Pete Rose Hall of Famer ....Period

[LucklessPadresFan]

No HOF for Rose. One, he bet on baseball. Two, he lied about it. Three, when he was attempting to rehab his image, he was seen at betting places. Sorry, the guy had an opportunity to come clean and fix it, but he chose otherwise.

 

[jonvi]

No he hasnt. He was given a lifetime bad. Once THAT is over, he will have arguably paid his dues for his crime. Not before that.

It's only over when you die. This is like trying to get laid. You can be told no a million times, but you only have to be told yes once.

Pete Rose will be admitted before his death.

 

[calsnowskier]

I never said Pete Rose never bet against his own team without mentioning he never admitted to it and it was never proven. I'm sure Dowd was very qualified and should be considered valid, but what you have in bold is not evidence, it is his opinion. I think he may have, but the fact there is no evidence of it, we can't use it against him.

Betting against opponent and other games do have evidence. His admitting to doing so is enough evidence IMO. Should he have been punished for it - but I feel a lifetime ban was too extreme. Costing his own team a game due to making money does. Even though Shoeless has no evidence of help throw the game, there was evidence of him taking the money.

I also think Barry Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame based on what he was like as a young player. Mark McGwire has a good argument as well.

If you want to disregard Dowds opinion and put Rose in the Hall (I am not sure if this is your position since you have not stated an opinion on Rose in this thread), than shouldn't you follow the agreement that Rose made with MLB (a lifetime ban), which led to Dowd stopping his investigation?

I understand that the HOF is not officially a part of MLB, and his MLB ban does not technically apply to his inclusion in the Hall. But I cannot personally agree with his inclusion until his ban is over, in this case, when he dies.

 

[calsnowskier]

It's only over when you die. This is like trying to get laid. You can be told no a million times, but you only have to be told yes once.

Pete Rose will be admitted before his death.

My reading comprehension is not very good today. I have no idea what you mean with this post. Can you reword it?

 

[iowajerms]

If you want to disregard Dowds opinion and put Rose in the Hall (I am not sure if this is your position since you have not stated an opinion on Rose in this thread), than shouldn't you follow the agreement that Rose made with MLB (a lifetime ban), which led to Dowd stopping his investigation?

I understand that the HOF is not officially a part of MLB, and his MLB ban does not technically apply to his inclusion on the Hall. But I cannot personally agree with his inclusion until his bad is over, in this case, when he dies.

Dowd never said Rose gambled against his own team. He said he believes Rose gambled against his own team. That is not evidence, that is opinion. If he said something like "There is evidence here that shows he bet against the Reds," then I might have a different opinion.

I am all for Rose being in the Hall of Fame as a player. He definitely earned a spot in the Hall of Fame for his playing career. I don't think anybody will argue he doesn't belong based on statistics and what he was like on the diamond. It was what he did as a manager that keeps him out.

My opinion on Rose is irrelevant in this argument.

 

[jonvi]

Originally Posted by calsnowskier
No he hasnt. He was given a lifetime ban. Once THAT is over, he will have arguably paid his dues for his crime. Not before that.

It's only over when you die. This is like trying to get laid. You can be told no a million times, but you only have to be told yes once.

Pete Rose will be admitted before his death.

My reading comprehension is not very good today. I have no idea what you mean with this post. Can you reword it?

My post was in reply to your comment of it being a lifetime ban and that's it. End of discussion.

I don't consider that accurate. The ban can be overturned and there are many that believe it should be. Me personally, I think it will be overturned and that he will be admitted to the Hall of Fame before he dies.

 

[Mays-Fan]

Here's another reason why Rose's violation of the integrity of the game deserves permanent (not just lifetime) banishment from the HOF:

Big time gamblers like Rose often lose, and lose big. Rose lost big, net net. Rose used bookies, who are almost always very unsavory types and mob-connected. If you lose big to a bookie like that, sometimes you can't pay what you owe - apparently this happened with Rose'

Fairfax?s John Dowd, investigated Pete Rose in 1989, responds to Sports Illustrated push for Rose

