Pete Rose signed agreement to come back?

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=2194

[TSA09 0]

MLB's response

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Yet another great link

 

http://thesmartmarks.com/artman/publish/ar...icle_1103.shtml

[Vern Gagne 0]

I'm tired of this story. I don't think should be allowed back in, but either way baseball needs to make up their minds and decide yes or no.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

Pete Rose bet on his own team he shouldn't be let back in. If you do the crime you're going to do the time.

[Youth N Asia 0]

And if he's let back in we lose the "should he be let back in" argument

[JHawk 0]

You and I are going to disagree on this point, Deep Thought, and there are two key reasons why. I'm not even arguing that he should be allowed back in baseball, but any agreement that gets him in the Hall of Fame is a good thing.

 

First off, the Hall of Fame is supposed to be based on what you did on the field. You have known alcoholics and womanizers in the Hall already, and I've never heard anybody claim that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb should be kicked out of the HOF for it. It's like with the NFL Hall of Fame. Some people wanted Lawrence Taylor banned from the Hall for something he did off the field, and the HOF said "So what?" because that didn't mean he was any less of a player. It's the same thing here.

 

Secondly, even if he did bet on his own team, it's not as if he was throwing games, so I don't see how he's hurting the "integrity" of the game any more than it's already hurt. You've got known alcoholics and drug addicts and spousal abusers getting two (or three or four or eight) chances to play, why can't a gambler get a second chance?

 

By the way, does anybody else find it hypocritical that the Yankees can have advertisements for Mohegan Sun behind home plate but a player can be banned from the HOF for betting he'd win?

 

Is letting Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame but not letting him manage really that difficult a solution?

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

First off what you do off field is off field. It doesn't matter if someone does drugs or is a womanizer because it has nothing to do with the sport its self. That completely reflects back upon the player if he chooses to go out and impregnate 74 women. The fact is that going out and womanizing and doing drugs is off field antics. They're frowned on but it has nothing to do with the sport.

 

Rose wasn't the first person to get banned from baseball because of gambling on his team. It happened with the whole Black Socks world series scandal. If Rose was managing a team that he was gambling on he has EVEN MORE effect on the outcome of a game. He can take players out once the score gets to what he wants it to be. Or if he betted against his team he could let a pitcher in the game too long and let that pitcher get rocked until the game was firmly out of hand.

 

I'm not even going to argue with the fact that Pete Rose was a great player because he was a great player. One of the best ever. But with a sport like baseball there is a line that can be crossed when you start betting on your own sport. If Rose would have been betting on pro football or college basetball it wouldn't have been such a big thing. The simple fact that he betted on the sport that he was a part of is the reason why he shouldn't be let in to the hall.

[JHawk 0]

We're still going to disagree, because unless he was throwing games I still don't see the gambling as relevant.

 

As for the Black Sox scandal, Shoeless Joe Jackson led the Series in batting average and home runs, so if he threw that series (which is why he was banned, because the money was in exchange for throwing the Series) then I'd like to see what his numbers would have been.

 

Exactly when was Pete Rose found guilty in court of anything? Or the 1919 Chicago White Sox, for that matter? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

And for the record, there's no doubt in my mind Pete Rose bet on baseball and on his own team, but I still don't see where he threw games or did anything wrong except manage a mediocre team during the era of a commissioner he didn't get along with.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

Shoeless Joe Jackson was the one person on the team who shouldn't have gotten banned. He was the one person on the team that was trying to win. People around Chicago are always petitioning to get Shoeless Joe Jackson reinstated. If he can't get reinstated when its painfully obvious that he had no part in the entire scandal then I don't see Rose getting reinstated.

 

It doesn't matter what a court would find guilty because OJ Simpson is somehow inocent. So I have no faith on a court convicting any athelte unless its someone like Mike Tyson.

 

Yes the Reds were mediocre, however, they might have been a better team if some games were not thrown. Hmm...Maybe, Maybe Not.

 

Back when this was first brought public. An investigative report revealed that Rose regularly bet on baseball games, but also that he bet on the Reds. A violation of baseball rules that would automatically draw a permanent expulsion from the game. As part of the settlement between Rose and baseball, the language of the agreement did not explicitly accuse Rose of betting on baseball games; he was accused of 'conduct not to be in the best interests of baseball.'

 

Pete Rose agreed to the settlement making him permanently ineligible for employment in baseball. Pete signed this on his on will. Thats why he will never be inducted into the HOF.

[Guest undisputedjericho]

Sorry, Pete, 14 years isn't exactly a permanent ban.

 

In a semi-related note: Aren't the HoF and MLB not officially related? The Hall is its own organization, and it is not a branch of MLB. So couldn't they just let him in the Hall, if they aren't related, but I guess it was part of the deal. Hell, they let him on the field for the All Century Team, and for some reason a minor league team that he never played for, who I think were like a Devil Rays affiliate, retired his number there.

