Selig mulling pardon for Rose

[mbgrayson]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Yes, I well aware of that. I've spent some time studying the game.

My point is whitewashing Roses gambling incident with the use of steroids is a simplistic look at what he did and a home town attempt to cleanse his crime with other incidents that have nothing to do with his transgressions, and it happens every year on this board since Jim Grey stuck the mic in Pete's face that night.

It's a hilarious attempt each and every time that is more an exercise in soapbox dragging and less in fessing up to what the man did ... as manager of the Reds.

As for myself, I have no trouble admitting exactly what Rose did: he bet on the Reds(to win) in games where he was their manager. That was wrong, and violated MLB rules that are well known to all, and as a consequence, Rose has lost his job, been banned from the game he loved for 20 years, and that has cost him millions of dollars he would have earned as a coach or manager.

Rose is also a convicted tax cheat, adulterer(sp?), and a greenie user. And more, I'm sure. I got over having him as my boyhood baseball hero about 30 years ago when he left the Reds for more money in Philadelphia.

Yet, I will still take Pete in the HOF, seven days a week, and twice on Sunday. He is in the top of numerous career hitting categories, won batting titles, ROY, an MVP, three world series rings (two for the Reds), and has career stats that make many other Hall of Famers pale in comparison. Did you know Rose batted .321 in 300 post-season plate appearances? That he played in 17 All Star games, and started at 5 different positions? That he won the Gehrig Award, the Hutch Award, and the Clemente Award? See Baseball Reference.com. Most of all, I was lucky enough to see him play. The man hustled, and wanted to win, more than any player I have seen. Relentless.

I also am ok with Rose not ever having a job in MLB again. But this is a lot more than just a Cincinnati thing. The HOF has never been about character. If it is, why is Ty cobb in there? He was actually accused of fixing baseball games, and was only 'acquitted' when he intimidated his accuser into not showing up for the hearing. Other Ty Cobb notes of interest, from Wikipedia:

Cobb climbed into the stands and attacked the handicapped Lueker, who due to an industrial accident had lost all of one hand and three fingers on his other hand. When onlookers shouted at Cobb to stop because the man had no hands, Cobb reportedly replied, "I don't care if he has no feet!"[42]

Cobb once slapped a black elevator operator for being "uppity." When a black night watchman intervened, Cobb pulled out a knife and stabbed him. The matter was later settled out of court.[16]

A personal achievement came in February, 1936, when the first Hall of Fame election results were announced. Cobb had been named on 222 of 226 ballots, outdistancing Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson, the only others to earn the necessary 75% of votes to be elected in that first year. His 98.2 percentage stood as the record until Tom Seaver received 98.8% of the vote in 1992 (Nolan Ryan and Cal Ripken have also surpassed Cobb, with 98.79% and 98.53% of the votes, respectively). Those incredible results show that although many people disliked him personally, they respected the way he played and what he accomplished.

That last quote summarizes how I feel about Pete Rose and the HOF. I really don't think it is right to keep Rose off the ballots. If voters don't pick him, so be it. But at least let him have his chance....

[savafan]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

So you think using PEDs deserves a lifetime ban? Or do you think 1st gambling offense should be a 50 game suspension?

I believe PEDs deserves a lifetime ban.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

The HOF has never been about character. If it is, why is Ty cobb in there?

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on a game in which they were a part of in 1919. There was documented proof. Dutch Leonard went to commissioner Landis with the proof in hopes of having the two banned from the game. Landis called the players in and did an investigation, and concluded that what they did, while morally wrong, did not violate the rules of baseball. There was no rule back then forbidding players from betting on a game, only throwing a game or conspiring to throw a game, of which Landis could find no proof that Cobb or Speaker had done.

[15fan]

Was sitting in a doc's waiting room yesterday. Picked up the 8/3/09 issue of Time. Interesting article about whether or not Scooter Libby should have received a presidential pardon before GWB left office.

One of the things the article discussed was that there usually is an admission of guilt and a subsequent show of remorse before a pardon is considered / granted.