"Dowd collected gambling ledgers, bank and phone records and court documents. He took depositions from Rose’s friends who placed bets for him, from one of his bookies, from Rose himself. He found that Rose was betting five to 10 games a day, every day, in basketball, football, hockey and baseball, at about $2,000 a game. In one month, Rose lost more than $67,000, and he was deeply in debt to the bookies, including $200,000 in the hole at one point to a Staten Island bookie linked to the Mafia. He refused to pay substantial debts to his bookies at various times, witnesses told Dowd, and that can get a guy in a heap of trouble."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Bookie: "So, Petey, you're into us for $200Gs. You don't have it. I could put a bullet in your head right now, but then I'd still be out $200Gs. I'm a reasonable guy. Blood is a big expense. So here's what let's do. When I tell you to throw a game, you get the game thrown. I got investors counting on you to lose when I say lose. And these investors, they don't like to lose, and they ain't so reasonable as me when it comes to the expenses I just talked about. Do we have an understanding here Petey? Heh? Sure we do! That's my boy!"

 

[calsnowskier]

Dowd never said Rose gambled against his own team. He said he believes Rose gambled against his own team. That is not evidence, that is opinion. If he said something like "There is evidence here that shows he bet against the Reds," then I might have a different opinion.

I am all for Rose being in the Hall of Fame as a player. He definitely earned a spot in the Hall of Fame for his playing career. I don't think anybody will argue he doesn't belong based on statistics and what he was like on the diamond. It was what he did as a manager that keeps him out.

My opinion on Rose is irrelevant in this argument.

My point is that he has a lifetime ban. How can you enshrine someone currently banned form the game?

For me, that is the entire argument. If the ban is lifted tomorrow, let's have a different argument tomorrow about his worthiness.

For the record, with the tunnel-vision of him as a player, there is no question he belongs in. However, he committed the ultimate sin. That is where it gets murky. I choose not to address his worthiness until the ban is no longer part of the discussion.

 

[calsnowskier]

Originally Posted by calsnowskier
No he hasnt. He was given a lifetime ban. Once THAT is over, he will have arguably paid his dues for his crime. Not before that.





My post was in reply to your comment of it being a lifetime ban and that's it. End of discussion.

I don't consider that accurate. The ban can be overturned and there are many that believe it should be. Me personally, I think it will be overturned and that he will be admitted to the Hall of Fame before he dies.

I thought that is what you meant, I just wanted to make sure. Re-reading my response, I saw it came across more aggressive than it was intended. I meant it with a civil tone...

As I just mentioned in response to Iowa, I am not going to engage in hypotheticals. He is currently serving a lifetime ban. If that gets changed tomorrow to "time served", then we have a different discussion. ATM, I say he is not allowed in the Hall until he dies, since that is when his ban ends.

 

[whywork2]

If Pete Rose isn't in then no one should be. They could make a stipulation about his gambling on his plaque but to not include him is ridiculous with all that has transpired over the years. Pete wasn't the first great to have off the field issues. The Hall isn't about choirboys it's about their play on the field. Put Pete in or close it. He's in my hall of fame no matter how you cut it.

 

[calsnowskier]

If Pete Rose isn't in then no one should be. They could make a stipulation about his gambling on his plaque but to not include him is ridiculous with all that has transpired over the years. Pete wasn't the first great to have off the field issues. The Hall isn't about choirboys it's about their play on the field. Put Pete in or close it. He's in my hall of fame no matter how you cut it.

I agree with your premise, but it does not apply to Rose. His transgressions were ON THE FIELD, and applied to baseball.

 

[tzill]

I agree with your premise, but it does not apply to Rose. His transgressions were ON THE FIELD, and applied to baseball.

 

[iowajerms]

My point is that he has a lifetime ban. How can you enshrine someone currently banned form the game?

For me, that is the entire argument. If the ban is lifted tomorrow, let's have a different argument tomorrow about his worthiness.

For the record, with the tunnel-vision of him as a player, there is no question he belongs in. However, he committed the ultimate sin. That is where it gets murky. I choose not to address his worthiness until the ban is no longer part of the discussion.

I understand why he is not in the Hall of Fame. I get no lifetime bans are there. I just think that is a dumb rule. I think there should definitely be exceptions. It's a perfect place for exceptions.

I don't think his lifetime ban should be pulled. I hate gambling very much. I knew nothing about it until SportsHoopla started doing the vcash thing. I worked in a casino as a waiter and saw what it does. Did he damage the integrity of the game - no. I don't think one person with a small role in a team-based league can ruin the integrity. He was just a step up from a player. Now, if majority of a team are involved, especially in an important moment, then I say that affect the game's integrity. I don't think Aaron Hernandez damaged the NFL's integrity because he did such a horrible crime. So, I don't think the "game's" integrity was damaged.

