Manfred to consider Pete Rose reinstatement

quote:

---

Representatives for former Cincinnati Reds legend Pete Rose have asked Manfred to lift Rose's lifetime ban, according to Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com. Manfred is willing to consider the request, saying, "I'm prepared to deal with that request on its merits."

---

Ehh...The guy agreed to the ban to avoid any formal allegations so I'm not inclined to reinstate. Just thought it was interesting seeing as Selig wouldn't even consider it.

lifetime ban = lifetime
lifetime does not equal 25 years
baseball is spineless enough without letting a shmuck who bet on his own team and wouldn't admit it for 15 years back into the game, and only did admit it to sell his book.

quote:

---

on its merits

---

So basically he won't be reinstated.

Rose and Bonds should go in together to start a HOF that is willing to include steroid users and people who have been disgraced in some fashion like Rose.

it's long past time to end Rose's banishment. 30 years is enough.

especially in light of all the bad things, cheating, etc.., that has taken place in the game since 1985

^
|
|
This

Id be in favor of him going in as a player. On his plaque document his actions as manager including his suspension and the reasoning behind it.

I'm in favor of Pete Rose getting in to the HOF only after he's dead. The guy broke the cardinal rule of baseball, he was an arrogant ass about it, he denied it for years, and even when he came clean didn't show any remorse. He does not deserve a moment in the sun, let him go to the grave still banned from baseball.

That said, he's one of the best players ever, and needs to be in the HOF

quote:

---

Bonds and all the steroid users are a black eye for the game.

But they should not be mentioned in the same conversation as a guy like Pete Rose.

Pete brought into question the integrity of the game. If you're not sure if one of the teams on the field is actually trying to win (or actually pursuing a loss), then the game becomes no better than "professional" wrestling.

---

The integrity of the game is lost.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/01/bloodsport-excerpt-alex-rodriguez-new-york-yankees-steroids

quote:

---

What hasn't been reported until now is that Rodriguez won that MVP with permission from Major League Baseball to use performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). From his junior year of high school there had been suspicions -- and, in the case of his 2003 MVP season, proof by way of a failed steroid test that came to light six years later -- that Rodriguez used PEDs.

---

Chris Davis has an exemption for Adderall.

2013: .286/53HRs <- Had exemption for Adderall.
2014: .196/26HRs <- Forgot to get exemption. Was suspended when he tested positive.

113 players had exemptions in 2014

http://www.telegram.com/article/20141201/NEWS/312019562&Template=printart
.

quote:

---

NEW YORK While 113 big-leaguers had exemptions in the past year to use otherwise banned substances to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Adderall caused eight of
the 10 positive tests for stimulants under Major League Baseball's drug program.

---

So in 2014... each team had almost 4 players with exemptions.

Do you think that threatens the integrity? Talk about Pro Wrestling. What if some teams have more...

Induct him as a player and not a manager if the gambling is such a big deal.

I will be interested to see what Josh Hamilton gets as his penalty. Gambling is an addiction, granted the ramifications are not as dangerous as substance abuse. I can see Pete Rose making a case where he again states his gambling addiction was the source of the problem and - look at Hamilton he didn't get a lifetime suspension for drug abuse and his addiction...

If you claim this - aren't you questioning the integrity of the 25 men on the field as well? How much does a manager truly impact the game? He wasn't intentionally running Charlie Brown on the mound.

Hell no. **** Pete Rose. That cheating *******.

quote:

---

The integrity of the game is lost.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/01/bloodsport-excerpt-alex-rodriguez-new-york-yankees-steroids

---

Again , steroids are certainly a black eye, but there's no one out there questioning if a player or team is really trying to win -- the use of steroids only supports the fact that they are trying to win more.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The integrity of the game is lost.

http://www.si.com/mlb/2014/07/01/bloodsport-excerpt-alex-rodriguez-new-york-yankees-steroids

---

Again , steroids are certainly a black eye, but there's no one out there questioning if a player or team is really trying to win -- the use of steroids only supports the fact that they are trying to win more.

