POLL: Should Pete Rose be reinstated and/or inducted into the Hall of Fame?

[LA RAM FAN]

what really dissapoints me more than anything is that none of the other ball players that have been inducted,have stood up for him there.

They should ALL be saying at the podium-thanks so much for this honor but i cannot and will not acccept being inducted into the hall until you reinstate Pete Rose and induct him into it where he belongs.

If I was a hall of famer,that would be the words that would come out of my mouth I can tell you that right now.again its sad that the others care more about being inducted into it for their own personal glory instead of doing the right thing and speaking up for him.


pete rose was an inspiration to me as a toddler as he was to countless others around the country to go out and play baseball as hard as you possibly can and work as hard as i could to be the best possible baseball player i could.its disgusting that anyone can possibly say he doesnt belong in the hall of fame when cheaters barry bonds and roger clemons are allowed on the ballot.

its disgusting that they dont allow a player like Rose into the hall of fame.you just dont find players like him anymore who during the REGULAR season,will go slide into second base HEAD first and go all out anymore like he did or in an all star game where they play it like its a party instead of serious game like he did.He was an inspiration to many such as myself in that regard and he is not a criminal.

If Rose isnt allowed in the game because of his character,then cobb needs to be taken out of the hall as well.

 

[Oldstyle]

Pete Rose, holder of a lot of baseball records including most hits ever by anyone (4,256) has petitioned the new Commissioner of Baseball for reinstatement. He's been banned from involvement with the sport, and the Hall of Fame, since 1989.

(Wiki): Rose, a switch hitter, is the all-time Major League leader in hits (4,256), games played (3,562), at-bats (14,053), singles (3,215), and outs (10,328).[1] He won three World Series rings, three batting titles, one Most Valuable Player Award, two Gold Gloves, the Rookie of the Year Award, and also made 17 All-Star appearances at an unequaled five different positions (2B, LF, RF, 3B, & 1B).

What do you think? And has your opinion changed?

I personally think you can't have a Hall of Fame without including possibly your best-ever player, and that the issues of gambling and the issues of performance as a player, are separate issues.

Play ball!

I am in favor of voting Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame but only posthumously. He knew the rule...he broke the rule. He should pay the price.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

but again,if players like him are banned for his character,then other players who were shady such as well such ty cobb should be banned as well.

 

[Pogo]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

but again,if players like him are banned for his character,then other players who were shady such as well such ty cobb should be banned as well.

That's what I'm sayin' --- selective reasoning. Either a Hall of Fame is about excelling in the sport, or it isn't. If it isn't then it becomes random and undefined.

 

[Pogo]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

Dood --- the details are there in the Wiki link. Which means they're elsewhere as well.

Again you revisionistas can't just write your own history. We already have one. You don't get a rewrite because you think you remember something, Brian Williams.

 

[Pogo]

what really dissapoints me more than anything is that none of the other ball players that have been inducted,have stood up for him there.

They should ALL be saying at the podium-thanks so much for this honor but i cannot and will not acccept being inducted into the hall until you reinstate Pete Rose and induct him into it where he belongs.

If I was a hall of famer,that would be the words that would come out of my mouth I can tell you that right now.again its sad that the others care more about being inducted into it for their own personal glory instead of doing the right thing and speaking up for him.

I don't know who else has, but Mike Schmidt has been pushing for it for the duration.

 

[Papageorgio]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

You are correct he voluntarily signed and accepted a lifetime ban from baseball, he never admitted to betting on baseball until 2004. MLB never said to what extent Rose gambled, whether his team was involved or not. The Dodd Report said he gambled around $67,000 a month on various sports. At one time he owed a bookie over $200,000 which was a huge sum.

Not saying Rose gambled, but how tempted would you be to tell a bookie, if you wipe out a debt, I'll throw a game. Not out of the realm of possibility or bet against his team and throw the game.

 

[Pogo]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

You are correct he voluntarily signed and accepted a lifetime ban from baseball, he never admitted to betting on baseball until 2004. MLB never said to what extent Rose gambled, whether his team was involved or not. The Dodd Report said he gambled around $67,000 a month on various sports. At one time he owed a bookie over $200,000 which was a huge sum.

