Pete Rose sycophants

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Orcin

And, there was no rule against andro when McGwire took it.

Integrity has nothing to do with breaking rules. It has to do with right and wrong. Fixing games is wrong. It doesn't matter if you get caught. It doesn't matter if there is a rule against it or not.

I would agree with that. However, people here are trying to argue that because Cobb is in and he bet on games, Rose should be in also. My argument against that is that Cobb was involved with gambling when there weren't any rules against it. Rose knew EXACTLY what his penalty would be and he did it anyway. He's serving the sentence that was on the books when he committed the crime. IMO - his suspension can't last long enough.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Is there such specific language? I wasn't aware of that.

In any event, that's your opinion and you have a right to it. But as far as I can tell, if players who gamble on or against their own teams, or players who throw games, can simply be reinstated or never even be made ineligible, then there's no real reason to keep someone who might be inclined or persuaded to throw games from doing so. Personally, I wouldn't want to see that kind of situation prevail in baseball, because then I would always wonder whether someone is actively trying to throw the game I'm watching, and that's something I have never had to even think about as far as baseball is concerned. I prefer it that way.

The language does exists and I believe Rose has applied a half dozen times or so following his suspension and obviously was denied.

I can certainly respect that opinion and line of thought. I find very little to fault or argue against. I don't think anyone caught gambling or points shaving, etc should ever be allowed to participate in the game itself again. That includes playing, managing or front office. However, the Hall of Fame is a different story for me. I think the all-time hit leader should be included. And I also believe there is some benefit to letting Rose come back to baseball on some level, but not in a position where he can impact the result of a game. Even if that involvement is just speaking to minor leaguers about the dangers of gambling/gambling addiction.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

My argument against that is that Cobb was involved with gambling when there weren't any rules against it. Rose knew EXACTLY what his penalty would be and he did it anyway. He's serving the sentence that was on the books when he committed the crime.

Once again, let's get the facts straight.

There was no prohibition for keeping Rose out of the Hall of Fame for gambling WHEN he committed the offense. Rule 21(d) does NOT apply to the Hall of Fame.

The rule that prevents Rose from being inducted into the Hall of Fame was put in place in 1991 - AFTER he was banned from baseball. The Veteran's Committee adopted a similar rule in 2008. These punishments were NOT known to Rose when he committed the offense, or even when he accepted the lifetime ban from BASEBALL (not the Hall of Fame).

So now, why should Cobb and Speaker be in the Hall of Fame, and Rose and Jackson not be in the Hall of Fame, when they committed the same offense?

[knightdreamer2k]

Originally Posted by MBarrett

I dunno, maybe Mom & Dad? You know, parenting.

Or people who have touched their lives. For me God comes to mind but I am aware people differ. I would like my children to look up to people that they have a relationship with, not some person on tv.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Orcin

So now, why should Cobb and Speaker be in the Hall of Fame, and Rose and Jackson not be in the Hall of Fame, when they committed the same offense?

Because neither one were banned from baseball for life.

[Airdrop01]

4256

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

Because neither one were banned from baseball for life.

"Banned from baseball" does not have to exclude them from the Hall of Fame. They could be enshrined in the Hall of Fame to honor their excellence on the field of play, as the mission of the Hall of Fame states, regardless of their eligibility to participate in the business of baseball.

[Breckinridge]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

Is there such specific language? I wasn't aware of that.

In any event, that's your opinion and you have a right to it. But as far as I can tell, if players who gamble on or against their own teams, or players who throw games, can simply be reinstated or never even be made ineligible, then there's no real reason to keep someone who might be inclined or persuaded to throw games from doing so. Personally, I wouldn't want to see that kind of situation prevail in baseball, because then I would always wonder whether someone is actively trying to throw the game I'm watching, and that's something I have never had to even think about as far as baseball is concerned. I prefer it that way.

Not nearly as likely to happen today. Modern players have little financial incentive to throw games. Many(most) are making millions per year, and it would take a huge, huge payout for a gambler to be able to offer enough to make up for the losses(salary AND an excellent pension) incurred by a lifetime ban......unless you were old and aging, or a player with little chances of sticking in the big leagues, the financial aspect wouldn't make sense. And those players generally don't have the playing time to have a big impact on the outcome of games. Not saying it is impossible, but much less likely.

