Pete Rose denied reinstatement
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I'm interpreting your comment to mean that Rose will win reinstatement. (Because it's obvious that he'll keep trying.)
in this context, what gives you a sense that this is "not the end?"
in this context, what gives you a sense that this is "not the end?"
Yah I was not clear, By "not the end" I meant he will try one more time to be reinstated.. He is 74, I assume that he will apply one more time for reinstatement, perhaps when he is in his late 80's?
If I was a bettor like Pete I would take the under on him making it to his late 80s
Assuming he lives that long. Manfred is pretty unequivocal in his statement. Rose hasn't done anything to warrant re-instatement. In fact, every new story about him seems to reveal more evidence to support the case against him. If nearly 100 years has done nothing to soften MLB's stance on Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox, I don't see where Rose has much of a chance.
Can someone help me understand what value - at this point - reinstatement offers the MLB?
Also, am I understanding correctly that there are some who want punish those who broke unwritten rules (e.g., McGwire) and reward someone who definitely broke written rules?
Also, am I understanding correctly that there are some who want punish those who broke unwritten rules (e.g., McGwire) and reward someone who definitely broke written rules?
Reinstatement for Rose gives the MLB nothing whatsoever. Some might argue it hurts them because they'd be viewed as being "soft" on what is supposed to be the cardinal sin of the game. Which is part of the reason why they, until today, have ignored him completely.
What is really newsworthy here is this is the third time that Rose has applied for reinstatement, but Manfred is the first commissioner to formally respond to Rose's application for reinstatement. Rose petitioned both Fay Vincent and Bud Selig, but they both chose not to hear or act on his appeal at all. They ignored him.
As for the people who want him reinstated, they're delusional. Either they're fans of his that refuse to accept he did anything wrong, or they're BBWAA members who feel it's their duty and not the commissioner or the Hall of Fame's to decide who gets enshrined and who doesn't. The writers get to exercise their power to deny McGwire and Clemens and Bonds since those guys appear on the ballot. Rose can never appeal on the ballot so long as he's banned, so even if they want to vote for him, they can't.
I'm pretty sure one of the BIG sponsors (Mastercard?) for MLB has been pushing hard to get Rose reinstated. Manfred basically told Rose and his backers to forget it, especially since the more info that emerges the worse it gets.
I agree, and this is why Manfed can't backpedal on this.
Any sport can be fixed, but baseball most of all, I think, because the skills involved are so fucking hard and even the best players routinely fail. It would raise eyebrows if Steph Curry suddenly shot 3 for 22 in a Finals game, but it would be very easy for even the best pitcher to hang a curve, or for the best hitter to look at a third strike.
So they have to be hardasses on this point, IMO.
This is where I'm kind of on the fence. Manfred clearly wants to prevent Pete Rose from making out a lineup card, and duly so. He even goes so far in his statement to say the policies of the baseball HOF are not his jurisdiction or his priority. I find myself in agreement with Manfred's findings, but I think Rose at least deserves to be on the HOF ballot, giving the voters the final say.
Is it? Teams in the NBA routinely tank. ML Carr admitted trying to lose when he was the Celtics coach. The 76ers in recent years are different only in that players or coaches have not admitted trying to lose (although their GM has).
Throwing games is not the problem, and the integrity of the game is not the (biggest) problem. The problem is when gamblers pay to throw games. But the only people this causes problems for is other gamblers.
So the issue is not the integrity of the game of baseball. The issue is the integrity of gambling on baseball.
Is anyone going to look at a nearly 30 year ban and say, "Man, MLB was really soft on that one. Almost 30 years just isn't enough time." - I mean seriously. Even if Pete Rose's ban was lifted tomorrow, I don't think anyone involved in MLB activities would look at the lifting of a near-30 year ban as encouragement to suddenly take up a gambling habit. There's many ways to look at the Rose situation right now, but saying that MLB would be viewed as soft for lifting the ban now is pretty ludicrous.
Honestly, there's a very good compromise solution here that hasn't been explored. Manfred simply needs to change the scope of Pete Rose's ban. Limit the ban to one that merely prevents Rose from participating in MLB as a normal day to day employee ie: front office, manager, player (lol), etc. It still maintains the stigma of gambling = banned from MLB as a profession, but at least it allows Rose to be enshrined in the hall + have his number retired.
