Pete Rose , Hall of Famer???

Kendall

May happen after all. Im curious to see how this will effect the Rose registry. Im sure you will see a nice jump in the value of his cards at the least.

KING KELLOGG

Kendall...


If MLB kicked all the drunks, womanizers, gamblers, drug addicts, politically incorrect folk, and general riffraff out of the Hall..... You wouldn,t need a very big building to house baseballs best!

In my opinion.... Without Pete Rose, there isn't a Hall Of Fame! Period.


It's amazing that Rose will pull more people into a card show, on a consistant basis, than most of the players that are already in the Hall.



My 2 cents.



Larry.

LuxuryWines

Does Pete Rose Belong in the Hall? YES! (by the way you can add SHoeless Joe while you are at it BUD).

Will it positively affect his card values --- TO be quite honest I doubt it ... Pete has a pretty big following already ....

curmudgeon

Pete Rose did the only thing Baseball has said is forbidden-- he bet on baseball. The commissioner spared him the public disgrace of going forward with his proof in exchange for Rose's voluntary banishment. Rose won't admit anything and refuses to say he's sorry.

This is a great country, and a person ought to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. So Pete, let's have you agree that the whole world can see the evidence and a determination can be made whether you bet on baseball. The truth will set you free. Everyone will scratch their head in wonderment as to why you were ever banned, and praise you for agreeing to take such a severe punishment when you were clearly in the right.

Or, if the evidence comes down against you, everyone will see how vile was your conduct. Journalists will bring the rest of the country up to speed on the Black Sox scandal and how the integrity of the game was nearly shattered some 83 years ago. The apologists will come out with the nefarius conduct of others as somehow justifying Pete's "minor" transgression, but those with an appreciation of the game's integrity and history will know better.

In virtually every professional baseball clubhouse in the country, signs are posted saying no gambling on baseball. It has been that way for at least 50 years. Being told that he could not do just one thing, Pete Rose did it anyway, and put himself above the game with no regard for potential adverse consequences. He remains the same defiant SOB who claims he's the one who has been wronged.

Unless and until he obtains a determination that he did not bet on baseball, Rose should remain banned. If he is admitted to the Hall without having this issue cleared, I for one will never set foot in that Hall.
Todd

toppsgun

Curmudgeon,

You could not have said it better with one less nor one more word. Perfect! You nailed it.

Toppsgun

theBobs

<< <i>Rose won't admit anything and refuses to say he's sorry. >>

This is the rub.

1420sports

Well said King Kellogg.

I do not think the values will jump that high on his cards. Not that I would sell mine ayway...

jaxxr

Rose should be in the hall, along with Maris, Hodges, an Joe Jackson.....,

.....who was banned for life. I think I am correct in thinking his LIFE is over, comlete, done, finalized, Etc., why can't one one the best hitters ever be enshirned ???

FB

Larry,

I'm with you. Unless it can be proved that he bet AGAINST a team over which he had influence while managing or playing - then drop this charade and let him in. I don't see anyone looking to have Cobb removed from the Hall for his gambling and game fixing indiscretions.

We're looking to elect him to th BASEBALL Hall of Fame - not make him St. Pete!

curmudgeon

Sorry Mr. Bakka,

But this is hardly a charade. Again, per the wire services today:

<John Dowd, who headed the inquiry for commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti, wrote a report that detailed 412 baseball wagers between April 8 and July 5, 1987, including 52 on Cincinnati to win. Dowd cited evidence that included betting slips alleged to be in Rose's handwriting, and telephone and bank records. >

400+ baseball bets in three months!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you think that might comprise blatant disregard for the rules? Are you implying that the rule is meaningless or foolish? The charade is stating that such betting should be tolerated so long as he didn't bet against his own team. You don't think he could rig the lineups--give his best players extra rest, rotate his starting pitchers to get particular mismatches, let some relievers get pounded so his closer and the remaining staff would be available for the "wagered" game, etc.- in essence put the team's and his players' interests behind his own?