---

PEDs give a person an advantage. It is cheating. For MLB to sanction and selectively decide who gets to cheat and who doesn't determines the outcome of games. Let's just use random letters for teams... if say Team NY gets 12 players an exemption for PEDs and nobody knows it but the team\players and their friends... And a player on another team doesn't get an exemption... the league has artificially skewed the team's ability to win.

Would it be fair to move the fences in 20' for some players when they hit and out 10' for certain other players? Everyone should be constrained to the same field of play.

You shouldn't allow some players to cheat because they want to win, while restraining others who want to win equally.

quote:

---

If you claim this - aren't you questioning the integrity of the 25 men on the field as well? How much does a manager truly impact the game? He wasn't intentionally running Charlie Brown on the mound.

---

Some things are within the control of coach.

Deciding make a pitching change... for example.

I don't recall, but was Rose ever found to bet on his own team? If so, was it against his team?

Back in those days, coaches were much less active with the bullpen.

I've never heard anyone suggest Pete Rose ever took losing lightly. He was incredibly competitive. The guy bull rushed a Catcher in an AS game.

It would shock me more that he ever hurt his team because of gambling, than it would baseball umpires being on the take.

Believe he only bet on his team, and only bet on them to win.

Ignoring that if you even have to question whether he bet against or team or not that should be a big red flag the guy doesn't deserve to be anywhere around the game...

But just as a hypothetical...

Reds are a game back in the division with 4 games left -- the last 3 against the team they trail in the division.

Before that last series starts, they have one more game against a bottom of the barrel division opponent. Pete bets $5000 on the Reds they win the game.

Reds find themselves down 8-2 in the 6th inning with the starter exiting the game.

The strategic thing to do? Save your marquee bullpen arms for the final series of the season, as the chances of you winning down 6 runs in the 6th is very slim.

But Pete has $5000 on the Reds to win.

You think there's not a conflict there?

He has created an extra personal financial incentive to win one specific game, possibly at the detriment of the season as a whole.

How anyone can think creating situation like this is not worth of a lifetime ban -- something Pete himself actually agreed to -- I can't understand.

quote:

---

Reds find themselves down 8-2 in the 6th inning with the starter exiting the game.

The strategic thing to do? Save your marquee bullpen arms for the final series of the season, as the chances of you winning down 6 runs in the 6th is very slim.

But Pete has $5000 on the Reds to win.

You think there's not a conflict there?

---

Wait... so you are arguing a coach shouldn't do everything to win? I'm confused. In your scenario Pete is doing everything he can to win the game and you complain, yet a player getting MLB approval to take PEDs which other players are not allowed is justifiable because the player wants to do everything he can to win, to the detriment of his team?

In your scenario, the integrity of the game is still legit. You know going into that last series what players are available. If you decide to bet on a game, you know Pete has used that arm and it isn't available. When a player is cycling on steroids... or if he isn't given the exemption... you have no way of knowing.

I had Chris Davis on a keeper league from 2013 to 2014. Had I known he didn't get his exemption, I wouldn't have kept him.

Do you think it is legit that A-Rod was able to keep taking PEDs during his MVP season, when other players were not? Did that give him an advantage over others with a payout available if they won. Did the Yanks not have an advantage? Who else on that team was juicing? Giambi? Jeter? Podada? Mussina? Clemens? Pettitt? Rivera?

So we know 4 of those players are confirmed juicers. Did MLB allow all of them? Were other teams allowed?

quote:

---

How anyone can think creating situation like this is not worth of a lifetime ban -- something Pete himself actually agreed to -- I can't understand.

---

Then Selig should be banned, along with a whole bunch of players.

I have more respect for someone like Canseco and Rose who took ownership of their actions... than someone like Clemens, A-Rod, Giambi (who is still coaching) et al, who have demonstrated they are willing to cheat and then deny any wrong doing when caught.

He fessed up. There was a an agreement... and no one has ever pointed to a situation where he affected the outcome of a game, or bet in a way that would question his commitment to winning.

what Rose did was very bad. But IMO a 30-year sentence is enough.