Manfred is under no obligation to do anything that leads to Rose being enshrined in the Hall. It's not his call to keep him off the ballot. That is a Hall of Fame policy. One that was instituted in 1991 specifically to bar Rose (without making it specifically about Rose).
The power to compromise is in the Hall's hands, not Manfred's.
What the hell is this "1986 Championship Season of which he was player-manager for the Cincinnati Reds" of which the above legal document refers to? I have a passing familiarity with that season in MLB, and I don't recall the Reds winning any type of Championship.
Pretty sure that's just MLB-speak for the season in the year specified. Every season is the "xxxx" Championship Season. For example, see LINK.
Hi Sox Fans, Yankees (ducking :>) & Phillies fan lurker here.
As someone who lists Rose among my top two all-time to ever see play ball, I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Manfred’s assessment and decision. He is also the first commissioner since Mr. Giamatti whom I see as being legit.
Regarding the HoF, however:
“The board adopted that rule in 1991 – 18 months after Commissioner Bart Giamatti banned Rose. The board acted at the urging of then commissioner Fay Vincent, who privately blamed Rose for Giamatti's fatal heart attack eight days after Giamatti banned Rose.”
Obviously, it was more about Vincent (and everyone he influenced) blaming Rose for Bart Giamatti’s heart attack than gambling itself: Cases in-point:
Remember Rich Garcia (how could Sox & O’s fans not!)?
1998:
Think that was FUBAR? Well get a load of this!
March 8, 2002 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-gambling-touched-baseball-umps/
Despite even that, remember 2009’s post season? Youk’s (among these others’) blood is probably still boiling:
http://m.mlb.com/video/v7080893/controversial-postseason-calls-who-was-right
20 years after secret 2-year probation:
Garcia, along with fellow supervisors Marty Springstead and Jim McKean, were ousted on March 6, 2010 as a result of a 2009 postseason which was plagued by various high-profile questionable calls that drew a firestorm of criticism from fans and the media.
If there is still any doubt, here’s what Vincent had to say in 1991 regarding Lenny Dykstra’s gambling:
{QUOTE} March 17, 1991 - “You know as well as I do how many people standing here can't tell me they haven't bet with a bookie on football or basketball”, Vincent said. “It`s become part of America’s culture… {QUOTE}
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-03-17/sports/9101240711_1_houston-pitcher-mike-scott-involvement-in-high-stakes-poker-astros
Poor Lenny was obviously shaking in his cleats from such a hard stance as that, eh?!!
{QUOTE} "Lenny would instruct me to bet on baseball games in 1993 at an average bet of $2,000 per game," Jones said in a sworn statement. "Together, we won 11 straight Phillies games in a row before being cut off by the bookmaker who was convinced that I had inside information." {QUOTE}
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-24/sports/0504240070_1_lenny-dykstra-car-wash-business-jones-and-scott
I saw somewhere that Mr. Manfred is on the HoF Board. I hope he is aware of what went on since Mr. Giamatti’s death. Anyone recall ANY concern whatsoever expressed throughout those post-season clusterflucks — or of Lenny’s gambling issues while he played — by Vincent or Dowd? Yet guess who will be going on their 27th year of crowing about Pete freaking Rose?
RE Joe Jackson: All banned players, including Shoeless Joe, were "eligible" for the HoF all the way up until Vincent’s 1991 victory. Check out the 1936 ballot, for one, on which Jackson finished ahead of Connie Mack, Home Run Baker, and Sam Crawford — with some guy named Gehrig placing 15th.
Thanks for letting me vent. IMO The CokeHead Era Commissioner (and whoever else he has influenced/pressured) need to stay under the rock, where they belong.
PS yeah, WTH up with MLB & DraftKings?
Last edited:
I've personally found that, on Reddit at least, there's a third group - young people who weren't alive when he was suspended. I've had to explain to a few of them how much of a dirtbag Rose has been through the entire process. These kids don't seem to know any of the details, like disparaging a dead guy or only coming clean to make a buck (and still lying during his confession).
