Rumors: Bob Castellini and Pete Rose

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by tixe

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

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

And I don't care anymore.

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

[westofyou]

He's not been given ANY chances.

The offered a deal he turned it down, 15 years later he revealed he's a liar.

Surprise!!

[savafan]

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

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by savafan

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

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

[George Foster]

Originally Posted by westofyou

The offered a deal he turned it down, 15 years later he revealed he's a liar.

Surprise!!

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

[savafan]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Pete blew it with the book.

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

[Team Clark]

If Browning can go to ST as an instructor then anyone with a criminal past (including the infractions most fans are unaware of) can go as an instructor.

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

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

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

[RedFanAlways1966]

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

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

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

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

[TeamBoone]

So I guess that exonerates everyone else who does horrible things... examples given in several posts... because those things aren't in the rule book.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by TeamBoone

So I guess that exonerates everyone else who does horrible things... examples given in several posts... because those things aren't in the rule book.

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

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

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

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

[Team Clark]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

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

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

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

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

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

[tsj017]

Originally Posted by KronoRed

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

Yeah, that's the obvious and best solution.

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

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

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

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

:thumbdown

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

[REDREAD]

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

[Roy Tucker]

I can't conceive of how Rose could come back to the Reds in any capacity and not have it be a big deal.

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

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

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