First, Joe Torre is criticized for not selecting Jeff Nelson to the All star game. Then Torre's own closer, Mariano Rivera, pulls out of the game and Torre replaces him with Nelson. Then Bobby Valentine is criticized for not selecting Cliff Floyd, then Steve Reed, a NYM pitcher gets injured, and Valentine replaces him with Floyd. Hmmmm 2 managers that made mistakes, then suddenly 2 guys from the managers own teams pull out and the mistake is corrected. Conspiracy? Maybe maybe not. ------------------ I do not believe in god. And it is nice to know that I am going to hell with Hitler, and McVeigh. Although I do not know why.
THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... Have no fear kiddies, the name's changed, but the Mobster is still the same...
I don't doubt for a minute that some type of backroom deals were made. However, it's in baseball's best interest to leave such deals in the backroom and celebrate the game, not the controversy surrounding it. ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
And that is why Pete deserves to be in the hall Newbiehad! ------------------ This post contains no smilies, you must judge my seriousness on your own... Have no fear kiddies, the name's changed, but the Mobster is still the same...
I agree 100%, Pete. Leaving him out of the Hall is a huge miscarriage of justice, IMHO. ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
Come on Behad. If you're all about celebrating the game, how on earth can you support Rose for the HoF?!? He committed the most injurious possible act against the game by betting [edit]on[/edit] his own team. I could understand your attitude if Rose's crimes were outside the lines, but Rose's transgressions strike at the very heart of the game. However, the game has no rules against racists, bad guys, drinking, or infidelity. It does have, posted in every clubhouse in the league, strict rules about gambling, particularly on your own sport. This all stems from baseball's darkest moment, the Black Sox scandal in 1919, an ugly event where a syndicate of professional gamblers succeeded in fixing the World Series. It shouldn't take a brain surgeon to understand some potential ramifications involved when participants of a sport are wagering on the games they play. _ Behad, you think a manager who bet on his own team should be inducted into the HoF? [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited July 08, 2001).]
Jammie, it was never proven that he bet for or against his team, or on baseball in general. Sure, most people believe he did it, but no solid evidence proves this, and he has never publicly said he did. So why is he not in the HOF? Because he agreed to a banishment in relation to his association with known crime family members. This, of course, is the same thing that got Steinbrenner banned for a couple of years. But where is Steinbrenner now? He's buying another WS. So why has baseball deemed Steinbrenner worthy of another chance and not Rose? ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
Sure, most people believe he did it, but no solid evidence proves this, and he has never publicly said he did. So why is he not in the HOF? Didn't Rose voluntarily agree to the lifetime ban due to the evidence that was compiled against him? Here's the full story -- I don't know if it is a biased account or not: http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rose-faq.html ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets. [This message has been edited by shanna (edited July 08, 2001).]
But that was his point, I believe. "I will agree to a lifetime ban if I do not have to admit guilt in betting on baseball." We're splitting hairs here, I agree, but the cold fact remains: he never admitted nor was proven to have bet on baseball. Why should Steinbrenner be given another chance and not Rose? Because Rose won't bow down to Selig's feet and kiss ass to have his ban lifted. Arrogence is keeping him out of the HOF, not his past. ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
But that was his point, I believe. "I will agree to a lifetime ban if I do not have to admit guilt in betting on baseball." Well, if he agreed to a lifetime ban to avoid admitting to bet on baseball, then why shouldn't the lifetime ban hold? Why should he have gotten to end the investigation AND get the lifetime ban removed? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
How many murderers are given a life sentence, yet are paroled 10 years later? Because they served enough time to show the state they can become honest, productive citizens again. Rose hasn't proven he can be a productive member of baseball again. He is still an admitted gambler. BUT... why should that preclude him from being in the HOF? His years as a player are more than enough to warrent first ballot election. He's not HOF material for his managerial days. And as long as he is unrepentative, he will remain out of baseball. But Rose the player undoubtably deserves to be in the HOF. ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I love George Will's books, but I'm quoting from his Bunts: Curt Flood, Camden Yards, Pete Rose, and Other Reflections on Basesball. "In the end the case was resolved only when rhetoric suspended legalisms. Rose dropped his legal challenge to the comssioner's powers. In exchange, MLB issued a statement that did not include a formal finding that Rose had bet on baseball. But at the press conference announcing the agreement, Giamatti stepped up to the microphone like DiMaggio striding to the plate. In response to a question, he said he was convinced by overwhelming evidence that Rose had bet on baseball. He was able to say so because the investigation he had commissioned by John Dowd had made the facts of Rose's betting entirely clear. The evidence included the testimony of eight eyewitnesses, and Rose's handwriting on betting slips, and telephone records showing that during a ninety-day period, thirty minutes before every game - home or away, night or day - Rose placed calls to people who made bets." -- The Dowd Report Rose did bet on baseball. He did bet on his own team. Therefore, quoting George Will, "More than 4,000 times he has walked into clubhouses where the rules are posted. Bet on baseball, you 'shall be' suspended for a year. Bet on your team, you 'shall be' permanently ineligible. Shall be, not may be." [any typos are mine]
Again, I say we're arguing semantics. Do you, or I, or the American people think he bet on baseball? Yes. Did Bart Giamatti think he bet on baseball? Yes. Fay Vincent? Yes. But was it proven in sworn testimony? No, because an agreement had been reached. Look, I'm not saying let him manage the Reds again, or even be involved in the game at all. But when a man takes his son to Cooperstown to show him all the greats of the game, should that agreement prevent that boy from seeing one of the greatest players of all time? ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
maybe, maybe no ------------------ Question about a Tree? Go to the 5th Ward and tell Daryle I sent you. [This message has been edited by MontgomeryWard (edited July 08, 2001).]
Like I said before, celebrate the game and it's players, not the sideshow politics surrounding it. ------------------ It looks like a veteran can Be had.
One thing that I find disturbing: Drugs are illegal in this country. Yet many players have admitted to using drugs (some during games, see Dock Ellis) Does this not affect the outcome of games as well? Steve Howe, a relief pitcher with the Dodgers and Yankees was suspended a whopping 6 times for his drug problems!!! Gambling odds for all sporting events are found in every newsdpaper's sports section every day. Would Pete Rose bet on his team to lose? Does anyone realize how serious Micheal Jordan's gambling problem is/was? Do you really believe he wanted to try baseball while he was in his prime as a basketball player? ------------------ "For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Hamlet
Would Pete Rose bet on his team to lose? Why not? If you're facing a Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens, wouldn't you guess your team would lose? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
In the grand scheme of things, Rose's mistakes don't eliminate his successes. He was a tremendous baseball player over a long period of time. However, MLB (unlike other sports) chooses to examine other criteria in addition to on-field performance. I think this is a mistake. But they'd be hypocrites to admit Rose when his acts violate their own standards. I think they should eliminate their criteria regarding character. I don't think it contributes to the prestige of the institution. Is the Hall better with Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, or without? My vote is "with." ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.
He didn't just bet on baseball, he bet on his own team. Betting on your own team is MLB's only capital crime. The only crime that is automatically punished by a lifetime ban. MLB shouldn't IMO be coerced into inducting a man who committed MLB's only capital crime. I don't want to see Rose enshrined in the hall. He committed the cardinal sin against the game. I don't want my potential offspring to see Rose, and ask "Why did they put Rose in the Hall? I thought you told me he committed baseball only capital crime." "Why did they let Charles Manson out of jail? I thought you told me he committed one of 'The People''s only capital crimes." j/k [This message has been edited by jamcracker (edited July 08, 2001).]
