Pete Rose deserves HOF

Gambling can be an addiction. Seems like Pete was definately addicted. Was there an EAP program available to him where he could pick up the phone and get some private help for crying out loud?

quote:

Originally posted by Hopperhop:

quote:

Regardless, in my opinion, had Bart Giamatti known at the time what was in MLB's future, I doubt that a lifetime ban would have been forthcoming...maybe a suspension along the lines of the present day penalty for drug offenders. MLB has foregiven the recent likes of Giambi, Pettitte, Manny, and A-Rod (like it or not) for crimes no less severe than that of Rose...high time to extend him the same compassion and courtesy...he's been punished enough

Although we can all talk about how Pete Rose's "crime" was not as bad as the those by the players who use steroids we must remember one thing. Gambling related issues almost ruined the game of baseball due to the 1919 scandal. For that reason, I feel that any gambling related infraction will always be delt with more harshly than other infractions. He was a manager when he was making the bets, so he was not out of the game.

The reason for having to harshly deal with this, even when he only made bets for the Reds to win, is that he is the manager and he did have control of the outcome of the game. As Brickhouse stated, just because he bet for his team doesn't mean that it doesn't jeopardize the integrity of the sport.

We must also remember that he was in deep debt to some of the people that he was laying the bets with. Say for instance that the Reds did make the playoffs. We then have the possiblity of 1919 all over again. The only difference is that this time the game being thrown would be being controlled by the manager, not the players. MLB will do everything in it's power to make sure that this never happens again by making and, in my opinion, never removing lifetime bans for gambling related infractions.

There is no question that Pete Rose is one of the best baseball players of all times, not many people would argue that. His not being in the Hall of Fame does not alter this fact, it only means that he is not being "officially" honored for his great career as a player.

First of all, over the past century, the only Congressional hearings I recall dealt with the issue of steroids in baseball. Thus, I would contend that the rampant use of steroids and PEDs have posed a greater threat to major league baseball than gambling.

Second, I don't know of any manager at the major league level that had ultimate control over the outcome of a game. Maybe on the losing end, but never on the winning end.

Third, your "Say for instance that..." is purely hypothetical and unsupported by fact which I would like to stick to. Once agian, Rose was never accused of throwing anything. Let's keep the opinions on point whether we agree on them or not.

"Sugar poops, is there an EAP program listed on the back of my insurance card? I gotta get control of this gambling thing."

"Hold on Petey let me check. Yep, the number is 1800555BART"

"Thanks sugar poops. hmm hmm hmm hmm"

"You've reached the MLBPA/MLB EAP progam. Please hold for the next available temporary addiction specialist trainee."

"Hmm hmm hmm hmm"

"Hello this is Marta Gaga your temporary addiction specialist trainee assigned to your groups insurance plan. Your plan only covers gambling addiction. If your addicted to anything else, we're happy for you! May I have your name please?"

"Ya Marta this is Pete Rose. Marta can you speak a little louder you sound a million miles away. I can barely hear you sweetheart."

"I'm sorry Mr. Rose I am located in New Dehli. I'll try to speak a little louder. Mr. Rose, from the following list what are you gambling the most on: dogs, ponies, team sports or other?

"Marta, the pinewood derbies races and um the team sports are just killing me."

"We'll I won't be able to help you with the pinewood derbies, he...he...; but the team sports are my speciality. Mr. Rose from the following list what professional team sports do you bet on: baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball, baseball or baseball?"

"Ya Marta, I can barely hear you. Where is New Dehli? Anyways, I bet on baseball."

"Mr. Rose, I'm going to put you on hold for 15s. I gotta go potty. Please hold ......."

"Hmm hmm hmm. Boy she must of really had to go! Hmm hmm hmm."

"Nadeem, please run a tap on line 6 and notify the commissioner's office."

"Hello Mr. Rose. Sorry I kept you waiting. Can you explain a little more in detail your betting on baseball."

"Yea Marta, I'm getting killed betting on the CUBS! They never win!"

"Mr. Rose, even us New Dehlians a million miles away from you know that the CUBS S U C K! Just pick another team and you'll be fine."

"Yea, oh yea! Why didn't I think of that! I'll come off the CUBS for a little while and see how things shake out. I'm tired of losin and paying juice too."

