PDA

View Full Version : Do YOU think Rose should be in the Hall of Fame?



adampad
03-14-2007, 05:30 PM
I know it may be a question that has been thrown around a lot here, but I know my personal opinion about the matter varies from time to time. I really am just curious to see a recent poll of what Reds fans think.

membengal
03-14-2007, 05:33 PM
No.

Caveman Techie
03-14-2007, 05:35 PM
I keep flip flopping on this. If you would have asked before Pete admitted to it the answer would have been yes.

There is no easy answer.

rotnoid
03-14-2007, 05:44 PM
We're talking about two separate chapters of Pete's life here. As a player, there is no doubt he was hall of fame caliber. As a manager, he'd never even enter the conversation. Add to that, the fact that the gambling took place when he was managing and I don't see where the argument is. We're not talking about putting Pete the manager in the Hall. We're talking about Pete the player.

Strikes Out Looking
03-14-2007, 05:53 PM
We're talking about two separate chapters of Pete's life here. As a player, there is no doubt he was hall of fame caliber. As a manager, he'd never even enter the conversation. Add to that, the fact that the gambling took place when he was managing and I don't see where the argument is. We're not talking about putting Pete the manager in the Hall. We're talking about Pete the player.

I believe he was a player-manager for a time.

Aronchis
03-14-2007, 05:57 PM
Yes, and by a long shot. He should never be allowed to be a employee of major league operations or franchises(teams), which he threw away with his bad behavior. But the HofF for sure. Make it official and end the Pete Rose saga.

CINCYREDS#1
03-14-2007, 07:14 PM
yes

he came right out and admitted it

he didnt just lie and deny it

that takes guts

pedro
03-14-2007, 07:19 PM
yes

he came right out and admitted it

he didnt just lie and deny it

that takes guts

It only took almost 20 years.

MLB asked Pete to stop associating with gamblers as far back as as the early 70's. He had his chance .

KronoRed
03-14-2007, 07:21 PM
Agreed with pedro

The story keeps changing, "I never bet on baseball" then "I bet but never on the Reds" now it's "I bet on the Reds but only to win"

I expect in 5 years to hear he bet on the Reds to lose but not that often.

redsfanmia
03-14-2007, 07:25 PM
Pete broke the number one rule and did so repeatidly. Sorry Pete but arrogance and ignorance doomed you.

redsmetz
03-14-2007, 07:50 PM
When I looked at all of his records this week in the Enquirer, I thought he should absolutely be in the hall. Now, I don't think he should ever have any official capacity in baseball again, at least not coaching.

WVJulz
03-14-2007, 07:54 PM
We're not talking about putting Pete the manager in the Hall. We're talking about Pete the player.


This has been my argument all along....Pete Rose the player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. It's like Bob Costas said "someone got all those hits!" Pete Rose the manager, no way should he be in the Hall of Fame. But even without the gambling scandal, Pete Rose the manager would have never been inducted into the Hall of Fame. I'm sick and tired of hearing how it is posted in every locker room, every dugout, he knew he shouldn't be doing it. Gaylord Perry doctored the baseball, but he is in the Hall of Fame and is one of the biggest opponents as far as Pete getting in.

Another thing that makes me angry is everyone judging him and saying "Well, look how long it took him to come clean". Who gives a fat rat's a**?!?!?!? At least he did. Regardless of why or how long, he did admit it. Yes, he's his own worst enemy, his mouth gets him into trouble all the time. But who of us that were Reds fans when he played didn't know that already? He's not couth, but I'm sorry, he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame for what he accomplished as a player on the field. Not in the dugout as a manager.

Off my soapbox now....
Julz

MississippiRed
03-14-2007, 08:00 PM
Yes, if Ty Cobb can be in, Pete can be in. Especially in a couple of years, people will be going in that (may have) used steroids. At least we know all about Pete's warts.

Spring~Fields
03-14-2007, 10:23 PM
Rose is ancient history, a museum piece, sure he should be in the hall drawing dust. If one that did more in the game is not in the hall, then how can those that did less in the game be in that same hall?

Baseball banned him under the old gambling rules, then let it stand, but they evented a new rule when it came to the hall.

RedFanAlways1966
03-14-2007, 10:44 PM
Hall of Fame, yes. Back in the game in some way, no.

bomarl1969
03-14-2007, 10:55 PM
HOF-Yes

Managing-No

Coaching-Maybe

Part of on field celebrations including an official retiring of the number 14-DEFINITELY!!!!

WVJulz
03-14-2007, 10:59 PM
HOF-Yes

Managing-No

Coaching-Maybe

Part of on field celebrations including an official retiring of the number 14-DEFINITELY!!!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Sounds like a plan to me!!!
Julz

Touchdown Jesus
03-14-2007, 11:08 PM
Yes to hall, No to coaching.

Betting doesn't change what he did on the field.

justincredible
03-15-2007, 12:19 AM
I believe he should be let back in so he has a chance at the Hall but he shouldn't be able to manage/coach/work for a team in any capacity. His #14 should also be retired.

gonelong
03-15-2007, 12:20 AM
I voted no because there wasn't a "Hell No" option.

