Sign in to follow this  
PleaseBlitz

Poll: Should Pete Rose be Reinstated to MLB?

Poll: Should Pete Rose be Reinstated to MLB?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Poll: Should Pete Rose be Reinstated to MLB?



Recommended Posts

Pete Rose played in MLB from 1963-1986 and then managed the Reds from 1984-1989.  Yes, those overlap because he was both a player and manager for awhile.    

 

He is the all-time MLB leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053), singles (3,215), and outs (10,328).  He won 3 World Series, 1 WS MVP, 3 batting titles, an MVP, 2 Gold Gloves, Rookie of the Year, had a 44 game hit streak, was a 17 time all star and slashed .303/375/.409/.784.  He was one of the best defensive players and most versatile players in history (he holds the record for highest fielding % ever for a corner outfielder and is the only player in history to play 500 games at five different positions).  

 

In August 1989 (his last year as a manager and three years after retiring as a player), Rose was penalized with permanent ineligibility from baseball amidst accusations that he gambled on baseball games while he played for and managed the Reds; the charges of wrongdoing included claims that he bet on his own team. In 1991, the Baseball Hall of Fame formally voted to ban those on the "permanently ineligible" list from induction, after previously excluding such players by informal agreement among voters. After many years of stubborn public denial, Rose admitted in 2004 that he bet on baseball and on the Reds (he was selling a book at the time).  In 1990 he was convicted of tax evasion and serviced five months in federal prison.  

 

A week ago he filed for reinstatement, his main argument being that other people (the Astros) did bad things.  Nothing Pete Rose did is in any way related to the Astros, but you could certainly argue that what the Astros did was worse, and only one front office person has been permanently banned from MLB (so far). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa and Jose Conseco and Roger Clemens been banned?  Cause to me steroids are way worse than betting.

 

Question cause I’m not a baseball analyst like that.  I don’t know if those guys are banned or not.

 

Do players who play fantasy baseball get banned?

 

I say, let the mother****er back in.  And I’m an expert on mother****ers.  I was ****ing mothers just last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Has Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa and Jose Conseco and Roger Clemens been banned?  Cause to me steroids are way worse than betting.

 

Question cause I’m not a baseball analyst like that.  I don’t know if those guys are banned or not.

 

Do players who play fantasy baseball get banned?

 

I say, let the mother****er back in.  And I’m an expert on mother****ers.  I was ****ing mothers just last night.

 

They have not been formally banned, but there appears to be an informal agreement among HOF voters to not vote them in.  McGwire was a hitting coach and then bench coach for MLB teams until last year.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Now that sports gambling is widely legalized, it's even more important to emphasize that betting on ones own games will get one permabanned with no exceptions. It's unfortunate that Pete Rose is too stupid and immature to understand his mistake. He really doesn't get it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Gambling is the cardinal sin. Once gambling is involved, all games come into question. If fans can't trust that the results are real, the sport is dead.


I don't care if he says he only bet on his own team. He's a liar who said he never bet at all for 20 years.
He can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything. 
It isn't cheating, it's 10,000 times worse. The integrity of the entire sport is called into question.
He got all those hits, played the game as well as it can be played. And ruined every bit of it. His price is his reputation, and he earned it.

Nope. 

 

~Bang

Edited by Bang
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

They have not been formally banned, but there appears to be an informal agreement among HOF voters to not vote them in.  McGwire was a hitting coach and then bench coach for MLB teams until last year.  


Well perhaps lift the ban and let the voters decide?  I’d assume he’d never get enough people to let him in anyhow.

 

 

Comparing his transgressions to the Astros is a clown move though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He belongs in the HOF way before Bonds and Clemens, and those ****ers are inching their way toward induction with each passing year. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say let him in.  Either way, stats are stats and he did it organically not juiced up on steroids.  Besides, didn't he retire in 1986 and in 1991 when he would be eligible for the HOF the committee voted to not allow any players on the ineligible players list to be voted in.  That's pretty ****ing weak in my opinion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete is banned, he signed it himself:   

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150630114625/http://seanlahman.com/files/rose/agreement.html

4. Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise. He also agrees he will not institute any legal proceedings of any nature against the Commissioner of any of his representatives, either Major League or any Major League Club.

 

 

Personally think its absolutely insane that Bonds/Clemons aren't in the HOF. Everyone cheated and MLB allowed them to cheat. Obviously the 2 best baseball players of all time. 7 MVPs and 7 Cy Youngs. 

 

Its like the Tour de France where 65% of cyclists were on PEDs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

I say let him in.  Either way, stats are stats and he did it organically not juiced up on steroids.  Besides, didn't he retire in 1986 and in 1991 when he would be eligible for the HOF the committee voted to not allow any players on the ineligible players list to be voted in.  That's pretty ****ing weak in my opinion.  


Why is that weak?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mooka said:

Pete is banned, he signed it himself:   

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150630114625/http://seanlahman.com/files/rose/agreement.html

4. Peter Edward Rose acknowledges that the Commissioner has a factual basis to impose the penalty provided herein, and hereby accepts the penalty imposed on him by the Commissioner and agrees not to challenge that penalty in court or otherwise. He also agrees he will not institute any legal proceedings of any nature against the Commissioner of any of his representatives, either Major League or any Major League Club.

