Master Index of Archived Threads


Pete Rose

dgwphotography Jun 22 2015 11:54 AM

Apparently, Pete Rose did bet on baseball as a player... http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... layer-1986

Gwreck Jun 22 2015 11:59 AM Re: Pete Rose

I guess this is interesting -- but mostly I find it irrelevant. I personally - and I doubt anyone who makes the key decisions - would never take any "reinstatement" talk seriously. The rule is clear, Rose is ineligible, and never getting in the hall of fame. I fail to see how this issue isn't (and shouldn't be) long since closed.

dgwphotography Jun 22 2015 12:03 PM Re: Pete Rose

Gwreck wrote: I guess this is interesting -- but mostly I find it irrelevant. I personally - and I doubt anyone who makes the key decisions - would never take any "reinstatement" talk seriously. The rule is clear, Rose is ineligible, and never getting in the hall of fame. I fail to see how this issue isn't (and shouldn't be) long since closed. I agree completely. His defense, and the defense of his supporters has always been that if he only gambled as a manager, it shouldn't affect his hall of fame standing as a player. Ooooops...

d'Kong76 Jun 22 2015 12:10 PM Re: Pete Rose

This should put the final nails in his pine box.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 22 2015 01:25 PM Re: Pete Rose

I don't know about this being the final nails on anything. I think opinions on Pete have changed over the years, and it's clear that he had a serious gambling addiction and needed help. Today that's treated like a disease. Baseball would have been better off treating it as such back in 1989 or whenever it was -- getting him out of uniform for a time and getting him in rehab. I think in a lot of ways, that would have been better for baseball and for Rose. I would not be stunned if there was a partial reinstatement, especially around the All-Star Game. He'll never manage again. But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate). The part of that article dealing with autographs is especially creepy. What a total cesspool that industry was and maybe still is. I like things that are autographed -- but if they're signed right in front of me, hopefully after I get to chat a little bit and enjoy meeting a player.

d'Kong76 Jun 22 2015 01:35 PM Re: Pete Rose

They can soften all they want, he won't be in the HOF in our lifetime.

Frayed Knot Jun 22 2015 01:43 PM Re: Pete Rose

You mean that Pete's "confessions" after decades of lying turned out to be lies themselves? Wow, whoda thunk that!! I think this changes things to some degree in that a sizable portion of those who were on his side, reasoning that 25 years were enough of a punishment or that "it's just gambling" and that he never bet on his team to lose and only as a manager not a player (as if those distinctions make the contradictions go away), are going to back away from him now leaving him with even less support than he had before. The timing of this whole thing doesn't work in his favor either. With the ASG coming up in Cincinnati, some thought that as the perfect opportunity for some level of reinstatement. Also, with only the NBA draft (Thursday) as a storyline until football camps open, this gives the chattering classes at ESPN a golden opportunity to discuss baseball without actually lowering themselves to talk about the games themselves while obsessing over a story involving a 'big personality' which is what they do best anyway.

Edgy MD Jun 22 2015 01:44 PM Re: Pete Rose

Yeah, baseball did itself a bad by never really defining what Rose's redemption would look like. This is partly a result of Giammatti's death, I imagine. But as long as reinstatement is an option, the terms of reinstatement should be explicit, even if Rose was never going to meet them. The issue really shouldn't be the Hall of Fame. It should be about whether he's again able to associate with baseball, hold a job, or walk on a ball field. To the extent that Hall of Fame is relevant, it should be as the last stage in his reconciliation, but the conversation usually treats it as the first.

d'Kong76 Jun 22 2015 01:49 PM Re: Pete Rose

If he was toast before this came out, he's burnt toast now.