[JHawk 0]

Back when this was first brought public. An investigative report revealed that Rose regularly bet on baseball games, but also that he bet on the Reds. A violation of baseball rules that would automatically draw a permanent expulsion from the game. As part of the settlement between Rose and baseball, the language of the agreement did not explicitly accuse Rose of betting on baseball games; he was accused of 'conduct not to be in the best interests of baseball.'

 

Yeah, the Dowd Report. Essentially a prosecution document. Like I said, I'm admitting he bet on baseball and probably on his Reds, but I still fail to see how betting that you'll win affects the integrity of the game.

 

Pete Rose agreed to the settlement making him permanently ineligible for employment in baseball. Pete signed this on his on will. Thats why he will never be inducted into the HOF.

 

He also signed that agreement because he would be eligible for reinstatement within a year. The rule was changed before that year was up, so the agreement was violated right there. Plus, there was also a stipulation that they'd make no mention of guilt or innocence, and yet the public excuse for his still being banned from the HOF is that he hasn't admitted to betting on baseball, which means they more or less say he's guilty and therefore can't be in. In effect, baseball has already violated their own agreement on more than one occasion already, so saying Pete made an agreement is like saying Kevin Nash lost a retirement match...technically it's true, but it's gotten to the point that it means nothing anymore.

 

Again, I agree he should probably never set foot on a field again, but the man has more hits than anybody ever in baseball and a career .303 batting average. If Reggie Jackson's 500 home runs can override his shoddy defense and his career .265 batting average, then 4,256 hits should override losing money by betting he was a good enough manager to win a baseball game.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

but I still fail to see how betting that you'll win affects the integrity of the game.

 

It'd still be bad if he betted on teams that he was directly involved with but he had an effect on the out come of the games that he was involved in. This taints all the games the Reds played in and didn't win, because the argument can be made. "What if Rose was betting on those games, the Reds could have won more games." Thats pretty significant because that could have changed an outcome in a pennet race.

 

I agree the MLB did violate that agreement Rose signed. If the HOF isn't directly owned by MLB then I see no reason why he isn't elected to the HOF. But I think the HOF is trying to avoid getting Bud Selig and company all pissed off at them.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Exactly when was Pete Rose found guilty in court of anything? Or the 1919 Chicago White Sox, for that matter? Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

Baseball is it's own court system. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't come into play.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

A few points here about Pete Rose.....

 

1. Betting on games does have an effect on baseball. While betting on a game may not directly effect the outcome of a game, it hurts the game's integrity. Integrity is VITAL to the health of any sport. How does gambling effect the game's integrity? It doesn't matter if Rose actually threw the games. If it is known that a player, manager, or whoever bets on a game, then the fan immediately begins to worry, "Am I seeing a legitimate athletic contest?"

 

2. It doesn't matter that Rose didn't throw a game. There's a rule in place that says no gambling. I don't know if Rose bet on baseball or not, but if he did, then he broke a written rule.

 

Shoeless Joe Jackson was the one person on the team who shouldn't have gotten banned. He was the one person on the team that was trying to win. People around Chicago are always petitioning to get Shoeless Joe Jackson reinstated. If he can't get reinstated when its painfully obvious that he had no part in the entire scandal then I don't see Rose getting reinstated.

 

First off, throwing the World Series and gambling are two different offenses. Throwing the series is far worse than betting on regular season games, and you can't really compare Jackson with Rose.

 

With that in mind, I see some falsehoods in your statement. It is NOT painfully obvious that Jackson was not involved in the scandal. Look at the facts.

 

1. Joe Jackson sat in on the meeting where the means of throwing the World Series were discussed, along with seven other players.

 

2. Jackson received $5,000 on the pretense of throwing the World Series. It doesn't matter at this point whether he did anything to actually throw the Series. HE RECEIVED MONEY FROM GAMBLERS.

 

3. Jackson did hit the Series' only home run. In game 8, with the White Sox already down by five runs.

 

I've never heard anything even suggest that Jackson wasn't even involved in the scandal.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

If he led the Series in Batting Average then he wasn't trying to hard to throw it. Sounds like he was player for his own pride.

What's he going to do rat out that his team mates are going to throw the series and forever being known as Tatle Tale Joe Jackson? Yeah you can look at it yes he should have told the proper authorities about it but I'm sure he would have been shuned by most of the other players as the guy that you can't trust to say things around or he'll go tell management.

[Guest Dmann2000]

Pete Rose bet on his own team he shouldn't be let back in. If you do the crime you're going to do the time.

Ty Cobb was a violent racist and Babe Ruth was a womanizing drunk, throw their asses out too.

