|
|
Post by Copperfields on Jan 3, 2004 15:37:31 GMT -5
According to the Associated Press, "Pete Rose admits in his upcoming autobiography that he gambled on baseball, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Saturday."  If Rose does indeed admit this in his book (to be released Thursday), should he be allowed into the Hall of Fame? Back into baseball as a manager, coach, etc? Would it change the way you personally feel about him and the situation? David |
|
|
|
Post by Demreb on Jan 3, 2004 20:09:58 GMT -5
I think most of us believed all along that he bet on baseball. The problem I have with it is that he denied it. OK, so he denied doing something wrong, like that's never happened in baseball, politics or life.
But then he comes out and admits it publicly. . . in a book he wrote . . . that the general public will be buying (and he'll be making money from) . . . and he expects this will get him back in baseball.
Put him in the Hall of Fame, the numbers he generated on the field justify it. But keep him out of the game as a manager, coach or anything that would put him on the field or in the owner's box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Copperfields on Jan 4, 2004 4:03:14 GMT -5
Put him in the Hall of Fame, the numbers he generated on the field justify it. But keep him out of the game as a manager, coach or anything that would put him on the field or in the owner's box. This is pretty much how I feel. MLB just about has to give the OK for the Hall of Fame now, after all the promises and sighs of "If only he'd admit he gambled on baseball and apologize." We'll it sounds like Rose is about to call their bluff, so they'd better deliver. Fay Vincent had written a pretty scathing article in the NY Times the other day saying that if Selig did indeed reinstate Rose, he'd also have to reinstate the Black Sox and everyone else on the permanently banned list. I don't buy it. What Rose did was wrong, but you can't compare it to the Black Sox. Rose broke one of baseball's major rules by gambling on the game, but no one has accused him (yet) of trying to throw a game or otherwise influence the outcome in order to secure a certain result on a game he gambled on. I think that's an important distinction that people who try to compare Rose to Joe Jackson fail to make. David |
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jan 6, 2004 0:17:27 GMT -5
It looks like there are 2 subjects on this table, one being Pete's being allowed back in baseball on a formal basis, and the other his HOF eligibility.
Regarding the former, there is no question that he should not be allowed back in the game wearing a uniform. The fact that he is coming forward with the "truth" now does not mitigate his culpability in his behavior.
Regarding the latter, I am one who, while believing he should not be in the HOF, I can see the point of view of those who do. While Rose may be a snake in the grass or your own choice of metaphors, I can't state for certain that his actions should bar his admission. However, I do believe that his coming forward with the truth now should not change people's opinions of his actions - specifically, that now that he has come forward he should now be admitted to the HOF.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick's Picts (archived) on Jan 6, 2004 8:58:00 GMT -5
This is pretty much how I feel. MLB just about has to give the OK for the Hall of Fame now, after all the promises and sighs of "If only he'd admit he gambled on baseball and apologize." We'll it sounds like Rose is about to call their bluff, so they'd better deliver. So he has admitted to gambling, but his apologies have fallen way short of even token amounts of remorse. No need to get his plaque ready yet IMO. I should admit up front that I believe Rose should never be reinstated so I'm likely to find any excuse possible to avoid this happening. Still, his 'apology' bites. I'll likely live to see the day he is inducted into the HoF, but I don't have to like it. When it does happen, his plaque best mention his gambling on baseball and his 14 year chain of fallacious denials, broken only because his time for election to the HoF was running out. |
|
|
|
Post by Copperfields on Jan 7, 2004 12:09:22 GMT -5
So he has admitted to gambling, but his apologies have fallen way short of even token amounts of remorse. This is true, but then MLB never insisted on any remorse - only that he admit what he did. It was "tell the truth about gambling on baseball and we'll let you back in." That may come back to haunt them now. I believe Rose should never be reinstated Same here - I'm fine with putting him in the HOF (and agree the plaque should mention his banishment from the game), but he should not be allowed back in the game in any official capacity. BTW - that's the way I've felt all long, pre-book/apology. One of my favorite baseball writers is Thomas Boswell. He had an excellent article in the Washington Post yesterday, ripping Rose to shreds: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57332-2004Jan5.html(just enter bogus data to get past the "few quick questions" page. David |
|
|
|
Post by Nick's Picts (archived) on Jan 7, 2004 14:43:44 GMT -5
This is true, but then MLB never insisted on any remorse - only that he admit what he did. I guess I was under the impression that they (that being Selig et al) had qualified the admit wrong-doing part with the call for an apology (sincere and/or heartfelt). I'm getting this more from Stark's article sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=1700941 than my own memory, which is pretty hazing about anything from that era. Also - thanks for the link to Boswell's article. [this is good] |
|
|
|
Post by Demreb on Jan 9, 2004 0:19:32 GMT -5
First of all Dave, excellent old fashioned Cubbie logo! Where can I get me one of those? My dad gave me a window sticker with that logo when I was around seven, nice walk down memory lane.
