Should MLB reinstate Pete Rose?
hammer1
Posts: 3,874 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Rose has again reapplied for reinstatement. His new grounds for appeal are:
1) the widespread use of PED's
2) electronic sign stealing
Rose argues these cases are similar to his, and his punishment is disproportionate because MLB did not impose similar discipline.
Should MLB reinstate Pete Rose?
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
0
Comments
Yes
I like how the guy in jail can still vote no
He belongs in the HOF. He's got more hits than Ty Cobb.
The ALL TIME Hit Leader should be in in the HOF. NOBODY played the game harder than Rose !!!
Nobody ever bet on baseball and constantly lied about it afterwards...FOR YEARS.
He thought he was above the rules and integrity of the game...PEDS or cheating by others have nothing to do with what Rose did...self-inflicted wound.
NEVER!
To me taking PED's is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY worse that betting!!! Rose should be in!!
If he bet on games he wasn't part of, then maybe.
What's the reasoning here? Betting on games undermines the integrity of the competition itself (see: Black Sox, 1919). With PEDs, players are still trying to compete and win.
Someone please post bail for Bronco, I know the food in there has to be terrible.
BIG difference to "THROW" games and just betting money on games. BIG DIFFERENCE!!
Ive always been the one that would eat the food anywhere !
I visit strangers in nursing homes at mealtimes for free grub
I hope your not familiar with the lunch meat that has a rainbow tint to it 😝
if its sliced ham , thats an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light in a thin layer of fatty liquid on the surface.
safe to eat
Pete should go into the HOF posthumously. The punishment for electronic sign stealing was much too soft in my opinion. If someone could prove positively Shoeless Joe Jackson is not among the living it is time for him to be enshrined.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Pete Rose bet on games in which he had decision-making influence. He admitted changing his pitching decisions based on whether he had money on games. That may not be throwing games but it's not putting forth a best effort to win, which is close to the same thing and again undermines the integrity of the competition itself.
Shoeless Joe Jackson should get in also! He was the inspiration for the movie "Field of Dreams", and that's enough for me!! Cornfield!! Cornfield!!
Its not a true HOF until he gets in,
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
The HOF is ruined anyways, too many players are in to keep
It special. The NFL HOF is almost there as well
PEDs undermine integrity, cheating undermines integrity, but gambling is the only thing that gets you banned for life. The MLB only cares about integrity when there's a monetary impact. The MLBs position is utterly incoherent and frankly silly at this point. Think about this, many people convicted of murder the same year Pete was banned are back on the street by now. Joe Jackson should make it in before Rose though.
This link will tell you everything you want to know about banned MLB players. Did you know MICKEY MANTLE was banned in 1980 and 1983??? Yup, read on.
This will also give factual insight into why Rose will NEVER make it to Cooperstown. His arrogance, perennial denials and obvious managerial influence of actual games he managed by manipulating player moves were critical to his banishment. It is still not clear whether or not he bet on the Reds to win or lose, but clearly he violated MLB rules. To allow him back into the MLB family would set a precedent for any future gambling issues...and cannot be allowed. No question he was a great player, but his arrogance sunk him. Only logical and clear thinking will lead to the conclusion of his current position in MLB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_Major_League_Baseball
Great player and competitor, horrible horrible horrible human being.
This is the right direction to argue if you want to argue PEDs are as bad or worse than gambling - that they undermine the integrity of the competition. I don't necessarily agree but I appreciate the perspective.
No... But on the other hand... Given what has transpired in more recent times in connection with others makes this seem trivial by comparison. Just writing no is a tad problematic. I have admired Pete Rose as an athlete and player and it ends there.
But there are others that have emerged from a more recent time frame...in various occupational capacities whom will not be named... that simply fail to get to the Rose status as an athlete and player or whatever that status maybe for the occupation of those others. But there was a choice made as reflected by conduct that violated the trust that we placed on them. And it should not be lost that moral character is not what it once was. But that is subject of what will likely be debated for the foreseeable future. And that is the problem.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
PEDs increased the MLBs bottom line, people packed the stands to see roiders hitting them out. It's no surprise that even today the penalties are marginal. It really sucks for guys who were/are clean though, getting passed over for MVP/All-Star nominations and having their stats compared against the "dirty" players. I'm trying to think of a time when the MLB had actual, and not pretend/reactionary, integrity and I'm struggling.
Has he met the conditions of his reinstatement? I don't remember them verbatim but I know they exist, right? Can someone post those.
From Sports Illustrated; Tom Verducci Dec 14, 2015
Untrustworthy to the last, Pete Rose has seen his hopes of being reinstated by baseball finally come to an end with Rob Manfred's decision not to lift his lifetime ban.
Baseball doesn’t trust Pete Rose. Twenty-six years after commissioner Bart Giamatti not only threw him out of the game but also gave him a road map to come back—the famous “reconfigure your life” edict—Rob Manfred became the fourth commissioner to find Rose too toxic to trust. Rose presents an “unacceptable risk,” Manfred wrote on Monday in his statement denying Rose’s third attempt at reinstatement.
Rose was banned for life, and Rose agreed to be banned for life. If you're able, take off your rose-colored glasses just long enough to ask yourself why Rose would have agreed to be banned for life. He didn't have to, obviously, and his chances of being reinstated some day in the future would have been greatly improved if he had fought it to his last breath.
