Pete Rose sycophants

[bailey]

In 19 pages has anyone discussed the hypocrisy of banning Pete Rose from MLB for gambling while embracing the gambling entity called Draft Kings? If I were Pete Rose, I would cease all gambling activity EXCEPT wagering on Draft Kings and then apply to have the ban removed by demonstrating that he no longer gambles, but enjoys games of skill.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Plus, he lied. Lied.

That means more than 4,256 hits to me, as much as I love the game. Or maybe because I love the game.

I don't think there's anybody in this thread who has:

a) never lied in his life

b) never gambled in his life

I'd bet (hr-hr) that the same is true for the entire population of the Hall of Fame. By these standards, the Hall needs to be emptied really quick.

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Since you asked...

Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits. Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame based on this fact alone. The other side issues raised in this thread are irrelevant to the discussion.

I would suggest the fact MLB banned him for gambling is hardly a side issue when it comes to receiveing MLB's highest honor. His accomplishments are celebrated throughout the museum. There is a great big chart with the hit leaders in the Hall, Pete's name is at the top of the list. Just because he doesn't have a plaque, that doesn't mean he isn't the hit leader.

The fact he was a great player has nothing to do with the fact he broke the league rule concerning gambling. Baseball as a business has every right to ban him for his actions, and the Hall has every right to say that a banned ball player can't be inducted into the Hall of Fame. You, of course have every right to disagree.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by Questdog

"I, Cobra Meager, just hate Pete Rose & I am happy with the exceptions made for him so that he cannot be in the Hall."

Originally Posted by Orcin

Your irrelevant opinions may be important to you, but they have no bearing on the issue. The Hall of Fame has a mission. Putting Pete Rose in fits the mission. Keeping him out is inconsistent with the purpose of the entity.

What inconsistency & what exception?

Name one player ever voted into the Hall while they were banned from baseball. If Rose were put in, he would be the first, the exception, the inconsistency.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I don't think there's anybody in this thread who has:

a) never lied in his life

b) never gambled in his life

You forgot one...

c) Did so while employed with a company that has as part of its employment rules "gambling while employed in any capacity will result in immediate expulsion."

I don't think anyone on this board qualifies for this one, mainly because none of us are MLB calibre players, managers, umpires, etc...

Originally Posted by Westheim

II'd bet (hr-hr) that the same is true for the entire population of the Hall of Fame.

And the house would gladly take you on that bet (and quickly after, your money as well.

[Airdrop01]

Westheim, I love you man, but: Pete isn't still out because he lied at some point in his life. He is being kept out because he continues to do so, unabashedly and in an astonishingly unrepentant manner, despite people trying...begging him to just show some contrition.

He is the Hit King. Like I said at the beginning of this thread. He also gambled with the integrity of the game I love, risked things that were not his to risk, and does not care. Pete is about Pete.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by slic1149

I would suggest the fact MLB banned him for gambling is hardly a side issue when it comes to receiveing MLB's highest honor. His accomplishments are celebrated throughout the museum. There is a great big chart with the hit leaders in the Hall, Pete's name is at the top of the list. Just because he doesn't have a plaque, that doesn't mean he isn't the hit leader.

The fact he was a great player has nothing to do with the fact he broke the league rule concerning gambling. Baseball as a business has every right to ban him for his actions, and the Hall has every right to say that a banned ball player can't be inducted into the Hall of Fame. You, of course have every right to disagree.

And Orcin, and Questdog and Westheim and anyone else, also have the right to call Pete's exclusion an injustice and/or inconsistent with what they believe the Hall's mission should be, and you, and anyone else, of course have the right to disagree.

And the Hall of Fame itself can maintain that they have the right to keep permanently ineligible players out of the Hall, and the people opposing it have the right to maintain that the Hall itself shouldn't even have such a right, and that they should be basically forced to accept players who are banned from Baseball even if they'd prefer not to. Personally, I think that's a radical position to take, but it's also the right of those who hold that position to hold it.

Everyone has the right to their opinion about this subject, and no one on either side of it is necessarily wrong. It's reasonable for one side to cite the authority of the Hall to do what they choose with their institution as the justification of their position, and it's also the right of the other side to cite the cosmic arc of historical justice as the justification for theirs.

