PDA

View Full Version : Rumors: Bob Castellini and Pete Rose



savafan
01-27-2006, 05:24 PM
FWIW, I am hearing that Bob Castellini is set to discuss with Selig the possibility of bringing Pete Rose back into the Reds' organization in some aspect before the end of the year. Reportedly, Cast is looking into what it would take to get Rose reinstated.

I think we all knew it was only a matter of time until this rumor would surface.

Matt700wlw
01-27-2006, 05:28 PM
I heard something along those lines as well....not sure if there's anything to it or not...

I guess time will tell

MartyFan
01-27-2006, 05:30 PM
I hope Bud sticks too his guns...Rose = cancer.

NewEraReds
01-27-2006, 05:30 PM
i still think mlb should let him rove around the minors talking to young players about how to hit, play and not gamble or do the bad things that can happen

and all that

Reds Fanatic
01-27-2006, 05:31 PM
Castellini can ask but I don't see any way Selig would ever let Rose be involved with a baseball team again.

lollipopcurve
01-27-2006, 05:34 PM
Stupid idea.

Reds4Life
01-27-2006, 05:34 PM
Cast would instantly become the worst owner in Cincinnati history if brings Pete back in any fashion. The Reds would become a complete joke.

Matt700wlw
01-27-2006, 05:35 PM
Cast would instantly become the worst owner in Cincinnati history if brings Pete back in any fashion. The Reds would become a complete joke.

Not as big a joke as baseball saying his Hall of Fame eligibility is going to expire when he was never eligible to begin with...

Reds4Life
01-27-2006, 05:38 PM
Not as big a joke as baseball saying his Hall of Fame eligibility is going to expire when he was never eligible to begin with...

Pete has no business anywhere near the operations of any MLB club, period. He hasn't reformed himself in the least, and the Reds don't need the dark cloud that Rose would bring along hovering over the organization.

savafan
01-27-2006, 05:39 PM
Or, he could become the most revered owner in Cincinnati history to the fans (at least the casual fans) in the city.

Unassisted
01-27-2006, 05:42 PM
Cast would instantly become the worst owner in Cincinnati history if brings Pete back in any fashion. The Reds would become a complete joke.I disagree. Although I don't personally want him back just yet, there are plenty of fans, mostly older than us, who do. I'd be surprised if Marge didn't do some lobbying in that regard before she sold the controlling shares.

"Welcome Back Pete Rose" night would be a sellout for sure.

Strikes Out Looking
01-27-2006, 05:46 PM
I wouldn't bet against this rumor. Odds are it may happen.

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

I think it's a bad idea, but I never believed Pete in the first place, so I'm not in the majority of Reds fans.

KronoRed
01-27-2006, 05:48 PM
Living in the past = Bad idea

RedFanAlways1966
01-27-2006, 06:09 PM
I grew up as a kid idolizing Pete. As a grown man... I do not want Pete Rose anywhere near young ballplayers.

Does Pete really want to help others or help himself (not gambling rehab help, but get himself in the public eye)? Think about it.

:thumbdown

RedLegSuperStar
01-27-2006, 06:20 PM
I am on the other side of the fence on this one. You can't take away what he did. He and everyone knows he did it and he admitted it and apologized. Yes after lying in the first place. But if you have a passion for the game like he does... he will never give up. If he was allowed back into baseball he will be monitored and watched everytime he takes a breath. He would be good for the game, he would be good for ticket sales, and hopefully more tickets being sold would mean bigger payroll. I think being a fan like BC, he knows the results would out weight the negative feedback from bring him in. I say give him a chance to right his wrongs and prove himself. If steriod users get 3 strikes, why not Pete?

