Can Peter Rose possibly be more stupid?

theBobs · January 22, 2004 11:42PM

Rose to appear at Foxwoods Resort Casino to sign new book...

rw2win · January 22, 2004 11:46PM

stupid is as stupid does...

BigKidAtHeart · January 22, 2004 11:48PM

THAT IS FUNNY!

It would be like Michael Jackson holding his next
big fundraiser/concert/event at an exclusive private
PreSchool for Boys!

1420sports · January 23, 2004 12:13AM

grilloj39 · January 23, 2004 12:14AM

My take on Pete Rose is simple imo...his 4000+ hits occurred before he gambled on baseball---he goes to the Hall of Fame.

Second, he is a jerk who has a gambling problem and is not willing to admit it...as such, he should never be allowed back into baseball in a managerial/executive capacity again until he seeks treatment.

Third, somehow, baseball and others are linking these two scenarios together...that he has to be reinstated into baseball again to be eligible to manage before he can be considered as a Hall of Fame nominee. Let's keep the two separate imo.

Fourth...What's wrong with a guy writing a book, promoting it, and making money. These actions should have no bearing on whether or not he goes to the Hall of Fame.

1420sports · January 23, 2004 12:18AM

I agree with all point grillo, but Pete cannot be this dumb. Promoting a book is one thing - I cannot understand why some are so against that - but in a casino???? This certainly does not help his image of looking to clean up his act.

murcerfan · January 23, 2004 12:25AM

perhaps he knows where to find support for his cause.
...........besides there is no sports betting at Foxwoods (at least that I know of).

grilloj39 · January 23, 2004 12:25AM

Again, his promoting a book in a casino just shows how callous he is. But being a total a-hole should disqualify you from the Hall....just ask Mr Cobb.

toppsgun · January 23, 2004 12:29AM

Next thing you know Bill Clinton will deliver stump speeches for Hillary in a brothel.

Edited to note that it will be Bill in the brothel, not Hillary.

mrc32 · January 23, 2004 12:38AM

grilloj39- I agree with everything you said. Well put.

carew4me · January 23, 2004 1:03AM

The man has no shame. The question is..does baseball?

qualitycards · January 23, 2004 1:31AM

With Rose, its all about the money. Funny thing though, its that way with most of the ballplayers (ex & current) but Rose just seems to be more blantant about it, and that just rubs everyone the wrong way. Like I said, when I read Rose's confession in S.I. 2 weeks ago, the only way he'll see the Hall Of Fame is with an admission ticket...jay

RedRomad275 · January 23, 2004 1:39AM

So it's ok to be" about the money" but keep it under wraps but to be blatant about it is wrong...............hmmmmmmm.

Boopotts · January 23, 2004 1:46AM

Grillo-

first off, let me say I always enjoy your posts-- you're a level headed guy, and a good thinker-- definitely a great poster both here and on SGC.

But, on this Rose issue I have to disagree. Like Hank Aaron said, the rules are right there in every clubhouse-- the fact that you hit 4000 singles doesn't mean you're exempt. Also, in the words of Fay Vincent, this is really the ONLY rule baseball has-- you can't bet on the games. You can be a wife beater, a racist, a doper, whatever- but you can't bet on baseball. Period. It's really the only thing you can do to seriously compromise the character of the game (as opposed to compromising your own character, which is fine), and anyone who does this doesn't deserve to be acknowledged by MLB. You screw baseball, baseball screws you. I think that's fair, even if I think it's sometimes unfortunate.

slvnumber2 · January 23, 2004 1:54AM

I used to think that Pete belonged in the HOF for all of his accomplishments on the field, and what happened with betting should not be factored in as much as his stats. After seeing the interview and reading his comments I have to say that I don't want him in the HOF irregardless of what he did as a player. He only cares about one thing and this is himself and the only reason he gave an admission is that the window of opportunity is almost closed for him with only one more year left to nominate him.

I think that he should be judged by a jury of his peers, and it seems as if that has already happened with people like Aaron and Fergie speaking out and really nobody new supporting him. He knew that it was illegal to bet on baseball and he has lied about it for 14 years and only wants to come clean to get in the Hall - period. Even in admitting he is a liar and has only hurt his case for the hall and in the public eye.