You're right, St. Pete he ain't. But to slam him for staining the game is not being polyannish, judgmental or anything akin to it. It is merely recognition that the man should not be allowed to join those who played by the rules, who did not consider themselves above those rules, and who, whatever their other faults, treated the game with respect.

Yzerman19C

I'm with Frank on this one . Unless it was proven he bet on the Reds to lose while managing them i think he has did his punishment and should be in the Hall of Fame. As for his card prices going up i really think they will continue to rise anyway (in the Hall or not) he is extremely popular with the fans and that has really never changed.

Im sure there are many men already in the Hall that have did much worse

Randy

49erfaithful

Alleged, this word pops up alot. Do you think the evidence would have convicted him in a court of law?
I'd betit wouldn't have gotten a conviction.

KING KELLOGG

curmudgeon.....


Todd... The Baseball Hall of Fame is just that!!! The very best in the game!!!


Did you forget that Mantle and Mays were both thrown out because of associating with known gangsters???...Later they were reinstated!

Did you forget that Ty Cobb once went after a fan and almost beat him to death???
Cobb is in the Hall.



As far as the comment that there is a sign in every clubhouse about gambling....Well, I've been in 16 Major League clubhouses, and over 100 Minor League "shacks" and not once have I ever seen , or heard about, any such sign.


The Hall wasn't created for just players "that have a perfect driving record".. It was built for the sheer caliber of baseball...


It's too bad you won't be joining the festivities when Rose is inducted............
.............I'll be there, in the front row, clapping my hands until they hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Larry.

theBobs

<< <i>Rose should be in the hall, along with Maris, Hodges, an Joe Jackson....., >>

Hodge's lack of HOF merits are discussed here.

Rose controls his own fate, if he apologies he will be admitted into the HOF. Pride is costly.

curmudgeon

49faithful:

Depends on the court. If charged criminally, the evidence would have to show his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and he could not be compelled to testify. I would still believe there to be a better than 50-50 chance that he would be found guilty. However, it is important to note that the statute of limitations has almost certainly run on any criminal charges. So why not come out and tell us your side, big boy?

If faced with some sort of civil action, where the burden of proof is more probable than not, he would clearly be nailed. Also, he could not hide behind any 5th amendment privilege and would have to answer the tough questions under oath.

In the court of public opinion, I believe he also would be buried. Tha Dowd excerpt covered three months (he still bet on what--60% of his team's games). Dig deeper, and I doubt you find Petey woke up one day in April 1987 and started to bet on baseball for the first time and just for something to do. Obviously, I am not a Rose fan, but I think anyone who heard the evidence, and especially whatever arrogant and blame-shifting response he offered, would come to realize that 'ol Charley Hustle is better called Charley Hustler.

theBobs

The Dowd Report.

brucemo

I haven't thought about the Pete Rose thing enough that I can make a good argument either way.

I do think that it's false that nobody is harmed if he only bets on his own team.

Use of inside informations unfair either way, and information about his betting patterns can be abused.

That he *doesn't* bet on some games is a significant statement.

bruce

theBobs

More often than not, its not the crime that ruins public figures but rather their response to the crime. As Martha Stewart, if she had just come clean about the Imclone sale, she wouldn't be facing potential criminal charges. The lies did her in.

I think there is a subset of people that will always be against Rose in the HOF. Another subset that will always be for Rose in the HOF. I fall into the third category, people wanting Rose in the HOF but also wanting him to be a man, take accoutability for his actions, quit the lies, and apologize.

I don't believe this thread will move anyone from one subset to another.

curmudgeon

The Bobs:

Thank you for the link--it's great reading. Todd

aro13

I think Bill James (as usual) states the case the best, ""Second, you can reach that conclusion by a slipshod argument which confuses breaking the rules with "being a bad person." This is the argument we hear constantly from sportswriters, that Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame because Ty Cobb is there, and he was no saint (as a matter of fact he was barely human) and Babe Ruth is there and he's no saint, etc.
This has nothing to do with the issue. Pete Rose isn't banned from baseball because he's a bad person. he's banned from baseball because he broke the rules. The problem with Pete Rose isn't that he gambled. The problem is that he broke the rule against gambling.
Ty Cobb was a racist and a thug, but there is no rule against being a racist and a thug. Babe Ruth, who was married, entertained groups of naked women in his hotel room. You may or may not choose to condemn this, but there is no rule against it. For very good reasons there is a rule against betting on baseball."