Manfred has nothing to do with the HoF eligibility issue. That's on the HoF for having a rule that no one on the ineligible list can be enshrined. If you want Rose banned from baseball yet also in the HoF the solution isn't for Manfred to come up with some work-around where he's taken off the ineligible list but still ineligible to be associated with the game. The solution is to get the HoF to change their rules.
I take it you didn't actually read his letter. He took great pains to say he has no say over the HOF and that Rose is banned from actively participating in Major League Baseball outside of pre-approved ceremonial activities.
I thought Manfred's letter was perfectly succinct and should end the debate on Rose's permanent ban once and for all. He appropriately passed the buck to the board of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and to an extent the BBWAA on if Rose should be eligible for enshrinement. I don't think there is any way he get's elected if he is on the ballot. I think it's even money odds he even gets enough votes in year 1 to stay on the ballot.
This is an intriguing comment. Can you share why you believe this to be the case?
The bolded assertions are comically disingenuous.
Manfred sits on the Board of Directors of the Hall of Fame (you know, the group that actually makes the decisions he claims to have no part in making) and as the sitting MLB Commissioner, his opinion is treated as gospel. (And for those who have never done so, look up the complete list of the members of the Board. It's almost funny.)
I agree with his position here and have no sympathy for Rose. But lets drop the pretense about Manfred having nothing to do with the HoF eligibility decision.
Last edited:
It's all fuzzy to me now, but it came up a while back, likely when the Reds were awarded the ASG.
That entirely had to do with whether or not Rose would be allowed to participate in the ASG pre-game ceremony (the all time "Mt Rushmore" selections for each team), not whether he was reinstated from his lifetime ban. I don't think Mastercard or any other MLB sponsor gives two shits if Rose is reinstated or not, but the controversy over whether he would be allowed to participate in their big event isn't good business.
I have no sympathy for Rose either, he knew the rules and he violated them. I was curious though so I ran his record as a manager against his expected wins by the Pythagorean and damn if he didn't outperform his Pythag every year.
1985 89 wins 81 expected +8
1986 86 wins 84 expected +2
1987 84 wins 84 expected E
1989 59 wins 57 expected +2
1988 he managed in 2 stints so I didn't even try to figure it out.
1985 89 wins 81 expected +8
1986 86 wins 84 expected +2
1987 84 wins 84 expected E
1989 59 wins 57 expected +2
1988 he managed in 2 stints so I didn't even try to figure it out.
IIRC, while Rose was forbidden to take part in any of his former teams' ceremonies (he wasn't allowed on the field in '90 for the Phillies' 30th anniversary of their first-ever WS title, along with Reds' Big Red Machine anniversaries or players' number retirements), I believe there were questions raised over MasterCard putting pressure on MLB to allow him for this, due to the fan voting/demand.
At any rate, Rose can go pound sand, as the writers most likely wouldn't even vote him in anyway. Just happy that this commissioner seems to be the polar opposite of the double-standarding clowns who succeeded Bart Giamatti.
Sub in "MLB" for "Manfred" - I think he was going out of his way to make clear that MLB and the HoF are two different institutions. MLB will not lift Rose's ban - he's too problematic. The HoF is another story - perhaps another HoF board of directors, at some point in the future, would consider allowing Rose to be elected to the HoF.
This is very clearly Rose making his bed. He's know for what, 20 years?, that he has to do a full admission mea culpa, speak out against gambling, and offer to jump through whatever hoops MLB wants. Had he done that, public opinion would probably be more on his side, at least for a HoF admission, or a partial lifting of the ban to allow limited employment/association, where he clearly couldn't affect the game. Since he's a gambling addict, and has his particular personality, he's not likely to do that, but not like the path to some sort of forgiveness isn't clear.
Can someone explain to me why it's not ok for Pete to work in baseball again but it's fine to have him as a featured commentator during the playoffs and World Series? I would imagine that MLB has roughly the same amount of say in both of these things.
As I understand it, the networks are seperate entity, from MLB itself. I think there would have been a fuss raised by some people if it was still TBS and the Braves, if they were still owned by Ted Turner, and Rose worked those games.
