Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hall should forgive them all

    18 46.15%
  • Dont let any of the cheaters in, keep the Hall clean

    11 28.21%
  • could care less, disgusted by all of it

    10 25.64%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 109

Thread: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

  1. #46
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,837

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jpup View Post
    Pete Rose, on MLB Home Plate channel on Sirius XM Radio, asked his reaction to A-Rod admitting to being a steroid cheat: "I don't want to listen to all this B.S. on ESPN about how he was a kid and didn't know what he was doing and stuff like that. I mean, you did it. You admitted it. Go on with your life. In 2003 I believe he was 29 years old. He came up in '93 so he had seven or eight years in the big leagues. I'm just not one of these guys that believe if you sign a $250 million contract that you have any kind of pressure to have to play like a superstar. Just go out and play. It's got to be easier playing when you get a $250 million contract, doesn't it?" -- Sirius XM Radio

    That's quite the turnaround from the Pete/Arod relationship chronicled thus far. I thought they were mentor/student.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Beer is good!! George Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,773

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron View Post

    Have you ever seen a NASCAR race driver in the winner's circle after a race, as his hat constantly is changed so that each sponsor gets some screen time? That's how I picture Rose at a HOF induction ceremony. Every few sentences of his acceptance speech Pete could put another a different hat and get in a plug for each sponsor.
    Then similar to the items from 4192, hundreds of the authentic hats that Pete wore during the ceremony would suddenly pop up all over the place for sale much in the same way there are like 10-20 bats, hats, shirts etc. floating around that Pete used when he got 4192.

    This is all pretty funny but also pretty sad because I have zero doubt it would happen.
    "Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard

  4. #48
    Red's fan mbgrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,061

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    Hustle: The Myth, Life, and Lies of Pete Rose Author: Michael Sokolove

    Rose was investigated by Harry Fitzgibbon who had investigated Denny McClain, Pete had numerous gambling debts for horse racing and bookies, he was tipped off by a local cop and the investigation was "Open" for 11 years until he (Fitzgibbon) retired. The Rub was Fitzgibbon was Reds fan and he couldn't get firm info on Rose from local bookies, hence the open investigation for 11 years. The Reds knew and Wagner even went as far as commenting in 1978 that he was afraid Rose would end up with some broken limbs once he retired.
    I have also read this book, and it is certainly troubling to hear about all of the dirtbag-types Rose hung around. Yet there are not even any specific allegations in that book or anywhere, to my knowledge, about Rose even allegedly betting on baseball in his playing days.

    I also watched Rose during his time with the Reds and Phils. Whatever his faults, I just don't see Rose ever throwing a game. He was about winning first and foremost. The head first slides, the running to first on walks, the diving catches, the firey temperment, the base hit and RBI on an intentional walk, etc...Pete was always about winning. I simply never saw the guy even play lackluster ball, let alone do anything that could be constued as throwing a game.

    I can understand why some assume the worst about Pete's character, and that just because he says he didn't bet on baseball in the 70s, that means he did. But the reality is quite different: people still get to be presumed innocent. In this case, nobody, not Dowd, not Fitzgibbon, NOBODY has come forward with any specific allegations or proof or anything that Rose ever threw a game, bet on baseball in his earlier years, or did anything crooked that would taint his records.

    It has been almost twenty years since Pete Rose was declared ‘permanently ineligible’ in accordance with Major League Rule 21(d), with the stipulation that he could request reinstatement. (On August 24, 1989, Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent place on baseball’s ineligible list. Rose accepted that there was a factual reason for the ban; in return, Major League Baseball agreed to make no formal finding with regard to the gambling allegations. According to baseball's rules, Rose could apply for reinstatement in one year.) Actual agreement is HERE.

    At that time, there was no Hall of Fame Rule banning players who are on the ineligible list from the Hall of Fame ballot. On February 4, 1991, the Hall of Fame voted to formally exclude individuals on the permanently ineligible list from being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Rose is the only living member of the ineligible list.

    Pete Rose has applied for reinstatement, and Commissioner Selig has failed to even respond to him. Rose has now(belatedly) admitted violating Rule 21(d).