Drawing a parallel with Pete, he for years fought tooth & nail the body of evidence against him. He set up shop in Cooperstown year after year whoring himself out during HOF induction weekend. He constantly cajoled to be let back in.

He broke one of the rules that at the very core protects the sanctity of the game. He broke it knowingly and repeatedly. Then he was a jerk about it for almost 20 years.

No pardon, IMO.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by savafan

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker bet on a game in which they were a part of in 1919. There was documented proof. Dutch Leonard went to commissioner Landis with the proof in hopes of having the two banned from the game. Landis called the players in and did an investigation, and concluded that what they did, while morally wrong, did not violate the rules of baseball. There was no rule back then forbidding players from betting on a game, only throwing a game or conspiring to throw a game, of which Landis could find no proof that Cobb or Speaker had done.

Let me add to this that the players bet amongst themselves. Baseball did have a rule against consorting with gamblers. Was there a fix? Probably, but not enough evidence to prove it.

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by cincinnati chili

I thought I heard that because he's been retired for more than 15 years, the veterans committee would get to choose, rather than the writers.

Assuming I'm right (always a risk thing to do), until Bob Feller and his ilk kick it, there will be plenty of resistance from the veterans committee as well.

My opinion: Rose's sins were serious, but a 20 year ban is also a serious punishment. I'm fine with a probationary reinstatement. As a Reds fan, I don't want him managing. If his old radio show was any indicator, I don't think I'd like him to announce either.

To me, Selig's decision is a "no-brainer." If he reinstates Rose in a limited fashion, and makes him eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame, it makes Bud appear to be compassionate (rather than a crank like Fay Vincent), and at the same time largely removes Pete Rose as a recurring issue that he has to deal with.
At age 68, and with his past, it is extremely unlikely that any major league team, even the Reds, would ever hire Rose to manage or be in a position to influence the outcome of games, but Selig can always still prohibit Rose from managing. While quite a number of fans still want Rose to make the HOF, there is much less interest and support for Rose ever again managing.
The great thing for Selig is that deciding to restore Rose's HOF eligibity does not itself put Rose in the HOF. As Chili noted, even though Rose never appeared on the writers ballot, since it has been more than 20 years since he retired I have read the decision as to whether or not to induct Rose would now go to the veterans committee. Yes, Rose will have his support from guys such as Schmidt, Perez, probably Morgan and reportedly Aaron, but there are also a number of HOF members who have voiced opposition to Rose. At this point I very much doubt that Rose could get the necessary 75% vote. No matter for Selig though--THAT decision would be out of his hands.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by acredsfan

Interesting thought. A thought in which I find actually helping Pete out because PEDs tarnished an entire era, and not just for one player or one team but for baseball as a whole. Why should steroid users be pardoned and Pete not? Prove Pete bet against the Reds and actually made decisions on purpose that lost games and I'll have a harder time forgiving him. Players didn't have a choice of effecting games or not by using PEDs. If they chose to use, they effected the games they played in. Barry Bonds won games by cheating. He could carry a team and change the outcome of a game as he shot up steroids. Same with Sosa. I know the baseball purists call betting on baseball a cardinal sin, but wouldn't it have been better served if baseball suspended Rose for a definite period of time, made him get help, and tell him that if he screwed up again the consequences would be permanent?

I don't buy into betting being the worst thing a player can do. Throwing a game to win a bet is the worst thing a player or manager can do, and it isn't proven he did that. Pete hated losing, the question is which he hated to lose the most, his games which paid him the money to gamble, or the bets he placed. My guess is he felt he should win every night, so I'm not quick to accuse him of throwing games.

Interesting take. So you are differentiating between betting to win and betting to lose. OK. But you'd agree that all PEDs users are doing it to win, correct? Why the difference? Both are cheating in order to win games.

Do you think the rule posted in every clubhouse should be amended to only include betting to lose?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by savafan

I believe PEDs deserves a lifetime ban.