"Mr. Rose, whats juice?"

"Never mind Marta, thanks for your help and have a good day."

"Its night over here in New Dehli Mr. Rose. Just remember that the CUBS S U C K!"

"Yea, I guess the CUBS really do S U C K!"



Gosh, this is fun.

quote:

Third, your "Say for instance that..." is purely hypothetical and unsupported by fact which I would like to stick to. Once agian, Rose was never accused of throwing anything. Let's keep the opinions on point whether we agree on them or not.

OK, as long as you just want to stick to the facts. Pete Rose signed a paper agreeing to his permanent ineligibility from the game of baseball.
If he did this, why should he be allowed into baseball's Hall of Fame?

quote:

Originally posted by Hopperhop:

quote:

Third, your "Say for instance that..." is purely hypothetical and unsupported by fact which I would like to stick to. Once agian, Rose was never accused of throwing anything. Let's keep the opinions on point whether we agree on them or not.

OK, as long as you just want to stick to the facts. Pete Rose signed a paper agreeing to his permanent ineligibility from the game of baseball.
If he did this, why should he be allowed into baseball's Hall of Fame?

Hop...fair question. The document Rose signed was basically a negotiated settlement between himself, Bart Giamatti, and Major League Baseball.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/p_rosea.shtml

As you can see, both sides made concessions which is common for these types of agreements. In short, I don't believe that either side wished to drag this through formal proceedings and, instead, arrived at a mutually acceptable resolution. With that said, and to answer your question, I'll first highlight a few of the more pertinent provisions:

"Peter Edward Rose will conclude these proceedings before the Commissioner without a hearing and the Commissioner will not make any formal findings or determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that Peter Edward Rose bet on any Major League Baseball game."

-In a court of law, we refer to this as a "stipulation of facts" which is not an admission of guilt but a method of resolving a matter in a compromised manner. In fact, this was more clearly spelled out in a subsequent provision:

"c. 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."

Thus, on the face of this document which Rose signed, there is nothing to remotely indicate that he was signing away his future HOF consideration. I have to believe that Rose was under that impression as well and, as such, I place little or no relevance in his signature as it pertains to a HOF induction.

How can anyone not love Bart Giamatti? He fathered actor Paul Giamatta, IMO one of the best actors of our time: John Adams in John Adams, Kenny "Pig Vomit" Rushton from Howard Stern, many other great roles.

"Stern just broke my nose! Stern just broke my nose! Howard you ****** ******!"

Bravescoach, you are stubborn on this one. I know parents of kids that have played for you, and by all accounts you are a great guy, great coach, and a positve example. So while I give up on explaining the gambling thing to you, which Brickhouse and Hop have explained well, I want to respectfully take issue with another of your statements form the first post on the thread.

You say, "We would all be extremely proud of our sons should they ever play the game the way Rose did". I disagree. So he hustled. He ran to first on walks. So did Walt "no neck" Williams. He was an all star at several ppositions and has the most hits in history. He also was a poor sport. Spiking balls, injuring guys in exhibition games and being an all around arrogent ***. He has 4,400 plus major league hits more than my son, but my son is liked and respected by his team mates and the opposition players. He respects the game and plays it with class. As proud as I am with the man and player he is, if he changed and started playing like Rose, I would be disappointed.

I remember watching the Big Red Machine. I liked and respected Johnny Bench. But, Rose was always a guy I rooted against. Like Pierzinski, he played with an edge. I know they say certain players are guys you hate on the other team and lovew on yours. I don't think that is true with Rose. He was a creep on and off the field. Not an example of a class act or a great sportsman and not a guy I would want my kid to emulate, regardles of his talent and hustle. There are others who hustle and have talent that are much greater examples for kids, if baseball players are indeed who you want kids to look up to. That is a whole other discussion.

Maybe Pete Rose studied under Ty Cobb......one of the most hated ball players of his time. Cobb was a bit smarter and perhaps only gambled on Coke stock........

Coke stock? Please explain?

Regarding Ty Cobb and Coke stock:

His other pastime was trading stocks and bonds, increasing his immense personal wealth. Among his other holdings, Cobb was a major stockholder in the Coca-Cola Corporation, which by itself would have made him a wealthy man. - From Wikipedia

quote:

Originally posted by bballdad1954:
Bravescoach, you are stubborn on this one. I know parents of kids that have played for you, and by all accounts you are a great guy, great coach, and a positve example. So while I give up on explaining the gambling thing to you, which Brickhouse and Hop have explained well, I want to respectfully take issue with another of your statements form the first post on the thread.