Edgy MD Jun 22 2015 01:52 PM Re: Pete Rose

Bertolini's Notebook sounds like a pop renaissance historical novel.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 22 2015 02:00 PM Re: Pete Rose Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 22 2015 02:12 PM

I know why the threat of a lifetime ban is necessary, but I also see the dangers in absolutes. I think here's a big difference between a guy with a sickness, which he clearly had (or still has, for all we know) and the Black Sox, conspiring with gamblers to throw the World Series. I think I'd rather have seen Rose getting the help he needed years ago and making the rounds each spring to talk to players about gambling addiction than any of the things that have transpired in the last 25 years. We've been doing a lot of work with mental wellness, including trying to eliminate the stigma of mental illness. Baseball teams have whole staffs to help players with their physical wellness. I don't know if they have anything to treat the other struggles. Having an absolute hanging there as the punishment -- the lifetime ban -- probably makes it less likely for people to get the help they need, or accept the help if approached. We'll never know, of course, but it couldn't have been a secret that he was doing this -- or at least that he was a heavy gambler. What would have happened if MLB approached him saying, "Pete, you've got a problem and we can get you help?" Hopefully MLB would do that with a person with a drinking problem or other addictive issues. Maybe Josh Hamilton is a good comparison. I'm not sure to what extent MLB reached out to help him.

Frayed Knot Jun 22 2015 02:03 PM Re: Pete Rose

Edgy MD wrote: The issue really shouldn't be the Hall of Fame. It should be about whether he's again able to associate with baseball, hold a job, or walk on a ball field. To the extent that Hall of Fame is relevant, it should be as the last stage in his reconciliation, but the conversation usually treats it as the first. I totally agree even as most seem to view the HoF as if it's the holy grail and their one and only issue. And if Pete and the Pete-ettes think official baseballdom has been tough on him over this topic, to get in the HoF he's going to have to get past the players who will likely be even tougher.

Frayed Knot Jun 22 2015 02:07 PM Re: Pete Rose

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think I'd rather have seen Rose getting the help he needed years ago and making the rounds each spring to talk to players about gambling addiction than any of the things that have transpired in the last 25 years. Tough for Rose to be in a position to speak about gambling addictions while he's still is a full-time gambler today and has never stopped being one his entire life. He never sought help because he had no interest in getting help and he doesn't see anything wrong in what he did, stopping only occasionally to imply that there might be when he thinks saying so will get him what he wants.

Gwreck Jun 22 2015 02:10 PM Re: Pete Rose

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate). I don't see any room here for easing any ban. (d) 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.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 22 2015 02:13 PM Re: Pete Rose Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 22 2015 02:24 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I think I'd rather have seen Rose getting the help he needed years ago and making the rounds each spring to talk to players about gambling addiction than any of the things that have transpired in the last 25 years. Tough for Rose to be in a position to speak about gambling addictions while he's still is a full-time gambler today and has never stopped being one his entire life. He never sought help because he had no interest in getting help and he doesn't see anything wrong in what he did, stopping only occasionally to imply that there might be when he thinks saying so will get him what he wants. I meant that if he had gotten the help he needed. If MLB confronted the root of the problem, touring the clubhouses would have been a good role. Not the case any more.

Edgy MD Jun 22 2015 02:21 PM Re: Pete Rose

Gwreck wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate). I don't see any room here for easing any ban. (d) 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. As much as the word "permanently" is in there, reinstatement is clearly still possible, whether he deserves it or not. Michael Ray Richardson was banned for life from the NBA. He still sought and obtained his re-instatement after he no longer had the skills to return, just as a point of pride.

Frayed Knot Jun 22 2015 02:45 PM Re: Pete Rose

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I meant that if he had gotten the help he needed. If MLB confronted the root of the problem, touring the clubhouses would have been a good role. Not the case any more. This continues to imply that MLB was the one that needed to take the initiative. But no one can force Rose to change and he doesn't think his behavior needs changing. He gambles because he wants to not because he's powerless to quit.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 22 2015 02:49 PM Re: Pete Rose

Damnit, more bad stuff about Pete Rose. We need to keep the media spotlight shining brightly on the Cardinals scandal. Priorities, people!