GL

reds44
03-15-2007, 12:22 AM
No. Never.

Pete Rose is Pete Rose. There is no Pete Rose the player or Pete Rose the manager. They are the same. He bet on baseball, and knew what would happen if he did. Then he lied about it, then when he did tell the truth he wrote a book on it and got more money (which he now gambles with) out of it.

OnBaseMachine
03-15-2007, 12:26 AM
Hall of Fame, yes. Back in the game in some way, no.

I agree with this.

guttle11
03-15-2007, 12:31 AM
I say no.

Since I wasn't around during his career, I really have no emotional attachment to him. I respect what he did as a player but, to me, he's become such an embarrassment.

I think the clincher was hearing him today on The Dan Patrick Show. "Everyone gets a second chance but me". I was in tears I was laughing so hard.

bomarl1969
03-15-2007, 10:44 PM
"Everyone gets a second chance but me". I was in tears I was laughing so hard.

Uh, Pete is right on this...in the baseball world anyway.

Steve Howe
Darryl Strawberry
Barry Bonds


Get the picture???

deltachi8
03-15-2007, 11:02 PM
I voted no because there wasn't a "Hell No" option.

GL

Agreed.

mbgrayson
03-15-2007, 11:54 PM
I voted Yes. I would vote 'hell yes' if there was that option. I am 47, and I saw Pete play. He was my hero growing up in Dayton. I saw the intensity with Pete Rose that only one other player ever showed: Ty Cobb.

I have read every book about Rose, including his own. I would certainly agree that he lied. I certainly agree that the evidence against him was overwelming, even during those years he denied betting on baseball. I really don't like the person Pete Rose is anymore.


But, on the baseball diamond, he was unmatched.

One Pete Rose story for all of you too young to remember. He is bat, runner in scoring position. The other team is giving Pete an intentional walk. On about ball three, he reaches across the plate and singles, knocking in the run.

As we all hear Junior 'ponder' a possible move to right field, remember how Pete Rose moved from the left field to 3rd base to make room for George Foster, with enthusiasm(and made the all-star team at 3rd). Pete was an all star at 2nd, RF, LF, 3rd, and 1st.

Pete was a team guy. A win at any cost guy. Just ask Ray Fosse. All time leader in hits, singles, outs, plate appearances, games played, and winning games played. Second all time in doubles, 12th in walks, 7th in total bases. Three world championship rings, made post-season 8 times, was an all-star 17 times, Rookie of the Year 1963, MVP 1973, Roberto Clemente award 1976, Hutch award 1968, World Series MVP 1975.....

Pete not being in Cooperstown devalues the HOF. There are HUGE problems with lots ot other HOFers. Ty Cobb was charged with assault several times, he was suspended in a scandal for betting where the other team got paid off to allegedly throw a late season game, he attacked umpires, and was the most hated man in baseball. Others were vicious racists, cheaters, and drug users. Still, at some point, the HOF is not about personality flaws. It should be about performance of the game of baseball.

Now, as for coaching or managing, I can't support Pete either. I think he would do well. I don't think he ever cheated or threw a game. But I think it sends a terrible message to allow him back on the field. I really don;t think he has ever truly admitted, or even understood himself, the true scope of his gambling addiction. He has an attitude that he can bet on horses, etc. Clearly, a compulsive gambler can only be safe by QUITTING GAMBLING COMPLETELY. Until he does that for five years, and gets real counseling help, I can't trust Pete on the field.

KoryMac5
03-16-2007, 12:13 AM
If I had my wish we would start the HOF over again at square one. Keith Olberman who I don't always see eye to eye with said that it is time to reevaluate the standards by which players are judged now and in the past. The only way to do this is to look at every player good or bad one by one until we have a true HOF. I doubt this will ever happen but until it does we will always have less deserving people in the Hall. Pete Rose committed the cardinal sin of baseball, he bet on the game. To make matters worse he lied about it for years. Pete would be in the Hall already had he just told the truth about what happened during the investigation and worked his butt off to restore his image with the same tenacity that he played the game with. I know I will catch heat for this but I feel it is a shame that someone who lies and gambles is held in such high regard, but I guess those fond memories of Pete are hard to let go of.

Chip R
03-16-2007, 11:13 AM
If he is ineligible for the writers' ballot, he'll never get in cause the Veterans Committee never elects anyone. ;)

Red Leader
03-16-2007, 11:48 AM
I say no to the Hall of Fame for the reasons pedro stated earlier.

I would like to see his number retired with the Reds, but don't think he deserves a second chance to ever coach, be a manager, or anything else affiliated with MLB.

bomarl1969
03-16-2007, 12:30 PM
I voted Yes. I would vote 'hell yes' if there was that option. I am 47, and I saw Pete play. He was my hero growing up in Dayton. I saw the intensity with Pete Rose that only one other player ever showed: Ty Cobb.

I have read every book about Rose, including his own. I would certainly agree that he lied. I certainly agree that the evidence against him was overwelming, even during those years he denied betting on baseball. I really don't like the person Pete Rose is anymore.


But, on the baseball diamond, he was unmatched.

One Pete Rose story for all of you too young to remember. He is bat, runner in scoring position. The other team is giving Pete an intentional walk. On about ball three, he reaches across the plate and singles, knocking in the run.

