Pete Rose nearing reinstatement?

[Waffles]

From the New York Daily News:

Thanks to the behind-the-scenes lobbying from some of the most influential Hall of Famers, commissioner Bud Selig is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose's lifetime suspension from baseball.

The tip-off that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball's all-time hit king was Hank Aaron's seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters in the lobby of the Otesaga Hotel on Saturday. In declaring for the first time that he would want an asterisk put on the achievements of any steroid cheats elected to the Hall of Fame, Aaron brought up Rose, who, in August of 1989, was given a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, saying: "I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...l#ixzz0MT9VfDN1

If true, this is disappointing. I've felt that while he should be recognized for his accomplishments at some point in time, the best course of action was a posthumous pardon and reinstatement. No steroid, growth hormone, pine tar, or vaseline has as direct an ability to alter the course and outcome of a game than manipulating the game for gambling purposes, especially as a manager. Gambling on games, especially ones in which one is participating, is and should be a Capital Offense in sports, and they shouldn't back down here just because Rose is one of the greatest players of all time and has a number of friends in high places.

[DDR]

If you're going to reinstate Pete Rose (which I'm not necessarily against), how are you not going to reinstate "Shoeless" Joe Jackson?

[OnWis97]

If it was up to me, I'd put him in the HOF, but keep him banned from working for MLB or its teams.

[goalieboy82]

let Pete Rose in the hall of fame after he dies.

[Dilbert]

If it was up to me, I'd put him in the HOF, but keep him banned from working for MLB or its teams.

Totally agree. The Reds arent even allowed to retire his number. The hockey team next door to the ballpark retired it.

[NJTank]

I think Rose should be allowed in HOF and Reds should be allowed to retire #14, but other then working as announcer or embassador Rose should not have a meaningful job.

[JayJaxon]

I think Rose belongs (As does Jackson) I agree that he should get into the Hall of Fame, his number should be retired, but that should be the end of it. His baseball life needs to end after that and he needs to do something else. He deserves to get in, so let him in.

[TFoA]

Bud Selig could put out pretty much any ridiculous ass condition or stipulation he wanted and Pete Rose would do/follow it. He wants THAT badly to be back in baseball, and I think it's gonna happen. Especially since apparently some HoFers want him back.

[STL FANATIC]

I'm less concerned about re-instatement, but he should be in the HOF.

If the voters stick to their high and mighty guns about potentially steroid tainted players (they shouldn't, but if they're gonna they oughta be consistent) and keep Bonds out, then you've got a baseball Hall of Fame without the Hits and Home Runs leader. Or as I like to call it, a joke.

[JayJaxon]

I have tried to look at the steroid issue this way: Would these players still be Hall of Fame caliber players if they had stayed clean? In the case of Barry Bonds, he would have. That's one reason why I don't understand his greed. He was already the best player in the game.

I'm not sold on Sosa and others, but Bonds would have been there for sure. He would not have set the career home run mark, nor would he have hit 73 home runs in a season. But who cares? He would have got in with no question of integrity. I think Clemens is in the same boat as Bonds too.

As far as Rose, the guy should have come clean from the start, and now that he has finally admitted his guilt, maybe he can just go with the whole time served deal.

[STL FANATIC]

I agree that Bonds and Clemens were HOFers either way, but I think with a lot of guys it's way to hard to try and pick apart whether or not steroids made the difference in their careers. The fact that plenty of scrubs have been caught with steroids and the fact that they faced a lot of competitors on steroids just makes it absolutely impossible to determine whether steroids made a guys career or not.

So to me there either needs to be a hard line or not.

I take that back. To me, it shouldn't matter. These guys put up the stats that they did, and they shouldn't be punished well after the fact for it. I know it's not on the same level, but if you found out 5-10 years or more later that a HOF pitcher scuffed balls and used the spit ball (after it was illegal), would you bounce them from the Hall?

If you catch a cheater, you punish them when you catch them. If you don't catch them, well, then they got away with it, and that's just how it is.

Even worse, for quite a few guys, it's merely speculation (whether informed or not) as to whether or not they took steroids. Guys are potentially going to be left out without any proof at all that they cheated. In fact, that's happened to McGwire already. I don't need the argument about him again, in actuality, I don't really even know what I think went down with him anymore. But the fact of the matter is he's never had a positive test, evidence that would hold up in court, or anything of the sort brought against him, but it's treated as fact that he took steroids and the Hall of Fame has held him out over that.

Keeping players out who were great is bad, period. Keeping players out over hearsay and speculation is ridiculous.

So drawing a hard line is the second best option, but it's a far, far, far second to the best option of putting players in if their stats (compared both vs. history and vs. their peers) deem that they should be.