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 22 2015 03:24 PM Re: Pete Rose

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: I meant that if he had gotten the help he needed. If MLB confronted the root of the problem, touring the clubhouses would have been a good role. Not the case any more. This continues to imply that MLB was the one that needed to take the initiative. But no one can force Rose to change and he doesn't think his behavior needs changing. He gambles because he wants to not because he's powerless to quit. I think he IS powerless to quit. Or, at least powerless to quit without the help. I think the Josh Hamilton comparison is a fair one (with the understanding that Hamilton's addiction didn't potentially undermine the outcome of games). I understand your point. My thought is that baseball was hurt by one of its brightest stars getting tangled up in this, and carrying the situation on for years. Would the commissioner at the time have been better off reaching out, or through the Reds reaching out, to address the situation before it got to the point that it did?

themetfairy Jun 22 2015 03:30 PM Re: Pete Rose

I get what you're saying michigan, but I don't share your viewpoint. The rule was posted on every MLB clubhouse in the league, and he knew full well the implications of his actions. He started betting on baseball before it escalated to the point of an addiction, and I don't think that it was the Commissioner's office's place to save him from his own actions. Pete Rose is a liar and an operator, and he's still trying to play all of us. I'm not sympathetic.

Ashie62 Jun 22 2015 04:10 PM Re: Pete Rose

Rose has admitted to gambling on the Reds, but always to win, yeah right.

Edgy MD Jun 22 2015 06:18 PM Re: Pete Rose

I'm not sure the timeline is clear (or can possibly be made clear) with regard to when his first baseball bet was made and when his bad habit had escalated to an addiction.

MFS62 Jun 22 2015 09:31 PM Re: Pete Rose

From gwreck's post: 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. The way I read that, once is enough to ban him permanently. How, or if, that may have later become an addiction seems moot for purposes of enforcing that regulation. Later

Edgy MD Jun 22 2015 09:40 PM Re: Pete Rose

And yet, again, players banned for life have long been free to apply for re-instatement. Why grant them that right if there's to be no consideration of that application under any circumstances?

Zvon Jun 22 2015 10:00 PM Re: Pete Rose

As far as how this effects his chances, I was leaning towards finally letting him in. Having read this, I'm not. I have to assume that most people who were pro-Hall for Pete will react this way. The reason it changes my mind is he has had more than a chance to reveal the truth of the matter and he still hasn't. If this info came out 20 years ago I might have lumped it with the rest of his gambling and similarly been for finally letting him in. The timing of this is so crucial. But from what I read there's no agenda. It's just the way the ball bounced. If he had been voted in and then this came out...that would have been a fine mess. He made his final mistake in not coming completely clean. He had many years to do so.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 05:23 AM Re: Pete Rose

Again, I think the last place this conversation should be centered is around whether or not he is enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 05:32 AM Re: Pete Rose

Pete's 74, he won't be reinstated while still alive.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 23 2015 06:18 AM Re: Pete Rose

I think he should at least be on the Hall of Fame ballot. I think that Bonds and Clemens and those guys brought as much disgrace, and probably more, to the game than Rose did, and they're on the ballot. They don't look like they're going to get elected, and I doubt that Rose would either. And as for that, I don't care one way or the other if Pete Rose ever gets into the Hall of Fame. That place is a mess anyway, and I'm mostly disconnected from thinking about who's in and who's not.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 06:22 AM Re: Pete Rose

The problem is that, whatever their relative sins, he's banned from baseball, and they are not. Banned from baseball means banned from the ballot.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 23 2015 06:24 AM Re: Pete Rose

It doesn't have to mean that.

Frayed Knot Jun 23 2015 06:37 AM Re: Pete Rose

Grimm is on track in the sense that the banned list was essentially a prison built for one man and the attachment that no one on the banned list be eligible for Cooperstown was a move seemingly made because the higher ups at MLB and at the HoF (those two are frequently treated as if one in the same in this whole Rose drama though they distinctly are not) were afraid that, if given the chance, the writers might just go ahead and vote him in even on the heels of the ban & the Dowd report. And indeed some writers were pissed off at having the opportunity to pass judgement taken away from them despite their role as being the approved gatekeepers for the previous half-century although a decent number of them (we'll never know for sure how many) wanted the ability to vote simply so they could cast a big 'NO' ballot so it's certainly not clear that he would have ever gotten in had the whole 'banned list' thing never been imposed.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 07:10 AM Re: Pete Rose