RedsManRick
01-27-2006, 06:45 PM
There's a difference between bringing Pete in as a hitting consultant in ST or for Pete Rose Day then hiring him to coach the team. I don't think he should be allowed to be in the competetive side of the game as a coach or in management, but as a consultant or marketing, I don't see why not.

iaredsfan
01-27-2006, 07:42 PM
I disagree. Although I don't personally want him back just yet, there are plenty of fans, mostly older than us, who do. I'd be surprised if Marge didn't do some lobbying in that regard before she sold the controlling shares.

"Welcome Back Pete Rose" night would be a sellout for sure.


Well, I'm 61 -- I remember all of Pete's career. And, I definitely do not want him back in the organization. I don't see anything positive that he could bring, that would not be out-weighed by the negative.

IowaRed
01-27-2006, 07:46 PM
I grew up as a kid idolizing Pete. As a grown man... I do not want Pete Rose anywhere near young ballplayers.

Does Pete really want to help others or help himself (not gambling rehab help, but get himself in the public eye)? Think about it.

:thumbdown

Just curious, is this because you think Pete will have such an influence on these young men that would lead them to gambling and other poor decisions as baseball players? What does Pete need to do at this point? I read his book and as much as I love him as a ballplayer and a Red I dislike him as a person. (I received it as a gift because I wouldn't spend the money on it) He's been to jail, he's been kicked out of baseball, he can't get in the HOF, and has deserved most of it. At what point is it enough-once he's dead? How about inviting him to ST for a few days? Have him talk about hitting, gambling, other poor decisions he has made. Let him have a Pete Rose Night at the ballpark. Think about it.

Team Clark
01-27-2006, 07:52 PM
If Castellini pulls that off well he might as well walk on water.

Caseyfan21
01-27-2006, 08:30 PM
I surprisingly wouldn't mind seeing Pete back. The man, despite his problems, knows how to play the game and knows how to win. If we could have Pete around as a ST coach or have Pete in a special advisor role I would be for it. I think Cast could keep him in line and I think Pete realizes he would be lucky to get a second chance (if he did which I don't think he will). I don't think Pete would screw up again, totally a personal opinion. Pete is a winner and the Reds could use more people with his mentality of playing and winning. A mentality that I think is echoed in Castellini.

TeamBoone
01-27-2006, 09:53 PM
I like RedsManRick's point of view. As someone else said, I could think he could teach young ballplayers a thing or three about how bad choices can not only ruin their careers but their lives in general.

I tend to waffle regarding Pete. He was great baseball player, and he deserves to be in the Hall... I don't care what he did.

IMHO, there are a lot worse men than Pete Rose who have excelled at the game WITHOUT PUNISHMENT for their off-the-field actions. Personally, I place drug abusers (and I don't mean steroids either), wife beaters, etc way higher on my list than someone who bet on baseball... such behavior didn't keep some of them out of the hall nor did it keep them out of the game. Heck, some are still playing or coaching or advising.

Plus, don't any of you think that Pete Rose has done his time? He's been banished for years and lost the respect of many people he respected and/or cherished (including his fans). Does no one think he's been punished enough?

Ok, let the battering begin.

RedFanAlways1966
01-27-2006, 09:54 PM
Just curious, is this because you think Pete will have such an influence on these young men that would lead them to gambling and other poor decisions as baseball players? What does Pete need to do at this point?

I respect your opinion, Iowa. I think Pete has shown a pattern of lying for many years. I do not think he has ever come clean... unless it was very beneficial to him in more ways than just getting back to MLB. I do not doubt that Pete wants to get back in b/c he still loves the game. However, I cannot trust him and do not think MLB should have to worry about what Pete may be doing "on the side". Pete, as woy and others have pointed out here many times, had many chances before the banishment to clean up his act. He was brought to the commish's office long before the banishment. He never stopped his immoral-baseball ways. Why should I, as a MLB fan, ever trust Pete? Pete has never given anyone a good reason to trust him. Has he ever sought help for his gambling? Are we to believe that Pete can cure himself of gambling and lying on his own? I have read stories from experts on gambling addicts who say that Pete is not cured. Denial is always a tell-tale sign of a non-cured addict. Pete has and still is in denial. The book and tell-all(?) interview did not convince me.