It does bother me, though, when civilians like us go after others on an ad hominem basis, casting aspersions on others' intelligence or integrity or whatever, suggesting that their opponent's beliefs on this topic reveal some personal flaw about them, the believers. There's been too much of that in this thread, and I think it's unsavory and unnecessary.

Of course, maybe everyone thinks that's what the fun part of the debate is. Maybe I'm the one missing the boat on that one.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Of course, maybe everyone thinks that's what the fun part of the debate is. Maybe I'm the one missing the boat on that one.

Nope, great post. You are absolutely right. Thank you for making this post.

There are clearly two diverse views, and neither side is going to convince the other to change their mind. Frankly, I don't think there are any new points to make, but I am willing to bet that more will be said. Get it... bet?

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Nope, great post. You are absolutely right. Thank you for making this post.

There are clearly two diverse views, and neither side is going to convince the other to change their mind. Frankly, I don't think there are any new points to make, but I am willing to bet that more will be said. Get it... bet?

Oh, Ha ha ha ha haaa! Bet! Now I get it!

I knew I would eventually.

[Syd Thrift]

By the way, Ray Fosse passed away a couple days ago, if you were looking for non-gambling reasons why Pete Rose is a massive pile of chodes.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

By the way, Ray Fosse passed away a couple days ago, if you were looking for non-gambling reasons why Pete Rose is a massive pile of chodes.

Thanks for sharing this, because the incessant lying, misogyny, and pedophilia simply weren't enough.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by slic1149

I would suggest the fact MLB banned him for gambling is hardly a side issue when it comes to receiveing MLB's highest honor. His accomplishments are celebrated throughout the museum. There is a great big chart with the hit leaders in the Hall, Pete's name is at the top of the list. Just because he doesn't have a plaque, that doesn't mean he isn't the hit leader.

The fact he was a great player has nothing to do with the fact he broke the league rule concerning gambling. Baseball as a business has every right to ban him for his actions, and the Hall has every right to say that a banned ball player can't be inducted into the Hall of Fame. You, of course have every right to disagree.

Of course MLB has the right to ban him. They just have no credibility and it hurts the sport as a whole.

[chucksabr]

Thread so ironic now that Major League Baseball has fully embraced in-game gambling because sweet sweet cash.

Also, not for nothing, cryptocurrency gambling.

This really is becoming Biff Tannen's world.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Thread so ironic now that Major League Baseball has fully embraced in-game gambling because sweet sweet cash.

That's the point that I was making awhile back. How hypocritical to continue to exclude Rose from professional baseball now that it has embraced gambling on its results.

The image comes to mind of the guys in the dugout or bullpen using their phones to engage FanDuel and the like during the game. The only stipulation? Oh no, no, no. Don't bet on your team in this game! Well, maybe if you only bet on your team to win ... and not on yourself to do or not do something.

Like MLB is going to be able to monitor and control these fine points.

Let Pete Rose finally come home.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

By the way, Ray Fosse passed away a couple days ago, if you were looking for non-gambling reasons why Pete Rose is a massive pile of chodes.

Rose ruined his career by his blasting through home plate, in an exhibition game. I remember it clearly, and remember being VERY angry with Peter Edward Rose at the time.

[Syd Thrift]

I mean, that was Pete Rose in a nutshell. Long before we used terms like “performative”, Rose was performatively a “hustle” guy. That nickname Charlie Hustle, it was not complimentary. It was used to make fun of a guy who sprinted to first base on walks. And no, this is not a positive attribute, not when it leads you to inflict Vontaze Burfict style hits on people in exhibition games.

[chucksabr]

If MLB exonerates and reinstates Pete Rose, then they will have to exonerate and reinstate every player who has ever been declared permanently ineligible for breaking gambling rules, as well as make it allowable for players and coaches to gamble on games in which they have a duty to perform. Otherwise, what makes Pete Rose so special as to get a pass on it while others do not?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

If MLB exonerates and reinstates Pete Rose, then they will have to exonerate and reinstate every player who has ever been declared permanently ineligible for breaking gambling rules, as well as make it allowable for players and coaches to gamble on games in which they have a duty to perform. Otherwise, what makes Pete Rose so special as to get a pass on it while others do not?

True. But we did not create their moral dilemma, did we? They did.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

True. But we did not create their moral dilemma, did we? They did.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but OK.

[chucksabr]

Reminder: Pete did not get a "lifetime ban". He was ruled permanently ineligible, which survives his death.