Not saying Rose gambled, but how tempted would you be to tell a bookie, if you wipe out a debt, I'll throw a game. Not out of the realm of possibility or bet against his team and throw the game.

Again, "woulda coulda" isn't a basis for an argument of actual events. It is an argument for making rules, and that's what they did.

But nobody's arguing that those aren't the rules. You're trying to suggest more nefarious activity than actually exists to bolster a weak argument. And one of the ways you're doing that is this revisionist history bullshit about details not being available or some great unknowns about "whether he bet against his own team". That's already been published. MLB had already said it had no such evidence. The fact that you're trying to invent and inject it after the fact demonstrates the weakness of your position.

Again, this shit is already on Wikipedia. I linked it for both of you revisionists. Going doesn't make it not exist.

Try reading rather than rewriting. There IS evidence he bet on the Reds to win. There IS NOT evidence he bet on them to lose.

 

[Oldstyle]

The issue, Pogo isn't that Rose may have only bet on the Reds to win games but whether those bets might change how he managed those games and whether that might have affected other games. If you're the manager of a team and you've got a thousand bucks riding on the first game of a double header and none on the second are you going to use your bullpen up trying to keep the first game close and not have them to use in the second game?

 

[Papageorgio]

When Pete Rose was banned, he signed an agreement (devil's pact with MLB) that the details would not be revealed by MLB. I have to believe there is much more to it than he bet on his own team. Perhaps, Pete knows he'll never be reinstated? He can at least salvage his image by pretending that he is a victim and thusly gain various business contracts. Personally, I don't think PR is a sympathetic character. But all the knuckleheads on talk radio who need to fill dead air will spend hours droning on about poor Pete; and all the drones are gonna buy into it.

I don't know where you get that idea. You can get the details on freaking Wikipedia.

I get it from remembering the report at the time. If it doesn't make mention of it on wiki, then that's there deal. But think about it; MLB never comes out and says Pete Rose did XYZ. They merely say 'he bet on baseball.' Why? Legally, they can't delve into the details. And frankly, they don't want to; because they don't want the hassle/headache/damage. Conversely, if Pete Rose was as innocent as people want to believe, MLB would have reinstated Rose and put him in the HOF because it would then be in their interest.

You are correct he voluntarily signed and accepted a lifetime ban from baseball, he never admitted to betting on baseball until 2004. MLB never said to what extent Rose gambled, whether his team was involved or not. The Dodd Report said he gambled around $67,000 a month on various sports. At one time he owed a bookie over $200,000 which was a huge sum.

Not saying Rose gambled, but how tempted would you be to tell a bookie, if you wipe out a debt, I'll throw a game. Not out of the realm of possibility or bet against his team and throw the game.

Again, "woulda coulda" isn't a basis for an argument of actual events. It is an argument for making rules, and that's what they did.

But nobody's arguing that those aren't the rules. You're trying to suggest more nefarious activity than actually exists to bolster a weak argument. And one of the ways you're doing that is this revisionist history bullshit about details not being available or some great unknowns about "whether he bet against his own team". That's already been published. MLB had already said it had no such evidence. The fact that you're trying to invent and inject it after the fact demonstrates the weakness of your position.

Again, this shit is already on Wikipedia. I linked it for both of you revisionists. Going doesn't make it not exist.

Try reading rather than rewriting. There IS evidence he bet on the Reds to win. There IS NOT evidence he bet on them to lose.

To bet on your team, it is a permanent ban of the game, he bet on his team. He has a gambling addiction, he spent up to $67,000 a day. He had debts of $200,000 from a bookie, whether he bet against his team the up in the air. However, he lied under oath about betting on baseball at all. He maintained the lie until 2004 and then confessed he bet on baseball and the Reds. I don't believe a man that can lie.

 

[Pogo]

The issue, Pogo isn't that Rose may have only bet on the Reds to win games but whether those bets might change how he managed those games and whether that might have affected other games. If you're the manager of a team and you've got a thousand bucks riding on the first game of a double header and none on the second are you going to use your bullpen up trying to keep the first game close and not have them to use in the second game?

.
Fair point -- although there's no evidence it went down that way. But I'll always jump on an argument that's blatantly dishonest. Which considering the topic becomes ironic.

Look, I never said it was OK to bet on games, especially when you're managing a team. What I'm saying is that's a separate issue altogether from the record of what he did on the field as a player. That << is what you either get or don't get into the Hall for.