OK, fair enough. You feel more strongly about PEDs than most of us but I respect that. I don't think guys like Pettitte should be banned for life but that's where we differ

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Until/unless it's shown that Pete Rose ever bet on the Reds to lose, he probably did not jeopardize the integrity of the game. That's not letting him off the hook for what he did, but unless there's any evidence he 'threw' games, I think he served his punishment and it's time to let him off the hook.

I do think gambling on your own games is worse than steroids, but since there's no one claiming he intended to try and lose, he did not do something that shouldn't be forgiven.

Had he thrown games (or bet against the Reds, giving the appearance he did), I without question would not condone his reinstatement. But since that's not the case, he's done his time.

You're not the first one to look at it this way so I'll address it.

The reason MLB doesn't differentiate between betting to win and betting to lose is because in a sense Pete is betting on his team to lose on days he's not placing a bet on them. For instance he may be inclined to use his closer for 2 or 3 innings in a game he has a lot of money riding or he may rest a few stars on the days he's not betting. Either way it messes with the integrity of the game. I agree that baseball does not differentiate between betting to win or betting to lose. And Pete knew the rule didn't differentiate. He knew betting on your team, even to win, meant a lifetime ban.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by acredsfan

Others still feel like gambling is a cardinal sin of baseball. I feel like Gambling is bad, but not worth banning a player for life reguardless of how great he was.

Wow, so you don't like the rule that gambling on your own team means a lifetime suspension. You'd have very little support if you were to propose softening that punishment. That's a very minority view you have, one I've rarely read in all the years of this debate.

[RANDY IN INDY]

I have no problem with Rose being in the Hall of Fame, period.

[cumberlandreds]

Originally Posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC

I have no problem with Rose being in the Hall of Fame, period.

I don't either as long as they put it on his plaque that he was banned from baseball for a time for betting on the game.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by WMR

Do you think Rose should be put into the hall after he is dead, WOY, or not at all?

I don't care about the HOF, they make their decision on Rose based on MLB and that's their problem (and Pete's) I care about the call to have Pete be part of the game, and the wagon dragging behind that subject that say, gambling isn't as bad as steroids, he only bet on his team ect...

As for Pete he was my favorite player in the mid 70's

As for other players who bet I know more about that then most on this board

As for steroids I see a lot of crappy players have taken them too including Hal Morris, and I see no venom pointed at them (Hal Morris?)like I see at the guys who were great and took them, seems kinda funny to me.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by 15fan

Was sitting in a doc's waiting room yesterday. Picked up the 8/3/09 issue of Time. Interesting article about whether or not Scooter Libby should have received a presidential pardon before GWB left office.

One of the things the article discussed was that there usually is an admission of guilt and a subsequent show of remorse before a pardon is considered / granted.

Drawing a parallel with Pete, he for years fought tooth & nail the body of evidence against him. He set up shop in Cooperstown year after year whoring himself out during HOF induction weekend. He constantly cajoled to be let back in.

He broke one of the rules that at the very core protects the sanctity of the game. He broke it knowingly and repeatedly. Then he was a jerk about it for almost 20 years.

No pardon, IMO.

Putting up a fascade of remorse shouldn't matter. I don't really care to see Pete shedding crocodile tears at some press conference, claiming he "really has learned his lesson."

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by savafan

Let me add to this that the players bet amongst themselves. Baseball did have a rule against consorting with gamblers. Was there a fix? Probably, but not enough evidence to prove it.

No, baseball had a policy against betting period, but keep trying to paint that fence with whitewash.

Point, in 1906 Reds owner was in HUGE fight with the Pirates owner, it lasted years, prior to the season he bet over 5K that the Pirates would NOT win the NL championship, in the middle of the year he gave away the Reds CF to the Giants in a trade that all of baseball scratched their head over, in short he could be construed as trying to make sure he didn't lose that bet (he did because the Cubs ruled that year)

Pre Landis base is full of incidents like that, questionable and sketchy