Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated?

Posted: 6/16/2014 7:41 AM

OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


Bob Nightengale wrote a piece about this in the USA Today. Before Bud retires, Rose feels that he will be reinstated. And then put on the HOF ballot.
What does everyone feel about this? Just a little diversion from the everyday carrying on's about the up and down Orioles so far.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/16/2014 10:25 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


Yes. Was Rose and idiot? Sure.  But anymore of an idiot than the users in the steroid era? I get that he bet on baseball and that is probably THE rule you don't break. But as much as  competitor that Pete was I honestly don't think he ever bet against his teams so I really am past it.

If you go by on the field stuff then he is head and shoulders above a ton of guys already in the HOF.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/16/2014 10:55 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


No.

There was ONE rule in baseball at the time that carried the penalty of being banned for life.

ONE.

1.

Not 106 so that someone could be confused and not know about the rules. There was ONE.

Do not gamble on baseball. Period.

That rule was put into place 21 years before Rose was born. Every locker room in professional baseball that he's ever been in in his life has a big sign on the wall, mandated by Major League Baseball and all leagues affiliated with Major League Baseball that says "Do no bet on baseball. If you do, you're banned for life." (That's a summary. But that sign is in every clubhouse, home and away. I have seen it with my own eyes.)

He was well aware of the rule.

He chose to break it, knowing full well what the consequences were when he did it.

Why should there be any reprieve from that sentence? He's a big boy. He made his choices. He has to live with the consequences.

In some ways it's worse than steroids because at least steroids weren't explicitly against the rules with a predefined punishment at the time of the problem.  They were still wrong, but they weren't as explicitly defined as wrong like gambling was.

As for Rose never betting against his team, that doesn't mean that his actions didn't cause the Reds to lose. Maybe, and I've even say LIKELY, he would bet big on the Reds on certain days of the week and he'd make sure that he had his best line up in place. Made sure he used whatever relievers he needed to for however long he needed to regardless of concern about tomorrow. Made sure his starter was in for as long as he needed him to be regardless of consideration about his strength for his next start, etc etc etc.

Then the next night maybe he didn't bet on the Reds at all. And then his overworked bullpen was unable to put on their best performance. And maybe all of his starters go their off days then. So the Reds weren't well equipped to win. That's not throwing a game on purpose, but it's trying harder to win some games at the expense of others.

You can still have a huge impact on causing losses over the course of the season by focusing on trying to win individual games.

And in comparison to the steroid era players and their hall of fame chances, I think we're seeing those guys aren't getting in either. Rafeal Palmeiro, by numbers, should be a Hall of Fame player. He's never getting in because of steroids. Roger Clemens was long thought to be an absolute lock for the Hall of Fame, ten years before he career was over. He's unlikely to ever get in. Barry Bonds is the all time home run champ by single season and total number hit. He's never getting in.

So it's not like all these steroid guys are getting in while poor Pete Rose is left out in the cold. The steroid guys aren't getting in either.

Also, is Major League Baseball banning Rose from the Hall of Fame? Or if the Hall of Fame banning Rose? I was to understand that the Hall of Fame, while affiliated with Major League Baseball, is not controlled by Major League Baseball and can do whatever the hell it wants to.

Finally, Bud Selig is not commuting the Banned For Life sentence on Pete Rose. That statement is just Rose posturing. Bud Selig hates Pete Rose on a personal and professional level. So there will be no reprieve from Selig. (Though, that actually wins Rose points with me. Anyone who Bud Selig hates and disrespects can't be all bad)

Last edited 6/16/2014 12:38 PM by Skipjacks

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/16/2014 11:24 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


I've always felt he got a raw deal.  My buddy thinks he got what he deserved.  He just does and says what he feels which is, generally, not what the MLB powers that be want to hear.  But I would be shocked if he goes in under Bud.  That guy is a d-bag.  Promised he wasn't looking to sell the Brewers then once the stadium got built and bumped the sale price up, a-selling he went.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/16/2014 1:54 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


This will be interesting for sure. I'm not so sure that someday the roiders will be admitted to the HOF. Time heals some wounds. Rose is banned from baseball first. Just like Shoeless Joe. If Rose gets into the HOF, the Jackson should be right there next to him. IMO.
Rose is disliked by many. He is arrogant and defiant. In fact he defines those words. I don't like Selig either. For reasons discussed ad nauseum over the years here and elsewhere. (If you have ever been an Expos fan, you can never like Bud Selig....ever)

With some of the craziness going on in pro sport today, it wouldn't surprise me if the ban were ultimately lifted. And if Rose gets into the HOF...I'm sure that you'll see the likes of Bonds and Clemens to follow eventually.