Zvon wrote: If this info came out 20 years ago I might have lumped it with the rest of his gambling and similarly been for finally letting him in. The timing of this is so crucial. But from what I read there's no agenda. It's just the way the ball bounced. If he had been voted in and then this came out...that would have been a fine mess. He made his final mistake in not coming completely clean. He had many years to do so. An excellent point. For so many years he has been making the distinction between gambling as a manager and not betting on baseball durning his unsullied playing days. I don't see how he has any credibility at all.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 07:17 AM Re: Pete Rose

Any "ban" that has a man ineligible to hand out clean towels in the clubhouse but nonetheless eligible for baseball's highest honor would certainly be toothless.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 07:24 AM Re: Pete Rose

You're losing me, Edge... what is it that you want? Specifically.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 07:32 AM Re: Pete Rose

The discussion around Pete Rose to not be centered around his eligibility for the Hall of Fame, to begin with. That misses the point of what a ban means, and it artificially changes the stakes of what reinstatement would mean. Beyond that, I disagree with the notion that, by definition, a lifetime ban cannot be lifted. This just isn't true, as evidenced by the fact that banned players are allowed to apply for reinstatement, and some indeed have successfully had their bans lifted.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 07:38 AM Re: Pete Rose

I guess I don't see the point and wasted lawyeresque discussion over a man who clearly gambled as a manager, now as a player, and associated with organized crime. He got what he deserved and reinstatement at this point would be criminal in my view.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 07:42 AM Re: Pete Rose

I'll also add, that if they do reinstate him, I'm done with MLB.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 07:54 AM Re: Pete Rose

I certainly don't mean to be lawyeresque. I do mean to be fair and consistent and accurate and just. And I'm being pedantic, certainly. And for that I apologize. But I think it's important to point such things out. "Lifetime ban" and "permanently ineligible" means there is not automatic sunset to the penalty, but it doesn't mean that an application for reinstatement can not be entertained and even granted. Whether it should is certainly another point.

Centerfield Jun 23 2015 07:55 AM Re: Pete Rose

Gwreck wrote: Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: But I could see MLB easing the ban on on-field appearances and such and eligibility for the Hall of Fame (which I know is technically separate). I don't see any room here for easing any ban. (d) 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. Thanks for posting the rule. The way I read this rule, Pete is "ineligible" from baseball permanently. What this means, I'm not sure, but the implication seems to be that he can never have a "duty to perform" for baseball ever again. Meaning he cannot work for MLB in any capacity. I don't necessarily read that rule to mean he cannot appear at games, tip his hat and wave to the crowd, unless these guys are paid for such events. I also don't read that rule to mean he cannot be elected to the HOF, but the HOF and its' standards are seriously flawed in themselves. I don't know anything about reinstatement. What would the criteria be? Contrition? Demonstrating you are reformed? To me I picture the parole scenes in Shawshank. Whatever the standard, I don't see Pete as having much of a chance. It also doesn't help that he comes across as a dick.

Frayed Knot Jun 23 2015 08:01 AM Re: Pete Rose

Centerfield wrote: I don't necessarily read that rule to mean he cannot appear at games, tip his hat and wave to the crowd, unless these guys are paid for such events. He can appear at games. He can do so by buying a ticket just like you and I. I also don't read that rule to mean he cannot be elected to the HOF, but the HOF and its' standards are seriously flawed in themselves. MLB's penalty doesn't bar him. But a separate ruling by the HoF some two years after the ban said that anyone on baseball's 'ineligible' list (a list that consists of all players named Peter Edward Rose Sr) would also be ineligible for HoF's ballot.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 08:10 AM Re: Pete Rose

