Selig mulling pardon for Rose

[macro]

Originally Posted by westofyou

I don't care about the HOF, they make their decision on Rose based on MLB and that's their problem (and Pete's)...

Failure to understand that the HOF is in no way obligated to follow MLB's lead on this issue runs rampant. Last night on the 6:00pm news in Louisville, one of the news anchors followed up the sports report with a comment about Selig "letting Pete into the Hall..."

Is anyone lobbying the HOF to change its rules back to the way they were before Pete was banned? I think they're the ones who should give in, not MLB.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by macro

Failure to understand that the HOF is in no way obligated to follow MLB's lead on this issue runs rampant. Last night on the 6:00pm news in Louisville, one of the news anchors followed up the sports report with a comment about Selig "letting Pete into the Hall..."

Is anyone lobbying the HOF to change its rules back to the way they were before Pete was banned? I think they're the ones who should give in, not MLB.

Yep, the HOF is guilty of gerrymandering their rules, and I guess it's their right too. That said they are a museum, not a repository that hands out pardons for MLB level crimes. My take is if a player does something that is construed as a baseball crime then MLB should deal with it. If a player is barred from he HOF then it's that venue that has to deal with it.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by macro

Is anyone lobbying the HOF to change its rules back to the way they were before Pete was banned? I think they're the ones who should give in, not MLB.

Fay Vincent orchestrated the rule change to ensure Rose would be kept out. He wasn't willing to leave it up to the baseball writers (as had been done previously). Shoeless Joe was eligible to be put in the HOF until the rule change.

Personally I think the HOF should change the rules back and I really don't care whether Pete gets in or not. I don't think he will at this point because over the years all he has done is hurt his case.

The PED users will face the writers ... and thats the way it should be.

[TRF]

why do i care...

sigh.

Ok, following the logic that Rose never bet against the Reds, how often did he do the following:

1. Bet huge on the Reds to win.
2. Bet small on the Reds to win.
3. Not bet on the Reds at all.

A huge bet means Rose had more than the normal vested interest in winning. A huge bet followed by a small or no bet means he had no faith in his team winning. A huge bet might mean he pitches a reliever that needed the day off. He may have affected the outcomes of losses because he didn't properly manage his team for the season. It's possible a few of those 2nd place finishes could have been 1st place finishes with a manager more concerned about the season and less concerned with his bookie.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by TRF

He may have affected the outcomes of losses because he didn't properly manage his team for the season. It's possible a few of those 2nd place finishes could have been 1st place finishes with a manager more concerned about the season and less concerned with his bookie.

and in the end we will never know if he managed the team differently because of a wager(or lack thereof) on a game. Did he let a starter go longer, use his closer on a 3rd or 4th day in a row, etc. And the real issue is that Pete created this uncertainty and the stench that comes with it.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by flyer85

and in the end we will never know if he managed the team differently because of a wager(or lack thereof) on a game. Did he let a starter go longer, use his closer on a 3rd or 4th day in a row, etc. And the real issue is that Pete created this uncertainty and the stench that comes with it.

Exactly.

The part of me that remembers Rose when I was a kid wants to see him in the game. The part of me that sees him now prefers he remain away from it.

[Cyclone792]

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.

1) The evidence against Cobb, Speaker and Wood is shaky, and an actual judgement on whether they actually bet on that game in question cannot be made given what is known.

2) The Cobb/Speaker Affair was just as much a power struggle between Landis and Ban Johnson as it was about Cobb, Speaker or Wood. In the end, not only were Cobb and Speaker exonerated, but they were granted free agency during a time in which free agency did not exist.

3) Cobb claimed to have had significant dirt on MLB at the time, including proof of ownership corruption, falsifying gate receipts, etc. that he threatened to use against MLB if they went after him and Speaker. Frankly, given what was going on during this era, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. Cobb had significant wealth built up by that time (he was a savvy investor), and he had the financial backing to go after MLB if he truly wanted to. The owners and executives knew this.

[savafan]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

1) The evidence against Cobb, Speaker and Wood is shaky, and an actual judgement on whether they actually bet on that game in question cannot be made given what is known.