As the HoF issue proved, MLB can influence/put pressure on, but it's up to the individual/independent whether they abide or not.
Are they?
The current Board of Directors includes the Commissioner, the MLB COO, the owner of the Cardinals, the owner of the Royals, the owner of the White Sox, and numerous former players including one who was a teammate of Rose and who has been bitterly critical of him. (Joe Morgan.)
The structure of the Hall of Fame allows it to claim independence. The truth is that it could not be more tightly controlled by MLB.
I stated pretty clearly that I agreed with the decision Manfred made. Hell, the fact that Rose admits that he still bets on baseball today is enough to never consider lifting his ban. (Even if his betting is now legally done through sports books in Vegas, the lack of self-awareness is stunning.)
I'm pretty sure if MLB wanted him gone, Fox would comply. They're partners, and there's a thousand guys Fox could put in that role. My guess is the same rationale for why the NFL is allowing all those commercials for the concussion movie; of course they don't like it, but they don't want the bad PR that comes with pressuring them to change.
Not to beat a dead horse but MLB is, thankfully, currently run by a more even-headed Commissioner who isn't out to just grind a personal vendetta while letting every other transgression against the sport fly. As long as he isn't influencing games on the field, the current regime isn't going to be as stringent regarding him.
I get what you're saying. I think Manfred just laid down a hard line regarding MLB reinstatement. It gives future commissioners something to point to and dispels "conspiracy theory" arguments which might be marshaled for Rose. At the same time Manfred left open the possibility that the HoF might do something about Rose in the future. As a practical matter, will the HoF do anything? Probably not. But Rose was asking MLB to reinstate him, so MLB responded.
And, FWIW, my last part of the post was more of a general observation than a response to what you said particularly.
1. This is written CLEARLY on EVERY single clubhouse wall in EVERY single MLB stadium: ". Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible."
2. He was well aware of this, but did it anyway. There was no misinterpretation of the rules, there were no surprises placed on Pete Rose.
3. He lied about it repeatedly. he was given EVERY single opportunity to come clean. HE didn't. the only time he finally came clean was when he wanted to sell a book.
4. He was told to change and reconfigure his life. Again, he was given every opportunity to do so. He STILL bets to this day. He says because "I don't do it as much and what I do is legal" he thinks it is fine. He just doesn't get it. He never has. He never will.
5. He also AGREED to a lifetime ban in exchange for the MLB investigation on his activities to come to a screeching halt. I can only imagine what he did not want them to find to accept that deal. But he did. Now how many years later, when he knows there can be no investigation that will show the full scope of his actions, he wants to renege on his end of the deal. He made his own bed. Night after night after night. Let him lie in it forever.
2. He was well aware of this, but did it anyway. There was no misinterpretation of the rules, there were no surprises placed on Pete Rose.
3. He lied about it repeatedly. he was given EVERY single opportunity to come clean. HE didn't. the only time he finally came clean was when he wanted to sell a book.
4. He was told to change and reconfigure his life. Again, he was given every opportunity to do so. He STILL bets to this day. He says because "I don't do it as much and what I do is legal" he thinks it is fine. He just doesn't get it. He never has. He never will.
5. He also AGREED to a lifetime ban in exchange for the MLB investigation on his activities to come to a screeching halt. I can only imagine what he did not want them to find to accept that deal. But he did. Now how many years later, when he knows there can be no investigation that will show the full scope of his actions, he wants to renege on his end of the deal. He made his own bed. Night after night after night. Let him lie in it forever.
Agree with entire post. I believe what I (and some others, such as Jayson Stark) are focusing on is just the HoF aspect of it, and for the reasons I outlined above -- The HoF was not a factor when he agreed with Mr. Giamatti. I have a BIG issue with how everything else in MLB transpired (such as those playoff games most of us watched) as the clowns crowed about NOTHING but Pete Rose. it's not a "conspiracy" to stick up for Rose in any way as I believe the game footage, the quotes, secret gambling ump probation, and the Dykstra thing clearly speak for themselves. Ever wonder why the 1989 Ump wrist-slap by Vincent remained a secret even after the Tony Tarasco non-catch? Or how in the hell that same ump subsequently became a supervisor, of all things? I do, and believe there are some people who need to be on the outside and kept under a rock -- most preferrably muted (for a change) -- just as much as Rose does.