 

This man holds the all-time hit record, I don't care he's been banned for 14 frickin' years, LET HIM IN!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

If he led the Series in Batting Average then he wasn't trying to hard to throw it. Sounds like he was player for his own pride.

 

He hit alot in non-clutch situations, and that batting average says nothing about his fielding, which was reputed to have been poor the entire Series.

 

What's he going to do rat out that his team mates are going to throw the series and forever being known as Tatle Tale Joe Jackson? Yeah you can look at it yes he should have told the proper authorities about it but I'm sure he would have been shuned by most of the other players as the guy that you can't trust to say things around or he'll go tell management.

 

Yeah, that pesky Joe, always ruining our plans to throw the championship. So how does that explain Jackson agreeing to throw the Series? Even if he reigned on the agreement, he still made an agreement.

[Bored 0]

Shoeless Joe Jackson was the one person on the team who shouldn't have gotten banned. He was the one person on the team that was trying to win.

Say what? Buck Weaver was the only player banned who didn't deserve it. Weaver took no money and played his BUTT off in the series. Weaver ended up being guilty by association as he did know about the fix and was punished for it. He should have been reinstated and allowed to play again after a suspension.

 

Jackson is iffy because he did take money and as good as he hit you always have to wonder what would he have hit if he took no money? I wouldn't mind it if it he did ever get elected to the HOF.

 

Oh and on Pete Rose...it's so simple...Hall of Fame, yes...managing the Reds or any other team ever again, no.

[JHawk 0]

Betting on games does have an effect on baseball. While betting on a game may not directly effect the outcome of a game, it hurts the game's integrity. Integrity is VITAL to the health of any sport. How does gambling effect the game's integrity? It doesn't matter if Rose actually threw the games. If it is known that a player, manager, or whoever bets on a game, then the fan immediately begins to worry, "Am I seeing a legitimate athletic contest?"

 

1. That doesn't seem to curtail the popularity of boxing more than a couple of years at a time, and there have been far more gambling scandals in boxing (at least publicly) than baseball has ever had.

 

2. Be that as it may, it was still done when Pete was a manager, after his playing days were done. And nobody's ever claimed that Pete Rose was a Hall of Fame manager. So doing something stupid three years after you've retired negates a 15-20 year career?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

2. Be that as it may, it was still done when Pete was a manager, after his playing days were done. And nobody's ever claimed that Pete Rose was a Hall of Fame manager. So doing something stupid three years after you've retired negates a 15-20 year career?

 

Yes it does.

[JHawk 0]

2. Be that as it may, it was still done when Pete was a manager, after his playing days were done. And nobody's ever claimed that Pete Rose was a Hall of Fame manager. So doing something stupid three years after you've retired negates a 15-20 year career?

 

Yes it does.

Then I want anybody who's ever done something stupid taken out of the Hall of Fame.

 

Oh wait, there wouldn't be a Hall of Fame.

 

And I'm still waiting for someone to justify how the Yankees are allowed to sell advertising to casinos when their players can't gamble.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And I'm still waiting for someone to justify how the Yankees are allowed to sell advertising to casinos when their players can't gamble.

 

Because there is an explicit rule preventing players from gambling, while no rule exists prohibiting teams from accepting advertising from casinos. Is this not right? Possibly, but it in no way justifies Rose's actions.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

QUOTE 

Pete Rose agreed to the settlement making him permanently ineligible for employment in baseball. Pete signed this on his on will. Thats why he will never be inducted into the HOF. 

 

 

He also signed that agreement because he would be eligible for reinstatement within a year. The rule was changed before that year was up, so the agreement was violated right there. Plus, there was also a stipulation that they'd make no mention of guilt or innocence, and yet the public excuse for his still being banned from the HOF is that he hasn't admitted to betting on baseball, which means they more or less say he's guilty and therefore can't be in. In effect, baseball has already violated their own agreement on more than one occasion already, so saying Pete made an agreement is like saying Kevin Nash lost a retirement match...technically it's true, but it's gotten to the point that it means nothing anymore.

 

Again, I agree he should probably never set foot on a field again, but the man has more hits than anybody ever in baseball and a career .303 batting average. If Reggie Jackson's 500 home runs can override his shoddy defense and his career .265 batting average, then 4,256 hits should override losing money by betting he was a good enough manager to win a baseball game.

 

JHawk has it right. And I don't think Rose ever admitted to actually gambling on his team. A lot of the evidence was very circumstantial and I believe the basis for this deal between Rose-MLB at the time was to get the story out of the headlines, sweep everything under the rug, and then when things had blown over bring Rose back. However, the man that was commish at the time (forget who) keeled over about a week later. The guy that took over (it have have even been Selig back then) blamed the previous commish's poor health and heart attack or whatever on Rose for all the stress that Rose put him through.