As we all hear Junior 'ponder' a possible move to right field, remember how Pete Rose moved from the left field to 3rd base to make room for George Foster, with enthusiasm(and made the all-star team at 3rd). Pete was an all star at 2nd, RF, LF, 3rd, and 1st.

Pete was a team guy. A win at any cost guy. Just ask Ray Fosse. All time leader in hits, singles, outs, plate appearances, games played, and winning games played. Second all time in doubles, 12th in walks, 7th in total bases. Three world championship rings, made post-season 8 times, was an all-star 17 times, Rookie of the Year 1963, MVP 1973, Roberto Clemente award 1976, Hutch award 1968, World Series MVP 1975.....

Pete not being in Cooperstown devalues the HOF. There are HUGE problems with lots ot other HOFers. Ty Cobb was charged with assault several times, he was suspended in a scandal for betting where the other team got paid off to allegedly throw a late season game, he attacked umpires, and was the most hated man in baseball. Others were vicious racists, cheaters, and drug users. Still, at some point, the HOF is not about personality flaws. It should be about performance of the game of baseball.

Now, as for coaching or managing, I can't support Pete either. I think he would do well. I don't think he ever cheated or threw a game. But I think it sends a terrible message to allow him back on the field. I really don;t think he has ever truly admitted, or even understood himself, the true scope of his gambling addiction. He has an attitude that he can bet on horses, etc. Clearly, a compulsive gambler can only be safe by QUITTING GAMBLING COMPLETELY. Until he does that for five years, and gets real counseling help, I can't trust Pete on the field.

Damn, that was one of the best posts I have ever read! I wish I had the ability to give you the little clique points that the little "dictators" of the board have set up.

PuffyPig
03-16-2007, 12:35 PM
I'd reconsider putting him in the Hall the day he died.

IMO, the Hall's appeal to Rose likely rests on the $$$$$$$ he thinks it can bring him.

RedsFanInMD
03-16-2007, 12:57 PM
I voted Yes. I would vote 'hell yes' if there was that option. I am 47, and I saw Pete play. He was my hero growing up in Dayton. I saw the intensity with Pete Rose that only one other player ever showed: Ty Cobb.

I have read every book about Rose, including his own. I would certainly agree that he lied. I certainly agree that the evidence against him was overwelming, even during those years he denied betting on baseball. I really don't like the person Pete Rose is anymore.


But, on the baseball diamond, he was unmatched.

One Pete Rose story for all of you too young to remember. He is bat, runner in scoring position. The other team is giving Pete an intentional walk. On about ball three, he reaches across the plate and singles, knocking in the run.

As we all hear Junior 'ponder' a possible move to right field, remember how Pete Rose moved from the left field to 3rd base to make room for George Foster, with enthusiasm(and made the all-star team at 3rd). Pete was an all star at 2nd, RF, LF, 3rd, and 1st.

Pete was a team guy. A win at any cost guy. Just ask Ray Fosse. All time leader in hits, singles, outs, plate appearances, games played, and winning games played. Second all time in doubles, 12th in walks, 7th in total bases. Three world championship rings, made post-season 8 times, was an all-star 17 times, Rookie of the Year 1963, MVP 1973, Roberto Clemente award 1976, Hutch award 1968, World Series MVP 1975.....

Pete not being in Cooperstown devalues the HOF. There are HUGE problems with lots ot other HOFers. Ty Cobb was charged with assault several times, he was suspended in a scandal for betting where the other team got paid off to allegedly throw a late season game, he attacked umpires, and was the most hated man in baseball. Others were vicious racists, cheaters, and drug users. Still, at some point, the HOF is not about personality flaws. It should be about performance of the game of baseball.

Now, as for coaching or managing, I can't support Pete either. I think he would do well. I don't think he ever cheated or threw a game. But I think it sends a terrible message to allow him back on the field. I really don;t think he has ever truly admitted, or even understood himself, the true scope of his gambling addiction. He has an attitude that he can bet on horses, etc. Clearly, a compulsive gambler can only be safe by QUITTING GAMBLING COMPLETELY. Until he does that for five years, and gets real counseling help, I can't trust Pete on the field.

Outstanding post! I am a few years younger than you, but Pete was also a childhood hero of mine. His style of hustle is what little league managers all over the country asked us as young players to emulate.

It is ironic that his "never say die" playing style also carried over to his personal life, which made him far less successful off the field than he was on the field. I often wonder how different things may have been if he had been truthful back in 1989 and accepted his punishment. But he made a horrible decision to lie about it -- and cried the cry of someone being "unfairly" persecuted for the next two decades.

Truthfully, Pete was good at one thing in his life -- and that was baseball. Most everything he's done since his playing days ended has been less than noteworthy -- and in some cases shameful. That makes it even more ironic that the guy who was such a role model FOR baseball back in the 70s and 80s -- has been an embarrassment for the sport, since then.