I really don't know what I want. Both sides of the discussion are extremely compelling and can't be minimized. (thats why I brought it up....really do want to see what others are feeling about it.)

When you reflect today about the passing of Tony Gwynn...there was a man who was a great ballplayer and an even greater human being. I don't think Rose fits both those descriptions.

Last edited 6/16/2014 1:57 PM by insagt1

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/16/2014 3:24 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



insagt1 wrote: This will be interesting for sure. I'm not so sure that someday the roiders will be admitted to the HOF. Time heals some wounds. Rose is banned from baseball first. Just like Shoeless Joe. If Rose gets into the HOF, the Jackson should be right there next to him. IMO.
Rose is disliked by many. He is arrogant and defiant. In fact he defines those words. I don't like Selig either. For reasons discussed ad nauseum over the years here and elsewhere. (If you have ever been an Expos fan, you can never like Bud Selig....ever)

With some of the craziness going on in pro sport today, it wouldn't surprise me if the ban were ultimately lifted. And if Rose gets into the HOF...I'm sure that you'll see the likes of Bonds and Clemens to follow eventually.

I really don't know what I want. Both sides of the discussion are extremely compelling and can't be minimized. (thats why I brought it up....really do want to see what others are feeling about it.)

When you reflect today about the passing of Tony Gwynn...there was a man who was a great ballplayer and an even greater human being. I don't think Rose fits both those descriptions.
I'll tell you this...

Joe Jackson should be in before Pete Rose.

Jackson couldn't be proven to have done anything to impact the 1919 World Series adversely. In fact, despite taking money, he had a hell of a series. So he wasn't throwing the games.

Now don't get me wrong, he took money from gamblers with the promise of throwing the series. That is enough to warrant a ban because it questions the integrity of the game, regardless of if he actually performed in a way that caused his team to lose.

But, Jackson didn't see a big sign in the locker room of every baseball clubhouse he'd ever been in saying DO NOT DO THIS OR WE WILL KICK YOU OUT.

Pete Rose did see such a sign.

So while what Jackson did warranted a ban, what Pete Rose did was worse because he was expressly told not to do it. Major League Baseball just assumed Jackson knew not to. They didn't expressly tell him. So Rose is worse.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/16/2014 5:36 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


I hope the rule stands.  We used to be known as a country of rules and the law, that we followed or suffered the consequence.

 

Last edited 6/16/2014 5:39 PM by POPPA

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 1:12 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


Question: did Rose ever bet on a game that he is directly had contact with? In other words, did he bet on games that his team played?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:48 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



stephenjames1979 wrote: Question: did Rose ever bet on a game that he is directly had contact with? In other words, did he bet on games that his team played?

Yes.

He has admitted it (after adamantly lying about it for decades)

He says whenever he bet on the Reds he bet on them to win, as if that is supposed to make it okay.

But he lied about that for literally decades before he admitted to that part. That's after lying about betting on baseball in general. So him saying he never bet against his team is meaningless to me.

If Pete Rose told me it was raining and I was soaking wet I'd still go check the weather report.

Even if he only bet FOR his team, see my previous post on why that's still a major problem.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 8:49 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



POPPA wrote: I hope the rule stands.  We used to be known as a country of rules and the law, that we followed or suffered the consequence.

Right?!

Again, there was ONE rule that was ironclad in baseball. Don't bet on baseball, or be banned.

Rose knew it. He did it anyway. His problem, not anyone else's.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 10:55 AM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


As political as I am I am shocked because for whatever reason I could care less. Ive got no opinion on the topic.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 6/17/2014 12:42 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


Its an interesting subject because the sport has problems with its image (maybe nobody cares about that anymore?) Right now you have the man with the most hits; the man with the most HR's; and the man who has several pitching records---all 3 of them not in the HOF and all 3 of them major pariahs with the fans.
What does baseball do about this? do they just look at what they did (no matter how they did it) on the field and ignore everything else? Or do they hold to standards that really can't be proven across the board....mainly because there is no integrity in pro sports anymore. (broadbrush indictment I know...but the death of Gwynn really brings this to the fore....those guys don't exist anymore)

I really have no idea what they are going to do.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 12:53 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


If he bet on his team to win and not purposely throw games, then I'm more on the side of Rose. I get that you shouldn't bet on baseball especially after the Black Sox scandal but at the same time those guys were told to throw the game. Lifetime ban is excessive especially when you have players that were allowed to play after being caught drinking and driving, drugs, PED, etc.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 1:57 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



stephenjames1979 wrote: If he bet on his team to win and not purposely throw games, then I'm more on the side of Rose. I get that you shouldn't bet on baseball especially after the Black Sox scandal but at the same time those guys were told to throw the game. Lifetime ban is excessive especially when you have players that were allowed to play after being caught drinking and driving, drugs, PED, etc.