Centerfield wrote: What would the criteria be? Contrition? Demonstrating you are reformed? To me I picture the parole scenes in Shawshank. Whatever the standard, I don't see Pete as having much of a chance. It also doesn't help that he comes across as a dick. That's it, isn't it? To me, the criteria are not as important as MLB being explicit about them. "Thanks for your application, Mr. Rose, but as far as we're concerned, we cannot consider your application until we have documentation that you've attended Gambler's Anonymous meetings at least weekly for a period of at least five years. We additionally demand you open your books for a period of the same to an auditor of MLB's choosing but at your own expense. We would additionally like to see you climb the Matterhorn; cure Ebola; and come up with a cheap, abundant clean-burning energy alternative." They can be reasonable criteria, they can be unreasonable. Simple or hard. But at least he'll know what he has to do, he'll either do it or not, and we can move on from an argument where we're all talking about something different. Certainly the courts work this way. Where I think Shawshank Redemption is relevant is the importance of hope. Redemption shouldn't be impossible for anybody. That doesn't mean it should be easy or he'll pursue it. But not being clear about the what he would have to do has served him and baseball poorly.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 08:20 AM Re: Pete Rose

It's not a question of MLB not giving him clear criteria. It's that he has never been able to demonstrate any level of sincerity or trustworthiness. Those have to be part and parcel of any discussion of reinstatement, and IMO he's never going to be able to show those qualities. He broke a cardinal rule of baseball, as a manager and apparently also as a player, and he signed off on his lifetime ban in order to keep the evidence of his deeds from being publicized. I can't see how MLB is the bad guy in this scenario.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 08:23 AM Re: Pete Rose

Can I get an amen for sister fairy!

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 08:28 AM Re: Pete Rose

themetfairy wrote: It's not a question of MLB not giving him clear criteria. Lindsay Lohan knew what she had to do to get into society's good graces. It seems to me that ballplayers should have the same roadmap. themetfairy wrote: It's that he has never been able to demonstrate any level of sincerity or trustworthiness. Well, yeah, he's a jerk who's been morally adrift for a long time. I don't think any of us would argue. themetfairy wrote: Those have to be part and parcel of any discussion of reinstatement, and IMO he's never going to be able to show those qualities. Exactly. Here, you are setting criteria. Demonstrate sincerity and trustworthiness. If he's not going to meet them, he's not. That doesn't mean there's no point in setting them. Else, they are arbitrary, and there's no justice in that. For him or any person that preceded or follows him before baseball's system of justice. Steinbrenner's ban is lifted, his is not. Why? I don't know. What were the criteria? Nobody knows. themetfairy wrote: He broke a cardinal rule of baseball, as a manager and apparently also as a player, and he signed off on his lifetime ban in order to keep the evidence of his deeds from being publicized. I can't see how MLB is the bad guy in this scenario. I don't think it's an accurate characterization of my point to suggest that I'm arguing "MLB is the bad guy." Rose's sins are indeed clear.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 08:36 AM Re: Pete Rose

Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou! Do you really think that Pete has gotten an unfair shake in all of this? Really?

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 08:38 AM Re: Pete Rose

Lindsay Lohan is never going to be a part of MLB either. You're reaching, and you know it. He signed off on this ban while represented by counsel in the face of more evidence than will ever be made public. And now we're learning that he gambled on baseball while he was a player, which is something that he has lied about for the past twenty or so years. There is nothing that convinces me that his lifetime ban was unwarranted or that it should be reversed. If you feel otherwise then I will respectfully disagree with you.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 08:40 AM Re: Pete Rose

Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou! Sorry. I'm not sure why that upset you. I'm trying to contrast one legally system with another. Do you really think that Pete has gotten an unfair shake in all of this? Really? Just because he's guilty doesn't mean the system is just or open or isn't arbitrary.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 08:43 AM Re: Pete Rose

Edgy MD wrote: Lindsay Lohan? Jeezalou! Sorry. I'm not sure why that upset you. I'm trying to contrast one legally system with another. Legal system? MLB is in no way a legal system. It's more akin to a private employer who has the right to set its own rules of employment subject to employment laws and collective bargaining agreements.