Some among us seem unable to separate the two. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that they're the same thing.

Being banned from baseball is to be expected. Being banned from the Hall is bullshit, and always was.
Again -- Mickey Mantle; Willie Mays. Banned from baseball and in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Oldstyle]

The issue, Pogo isn't that Rose may have only bet on the Reds to win games but whether those bets might change how he managed those games and whether that might have affected other games. If you're the manager of a team and you've got a thousand bucks riding on the first game of a double header and none on the second are you going to use your bullpen up trying to keep the first game close and not have them to use in the second game?

.
Fair point -- although there's no evidence it went down that way. But I'll always jump on an argument that's blatantly dishonest. Which considering the topic becomes ironic.

Look, I never said it was OK to bet on games, especially when you're managing a team. What I'm saying is that's a separate issue altogether from the record of what he did on the field as a player. That << is what you either get or don't get into the Hall for.

Some among us seem unable to separate the two. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that they're the same thing.

Being banned from baseball is to be expected. Being banned from the Hall is bullshit, and always was.
Again -- Mickey Mantle; Willie Mays. Banned from baseball and in the Hall of Fame.

As I said earlier, Pogo...if I were the Commissioner of Baseball I would ban Rose from baseball and the Hall of Fame until he passed away. That would be his punishment for what he did when he bet on games. He would still go down as one of the great players ever...inducted into the Hall of Fame...but only posthumously.

 

[Pogo]

The issue, Pogo isn't that Rose may have only bet on the Reds to win games but whether those bets might change how he managed those games and whether that might have affected other games. If you're the manager of a team and you've got a thousand bucks riding on the first game of a double header and none on the second are you going to use your bullpen up trying to keep the first game close and not have them to use in the second game?

.
Fair point -- although there's no evidence it went down that way. But I'll always jump on an argument that's blatantly dishonest. Which considering the topic becomes ironic.

Look, I never said it was OK to bet on games, especially when you're managing a team. What I'm saying is that's a separate issue altogether from the record of what he did on the field as a player. That << is what you either get or don't get into the Hall for.

Some among us seem unable to separate the two. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that they're the same thing.

Being banned from baseball is to be expected. Being banned from the Hall is bullshit, and always was.
Again -- Mickey Mantle; Willie Mays. Banned from baseball and in the Hall of Fame.

As I said earlier, Pogo...if I were the Commissioner of Baseball I would ban Rose from baseball and the Hall of Fame until he passed away. That would be his punishment for what he did when he bet on games. He would still go down as one of the great players ever...inducted into the Hall of Fame...but only posthumously.

Yanno, knowing what a competitor he is, Rose is prolly determined to live to be 100 for that reason.

 

[Oldstyle]

The issue, Pogo isn't that Rose may have only bet on the Reds to win games but whether those bets might change how he managed those games and whether that might have affected other games. If you're the manager of a team and you've got a thousand bucks riding on the first game of a double header and none on the second are you going to use your bullpen up trying to keep the first game close and not have them to use in the second game?

.
Fair point -- although there's no evidence it went down that way. But I'll always jump on an argument that's blatantly dishonest. Which considering the topic becomes ironic.

Look, I never said it was OK to bet on games, especially when you're managing a team. What I'm saying is that's a separate issue altogether from the record of what he did on the field as a player. That << is what you either get or don't get into the Hall for.

Some among us seem unable to separate the two. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that they're the same thing.

Being banned from baseball is to be expected. Being banned from the Hall is bullshit, and always was.
Again -- Mickey Mantle; Willie Mays. Banned from baseball and in the Hall of Fame.

As I said earlier, Pogo...if I were the Commissioner of Baseball I would ban Rose from baseball and the Hall of Fame until he passed away. That would be his punishment for what he did when he bet on games. He would still go down as one of the great players ever...inducted into the Hall of Fame...but only posthumously.

Yanno, knowing what a competitor he is, Rose is prolly determined to live to be 100 for that reason.

Pete could live to be 150, Pogo...I STILL wouldn't be putting him in the hall when he was alive!

