Pete Rose signed agreement to come back?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Going back to Buck Weaver. Landis's ruling stated that any player who accepted money, or knows of other players taking money and doesn't inform the proper authorities is banned for life.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

In regards, to Speaker/Cobb/Wagner:

 

I know Cobbs name has been mentioned in all that, but there had been enough knocking on him all ready. There is a third guy less often mentioned. Thought it was Wagner, might be wrong.

 

Here's a question for you all then

 

Should Sammy Sosa go in the Hall of Fame? What with his breaking the rules and all. What about a pitcher who sandpapers the ball? What about Brooks Robinson (believe it was him) managing the Giants (I believe) back in the 80's and doing all those cocaine references from the bench whenever Steve Howe would face them. Doesn't that make the game look bad? And Jose Canseco with the steriods?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The Cobb and Speaker story.

 

Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were accused by Dutch Leonard of throwing games. Dutch incriminated himself, but was pretty much blacklisted afterwards. There was some evidence against Cobb, but not enough to convict him. There was NO evidence against Speaker apart from Leonard's allegation, so really he should be clear of this whole thing.

 

Should Sammy Sosa go in the Hall of Fame? What with his breaking the rules and all. What about a pitcher who sandpapers the ball? What about Brooks Robinson (believe it was him) managing the Giants (I believe) back in the 80's and doing all those cocaine references from the bench whenever Steve Howe would face them. Doesn't that make the game look bad? And Jose Canseco with the steriods?

 

Refer back to Dr. Tom. ROSE BROKE THE RULES. That's what sets him apart. And incriminating the rest of baseball is not going to get Rose into the Hall.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Should Sammy Sosa go in the Hall of Fame? What with his breaking the rules and all.

Oh come on. You can't expect people to take an "argument" like that seriously. Sosa gets seven games for corking a bat, and you're trying to compare that to a lifetime ban for breaking the cardinal rule of the game and betting on your own team? Sell that bill of goods elsewhere, because we're not buying any here.

 

What about a pitcher who sandpapers the ball?

See above.

 

What about Brooks Robinson (believe it was him) managing the Giants (I believe) back in the 80's and doing all those cocaine references from the bench whenever Steve Howe would face them.

That was Frank Robinson, and who gives a shit if he heckled someone on the other team? Howe was a cokehead; if he couldn't handle the criticism, he should have stopped putting shit up his nose.

 

Doesn't that make the game look bad?

That someone's heckling a cokehead? I don't see how.

 

And Jose Canseco with the steriods?

Canseco doesn't deserve it based on his playing career.

 

Really, moral relevancy isn't going to help you cause. I don't care if Ty Cobb was a drunk, or if Babe Ruth had two bitches on the side in every city, or if Sosa corked his bat. None of them did anything remotely approaching what Pete Rose did. You're trying to equate jaywalking with murder one and expecting everyone to come along for the ride. Sorry, I'll stay here by the curb and ride with someone who can stay inside the lines.

[Vern Gagne 0]

One question I have is why an admitted cheater like Gaylord Perry is in the HOF. This isn't some allegation, he's admitted himself he doctored the ball. If cheating isn't allowed, why is he in the hof?

[MrRant 0]

Because it is a bunch of jackass writers who decide who goes in. Instead of fans who should really be able to choose IMO.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Gotta disagree. The media is the best group to pick who makes the hof. They aren't perfect and do let personal opinion play a part. They however are very accurate in their selections.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I agree with Vern. The Baseball Writers are good at selecting the all stars. They leave deserving players out, but I'm hard pressed to find a selection in the last 15 years who didn't deserve the honor.

 

One question I have is why an admitted cheater like Gaylord Perry is in the HOF. This isn't some allegation, he's admitted himself he doctored the ball. If cheating isn't allowed, why is he in the hof?

 

Because he made cheating an artform.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

So, please explain to me how the integrity of the game was so overwhelmingly tarnished to the point that baseball could no longer recover because of the Pete Rose incident.

 

I mean, he never bet against his own team, so how is the integrity of any game tarnished?

 

On top of this, MLB gives alcoholics and drug addicts chance after chance yet a gambler only gets one chance? Correct me if I'm wrong but these are all addicts who need help.

