Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[Bigdaddy]

No for Rose, and I'm a Reds fan. As of now, he can't even be on a ballot because he's banned from baseball. Personally though, I believe he committed the one crime that should get you banned for life - betting on the game, and specifically games he was involved in. What would be interesting to see is if Pete was reinstated, then he would be eligible to be on the ballot and then the voters would decide. As it stands, the voters have yet to weigh in.

As far as Barry and Roger, they were on the ballot but the voters kept them out (their prerogative). But I just can't square that up with Selig being voted in. As someone pointed out above, he was the commish during the whole steroids era, enabling it by turning a blind eye.

Bottom line, No on Rose, Yes on Barry and Roger.

PS, if anyone has seen recent photos of Rose, he is not looking so well.

[bmattioli]

Rose Definity the other two Roid players NEVER..

[refz]

I would like to see the 3 of these guys in, regardless of my opinion on the matter. They made the game exciting, posted hall numbers but blew it by being scumbags… err caught!!! I don’t see this happening anytime soon. That being said we are all in for a treat for the HOF to keep letting in the “Ben McDonalds & Mariano Duncan’s” as of lately.😉

[The Detroit Collector]

Yes to all three.
My prediction is Bonds and Clemons would be first.
Rose would be after he passes.

[Kzoo]

Just a random thought on Rose and this may have been discussed earlier/before.....was it ever determined if he was betting on his team to win or lose? ...or a combination of both?

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

Just a random thought on Rose and this may have been discussed earlier/before.....was it ever determined if he was betting on his team to win or lose? ...or a combination of both?

I remember reading that he only bet on his Reds to win

[oldjudge]

Yes for Rose, no for the others

[Kzoo]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

I remember reading that he only bet on his Reds to win

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

Rose maintained he never bet on baseball (until he needed to sell some books and then said that he in fact did, conceding the obvious). At the end of the investigation in 1989, Rose voluntarily agreed to accept the lifetime ban.

"THEREFORE, the Commissioner, recognizing the benefits to Baseball from a resolution of this matter, orders and directs that Peter Edward Rose be subject to the following disciplinary sanctions, and Peter Edward Rose, recognizing the sole and exclusive authority of the Commissioner and that it is in his interest to resolve this matter without further proceedings, agrees to accept the following disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Commissioner:
a. Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

It seems difficult to see why Rose would accept the ban and sign off on it, in exchange for "resolv[ing] this matter without further proceedings" unless there was something more that had not yet been shown in the Dowd report. If everything had been found at this point, he would have no reason to agree to the ban in exchange for quashing deeper investigation. A lifetime ban is the most that Major League Baseball could do to him; an effective plea deal where he gets the harshest possibly punishment in exchange for quashing further investigating has never made sense to me, unless there was something more to find. Perhaps that something more was that he had done it while a player too, which came out a few years ago. Perhaps it was something else. It seems to me that some pieces of this story remain a secret, and that the testimony of Pete Rose is completely worthless and changes with whatever benefits him most at the time the statement is given.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Kzoo

So then he wasn't purposefully betting for his Reds to lose and/or intentionally making bad decisions during a game to achieve a loss. He should be in for his playing career achievements, no doubt.

It's late in the year and you take your team into Pittsburgh for a 3-game series. Your bullpen has a few tired arms, your starters are nursing a few minor injuries. You're the manager of your club - in complete control over who will play, and when. And then you bet on your team to win the 3rd game of the series, but you don't bet on your team (or the other team) to win the first or second game.

See the conflict of interest? Will you use your top reliever in the 2nd game, or save him for the game you're betting on? Will you rest up a starter in one of the first 2 games to get him fresh for game 3?

And think of the blackmail possibilities you're creating against yourself. A bookie, who has records of your bets placed, drops a hint that he might spill the beans and blow the whole story (and Rose's career) wide open unless Larkin gets the day off on a certain day.....

Rose is a student of the game. He knew the fundamental, #1 rule of baseball: Don't bet on games. He knew 8 guys were expelled from the game for gambling, including a certain HOFer. Rose knew, and he did it anyway. He made his choice.