I too give him the nod for the Hall because of all of his accomplishments and everything he stood for as a player. ... but I do not believe he should ever serve in an official capacity within the league again because of all of the odious things he's done since then.

redsmetz
03-16-2007, 02:58 PM
I was thinking about this at lunch while reading my afternoon Enquirer
(oh, wait, it's supposed to be a morning paper - would someone please tell my carrier that!!!) - anyhoo, I saw the article about John Dowd (who is now joined at the hip to Pete Rose) and how he believes Rose is just looking for attention (ya think?).

I think baseball would do itself a huge favor by getting the Hall of Fame to drop its prohibition on banned players from getting elected. Then let Pete Rose and Joe Jackson and whoever else (and I think that may be it) be elected on the play on the field. Then Pete Rose can go off into the sunset.l

He should never be on the field again.

gonelong
03-16-2007, 03:46 PM
I'd reconsider putting him in the Hall the day he died.

Yep.

GL

jojo
03-16-2007, 04:02 PM
Well duh....the answer is so obvious.... :cool:

GOREDSGO32
03-16-2007, 04:21 PM
I'm not sure. There's not an easy answer for this. Pete Rose as a player was obviously well liked and a team guy it seemed like. But he's got some seriously shady character flaws, and has broken a lot of the rules of baseball. He didn't come clean about it, until what, two decades later? He wrote a book lying. And John Dowd even believes he's lying now, and I believe him - with evidence Pete Rose DIDN'T bet on the Reds every night - he only bet when Soto and another pitcher weren't pitching. Thats a SERIOUS SERIOUS crime in baseball, thats worse than betting on your team every night - at least them there is no discrimination or change in activity. If you are betting on your team some nights and not on others because of who is pitching, you are basically playing a game with bookies to change the line and so on. This is a serious crime - and he continues to lie and twist things. It's like a new thing he said he lied about before but says he's telling the truth NOW continues to come out.

As for the Hall of Fame, its a big deal - yes. But what is it really? A ceremony, a little space at the hall of fame, and your name in a book. Really, way too much is being made of this IMO. He degraded the game, and if he goes in or not, whatever. He made his bed and now has to lie in it. If he admitted he had a betting problem from the start and came clean and asked for forgiveness instead of the constant lying and backtracking, he probably would have been in for years and years now. But no, he made excuses, didn't apologize, and continues to lie. Its his problem, and just because I'm a Reds fan doesn't mean jack to me whether he gets in or not. I'm not going to throw a party or celebrate it like a World Series win if he gets in. Its a nice honor, but as a fan, its completely insignificant.

oneupper
03-16-2007, 07:43 PM
Really hard for us geezers who saw him in his prime.
But after reflection...

No to Rose

and..
No to McGwire
No to Sosa
No to Bonds

Just because in the past sinners (Cobb) made it in, doesn't mean that voters should continue to look past obvious transgressions today.

Dom Heffner
03-16-2007, 08:07 PM
This has been my argument all along....Pete Rose the player deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. It's like Bob Costas said "someone got all those hits!" Pete Rose the manager, no way should he be in the Hall of Fame.

So a hall of fame caliber player can gamble on his own team as a manager with no repurcussions other than he can't coach anymore?

Are you people serious?

Eric_Davis
03-16-2007, 08:09 PM
Hell, yes. There are dozens of Hall-of-Fame members who were horrible ambassadors to the game of baseball, such as commissioners (Judge Landis, for one) that banned minorities from the game.

Pete Rose is one of the best ever to play the game. He's a Top-25 Hall-of-Famer.

Dom Heffner
03-16-2007, 08:17 PM
Hell, yes. There are dozens of Hall-of-Fame members who were horrible ambassadors to the game of baseball, such as commissioners (Judge Landis, for one) that banned minorities from the game.

If this is your point, you might want to move to have those people removed instead of adding more trash to the pile.

Shaggy Sanchez
03-16-2007, 11:49 PM
Hell, yes. There are dozens of Hall-of-Fame members who were horrible ambassadors to the game of baseball, such as commissioners (Judge Landis, for one) that banned minorities from the game.

Pete Rose is one of the best ever to play the game. He's a Top-25 Hall-of-Famer.

Agreed there are some guys in the HOF that aren't real great people but they didn't break the #1 rule of the sport. Pete Rose did and the punishment was a lifetime ban. As wrong as banning minorities from the game, taking steroids, going into the crowd to beat someone up, doing drugs, etc. are they were never stated as things you could not do as a major leaguer.

I get a kick out of the people that say that Pete the manager doesn't deserve to go in but Pete the player does. Does anyone really think that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball while he was playing. Anyone that says that is contradicting themselves by agreeing that he broke the rules as a manager and shouldn't be put in but because he was a great player it shouldn't matter if he broke the rule and should be in.

mbgrayson
03-17-2007, 01:58 AM
Did you all know that the HOF Committee changed the rules AFTER Pete accepted his punishment, which was to be on the lifetime ineligible list, to prohibit any player on that list from being able to go on the HOF ballot?

Also, did you all know that Pete specifically has the right to apply for reinstatement onto the eligible list as a condition of his punishment?

Finally, have you seen the Pete Rose Aguevelva commercials? They are online HERE ON YOUTUBE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-Y4tc6nCo&mode=related&search=).

