TOPPS disses Rose

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You don't see the difference in not allowing new products have him on them versus erasing him from photos of things that happened?

This is a great idea from baseball. You get what you deserve. Pete thought he was bigger than the rules of baseball. He wasn't. Now he is paying the price.

I agree that Pete gets what he deserves. And so far he has gotten it. I also think it should continue while he is alive. However, unless they strike all his statistics from the books I think this is silly. To mention 4,256 hits. To mention other names that hold "significant" records. It really punishes the fans IMO.

Can you have it both ways? His name is on top of the list for hits in the Baseball Encyclopedia. His name graces many other lists in that same publication. His name and other items belonging to him have been on display in Cooperstown. Perhaps I do not get it, but it seems very hypocritical to me.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Pete is the all time hits leader. Sorry it pains some of you.

[AmarilloRed]

You can ban him from baseball, but that doesn't mean you can nullify his achievements or career in baseball. Topps seems set on doing exactly that.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

I agree that Pete gets what he deserves. And so far he has gotten it. I also think it should continue while he is alive. However, unless they strike all his statistics from the books I think this is silly. To mention 4,256 hits. To mention other names that hold "significant" records. It really punishes the fans IMO.

Can you have it both ways? His name is on top of the list for hits in the Baseball Encyclopedia. His name graces many other lists in that same publication. His name and other items belonging to him have been on display in Cooperstown. Perhaps I do not get it, but it seems very hypocritical to me.

Really? Fans are PUNISHED because they couldn't read Pete's name on a stinkin' baseball card?

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Really? Fans are PUNISHED because they couldn't read Pete's name on a stinkin' baseball card?

What's punishing is having to read some of this stuff. Rose owns the record. Some of this stuff is ridiculous.

[LoganBuck]

Who cares about Pete Rose anyway? Seriously. I touched off a mini Sportstalk brouhaha over calling Lance out on Twitter for demanding that Pete be reinstated before the Allstar game in 2015. I pointed out that people under 35 don't remember seeing Pete play, and therefore they don't care about him. I went so far as to say, that I hold a grudge against him for ruining the 1989 season. Lance flipped out, and then old ladies called in saying that they want Pete to manage the Reds. Yep, manage the Reds, now. Forrest Gump's Mother had a saying for this....

[RANDY IN INDY]

Anyone who follows the history of the greatest game.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

Anyone who follows the history of the greatest game.

Sorry, Pete Rose fans don't have a monopoly on that.

[RANDY IN INDY]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Sorry, Pete Rose fans don't have a monopoly on that.

Did I say that? I have no idea what you are talking about.

[mbgrayson]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Well, you know, except for all of those "greenies" that he took which are absolutely banned today and would get you suspended just as quick as steroids or HGH would.

First of all, he was never in any way punished for greenies, nor was anyone else in his era. Not Aaron, Mays, Bench, etc. Greenies were apparently readily availbale in every MLB club house, and it is totally wrong to pick Rose out of everyone else on that issue. This has been hashed over by Pete Rose haters for years and I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

He was banned for gambling on baseball. Period. That infraction is certainly bad enough in it's own right, but in no way does it impact the wonderful playing career that Pete Rose gave us. In no conceivable way does it diminish his 4,256 career hits. Period.

Topps doesn’t acknowledge Rose’s accomplishment on the back of its card in a new section labeled “Career Chase” that shows how far off other players are from historic milestones.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/0...#ixzz2KqMTMVgO

Finally, why would Topps choose to omit Rose's all-time hit record, without also 'taking away' Bonds all time or single season HR record? There is a guy whose infractions directly impacted his records.

I will tell you for a FACT that anyone can cite that Rose is the all time hit leader, and if you don't use his photo, you don't pay him anything. It's simply a historical fact. It's not subject to copyright, trademark, or patent. It's pure public domain. So I just don't buy that because he is banned, that Topps can't use his name or his record. This is a CHOICE Topps has made, and it warps the significance of Rose's MLB records.

Topps may like the publicity this gets, but I for one am finished with their products for good. I'm closing my E-Topps account, and never buying from them again.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You don't see the difference in not allowing new products have him on them versus erasing him from photos of things that happened?

This is a great idea from baseball. You get what you deserve. Pete thought he was bigger than the rules of baseball. He wasn't. Now he is paying the price.

This is a lame excuse. Even baseball acknowledges he is the hit king. There is a difference between promoting him in products and simply acknowledging that as a player, he is still recognized as the career leader in hits.

[kaldaniels]

To those upset...lets make sure the right party is being blamed.

I read this as it wasn't Topps decision to make...it was in the contract that Rose (or any player on the ineligible list) can't be on the product. And if I were Topps I would hardly let that stop me from pursuing a contract with MLB.

It seems this is MLB's doing, right?

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

To those upset...lets make sure the right party is being blamed.

I read this as it wasn't Topps decision to make...it was in the contract that Rose (or any player on the ineligible list) can't be on the product. And if I were Topps I would hardly let that stop me from pursuing a contract with MLB.

It seems this is MLB's doing, right?

Yes it does. MLB is the primary entity behaving stupidly here.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

I will tell you for a FACT that anyone can cite that Rose is the all time hit leader, and if you don't use his photo, you don't pay him anything. It's simply a historical fact. It's not subject to copyright, trademark, or patent. It's pure public domain. So I just don't buy that because he is banned, that Topps can't use his name or his record. This is a CHOICE Topps has made, and it warps the significance of Rose's MLB records.

Well said.
Regardless of whether or not Rose or any of the presumed PEDs users should be in the Hall of Fame, one argument for their inclusion which I have never believed was valid was the assertion that unless Rose or Bonds or Clemens or whoever was inducted into the Hall of Fame, then the history of the game was incomplete.
That argument is simply without merit. It is not necessary to give Bobby Thompson a HOF plaque to document his heroics in the 1951 NL playoffs ( "The Giants Win The Pennant! The Giants Win The Pennant!"). Don Larsen didn't need to be inducted in the HOF for his World Series perfect game to be recalled in Cooperstown. And I know as a fact that, at least as of last July, even though Rose isn't in the HOF, the career of Pete Rose is documented there. I viewed one of Rose's uniforms on display there last July, along with other documentation of his accomplishments as a player.
However, what MLB has reportedly done in this instance is the equivalent of airbrushing history. It isn't an unknown player who got 4256 hits-it was Pete Rose. Documenting that historical fact is not promoting Rose, it is simply accurately recording baseball history.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN INDY

Anyone who follows the history of the greatest game.

That is why I can't stand Pete. At all.

What did he do? He took away MY CHANCE to celebrate an all time great in the sport I love, in the city I love and the team I love because he thought he was special. If I were a fan of another team, I probably wouldn't be a fan or anything, but I would not have downright disdain for him or get angry when people bring him up. The guy took away so much from my ability as a Cincinnati native who happens to love baseball and the Reds because he was selfish. Because he thought he was bigger than the game.