Pete Rose to the Hall?
olb31
Posts: 3,511 ✭✭✭✭✭
Big news out politically, I'm sure I can't say what it is without being slapped down by the speech police. But big things happening. I am a huge Rose fan and I 100% back him being in the hall of fame. Let's see what happens.
Work hard and you will succeed!!
1
Comments
I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other. Rose wasn't ever convicted of anything was he? Baseball banning him also wasn't any sort of criminal decision so a pardon wouldn't do a thing to get him in the hall. They control the HoF (which is a private group) so they can ban whoever they want for as long as they want.
And I'm someone who thinks he should be in.
Good point Mr Carew.
He was convicted of filing false tax returns and served time in prison. So, there might be a connection, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Always in the market for game used kinesiology tape and smelly socks.
"Baseball, which is dying all over the place, should get off its fat, lazy ass, and elect Pete Rose, even though far too late, into the Baseball Hall of Fame!"
Always in the market for game used kinesiology tape and smelly socks.
I don't believe that this will have any effect on whether he gets in or not..
Matt
I'm still trying to figure out why this is either Big News or Political.
Does the Government control the Baseball Hall of Fame? I would love to see him get in but don't think a pardon would be a fast track.
Probably didn't hurt his chances. But it may have zero effect.
The pardon I suppose would be related to the tax evasion as ElMago said. So perhaps the pardon will confuse enough people as to how that relates to Rule 21 and they'll conflate or equate the two. That, along with a sitting President stating that he should be in the HoF and you could get enough popular support that the committee would reconsider his eligibility or make an exception/ amendment.
It could also work against him as MLB doesn't really like being told what to do, and Trump's argument that betting to win is somehow/ somewhat OK contradicts MLB's statements on the matter.
If he doesn't get elected in the next decade I think he ends up etched into the 'never gonna get it' column. That is just based on how Joe Jackson has been handled over time. I find Rose more distasteful, but I wouldn't lose a wink if he was elected.
What's next? Gonna pardon Shoeless Joe? Washington DC has zero control of what happens in Cooperstown.
One man maintains the belief that he controls everyone else.
Always in the market for game used kinesiology tape and smelly socks.
D.D is that you.
Heh heh. I have no axe to grind. I only speak the truth.
Always in the market for game used kinesiology tape and smelly socks.
@pdoidoi There are plenty of open seats in the middle.
The commissioner of major league baseball is reviewing a petition by his family for reinstatement (family lawyer and daughter Fawn met recently with the commissioner)...Pete deserves to be in the HOF.
IMHO, the baseball hall of fame is about playing baseball, stats, wins, etc. If you did enough winning or statistically you should get in.
altuve and beltran played for the 2017 astros, who cheated as a team to win the world series. Beltran just got in and im sure altuve will to. Not much said about those two guys cheating.
Pete broke the rules concerning gambling. The comminisher supposedly has hard copy proof. Pete supposedly admitted to it. No place for him at the HOF in my opinion.
I read the current commissioner thinks punishment is for a banned player’s lifetime…but ends upon his death. We will see…
HUH?
Beltran did NOT get in!
To Be Clear Carlos Beltran has not been NOT elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
Will he get in some day? Based on trending it's likely. However as of today March 2, 2025 Beltran is NOT in the MLB Baseball Hall Of Fame. At least for now the only way he gets in is to purchase a visitors admission ticket just like everyone else.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Apparently some here do not know who was voted to the MLB HOF for 2025 induction:
Here they are:
https://www.mlb.com/news/2025-baseball-hall-of-fame-voting-results
Ichiro Suzuki: 393 votes, 99.7% (1st year on the ballot)
CC Sabathia: 342 votes, 86.8% (1st year on the ballot)
Billy Wagner: 325 votes, 82.5% (10th)
______The following were NOT elected but remain for next ballot____
Carlos Beltrán: 277 votes, 70.3% (3rd)
Andruw Jones: 261 votes, 66.2% (8th)
Chase Utley: 157 votes, 39.8% (2nd)
Alex Rodriguez: 146 votes, 37.1% (4th)
Manny Ramirez: 135 votes, 34.3% (9th)
Andy Pettitte: 110 votes, 27.9% (7th)
Félix Hernández: 81 votes, 20.6% (1st)
Bobby Abreu: 77 votes, 19.5% (6th)
P.S. I do hope on CC's plaque they include "Hey Kittredge, That’s for you, b****"
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Ok he's not in at this second and neither is Justin verlander or clayton kershaw. But let's get real, all three will get in. Beltran needs like 10 more votes. He will get in next year.
So 82 footbal address my comment -- He was on the astros (100% proven, no guessing) who cheated to win the world series, why is he getting any votes?
Rose is currently on the ineligible list. Beltran is not. That's why Beltran is able to be on the ballot. Because he's on the ballot some voters are naming him on their ballots. Hope that helps.