On a more serious note, HERE is the link (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/baseballs_best/mlb_bb_gamepage.jsp?story_page=bb_85reg_091185_sdp cin)to listen to hit #4192 if you have a subscription to MLB Premium. Interesting to here Marty and Joe from 1985.

BoydsOfSummer
03-17-2007, 04:46 AM
Absolutely not.

"Someone bet on all those Reds games!"

Boston Red
03-17-2007, 05:22 AM
Maybe if he was in the Hall of Fame he would just go the hell away already.

redsrule2500
03-17-2007, 06:33 AM
I can't believe there are Reds fans that are saying no to this. Insane

He even bet for the Reds...what's wrong with that? There's no cheating in that at all! but these steroid guys are gonna get in there just fine.

Highlifeman21
03-17-2007, 01:03 PM
Rose should be in the HOF on playing merit, but aside from that, he shouldn't. He committed the worst possible crime in baseball.

SunDeck
03-17-2007, 01:18 PM
I can't believe there are Reds fans that are saying no to this. Insane

He even bet for the Reds...what's wrong with that?

On the face of it betting on your own team may sound like it's okay. But when you consider that the guy is a pathological gambler, you have to consider that he may not make the rational choices from the bench. Burning out pitchers' arms would, I think, be the biggest danger. And this is also the guy who played himself at 1B in front of Nick Esasky so he could get his hits, something that I personally felt embarrassed to watch, given the ceiling that Esasky seemed to have at the time. In other words, the guy had a track record of putting himself in front of the logical baseball choices.
Anyway, with that kind of decision making, having Rose betting on the Reds to me is probably no better than having him bet against them. And besides, his word is once again called into question by Dowd who said he didn't bet on the Reds every night.

SunDeck
03-17-2007, 01:24 PM
...but these steroid guys are gonna get in there just fine.

I don't know what the solution is there. My gut tells me that steroid abuse has been so widely spread out in MLB for the last ten years that you'd have to call into question almost a half generation of statistics. But the notion that a guy who is tainted as a user will get in the Hall, well that may actually be ocurring. What did McGwire receive, something in the neighborhood of 25%? That seemed like a message to me. Bonds may be a different story, but I'm having a hard time seeing him in the HOF; he's a joke.

bomarl1969
03-17-2007, 01:55 PM
And this is also the guy who played himself at 1B in front of Nick Esasky so he could get his hits, something that I personally felt embarrassed to watch, given the ceiling that Esasky seemed to have at the time. In other words, the guy had a track record of putting himself in front of the logical baseball choices.

Yeah shame on Pete for destroying the great HOFer Nick Esasky career, please.

Always Red
03-17-2007, 02:11 PM
I don't know what the solution is there. My gut tells me that steroid abuse has been so widely spread out in MLB for the last ten years that you'd have to call into question almost a half generation of statistics. But the notion that a guy who is tainted as a user will get in the Hall, well that may actually be ocurring. What did McGwire receive, something in the neighborhood of 25%? That seemed like a message to me. Bonds may be a different story, but I'm having a hard time seeing him in the HOF; he's a joke.

Imagine a Baseball Hall of Fame, without the all time hits leader, and without the all time home run leader.

Just think about that for a minute...

If Bonds is still playing baseball, and has never once been suspended for substance abuse, how can he (or McGwire, or Palmeiro) be denied entrance to the HoF? I'm just asking. I certainly do not condone performance enhancing pharmaceuticals of any kind. But these guys (and Sosa) are the ones taking all of the heat for it, when there were many, many more players doing exactly the same thing. No, it doesn't make any of it right, not at all. The only thing Bonds has been caught doing (to this point) is amphetamines. And if you throw out the records of players on greenies, every baseball record compiled since the mid-50's must be considered suspect in some way or another. :eek:

Rose is being punished (rightly or wrongly-depending on your own point of view) for something he did which was very wrong (or so I think ), but which in no way, shape or form helped him to post the numbers he did while playing the game. Of course, his own use of greenies is another matter, and I'll leave that out for now. In other words, Rose's playing career is untarnished. It was his actions as a manager that have kept him out of the HoF.

The steroids guys posted the numbers they did because of the drugs they were on. It doesn't seem right, in any way, that they be let into the Hall of Fame, with numbers that were illegally obtained, does it? :thumbdown

But it did not happen in a vacuum. Did they have an unfair advantage? Probably in some sense, but then they were playing with other players on 'roids and facing pitchers that were 'roided up as well. There is no question of that.

This is the most difficult problem that Selig, the union, the owners, and any commissioner after Selig will have to deal with for years. The BBWA has already shown they won't be voting in the steroids guys. The veterans in the HoF will not be for allowing the steroids guys in, either. But that would make them hypocrits of a certain sort, since most of them were hopped up on amphetamines, which allowed them to play the grueling coast-coast every night schedule of MLB (there's a reason that men used to retire at the age of 35 or so- they were thoroughly exhausted at that age). Yes, I know, players are in much better shape these days, and players are far more pampered than in the old days, riding trains from one town to the next.

OK, sorry, I got a little off track there! The main problem, as I see it, is this- none of these guys were ever suspended or punished in any way for anything. How can a standard be applied to them retroactively? I think that's the main issue. Baseball is going to have to come up with one of those "from now on..." rules, and deal with each of these players in a case by case situation.