I do not believe Pete would accept a minor role. Pete seems to want to return the game as if it is 1987 and nothing ever happened.

I firmly believe in the lifetime banishment rule for gambling on the game, regardless if you only bet on your team to win. Sports participants and their gambling on the game they are involved with is a poisonous mix. It almost destroyed the game that we all love long before we were born. I do not believe Pete ever threw a game, but it does not matter. The roads that it could lead to are something that should never be encountered. Pete was warned and given chances long before the 1989 banishment. He proved that he could not and would not heed to those warnings. He then had chances after the banishment to take steps and possibly get back. He blew it again. It is a definite pattern... one that has never sought help. Not to mention doing things like setting up a money-making venture down the street from the Hall ceremonies for many years.

Hall of Fame... definitely. On the field or around the active players... never IMO. Pete cannot do anything to change my opinion. But let's not forget that he had numerous chances already. Chances that he blew (again) all by himself. I rooted for Pete's cause back in 1989. I felt used and felt stupid that I believed in him. I do not think MLB on the field has suffered w/out Pete. It scares me to think of the damage that could be done again if he comes back and continues a pattern that he has had for many-many years. I have two killer framed autographed pictures of Pete hanging here in my den. I was a huge Pete fan and still remember Pete the player. But I think MLB is a better place w/out him involved today.

pedro
01-27-2006, 10:01 PM
Pete needs to go find a rock and climb under it IMO. I don't want him anywhere near the Reds.

George Foster
01-27-2006, 10:05 PM
I surprisingly wouldn't mind seeing Pete back. The man, despite his problems, knows how to play the game and knows how to win. If we could have Pete around as a ST coach or have Pete in a special advisor role I would be for it. I think Cast could keep him in line and I think Pete realizes he would be lucky to get a second chance (if he did which I don't think he will). I don't think Pete would screw up again, totally a personal opinion. Pete is a winner and the Reds could use more people with his mentality of playing and winning. A mentality that I think is echoed in Castellini.

I totally agree. How much of a price does he have to pay? How much has he lost not being a manager? How much shame has he endured? When is enough, enough? It's been 17 years. He has a lot to offer.

I would make him make a public statement that if allowed back in the Reds organization, he will not participate in any form of gambling. That includes, casino's, racetracks, church bingo, etc. If he will not agree to this, no dice!

Slider
01-27-2006, 10:20 PM
This Castellini guy is getting pretty interesting...what's next... a St Bernard named Castie?

Heath
01-27-2006, 10:52 PM
Living in the past = Bad idea

Remember our teams' motto - The Power of Tradition :D

StillFunkyB
01-27-2006, 11:25 PM
I am really on the fence on the whole Pete Rose issue.

I have been against this whole idea of the Reds hanging on to the BRM, and bringing back all these guys, because it just hasn't worked. However, if there was one player I think could actually do what the Reds have been trying it's Pete.

It pisses me off that he continues to spit in the face of MLB, and just can't stay away from the gambling scene. I really feel that he could help teach these players alot about baseball. The guy KNOWS the game.

I wish he would just seek help, and really make a conscious (sp?) effort to tackle his addiction. The problem with that is that he would have to be very public with it, and I don't think he likes to air out his personal stuff like that.

It's not gonna happen, but I wish it would.

marcshoe
01-27-2006, 11:28 PM
There was a time when I would defend Rose, and argue that he belongs in the Hall. I may still believe that, I don't know. To decide would mean I would have to spend time thinking about it, and at this point, I just don't want to think about Pete Rose anymore.

Too many bad choices; too many blown chances. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to what he should be doing to salvage the last few shreds of his reputation.

And I don't care anymore.