Stubborn? Well, I can honestly say that I've been called much worse than that. However, I like to consider myself strong-willed...especially with respect to this topic. While I do respect the opinions of yourself, Brick, and Hop, none of you have effectively persuaded me off of my position. I need no further "explanation" of the "gambling thing" as I hear you loud and clear...I simply do not agree...Debate 101.

As for Pete Rose, the player, I stand by my assertion. After all, the Hall is not about choir boys but accomplishments on the field of play. How one distinguishes the two is always open to debate. However, I think you would agree that he played the game as hard as anyone else...with some obvious indiscretions along the way.

Bravescoach, that's where I think the confusion is. You believe that this is a debate over whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. No one denies that Pete Rose's playing statistics are Hall of Fame worthy. No one also denies that there are worse people in the Hall of Fame than Pete, whether you like him or not.

The stance that Bballdad, Hop, and I are making is that if you gamble on baseball or any sport in which you are a participant, you cannot be allowed in. In that respect, our opinion does not change whether you are talking about Pete Rose or Pete LaCock.

If you are saying that is okay to let a person who was known to gamble on his sport in the HOF, you are opening the door for potentially bigger issues down the road.

quote:

Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Bravescoach, that's where I think the confusion is. You believe that this is a debate over whether Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. No one denies that Pete Rose's playing statistics are Hall of Fame worthy. No one also denies that there are worse people in the Hall of Fame than Pete, whether you like him or not.

The stance that Bballdad, Hop, and I are making is that if you gamble on baseball or any sport in which you are a participant, you cannot be allowed in. In that respect, our opinion does not change whether you are talking about Pete Rose or Pete LaCock.

If you are saying that is okay to let a person who was known to gamble on his sport in the HOF, you are opening the door for potentially bigger issues down the road.

Well-articulated Brick. The impasse which we have reached comes down to this...I contend that his induction should be based solely upon his playing career which is devoid of any exclusionary impropriety. Your stance is that a post-career "crime" trumps all of that...understood, and the debate rages on.

However, let's keep in mind that Fergie Jenkins was busted during his playing days for possession of cocaine, hashish, and marijuana and was still inducted into the Canadian and MLB Hall of Fames. So, I ask, where do we draw the line? Clearly, MLB has already opened the door to even bigger issues which will soon come to a head once A-Rod becomes eligible. Down the line, Rose will look like a saint compared to these modern day ballplayers.

OK, the jury is in. Bravescoach is right..Pete should be in.

Clearly, MLB has already opened the door to even bigger issues which will soon come to a head once A-Rod becomes eligible. Down the line, Rose will look like a saint compared to these modern day ballplayers.[/QUOTE]

In Major League Baseball's stance, there is no bigger issue than gambling on the sport, period.

FastballDad. Where did you get the jury is in? besides your opinion.

Let me ask you this. If OJ bet on Buffalo Bills games would he be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

quote:

Originally posted by Brickhouse:
Clearly, MLB has already opened the door to even bigger issues which will soon come to a head once A-Rod becomes eligible. Down the line, Rose will look like a saint compared to these modern day ballplayers.

In Major League Baseball's stance, there is no bigger issue than gambling on the sport, period.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe Congress would agree with that. Trust me, Brick, the HOF committee is in for one hell of a nightmare once these modern-day PED abusers become eligible for induction. Only time will tell how MBL handles a mess that they helped create (and profitted from).

To answer your question, I have no idea how the NFL would have handled that situation and to render a guess would be pure speculation on my part.

OJ was never a head coach. He was inducted as a player. Had it been proven that Pete bet on baseball while he was an active player, that is a totally different argument.

It's been pointed out, correctly, that the commish would only reinstate him in good graces with MLB. He would still have to stand for election by the writers and his peers. I find it hilarious that Gaylord Perry, the spitball king, opposes Rose's reinstatement.

I has been alleged here that no player, convicted of gambling while active has never been elected to any major HOF. FALSE!!