[Dr. Tom 0]

So, please explain to me how the integrity of the game was so overwhelmingly tarnished to the point that baseball could no longer recover because of the Pete Rose incident.

Al took care of that on page one of this thread.

 

On top of this, MLB gives alcoholics and drug addicts chance after chance yet a gambler only gets one chance?

Because gambling is defined by baseball as a cardinal sin. If you don't like this policy, draft a letter to Bud Selig, but you're not going to change it by arguing about it in here.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but these are all addicts who need help. 

It's their job to get that help, and addiction doesn't excuse any rules they break or any crimes they commit.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Let me ask you another question:

 

Let's say in 10 years, Marion Rivera has had a hall of fame career, etc, etc. However, he admits that he was a coke addict (or what have you) and was often high when he pitched. One such instance was the 2001 World Series. Does he deserve to be in the hall? I think doing that would compromise the game's integrity much more than betting on it. Who knows, maybe the Yanks would have won the Series, etc.

 

And don't say that's really stretching it. I'm sure there are players in the hall that where either high or drunk when they played and their state of mind affected the outcomes of the game. I consider that a lot worse than anything Rose did.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Let's say in 10 years, Marion Rivera has had a hall of fame career, etc, etc. However, he admits that he was a coke addict (or what have you) and was often high when he pitched. One such instance was the 2001 World Series. Does he deserve to be in the hall? I think doing that would compromise the game's integrity much more than betting on it. Who knows, maybe the Yanks would have won the Series, etc.

 

*sigh*

 

The rule against gambling is explicitly written, and post in every clubhouse. YOU DO NOT GAMBLE. It says in black and white, you gamble on baseball, and you are suspended. It says nothing about drug addiction, or off the field behavior. It prohibits gambling. YOU CAN NOT COMPARE GAMBLING WITH OTHER BEHAVIOR.

 

And don't say that's really stretching it. I'm sure there are players in the hall that where either high or drunk when they played and their state of mind affected the outcomes of the game. I consider that a lot worse than anything Rose did.

 

Like I said in the first page. The single most important aspect of baseball, above all else, is that it must be seen as a legitimate athletic contest. Gambling by participants tarnishes that image. A player who is high or drunk is cheating himself. A player who gambles is cheating everyone involved, from the fans right on down to the participants.

[JHawk 0]

Let me ask you another question:

 

Let's say in 10 years, Marion Rivera has had a hall of fame career, etc, etc. However, he admits that he was a coke addict (or what have you) and was often high when he pitched. One such instance was the 2001 World Series. Does he deserve to be in the hall? I think doing that would compromise the game's integrity much more than betting on it. Who knows, maybe the Yanks would have won the Series, etc.

 

And don't say that's really stretching it. I'm sure there are players in the hall that where either high or drunk when they played and their state of mind affected the outcomes of the game. I consider that a lot worse than anything Rose did.

If his numbers warrant his being in the Hall of Fame, then I don't give a shit how much cocaine he may or may not have done. Much like I don't give a shit how much money Pete Rose lost because he was a mediocre manager, because what he did on the field, which was before he ever bet on a baseball game, is supposed to override all of that. The thing that bothers me is that being on cocaine is illegal everywhere, not just in baseball, and baseball accepts that, but gambling is only illegal in certain places, but fuck that, that's a cardinal sin.

 

Let's not forget that Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle are both in the Hall of Fame even though they worked in a casino after their playing days were done. The excuse for them still being in the Hall was "Well, we can't kick them out when they're already in." So basically, Pete Rose is only out of the Hall because he hadn't gotten elected to the Hall when he got caught.

 

But since MLB has already violated the agreement on at least two occasions themselves, I think it's kind of stupid to force Pete Rose to keep to it.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Like I said in the first page. The single most important aspect of baseball, above all else, is that it must be seen as a legitimate athletic contest. Gambling by participants tarnishes that image.

 

Yet games being decided by players that are high, corked bats, etc. is not worse than someone betting on a game, not against their team or anything, just on a game. And question, not that any of it was ever actually proven, but was their sufficient evidence to prove that he even bet on his own team?