All of these guys will be eligible for the HoF. The BBWA will decide who gets elected to the Hall and who doesn't. If the writers take a pass, then 15 years later, the Vets of the Hall get a chance to vote them in or not. In other words, MLB itself really won't decide, other than to say who is eligible.

Rose broke a rule that was already in place. The Steroid gang broke no rules of baseball in doing what they did (they did however, use illegal drugs, so technically, could be charged with criminal violations, if there are witnesses, etc). That's the difference, which is too bad for Pete Rose.

As for me, I say Rose should be in the Hall of Fame, for his achievements as a player. He should also be banned from participating in any aspect of the game for life.

The Steroid gang, IMO, did something just as bad as Rose did, yet subtly different. Rose wanted money from his inside knowledge of the game- greed (by all accounts Rose was a terrible gambler). The Steroid gang inflated their own statistics, which resulted in the massive contracts they subsequently received - greed. Just as bad. Yet, they broke no rules of the game, as far as I know. Just as wrong as Rose, but no rules were yet in place, so I don't see how they can be punished. :help:

Disgraced? Yes, they certainly are. Anyone seen Palmeiro or McGwire around lately? Sosa is trying desperately to rehab his image, and Bonds is like Rose, slowly becoming a caricature of himself.

There is no way that this whole episode is going to end with everyone being satisfied. For all of Bonds failings, he is in my mind, a Hall of Famer, and one of the best hitters I have ever seen. Does he deserve to be there? I truly don't know. I think he will be ultimately punished in the same way Rose has been, with years of disgrace and humiliation heaped upon them by the media.

Chip R
03-17-2007, 02:45 PM
I can't believe there are Reds fans that are saying no to this. Insane


Would you feel different if he played for the Cubs or Yankees or Dodgers?

SunDeck
03-17-2007, 03:45 PM
Imagine a Baseball Hall of Fame, without the all time hits leader, and without the all time home run leader.

Just think about that for a minute...

It would be a shame- there should be a special section in the HOF for players who cheated. Barry's plaque can go there.

I can understand why people say Pete should be let in on his merits as a ballplayer. But to tell you the truth, I have a hard time believing the guy didn't bet on baseball while he was playing. Am I supposed to believe he only started after he quite playing? Something about that just doesn't seem right to me. And even if that were the case, it seems an even more egregious violation to me, since as a manager he had even more power over the outcome of a game.

I have always been conflicted by the question of whether or not Pete should be allowed in the hall. Unfortunately, what was a pretty positive opinion in his favor ten years ago is just about 180 degrees in the opposite direction today, primarily because of his own inability to just shut up.

westofyou
03-17-2007, 03:59 PM
I can't believe there are Reds fans that are saying no to this. Insane

Crazy eh?

What's even crazier is this.


He even bet for the Reds...what's wrong with that?

It's against the rules?

Eric_Davis
03-17-2007, 04:59 PM
If this is your point, you might want to move to have those people removed instead of adding more trash to the pile.

The point is that a member's character issues have nothing to do with entrance into the Hall-of-Fame.

Eric_Davis
03-17-2007, 05:04 PM
[QUOTE=mbgrayson;1266267]Did you all know that the HOF Committee changed the rules AFTER Pete accepted his punishment, which was to be on the lifetime ineligible list, to prohibit any player on that list from being able to go on the HOF ballot?

This is really what the decision should be about. It was a witchhunt....pure and simple.

Always Red
03-17-2007, 05:23 PM
It would be a shame- there should be a special section in the HOF for players who cheated. Barry's plaque can go there.

I can understand why people say Pete should be let in on his merits as a ballplayer. But to tell you the truth, I have a hard time believing the guy didn't bet on baseball while he was playing. Am I supposed to believe he only started after he quite playing? Something about that just doesn't seem right to me. And even if that were the case, it seems an even more egregious violation to me, since as a manager he had even more power over the outcome of a game.

I have always been conflicted by the question of whether or not Pete should be allowed in the hall. Unfortunately, what was a pretty positive opinion in his favor ten years ago is just about 180 degrees in the opposite direction today, primarily because of his own inability to just shut up.

SunDeck, I agree with most of what you say. My purpose in writing the longish post above was to ask where the line in the sand should be drawn?

I have no problem with Rose's situation remaining as it is right now. He made his bed. He cheated, but not while playing the game, which is different than the steroid crew, who cheated at the game. Rose did his cheating while managing, which some will argue might even be worse, because he had a better chance at manipulating the game than when he was a player. So be it.

We already know for sure that 2 MVP awards were won by guys on steroids- Canseco and Caminiti, since they both admitted it. The others have been accused, and while I certainly believe they were on the juice when all the HR records fell, is there any proof? Where do we, or MLB for that matter, draw the line? Are they all guilty? All players who played during that era, or just the most successful ones? Or just not the singles hitters? Or not the starting pitchers, but just the big late inning relievers? How do we know? How did Cal Ripken make all of those starts in a row, even when hurt or sick? Steroids? Greenies? Talent? Guts? My point is that everyone of the era becomes suspicious. They're all guilty, or none of them is guilty, unless they have failed some test, of some sort. Rose failed that test (not a blood or urine test, but a test, nonetheless)

I'm as sick of Bonds as the next guy, but I do realize that he's become the focal point, the whipping boy, for all of it. Others were certainly just as guilty as Bonds, but their legacy will go untarnished. It wasn't all Barry Bond's idea. I'm not defending Bonds in any way at all. Roger Clemens has been rumored, in some circles, to have been at least peripherally involved in substance abuse, too. Depends on what you read, who you talk to, and who is spreading the rumors, and unless there's a clear cut test, or proof, all you can do is say that they are all innocent until proven guilty.