MartyFan
01-28-2006, 03:18 AM
i still think mlb should let him rove around the minors talking to young players about how to hit, play and not gamble or do the bad things that can happen

and all that

Problem is, Rose believes he was reformed over the several years he lied to his friends, fans, many supporters and to himself.

Rose, even in discussing his sons situation with roids shows he has no concept of what is right or wrong and he cannot preach a message he does not practice (oh man I wish preachers would read this!:bang: ).

Okay, I am off my soapbox.

KronoRed
01-28-2006, 04:00 AM
"Hey Young players, you can break all the rules and make millions at it then in a few years be allowed to teach youngsters to do the same!"

Pete in the hall..not near any MLB team.

Little Alex
01-28-2006, 01:17 PM
I'd like to see him reinstated and elected to the Hall. I mean, Ty Cobb and many other players with questionable character are there, so why not Pete Rose too?

That being said, the only way I would want Pete Rose involved with the Reds, would be Pete Rose cheering the Reds on from the stands. ...And he should be so lucky to get THAT honor back, much less a "Welcome Back Pete" night at GAB.

westofyou
01-28-2006, 01:24 PM
so why not Pete Rose too?

I'm betting it's that gambling thing.

penantboundreds
01-28-2006, 01:26 PM
Not a bad idea, I'd like to see Cast do this, Get Pete in the Hall of Fame and then never hire him.

IowaRed
01-28-2006, 01:28 PM
"Hey Young players, you can break all the rules and make millions at it then in a few years be allowed to teach youngsters to do the same!"

Pete in the hall..not near any MLB team.

Krono, what rules are you talking about? Betting on baseball? Are you saying he bet on baseball and made millions or the tax issues made him millions? The way these kids are going to make millions is by becoming great ballplayers, which I believe Pete can help with. The teaching opportunity that exists is (besides baseball fundamentals)-here is a man who had it all, made really really bad decisions and then lost it all. Teaching young men what not to do is a possibility and I'm not saying Pete would be able to do that, just that he should be allowed to try. I just hope we aren't talking about Pete after he's gone and what could have been done. I know I'm a little naive and Pete has had many chances, I still think he has a lot to offer

deltachi8
01-28-2006, 01:51 PM
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Thats all you have to say Bud.

KronoRed
01-28-2006, 02:34 PM
Krono, what rules are you talking about? Betting on baseball? Are you saying he bet on baseball and made millions or the tax issues made him millions? The way these kids are going to make millions is by becoming great ballplayers, which I believe Pete can help with. The teaching opportunity that exists is (besides baseball fundamentals)-here is a man who had it all, made really really bad decisions and then lost it all. Teaching young men what not to do is a possibility and I'm not saying Pete would be able to do that, just that he should be allowed to try. I just hope we aren't talking about Pete after he's gone and what could have been done. I know I'm a little naive and Pete has had many chances, I still think he has a lot to offer
Pete doesn't seem repentant for what he did, he's seems (to me of course) more sorry he got caught.

I don't think he has much to offer as an adviser/coach, he spends most of his time signing autographs not being involved with baseball.

I just see him as a big negative influence to let around younger players.

TeamBoone
01-28-2006, 02:54 PM
I don't think he has much to offer as an adviser/coach, he spends most of his time signing autographs not being involved with baseball.

Krono, he isn't allowed to be involved in baseball.

KronoRed
01-28-2006, 02:56 PM
I know..and that's the way it should stay

I mean..he doesn't seem to be making teaching videos or playing softball ;)

KronoRed
01-28-2006, 02:59 PM
Yes I know he has to pay his bills.

BrooklynRedz
01-28-2006, 03:03 PM
Lindner tried this also, in an effort to coincide with the opening of GABP. He wasn't successful and I'm guessing the new ownership's efforts will experience the same result.

At most, I could see Selig grant the Reds permission to bring Pete into Spring Training to give a talk to two but that's such a long shot.

For everyone who is comparing steroids and domestic violence issues to betting on baseball, there is absolutely zero comparison.