    To me, the punishment of being excluded from the HOF was not discussed or contemplated by the agreement Rose entered into in 1989. The rules in place at that time would not have excluded him fom the ballot. Then, after the fact, the rules changed.

    I think Rose should be allowed on the HOF ballot. Then, if the writers vote him in, he would get in. The problem is that now he would not be eligible because too much time has passed since he quit baseball(fifteen year rule). I still think Rose belongs in the HOF, but should not be allowed back in baseball.

    I actually think Rose would be so grateful to get in the HOF, that at least for that day, he would be unlikely to further tarnish himself or the game by any crass commercialism or stupidity. It doesn't look like we will ever find out, at least not while Selig is in charge.
    Last edited by mbgrayson; 02-10-2009 at 04:19 PM.
    __________________
    ďA healthy Reds team is a strong Reds team"

  5. #49
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,294

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    I have also read this book, and it is certainly troubling to hear about all of the dirtbag-types Rose hung around. Yet there are not even any specific allegations in that book or anywhere, to my knowledge, about Rose even allegedly betting on baseball in his playing days.

    I also watched Rose during his time with the Reds and Phils. Whatever his faults, I just don't see Rose ever throwing a game. He was about winning first and foremost. The head first slides, the running to first on walks, the diving catches, the firey temperment, the base hit and RBI on an intentional walk, etc...Pete was always about winning. I simply never saw the guy even play lackluster ball, let alone do anything that could be constued as throwing a game.
    I was there too, so I agree on the appearance of Pete as never playing below a certain threshold... but I didn't see everything he ever did on a baseball field nor can I climb in his head to know if he's pulling one over on us or not. That said where there is smoke there is often fire and Pete's gambling problems put him and his team in precarious positions in the late 80's and now one has to at least acknowledge that the possibility exists that Pete was involved in more than we'll ever know.

  6. #50
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,450

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbgrayson View Post
    I also watched Rose during his time with the Reds and Phils. Whatever his faults, I just don't see Rose ever throwing a game. He was about winning first and foremost. The head first slides, the running to first on walks, the diving catches, the firey temperment, the base hit and RBI on an intentional walk, etc...Pete was always about winning. I simply never saw the guy even play lackluster ball, let alone do anything that could be constued as throwing a game.
    I used to say the exact same thing. Until Pete Rose kept making it a point to say he never bet against his team.

    Aside from that, Hal Chase always played the game the right way.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  7. #51
    nothing more than a fan Always Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincy West
    Posts
    5,090

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbgrayson View Post
    I have also read this book, and it is certainly troubling to hear about all of the dirtbag-types Rose hung around. Yet there are not even any specific allegations in that book or anywhere, to my knowledge, about Rose even allegedly betting on baseball in his playing days.

    I also watched Rose during his time with the Reds and Phils. Whatever his faults, I just don't see Rose ever throwing a game. He was about winning first and foremost. The head first slides, the running to first on walks, the diving catches, the firey temperment, the base hit and RBI on an intentional walk, etc...Pete was always about winning. I simply never saw the guy even play lackluster ball, let alone do anything that could be constued as throwing a game.
    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I used to say the exact same thing. Until Pete Rose kept making it a point to say he never bet against his team.
    I know that Rose is a pathological liar, and I should not believe him, and he doesn't deserve to be believed.

    But I do believe him when he says that he never bet against the Reds.

    Oh, I understand all the arguments made above about Rose, and I have no problem with any of them. As I said, he does not deserve to be believed; anything he says is most probably a lie.

    But in my heart, I believe the man never threw a game. There is no question that he bet on the game, so he made his bed and deserves what he got. I have no argument with that. But I never, ever saw the man give less than everything he had on the field, and also when he was managing the Reds. He turned that team around when he became manager.

    It's just my own dumb belief, and maybe me clinging to the last false image of the man who was my absolute hero when I was a boy growing up on the baseball crazy west side of town, but I will always believe in my heart that Rose never bet against the Reds. Not that it matters, because it doesn't.

  8. #52
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,928

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    I used to say the exact same thing. Until Pete Rose kept making it a point to say he never bet against his team.

