of eligibility "expired."

[White Knight]

The BBWAA would not be able to vote for him because his fifteen years of eligibility "expired."

Wouldn't it be his first true year of eligibility, since his name would be there for the first time?

[Ace Venom]

That would take a special ruling to get Rose restored to a full fifteen years of eligibility. When you consider what he did, he doesn't deserve that. Let him stew in VC purgatory.

[klbo3plus3]

This is a crucial reason for why I would support Rose's case, but unfortunately it is probably impossible to prove. Also, in the case of Shoeless Joe, I agree with what the White Knight said about him not being able to read what he signed and his batting performance in that series. On the other hand didn't he confess in court? (confirmation?). Either way I think Shoeless Joe payed his price and should be allowed in, but their should be something on his plaque noting his being implicated in the Black Sox scandal.


As to Rose not betting against his own team - I agree it is impossible to prove. It is also nearly impossible for me to believe given his track record. Also if he did not bet on his team to win for a game, isn't that a tacit admission of sorts that he thought they would lose, which could have influenced his game management? All that being said, I think he should be in the hall of fame and also banned from participating in the day to day activities of baseball. Unfortunately that is not currently an option on the table.

[jalbright]

There are a couple of reasons I believe Pete Rose when he claims he didn't bet against his team, and none of them have to do with taking Pete at his word.

First, given the lowlifes he dealt with, if he indeed bet on his team, why haven't any of them sold him out after all these years? They always wanted money, and they could make it selling their story. They also were often in trouble with the law, and selling out Pete might be something they'd think could help them in that regard.

Second, Pete was a competitor. He hated to lose, and it's hard to see him betting on his team losing.

As for the not betting, he had periods where he couldn't make the connection to his bookie, and thus didn't bet. I think he was a compulsive gambler who bet every chance he got, but sometimes, he just didn't get the chance.

None of that excuses his behavoir, of course.

[klbo3plus3]

There are a couple of reasons I believe Pete Rose when he claims he didn't bet against his team, and none of them have to do with taking Pete at his word.

First, given the lowlifes he dealt with, if he indeed bet on his team, why haven't any of them sold him out after all these years? They always wanted money, and they could make it selling their story. They also were often in trouble with the law, and selling out Pete might be something they'd think could help them in that regard.

Second, Pete was a competitor. He hated to lose, and it's hard to see him betting on his team losing.

As for the not betting, he had periods where he couldn't make the connection to his bookie, and thus didn't bet. I think he was a compulsive gambler who bet every chance he got, but sometimes, he just didn't get the chance.

None of that excuses his behavoir, of course.

Thanks for the response. Your point in bold makes sense to me - I had not thought of it that way.

[Ubiquitous]

Well, his lowlife friends did sell him out. They did talk to both the Feds and to MLB. It is quite possible that they haven't come out with more because of plea agreements and the threat of prosecution. I'm sure the statute of limitation has run out on a lot of their crimes but I seriously doubt these guys don't have fresh crimes sitting in their closets.


Rose might very well not have bet against his team but that doesn't mean he helped inform other bettors on when to bet against the Reds. For instance Rose was a pretty avid bettor of his team but he didn't bet on them every single game. The days he didn't bet is a pretty strong indicator that the manager didn't think his team was going to win and I am pretty sure that his bookies and "friends" were "smart" enough to notice this trend.

[jalbright]

It's kind of my first test of a conspiracy theory. The more people involved, the juicier the secret, the lower the standards of the supposed participants, and the more time has passed, the less likely a conspiracy could hold. Just based on some observations of human nature.

[Paul Wendt]

Reports are that several hall of famers are pushing for Selig to reinstate Pete Rose, including Morgan, Schmidt, Sparky Anderson, and Hank Aaron.

Whose reports? Any reports published on the 'net?

Yea I am curious. Does the Hall just agree not to allow in players who are banned by MLB? Do they set their own rules?

Yes, the NBHOFM has a board of directors and salaried management that govern it. Neither MLB nor the BBWAA nor the "Hall of Famers" as a body participates in governing, no more than the New York State legislature. On the other hand, the ballclubs and writers and Hall of Famers are the partners and constituents of the NBHOFM, in a sense or two. Furthermore, the Board is full of HOF players and baseball owners, executives and former executives.
(NBHOFM Board of Directors (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/museum/board.jsp))

The longest serving director has been elected to the Hall as a baseball executive, Leland S. MacPhail. The second-longest serving director will join him there, Allan H. Selig.

[SavoyBG]

Whose reports? Any reports published on the 'net?


Not sure about that. I saw it on MSNBC last night on the Olbermann show. Olbermann is on vacation right now, but he was on from Cooperstown last night reporting this.