Pete manged the Reds from 1984-1989. Cincy did not make the playoffs in any of those years.

if you go back to those seasons...the 84 Tigers were going to win the WS regardless of what was going on in the National League. Same thing for the 89 Athletics.

from 1985 to 1988, the Mets dominated the NL along with the 85 & 87 Cardinals. Seems doubtful the any of Rose's tinkering significantly impacted the playoffs

on the flipside...the 1998 Astros (arguably the best team in franchise history) paid a huge price for the crimes of the steroid era. As they lost the 1998 NLDS to the mega, and I mean mega-roided Padres team that season

Rose made his bed. Stick with the ban. And I don't buy a word that comes out of that sleazeball's mouth. He's a lowlife.

And dallasag, a manager should do what it takes for his team to win its division and to win playoff series. In a 162 game season, that often means making trade-offs where short-term sacrifices are made to better your chance of the whole thing. And the flipside can absolutely be done where a manager can negatively impact his team overall chances to pursue a victory in one game.

quote:

---

And dallasag, a manager should do what it takes for his team to win its division and to win playoff series. In a 162 game season, that often means making trade-offs where short-term sacrifices are made to better your chance of the whole thing. And the flipside can absolutely be done where a manager can negatively impact his team overall chances to pursue a victory in one game.

---

I'm confused. Or being pedantic.

So we are saying it is ok for a coach to concede a loss in some circumstances, but not others.

And there is no specific allegation that Rose made a poor baseball decision for his personal gain, to the detriment of the team, right?

Just a hypothetical scenario where a coach may try to win a game that he should otherwise throw in the towel and give up?

You're being obtuse.

The rule he broke and the punishment for breaking it was (and is) posted in every clubhouse in baseball. It couldn't be more clear than 21d. There is no "unless it was on your team or unless your name is Pete Rose" at the end of it. He made his bed.

And the more I see from Manfred, the more I'm realizing it actually is possible to find a bigger dumbass than Selig to be MLB commissioner. Whodathunkit.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And dallasag, a manager should do what it takes for his team to win its division and to win playoff series. In a 162 game season, that often means making trade-offs where short-term sacrifices are made to better your chance of the whole thing. And the flipside can absolutely be done where a manager can negatively impact his team overall chances to pursue a victory in one game.

---

I'm confused. Or being pedantic.

So we are saying it is ok for a coach to concede a loss in some circumstances, but not others.

And there is no specific allegation that Rose made a poor baseball decision for his personal gain, to the detriment of the team, right?

Just a hypothetical scenario where a coach may try to win a game that he should otherwise throw in the towel and give up?

---

It is OK for a coach to concede a loss if it benefits the season as a whole. Happens every year in every sport.

It is not OK for a coach to concede a loss in a single game or a season to benefit his own personal finances from a sports wager.


Not a tough concept to grasp.

Dodgers should let Kershaw throw 150 a night and send him out every 4th day or sooner. More often than not, it would be their best chance to win that game ....until he ends up at Dr Andrews.

Two questions being asked, it seems.

First, reinstatement. I say "yes." MLB's credibility is basically nil when it comes to bad actors being allowed to participate (whether it's a lifetime ban or a single game suspension). And really, Pete Rose is not going to find a future in baseball anyway, other than the one he already has. He still does autographs, he still makes bank off his career. He probably gets more because of his notoriety. Reinstatement can become an act of indifference, whereas the ban has started to morph into an act of petulance.

Especially when it comes to the second question of HOF membership. There's a clear demarcation between the BBWAA and the MLB. If MLB reinstates him (or rather, unbans him), then he's basically out of the picture as far as the MLB is concerned. Maybe the Reds bring him back occasionally to honor the Big Red Machine, etc (and that should be their prerogative), but the league can pretty much ignore him.

Does he actually belong in the HOF? My personal opinion is yes, he is a key part of baseball history. I call BS on the sacrosanctity of the no gambling rule. Players, managers, administrators have all broken hard and fast "laws of the game" with blind eyes turned time and time again. There is no morality in baseball, and it's laughable that people should try to pretend there is, and worse, be the arbiters of that alleged morality.

Okay... TL; DR:
Step One: MLB lifts the ban quietly as possible
Step Two: MLB ignores Pete Rose for the rest of his life
Step Three: selected for HOF after he dies

Eh...MLB and the HOF can do whatever the hell they want. At this point, I really don't care one way or the other. That being said, there are guys that have done far worse than Rose, both within and outside of the game, that haven't been banned.