I guess I never thought about what exactly I agreed or disagreed with. I agree with the ban from baseball, just disagree with the HOF rule.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Can we stop this stupid discussion? Rose *agreed* to a lifetime ban. The year he dies, he should be inducted at the next ceremony (as a player). And it would be great to have a LONG explanation in the hall, as part of his "display", about how *as a manager* his stupid fuc*king behavior got him banned from baseball for life and that's why he never saw his induction to the HOF.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I understand why he is not in the Hall of Fame. I get no lifetime bans are there. I just think that is a dumb rule. I think there should definitely be exceptions. It's a perfect place for exceptions.

I don't think his lifetime ban should be pulled. I hate gambling very much. I knew nothing about it until SportsHoopla started doing the vcash thing. I worked in a casino as a waiter and saw what it does. Did he damage the integrity of the game - no. I don't think one person with a small role in a team-based league can ruin the integrity. He was just a step up from a player. Now, if majority of a team are involved, especially in an important moment, then I say that affect the game's integrity. I don't think Aaron Hernandez damaged the NFL's integrity because he did such a horrible crime. So, I don't think the "game's" integrity was damaged.

I guess I never thought about what exactly I agreed or disagreed with. I agree with the ban from baseball, just disagree with the HOF rule.

I would have to say that you either never saw Dusty Baker manage games, or just really don't understand. A manager can have a HUGE effect on his team's chances of winning or losing. In SF, I watched Dusty's actions *obviously* lose 3-6 games a year due to really stupid decisions - and he wasn't TRYING to lose the game, he's just an idiot. Being able to throw games DOES affect the integrity of the game, IMHO.

 

[StanMarsh51]

If Pete Rose isn't in then no one should be. They could make a stipulation about his gambling on his plaque but to not include him is ridiculous with all that has transpired over the years. Pete wasn't the first great to have off the field issues. The Hall isn't about choirboys it's about their play on the field. Put Pete in or close it. He's in my hall of fame no matter how you cut it.

Betting on games while you're the manager is an on the field issue. If you think there's zero chance that it had any effect on his team (ie: he could abuse and overuse pitchers on a day he bet on his team to win), then that's quite naive.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I understand why he is not in the Hall of Fame. I get no lifetime bans are there. I just think that is a dumb rule. I think there should definitely be exceptions. It's a perfect place for exceptions.

I don't think his lifetime ban should be pulled. I hate gambling very much. I knew nothing about it until SportsHoopla started doing the vcash thing. I worked in a casino as a waiter and saw what it does. Did he damage the integrity of the game - no. I don't think one person with a small role in a team-based league can ruin the integrity. He was just a step up from a player. Now, if majority of a team are involved, especially in an important moment, then I say that affect the game's integrity. I don't think Aaron Hernandez damaged the NFL's integrity because he did such a horrible crime. So, I don't think the "game's" integrity was damaged.

I guess I never thought about what exactly I agreed or disagreed with. I agree with the ban from baseball, just disagree with the HOF rule.

So if he overused/abused a pitcher to try to win a game that he bet on, that doesn't hurt the integrity of baseball?

Rose never bet on his team on days Mario Soto or Bill Gullickson pitched when he was manager. So if he owed a bookie some $, don't you think that might be a signal to the bookie that he's "not confident" in his team's chances that day (and hence the bookie can bet on the team to lose)? For all we know, Rose might've tried to trot his B squad on the days that Soto/Gullickson were pitching to increase the team's chances of losing so the bookie can make some $. That wouldn't ruin the integrity of the game?

 

[calsnowskier]

Can we stop this stupid discussion? Rose *agreed* to a lifetime ban. The year he dies, he should be inducted at the next ceremony (as a player). And it would be great to have a LONG explanation in the hall, as part of his "display", about how *as a manager* his stupid fuc*king behavior got him banned from baseball for life and that's why he never saw his induction to the HOF.

This is a legit topic, if not at all timely. I am really enjoying this discussion. If you are not, don't open the thread.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is a legit topic, if not at all timely. I am really enjoying this discussion. If you are not, don't open the thread.

OK, I'm outta here. To me, it's open and slut. (No, that wasn't a typo.)

 

[desert heat]

hell yes. what does gambling have to do with him getting 4000+ hits. the only reason he is still banned is because giamatti died.