MattyHo4Life
01-28-2006, 03:05 PM
There will always be a black cloud surrounding the Reds organization as long as Pete is banned. Reinstating Pete, even if he isn't given major responsabilities would be a good thing for the franchise.

RedFanAlways1966
01-28-2006, 03:22 PM
There will always be a black cloud surrounding the Reds organization as long as Pete is banned. Reinstating Pete, even if he isn't given major responsabilities would be a good thing for the franchise.

Good point, Matty. I'd like to think that Pete would have been back in some fashion if not for his own foolishness. It is a shame that those outside of Cincy may think negatively of the REDS b/c of this Pete thing and I can understand that (when most think of Pete, they think of the REDS). I believe the REDS have done everything they could to help the man's cause. But it is the man who always brings about his demise again-and-again-and-again.

Raisor
01-28-2006, 04:08 PM
I'd only allow Pete to comeback to baseball if he agreed to man the phones in Montreal informing people lost in the north woods for the last couple years that "yes, the Expos have moved to Washington."

That should be the only job he should be allowed to have in the MLB.

Number_Fourteen
01-28-2006, 04:35 PM
Lol

TeamBoone
01-28-2006, 07:46 PM
For everyone who is comparing steroids and domestic violence issues to betting on baseball, there is absolutely zero comparison.

Yeah, I guess neither of those things hurt the game... just the player. :rolleyes:

George Foster
01-28-2006, 09:48 PM
There was a time when I would defend Rose, and argue that he belongs in the Hall. I may still believe that, I don't know. To decide would mean I would have to spend time thinking about it, and at this point, I just don't want to think about Pete Rose anymore.

Too many bad choices; too many blown chances. He doesn't seem to have a clue as to what he should be doing to salvage the last few shreds of his reputation.

And I don't care anymore.

what blown chances? He's not been given ANY chances. He's been banned for life. If he was let back into baseball and did it again, that's a blown chance!

westofyou
01-28-2006, 09:56 PM
He's not been given ANY chances.The offered a deal he turned it down, 15 years later he revealed he's a liar.

Surprise!!

savafan
01-28-2006, 10:11 PM
I want to know if Will Carrol and Mike Schmidt were completely clueless when they were saying that Selig was moving toward reinstating Pete before his book came out. If that was true, why did the release of the book change things? Was it the timing, because that was moved up by the publisher to coincide with the Hall of Fame induction ceremonies to make more publicity about Pete not being in the Hall. That wasn't Pete's decision. What about all of those who said that if Pete wanted reinstated, all he had to do was admit guilt and he'd be forgiven? Well folks, he admitted it, and now you hate him even more.

RFS62
01-28-2006, 11:58 PM
I want to know if Will Carrol and Mike Schmidt were completely clueless when they were saying that Selig was moving toward reinstating Pete before his book came out. If that was true, why did the release of the book change things? Was it the timing, because that was moved up by the publisher to coincide with the Hall of Fame induction ceremonies to make more publicity about Pete not being in the Hall. That wasn't Pete's decision. What about all of those who said that if Pete wanted reinstated, all he had to do was admit guilt and he'd be forgiven? Well folks, he admitted it, and now you hate him even more.


A guy who knows Pete very well told me the same thing Will Carrol reported. Pete blew it with the book.

George Foster
01-29-2006, 12:33 AM
The offered a deal he turned it down, 15 years later he revealed he's a liar.

Surprise!!

What deal? They were going to ban him from the get-go.

savafan
01-29-2006, 01:02 AM
Pete blew it with the book.

Which is a load of crap. If they were going to go ahead and do it, then do it. The book changes nothing.

Team Clark
01-29-2006, 01:32 AM
If Browning can go to ST as an instructor then anyone with a criminal past (including the infractions most fans are unaware of) can go as an instructor.

If Dwight Gooden can be an exec and coach with the Yanks then why can't Pete be at ST?

