PDA

View Full Version : Selig considering pardon for Rose



BLEEDS
07-27-2009, 01:26 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/07/27/2009-07-27_pete_rose.html

It's always been my contention that if Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame, there shouldn't be a Hall of Fame.

Drug addicts getting 5/6/7 chances, other cheats, scoundrels and miscreants in the hall, now all the talks of the "astericks" players.

Yes, he should have been banned for what he did.
However, his accomplishments can't be denied. He's the hit king. Nobody will ever even sniff in the general vicinity of that record. If THAT can't get in the Hall, it loses all luster IMO.

20 years is WAAAAY longer than necessary for "paying your debt to society".
Sure, he could have been more contrite, stepped up earlier, etc, etc...
Time to Move on.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

bounty37h
07-27-2009, 01:30 PM
I agree 100%, its not the hall of good behaviors, if your going to let the rest in ya gotta start with Rose. Maybe trying to save face now knowing the druggies are coming soon?

GIDP
07-27-2009, 01:34 PM
I really honestly couldnt care less. He's a stain on the Reds. He was a great player, seems to really enjoy baseball, but he made the biggest mistake you can make in baseball and he deserves what he got.

Selig is just contemplating removing the ban so the roiders get an easier shot at the hall.

bounty37h
07-27-2009, 01:37 PM
^swung through a 3-0 pitch? threw behind a runner?

GIDP
07-27-2009, 01:39 PM
^swung through a 3-0 pitch? threw behind a runner?

:eek:

texasdave
07-27-2009, 01:50 PM
^swung through a 3-0 pitch? threw behind a runner?

Pete played for over 20 years. I am certain he did both at least once. No reason to keep him out of the hall.

GBC Red
07-27-2009, 02:39 PM
I have always thought it was a joke the way the hall doesn't include banned players. It doen't make sense to me to ignore their accomplishments. Put on their plaque that they were banned, but don't just ignore what they've done.

Newman4
07-27-2009, 03:25 PM
he made the biggest mistake you can make in baseball.

That's the biggest mistake in baseball?

Strider
07-27-2009, 04:29 PM
Enough is enough. I've been around long enough to remember Rose as the player, the obnoxious, arrogant, unlikeable arse that he was and probably still is. There is no love lost from me for Rose.

However, Given the time served in the suspension and comparing that to a jail term, nearly anyone not on death row would have had a darn good chance to get released by now.

He can't do anything further to the sport. No one is going to hire him at this point in any visible position.

I've learned over my years to forgive and not hold judgment over others indefinitely for mistakes in the past. While I thought him guilty at the time, there is little point in continuing to judge him for past transgressions.

Bottom Line...he has served his time and I agree with all those above when I say you can't have a credible Hall of Fame without enshrinement of the all time hits leader. Baseball and it's HOF have a long history of rogues over the years. Many Hall of Famers like Ty Cobb would not be in the Hall of Fame if their career were judged in the light of today.

There are a couple of Hall of Fame players who will protest. My guess is that many of them would not protest as much if the back stories on their careers in MLB were ever revealed to the public. We have not had many saints in baseball.

Besides, Selig is a former Used Car salesman...it's not like he has the perfect "10" history himself.

Selig just needs to reinstate Rose and get it over with.
In all probability the writers or veterans committee (whoever has current jurisdiction) will make him jump more hoops before they ever let him in.

As long as he is banned...Rose will be a more sympathetic figure than he has any right to be.

Reinstate him and move along.

BRM13
07-27-2009, 05:50 PM
I recall reading (in Reston's book?, Collision at the Plate?) that when Rose agreed to be suspended for life he was offered a choice by Giamatti. Lifetime ban or 7 year ban. Why did he take life? Because Giamiatti told him if 'reconfigured his life' he could apply for reinstatement after one year. Rose thought, arrogantly and foolishly IMHO, that he'd get reinstated after a year and didn't want to sit out for 7 long years when he'd been in MLB from 1963-1989 continuously as a player/manager. Of course, he's never really reconfigured his life in the way that Giamatti meant, so he'd have waited a long time to get back in.