So the obvious question is why is he allowed to be on the ballot. The astros TEAM cheated, he was on the team, thus he is a cheater. not sure there is any other way to look at. I've been told on this board many times, cheaters should not be in the hall. Steroids = cheating, Cheating = cheating. For Rose, as far as we know, he didn't cheat.
If Beltran is allowed to be on the ballot and will probably get in, then certainly AROD, CLemens, Manny, Sosa, Mcgwire, Canseco, etc. should get in. they were all better than Beltran, some by a mile. and they all supposedly cheated too.
I recall their manager was banned for 1 year. The team probably paid a fine. That was their punishment. Why should everyone be treated the same and are the facts the same in both cases?
Much to unpack.
Because he's eligible.
I don't agree that this resolves to a proper logical statement. That being said, it's pretty clear Beltran admitted stealing signs using the camera feed. So he did cheat.
I think there is. I think that all it requires is someone to allow for there to be different consequences for different types of "cheating". But, more importantly, this is the reality of outcomes related to how MLB has approached this situation. So there's perhaps what someone things is right and then there's the reality of how the HOF board has approached this.
This doesn't mean anything to me. The board isn't a collective. You're rationalizing your position based on a subset of opinions.
They are all eligible. Whether they get in is up to the voters. This is the main difference with regard to Rose - he's currently not offered to the voters for consideration. Either MLB needs to remove him from the ineligible list, or the HOF board needs to amend this particular criterion regarding eligibility.
If murder is a crime and speeding is a crime then we should treat them the same I suppose.
Doesn't the HOF have a broadcaster's wing? Pete was a riot on FOX. He should be elected.
Always in the market for game used kinesiology tape and smelly socks.
I merely corrected your mistake with factual + empirical information BTW if you actually read my post, I wrote _"Will he (Beltran) get in some day? Based on trending it's likely" _
My stance on Bleltran, who by all accounts is a decent person, should in, but does NOT deserve to have it be the case in his lifetime. Piper needs to paid although based on trending voting the flaccid BBWOA does not agree with me.
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
I think we can do without putting child rapists who bet on their own teams into the Hall.
I dont care about hearsay. Put him in already.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Since everyone seems to have forgotten the truth, Pete Rose voluntarily signed his lifetime ban from baseball. It was actually his choice and it was decreed to him by the Commissioner. The Dowd Report generated from the investigation into Pete Rose uncovered and published a lot of information about him including primarily the evidence that he bet on baseball games while managing a baseball team, including games in which he was a participant. That right there is enough regardless of which team he bet on.*
In addition to the gambling, the report privately detailed his relationships with at least one specific underage girl (and allegedly, multiple). The simple fact is Pete Rose was faced with MLB’s findings from the investigation and decided it was in HIS best interests to accept a lifetime ban from Commissioner Bart Giamatti. The stress of this ordeal by many accounts killed Giamatti, and because the deal was made between two men and one was now dead, Pete began a 15 year period where he denied publicly (while having already privately admitted to) betting on baseball games while manger of the Cincinnati Reds. Then, he finally (publicly) admitted to it in his own book to help sales of his own book. Pete Rose lied about this issue - consistently - and was a very low character individual. That has always been his reputation. The idea that we can somehow believe that he never bet against the Reds based on the word of Pete Rose is truly laughable.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I don’t think the other allegations regarding his relationship with a minor or the more salacious “trafficking” rumors will have a bearing on whether or not he eventually gets in.
"The idea that we can somehow believe that he never bet against the Reds based on the word of Pete Rose is truly laughable." Nice
So do you believe that Judge Trout Thomas ohtani, bagwell -- on and on don't/didn't take PED's? If so that's laughable too.
Yet Another Strawman Arg... yawn...
and before you ask, Yes Chewbacca is a Wookie
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Rickey Henderson, Cal Ripken, and Nolan Ryan are also Wookies
If it helps, Pete Rose also used PEDs - or otherwise, minus the characterization, substances which are now banned in MLB and what were controlled substances during their period of prolific use in MLB.
It doesn't matter whether he bet on his team to win or lose. According to MLB or otherwise. One fair example would be that overspending on a victory today in a long season could have an negative impact on future win probability.
There are plenty of "bad humans" in the HOF so that doesn't bother me so much... at least it's not too difficult to compartmentalize. I think, again, given what has happened with Joe Jackson, I don't think it's likely he gets in because of the whole "betting on baseball" thing.
If I was a Pete Rose supporter (for HOF induction) I wouldn't be arguing that it's OK because he bet to win. MLB has already said that they see this as just as bad - all the same. You have to consider your audience and because of that it's a loser of an argument. I would go for empathy/ sympathy. Rose wasn't a smart man. He didn't understand that it was really wrong. It was an illness. He needed help at a time when there were no such support systems for athletes. Allow people to rationalize that Rose was a victim of circumstance to mitigate his culpability in breaking one of baseball's golden rules. It's not a card I would want to pull in a debate.