 

And on the integrity of the game, I think Pete Rose's hit record has a lot more integrity to it than any modern day home run record. These guys on the juice using corked bats tarnishes the integrity way worse than anything else.

 

Also, out of curiosity, what other rules are explicitly written, and posted in every clubhouse?

 

 

And one more thing. When judging a hall of fame career, does someone get in if they are a half decent player and then turn into a half decent manager? Or is each aspect of their career judged seperately?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Yet games being decided by players that are high, corked bats, etc. is not worse than someone betting on a game, not against their team or anything, just on a game. And question, not that any of it was ever actually proven, but was their sufficient evidence to prove that he even bet on his own team?

 

Whether these things hurt the outcome of games is open to debate, but it doesn't matter. Rose broke the rule that was in place. Did he bet on his own team? Honestly, I'm not sure, but that's another issue. If Rose is innocent, then by all means, let him in.

 

And on the integrity of the game, I think Pete Rose's hit record has a lot more integrity to it than any modern day home run record. These guys on the juice using corked bats tarnishes the integrity way worse than anything else.

 

Newsflash. Players have been skirting the rules since the dawn of time. Trick bats existed in the 20s.

 

Also, out of curiosity, what other rules are explicitly written, and posted in every clubhouse?

 

I honestly can't tell you.

 

And one more thing. When judging a hall of fame career, does someone get in if they are a half decent player and then turn into a half decent manager? Or is each aspect of their career judged seperately?

 

The rules state that a player may be judged on the whole of his accomplishments. However, you really need to excel at one area or the other.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

The rules state that a player may be judged on the whole of his accomplishments. However, you really need to excel at one area or the other.

 

So basically a guy's two careers are judged seperately. Then why is it his actions in the seperate careers are judged as one?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

You're grasping for straws here. Rose was banned from baseball. MLB decided that ineligible players should not be eligible for the Hall. Simple as that. So what if it happened after he stopped playing? Rose was dismissed from MLB in disgrace. Why then should he be honored with baseball's highest honor?

[JHawk 0]

You're grasping for straws here. Rose was banned from baseball. MLB decided that ineligible players should not be eligible for the Hall. Simple as that. So what if it happened after he stopped playing? Rose was dismissed from MLB in disgrace. Why then should he be honored with baseball's highest honor?

1. 4,256 hits

 

2. A .303 career batting average

 

3. Because MLB is the one who violated the agreement that is keeping Rose out of the Hall in the first place.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

You forgot this one:

 

4. Broke the rule that stated betting against the game is punishable by permanent expulsion from the game

 

Agreements are broken all the time anyways. Just because an agreement is broken doesn't automatically elevate the person who got shafted by the agreement to god-like status.

[JHawk 0]

Ah, but you see Deep Thought, a signed agreement is essentially a contract, right? And, legally speaking, when you break a signed agreement, then you're guilty of breach on contract, right? And, legally speaking, if you're guilty of breach of contract, that makes the contract null and void, doesn't it?

 

I've yet to see one person say Pete Rose should be allowed back in the game, but to me and to many fans, the Hall of Fame isn't in the game. It's an honor reserved for those who were the best at the game. Pete Rose, simply put, was one of the best to ever set foot onto a baseball field. MLB has exploited Pete Rose by placing him on the All-Century Team (a fan vote, so it's "not part of the agreement" in Selig's eyes) and by allowing the HOF Museum in Cooperstown to display Pete Rose's uniform and glove, but they won't allow him to have his bust put into the Hall?

 

Hell, for all I care, tell him he can't attend the ceremony to accept the bust and plaque, but what he did on the field is what makes him a HOF player. Not having him in the Hall is a disservice not to Pete Rose, but to baseball fans, which is supposedly who MLB is catering to.

[Vern Gagne 0]

You're grasping for straws here.  Rose was banned from baseball.  MLB decided that ineligible players should not be eligible for the Hall.  Simple as that.  So what if it happened after he stopped playing?  Rose was dismissed from MLB in disgrace.  Why then should he be honored with baseball's highest honor?