Of course Giamatti died right away and Vincent, who hated him for being a scumbag and for stressing Giamatti to death (in Vincent's opinion), never gave Rose a chance to get back in. IMO had Bart Giamatti not died, he'd have relented eventually (certainly not within one year and maybe not within 7 years) and let Rose back in. I think that Giammati wanted to ban Rose for a long time, but not forever (hence the 7 year ban that he offered Rose); he wanted to make an example of Rose. That has been done and Selig can in good conscience let Rose back in.

Finally, in my opinion the rule against gambling should have a bit more nuance. Throwing World Series games is the worst thing. Betting to win spring training games is fairly benign. Rose was in between, so he should get something less than the Black Sox penalty. 20 years is plenty on that scale.

steig
07-27-2009, 05:55 PM
Rose broke the highest rule of the game knowing the penalty for betting on baseball games. The only way he should be considered for reinstatement into baseball is if Selig is going to also reinstate all of the black sox and allow Shoeless Joe to be voted on for the Hall of Fame.

GIDP
07-27-2009, 06:09 PM
rose lied for how many years about betting on baseball and you expect me to believe he never bet on them to lose?

BRM13
07-27-2009, 06:53 PM
rose lied for how many years about betting on baseball and you expect me to believe he never bet on them to lose?

I think its hard to believe anything Rose says. The guys who investigated him and the guys who ran his bets are the ones who say that all the betting they know about was to win. I'd say it seems inconsistent with his win at all costs personality to bet against the team he was managing.

The question that will likely determine if Rose ever gets in the HOF (if Selig reinstates him) is Rose's claim he only started betting as manager. I know that some of the guys in the hall (who vote as the Veterans Committee) think Rose actually started gambling at the tail end of his playing career and they view that as worse for a couple of reasons. One is the sustained lie about it. Second, is that he can't be allowed to slide on something he did as a player when evaluating whether his playing career merits induction in the HOF. There aren't any bet runners or bookies claiming otherwise, or other evidence that he bet as a player, but the suspicion is out there among former players and, as you say, you can't really believe a guy who has lied as much as Rose has that he only started gambling on baseball after he retired as a player.

BlastFurnace
07-27-2009, 06:58 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2009/07/27/2009-07-27_pete_rose.html

It's always been my contention that if Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame, there shouldn't be a Hall of Fame.

Drug addicts getting 5/6/7 chances, other cheats, scoundrels and miscreants in the hall, now all the talks of the "astericks" players.

Yes, he should have been banned for what he did.
However, his accomplishments can't be denied. He's the hit king. Nobody will ever even sniff in the general vicinity of that record. If THAT can't get in the Hall, it loses all luster IMO.

20 years is WAAAAY longer than necessary for "paying your debt to society".
Sure, he could have been more contrite, stepped up earlier, etc, etc...
Time to Move on.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Are you willing to let Shoeless Joe in on the same day?

BlastFurnace
07-27-2009, 06:59 PM
I wish he could be our manager again. I don't care if he bets on our team to win. Atleast we won when he was in charge.

will5979
07-27-2009, 07:38 PM
I wish he could be our manager again. I don't care if he bets on our team to win. Atleast we won when he was in charge.

AMEN! :beerme:

steig
07-27-2009, 09:54 PM
I wish he could be our manager again. I don't care if he bets on our team to win. Atleast we won when he was in charge.

What did we win when Pete was in charge? The Reds didn't win a World Series with Pete in charge let alone a division title. Pete may have won some bets but I think the evidence suggests he lost most of the time.

BlastFurnace
07-27-2009, 11:06 PM
What did we win when Pete was in charge? The Reds didn't win a World Series with Pete in charge let alone a division title. Pete may have won some bets but I think the evidence suggests he lost most of the time.

After watching nearly 15 years of pathetic baseball, I would settle for a competitive team that had a chance to win the division. Pete had passion for the Reds. He bleeds the "Reds". I thought he was a very good manager.

will5979
07-28-2009, 07:41 AM
What did we win when Pete was in charge? The Reds didn't win a World Series with Pete in charge let alone a division title. Pete may have won some bets but I think the evidence suggests he lost most of the time.

The 1990 team was HIS, not fat ass Lou's. Trust me, he would be the best option at manager. Like the one dude said, he bleeds Cincinnati Reds, and the man despises losing, I want a manager like that!