Cleary Rose is a Hall of Famer and once his ban his lifted he will go to the Hall.
However, by betting on baseball he is breaking the rules. Regardless of whether or not he bet for or against his own team, he would manage a game far differently if the bet were on his own team even to win that game.

1420sports

- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -

theBobs

If Rose apologizes and takes accountability for HIS actions in 1990, goes on Barbara Walters, etc. then ALL of this is FORGOTTEN a year later.

MickeyC

Has anyone seen the piece on Rose where there is evidence that he didn't bet on baseball? I forget who produced it, but I saw it on either ESPN or some other cable channel last year.

Let me preface this: I think Rose bet on baseball, and always thought he bet on baseball, and Rose is my favorite all time player.

Here's what that piece/documentary on the Rose situation brought to light:

1. One of the fingerprints discovered in the investigation was on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper with team names and such on it, a betting scratch sheet if you will. The only fingerprint found on that sheet was consistent with a finger print of someone tearing out a sheet of paper from a notebook (thumb on front, forefinger on back).

***Rose claims he was framed by a bookie who claimed Rose owed him money. Rose claims that this bookie had probably asked him for a sheet of paper out of a notebook, and used that sheet as "evidence", having Pete's fingerprints on it.

2. On one of the "betting slips", there was a list of teams and who they were playing and the date. On a particular date, the Reds were listed as playing a team, a team that, according to the schedule, they didn't play that day. This would lead one to think that this bookie created this slip, using a random team vs. the Reds. Wouldn't Rose know who they were playing on a certain date?

Of course, the flip side to this argument was the fact that Rose had several hundred phone calls to his bookie in either May or June (I don't remember the month). What sport is happening in those months? Of course, baseball.

This piece opened my eyes to the evidence that Rose is claiming is false.

In the end, though, he did do it.

Mark

PlayBall

Does the "evidence" really matter anymore?

For those of you on AOL, you probably saw the poll when you signed on. With 217,000+ votes, 84% say to reinstate, and 87% believe he should be in the HOF. Baseball is down, and needs something to pick it back up. This obviously won't solve all the problems, but it's something. The crowd for his induction ceremony would be record-setting.

For every one of you who will never step foot in the Hall if Pete goes in, it looks like there are 4 others who will.

mikeschmidt

I think if he got in -- the value of his cards may decrease. Like it or not -- much of his "attention" over the past decade and a half has been related to this controversy. Take the controversy away -- and what is left? Just another great hitter.

Rose cards sell at typically large premiums given the years of issue and many of the populations. This is because of his popularity -- which is relative to the press he gets, which he only gets now for his ongoing stunts like signing autographs down the street in Cooperstown on Induction Weekend.

As for Rose betting on the Reds -- even if he bet for the Reds, he should be banned forever. If Rose is the main decision-maker in a game (which he is as a manager), his having money on the line compromises his ability to manage without prejudice. If he has money riding on the game -- his decisions about keeping his star #1 starter in longer than he otherwise would could potentially ruin a career. Just like in almost *every other professional industry*, standards and judgements are made only by those who are independent of the outcome of his or her decisions.

As easy as it is to make fun of accountants -- how would the public perceive it if I, as a forensic auditor of an airline client, actively traded (whether buying or short-selling) in that company's stock? Would it comprise my independence and judgement? You bet -- as it did Rose's.

MS

Kendall

My opinion:

Joe Jackson took money to throw games. I dont care if he did hit over .300 the evidence showed that he took the money. He should never be allowed in.

Pete Rose most likely bet on baseball. If he bet on his own team, he is out. If he did not bet on his own team then I would say he has payed his dues.


Now, to add a little flavor.

Do you think he would be first ballot?