1) He has lied to many times about so many aspects of this that there is no reason whatsoever to believe him when he says he never bet against the Reds.

2) Even if he only bet for the Reds to win, it can still adverse affect their chances to win the next night since he would be motivated to use everyone up to insure the win in the game he bet on.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 2:04 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


Even if he did lie, if there is no evidence that he bet against his team then we can't say for sure that he did.

Far as him reusing his best players to try and win games, that's a poor argument. The point of using your best players is to win games whether you bet in them or not.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 5:15 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



Skipjacks wrote:
stephenjames1979 wrote: If he bet on his team to win and not purposely throw games, then I'm more on the side of Rose. I get that you shouldn't bet on baseball especially after the Black Sox scandal but at the same time those guys were told to throw the game. Lifetime ban is excessive especially when you have players that were allowed to play after being caught drinking and driving, drugs, PED, etc.

1) He has lied to many times about so many aspects of this that there is no reason whatsoever to believe him when he says he never bet against the Reds.

2) Even if he only bet for the Reds to win, it can still adverse affect their chances to win the next night since he would be motivated to use everyone up to insure the win in the game he bet on.
I get all that, and I have to be honest that I never thought about #2.  But I would have to agree with StephenJames, tho:  you try to win games, period.  I don't think that those in the game should be betting on the game, personally, but betting to lose is different, imo, than betting to win.  I don't think there's anyway to defend yourself against the idea that you were willing to throw a game if you bet on your own team losing.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 5:40 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



stephenjames1979 wrote: Even if he did lie, if there is no evidence that he bet against his team then we can't say for sure that he did.

Far as him reusing his best players to try and win games, that's a poor argument. The point of using your best players is to win games whether you bet in them or not.

That's not how managers manage.

Managers look in the context of the whole week and the whole season, not just today's game.

The proof is in the playoffs. Managers manage differently in the playoffs because there is no tomorrow if you lose. So they leave starts in longer. They use relievers who pitched 2 innings the day before. No starters sit out to rest during playoffs.

But in the regular season managers space out reliever appearances, they pull starters who are still strong to limit their arms, strong hitters are sat down to give them rest every so often, etc etc etc

If you put all your focus on winning 1 game and you extend your starter too far, or use up your bullpen, or put a hitter who needs rest in the line up....you are increasing your chances of winning today but decreasing your chances of winning tomorrow.

That's why we hear all the time a manager say "Reliever X or Catcher Y is not available today"

It's why catchers don't play day games after night games. They don't sit the catcher because he's unlikely to be productive on that day. They sit him to make sure he stays healthy for the rest of the season.


Also, the only way we know he bet on anything is because it admitted it....after decades of lying about it. And he keeps changing his story. First it was he never bet on baseball. Then it was he bet on baseball but never on the Reds. Then it was he bet on the Reds but only to win.

So he has ZERO credibility when he says he never bet on the Reds to lose.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/17/2014 5:42 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 


Side note...

A buddy of mine has one of these....

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/...3MuYcAZisgQ.jpg

Best sports collectible EVER.

I made him bequeath it to me in his will.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 6/18/2014 6:26 PM

Re: OT: topic for discussion--Should Pete Rose Be Reinstated? 



Skipjacks wrote: Side note...

A buddy of mine has one of these....

http://thumbs1.ebaystatic.com/...3MuYcAZisgQ.jpg

Best sports collectible EVER.

I made him bequeath it to me in his will.
Well, that's just plain AWESOME, Skip!

I have a friend who lived in Florida some time ago.  He was a bartender and Pete Rose was a regular when he had that radio show of his.  My friend has golfed with him and been somewhat social with him and, while my friend never specifically asked him about the ban and all, in some conversation they had Pete said something like, "I bet they thought I'd just knuckle under and apologize..."  My friend casually responded in quick thinking bartender-mode, "I wonder if Vegas has odds on an apology?"

One of my other buddies just hates Pete for what he did.  He was my pal's favorite player.  Which is funny because I thought Pete Rose was a total douchebag while he played, not disrespecting how great he was, just he seemed like a total d!ck.  Now I lobby for him in the Hall while the guy who loved him wants him in stocks outside the Hall to be spat upon every year.
Reply | Quote