Pete Rose sycophants

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

The Veterans Committee is even less likely to put him in.

Maybe not. Fergie Jenkins and Henry Aaron are two members for sure who would likely vote yes. This was revealed in an interview Jenkins had on the Fan 590 in Toronto. I think Joe Morgan is on the committee as well.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by RchW

Maybe not. Fergie Jenkins and Henry Aaron are two members for sure who would likely vote yes. This was revealed in an interview Jenkins had on the Fan 590 in Toronto. I think Joe Morgan is on the committee as well.

Would be very interesting to hear why they would feel that gambling by those on the field should now be permissible. Because that's pretty much what it would be saying.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Or else, like, you know, gambling is something that keeps you out of the game. Pete Rose the person is not in the Hall because Pete Rose the person gambled on baseball while Pete Rose the person was managing. I have nothing particular to say about Pete Rose the bicycling elephant or any other avatars of Pete Rose which you wish to conjure.

Cobb & Speaker are both HOFers and both fixed a game.

[Jason Moyer]

Landis found them not guilty, so before the inevitable argument starts, whether it happened or not is kind of irrelevant. They were not banned from baseball.

[ra7c7er]

Gambling in any capacity on a game(s) outcome is illegal regardless of if money is involved. Rule 21 nowhere states only monetary gambling is illegal ALL gambling is illegal. So all those stupid bets between players ESPN loves to talk about are technically illegal but we don't care. The often funny bets team owners in the World Series makes that ESPN brings up at least once a game. Illegal. If you want to get even more technical every time a player visits sick kids in a hospital and makes a bet on his game performance with a sick 8 year old ILLEGAL.

Now is monetary betting more serious then bet a case of beer and a nice Cuban between club owners or betting a kid you can hit hit a home run yes but in the eyes of the rules there isn't any difference. Only in the eyes of the public.

[chucksabr]

Anyone who gets into the habit of betting on games in which he has a duty to perform puts himself in a position of cheating to lose, in the service of the bet. Baseball has a right to put a blanket ban on that behavior, and to treat each and every person guilty of that infraction in the same way. In Baseball's case, it's with a declaration of permanent ineligibility.

You can argue that permanent ineligibility is too harsh a penalty for the infraction, and that's fair. But I don't see how it can be argued that Pete Rose deserves a pass because he got a bunch of hits, but everyone else deserves permanent ineligibility because they didn't.

[ezpkns34]

I, personally, don't care at all about who gets voted into the HOF since the writers responsible for the voting have been morons about it for decades

That said, I love how ludicrously self-righteous MLB is with their bans. Lifetime bans that extend beyond the banned person's life are just so absurd

If you want to have an infinite, eternal ban for your super serious baseball happenings, then just come out & say that you're banning people ad infinitum

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

I, personally, don't care at all about who gets voted into the HOF since the writers responsible for the voting have been morons about it for decades

That said, I love how ludicrously self-righteous MLB is with their bans. Lifetime bans that extend beyond the banned person's life are just so absurd

If you want to have an infinite, eternal ban for your super serious baseball happenings, then just come out & say that you're banning people ad infinitum

This is also why Baseball is losing so many fans. The world loves bad boys. Look at all the first year HOF and near guaranteed first year HOF players in the NFL. So many guys who if they played in the MLB would be banned or what not.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

This is also why Baseball is losing so many fans. The world loves bad boys. Look at all the first year HOF and near guaranteed first year HOF players in the NFL. So many guys who if they played in the MLB would be banned or what not.

The average person in the world is not a good barometer of what should be. Plus the NFL is popular as heck because of marketing over decades, and even then baseball is a strong #2.

As for bannable offenses that are welcomed just fine in the NFL, which ones would they be? Because the gambling ones (which apparently there's just one?) have lifers, and I didn't see any three strikes on steroid convictions (although the NFL probably would like to cover that up)

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

If you want to have an infinite, eternal ban for your super serious baseball happenings, then just come out & say that you're banning people ad infinitum

They did. The rules state they're out unless reinstated by the commissioner of baseball, which could be the next day, or for some players, 150 years and counting.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Anyone who gets into the habit of betting on games in which he has a duty to perform puts himself in a position of cheating to lose, in the service of the bet. Baseball has a right to put a blanket ban on that behavior, and to treat each and every person guilty of that infraction in the same way. In Baseball's case, it's with a declaration of permanent ineligibility.

You can argue that permanent ineligibility is too harsh a penalty for the infraction, and that's fair. But I don't see how it can be argued that Pete Rose deserves a pass because he got a bunch of hits, but everyone else deserves permanent ineligibility because they didn't.

Pete Rose has not gotten a pass; he has been out for 25 years. He should be re-instated, because no one knowledgeable of the facts believes he ever bet against the Reds. Betting FOR the Reds is still bad, but 25 years is long enough, I'd say. Only the Charlie Manson's of the world deserve life without parole, not the Charlie Hustle's.

[darkhorse]

Unless Pete Rose is illiterate, f*ck 'im.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Pete Rose has not gotten a pass; he has been out for 25 years. He should be re-instated, because no one knowledgeable of the facts believes he ever bet against the Reds. Betting FOR the Reds is still bad, but 25 years is long enough, I'd say. Only the Charlie Manson's of the world deserve life without parole, not the Charlie Hustle's.

I never said he's gotten a pass.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by darkhorse

Unless Pete Rose is illiterate, f*ck 'im.

They should probably up the font significantly on the "Read it carefully" line.

[mirrf]

Gonna bump this thread now that there is evidence that Pete Rose bet on baseball games that he played in, not just managed. Does this change anybodies mind?

[Questdog]

No. That is not news.....

Unless he was throwing games, it is nothing different.

In the 19th century, it was the norm for players to all put up a stake and the winner take the pot.

The difference between Pete's gambling and the Black Sox is that Pete broke rules and the Black Sox broke morals....

It's like the difference between driving 5 miles over the speed limit and driving double the speed limit. Both are against the rules, but one is also endangering everyone else on the road.

[chucksabr]

Cue Rose slappies' blaming of the media in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[Orcin]

It doesn't change anything. Pete Rose is the all-time leaders in hits, and should be in the Hall of Fame.

[Jason Moyer]

It doesn't change anything. You don't give the highest honor in baseball to someone who is banned from the game.* And, really, gambling as a player seems like less of an offense to me than gambling as a manager, who is in charge of making personnel decisions, unless there's fixing involved.

*especially when you won't give it to some of the best players of all-time because they happened to play at a time when PED use started to cause moral outrage, as opposed to the prior 150 years everyone pretended it didn't exist

[Tekneek]

He should be in the Hall of Fame for the number of hits in his career.

I don't think gambling helped him get those hits, so the accomplishment doesn't seem tainted by that at all. For me, they are completely different things.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Questdog

In the 19th century, it was the norm for players to all put up a stake and the winner take the pot.

You might want to change that to being before the professional era (aka 1870). Gambling was considered a bannable offense by 1876. Just ask Jim Devlin.