1. 4,256 hits

 

2. A .303 career batting average

 

3. Because MLB is the one who violated the agreement that is keeping Rose out of the Hall in the first place.

What do his numbers have to do with anything? He has HOF numbers, no one is disputing this. It's a matter of Rose betting on games. The cardnial sin of baseball.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

So your saying you want Rose to get in because the MLB broke the contract. Which in your eyes makes him betting null and void. I'm sure a player like Cal Ripken Jr., who worked hard and was a law abiding player, would be so proud to be inducted in the Hall with a guy that gets in through a loop hole.

 

Maybe if old Petey boy wouldn't have broke the rule there wouldn't have been any need for a contract. Hmm...what a concept. Not breaking the rules.

[JHawk 0]

You're grasping for straws here.  Rose was banned from baseball.  MLB decided that ineligible players should not be eligible for the Hall.  Simple as that.  So what if it happened after he stopped playing?  Rose was dismissed from MLB in disgrace.  Why then should he be honored with baseball's highest honor?

1. 4,256 hits

 

2. A .303 career batting average

 

3. Because MLB is the one who violated the agreement that is keeping Rose out of the Hall in the first place.

What do his numbers have to do with anything? He has HOF numbers, no one is disputing this. It's a matter of Rose betting on games. The cardnial sin of baseball.

Which was "proven" with largely circumstantial evidence in what was essentially a prosecution document. Basically, he's banned from the Hall of Fame based on part of the story. How large a part that is we'll probably never know.

 

I'm not even disputing that he bet on baseball. I'm disputing the fact that he should be banned from the Hall of Fame for betting on baseball after his career was over. Can they take the hit record away from him because he bet on baseball? No. So how can you tell him the hit record doesn't mean anything?

[JHawk 0]

So your saying you want Rose to get in because the MLB broke the contract. Which in your eyes makes him betting null and void. I'm sure a player like Cal Ripken Jr., who worked hard and was a law abiding player, would be so proud to be inducted in the Hall with a guy that gets in through a loop hole.

 

And Pete Rose was a law-abiding player, even according to the Dowd Report.

[Vern Gagne 0]

When did I say the hits record means nothing? All I said was his numbers are HOF worthy, but they shouldn't play a role in MLB's decision.

[JHawk 0]

When did I say the hits record means nothing? All I said was his numbers are HOF worthy, but they shouldn't play a role in MLB's decision.

You didn't say it means nothing, but if Pete Rose isn't in the Hall, it's kind of implied. That was directed more at MLB than you, and I apologize if you took it that way.

[Vern Gagne 0]

No problem.

 

Let me ask you this. Why should numbers come into play in baseball's decision?

[JHawk 0]

Because baseball has always and lived and died on statistics. Why is Reggie Jackson in the Hall of Fame? He hit 500 home runs. He wasn't a good player aside from that stat, but that number by itself got him in.

 

Cal Ripken Jr.'s a first ballot Hall of Famer, but I'd be willing to bet it's more for The Streak than his numbers on the field (even though they're still quite good).

 

Some Cleveland radio guy (Bruce Drennan) actually tried to claim that because Nolan Ryan lost around 300 games (mostly for mediocre teams) he shouldn't be in the Hall. The rest of the writers said "7 no-hitters and over 5700 strikeouts overrule 300 losses".

 

Rose's numbers are comparable or better than all three of those guys when you go position-by-position. The only difference is that agreement Rose signed, which I'd say should be enforced had MLB not already violated said agreement.

 

I've contended for 14 years that Pete Rose should never set foot on a baseball field again because he probably broke a rule (remember, it still hasn't been proven). But that should not negate one of the best careers ever in baseball, and keeping him out of the Hall when his numbers are equal or better to just about everybody else's does just that.

[SteakGrowsOnUecker 0]

So because Rose has 4,256 hits he is allowed to break rules? You can't bend the rules for one player just because he is better than another player. If a guy had 4 career hits or 4,000 career hits if he breaks the rules he's gone.

Thats all there is to it. I'm a huge Cal Ripken Jr. fan. But if he would have did the same thing as Rose I would have felt the same way about the individual being banned.

[Dr. Tom 0]

And question, not that any of it was ever actually proven, but was their sufficient evidence to prove that he even bet on his own team?

I covered this. Search this thread for the words "Dowd Report."