Rose Reinstated? - Page 2

Long_Long_Name · 11-06-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aadik
Pete Rose is an idiot- end of ****ing story.

I am a student- end of ****ing story.

Rizon · 11-06-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Long_Long_Name
I am a student- end of ****ing story.

There is goo coming out of the side of my soda can - end of ****ing story

SoxWin · 11-06-2003, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aadik
Pete Rose is an idiot- end of ****ing story.

Have you ever met him or are you basing this on the media's portrayal of him?

Just curious since if I said the same thing about Bonds, you'd blast me to kingdom come.

sixto · 11-06-2003, 04:49 PM

It is hilarious how Baseball Prospectus's Derek Zumsteg broke this story and BP has been slagged by the commish and his boys for months and then the story is going to turn out to be true? I mean, are you kidding me? I blame Republicans!

Gastric ReFlux · 11-06-2003, 04:54 PM

I blame it on the liberal weenies who have eroded this nation's moral character.

Eric · 11-06-2003, 06:51 PM

stupid canadians.

akw4572 · 11-06-2003, 08:16 PM

Rose may be the only thing that can save the Reds franchise in the next few years. I hope he comes back and stays clean.

akw4572 · 11-06-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KurtBevacqua
As I recall, Pete wasn't that great of a manager to begin with. Other than what limited box office appeal a manager can offer, why should the Reds hire him? I could see a short-term bump in attendance, but after a few weeks the team will still suck and attendance will follow.

Rose's managerial record is .525, comparable to Torre and Larussa, and he didn't have near the players either has had. He did a good job in the late 80's as Reds manager.

http://www.baseballreference.com/man...rosepe01.shtml

cshigh · 11-06-2003, 08:42 PM

Pete practically built the team that won the World Series in 1990 before Sweet Lou took over. Pete did a great job as manager.

Bring back Pete! We want Pete!!!! Pete!!!!!! The hit king cometh home!

Crapshoot · 11-06-2003, 10:33 PM

Fair enough Rich- let me try and repeat the clear arguements- he signed an agreement admitting he had bet on baseball, and he agreed to the "lifetime" ban on baseball. As such, for him to complain about it strikes me as akin to having your cake and eating it too. Rose campaigns ad nauseum to repeal an agreement he signed voluntarily, which is meant to be binding- that makes him an idiot in his actions from my perspective.

SoxWin · 11-07-2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aadik
Fair enough Rich- let me try and repeat the clear arguements- he signed an agreement admitting he had bet on baseball, and he agreed to the "lifetime" ban on baseball. As such, for him to complain about it strikes me as akin to having your cake and eating it too. Rose campaigns ad nauseum to repeal an agreement he signed voluntarily, which is meant to be binding- that makes him an idiot in his actions from my perspective.

Hug

Just busting your balls. Yeah, he's a whiny snivelling fool, but imo, he still belongs in the hall. I realize that wasn't the question, just my $0.02

I've never really followed the case, but I thought I heard somewhere he had a handshake deal with Giamatti that the "lifetime ban" would only last a year, but Giamatti died shortly thereafter or something?

sporr · 11-07-2003, 05:52 PM

A little wink wink nudge nudge going on. hehe

akw4572 · 11-07-2003, 11:20 PM

I believe the deal was he could apply for reinstatement in a year. Not sure if he had an inside deal with Giamatti or not, but Selig hasn't given him much of a shot. But, Pete really does need to earn it.

Eckstein 4 Prez · 11-08-2003, 12:24 AM

Agree with those who say "yes" to Rose in the Hall, "no" to Rose ever managing again. In fact, I wish they'd wait to reinstate him until he's past the age when any team would consider hiring him to manage. Another decade or so should do it.....

Crapshoot · 11-08-2003, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
Agree with those who say "yes" to Rose in the Hall, "no" to Rose ever managing again. In fact, I wish they'd wait to reinstate him until he's past the age when any team would consider hiring him to manage. Another decade or so should do it.....

Fair enough- I agree his player accomplishments should be seperated from his transgressions. There is no way he should be allowed back in baseball in any active capacity.

BaseballMan · 11-08-2003, 01:51 AM

Whats Joe Morgan's opinion on this.

Ok so if they lift the ban on Rose. What about others.
Lets be honest. Rose isnt the only one to have gambled.

Im no Rose fan but i can live with him in the hall as long as he didnt bet against his team.
Yes i know betting for his team to win could be bad too in the way he handled players. But isnt that what players are taught, to win every game one at a time. I guess i would rather have a manger trying to win every game than one who is too worried about injurys that he doesnt use his best players enough till its too late.

bigphesta · 11-08-2003, 12:05 PM

If I was the commish of MLB (and I hope to be one day) I'd let Rose in the HOF but not manage... EVER.

dougaiton · 11-08-2003, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BaseballMan

Yes i know betting for his team to win could be bad too in the way he handled players. But isnt that what players are taught, to win every game one at a time. I guess i would rather have a manger trying to win every game than one who is too worried about injurys that he doesnt use his best players enough till its too late.