If Bob Feller can be a said racist and admonish others.....????

Yeah Yeah, I know they didn't gamble on the game. True. I agree with that and in no way shape or form exonnerate Pete. Pete should NEVER be allowed to be in a MLB dugout again. EVER. HOF Maybe. However, to come to ST as a special instructor and share some common ground may serve the players and PETE well. His admission IMO was only the first step for Pete.

RedFanAlways1966
01-29-2006, 01:38 AM
Rule 21
(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall
bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which
the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Ignorance or arrogance? Does not matter. It is the only rule that is posted in every clubhouse.... and there are lots of rules. Gambling by MLB employees on MLB games they are involved with is poison. It is the ultimate sin. And that applies to all sports. And all employees are reminded of this each time they enter the clubhouse. Why do you suppose MLB thinks that one rule should be posted there?

Should the punishment be changed? Perhaps... if you do things the right way. Pete's way is not the right way. Ignorance or arrogance? Does not matter. The book? I saw a man trying to make money by telling the truth (the whole truth?) after lying for 15 years. Not illegal, but not the smartest way to get yourself reinstated either. And if you had asked us before he did the book if it was a smart move, I'd bet that the vast majority of us would have said "no way". Perception plays into the whole thing whether it is liked or not. It seems as though Bud and the other leaders of MLB felt the book was a bad move as well. Go on a TV show and confess w/out getting paid... after conferring about it with those who decide your fate. Does that seem like a better way to get accepted by Bud and the public? You can BET on it.

TeamBoone
01-29-2006, 02:11 PM
So I guess that exonerates everyone else who does horrible things... examples given in several posts... because those things aren't in the rule book.

RedFanAlways1966
01-29-2006, 04:00 PM
So I guess that exonerates everyone else who does horrible things... examples given in several posts... because those things aren't in the rule book.

I understand your point, TB. All those other things are bad. If a rule was implemented in the book that brought punishment (look out for the Player's Union!), that might please a lot of us fans. Rule 21d has been in the book long before Pete graced the field. It is so important (sports & gambling = poison) that MLB displays it in every clubhouse. The comparison is made by many, but it is apples-against-oranges as far as the rules that are in place.

Declared permanently ineligible by this violation is known by all who are involved with the game. It is shown to the players before and after every game.

I am all for arguing that those other things should be punishable by MLB. However, right or wrong, it is not in the rulebook today or in the past. Therefore, the argument to defend Pete's cause b/c of these other things is not there. You cannot punish someone for a violation that does not have a stated punishment... much like the laws of this country. Rule 21d is there. Pete broke it. Pete and all others who are involved know the punishment.

Should the declared permanently ineligible for rule 21d be changed? That can be argued like punishments for other things. To say Pete should be allowed back just b/c bad-seeds like Ty Cobb (name it!), Mickey Mantle (alcoholic) or Sidney Ponson (bad behavior) were/are allowed does not hold water IMO. To me it parallels an argument that all murderers should be found not-guilty b/c O.J. was found not-guilty (not saying you feel this way at all, but making a point!). Two wrongs don't make a right. Gambling can ruin a game that is supposed to be fair; hence, rule 21d and it being posted in every clubhouse.

Team Clark
01-29-2006, 08:09 PM
I understand your point, TB. All those other things are bad. If a rule was implemented in the book that brought punishment (look out for the Player's Union!), that might please a lot of us fans. Rule 21d has been in the book long before Pete graced the field. It is so important (sports & gambling = poison) that MLB displays it in every clubhouse. The comparison is made by many, but it is apples-against-oranges as far as the rules that are in place.

Declared permanently ineligible by this violation is known by all who are involved with the game. It is shown to the players before and after every game.

I am all for arguing that those other things should be punishable by MLB. However, right or wrong, it is not in the rulebook today or in the past. Therefore, the argument to defend Pete's cause b/c of these other things is not there. You cannot punish someone for a violation that does not have a stated punishment... much like the laws of this country. Rule 21d is there. Pete broke it. Pete and all others who are involved know the punishment.