FB

Kendall,

If Pete bet AGAINST his own team (even once) - then I agree with you. His lifetime ban should be upheld. But, if he only bet on his own team to win, then in my opinion, he was simply "putting his money where his mouth is". In that case he should be forced to say "I'm sorry", look suitably contrite and then enter the Hall.

First ballot? - do bears poop in the woods?

By the way - good controversial thread!

LJB17

<< <i>As for Rose betting on the Reds -- even if he bet for the Reds, he should be banned forever. If Rose is the main decision-maker in a game (which he is as a manager), his having money on the line compromises his ability to manage without prejudice. If he has money riding on the game -- his decisions about keeping his star #1 starter in longer than he otherwise would could potentially ruin a career. Just like in almost *every other professional industry*, standards and judgements are made only by those who are independent of the outcome of his or her decisions. >>



Please note that Pete Rose is my favorite player for what he did while he was on the field, and for that I believe he deserves to be in the HOF. I am a huge Rose fan and I have a mini shrine dedicated to him within my home, but I do have a problem with his betting. Many people claim that as long as he never bet against his own team, then there is no real crime, but as MikeSchmidt has stated above their may have been. I believe that when Rose was managing he set a record at the time for the most pitching changes in a season. Maybe he was just ahead of his time in this regard, but if he ever threw a young arm an extra day or an extra inning to win a bet then this is wrong. If he ended careers to win his bets than that is just as inexcusable as betting against his own team. I hope that Pete never did such a thing, but betting on your own team win or lose is inexcusable regardless of the rules.

Luke

Galveston

Needs to be a clear difference between the Hall of Fame and being accepted by MLB.

Yes, he should be allowed induction into the Hall of Fame.

No, he shouldn't be allowed to work in MLB in any capacity.

No old timers game, no spring training. But HOF? Absolutely.

gemint

I'm with Galveston. The HOF induction would be based on his playing career, not managing career. The "proof" he bet on baseball was based on events that occured after he retired from active play. I don't see a problem with enshrining him in the hall while continuing the ban on being employed by any clubs. I don't see a problem with allowing him to attend ceremonial functions but should not be allowed to influence games in any way (i.e., coaching, scouting, etc)

theBobs

Strange love for Rose?

curmudgeon

The Bobs,


Another great link--your are the beacon!!!!!

For those who choose not to read the entire column, which incidentally highlights the flawed use of polls if not the lack of critical thinking in this country, please read this:

>Because every man who wears the uniform knows Rule 21(d) by heart:

BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.


In 1987, when he supposedly bet on at least three games, Rose had been in the major leagues for nearly a quarter of a century. So if he did bet on baseball, he knew exactly the risk he was taking. This isn't a case where somebody did something they weren't supposed to do, and then a judge exercised his own discretion while imposing a sentence. The sentence was already spelled out, in black and white in every clubhouse in the major leagues. Pete Rose must have walked past that sign something like 10,000 times between 1963 and 1988. <



I agree with the prior post that said it was doubtful anything in this thread will change anyone's perception of Pete Rose. Still, for the younger members who perhaps were not yet avid baseball fans in the mid-late '80s, I truly hope you will understand the enormity of the gambling issue, examine what happened with Mr. Rose and form your own reasoned opinion on what should happen to those who completely and repeatedly disregard what is baseball's number 1 rule.
Peace..............todd

carkim

1) Do you believe Pete Rose bet on baseball games?

91.9% Yes

8.1% No


2) Do you believe Rose bet on Cincinnati Reds games while he was manager of the Reds?

56.1% Yes

43.9% No


3) Which of the following is closest to your opinion?

11.0% Rose should remain banned from baseball and the Hall of Fame for betting on baseball.

1.1% Rose should be reinstated to baseball and be eligible to be hired in baseball, but should not be elected to the Hall of Fame.

21.6% Rose should be elected to the Hall of Fame, but should remain banned from baseball for betting on games.

7.5% Rose should be reinstated and elected to the Hall of Fame because he did nothing wrong.

7.6% Rose should be reinstated and elected to the Hall of Fame because a player should not be banned for betting on baseball games.