Regards,

Breck

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Breckinridge

Many(most) are making millions per year...

While I take your point, the data—at least as of the opening day active rosters and disabled lists—don't support the idea that 'most' players are making millions per year.

For the 2012 opening day rosters (the latest year for which I have found full data), while the average salary was $3,439,370 the median salary was $1,087,500. Thus half the players on the opening day 2012 rosters were making about $1 million or less. Indeed, a full 20% of players were making less than $485,000; 30% of players were making less than $573,000. Player income in MLB (not unlike U.S. society more generally) is concentrated at the upper end: the top 10% of players accounted for 45% of the total salary paid; the bottom 50% of players accounted for just 8.1%

[Westheim]

Now, I've been blasted for this by a certain Mr. Schilling before, but I find $1M, or even $485k a pretty damn good salary, especially since it is paid to young or career fringe players on minimum contracts. (Don't even get me started on the high-priced veterans)

Name one profession other than in sports where a newcomer, or somebody who's performed well below expectations for a decade or more, gets paid the spectacular sum of $485k per year. I find this a princely payment and I really can't cry for them.

Furthermore, those young players under team control will not throw games either for those beggar's alms, either, because they can literally sniff their 5-year, $80M payout down the road. And even the fringe players won't jeopardize their minimum contracts since once banned from baseball they might possibly end up frying chicken at KFC. And how long do those people take to make $485k, 20 years?

[Le Grande Orange]

Yes, relative to the U.S. median salary the players' salaries look good indeed.

But one should keep in mind the average length of a major league career is not very long—about 5.6 years. So many players will not be around long enough see those long-term, multi-million dollar payouts. This attrition rate is most pronounced in a player's inaugural season where some 20% of players are out of major league baseball within a year. Less than half of players manage to see their fifth year in major league baseball. Moreover, the vast majority of those players who go into professional baseball will never seen even a single day at the major league level—and pay at the minor league level is generally rather poor (other than for longer-term established players). Which is why the draft signing bonus is important—it's the only real money most players will ever see.

[Splitter24]

A point in these recent posts that I haven't seen made is isn't it likely that a player who might get involved in gambling/throwing games would be a player who is already associating with gamblers? I know that a lot of players make good money, but if you're a guy with a gambling addiction, it wouldn't take too long to burn through your cash (see Antoine Walker in basketball). If you have a gambling problem, you better be making megabucks through your contract and endorsements to support your habit.

So, yes, I agree that the financial incentive for the modern athlete to throw games for financial gain is much lower today than back in the teens. But if you're in the hole financially through a gambling addiction, there lies the possibility of you doing something ridiculous to try to make it back.

[chucksabr]

I agree that the financial incentives in the game today significantly reduces the probability that a major leaguer will throw games in the service of gamblers. And thank god for that. Even the lowest players on the major league rung are insanely well compensated relative to the average citizen of the world, and besides, hardly any players making the minimum, or even a few times the minimum, are in a position to have so much impact on a game that they can be relied upon to tank it for the gamblers.

I also agree that there are people who have that peculiar mental genetic disorder that predisposes them to continually put their livelihood and wealth at great risk by engaging in games of chance for money, regardless of the financial rewards that playing the game yields them. Those people need help, and hopefully they will get it.

Neither of these circumstances, I think, should lead to diminishing by one iota the force of the laws of the games governing the gambling on baseball games by players and others connected to the game; neither should the punishments proscribed for such infractions be diminished. Those should always be in force, actually for every professional sport.

As for the Hall of Fame, it's their choice to prevent people banned from Baseball from entering the Hall. Personally, I don't see how they could ever reconcile allowing Pete Rose into the Hall while he is actively banned by Baseball.

But if Baseball were to ever clear the way to the Hall for Pete Rose and exonerate him, or at least commute his ban, then two things:

1. There will be a huge uproar from people who oppose Pete Rose's reinstatement: from the press, from many baseball fans, and most concerning of all, from Congress, the guardians of Baseball's legal monopoly status. And that uproar would be THE story of baseball, to the exclusion of all others, for years on end afterwards.
2. Baseball would not only have to commute the ban on every other player who has ever been banned for gambling, but they will never be able to ban any other player for gambling without a significantly high percentage of people raising a huge hairy fuss over it, and also without that being THE story of baseball for years on end.

