Pete Rose in Cooperstown?

Post by **Sylvus** » January 7, 2004, 6:21 pm

What do you think? He lied about betting on baseball for 14 years, and came clean in his new book this week. Should Charlie Hustle be allowed into the MLB Hall of Fame?

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 7, 2004, 6:24 pm

why not? who fucking cares if he gambled or not?

Post by **Sylvus** » January 7, 2004, 6:34 pm

I agree with you 100%. Provided he didn't throw games in an effort to win bets, I see nothing wrong with betting on a sport that you are involved in. Had he thrown games, I'd probably feel differently.

I do know that a lot of people feel like hurt or something by this and think he shouldn't be allowed in. Peter Gammons is one of them. I think Peter Gammons is a pompous jackass, is what i think!

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » January 7, 2004, 6:46 pm

I have no issues with him being in the hall of fame, but don't think he should ever be allowed to manage a team again.
Unfortunately he has said he really doesn't care about the hall of fame, and wants reinstated so he can manage again.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 7, 2004, 6:50 pm

bullshit, this whole publicity stunt is just to get into the HoF. i feel he should be able to get into Cooperstown, but thats it. frankly, im tired of seeing all this pete rose bullshit.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 7, 2004, 6:56 pm

Pleeeease let him in so I wont have to hear about this anymore.. I swear if I turned on Cartoon Network it would be on there!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 7, 2004, 7:08 pm

Zamtuk wrote:bullshit, this whole publicity stunt is just to get into the HoF. i feel he should be able to get into Cooperstown, but thats it. frankly, im tired of seeing all this pete rose bullshit.

I disagree. I think the only reason why he's pushing it now is that he's cash hungry and not that he's not in the hall of fame. Sab hit it on the head. Even if it's for a 1st base coach, he'd take it in a heartbeat.

Personally, while he was a master of the box; betting on your own sport while you're a coach really rubs me the wrong way

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 7, 2004, 7:45 pm

I personally think he only came clean because the deadline is approaching for him. If he was truly sorry, he would/should of admitted it at the beginning.

And go Paul Molitor! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 7, 2004, 8:08 pm

i have always thought he should be in the Hall of Fame as a player.

I think it would be appropriate to say on his plaque that he was permanently banned from working in MLB for gambling while managing the reds - or something to that effect.

As a person he's a scumbag.

as a baseball player, he is one of the all-time greats.

Chidoro-

this announcement was timed to coincide with Hall of Fame induction announcements - his book release/confession. That is not a coincidence. He wants to be able to write "Pete Rose - HOF" on the baseballs he signs now so they'll be worth $7.50 instead of $7 or whatever.

Every year he does autograph signings in Cooperstown during Hall of Fame inductions specifically to draw attention to the 'injustice' that was being served to him.

He knows he will never manage in Baseball again. But that is the part of the negotiation he is willing to part with. Baseball will concede his eligibility for the HoF, and he will agree to continue to no longer to be working in baseball.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 8, 2004, 12:52 am

This discussion came up with 2 guildies tonight and Klydon said "if they let Shoeless Joe in, they can let Rose in but not before". Being that they were both involved in gambling scandals, that makes sense to me. Why should Rose be treated any different? He admitted what he did but is hardly contrite. And considering thats probably what will sell most of his books so he's still profiting from what he did...

Trek · Post by **Trek** » January 8, 2004, 1:00 am

He should be let in as a player with no mention of him ever managing. He is a HoF'er based on his career as a player anyways.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 8, 2004, 6:49 am

pete rose was never accused of throwing a game let alone a World Series like the Black Sox scandal. though Jackson did hit like .400 that series.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 8, 2004, 10:49 am

Let's just say I disagree. He could make far more as a coach, regardless of whether it's a hitting coach or a manager, than he could signing thousands of baseballs. I really believe it's all about a bigger payday down the line than "just" getting inducted and the HoF would be more of a trojan horse than anything else.

Feel free to disagree, we'll never know for sure if it happens.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 8, 2004, 11:40 am

Yes to the Hall, no to ever being allowed back.

Momopi · Post by **Momopi** » January 8, 2004, 12:33 pm

Pete Rose is one of the top 10 best baseball players in history. He needs to be in the hall of fame because betting on baseball has nothing to do with his career as a player. If they are worried about the morality issue to keep him banned, then why is someone like Ty Cobb in the hall of fame?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » January 8, 2004, 12:35 pm

Momopi wrote:Pete Rose is one of the top 10 best baseball players in history. He needs to be in the hall of fame because betting on baseball has nothing to do with his career as a player. If they are worried about the morality issue to keep him banned, then why is someone like Ty Cobb in the hall of fame?