Should the declared permanently ineligible for rule 21d be changed? That can be argued like punishments for other things. To say Pete should be allowed back just b/c bad-seeds like Ty Cobb (name it!), Mickey Mantle (alcoholic) or Sidney Ponson (bad behavior) were/are allowed does not hold water IMO. To me it parallels an argument that all murderers should be found not-guilty b/c O.J. was found not-guilty (not saying you feel this way at all, but making a point!). Two wrongs don't make a right. Gambling can ruin a game that is supposed to be fair; hence, rule 21d and it being posted in every clubhouse.

Funny you mention OJ... in a sad way how many other celebs have gone unpunished since his trial?

tsj017
01-30-2006, 02:42 PM
Pete in the hall..not near any MLB team.

Yeah, that's the obvious and best solution.

Best of all, it makes the whole Pete Rose drama GO AWAY, which I think would please most everyone.

Also, I think steroids call the integrity of the game into question just as much as gambling does. Look at the inflated home run totals of the past 10 years or so. Don't those now seem just a bit . . . fishy?

Chip R
01-30-2006, 03:02 PM
Does Pete really want to help others or help himself (not gambling rehab help, but get himself in the public eye)? Think about it.

:thumbdown

I agree with this. Some people would think it would be OK to hire him as a ST consultant or some desk job. Problem is that won't be enough for Pete. He's always going to be angling for the manager's job. He's said many times that he wants to manage again. Any manager is always going to have the spectre of Pete waiting in the wings. That isn't fair to the manager. Pete has to be in the spotlight. One of those consulting gigs won't cut it for him.

REDREAD
01-30-2006, 03:28 PM
Pete is an outstanding judge of talent though. I think he'd be very useful as an advisor to the GM, a guy that you could send out to look at players before you trade for them. The Reds could certainly use a guy like that.

Roy Tucker
01-30-2006, 03:59 PM
I can't conceive of how Rose could come back to the Reds in any capacity and not have it be a big deal.

A big, stinky, messy, controversial deal at that and would dominate the Cincy and national airwaves and press. If Castellini can pull it off, it will be a true miracle.

Having said that, how did Pete's book materially affect his pardon from Bud? So he made a buck off his confession? So what?

I think Selig was desperately weaseling around looking for a reason not to bring him back and he grasped at the straw of the book. Bud weasels well.

Tony Cloninger
01-30-2006, 04:04 PM
The Rasputin story of baseball is that anything new to the Reds must have a Pete story behind it.

If the Reds make th eplayoffs...it will be Rose tried to be guest of owner but refused.... has to buy own ticket.

Rose protests by selling more of his artifacts outside GAB before, during and after the game.

Chip R
01-30-2006, 04:17 PM
Pete is an outstanding judge of talent though. I think he'd be very useful as an advisor to the GM, a guy that you could send out to look at players before you trade for them. The Reds could certainly use a guy like that.

Oh, I agree. He may have his faults but he would play kids he thought were ready over vets unlike our current manager. But I don't think he'd ever accept anything less than manager.

Maldonado
01-30-2006, 06:05 PM
"FWIW, I am hearing that Bob Castellini is set to discuss with Selig the possibility of bringing Pete Rose back into the Reds' organization in some aspect before the end of the year. Reportedly, Cast is looking into what it would take to get Rose reinstated."

As much as I idolized Pete Rose when I was a kid, and how much I still consider him one of my favorite players, nonetheless I think it would be an awful move by the Reds. Pete just has this dark cloud around him that will never go away, and will thunder and rain upon everyone around him. Baseball is going through another era when it's fundamental integrity is in serious question with the arguably pervasive use of steroids. To hire someone who has lied and cheated compulsively for years will make the Reds, and by extension baseball in general, look to the public as though it has no integrity or respect for the rules.