metsmarathon Jun 23 2015 08:47 AM Re: Pete Rose

i wonder, seriously wonder, how much the news of pete's having gambled on actual baseball games while he was an actual player has really changed hte opinions of anyone. were there really a lot of people out there who honestly and truly believed that pete rose never gambled on baseball games while he was a player and should have been reinstated and allowed into the hall many times over, and are now shocked SHOCKED! and appalled that he actually did bet on baseball and hope against hope that he's not even allowed to pass within sight of a little league field? i think the most likely course is that those who were the most adamant and ardent pete supporters will find a way to accomodate the news into their worldview, to ameliorate its implications and find room for allowing him to be associated with the game and inducted into the hall. i also find it ludicrous that there are people out there who are more willing to forgive pete rose of his infraction than they are to forgive barry bonds, arod, and the gaggle of pedders of theirs, despite one side threatening to undermine the integrity and vailidity of the entire contest, and the other side doing their utmost (to the point of going too far) to try to win.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 08:48 AM Re: Pete Rose

I'm not upset. I'm baffled.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 08:51 AM Re: Pete Rose

Bart Giamatti's son Marcus' words last year This dilemma isn’t about how great a player Mr. Rose was, and it also has nothing to do with today’s steroid debacle, or whether Mr. Rose thinks those accused of drug use belong in the Hall Of Fame. It’s about a broken rule. It’s about arrogance. The arrogance to stomp on the heart of the game by committing baseball’s cardinal sin: betting on the game. And then somehow believing that you are above the game itself – and should be given a pass. (It should be noted that my father treated Mr. Rose, a veteran star, with the same force that he would have treated a small time rookie, proving to Mr. Rose that he was not in fact bigger than the game). Making matters more complicated, Mr. Rose chose to vehemently deny his actions for fifteen years, blaming others for his plight. And what’s really comical and obvious is that when it was suddenly convenient for him, he did an about face, sort of confessed, and expected to be coddled… and given that pass again…all the while, ironically, disrespecting the pearl that he’d been so blessed to have been handed. True remorse would mean having the strength to get help, and turn your mistake into something positive. Like spreading the word to kids about the dangers of this disease called gambling. But all of this would take true effort. True courage. And without those, there is no second chance. Mr. Rose’s belligerence and actions continue to stain the game, as my father said. These principles and standards of good citizenry that Mr. Rose and those who stand with him seem so oblivious to, should matter. They mattered to my father.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 08:53 AM Re: Pete Rose

themetfairy wrote: You're reaching, and you know it. For what? themetfairy wrote: He signed off on this ban while represented by counsel in the face of more evidence than will ever be made public. I certainly don't argue with that. themetfairy wrote: And now we're learning that he gambled on baseball while he was a player, which is something that he has lied about for the past twenty or so years. I don't and haven't argued with any of this. themetfairy wrote: There is nothing that convinces me that his lifetime ban was unwarranted or that it should be reversed. If you feel otherwise then I will respectfully disagree with you. I certainly haven't argued that at all. Does anybody else think I have? Legal system. System of penalties and justice. Among the other things I haven't argued is that MLB "is" a legal system. But they have a system of discipline and penalties which we are now discussing. I think their system of discipline should be just and open and modeled on best practices and not arbitrary. I think it serves the game and the employees and the fans well. I certainly agree with Marcus Giammatti. He's setting specific criteria for Rose to pursue. ("And without those, there is no second chance.") Good for him.

Centerfield Jun 23 2015 09:12 AM Re: Pete Rose

Perhaps it is easier to take Pete Rose out of the equation. I think what Edgy is asking is for MLB to come out and state what criteria, if any, will be necessary for anyone declared permanently ineligible to seek reinstatement. Or to affirmatively state "There will be no reinstatement." Something like "Any individual declared permanently ineligible may reek reinstatement after X number of years by appealing to panel, comprised of Important Person #1, Important Person #2 and headed by Super Important Person Number 3. Criteria considered shall be (a) how much of a dick you are (b) how much charity work you have done and (c) how much money MLB can make from your reinstatement. The decision of the panel shall be at the panel's sole discretion and shall be final." In other words, set concrete criteria for the completely subjective process.

Centerfield Jun 23 2015 09:15 AM Re: Pete Rose

Centerfield wrote: Any individual declared permanently ineligible may reek reinstatement after X number of years... There I go fucking things up in front of Grammarly. I should be declared permanently ineligible.