He played on my favorite team growing up (the Big Red Machine), but I will not own his items again and have sold all of my Rose cards this week as well. Time to buy some Aarons!

toppsgun · January 23, 2004 2:22AM

Boopotts and slvnumber2, on this issue, you have shown you have character.

Grilloj39, you have only shown that you ARE a character.

Rose, HOF, no.

qualitycards · January 23, 2004 2:23AM

<< So it's ok to be" about the money" but keep it under wraps but to be blatant about it is wrong...............hmmmmmmm. >>

RED - Apparently!
Everyone is coming down on Rose & Barry Bonds for their blatant attempt to capture the dollar. Other ballplayers have endoresments, show signings and huge contracts and virtually nothings mentioned. Is it right?, is it wrong? But perception has alot to do with it. Rose is the same guy he was last month, a year ago and 10 years ago. But his popularity has taken a hit in the world of public opinion, and that translates into more then just dollars and cents...jay

estang · January 23, 2004 2:26AM

I agree with Grillo's points.

The other point I'd like to make on the subject is that I'm simply tired about hearing about him and the debate. I'm in favor of taking action that will minimize his media time. Either let the guy in now or tell him that he will never ever get in. Close the door on the situation, as it doesn't promote the sport in a positive light.

grilloj39 · January 23, 2004 2:37AM

OK I understand the rule on betting on baseball---it's the only rule!

OK, if you break the rule, you are banished from baseball. Rose would be getting "screwed" by never being allowed to manage or be part of baseball again.

Does the rule state if you bet on baseball, you are banned from the Hall of Fame? These are two different points.

I don't agree with baseball having 1 rule (in which the offense is related to an addiction, a disease just like drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.), and being lenient on other criminal offenses. It's not being objective, nor is it being prudent. Rules can be changed and just because a rule exists doesn't mean it must be "forever written in stone."

1420sports · January 23, 2004 3:11AM

The Hall of Fame acts as a separate entity, so it could be up to them. The Hall would not act against baseball's wishes, from what I understand.

edited - sick of the Rose arguments

qualitycards · January 23, 2004 3:13AM

<< Does the rule state if you bet on baseball, you are banned from the Hall of Fame >>

GRILLO - That isn't listed anywhere.
What about Joe Jackson?, he was banned from baseball after the 1920 season, almost 2 decades before the Hall Of Fames existence (HOF's 1st class of inductees was '36 , and the HOF opened in '39). Jackson was given a "lifetime ban", he's now been dead over 50 years and apparently the ban is still in force as there s no mention from the Baseball brass if he ever will be eligible. So its more then a lifetime ban for Shoeless Joe, and his numbers are certainly HOF worthy - So my point is... It doesn't have to be mentioned in public or in private, but if Baseball holds a grudge, it will be awhile.

Another thought. Leo Durocher had consorted w/ gamblers/mobsters and was suspended. He did make the Hall Of Fame though, 3 years after his death in 1994!. He didn't exactly die young he was 86. I guess they never wanted him to enjoy the privilidge of enshrinement...jay

1420sports · January 23, 2004 3:38AM

Both Pete and Joe should be on the ballot for 2005.

Forgive and forget, it is the American way.

BugOnTheRug · January 23, 2004 4:07AM

grillo and 1420. I can appreciate you being fans of Rose, as his career is HOF caliber. However, to 'forgive and forget' is overly simplistic.
WHY???

1) Every clubhouse posts the rule on betting. He blatantly broke this.
2) Rose's total career hits CONTINUED as he was playing, HITTING, and betting on baseball in 1985 and 1986.
3) He bet on baseball while Red's manager. He bet the Reds to win AND would NOT place bets on Reds games when Lynn McGlothin was to pitch. So, not betting against Reds? Get Real!
4) For 14 years he denies betting on baseball, then flippantly say's "Yea, I bet". Incredible!!!!!
5) I will stop here as I could go on and on...................

It seems your rational is, 'if the stats and legend are great enough, then bending, twisting, and breaking the rules could be overlooked or ignored.' If all great players in all sports can do this without real repercussions, why have any rules?????