[Waffles]

Steroids and betting, to me, are almost completely separate issues. Steroids have, largely, done most of their damage to the record books. Records are nice, and important in particular to baseball, but in the end, sports are about wins and losses. Betting on games in which one is an active player or coach and manipulating the outcome of those games accordingly is exponentially more heinous than taking performance enhancing drugs that merely give you a better chance of succeeding individually. I'd rather see McGwire and Bonds, et. al. in the Hall of Fame - with appropriate contextualization - than ever see Pete Rose in there.

[Jigga]

Sports are about wins and losses, but the Baseball HOF is singularly about numbers. Not great players, just great numbers.

[BBTV]

We debate whether the MVP award should be interpreted literally "most VALUABLE player" or if it should be the "most OUTSTANDING player" or just "BEST player."

The same applies to the HOF. Should it literally be Hall of "FAME"? Or should it be the "Hall of players with awesome stats who didn't break any rules"?

If it's FAME, then you can't argue that Rose, and the McGwire / Bonds / Sosa crowd shouldn't be in there. Of course, this also means that Maris should be in too.

For the record, I don't think that a ban from baseball should have any bearing on someone's eligibility for the HOF. Since MLB doesn't really have any say on who gets in anyway (since it's voted on by the writers and the veterans commitee) then they shouldn't be able to keep Rose out.

I really don't understand the "let him in when he dies" argument. It's either a lifetime ban (meaning forever, not just for the rest of the player's life) or it's not. If it's not, then whether he's still alive or not should have no bearing on the length of the ban.

[OnWis97]

If it was up to me, I'd put him in the HOF, but keep him banned from working for MLB or its teams.

Totally agree. The Reds arent even allowed to retire his number. The hockey team next door to the ballpark retired it.

I never realized that. I assume nobody has worn the number for the Reds, correct?

[STL FANATIC]

Steroids and betting, to me, are almost completely separate issues. Steroids have, largely, done most of their damage to the record books. Records are nice, and important in particular to baseball, but in the end, sports are about wins and losses. Betting on games in which one is an active player or coach and manipulating the outcome of those games accordingly is exponentially more heinous than taking performance enhancing drugs that merely give you a better chance of succeeding individually. I'd rather see McGwire and Bonds, et. al. in the Hall of Fame - with appropriate contextualization - than ever see Pete Rose in there.

I agree that they're entirely different issues.

I just think it's a joke that the Baseball HOF may soon lack both the career HR leader and the career Hits leader.

IMO, they and others deserve in. Which isn't to say which offense is worse, it's just to say I don't think either should keep one out of the HOF. (Out of baseball is another issue.)

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I really don't understand the "let him in when he dies" argument. It's either a lifetime ban (meaning forever, not just for the rest of the player's life) or it's not. If it's not, then whether he's still alive or not should have no bearing on the length of the ban.

I don't get it either, and it seems especially cruel. In goalieboy's case, it's good because it means someone gets to die, but for everyone else, it's more of a na-na-na-boo-boo thing, isn't it? That's we'll get to know when and if Pete Rose is a member of the Hall of Fame, and he -- no matter how much he wants it -- doesn't it.

I too think gambling is worse than steroids, but baseball's lore is filled with cheaters, racists, scumbags, and scoundrels. Why bother separating?

[Waffles]

I really don't understand the "let him in when he dies" argument. It's either a lifetime ban (meaning forever, not just for the rest of the player's life) or it's not. If it's not, then whether he's still alive or not should have no bearing on the length of the ban.

I don't get it either, and it seems especially cruel. In goalieboy's case, it's good because it means someone gets to die, but for everyone else, it's more of a na-na-na-boo-boo thing, isn't it? That's we'll get to know when and if Pete Rose is a member of the Hall of Fame, and he -- no matter how much he wants it -- doesn't it.

I too think gambling is worse than steroids, but baseball's lore is filled with cheaters, racists, scumbags, and scoundrels. Why bother separating?

Morbid as it might be, I think it reconciles both the need to acknowledge his professional accomplishments and the need to fulfill an meaningful punishment for his misdeeds.

[goalieboy82]

he should go in but dont give him the self satisfaction that he is in the hall of fame. he did lie about betting on baseball so he should have to wait.

[BBTV]

he should go in but dont give him the self satisfaction that he is in the hall of fame. he did lie about betting on baseball so he should have to wait.

What if he's not dead, but he gets in a serious accident, and becomes mentally handicapped, or loses his memory all together? Would it be OK to let him in then? It's not like he'd even know what's going on. Maybe we should start rooting for Pete to suffer some kind of traumatic head injury.

Also, what if he gets Alzheimer's or some other form of dementia, and deteriorates to the point where he doesn't know what's what. Would you let him in then?

I guess if he wanted to get in as soon as possible, he could just commit suicide. I mean, we're talking about a sports museum here. Certainly, it's worth having to die for.