Pete Rose Poll

[Moonlight Graham]

Wasn't there a story on ESPN this year that he bet on baseball while he was a player?

[bravesfan22]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

Wasn't there a story on ESPN this year that he bet on baseball while he was a player?

Yes, outside the lines revealed there were documents and notebooks taken from his home during a search that showed he was betting as a player in 1986.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...ll-player-1986

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravesfan22

Yes, outside the lines revealed there were documents and notebooks taken from his home during a search that showed he was betting as a player in 1986.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...ll-player-1986

It's pretty clear that Rose bet on baseball for at least his last 3 years as a player. Irregardless, Pete knew that what he was doing against the rules, permanent banishment and no hof, see Joe Jackson. Pete still chose to bet. He should just accept the punishment, but Pete thinks he is bigger than the game. He should never be allowed in the hof.

Even putting him on the ballot sends a poor example. If you are good enough, we will just ignore the rules for you. Athletes and gambling should never mix, it is what differentiates mlb from wwe.

For those saying he didn't bet against the Reds, wrong. Everytime he didn’t bet on the Reds, he was betting against them. Don't be naive. The gamblers saw this and used this info, that Pete would not be managing to win like when he had money on the game. Pete's actions harmed the game and the need for fair play. He is getting what he deserves.

[bn2cardz]

He has already been on the ballot for three years. His highest percent was 9.5%. I think that he still wouldn't be in even if allowed on the ballot, just like proven juicers are allowed on yet don't make it in.

Everyone knows he was good. Just like everyone knows Joe Jackson was good. HOF collectors already know this and adjust their collecting accordingly so it really doesn't matter if they do or don't get in because their legacies will still hold up.

If they were borderline HOF players then it may have made a difference, but at this point it just doesn't seem to matter.

[ramram]

I say let him in after he has passed away. That way he never gets to enjoy his "day" because of his transgressions but yet he ultimately winds up where he should be.

Rob M.

[Jayworld]

Rule 21.d (part 2):
http://seanlahman.com/files/rose/rule21.html

"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."

That would include a player, coach, manager, etc.

Black and white to me. He bet. He got caught. Permanently ineligible.

[mark evans]

I don't have a lot of heartburn over placing Rose on the ballot for the Hall, although I would not vote for his induction. Pete instead deserves his own display -- one that tells the whole story: the good, the bad and the ugly.

[Nashvol]

+1

Originally Posted by Jayworld

Rule 21.d (part 2):
http://seanlahman.com/files/rose/rule21.html

"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."

That would include a player, coach, manager, etc.

Black and white to me. He bet. He got caught. Permanently ineligible.

[Exhibitman]

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.

[BearBailey]

Should be in the HOF without question.

[Joshchisox08]

"Frankly, I find the attitude here to be too forgiving of our idols' clay feet at times:...."

+ how ever many votes voted for him to be in.

[sycks22]

In as a player = Yes
In as a manager = nope

If it's 100% that he bet while a player then he shouldn't be in, but what he did as a coach shouldn't impact what he did on the field.