Never
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
https://thedefenders.net/blogs/chewbacca-defense/#:~:text=The Chewbacca Defense is a legal strategy,the jury, rather than providing a substantive
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Someone please just admit that if you are vested in items associated with Rose, such as cards, memorabilia, etc., then your asset value could certainly rise considerably should he actually get in. Typify the current environment and let's go RAH RAH! for Pete so we can make some more coin. Imagine the absolute madness throughout the hobby for people clamoring to get their hands on stuff that's been available in hoards for years and years if he earns a HOF pedigree.
Always in the market for game used kinesiology tape and smelly socks.
No...I grew up a Cincinnati Reds fan...and especially a Pete Rose fan. I want him in the HOF for his achievements on the field. It has NOTHING to do with the value of his cards.
If it was just a question of his on-field accomplishments I don't think there would be any discussion about his merit. Rule 21 was there before Pete.
I'm not sure how to just wish that rule away.
Yes this. He played hard and played to win
This is the first time I've heard anything about a Pete Rose sex scandal.
"Pete Rose voluntarily signed his lifetime ban from baseball. It was actually his choice and it was decreed to him by the Commissioner."
If the Commissioner made a decree, that wouldn't have ben Roses choice. Why would Rose something like that? What did he get for signing? Maybe it wasn't so simple. Or maybe the whole situation was just for the viewing audience. To send a message to people who were betting on baseball and actually wanted to be in MLB.
Roses entire punishment was being banned from the HOF. The guy was like 30 years in MLB already. The ban has made him relevant to this day. Being banned probably made him money. Maybe more money than he would have made off baseball without being banned.
It looks to me like MLB probably exempted Othani and sent his interpreter to prison to save their marketing campaign. The interpreter probably just went back to Japan.
Pete Rose is not banned from the MLB HOF. He is on MLB's ineligible list.
The HOF, which is a separate entity, can decide to change their rules or to exempt Pete Rose. The quickest path to the HOF would be for MLB to remove him from the ineligible list. If that was done, I think that the veterans committee would most likely vote him in.
By accepting the lifetime ban, Rose was able to avoid a formal hearing. Dowd's investigations did turn up some evidence as to a possible long-term relationship with a woman who, at the time, would have been around 16-17 years old (when the relationship started). The woman in this particular case, later came forward and asserted that the relationship began when she was 14. This came out because Rose sued Dowd for defamation. In that same case there were some other affidavits from others who said that they would find young girls for Pete Rose. This is all available to peruse online. In this case, it's not technically heresay either as the woman's testimony was admitted (under the name Jane Doe). You have to choose whether to believe it or not and also as to whether it would or should preclude him from induction.
So to answer the questions.
I believe his intent was to avoid a formal finding of guilt which would all but end his chances of ever being inducted.
What hearsay? Both are undisputed facts that Rose himself admitted.
I did not mean to upset people who are fans of Pete Rose. He was a great baseball player.
I wanted to correct the record because time makes people, to quote the great wordsmith Roger Clemens, misremember.
The fact is that Pete Rose willingly accepted a lifetime ban from baseball rather than have the Dowd Report findings made public - which was good for both Rose and MLB to keep that information private - only to then lie for fifteen years about it firmly asserting that he had never ever bet on baseball. Then he wrote a book where he admitted to betting on baseball.
How could I believe anything he says with respect to his betting on baseball?
Improper perceptions about sports and gambling had already killed horse racing and boxing and wrestling was on its way out.
People also forget Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were also banned for working at casinos after their retirement.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
"which was good for both Rose and MLB to keep that information private"
So, why would MLB use a threat of making information public, that they themselves don't want to be made public, to leverage Rose in to signing something? That doesn't add up.
What if Rose was lying in his book to sell books and to keep the fire burning?
I hear the guys at Midieval Times can be bought cheap.
He'll get in, because if MLB says no again, I'm sure there will suddenly be hearings about their anti-trust exemption.
@CardGeek
You can quite easily look up the information you seek for yourself and decide what adds up. You seem skeptical of my information so by all means, seek it out for yourself. I’m human and make mistakes so perhaps I’ve gotten some key details wrong.
What is a fact is that when presented with the findings Dowd Report, Pete Rose accepted a lifetime ban to prevent it being released. The general consensus at the time was that Pete Rose was less concerned with the gambling aspect becoming public (he knew his friends, family and fans wouldn’t care) and much more concerned with the underage girls stuff becoming public (they might, would and probably a percentage would care).
Now, if he’s innocent of all charges on both issues, I would highly doubt that he is ever voluntarily accepting a lifetime ban.
Yet, he did.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Where exactly can I look that information up? You mean on the internet?
So you're saying that MLB agreed to withhold information about statutory rape in exchange for what exactly?
Why would information about underage girls be included in an investigation about sports betting?
I think singing in an Aqua Velva commercial is grounds for being on the ineligible list.