2) The Cobb/Speaker Affair was just as much a power struggle between Landis and Ban Johnson as it was about Cobb, Speaker or Wood. In the end, not only were Cobb and Speaker exonerated, but they were granted free agency during a time in which free agency did not exist.

3) Cobb claimed to have had significant dirt on MLB at the time, including proof of ownership corruption, falsifying gate receipts, etc. that he threatened to use against MLB if they went after him and Speaker. Frankly, given what was going on during this era, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true. Cobb had significant wealth built up by that time (he was a savvy investor), and he had the financial backing to go after MLB if he truly wanted to. The owners and executives knew this.

Interesting. Are there any books on this subject, or the corruption in the game during that era?

[TRF]

Originally Posted by savafan

Interesting. Are there any books on this subject, or the corruption in the game during that era?

A lot of this is in the Cobb Biography.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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.

I am well aware of the rationale behind it, but it does not make much sense from a practical standpoint.

If he's not betting on games, he does not have motivation to alter the approach of his team. Why manage any less than his ability if it's not financially motivated? I have heard this reason many times and it does not really make much sense.

Still, as I said, he got punished and he should have been punished. But it's been 20 years. Time to move on. And when I say that, understand I think he's ruined his chance to ever manage again. I do not think I'd grant that privilege. But allow him back in baseball in certain capacities and let him into the HOF.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

I am well aware of the rationale behind it, but it does not make much sense from a practical standpoint.

If he's not betting on games, he does not have motivation to alter the approach of his team. Why manage any less than his ability if it's not financially motivated? I have heard this reason many times and it does not really make much sense.

Still, as I said, he got punished and he should have been punished. But it's been 20 years. Time to move on. And when I say that, understand I think he's ruined his chance to ever manage again. I do not think I'd grant that privilege. But allow him back in baseball in certain capacities and let him into the HOF.

Of course for 75% of those 20 years he denied that he did it and in all those years he made many folks who stood behind him look foolish.

Maybe Pete should move on?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Of course for 75% of those 20 years he denied that he did it and in all those years he made many folks who stood behind him look foolish.

Maybe Pete should move on?

Who cares if he denied it? He still served his punishment regardless of how up-front he is. It makes no difference to me if someone denies something or shows fake remorse. They're all the same to me.

I was too young to watch Pete Rose play, so I can't say I have any loyalty to him or because of the team he played for. But I know I don't have some self-righteous stand against folks because they deny something. I really could not care less about that. I simply believe in second chances for most people. This is no different. He served his punishment, with or without the remorse. Time to give him his second chance.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

Who cares if he denied it? He still served his punishment regardless of how up-front he is. It makes no difference to me if someone denies something or shows fake remorse. They're all the same to me.

I was too young to watch Pete Rose play, so I can't say I have any loyalty to him or because of the team he played for. But I know I don't have some self-righteous stand against folks because they deny something. I really could not care less about that. I simply believe in second chances for most people. This is no different. He served his punishment, with or without the remorse. Time to give him his second chance.

I care, and if that makes me self rightous then so be it, in fact it's laughable that grenade even gets thrown at soemone wanting teh game to stay pure from gambling.

The man had many chances to come clean, seond chances, third chances ect.. he evn wrote a book denying everything, he made cash off his denial.

No way should he be involved in MLB, mostly because time doesn't equal punsihment, this wasn't a time out in the corner, he was banned from the game for breaking the 1st commandment. I don't care if he's Pete Rose or Wayne Comer, he knew the penalty, he's not an idiot.

[IowaRed]

This is really very easy for me (with an admitted Reds fan bias) The HOF is a museum honoring the great players, moments, teams in history (among other things) Pete Rose was a great player, was a part of historic moments, and on arguably the best team in the history of baseball. His accomplishments on the field in baseball warrant him being eligible to be honored at a baseball museum. Whether he is voted in or not is a different issue

[TRF]

Pete is honored plenty in the museum. He's not in the HOF, but his presence is felt in that building.

That's enough for me.