But he didn't fight it at all, he agreed to it. The single only explanation that passes the laugh test is that there was something that Rose considered worse than being banned from baseball for the rest of his life. MLB didn't threaten to kill him or kill his family. MLB didn't threaten to visit plagues upon him or damn him to eternal hellfire, either. So what was it that MLB was going to do to Rose if he didn't agree to the ban, that Rose feared more than being banned for life?
The answer is obvious, and the force of will it takes Rose's defenders to not see it staggers the imagination. Rose threw baseball games, MLB has proof that Rose threw baseball games, and throwing games is a felony. Pete Rose agreed to a lifetime ban to keep his pathetic, cheating, criminal ass out of prison. The depth of the hole in which Pete Rose's character is buried is exceeded only by the height of the mountain where his ego lives. Pete Rose has applied for reinstatement so people will talk about Pete Rose; his chances of making the HOF are precisely zero, that will never change, and he knows it.
Well, this is a tight race. As of now, we are dead even at 50%.
The people who want him in know absolutely NOTHING about the Hall of Fame and what it stands for.
I have said it before, look into Pete's history and you will find a totally worthless POS of a human being. Check out his attraction to "young" women, my gosh, this man makes me sick.
A Baseball Hall of Fame with him in means NOTHING!
A Baseball Hall of Fame with Harold Baines in means NOTHING!
It's already worthless and has quite a few POS human beings in it, Pete would not alter that mix. The 'young girl' allegations were timed too coincidentally with his last attempt at reinstatement and they died as soon as his reinstatement chances did for me to blindly believe them. I'm absolutely fine with a full investigation into all the allegations for throwing games and that as a condition prior to reinstatement, with public results of the findings. It's long past time to separate fact from fiction and let the chips fall where they may.
Threw, manipulated, acted on inside information and last but most certainly not least he bet from his clubhouse during games....
...I say nay. Man was out of control and a criminal.
Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? Simple question for which I can think of only one plausible answer. If you've got another, I'd love to hear it.
There are 4,256 reasons why Pete Rose belongs in the HOF. You just can't ignore what he did on the field as a player, because he has a gambling problem. He's one of the greatest players of baseball, that will ever live.
He bet on games as a player. The one rule in every clubhouse.
https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13114874/notebook-obtained-lines-shows-pete-rose-bet-baseball-player-1986
If it were up to the fans, he would be in, because they appreciate what he did on the field. Yes, he bet on baseball, but the fans aren't going to just forget what he did for the game. I certainly will never forget the record breaking hit and the ovation the fans gave him. The Hall of Fame induction is just a formality, because in most fans minds, he's already there.
I don't understand your hatred towards Rose. The "young girl" thing was fake news. He NEVER threw games! He should be judged by his playing not as a gambler or manager.
Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? Simple question for which I can think of only one plausible answer. If you've got another, I'd love to hear it.
Rose should have apologized and asked for gambling help when this first came out. A. Bartlett Giamatti, a good and fair minded commissioner very well may have been able to avoid giving Rose a death sentence.
Why did Pete Rose agree to a lifetime ban? Simple question for which I can think of only one plausible answer. If you've got another, I'd love to hear it.
Nobody knows that, but Rose. I just feel you should separate Rose the player and Rose the gambler/manager as far as the HOF is concerned.
This is what the fans will remember the most, the betting means very little.
This Bud's for you Pete Rose.
I'll fire up my chainsaw and we will do that. After that separation a "lifetime" ban won't apply anymore regardless. At least if we cut vertically , he might survive a horizontal separation but then the top half would still be banned.
You are a Hoot Bronc!
Bronco is a three striker,> @bronco2078 said:
Bronc is witty, too bad he smells like the inside of a nursing home.
If only one possible answer exists, then it is the answer. I'm asking you, and others, for ANY alternative explanation than the one I've put forward. Mostly, I am marveling at the lengths to which you and the rest of the Rose brigade are willing to go to avoid answering the question.
MLB: "Mr. Rose, we're banning you from baseball for the rest of your life. There's nothing you can do about it, but we'd still like you to publicly agree that you deserve a lifetime ban."
Rose: "And what if I don't?"
MLB: ?
Rose: "Okey-dokey, I'll make that statement right away."
What is it that you think MLB said to Rose that made him crap his pants in terror? And why are you so sure that whatever it was, it shouldn't keep him out of the HOF?
The Rose brigade chooses to march!
@dallasactuary you are on the verge of badgering the witness,
This will be (I think) my last statement...…..I don't think the gambling should keep him out of the HOF considering his accomplishments on the field.
Question for the Rose brigade.
Should he be in the HOF even if he were convicted of funding and planning the 9-11 attack?
Technically, it's not "badgering" as long as the witness refuses to answer the question, and you (and the others I've asked) are firm in your resolve to avoid answering the question. You keep referring to "gambling" as if that has anything to do with why Rose agreed to a lifetime ban. That he gambled was a well-known fact, and Rose would have said "yes I gambled, but that doesn't warrant a lifetime ban" from the beginning if that's all there was to it. Clearly, there's more to it than that.
You said, and I agree, that "gambling" shouldn't keep him out of the HOF forever. You can stop saying that. If and when you choose to address the question I actually asked, I'd love to hear the answer.