No HOF For Pete

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Did you not see that he continues to engage in the very conduct that is prohibited under MLB rules? No contrition, no rehabilitation, repeated lying and disparagement of others all those years while he steadfastly denied his guilt and impugned his accusers --even a dead man. Why in the hell should this guy be allowed back in the game? What on Earth makes you think he would not continue to bet on baseball?

If you're so bothered by his absence from the HOF, make your pitch there. It is not disingenuous to have that body change its stance on who it deems eligible; in fact, I would argue that it is easier and invokes less potential heartburn for the game if that body were to change rather than to expect MLB to loosen its rules or allow this continuing fool to have any kind of official or acknowledged position in the game.

EDITED TO ADD: Peter, I just saw an earlier post where you say who cares if he still bets on baseball? That is a total non-starter, not just with me but I would guess nearly everyone. Dear MLB, change your rules that prohibit your members from betting on baseball? Why? I dunno. Ask Peter Spaeth.

There is, I suspect, zero chance the HOF would say someone who is banned for life from MLB is still eligible for induction.

And I don't care if he bets on baseball now. What possible difference can it make if Pete Rose bets on a game? By the way Gaylord Perry probably broke the rules every time he pitched, were you against his induction? And answer me please about ARod.

[nolemmings]

I have no idea what you're asking about Arod, and I don't really care. Arod was accused of engaging in conduct prohibited under a collectively bargained labor agreement. The process and potential punishments were spelled out and agreed to by labor and management. He went through the process, and even challenged it in court. A decision was made that comported with the law and the CBA. Issue over.

If Pete Rose wants to challenge his treatment in court, I say go for it big fella. Similarly, if he wants to have the players bargain next time around for the right to bet on baseball or for certain specified lesser punishments if they are found to have bet, or even for any kind of retroactive relief for Pete himself, he can focus his energies there. Good luck with that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're missing the forest for the trees, and framing the issue in a misleading way. Obviously the collective bargaining agreement has nothing to do with Rose's situation from a literal point of view. And nobody is suggesting Rose has any recourse, legal or otherwise. Straw man argument. My point is simply one of what I view as fundamental fairness, and I believe the ARod case for all its differences suggests, at the level of the forest (not the trees), that Rose has been punished enough for what he did.

Now, answer my question, do you believe Gaylord Perry should be in the Hall of Fame, or not, and why?

[nolemmings]

No it is not strawman argument. No I will not keep answering your questions about other players. Call me fundamentally unfair. I could not care less.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

No it is not strawman argument. No I will not keep answering your questions about other players. Call me fundamentally unfair. I could not care less.

Indeed.

[nolemmings]

Yes indeed.

[Mountaineer1999]

Does the HOF not feel incomplete without Pete? It is almost becoming laughable as to who is in and who is not allowed or not getting voted in. How can you have a HOF without the all time HR and Hits leaders?

[cubsfan-budman]

he deserves to be in the hall. shouldn't be such a popularity contest.