51.2% Rose should be reinstated and elected to the Hall of Fame because, even though he bet on baseball games, he's paid the price.


4) If Pete Rose is reinstated by Major League Baseball, for which job would you want your favorite team to hire him?

22.1% Manager

32.3% Hitting coach

12.5% Broadcaster

33.1% None of the above -- I wouldn't want my favorite team to hire him


5) What is the worst transgression in baseball?

21.2% Betting on baseball games

20.0% Failing to hustle

30.9% Using cocaine

27.9% Using steroids


6) If a current player is found to have bet on baseball games, how should he be punished?

30.1% One-year ban

44.6% Five-year ban

25.3% Permanent ban


7) If Rose is reinstated, should Joe Jackson be reinstated and made eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame?

79.9% Yes

20.1% No


Total Votes: 73,799

gemint

One point I disagree with the article's author is the insinuation that drug abuse affects the image of the game but he implies it does not affect the integrity of the game. Just look to Dave Parker's career in the late 70's and mid-80's vs the early 80's when he was doing cocaine. Look at Darryl Strawberry's production with the Mets vs all teams thereafter. Look at Dock Ellis beaning 5 batters in a row in the early 70's when he was on drugs. How could the author make a case that this type of abuse doesn't affect the outcome of games and therefore the integrity? The player is knowingly doing something that will decrease his ability to perform. How do the Dodgers feel about what they had to give up to get Darryl Strawberry? Could they have invested that money elsewhere to make their team better? How did the Pirates feel when their million dollar superstar became an oft injured mediocre player on a team that quickly slid from a World Series victory to 100 loss seasons.

I think baseball and other sports have to get serious about drug abuse. It's not simply a "lifestyle choice" that affects the image of the game. It directly affects the outcome of games. That goes for steroids and other enhancement performing drugs. I think the NFL is heading in the right direction with the zero tolerance policy. As long as players check with the team physician before they take prescription medication, they don't have to worry about getting suspended for taking cough syrup.

braves72078

<< <i>May happen after all. Im curious to see how this will effect the Rose registry. Im sure you will see a nice jump in the value of his cards at the least. >>




I agree 100%, I think Rose was awesome. If the players of today played with that intensity the game would be much better to watch.

theBobs

<< <i>If Rose apologizes and takes accountability for HIS actions in 1990, goes on Barbara Walters, etc. then ALL of this is FORGOTTEN a year later. >>



Substitute Charles Gibson for Barbara Walters.

I wonder if Rose will apologize to John Dowd, he is one of the few people that actually looks good in this entire mess.

BigKidAtHeart

<< <i>Pete Rose did the only thing Baseball has said is forbidden-- he bet on baseball. >>

curmudgeon,
so why is Joe Jackson not in>?
He did not BET on Baseball?



bottom line is that he told Selig
in 2002, and will publically admit it
in his book, and interview (see below)
and will be reinstated and in the HOF
next year.

sellerman23

This just in!

Rose comes clean!

Dave
sellerman23

jimtb

My two cents:
It is clearly posted in every major league clubhouse that betting is againist the rules. This is baseball's cardinal rule. It is the only way to maintain the integrity of the game. Rose broke the rules, and he's admitted (finally) to breaking to rules. Sorry Pete, you put up some amazing numbers, but refused to follow the rules. The Hall is not for you.
Jim

qualitycards

<< <i>and will be reinstated and in the HOF >>


BIGKID - Being reinstated is phase 1, getting voted in the Hall is phase 2.
The baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame inductions may hold grudges, and not vote for Pete. Does he have HOF #'s, absoulutely! - Does that translate into induction, not necessarily! - Keep in mind there were voters who didn't vote for Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Nolan Ryan etc... No one was 100% on all ballots. With this Pete Rose situation over the last decade and a half, I'm sure many writers will not vote him in, especially the ones that Pete lied to face to face!...jay

mikeschmidt

He did agree to a lifetime ban. I do not respect him for having bet on baseball (which he did, as is now abundantly clear) -- and I respect him even less for trying to go back on his word. He agreed to the lifetime ban, and now cries like a baby to that which he agreed. Talk about childish.

theBobs

Marc,

Don't forget the lying, and attacking baseball/Dowd constantly when in fact they were right!

interchanges

Wow, those were some serious essays!