The way I see it, if he was betting on his team to lose, it would be exactly the same problem: it still the players that decide the result, but Rose stills has an influence. I think its just as bad both ways - either way, you're involved in influencing the result of a gamble on your own team.

Rose could make his team lose exactly the same as he could make them win - the influence he exerts would be the same (a good pinch-hitter or a bad pinch hitter, good reliever or bad releiver). They are the same moral and legal crime in my book - it makes no difference to the gravity of the crime.

Only when the BlackSox's individual bans are rescinded should Rose lose his. When Shoeless Joe is Hall-eligible (although I don't think he should make it), so should Rose be (who is obviously worthy).

Spielman · 11-08-2003, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dougaiton
The way I see it, if he was betting on his team to lose, it would be exactly the same problem: it still the players that decide the result, but Rose stills has an influence. I think its just as bad both ways - either way, you're involved in influencing the result of a gamble on your own team.

Rose could make his team lose exactly the same as he could make them win - the influence he exerts would be the same (a good pinch-hitter or a bad pinch hitter, good reliever or bad releiver). They are the same moral and legal crime in my book - it makes no difference to the gravity of the crime.

Only when the BlackSox's individual bans are rescinded should Rose lose his. When Shoeless Joe is Hall-eligible (although I don't think he should make it), so should Rose be (who is obviously worthy).

I just don't get that. In my book, betting on your team to win and throwing the World Series are very different crimes.

Saying that the Black Sox' bans should be lifted before Rose's is strikes me as completely ludicrous.

-Spielman

dougaiton · 11-09-2003, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spielman

Saying that the Black Sox' bans should be lifted before Rose's is strikes me as completely ludicrous.

To some extent, I was exaggerating, but my point (that I made badly) was that each one of the Black Sox took exactly the same decision as Rose, to influence the outcome of the match to generate themselves finanical gain. Individually, the crime is the same, although the circumstances are different.

I beleive that Rose is Hall-worthy. But, I don't think his lifetime ban should be lifted. Therefore, if he's going to make it, for me, there should be no correlation between ability and character in the entrance requirements (i.e. lifetime bans should make no difference) - hence, the Black Sox should be hall eligible too (rather than there bans being lifted first, as I said in a moment of fervour- what I should have said was that if Rose can get in then the same situations should apply to other match-riggers).

11-06-2003, 10:33 PM	#30
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	Fair enough Rich- let me try and repeat the clear arguements- he signed an agreement admitting he had bet on baseball, and he agreed to the "lifetime" ban on baseball. As such, for him to complain about it strikes me as akin to having your cake and eating it too. Rose campaigns ad nauseum to repeal an agreement he signed voluntarily, which is meant to be binding- that makes him an idiot in his actions from my perspective. __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

11-06-2003, 04:49 PM	#24
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,271	It is hilarious how Baseball Prospectus's Derek Zumsteg broke this story and BP has been slagged by the commish and his boys for months and then the story is going to turn out to be true? I mean, are you kidding me? I blame Republicans!

11-06-2003, 04:54 PM	#25
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	I blame it on the liberal weenies who have eroded this nation's moral character.

11-06-2003, 06:51 PM	#26
Eric All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: Folsom, CA Posts: 1,234	stupid canadians.

11-06-2003, 08:16 PM	#27
akw4572 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,601	Rose may be the only thing that can save the Reds franchise in the next few years. I hope he comes back and stays clean.

11-06-2003, 08:42 PM	#29
cshigh All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Ludlow, KY Posts: 508	Pete practically built the team that won the World Series in 1990 before Sweet Lou took over. Pete did a great job as manager. Bring back Pete! We want Pete!!!! Pete!!!!!! The hit king cometh home!

11-07-2003, 05:52 PM	#32
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	A little wink wink nudge nudge going on. hehe

11-07-2003, 11:20 PM	#33
akw4572 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Kentucky Posts: 2,601	I believe the deal was he could apply for reinstatement in a year. Not sure if he had an inside deal with Giamatti or not, but Selig hasn't given him much of a shot. But, Pete really does need to earn it.

11-08-2003, 12:24 AM	#34
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,358	Agree with those who say "yes" to Rose in the Hall, "no" to Rose ever managing again. In fact, I wish they'd wait to reinstate him until he's past the age when any team would consider hiring him to manage. Another decade or so should do it.....

11-08-2003, 01:51 AM	#36
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,641	Whats Joe Morgan's opinion on this. Ok so if they lift the ban on Rose. What about others. Lets be honest. Rose isnt the only one to have gambled. Im no Rose fan but i can live with him in the hall as long as he didnt bet against his team. Yes i know betting for his team to win could be bad too in the way he handled players. But isnt that what players are taught, to win every game one at a time. I guess i would rather have a manger trying to win every game than one who is too worried about injurys that he doesnt use his best players enough till its too late.

11-08-2003, 12:05 PM	#37
bigphesta Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Des Moines, Iowa Posts: 1,366	If I was the commish of MLB (and I hope to be one day) I'd let Rose in the HOF but not manage... EVER.