I harp on this because I know that the same two clowns will come from under their rocks to crow about how they kept baseball "clean" of all MLBer gambling because of their handling of the Rose situation. While there's no concrete proof that any gambling went on, can anyone honestly watch those plays again and not at least wonder? Wasn't that supposed to be the whole point, after all, not to wonder about the integrity of a play?
Last edited:
Everything, JMO. Look at Vincent pushing the HoF ineligible rule for Rose exclusively while he/they obviously weren't concerned about the other gambling issues within MLB. (That's the issue I take much exception to.) Vincent (and his successor went along) made it strictly personal while neglecting MLB's other issues as he always had "Rose" to crow about while sweeping everything else under the rug. I believe this is why I'm not alone in thinking the HoF should have remained independent regarding their policies (pre-Vincent-influenced 1991), thus it should be reversed now that there is an objective Commissioner in place. Also, Shoeless Joe (and any other banned player) were HoF eligible until Vincent pushed the Hall to make that decision in 1991 yet I still see him always brought up whenever Rose is. People seem to forget about Vincent and his overly biased role in all this, and how it has created the HoF debates in the first place. *Nobody is disputing that Rose should not be permitted to participate in MLB, itself, again.
If Rose had been on the ballot and writers simply didn't vote for him (a la Big Mac, and Shoeless Joe pre-1991), nobody would be bringing up Rose & the HoF today. They'd have long ago accepted it, just as they have Big Mac & the others in his group, perhaps (I'd bet) much more. Sure we'd still see some whining about the voting, who should be in and why ... but we see that each year anyways, regardless of how they vote, LOL.
This is just my perspective and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to voice it here with fans who I considder to be among the most open-minded in all of sports (which is why I even joined a Sox forum when they're not even my team. :>) There is a Boston Glove columnist whom I respect a ton; I believe he reflects the fanbase and vice-versa. Anyways, thanks for putting up with my long-windedness in trying to convey everything I hope to.
Last edited:
That's fine. I guess I was referring to all the stuff about playoffs, Lenny Dykstra, the two umps, etc. None of that seemed remotely connected to anything to do with Rose.
Truth be told, it reminded me of the old political ads Lyndon LaRouche used to air that would show diagrams of world conquest and after watching it you would just have a blank look on your face and think ... what?
Truth be told, it reminded me of the old political ads Lyndon LaRouche used to air that would show diagrams of world conquest and after watching it you would just have a blank look on your face and think ... what?
I hear you. I posted all that background (as most fans can remember how they reacted when watching those plays; forget about how the HoF "ineligible rule" came to be; people outside Philly not aware of Dykstra story...) to try to illustrate just how slanted Vincent (& Co.) really were; how he & others probably did more harm to baseball than anyone, propping the Rose "example" up all that time while the other issues weren't even a concern to them.
This thread/First World "problem" have certainly been a nice escape from regular stresses & bad news! :>)
Last edited:
MLB can't ban Rose from working for a broadcaster, but his ban from baseball does preclude him from being on the field in his role as a TV analyst. Rose could not, for example, do Ken Rosenthal's job. I noticed at this year's World Series that while all the other broadcasters watched BP from the field and were able to interact with players and coaches, Rose watched alone from the pregame set beyond the outfield wall.
Objective commissioner? There has never ever been an "objective" commissioner, nor will there ever be. And for the ultimate in hypocrisy, that's sure to come when Bud Collusion Selig makes the HOF while Pete Rose still does not. And for the irony of it, even Fay Vincent understands that collusion was a far greater wrong than anything that Pete Rose ever did. Now to round it out, consider the Chicago Black Sox once again. 1919. For how little your average idiotic Joe, the vast majority of our humanity, grasps about life and history:
After the 1918 season, owners released all their players – terminating the non-guaranteed contracts, with a "gentleman's agreement" not to sign each other's players, as a means of forcing down player salaries.
So some get banned for life. Some others get elected commissioner and if word on the street means anything, a bust and a plaque at Cooperstown. Same as it ever was.