You can't legislate anything, or make any official decisions, without proof. There must be some proof that said player violated a rule. That's why Rose's case is clear-cut. Of course, as pointed out earlier, the rule was changed, in Rose's case, after the fact, specifically to keep him out of the Hall of Fame.

mbgrayson
03-17-2007, 07:45 PM
You can't legislate anything, or make any official decisions, without proof. There must be some proof that said player violated a rule.

With Barry Bonds, it seems to me there was quite a bit of proof. In Game of Shadows, the authors had access to his doping schedule from BALCO. They explain how he used a substance that was undetectable, that was a high tech steroid called 'the clear'.

Barry has admitted using steroids 'accidentally'; that they were is a cream he used, and he had no idea it contained illegal substances, Yet if you read that book, you will have little doubt at the end. There is still an active investigation going on into whether Bonds committed perjury in claiming he never 'knowingly' used steroids.

In addition, look at the 'before' and 'after' photos of Bonds, look how his HR stats took off after his steroid use began, and how he had every injury typically tied to steroids.

As to Pete Rose, I agree that he would have been served by staying out of the limelight, and 'shutting up'. He manages to offend many people who used to support him, when he changes his story every year.

Less said, Best said.

guttle11
03-17-2007, 07:58 PM
Uh, Pete is right on this...in the baseball world anyway.

Steve Howe
Darryl Strawberry
Barry Bonds


Get the picture???


Uh, no actually. The first two guys had drug issues, which are personal matters that do not have the same effect on the game as a manager who bets on baseball. And they didn't make a mockery of their situation in an effort to make some $$$.

Barry Bonds got a second chance? Bonds got caught on the amphetamines, but baseball followed the CBA. The same CBA that allows someone to be banned for life if they bet on their own team.

As someone born after Rose and the BRM, I feel like Rose is hurting the Reds every time he opens his mouth. He's an embarrassment at this point. Everything he says is a lie. This is more than just being a bad guy, this is a about breaking the #1 rule of the game, and acting like a little boy trying to get around spilling the juice on the carpet for 20 years.

Own up to it, and shut up. Then I might start to respect you.

deltachi8
03-17-2007, 08:01 PM
I can't believe there are Reds fans that are saying no to this. Insane

He even bet for the Reds...what's wrong with that? There's no cheating in that at all! but these steroid guys are gonna get in there just fine.

seriously?

Always Red
03-17-2007, 08:27 PM
With Barry Bonds, it seems to me there was quite a bit of proof. In Game of Shadows, the authors had access to his doping schedule from BALCO. They explain how he used a substance that was undetectable, that was a high tech steroid called 'the clear'.

Barry has admitted using steroids 'accidentally'; that they were is a cream he used, and he had no idea it contained illegal substances, Yet if you read that book, you will have little doubt at the end. There is still an active investigation going on into whether Bonds committed perjury in claiming he never 'knowingly' used steroids.

In addition, look at the 'before' and 'after' photos of Bonds, look how his HR stats took off after his steroid use began, and how he had every injury typically tied to steroids.

As to Pete Rose, I agree that he would have been served by staying out of the limelight, and 'shutting up'. He manages to offend many people who used to support him, when he changes his story every year.

Less said, Best said.

I didn't read the book, but I read enough excerpts to convince me that I didn't need to buy it and read it to know that Bonds used steroids. I believe he used them, and agree with all you have written above. I don't think there's any question he did, but there's no smoking gun (YET), similar to the Dowd Report in the Rose case, or even to the trial in 1921 in which all the Black Sox were actually acquitted legally of conspiracy to defraud the public, but not reinstated by Landis, who had thrown them out of the game for life prior to the trial.

Was Bonds the only one? What about the others? My point is that it was not just Bonds, it was very widespread. The Reds had a popular 2nd baseman during the late 90's who was a punch and judy type hitter until he showed up all muscled-up one spring training, hits a bunch of HR's, leaves the Reds and makes millions and millions of dollars. Bonds is despised by enough people outside of San Francisco that he will wind up bearing the brunt of this, perhaps fittingly, because he gained the most, and has the highest profile. I'm just saying it wasn't just him, and the problem is not fixed by declaring him ineligible. How does baseball best handle this problem?

Stingray
03-17-2007, 10:44 PM
If McGuire & Bonds Belong, Rose does. Based on on-field performance.

mbgrayson
03-18-2007, 12:26 AM
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4534&stc=1&d=1174188173
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4535&stc=1&d=1174188173
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4536&stc=1&d=1174188173
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4537&stc=1&d=1174188173
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4538&stc=1&d=1174188173
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4539&stc=1&d=1174188173
http://www.redszone.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4540&stc=1&d=1174188173

Always Red
03-18-2007, 12:31 AM
great pics! thanks for posting.