 

 

Personally think its absolutely insane that Bonds/Clemons aren't in the HOF. Everyone cheated and MLB allowed them to cheat. Obviously the 2 best baseball players of all time. 7 MVPs and 7 Cy Youngs. 

 

Its like the Tour de France where 65% of cyclists were on PEDs. 


Not everyone cheated and your comparison is great cause the Tour stripped titles from multiple people. 
 

**** all cheaters 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a problem with letting the steroids era players in, and letting all the  astros players slide, and then saying with a straight face rose went too far. 
 

as long as baseball is being consistent I don’t care either way. I think when it’s all said and done, they won’t be consistent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tshile said:

I have a problem with letting the steroids era players in, and letting all the  astros players slide, and then saying with a straight face rose went too far. 
 

as long as baseball is being consistent I don’t care either way. I think when it’s all said and done, they won’t be consistent


none of them should get a pass. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. He committed the highest sin in the sport, then lied about it for years. 
 

When you bet on your own team some of the time, your betting AGAINST your team when you aren’t. You’re also compromising the integrity of your responsibility as a manager. 
 

if I remember correctly, didn’t he sign the deal thinking he could be reinstated in a year, and then the commissioner that he thought would be lenient died? Something like that? 
 

Ah well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:


Why is that weak?  

 

Because they obviously only changed the rules on getting in the HOF due to Rose getting put on the ineligible players list.  It was never a rule before, only voted on the year he would be eligible.  Bush league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Because they obviously only changed the rules on getting in the HOF due to Rose getting put on the ineligible players list.  It was never a rule before, only voted on the year he would be eligible.  Bush league.


I don’t think it’s weak. I think it’s a big **** you to Pete Rose, who kinda deserved it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet he’s not the only one who’s bet on their team, though.  Just as there were people on roids who didn’t get caught.  It’s a sticky wicket.

 

Just like with the Astros.  Sure they were cheating.  100% chance they aren’t the only ones.  I’m so jaded I’m just waiting on the dirt from the Nats to come out.

 

So at what point do you just say **** it and not care because the winners are just better at cheating than the losers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I bet he’s not the only one who’s bet on their team, though.  Just as there were people on roids who didn’t get caught.  It’s a sticky wicket.

 

Just like with the Astros.  Sure they were cheating.  100% chance they aren’t the only ones.  I’m so jaded I’m just waiting on the dirt from the Nats to come out.

 

So at what point do you just say **** it and not care because the winners are just better at cheating than the losers?


Not catching everyone is the reason to come down hard on the ones you do catch. Make an example out of them so the next person thinks twice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:


I don’t think it’s weak. I think it’s a big **** you to Pete Rose, who kinda deserved it. 

 

I disagree, if the rules were fine for basically ever, then changing them up is ****ing the year he is eligible is ****ing bush league imo.  His stats didn't gamble, all those hits were 100% legit and completely independent of his gambling. 

 

Yeah, but it's ok to allow a juiced up player to break Maris' home run record during a time that baseball was losing viewers just a couple of years earlier after the strike.  And another player to do it again in 2001.  Actually cheat physically to break a coveted record.  No ban, no record stripped, nothing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rose should most definitely be in the Hall of Fame. And it should state on his plaque that he was banned from baseball for betting. I've never really understood why the Hall of Fame voters think they have the power to decide what did and didn't happen in a sport. His entire career happened. All his hits. All his hustle. His plowing the catcher in the all star game. Him betting on baseball as a manager. His play dictated he belongs in the Hall of Fame and his plaque should tell his whole story. 

 

As far as being reinstated to baseball, the answer to that is no. He doesn't deserve another chance to manage. And yes, I know the writers changed their rules to not allow someone who is banned in the Hall of Fame. But i covered my thoughts on that in the first paragraph. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I disagree, if the rules were fine for basically ever, then changing them up is ****ing the year he is eligible is ****ing bush league imo.  His stats didn't gamble, all those hits were 100% legit and completely independent of his gambling. 

 

Yeah, but it's ok to allow a juiced up player to break Maris' home run record during a time that baseball was losing viewers just a couple of years earlier after the strike.  And another player to do it again in 2001.  Actually cheat physically to break a coveted record.  No ban, no record stripped, nothing.  


You don’t give the highest honor in the sport to someone who dishonored the sport, then lied about it, which is exactly what happened.  He got barred less than 2 years after he had been caught. 
 

Im on the fence as to whether he should be let in now, decades later.  
 

I don’t think the major roid abusers should get in either, or possibly they should get in, but have it prominently noted that they and their era included rampant steroid abuse. 
 

Im glad they are blackballing Schilling for being an asshole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not reinstated, but most definitely in the HOF. 

One of the few things, of a sports controversy, that my husband & I always agreed on, from when we were just friends...he saw the scars around my elbows from all of the attempts as a kid & immediately respected me. Damn, that was 30 years ago. 😇💗

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he should never have that pleasure.  He violated a cardinal rule and he must pay for it for the rest of his life.  

 

After he is dead and buried, maybe then you may consider a reinstatement so that he would be eligible to get into the HOF; though I wouldn't put him in.

Edited by Rdskns2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.