Mets – Willets Point Jun 23 2015 09:27 AM Re: Pete Rose

I get what you're trying to say Edgy, and I think you have a good point. It seems that that ship has long sailed for both Rose and MLB, but setting some criteria should be a goal for MLB for future cases. Say, completely hypothetically, what a team in Missouri would have to do be reinstated into good graces after being busted by the FBI for hacking into the databases of another team in Texas.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 09:35 AM Re: Pete Rose

The agreement signed by Rose, negotiated by and in the presence of his attorneys, states the following - b. Nothing in this Agreement shall deprive Peter Edward Rose of the rights under Major League Rule 15(c) to apply for reinstatement. Peter Edward Rose agrees not to challenge, appeal or otherwise contest the decision of, or the procedure employed by, the Commissioner or any future Commissioner in the evaluation of any application for reinstatement. Thus, he negotiated away any right to challenge the process for any application for reinstatement. Apparently in August 1989 this issue was considered and included in the agreement.

batmagadanleadoff Jun 23 2015 09:41 AM Re: Pete Rose

For the sake of being contrary, the agreement contains this key clause: Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game.

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 23 2015 09:46 AM Re: Pete Rose

d'Kong76 wrote: I'll also add, that if they do reinstate him, I'm done with MLB. Dude, seriously? All the crap that has gone down with strikes, steroids, tied All-Star Games and players no longer wearing stirrups, ticket prices based on the quality of the opponent, MLB condoning and profiting from scalping through StubHub, the DH, those "graphite" Blue jays uniforms and this sends you packing? I understand Edgy's point. I've written about "zero tolerance" rules in schools, and having no wiggle room usually creates more problems that you expect. That's how you get goofball school boards expelling third-graders for bringing a plastic butter knife to school. You need to be able to look at each situation on its merits. I understand the reason for a heavy penalty for dealing with gamblers. We also, today, have situations where MLB owners are involved with casinos. As I've said -- and I realize you guys don't agree with me -- I think MLB mishandled this situation back in 1989 and nothing today can change that. What would reinstatement mean today? If Pete's in his mid-70s he's not coming back to manage, coach or do anything else on the field in a meaningful way. He'd he allowed to appear on the field on events like Reds Hall of Fame days and so on. Believe it or not, he's still HUGE in Cincy. If MLB wants to allow him to attend events like that, and set the conditions where he'd talk about these personal demons and use it all as a teachable moment and stress that he'd never have a role beyond such appearances, I'm fine with that. (And I agree, just because he'd be eligible for the Hall doesn't mean he'd be elected. If these buffoons won't elect someone like Mike Piazza based on back acne, they won't elect Pete.

Frayed Knot Jun 23 2015 09:53 AM Re: Pete Rose

batmagadanleadoff wrote: For the sake of being contrary, the agreement contains this key clause: Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game. At which point Giamatti stated, during the announcement of said agreement, that, yeah, in his view Pete bet on baseball. That statement in particular ticked Rose off. Giamatti went on to make several statements about Rose 'demonstrating a change in his ways' as examples of things that could influence a theoretical future reinstatement but there were no specific requirements laid out and of course Giamatti was dead within a few days. Rose would go on to make no attempts whatsoever to change or even be open to the idea that he had anything in his life was in need of changing.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 09:54 AM Re: Pete Rose

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Dude, seriously? All the crap that has gone down with strikes, steroids, tied All-Star Games and players no longer wearing stirrups, ticket prices based on the quality of the opponent, MLB condoning and profiting from scalping through StubHub, the DH, those "graphite" Blue jays uniforms and this sends you packing? I'm probably full of crap, but it's a safe statement. There is no way he's getting reinstated.

Ashie62 Jun 23 2015 12:20 PM Re: Pete Rose

No he wont, but a whole generation of steroid guys are elgible.

Nymr83 Jun 23 2015 12:27 PM Re: Pete Rose

Ashie62 wrote: No he wont, but a whole generation of steroid guys are elgible. but the punishment for steroid use was never clearly spelled out until recently. gamblers knew or should have known what they were getting themselves into

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 12:39 PM Re: Pete Rose

I was going to say before (but didn't because I know people get tired of hearing me) but until it comes out that there was a league/media/ fan-wide indifference to gambling for the Rose era like there was for the steroid era there really is little comparison of the two 'crimes.'