Paul Hornung, given an indefinte suspension in 1963 by Pete Rozelle for gambling, along with Alex Karras, was, in fact, reinstated and his bust sits proudly in the NFL HOF! It is claimed that Vince Lombardi lobbied Rozelle for his reinstatment and he played 3 or 4 more years.

Next argument?

Rosy, I was aware of that however did they wager on their own team? or a game that they had no involvement?

Also, I find it interesting that most of us, including myself, would like MLB to take a tougher stance on drug use, steroids, etc. Then, when it comes to the one issue that they do take a hard line position on, some of you are asking them to be wishy washy. Do you want them to ensure the integrity of the game or not?

Oh, come on Brick. How would I know if they gambled on their own teams or not? That matters not one iota. Gambling is gambling and in this case closely mirrors what Rose did, except that Rose was retired as a player and Paul Hornung was not!

IMO, the fact that MLB is so "wishy washy" makes their position in this case hypocritical at best, and punitive at it's worst.

We'll agree to disagree on this one Rosy. IMO, it makes a huge difference if you are wagering on a game that you have control of the outcome as opposed to just wagering on a game as a distant spectator.

I can be easily argued that one has more control over the outcome of a game as a manager than a player. The manager can put in certain personell or change strategies. all a player can do is affect his own performance. The distinction that Rose was retired as a player and therefore his gambling on the sport shouldn't count strikes me as the weakest argument of all.

Also, I don't think what football does is relavent to the baseball discussion. While someone may have said NO sports pt gamblers in the HOF, I only referred to baseball being consistent with their policies. Baseball has the history with 1919 etc. Also, the different HOF have different criteria.
The NFL puts in a certain number of players each year, baseball has much tougher standards.

Sir, the argument was put forth that no active player had been found guilty of gambling and admitted into a HOF. I tried to answer that point.

Rose only bet on his team to win. If Hornung bet on his team to win, or to lose, it is still gambling and broke the same league rule and resulted in a ban. Hypothetically, if Hornung was found to have bet against the Packers in a game, would he be perceived to be more guilty than Rose, who only bet that his team would win? I argue that it is the same violation and should be punished the same.

Lastly, it is Pete's supporters among retired players that first drew the distinction that as an active player he was never accused of betting. They perceive that there is a difference, and I happen to agree. That's it.

Hourning did not bet against the Packers. There is a big difference. If you bet ON your team, you try as hard as you can to win, which you should do anyway. Obviously, if you bet against your team you will ot give maximum effort. I douby Hourning or Karras would have been reinstated if they bet against theri team as it would certtainly call in to question the integrity of the game itself.

I do beleive there is danger in gambling no matter who you bet on. But, just like murder, society has different degrees of guilt and punishment for different crimes.

I still think football's should not be compared to baseball JMO

Guess I'm one that thinks Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame as a player AND banned from baseball because of the gambling as a manager.

I've heard lots of arguments that he only bet on his team to win, but who really knows? Even if he only bet on his team winning, unless he bet on every game there is a problem. Not saying this ever happened, but the manager is in charge of the line up and whose pitching. He could rest someone one day if he thought that might make them more effective on the next day when he was betting. He could give his closer the day off and then bet the next day. Anyway, there are just too many possibilities. Therefore, betting on any game that he was involved in as a manager is a serious problem and shows a total disregard and lack of respect for the game.

He's still a hall of famer as a player!

Keep in mind that 1919 was about a lot more than gambling.

Baseball was a mess.

Comiskey was a rotten no good individual.

Landis was an abhorrent reactionary.

The players were treated like animals.

1919 was a precedent not worth remembering and especially not worth using as any kind of guideline.

It's 180 degrees different today.

I'm in line behind Soxnole on this.

It should be noted that Cobb and Tris Speaker were both "suspended" for their collective role in fixing games during the regular season. Landis allowed both to continue in baseball.

The documents that the Chicago Baseball Museum and Chicago History Museum recently acquired also show that Joe Jackson tried to turn the $$$ over BEFORE the 1919 series and was sent away. Both league presidents knew about the fix and did nothing to stop it.

The next person reinstated would probably be Buck Weaver since Holtzman recommended it before he passed last year.

Could 2010 be the year?

Besides being the first athlete on the wheaties box and of course being on the cover of Hustler magazine..what has Pete really done?