Sorry, Rose to this day thinks he is greater than the game of baseball and should pay the ultimate price of HOF exclusion. I wish it weren't so, but he had a chance to make amends. I feel no pity for him.

BOTR

aro13 · January 23, 2004 4:11AM

Players on baseball's suspended list are ineligible for the Hall of Fame vote.

1)The Baseball Hall of Fame is the highest honour a baseball player can receive. Allowing Rose to be eligible for the Hall of Fame and bestowing on him that honour while keeping him banned from other capacities in baseball is not appropriate.
2)There are plenty of bad people in the baseball hall of fame, there are wife-beaters, drug addicts, alcoholics, racists etc. However, none of them have ever been banned from baseball and have not broken a rule specific to baseball and sports. Rose is not in the Hall of Fame because he is a bad person but because he broke a major rule.
3)I am surprised Selig has kept him on the ineligible list. Even if Selig re-instates him now he would still have to be voted in by 75% of the sports writers and that is certainly not a given. Plus, would an owner give him a job as a major league manager. The publicity would certainly create an interest but every one of his moves would be under such scrutiny it would be awfully difficult for him to effectively manage.
4)The last time I was in Cooperstown, Pete Rose was still a part of the Hall of Fame. His records are in the archives, there is a section on the big Red Machine. He has not been eliminated from the Hall of Fame but merely denied a plaque.
If Selig were to make him eligible in all capacities to return to baseball and he were to be voted into the Hall of Fame I would not see a problem with that. I just do not think it would make sense to put him in the Hall of Fame at this point but keep him banned from baseball.

Skycap · January 23, 2004 4:57AM

"Can Peter Rose possibly be more stupid?"

Yes, he could well become more stupid. He never ceases to surprise us with his stupidity, so why should he stop now? He is fully capable of doing something more stupid tomorrow and then something even more stupid next week. Stay tuned.

No Hall of Fame for Pete! He is a disgrace and embarrassment to the game.

Skycap

jrinck · January 23, 2004 6:24AM

I think Baseball is being horribly unfair to Rose. Sure, he bet on baseball, and that's a punishable offense, and while it took him 14 years to admit it, that's 14 years of exile. A murderer can be back in society in a mere 6 years, but Rose is given a life sentence for making a few bets? If Society accepts that a killer can be rehabilitated/punished in only 6 years, the what the H*ll does Baseball think it is for banning someone for life for a much less serious offense?

I respect Pete Rose for the level of intensity that he brought to the game. I'm reading his book right now, and I'm starting to understand where his tough exterior comes from. I don't get the sense that he's as big of a jerk as he's made out to be. Could I be friends with him, though? Maybe not, as he's perhaps too competitive for me, but that doesn't mean he's a jerk. He goes all out in whatever he does and probably expects the same from those he comes in contact with.

And as for him being expected to stop gambling, who the H*ll's business is that? So he goes to the track and bets on some ponies? He's done that virtually ALL of his life and it's a part of who he is. It's legal, as well, so who cares? If I had to choose between my sports hero being a steroid addict or a horserace fanatic, I'd choose the horse guy every time.

Pete Rose is one of, if not THE, best baseball player the world has ever known. To deny him his due of the Hall-of-Fame because of a chip on somebody's shoulder is a black mark on baseball. If Rose continues to be banned while the wife-beaters and dopers continue to be paid MILLIONS and touted as heroes to our children, then I suppose I now know what Baseball feels is more important out of a human being.

Sniff, inject, and whallop your wives, just DON'T bet on baseball, and everything will be fine.

Tabe · January 23, 2004 6:37AM

<< I think Baseball is being horribly unfair to Rose. Sure, he bet on baseball, and that's a punishable offense, and while it took him 14 years to admit it, that's 14 years of exile. A murderer can be back in society in a mere 6 years, but Rose is given a life sentence for making a few bets? If Society accepts that a killer can be rehabilitated/punished in only 6 years, the what the H*ll does Baseball think it is for banning someone for life for a much less serious offense? >>

Baseball tells you up-front the punishment for betting on your own team - lifetime ban. It's that simple. They tell you the rule, they tell you the punishment. All baseball is doing is upholding their own rule - one that Pete knew about and violated anyway.