 

Here's a hypothetical question for those of you saying Rose shouldn't be in the hall of fame.

 

What if it had not been MLB that Rose had bet on, but rather say, a college team, or little league team he had been managing? Should he still be banned?

 

 

And in regards to Shoeless Joe, Bored had it right. Buck Weaver is the one that deserved reinstatement. He never took any money and played his ass off. Shoeless Joe took the money. Whether or not he changed his mind and decided not to throw the games is irrelevant after he took the money.

 

And on top of this, there have been other players like Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner and others that gambled on the games they actually played in who still hold a place in the hall of fame.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

*awaits Dr. Tom's anti-Rose response*

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What if it had not been MLB that Rose had bet on, but rather say, a college team, or little league team he had been managing? Should he still be banned?

 

Players should not bet, PERIOD. If you find yourself in debt to a bookie, the potential conflict of interest is there. You're $2 million in debt, about to lose a thumb, but you can save your ass by throwing a game. That's why the gambling rule is in place. And anyone who bets on a LITTLE LEAGUE game should get kicked out immediately.

 

And in regards to Shoeless Joe, Bored had it right. Buck Weaver is the one that deserved reinstatement. He never took any money and played his ass off. Shoeless Joe took the money. Whether or not he changed his mind and decided not to throw the games is irrelevant after he took the money.

 

Hey, I pointed out that he took the money first. Except for Weaver, Bored was just repeating me.

 

And on top of this, there have been other players like Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner and others that gambled on the games they actually played in who still hold a place in the hall of fame.

 

Did you mean Ty Cobb? I can't recall Honus Wagner ever having been mentioned among gamblers. But yes, there have been scandals of the past, even involving Babe Ruth. But the Speaker/Cobb issue was investigated (by Commissioner Landis no less), no ban was issued, and that's that.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I should clarify my position on the issue. I am not opposed to Rose returning. I am not sure whether he gambled on baseball or not. I've read a few writers who say the evidence just isn't there. What I object to is people who have the issues wrong.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

What if it had not been MLB that Rose had bet on, but rather say, a college team, or little league team he had been managing? Should he still be banned?

I'm against people getting in debt to bookies and what not period because its just stupid. BUT if the offensive linemen for the Cowboys is gambling on basketball and baseball that has no effect in my opinion on him as a player in his own sport. If he'd bet that his team wouldn't win a certain game I have a huge problem with that. You could make the statement well he's just an offensive linemen he doesn't have much affect on the game. Well he does if he moves out of the way or falls down intentionally the quarterback can get sacked and injured and then there's a good chance he'll win his bet.

 

 

 

So in reguards to that:

 

Betting on a sport you don't participate in = Bad, but forgivable in the long run

 

Betting on the sport you play/coach/management position = Bad and unforgivable because it lowers the integrity of the game.

 

And if integrity isn't important then why in most sports are performance inhancing drugs banned?

[Dr. Tom 0]

*awaits Dr. Tom's anti-Rose response*

No point in keeping everyone waiting, then...

 

I'm not going to directly quote anyone else, since I'm at work and don't feel like digging for them. You'll probably know if I'm replying to something you said by the points I make.

 

1. Betting on baseball is a cardinal sin, explicitly banned in the rulebook, and betting on one's own team is a mortal sin on top of the cardinal sin. These rules are posted in every major-league clubhouse. How someone feels about the weight of the offense is immaterial: these are the rules of the game. The penalty for breaking the rules is known and published right along with them. There is no excuse for breaking this rule.

 

2. Dowd compiled numerous betting slips with Rose's fingerprints on them, as well as pieces of paper and notebooks in Rose's handwriting, detailing bets and betting lines.

 

3. Rose never bet against the Reds. That doesn't change what he did, but there it is.

 

4. Rose deserves his lifetime ban from the sport: he broke the game's cardinal rule. There is no rule that a drunkard or a philanderer is eligible for a lifetime ban, so arguing for people like Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth to be banned is pointless. Their off-field actions might not have been commendable (and really, who cares?), but they didn't break any of the rules of the game. Rose did. There's the distinction.

 

5. Other sports, including pseduo-sports like boxing, likely have very different rules regarding gambling. These are also irrelevant.

 

In short: Fuck Pete Rose. He's done nothing but shamelessly promote and whore himself out to an American public eager to forgive him for his sins without understanding their context. Considering his memorabilia sales, I think he's made a good chunk of change off the sport, at the expense of people who actually believe in him. I hope he's never let back into baseball, and if he ever does taint the Hall of Fame, I hope his election is a posthumous one.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

4. Rose deserves his lifetime ban from the sport: he broke the game's cardinal rule.

Exactly, If feel no pity for Rose being banned. He was a dumbass for what he did and now he's paying the price.