I'm just sick of Pete Rose. Can't he just go away?

Quite frankly I think he's more popular by being banished, and that's what he wants, right?

Joe Jackson and Pete, I think neither of them should be in the HOF.
Ya gotta deal with what you've been dealt. It's not like they went to jail.
Look at Joe Jackson, if he were in the HOF, he would be just another great player, but being banished? Wow! People take notice of that!
(I know, Jackson had big stats in the 1919 World Series, but not in the games they lost!!!)

qualitycards

Another thing that has irked me about Rose is when he was interviewd about his banishment about a year ago. He stated that the banishment took away his livelyhood since he couldn't manage or be on licensed cards and memorabilia. He stated he's lost millions.
His interview seemed all about dollars and cents, not the pride of being a HOF'er - just what it cost him finacially...jay

theBobs

And now his confession is engineered to SELL his book.

Rose = $

1420sports

As a Rose fan, I never wanted to believe that he bet on baseball. Then I didn't want to believe that he bet against the Reds. Then I didn't want to believe that he would never get back in baseball, as I was all for him getting reinstated.

I do not think that Rose should be reinstated now, as much as I hate to admit it. I think that baseball should stick to it's guns with some concession however. Make him eligible for the Hall of Fame as a player, let the Reds and Phillies have a Pete Rose night, and let Pete Rose give something back to baseball. He can do just that.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

aconte

1420,

You should change your icon you traitor!

The Phils would still be searching for that ring without him. I know two wrongs don't make a right,
but there are a lot worse players in the HOF. Also, from the excerpt I read, I can understand
that he messed up. The current rules (and yes they are rules) could not help save him.
His sickness had him doomed from the start. While a drug addict or spouse abuser could
be rehabilitated, Rose the sick gambler had no chance if caught.

So now Rose is betting on telling the truth to get back in. A sad man but still a HOFer for
the things he did for baseball.

aconte

1420sports

Tony - you know what I am saying. If he is reinstated fully, I will have no problem with that. I would hope that he is scrutinized and monitored, as he can bring a lot back to the game. And yes, you know that 1980 would have never happened w/o him.

I made that post waiting for a Rose supporter to post about drug addiction. It seems only anti-Rose contigence does not recognize that gambling is a sickness along the lines of drug abuse. Which is worse? Neither. They are different and the same. However, one is "allowable" and one is not. Baseball made the rule of NO GAMBLING during a time when mentally challenged people were sent to an asylum. We now realize that gambling is a disease.

Pete got caught and did not want to admit it. If Steve Howe did not get caught would he admit that he was an addict? Or Gooden? Probably not. They got back in, and Howe was a 7 or 8 time loser.

goodriddance189

<< <i>He did agree to a lifetime ban. I do not respect him for having bet on baseball (which he did, as is now abundantly clear) -- and I respect him even less for trying to go back on his word. He agreed to the lifetime ban, and now cries like a baby to that which he agreed. Talk about childish. >>



i agree 100%

srs1a

No way Pete. You screwed up and screwed up badly. Quit whining and abide by the conditions that you've already accepted.

Skycap

Pete Rose should never be made eligible for election to the Hall of Fame. His induction would tarnish the memory of all of the greats who have ever been enshrined. He is a despicable human being who is now getting desperate in an attempt to "restore his honor." It makes me sick just to see him.

I was listening to a few talk shows over the weekend, and it appears that most HOFers (his bar-hopping girl-chasing accomplice Mike Schmidt excuded) are strongly against his being made eligible for election. On one show I heard Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan speak out against his eligibility. Morgan was especially outspoken. He said most HOFers would boycott his induction ceremony.

He has a much better chance of getting voted in by the writers. I understand his initial 15-year eligibility period with the writers ends in 2005, so that helps explain why he's getting so desparate.

Skycap