To whoever asked, YES, there is a rule stating you can't get in the HOF if you're "banned from baseball". However, it's a fairly recently rule (1990?) that states a player must be "in good standing" with baseball to be eligible for the HOF.

Tabe
www.tabe.nu

qualitycards · January 23, 2004 7:01AM

JRINCK - I don't disagree w/ your comments. But as I alluded to earlier several posts ago, what about Joe Jackson? He took money in the 1919 World Series, but he didn't really "throw" a game, he hit over .300 and fielded well. After the 1920 season, Joe and the other 7 players were booted for life, Joe hit .382 in 570 at bats in his farewell year of major league baseball, he retired w/ a .356 batting average. Ty Cobb the greatest hitter ever, stated that Jackson was the best he's seen, and Cobb wasn't one to hand out compliments.
So its almost 85 years later and Joe Jackson still isn't in the HOF or even mentioned, it may be a long while for Pete as well...jay

theBobs · January 23, 2004 7:10AM

Jrink,

I disagree with most of your post, but understand the logic.

I do have one question --

If Rose defenders are claiming "illness" or "disease" with gambling much like drugs or alcohol, then how the hell can anyone justify his continued gambling? Even if its legal, its still evidence pure and simple that he has yet to deal with his disease. One would think that if baseball were SO important to him AND that he solicits compassion for his terrible illness that at least he would complete a 12 step program and no longer gamble.

To me, the disease argument isn't enough to get him to the HOF. However, even if it were, he has not proven that he treats his gambling seriously.

What is it that they say? -- the first step to curing alcoholism is admiting there is a problem? Rose wants to defend his situation under the guise of a disease, yet continually trumpets that his gambling ISN'T a problem, that he thought the 12 step program was stupid, and he continues to gamble. I have yet to hear him clearly explain why its wrong for a manager to bet on his own team. He simply DOESN'T think its wrong.

If Rose were to be reinstated, it would be the same as reinstating a former drug addict who still does cocaine during press conferences.

To me, this argument doesn't hold water...

Terribly unfair? Baseball isn't being unfair to Rose. Rose has been AND continues to be terribly unfair to baseball and its fans.

RobE · January 23, 2004 7:14AM

Foxwood and Mohegan sun have a lot more to do than just gamble.It's not exclusively a casino but a casino resort that sponsors a lot of non related gambeling events too.

theBobs · January 23, 2004 7:22AM

Understood about Foxwood.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he wouldn't get within 10 miles of a casino just to avoid the continued questions.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he would complete a 12 step program rather than making fun of them.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he wouldn't continue to gamble even it his bets are technically within the law.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he would be speaking out against the evils of gambling addiction to the general public and baseball people.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he would be donating money to worthy charities that help people with gambling diseases.

sagard · January 23, 2004 7:23AM

I don't really care whether or not Rose gets into the Hall. The hall has made some suspect choices over the years and it's purpose has been compromised in my opinion.

I hope MLB never allows Rose to be a manager again. If someone wants him to be a scout, fine. GM, maybe. He should never be allowed into a position that has game-to-game responsibility.

jrinck · January 23, 2004 7:25AM

<< Jrink,

I disagree with most of your post, but understand the logic. >>

My take is that Pete feels that his gambling WAS out of control back in the 80's, but it isn't now. A reformed alcoholic can have a drink now and then. Eyebrows may be raised, but if the alcoholic is truly reformed then he/she won't drink to excess. Do we have any reason to feel that Rose ISN'T in control of his gambling now?

So if Pete reformed his gambling to the point where it is no longer a problem, then shouldn't he deserve a bit of praise for that? Part of his reformation was to admit the problem, and come clean to anyone he may have hurt in the process (in this case: BASEBALL). That he has done. What more do you want from the guy?

As for Joe Jackson, he's gotten more of a raw deal than Rose, and he should have been reinstated long ago. By baseball continuing to ban Rose and Jackson, yet do virtually nothing to dopers like Caminiti and Canseco, they are telling prospective ball players that it's OK to cheat in a game you are playing by injecting steroids, just don't put money down on your team to win.