Rockermann
07-28-2009, 10:15 AM
Are you willing to let Shoeless Joe in on the same day?

Apples and oranges, but to answer your question. Yes. Mostly because I've always liked Ray Liotta. :)

bounty37h
07-28-2009, 10:20 AM
Rose broke the highest rule of the game knowing the penalty for betting on baseball games. The only way he should be considered for reinstatement into baseball is if Selig is going to also reinstate all of the black sox and allow Shoeless Joe to be voted on for the Hall of Fame.

I think shoeless joe should be in, so agree with you there. But for the rest, do you think the druggies should be in, after all, they cheated at the game, which is the concern behind the gambling rule, the impact and outcome of the game is hindered by both. I have opinions on both sides to be honest, but dont think you can have a legit hall of fame and leave one of the best of all time out.

steig
07-28-2009, 06:13 PM
I think shoeless joe should be in, so agree with you there. But for the rest, do you think the druggies should be in, after all, they cheated at the game, which is the concern behind the gambling rule, the impact and outcome of the game is hindered by both. I have opinions on both sides to be honest, but dont think you can have a legit hall of fame and leave one of the best of all time out.

I think you can have a legitimate HOF leaving some of the best baseball players out. The baseball HOF does have an integrity portion and takes into consideration actions off the field, unlike football which just cares about on the field success. The trade off between integrity and greatness as a baseball player is for the HOF voters to decide. I don't believe the HOF is illegitimate because Joe Jackson or Pete Rose are not in the HOF. I think it illustrates how hard it is to get into the baseball HOF and the greatness of the current members.

The use of PEDs is a severe offense to the game because the players stripped the integrity of the game away from the fans. For this generation of players i think you have to look at the player and see if you can establish a time when the player started using steroids and how if effected there numbers for the HOF, however, I think this really only applies to Bonds and Clemens. Bonds clearly started using steroids around 1999. If he had retired in 1999 he would have been a first ballot HOFer so I would put Bonds in but steroid use should be noted next to all of his numbers. But Bonds off the field legal issues should be considered and may be grounds to keep him out. For Clemens he probably started taking steroids around 1992 to resurrect his career, I think steroids turned his stats into HOF stats, so I don't think he should be inducted into the HOF. For the other players I don't think you will be able to look at their career numbers and get an idea of when they started cheating, so keep them out of the HOF. You can always add a player to the HOF, even if it is posthumous, but you can't take them out of the HOF.

Baseball has an integrity issue right now because of steroids which it has been working to eliminate with testing and severe penalties, let's not reduce the integrity of the game and HOF by allowing Rose back into baseball.

will5979
07-29-2009, 07:20 AM
Baseball has an integrity issue right now because of steroids which it has been working to eliminate with testing and severe penalties, let's not reduce the integrity of the game and HOF by allowing Rose back into baseball.

Dude, if you are a Reds fan shouldn't you WANT Rose in the HOF? IMO if you don't support Rose getting to the hall then you ain't a Reds fans. Pete Rose IS Cincinnati Reds baseball. You must be one of them young Starbucks sippin college hippy.

BlastFurnace
07-29-2009, 09:15 AM
Apples and oranges, but to answer your question. Yes. Mostly because I've always liked Ray Liotta. :)

Both consipred with gamblers

There is no proof that either man "threw" a game, but there is suspicion

Both are on thr ineligible list of Baseball Players

Both are clearly HOF'rs without these allegations

There may be some differences, but clearly there are similarities.

bounty37h
07-29-2009, 10:04 AM
I think you can have a legitimate HOF leaving some of the best baseball players out. The baseball HOF does have an integrity portion and takes into consideration actions off the field, unlike football which just cares about on the field success. The trade off between integrity and greatness as a baseball player is for the HOF voters to decide. I don't believe the HOF is illegitimate because Joe Jackson or Pete Rose are not in the HOF. I think it illustrates how hard it is to get into the baseball HOF and the greatness of the current members.