    Aside from that, Hal Chase always played the game the right way.
    Except some of Chase's managers and/or teammates made contemporaneous accusations against Chase of at least making a half hearted effort, if not worse, during games, while Chase was still an active player. While Chase was routinely praised for his fielding skills, he actually was accused of not always playing the game the right way. That accusation was never made against Rose while he was active.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  9. #53
    Ripsnort wheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    7,681

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Man.

    Has any topic been "beaten to death" more than the Pete Rose/Steriods/Hall of Fame thing?

    Talk about a subject best let out to pasture.....
    "We know we're better than this, but we can't prove it." - Tony Gwynn

  10. #54
    nothing more than a fan Always Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincy West
    Posts
    5,090

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by wheels View Post
    Man.

    Has any topic been "beaten to death" more than the Pete Rose/Steriods/Hall of Fame thing?
    Not around here. Unless it's Adam Dunn.

  11. #55
    Ripsnort wheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    7,681

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Always Red View Post
    Not around here. Unless it's Adam Dunn.
    Over the years....Yes. I believe it has.
    "We know we're better than this, but we can't prove it." - Tony Gwynn

  12. #56
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,549

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbgrayson View Post
    I have also read this book, and it is certainly troubling to hear about all of the dirtbag-types Rose hung around. Yet there are not even any specific allegations in that book or anywhere, to my knowledge, about Rose even allegedly betting on baseball in his playing days.

    I also watched Rose during his time with the Reds and Phils. Whatever his faults, I just don't see Rose ever throwing a game. He was about winning first and foremost. The head first slides, the running to first on walks, the diving catches, the firey temperment, the base hit and RBI on an intentional walk, etc...Pete was always about winning. I simply never saw the guy even play lackluster ball, let alone do anything that could be constued as throwing a game.

    I can understand why some assume the worst about Pete's character, and that just because he says he didn't bet on baseball in the 70s, that means he did. But the reality is quite different: people still get to be presumed innocent. In this case, nobody, not Dowd, not Fitzgibbon, NOBODY has come forward with any specific allegations or proof or anything that Rose ever threw a game, bet on baseball in his earlier years, or did anything crooked that would taint his records

    Is there really no evidence that Pete didn't bet against the Reds while playing? What about that game where he struck out in 1973? Or that game where he committed an error? Or that one time when he went 0-4? Sure, everybody strikes out and commits errors and has games where they couldn't get a hit. And no one played harder than Pete Rose. But wouldn't that be the perfect cover for someone who's throwing a game? No one who plays that hard would throw a game, or would they? Pete's history and personal character - or lack thereof - has made him a suspicious figure. He certainly isn't credible so you can't take his word for it. Now I don't think he threw games. Everyone makes mistakes and Pete certainly had his share of great plays and big hits. But there has to be some doubt in the back of your mind that he was on the up and up.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  13. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Pook's Hill
    Posts
    1,556

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by mbgrayson View Post
    I won't vote in this poll, because i would let Rose in and not the steroid users.
    Of course it's widely known that Rose, along with many others in the 70's, used greenies. PEDs are not unique to this era.

  14. #58
    Start the Reactor! *BaseClogger*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    6,458

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by wheels View Post
    Man.

    Has any topic been "beaten to death" more than the Pete Rose/Steriods/Hall of Fame thing?

    Talk about a subject best let out to pasture.....
    Personally, I have gained a million times more knowledge from the Dunn debates than from the Rose/steroids debates...
    "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."

  15. #59
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,294

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by puca View Post
    Of course it's widely known that Rose, along with many others in the 70's, used greenies. PEDs are not unique to this era.
    1979 Playboy Interview Pete admits that he uses greenies... so this in Iceholes world would make what I think is called a "junkie" in some circles.

  16. #60
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,463

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by wheels View Post
    Man.

    Has any topic been "beaten to death" more than the Pete Rose/Steriods/Hall of Fame thing?

    Talk about a subject best let out to pasture.....
    Pete Rose is the ultimate fallback topic for national sports talk radio shows. Any time he's in the news, if a call-in host brings up his name, he makes the phones light up for hours. There isn't a baseball fan over 30 who doesn't have an opinion, and usually a strong one, about Charlie Hustle.

    IMO, (unless you're under 30) it's a bit unfair to come to a Reds message board and complain about Pete getting too much play as a topic.
    /r/reds


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25