Thread: Pete Rose Poll
View Single Post
  #9  
Old 12-17-2015, 05:38 AM
Exhibitman's Avatar
Exhibitman Exhibitman is offline
Ad@m W@r$h@w
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Beautiful Downtown Burbank
Posts: 13,920
Default

I am a huge Pete Rose fan and while I do not want to see him reinstated I would let him on a HOF ballot.

Reinstatement is an MLB employment issue, not a HOF issue. The actual rule created in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, Rule 21, is so important to the game that it is written on every clubhouse wall. Pete Rose knew the rule and blatantly violated it as a player and as a manager. We can get all nitpicky as to whether he bet against his teams or only with his teams but there isn't much point to that because Rule 21 carries a mandatory sentence of baseball death: a lifetime ban from association or employment in the game.

Rose agreed to the sentence. He did not fight the case through to the end, he agreed. He accepted a plea bargain that he now regrets. As a lawyer, that doesn't cut it with me. I've actually been sued by an ex-client who accepted a settlement and decided later he didn't like it, so I am especially unforgiving of people who make their own beds then discover they don't really like laying in them.

The issue in the MLB decision is whether he is a fit potential employee, not whether he can participate in tribUtes. Rose admitted to Manfred during their meeting that he currently bets on baseball. So, despite submitting testimonials from experts to the effect that he is a compulsive gambler with an addiction, he is still betting on baseball. That would and should scare the hell out of anyone in MLB asked to reinstate Rose. If he is a compulsive gambler he really should not be put in a position to influence the outcome of games. He is the equivalent of an alcoholic trucker who has lost his job due to drunk driving applying for reinstatement and telling his potential boss that he is still a social drinker. Would you let that guy drive for you? For the same reasons, I disagree with the assertion that MLB is asking him to grovel or otherwise abase himself. All he is being asked to do is to provide credible evidence that he has his addiction under control, which he did not do.

Frankly, I find the attitude here to be too forgiving of our idols' clay feet at times: for example, I would never advocate for Joe Jackson to be in the HOF because he took money and agreed to throw the World Series. Screw him. A better analogy to Rose vis a vis MLB is Bill Mastro. Like Rose, he was arguably the best in his field and like Rose, he broke the rules and the law, and has accepted a sentence and ban [albeit self-imposed] which shocked and disappointed many of his fans. I don't care if Bill Mastro swears on a stack of bibles that he has reformed, I sure as hell would not ever bid in an auction he is running. I would feel the same as to Rose being involved with a team on the field. But the HOF is not an influence on the current game. He was one of the greatest players I ever saw so I'd let him at least get a vote before he dies. If the voters agree he should be out so be it.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true.

https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/

Or not...

Last edited by Exhibitman; 12-17-2015 at 05:42 AM.
Reply With Quote