KoryMac5
03-18-2007, 12:43 AM
If McGuire & Bonds Belong, Rose does. Based on on-field performance.

Neither McGwire or Bonds have been voted in. Bonds does have testimony stating he took them and McGwire continues to not acknowledge it. It seems the big theory for voting Pete in is that performance enhancers are worse than gambling because it had nothing to do with his on the field performance. However Rose did use amphetamines to enhance his performance and it was stated on the record in an article by the NY times that friends say these drugs helped him perform. I continue to read this thread because many posters are making great arguments, but I for one can't allow a liar, gambler and drug user in the HOF.

Wheelhouse
03-18-2007, 12:44 AM
Nope.
http://www.fansedge.com/Players/Images/Product/33-59/33-59804-P.jpg
Pete was a great player and I wish more players went about their business with his commitment. But Pete is really sick, and the worst thing for him would be to be in the HOF. Every time people go to bat for him he makes them look like fools. He's constantly equivocating. Selling his personalized apology on a baseball is just thumbing his nose at baseball and the fans. Either that or he is deranged. If the Hall were strictly about on-the-field performance there would be a formula for admission. But the standard for admission in terms of performance is very vague--and like it or not, character does come into play. It is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Achievement. Unfortunately, Pete's "fame" in the game is almost as pronounced for his lying on this issue as it is for his performance as a player.

Dom Heffner
03-18-2007, 12:51 AM
The point is that a member's character issues have nothing to do with entrance into the Hall-of-Fame.


Gambling is not a character issue so much as it is an integrity of game issue.

realistic
03-18-2007, 12:54 AM
Its ridiculous to say that Pete Rose would alter the way he managed a game to win a $2500 wager. That was pocket change to him, he gambled for the thrill not for the profit.

At the same time - I find it impossible to believe that he ALWAYS bet on the Reds and NEVER bet against them. Eventually that will come out too (probably after hes dead) and unspeakable chaos will ensue. Even so I still feel thats no crime for the petty amounts involved. Stupid? Yes. Unforgivable? No.

So i say yes to him in the hall. Its just mean spirited haters across the nation that want to keep him out, the very same people that bash Bonds. If this were a Yankee involved RZ would not be too understanding or forgiving. Like Tony Montana said - you need bad guys to make yourself feel like a good guy.

Now, should it ever come out that he bet 50k on a game to lose, then I would oppose his induction.

bomarl1969
03-18-2007, 07:12 PM
.As someone born after Rose and the BRM, I feel like Rose is hurting the Reds every time he opens his mouth.

Own up to it, and shut up. Then I might start to respect you.


He IS owning up to it...besides, you say he is an embarrassment, well you are just a kid that didn't grow up admiring Pete, so shut up. I did, I saw the great one play, and if only you could've seen what the man did on the baseball diamond you would change your mind. Anyone that says otherwise is NOT a true Reds fan.

gonelong
03-18-2007, 08:01 PM
He IS owning up to it...

How do you know? Everything the man has said on the subject has been a lie or at best a partial truth. People in the know seem to think he is lying yet again.


... besides, you say he is an embarrassment, well you are just a kid that didn't grow up admiring Pete, so shut up. I did, I saw the great one play, and if only you could've seen what the man did on the baseball diamond you would change your mind.

I doubt it. I saw what the man did on the field and I think the man is an embarrassment to himself first and foremost, but to the organization and fanbase as well. He was a great player, but he has not been a very good person.


Anyone that says otherwise is NOT a true Reds fan.

I'll add that to the list of criteria that has been set forth on this board over the years for a "true Reds fan" (http://www.redszone.com/forums/search.php?s=&do=showresults&searchid=200224&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending). As far as I can tell not a single person would qualify. :laugh:

GL

pedro
03-18-2007, 08:06 PM
Oh Gonelong, you're just a kid, after all, you're 4 months younger than bomarl1969 so you should obviously just "shut up" ;)

:lol:

MartyFan
03-18-2007, 09:17 PM
I am beyond caring if Pete ever goes to the HOF...

M2
03-18-2007, 09:54 PM
I am beyond caring if Pete ever goes to the HOF...

That's pretty much where I'm at. Theoretically, sure he belongs in the HOF. Do I think he deserves that moment in the sun? No. Normally I think it's a shame when Cooperstown fails to induct a worthy player while he's alive. In Pete's case, my sympathy has eroded.

I saw Pete Rose play, so I don't need anyone to tell me how great he was. Means nothing to me if he makes it in.

If they want to stick him in the HOF after he and everyone who saw him play passes on, that's fine by me. Then it would just be the case of the museum doing its job, telling the story of his on-field glory and unfortunate shame.

BigRed
03-18-2007, 10:19 PM
I love Pete for what he did on the field. However, whenever he gets a chance, he opens his stupid mouth and makes himself look worse. Pete has lied so much that I doubt that he knows the truth himself anymore. I would like to see him in the hall of fame, but I don't think that he will get there due to his own stupidity.