By the way, I think the same penalty should apply to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire and A-Rod. No Hall until they are dead and in the ground so they don't get to bask in the glory of being inducted. When you cheat there's got to be a price to by paid!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

what really dissapoints me more than anything is that none of the other ball players that have been inducted,have stood up for him there.

They should ALL be saying at the podium-thanks so much for this honor but i cannot and will not acccept being inducted into the hall until you reinstate Pete Rose and induct him into it where he belongs.

If I was a hall of famer,that would be the words that would come out of my mouth I can tell you that right now.again its sad that the others care more about being inducted into it for their own personal glory instead of doing the right thing and speaking up for him.


pete rose was an inspiration to me as a toddler as he was to countless others around the country to go out and play baseball as hard as you possibly can and work as hard as i could to be the best possible baseball player i could.its disgusting that anyone can possibly say he doesnt belong in the hall of fame when cheaters barry bonds and roger clemons are allowed on the ballot.

its disgusting that they dont allow a player like Rose into the hall of fame.you just dont find players like him anymore who during the REGULAR season,will go slide into second base HEAD first and go all out anymore like he did or in an all star game where they play it like its a party instead of serious game like he did.He was an inspiration to many such as myself in that regard and he is not a criminal.

If Rose isnt allowed in the game because of his character,then cobb needs to be taken out of the hall as well.

this post STILL stands,no one has yet to counter it to no surprise.some people around here obviously hate pete rose the fact they have stooped to making up ouright LIES such as saying steriods were not illegal back then in the late 90's when Bonds,Mcguire,Sosa, and Clemons were all doing it.



you have all been called out for your pure bullshit on that.the way you have been called out on that is jose canseco wrote in his book JUICED how him,Mcguire,Bonds, and others knowingly did sterioids back then knowing full well it was illegal.

you Rose haters have been exposed and you cannot refute facts that if Rose doesnt belong in there,then neither does Cobb or the facts that those cheaters have actually been put on the ballot.so take this all you Rose haters.

when Cansecos book came out,many ballplayers at the time were hating on him calling him a liar and all that,they hated him because he came forward and told the TRUTH not only about himself,but about cheaters Mcguire,Sosa and Bonds.

I actually respect canseco as much as i did not like him as a player back then because he was very arrogant,but i respect him now because he has remorse over it and came forward and told the TRUTH not only about himself,but others as well.that takes balls.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The Hall of fame is full of undesirable people. One of the biggest racists of all time, some professed cheaters, a murderer, and Ty Cobb.

Pete Rose was banned for life, he will get in the HOF, the year after he dies.

The HOF is a joke anyway, the voting process is a joke, and even though, I would really love to see it, until Kenessaw Landis is removed from it, I won't be going there.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

The issue, Pogo isn't that Rose may have only bet on the Reds to win games but whether those bets might change how he managed those games and whether that might have affected other games. If you're the manager of a team and you've got a thousand bucks riding on the first game of a double header and none on the second are you going to use your bullpen up trying to keep the first game close and not have them to use in the second game?

.
Fair point -- although there's no evidence it went down that way. But I'll always jump on an argument that's blatantly dishonest. Which considering the topic becomes ironic.

Look, I never said it was OK to bet on games, especially when you're managing a team. What I'm saying is that's a separate issue altogether from the record of what he did on the field as a player. That << is what you either get or don't get into the Hall for.

Some among us seem unable to separate the two. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that they're the same thing.

Being banned from baseball is to be expected. Being banned from the Hall is bullshit, and always was.
Again -- Mickey Mantle; Willie Mays. Banned from baseball and in the Hall of Fame.

As I said earlier, Pogo...if I were the Commissioner of Baseball I would ban Rose from baseball and the Hall of Fame until he passed away. That would be his punishment for what he did when he bet on games. He would still go down as one of the great players ever...inducted into the Hall of Fame...but only posthumously.

Yanno, knowing what a competitor he is, Rose is prolly determined to live to be 100 for that reason.

Pete could live to be 150, Pogo...I STILL wouldn't be putting him in the hall when he was alive!

By the way, I think the same penalty should apply to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire and A-Rod. No Hall until they are dead and in the ground so they don't get to bask in the glory of being inducted. When you cheat there's got to be a price to by paid!

Ron Santo, was a great human being, and the HOF let him die before putting him in, what a joke the HOF is. I'll give somebody a dollar to burn it down.