The use of PEDs is a severe offense to the game because the players stripped the integrity of the game away from the fans. For this generation of players i think you have to look at the player and see if you can establish a time when the player started using steroids and how if effected there numbers for the HOF, however, I think this really only applies to Bonds and Clemens. Bonds clearly started using steroids around 1999. If he had retired in 1999 he would have been a first ballot HOFer so I would put Bonds in but steroid use should be noted next to all of his numbers. But Bonds off the field legal issues should be considered and may be grounds to keep him out. For Clemens he probably started taking steroids around 1992 to resurrect his career, I think steroids turned his stats into HOF stats, so I don't think he should be inducted into the HOF. For the other players I don't think you will be able to look at their career numbers and get an idea of when they started cheating, so keep them out of the HOF. You can always add a player to the HOF, even if it is posthumous, but you can't take them out of the HOF.

Baseball has an integrity issue right now because of steroids which it has been working to eliminate with testing and severe penalties, let's not reduce the integrity of the game and HOF by allowing Rose back into baseball.

Integrity huh? So, you wanna kick Ruth and those boys out for their illegal drinking and such during prohibition? Integrity is just a word, I bet a lot of players in the HOF would not want background checks on their integrity. Im not saying Rose def should be allowed in, but there is def a valid arguement behind it.

steig
07-29-2009, 07:00 PM
Dude, if you are a Reds fan shouldn't you WANT Rose in the HOF? IMO if you don't support Rose getting to the hall then you ain't a Reds fans. Pete Rose IS Cincinnati Reds baseball. You must be one of them young Starbucks sippin college hippy.

I'm not some hippy, starbucks sippin college kid. I'm a baseball fan and I'm loyal to the Reds. I'm not loyal to the name on the back of the jersey, I'm loyal to the team. When it comes to the HOF you should be a baseball fan and want what is best for baseball. Pete Rose hurt the game of baseball with his gambling and continued lying about gambling. Cincinnati Reds baseball was good before Pete Rose and will hopefully be good again without Pete Rose as a part of the organization.

Fon Duc Tow
07-29-2009, 08:04 PM
I'm not some hippy, starbucks sippin college kid. I'm a baseball fan and I'm loyal to the Reds. I'm not loyal to the name on the back of the jersey, I'm loyal to the team. When it comes to the HOF you should be a baseball fan and want what is best for baseball. Pete Rose hurt the game of baseball with his gambling and continued lying about gambling. Cincinnati Reds baseball was good before Pete Rose and will hopefully be good again without Pete Rose as a part of the organization.

Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, those guys were all saints, right?

"Oh Noes!!! Pete bet on baseball!!!1111"

That is somehow worse than racism, drugs, alcohol, and other such transgressions from many Hall of Famers.

Let Shoeless Pete in. Put a dollar sign for an * next to his name if it makes everyone feel better. Heck, Pete would probably even like that.

will5979
07-30-2009, 08:06 AM
I'm not some hippy, starbucks sippin college kid. I'm a baseball fan and I'm loyal to the Reds. I'm not loyal to the name on the back of the jersey, I'm loyal to the team. When it comes to the HOF you should be a baseball fan and want what is best for baseball. Pete Rose hurt the game of baseball with his gambling and continued lying about gambling. Cincinnati Reds baseball was good before Pete Rose and will hopefully be good again without Pete Rose as a part of the organization.


Yeah, when were they good before or after Rose? One year in 10 or 15 doesn't make them good IMO. Rose was responsible for helping this organization win 3 World Championships in 15 years. I said it before, 1990 was HIS team that fat Lou inherited. Cincinnati and its fans should all kiss Rose's ass for bringing greatness and glory to the Reds, there will never be another, mark my words.

steig
07-30-2009, 09:49 AM
Yeah, when were they good before or after Rose? One year in 10 or 15 doesn't make them good IMO. Rose was responsible for helping this organization win 3 World Championships in 15 years. I said it before, 1990 was HIS team that fat Lou inherited. Cincinnati and its fans should all kiss Rose's ass for bringing greatness and glory to the Reds, there will never be another, mark my words.

Pete Rose was the manager...he didn't draft Barry Larkin, Chris Sabo, Eric Davis and he didn't organize the trade for Rijo and Benzinger.

will5979
07-30-2009, 12:55 PM
Pete Rose was the manager...he didn't draft Barry Larkin, Chris Sabo, Eric Davis and he didn't organize the trade for Rijo and Benzinger.

He moled them and chipped away the rough edges making that club a team.