Baseball is like that prejiduced uncle or grandfather that everybody has in their family. No matter how much you try to inject a bit of common sense and compassion into them, the more stubborn they are and the stronger they make their illogical convictions.

RobE · January 23, 2004 7:29AM

<< Understood about Foxwood.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he wouldn't get within 10 miles of a casino just to avoid the continued questions.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he would complete a 12 step program rather than making fun of them.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he wouldn't continue to gamble even it his bets are technically within the law.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he would be speaking out against the evils of gambling addiction to the general public and baseball people.

I think that if Pete were serious about the disease angle, he would be donating money to worthy charities that help people with gambling diseases. >>

Agreed.

On another note I couldn't think of a better place around here to do a book signing either.Only place and time I can think of Rose doing a signing would be in April at UNH college because that's the biggest card show in CT.

Has he been keeping away from card shows with the book signings?

Tipem · January 23, 2004 7:32AM

theBobs,

Awfully hard to dispute your logic.Good Post!!!

While I have always been a Rose supporter(not an athletic supporter)

,I find myself leaning away from Rose and his eligibility into the hall.While I have always acknowledged his accomplishments on the field,he seems to have no remorse for his actions. Also,his present actions as well as his statements show that he has no real concern for what implications his gambling and lying about it for 14 years might have upon baseball if he is reinstated.I get the feeling more and more that he could really care less about the sport that made him great and that he really thinks he is bigger than the game.If he had only shown real remorse

I think that he is finally realizing that his only real shot is the writers.I would say that a majority of the veteran ball players would not let him in.Maybe they are the only ones that really have their pulse on this whole thing.After all,they have played the game.All the rest of us are really only sideline critics.

Kind of makes you sad for baseball.Wonder what it must have been like for Chicago fans during the black sox scandal.

Vic

Mantlefan · January 23, 2004 8:21AM

I spoke to Pete at a signing. He said it's 3-1 that he makes the HOF.

1420sports · January 23, 2004 9:34AM

I think in all seriousness that 3-1 odds are actually a good bet.

He is a disgrace and embarrassment to the game

Says who skycap? You and a few other holy rollers? After reading your anti-Rose posts, I have one question. Are you Ray Fosse?

Pete will get in the Hall eventually and then guys like skycap who never did anything wrong in their life will no longer have a holy ball to roll ....

vikesfan40 · January 23, 2004 9:53AM

MLB has no say in wether Rose goes in the hall. That is the hall's decision to make. THE HALL has a rule that says no player can be considered if they are banned from the game.

They can change that rule if they wish. They are a museum and are not governed by MLB.

Reinstatement by MLB would allow Rose to be involved with a team in some capacity. This should never happen. If the Hall wants to change their rule I say fine, but no way Rose gets to be involved in MLB.

And put him in the hall after Joe Jackson has been in for about 50 years.

RobE · January 23, 2004 10:04AM

<< theBobs,

Awfully hard to dispute your logic.Good Post!!!

While I have always acknowledged his accomplishments on the field,he seems to have no remorse for his actions. Also,his present actions as well as his statements show that he has no real concern for what implications his gambling and lying about it for 14 years might have upon baseball if he is reinstated.I get the feeling more and more that he could really care less about the sport that made him great and that he really thinks he is bigger than the game.If he had only shown real remorse.

Vic >>

slvnumber2 · January 23, 2004 11:12AM

Here is an analogy that I think will help those understand the importance of keeping gambling out of the game, and why MLB has gone to great lengths to post signs and have orientations every year to show why it could hurt the game. Most everyone has heard of the WIWAG incident involving PSA cards, and rightfully so everyone wants them to pay dearly. What they did could cause serious and irreversible harm to the graded card industry. What if in 5-10 years the same folks that were at WIWAG wanted to be in the business again - what do you think that would do for consumer confidence in regards to graded cards? Some could argue that it happened a long time ago and that measures have been taken to correct the problem. Others would say that the punishment is just and that if what they did became widespread it would hurt everyone in the industry.