Mets Guy in Michigan Jun 23 2015 12:57 PM Re: Pete Rose

Shunning Rose for gambling while allowing the owner of the Tigers to own the largest independently owned casino in the country seems -- amiss.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 01:02 PM Re: Pete Rose

Perhaps, but whoever that guy is he isn't affecting the outcome of games from the bench. He also isn't doing it with his bat, glove, or good ol' charlie hustle or lack thereof. But you knew that!

metsmarathon Jun 23 2015 01:33 PM Re: Pete Rose

Nymr83 wrote: Ashie62 wrote: No he wont, but a whole generation of steroid guys are elgible. but the punishment for steroid use was never clearly spelled out until recently. gamblers knew or should have known what they were getting themselves into it's already been established that violating the rules of hte game to increase your chance of success and of winning games does not invalidate one from consideration for the hall of fame.

Lefty Specialist Jun 23 2015 01:37 PM Re: Pete Rose

Let's not kid ourselves, Rose will never be reinstated. His chances were vanishingly small before these revelations and they just got smaller. There's a lot of hoopla about this because it's just more evidence that Rose is and always has been a congenital liar. Trying to draw the line between managing and playing has been the strategy from Team Rose since the last set of Bombshell Revelations. I find it hard to believe that he developed a severe gambling habit just after he stopped playing.

metsmarathon Jun 23 2015 01:42 PM Re: Pete Rose

Mets Guy in Michigan wrote: Shunning Rose for gambling while allowing the owner of the Tigers to own the largest independently owned casino in the country seems -- amiss. yes, baseball has an inherent conflict with gambling, moreso vis-a-vis draft kings and daily fantasy baseball, but i don't think htere's really all that much similarity between betting on baseball and owning a casino. hmm... are ballplayers allowed to be bookies? and i thought it far more amiss that mlb radio would be running multiple ads for products designed to boost testosterone in males, for such reasons as "to incresae performance"

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 02:04 PM Re: Pete Rose

Both those ad campaigns are creepy.

Lefty Specialist Jun 23 2015 02:27 PM Re: Pete Rose

I wonder if Rose won a Shipload of money when gambling. He appears to have won the Pulchritude Lottery.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 02:35 PM Re: Pete Rose

Lefty Specialist wrote: Trying to draw the line between managing and playing has been the strategy from Team Rose since the last set of Bombshell Revelations. I find it hard to believe that he developed a severe gambling habit just after he stopped playing. This!

Frayed Knot Jun 23 2015 05:14 PM Re: Pete Rose

Personally, I think that Bryce Harper's admission that he spends 30 minutes prior to each game doing his hair should make him ineligible for the HoF.

themetfairy Jun 23 2015 05:24 PM Re: Pete Rose

Frayed Knot wrote: Personally, I think that Bryce Harper's admission that he spends 30 minutes prior to each game doing his hair should make him ineligible for the HoF. Many HoF voters will agree with you.

Benjamin Grimm Jun 23 2015 06:53 PM Re: Pete Rose

That's probably what's been keeping Mike Piazza out.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 07:55 PM Re: Pete Rose

Lefty Specialist wrote: Nice! She went for the slightly-less-than-basketball job so that men of all hand sizes can palm them. Pete's classic smirk is funnier than those, whatever they are.

Edgy MD Jun 23 2015 08:01 PM Re: Pete Rose

That shot comes from a thoughtful blog post.

d'Kong76 Jun 23 2015 08:12 PM Re: Pete Rose

Can't even joke about his boobs of choice. I obviously didn't go checking where that picture came from.

Fman99 Jun 23 2015 08:18 PM Re: Pete Rose

I've said it before but it bears repeating. Pete Rose is America's retard. That's why so many American retards have Pete Rose's haircut. Disclaimer: No offense meant to Retard-Americans, I hold you all in high esteem.