Because it's OK to be an alcoholic racist womanizing asshole who beats up fans, but gambling is naughty?

Trek · Post by **Trek** » January 8, 2004, 12:35 pm

Well, here is a question:

If he is let into the hall it means he is reinstated, does this mean he can coach again? maybe I have been looking at this wrong the whole time. If he can make the HoF and not coach/make money (except signing baseballs ect) then I am all for it. If it means he can now work in baseball again I say hell no. I really doesnt matter if he bet on his club or not IMO, he broke the rules that where there and got booted as he should have. The money he looses not being able to coach is fair punishment keeping him from the hall might just be a side effect and perhaps that should be looked at, need to be able to do one without the other

Post by **Sylvus** » January 8, 2004, 1:11 pm

I'm still not sure why someone who plays a sport isn't allowed to bet on said sport. I'm assuming it's because they have to have a black and white, zero-tolerance policy so they don't have to worry about people shaving points or throwing games?

If it's because of insider information or something, can a sports writer bet on the sport they report on? They'd arguably have more information than a player/manager would, at least regarding teams other than their own. I still think that there shouldn't be any rules regarding the play of any teams other than your own. Why would it matter if someone on the Reds bet on the Red Sox - Yankees game?

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 8, 2004, 1:22 pm

He also bet on the Reds to win. I find it hard to believe that someone betting on their team to win gets the death sentence and some asshat who is doing coke in the locker room can get reinstated 7 times. Steve Howe was a 7 time repeat offender and gets reinstated time and time again, while someone who gambled gets barred for life. Where do they make up these rules?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 8, 2004, 1:35 pm

the reason baseball's rules are so strict on gambling is because of what happened between 1865 and 1920.
Rob Neyer wrote a bit about it:

basically in a nutshell, betting and throwing games was rampant until around 1920 when Kennesaw Mountain Landis became commissioner (Kennessaw Mountain is visible from where i live

). He dropped the hammer basically to clean up the sports sullied reputation, and made gambling a 'death sentence'.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/s ... id=1702483

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 8, 2004, 2:46 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'm still not sure why someone who plays a sport isn't allowed to bet on said sport. I'm assuming it's because they have to have a black and white, zero-tolerance policy so they don't have to worry about people shaving points or throwing games?

If it's because of insider information or something, can a sports writer bet on the sport they report on? They'd arguably have more information than a player/manager would, at least regarding teams other than their own. I still think that there shouldn't be any rules regarding the play of any teams other than your own. Why would it matter if someone on the Reds bet on the Red Sox - Yankees game?

My wife writes about consumer products, she can't make new trades on any of those stocks.
I knew a report was coming out that J&J's new drug-eluting stents have been causing problems with blood clots about 2 weeks before they announced it. I wasn't able to trade any of their stock either because I was working for a hospital that was purchasing them at the time.
McDonald's employees or their family members can't win any of the contests they hold.

It's all a conflict of interest. Are you telling me that knowing a pitcher has a sore arm or an impact hitter's allergies are acting up make any kind of difference on betting in sports? Sports writers have nowhere near the information a manager/coach does about their own players.

Kilm, I still can't believe how many strikes they give atheletes when it comes to drugs. Shit, they should be in jail for some of that crap, never mind whether they are playing or not. It's the most hypocritical thing I've ever witnessed in sports

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 8, 2004, 4:08 pm

How about a who cares option? Baseball = dead to me. I'd rather watch golf or ice skating.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » January 8, 2004, 4:20 pm

Deward wrote:How about a who cares option? Baseball = dead to me. I'd rather watch golf or ice skating.

Amen! They just built this huge indoor stadium for the Brewers, costing the tax payers in that area a bundle and the team just plain stinks. The team is run like it is a Farm team for the league.

Pete Rose will be remembered for everything he did, good and bad. It makes no difference to have his plaque or bust sitting in the HoF. As someone said earlier, they should just let him back in so we can stop hearing about it.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 8, 2004, 4:22 pm

Chidoro wrote:It's all a conflict of interest. Are you telling me that knowing a pitcher has a sore arm or an impact hitter's allergies are acting up make any kind of difference on betting in sports? Sports writers have nowhere near the information a manager/coach does about their own players.

I am strictly speaking of betting on other teams. I doubt that the manager of team A knows any more about a pitcher or impact hitter from team B than a sports writer does. I wholeheartedly agree that manager A should not be allowed to bet against team A, that is totally a conflict of interest.