In both cases, the main thing that would happen is that Baseball would simply be jumping into a lake of fire of its own making, and anyone who thinks Baseball is willing to do that by unbanning Pete Rose doesn't really understand how Baseball, as a business dependent on the goodwill of multiple constituencies (Congress, the media and the fans), operates.

Right now, Baseball has the best situation going for it because the entire discussion of Pete Rose exists only on the periphery, mostly in online forums such as this, and occasionally in the call from a columnist here or there that they should lift the ban. And then that call is forgotten. But if Baseball were to ever follow through and unban him, then that would be THE #1 story of the game every day for years on end, and no way would they ever allow that if they could avoid it. Which, of course, they can.

TL;DR: There is nothing in it for Baseball to unban Pete Rose.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

TL;DR: There is nothing in it for Baseball to unban Pete Rose.

You and others continue to confuse the Baseball Hall of Fame with "Baseball". The Baseball Hall of Fame is a unique and separate entity from MLB. Speaking for myself, I am not arguing that MLB should lift the ban on Pete Rose. I just think that he should be in the Hall of Fame.

You are correct when you say that the Hall of Fame has the choice to declare Pete Rose eligible, simply by rescinding the rule against Veteran's Committee consideration of banned players. The time for that rule change is now. Then let the Veteran's Committee decide if he is worthy based on the merits of his on-field accomplishments.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Orcin

"Banned from baseball" does not have to exclude them from the Hall of Fame. They could be enshrined in the Hall of Fame to honor their excellence on the field of play, as the mission of the Hall of Fame states, regardless of their eligibility to participate in the business of baseball.

If they've done something serious enough to warrant a ban from baseball, I have no problem with them being banned from the hall as well. I don't know why the two shouldn't be related.

[Orcin]

The reason to put Rose in the Hall of Fame is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball. Just as Ty Cobb should be introduced to those who never saw him play, so should Charlie Hustle be known to future generations. Make sure they know the whole story about both men.

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The reason to put Rose in the Hall of Fame is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball. Just as Ty Cobb should be introduced to those who never saw him play, so should Charlie Hustle be known to future generations. Make sure they know the whole story about both men.

I can understand that point of view. However, Pete Rose dishonored himself, the game and the fans by his actions. I think it's a very important message that if you violate one of the most important rules (to maintain the integrity of the league), you'll won't get any mercy.

There is a time for grace and a time for strict adherence to rules. This is a time for the latter.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by Orcin

You and others continue to confuse the Baseball Hall of Fame with "Baseball". The Baseball Hall of Fame is a unique and separate entity from MLB. Speaking for myself, I am not arguing that MLB should lift the ban on Pete Rose. I just think that he should be in the Hall of Fame.

I am absolutely, unequivocally not confusing the Baseball Hall of Fame with Major League Baseball. I specifically separated the HoF from Baseball more than once in my post. I have no idea why you're insistng that I'm confused about it, but everybody can see that it is not true.

Originally Posted by Orcin

You are correct when you say that the Hall of Fame has the choice to declare Pete Rose eligible, simply by rescinding the rule against Veteran's Committee consideration of banned players. The time for that rule change is now. Then let the Veteran's Committee decide if he is worthy based on the merits of his on-field accomplishments.

That sounds easy on paper, and it's technically possible. But to clarify my earlier statement on it, given the Hall's close relationship with MLB, I don't see any practical way they can do that, since they would actively have to flout their relationship to Baseball and also publicly reconcile their decision to let Pete into the Hall even though Pete is still banned from Baseball. I think the strong relationship between Baseball and the Hall would preclude such a move.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Orcin

The reason to put Rose in the Hall of Fame is to preserve the sport's history, honor excellence within the game and make a connection between the generations of people who enjoy baseball.

There have always been exhibits featuring Pete Rose in the Hall Of Fame. The "preserving the sport's history" aspect makes no sense when you can go down there any time you want and learn about him and see memorabilia related to his career.

Forming a distinction between the HoF and Baseball itself seems kind of silly, since it's clearly in the HoF's best interest to have a close relationship with baseball.

[Orcin]

Rob Manfred has a chance to do the right thing. This article was written last summer, and "someday soon" has arrived today.

If Rob Manfred is no Bud Selig, it's time to reinstate Pete Rose - CBSSports.com