What Pete Rose did was jeopardize the integrity of the game of baseball, against the rules that ere clearly stated and posted, on numerouse occasions, lied about it for close to 15 years, and only when faced with the possibility of never making it into the HOF makes an 11th hour confession half-heartedly to try and help his cause. He reminds me of the guy that cheats on his wife and says he is sorry for days and days, and once she accepts his apology he is out at a strip club the next night to celebrate. Let his peers decide if they want him in.

toppsgun · January 23, 2004 1:15PM

jrinck said, "A reformed alcoholic can have a drink now and then. Eyebrows may be raised, but if the alcoholic is truly reformed then he/she won't drink to excess."

Son, you don't know what you're talking about. An alcoholic is never cured, he is always an alcoholic. One drink and he's back to the end of the line. Ever heard the phrase, "falling off the wagon?"

Your ignorance on the issue totally disqualifies your analogy as it relates to Rose. The only thing more ignorant than your quote above is the following quote, also yours: "Pete Rose is one of, if not THE, best baseball player the world has ever known."

The most virgin newbie on this board can name 100 players better than Rose and at least a dozen of them played in his generation!! Have you ever heard of Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Mantle, Mathews, Kaline, Banks, Fr. Robinson, Yastrzemski, Brock, Morgan, Bench, Schmidt or Carew? My goodness, Tony Oliva and Tony Conigliaro and Tommy Davis were better than Rose and had they not had career-ending injuries, they would all be in the HOF by now BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BET ON BASEBALL.

Pete Rose was an average player of below average intelligence with an inborn overdose of testosterone. His latter days are proving him to be the baffoon most students of the game of baseball have known for years. Rose squandered the integrity of the game with which he was entrusted. He deserves nothing from baseball nor the HOF. The rest of us deserve that he go away.

Why can't you Rose apologists see what the rest of us see? He did damage to the integrity of the game. That disqualifies him, just like it did Joe Jackson. Were it not for Babe Ruth, baseball might not have survived. Baseball can't take a chance on some loonie like Rose. If he gets in the HOF, let's let the mafia start managing.

1420sports · January 23, 2004 2:26PM

toppsgun - I respect your opinion on this, as well as on many other topics, but this istatement is absurd ....

The most virgin newbie on this board can name 100 players better than Rose

100 players? I would love to meet the person who would even try to name 100 players better than Rose. Slap hitter or not, he was a hitter and got more of them than ANYONE.

I know you are anti-Rose, so maybe you wrote that in the heat of the moment

and by the way for all of the "integrity" support ....

Mantle, Mays, Cobb, Speaker, Steinbrenner

Pete never threw a game. If he bet on the Reds to win, big deal.

DeutscherGeist · January 23, 2004 6:02PM

I have been vacillating on this issue ever since it broke news. For all its worth, Pete Rose is in the Hall of Fame, not a plaque, but a few pictures, balls, bats, gloves, etc. Its too hard to tell baseball history without mentioning him. By not having the plaque in the HOF, it does not erase the disgrace Rose put on baseball. History cannot be changed by leaving something out on purpose. What happened, happened and there is no way to turn back the clock. For better or for worse, Rose will always be part of baseball history. His legacy will always be in the HOF in some form, even if never the plaque. There is a danger in keeping history hidden, since future generations will not have the example of what not to do. The Rose story should remain in the Hall. Keeping Rose in baseball history is by no means honoring him, but having a plaque of him alongside guys like Jackie Robinson, Babe Ruth, and Lou Gehrig is just insane. Rose's accomplishments and contribution to baseball (both bad and good) should be recognized and part of permanent history, even in the Hall. Rose fans should be content with that. A plaque would be honoring him and that is something baseball can never allow. Rose is not bigger than the game. Gambling was clearly the kryptonite of baseball and every clubhouse has that in writing and players were warned, Jackson was the sacrifical lamb. That is a line no player can cross since it was clearly stated everywhere. Yes, I know Rose has a large fan base, but that should not dictate the rules of the game. Popularity does not mean one is above morality or the law. Too bad for Rose and Jackson. Remember, the Hall is not only based on stats, but on character and contribution to the game. A gambler simply does not cut it.

Can Peter Rose possibly be more stupid?

Comments