Is your wife allowed to make trades on consumer products that she herself has not had previous access to, even if someone in her company or industry might have? Perhaps not if someone in her company has, but if it's a competing consumer report company, I'd bet that she could. How is that different than employees of different baseball teams?

Deward wrote:How about a who cares option? Baseball = dead to me. I'd rather watch golf or ice skating.

Good for you, I don't care. If you don't like it, don't vote. I wasn't looking for how many people didn't care about baseball.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » January 8, 2004, 4:42 pm

Hall of fame- yep

Lifetime ban from baseball for betting on his team- yes

The Hall is seperate, they have just chosen not to let him in till MLB says ok, he should NEVER be allowed to put on a uni again.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 8, 2004, 5:18 pm

Sylvus wrote:Is your wife allowed to make trades on consumer products that she herself has not had previous access to, even if someone in her company or industry might have? Perhaps not if someone in her company has, but if it's a competing consumer report company, I'd bet that she could. How is that different than employees of different baseball teams?

While I still don't think it's completely kosher, betting on other teams isn't the stickler that Rose betting on the Reds was/is. The folks in the HoF may not get him in during his lifetime because of it. Just because he's reinstated doesn't mean he's going to get in.

With regards to my wife, while it's certainly open for argument, it more specifically points to the companies she covers directly. If she had shares in Coke or P&G or any number of companies she covers, she would have had to made the decision to ride the ship or bail before accepting. We can't trade Gillette stock for instance, even though it might not be a bad time to do so. While "consumer products" covers a wide variety of companies, she's really under watch for only the companies that she covers (tobacco, soft drinks, liquor, etc.). I don't think she would be scrutinized for trading in Timberland because it's not somthing she specifically covers. It may throw up a few red flags though and force somebody to keep watch of her as a result. Like you said, that's not necessarily unlike Rose betting on other baseball games, however, it doesn't really cover betting on his own team.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 8, 2004, 5:21 pm

there are potentially negative impacts of betting on one's own team.

the reasons may not be that significant but here are a couple.

the days Pete *doesn't* bet on the reads, the word spreads amongst bookies and the odds can change for the game etc.

Pete may be compelled to use his personnell in the interest of his betting debt and not in the interest of the team. Meaning, he may grind a starter into the ground to win a game instead of managing for the totality of the season.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » January 8, 2004, 5:54 pm

You can look at the record of the Reds from his days as a manager to see that there was no foul play involved in his duties on the field. He had that team in no worse than second place every year. They should be that lucky these days. With him losing as much money as he reportedly did on gambling, one would be tempted to throw an awful lot of games and bet against the team to make up for it. I think the guy just had as much of a sickness with gambling as half the players today do with alchohol or drugs. Mark Mcgwire uses andro for half his career and will go to the hall of fame. Bonds has obviously used some type of supplement to alter his body and directly affect the outcome of games AND records. That won't ever affect his status either. Very hypocritical.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 8, 2004, 5:57 pm

i agree.

that is the main reason i hope bonds doesnt break Aaron's record.

well the main reason behind the fact that i'm a Braves fan. but that fucker is so roided up it is obvious. he's a great hitter, and would be a hall of famer without the juice. but i'm not sure he would be talked about as one of the best players ever without it.

the fag still has a rag arm.

SID BREAM!!!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 8, 2004, 6:06 pm

Pete Rose is a compulsive liar. I voted no. If he admitted long ago that he bet on baseball he'd be in by now instead of looking like a jackass.

If he does get in, it should be annouced that he will be let into the hall of fame after he dies. That would be perfect. He'd be fucked for his life but baseball would still get him into the hall eventually.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » January 8, 2004, 6:27 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You can look at the record of the Reds from his days as a manager to see that there was no foul play involved in his duties on the field.

Maybe-maybe not. Part of betting is putting in when your odds are greatest. I've been counting cards for over 8 years now (haven't done it in ages, but AC rules are pretty good for blackjack at Trump's casinos in general) and a weighted deck helps you ride the high with a lot down and fend off the low with less on the table. Rose doesn't have to bet on all of the games, he just has to win when it's most beneficial.

xZiBiT · Post by **xZiBiT** » January 8, 2004, 8:16 pm

He seems unremorseful for anything he has done. Its too bad that the best baseball player in history (arguable) is a manipulative, two-faced liar that only cares about himself and the money.

The only reason I voted no is because it would be more beneficial and lucrative for him than it would be for baseball.

VeeshanVault

Pete Rose in Cooperstown?

Should Pete Rose be allowed in the Hall of Fame?

Pete Rose in Cooperstown?