Now to the issue (actually idiot) at hand. Just got done watching Rose lie on ABC (actually not "just" - had to watch syndicated rerun of West Wing first).
This boy just doesn't get it. He doesn't realize what he's done or the depth of his sins. Charles Gibson led with "Are you familiar with Article such and such?" Pete says he's familiar with it. Duh.
In it, it states that anyone betting on baseball will permanently be banished from baseball and while Gibson is saying that Rose says "ballplayers don't read the fine print." What?!
I change my view, yes Rose's statistics are Hall worthy, but he should not be allowed anywhere near baseball again. He used baseball as his toy (not thinking anyone would find out he broke it) and now wants back in.
Forget it, Pete. Selig will let you in because he's an idiot and doesn't understand what's good for the long term of the game (I give you interleague play, All-Star games deciding home field for the World Series, Montreal being run by baseball, no meaningful drug testing as exhibits A, B, C & D). But those that understand and love baseball will not let you back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Copperfields on Jan 9, 2004 0:50:56 GMT -5
I missed the Rose interview, but the more I read about this situation and the more I hear about his book and his whole attitude, the less I like.
I was willing to cut him some slack for upstaging the Hall of Fame announcements because I understand that it was ABC and Sports Illustrated who decided to issue press releases earlier than planned because they didn't want to get scooped. And I don't know how much influence he had with his publisher in terms of the release date for his book. But aside from all that, it's clear that he just doesn't get it.
If he had handled all this better, he might have had a shot at the Hall, though probably not a job in MLB. But now people may see this whole circus as adding to the damage he's already done to the game. And at some point the damage is going to outweigh his contributions on the field.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by Copperfields on Jan 9, 2004 10:58:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stones on Jan 14, 2004 2:37:40 GMT -5
I wouldn't let Pete Rose walk one of my Kids across the Street much less allow him in my home. He is scum and lies without remorse. Now, I must admit that my kids are older and probably wouldn't allow me to walk them across the street much less some fork touged snake oil salesman walk them across the street even if I wasn't there to stop him.
Rose is a disgrace to everything baseball stands for. I am a fan of Commisioner Bud's for obvous reasons and unlike many of you, I think the test of time will prove that he is one of the greatest forward thinking Commissioners in baseball history. He has been a target of much criticism but the test of time will prove to favor him.
He can't stand Rose, and if it wouldn't wasn't for the minority f fans that support Rose, he would just turn his back on the matter and say a lifetime ban is a life time ban. Maybe after Petey meets his maker, he should be considered based on his baseball merits and accomplishments, but as long as he is alive and not repentent, he should never grace the Hall with his presence. I think giving him any opportunity to gloat would be irrepairable to baseball yet again. He hasn't even truly admitted that he has a gambling problem, much less that his conduct was determental to baseball, so curing his addiction is not an option.
Forgiveness is one thing. Allowing an addict to work at the drug store is asking for trouble. Can you kick him out if he laspes once he is allowed in?
Don't give him the satisfaction until he demonstrates a real remorse and a desire to rehabilitate or until he is no longer amoung the living and he can not use his election for profit and personal gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by MGrage on Jan 18, 2004 12:03:46 GMT -5
Aloha again,
I was never for admitting Peter into the Hall and nothing he has done or said since then has changed my mind a bit. His stats are worthy enough to be in the Hall, but fails on just about every other factor. There's a morals clause that prohibits him from ever being enshrined. He's lied to everybody for over 14 years and now we're supposed to believe him when he says he's telling the truth? He's even been caught in a couple of lies since he came out of the bookie closet. Does anyone really believe he didn't bet on or against his own team? Does anyone really believe he never made any bets in the clubhouse? Does anyone really believe he never changed his managerial choices based on who he was betting on that night?
Buck Weaver never threw any games, but he's banned because he never NARCed on his friends and teammates. Shoeless Joe had an OPS of over .950 in the '19 Series, had 6 RBIs & 5 runs. Doesn't look like he threw anything there. Both of them are barred from the Hall because of that Morals Clause and if Rose gets in, then both of them should be eligible too. I'm in total agreement with Fay there.
So if I had a vote, I would have to say nyet to both his reinstatement and to the Hall for Rose. Mahalo
Matt
|
|
