Should these 3 players be in the HOF

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

All you guys saying 'No' to Rose are bonkers. How is this even remotely a point of contention? It'd be one thing if he was betting against his team to win when he was the manager, but he didn't. All the records that were recovered during the investigation corroborate his account that he was betting on the Reds TO WIN. Records on over 50 games where he bet were found. Every single one of them was on the Reds to win. If you think that doesn't make a difference, you're wrong. He wasn't throwing games. He was competing. Boxers do it all the time. They bet on themselves to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with someone betting on themselves or their team to win a competition. NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

Throwing a game is different. But Rose never did that.

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) 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 no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) 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.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

[steve B]

All arguments back and forth aside...

With a team in Vegas, they may as well reinstate Rose and Jackson and put them in together.
It will be a good sign that nothing matters to MLB quite so much as money.

And once you abandon the whole "wrecking the reputation of the game" thing, I suppose steroids don't matter either as long as the jacked up players bring in enough cash.

To me a lot of the early tests were very iffy, the lab that did them was questionable, and MLB wouldn't release any info about what a test was positive for even to the players.
Even with much higher standards, Baseball was removed from the Olympics because they didn't meet WADA standards.
By those standards I doubt there would be more than a few players eligible.
And probably almost none since the late 1960's

[Bigdaddy]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
...
(2) 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.
...

Sounds pretty clear to me. Rose bet on games in which he had a 'duty to perform' and so he's on the permanently ineligible list. Not much wiggle room in those rules.

Of course the HOF could discard it's rule about players on the list not being eligible for induction and leave it to the voters, but that would probably upset their relationship with MLB.

[G1911]

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

[Tabe]

Gaylord Perry and David Ortiz are in. Clemens and Bonds should be.

Rose is an easy no. He broke the cardinal rule.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by G1911

I completely understand why some people think he should be forgiven, but I cannot fathom how some people do not understand (or pretend not to understand to stir the pot) why Rose is banned. It was the number 1 rule in baseball, the stakes were known, he obviously and provably broke that rule. Duh.

So true!! Nothing else needs to be said.

[steve B]

What's odd is that the hobby conveniently also forgets Rose selling multiple bats related to the same milestone hit on the way to the record. Not the major ones, but stuff like two people with bats from like hit 4187.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by steve B

Rule 21 is posted in every locker room, and has been since way before Rose ever played.
He knew what he was getting into. And the penalty for it.

(d) GAMBLING.
(1) 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 no duty to perform, shall be declared ineligible for one year.

(2) 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.

(3) Any player, umpire, or Club or League official or employee who places bets with illegal book makers,
or agents for illegal book makers, shall be subject to such penalty as the Commissioner deems
appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances of the conduct. Any player, umpire, or Club or League
official or employee who operates or works for an illegal bookmaking business shall be subject to a
minimum of a one-year suspension by the Commissioner. For purposes of this provision, an illegal
bookmaker is an individual who accepts, places or handles wagers on sporting events from members of
the public as part of a gaming operation that is unlawful in the jurisdiction in which the bets are
accepted.

A rule is only relevant in the purpose toward which it aims to serve. The point of the "no gambling" rule in the MLB is to prevent fixing/throwing games. Betting on yourself to win compromises nothing at all, because you are supposed to try to win. If anything, Rose should be praised for trying to win that hard. He put it all on the field. He gave that game everything he ever had. Every inning, every at-bat. Rose was a warrior.

Not being allowed to bet on yourself to win is a stupid rule.

[Snowman]

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

You just don't get it.

[bmattioli]

Originally Posted by Snowman

It's ridiculous that anyone thinks Rose would bet against his team. What bookie on the planet is going to accept a wager on the Reds to lose from the manager of the Reds? If you believe this happened, you're an idiot.

Bookies care about one thing. MONEY. You want to bet on something.. no problem to them..