Pete Rose Resinstatement

11,754 Views | 82 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by DannyDuberstein
Aggieangler93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ban all the cheaters. Aroid....Rose...all of em!!!!!

I hate the black eye they all add to the game. The only thing I hate worse, is MLB.com retweeting the Aroid tweets about his supposedly breaking records. I don't care anything about any records he "breaks". I bet he could break them with an aluminum bat too. Maybe, if he paints it brown, it would be considered not really cheating.

Then he could get roided up, hit the aluminum bat, and break every hitting record out there. He would have so many fans.....

GEEZ.....He was actually convicted of cheating, but you are going to tout his awesomeness a year later??? May as well all go on strike again, and see how that goes, for the sport!!!
Class of '93 - proud Dad of a '22 grad and a '26 student!
njohn87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LawHall88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
docb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pete Rose should be in the HOF hands down.
Ag_07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Nope.

He agreed to a lifetime in ban in exchange for MLB dropping the investigation and not making any formal findings.
docb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ag_07 said:

Nope.

He agreed to a lifetime in ban in exchange for MLB dropping the investigation and not making any formal findings.
I agree what he did was wrong but it did not have anything to do with the numbers he put up as a player. This is unlike a Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens deal. Pete Rose was one of the best hitters the game has ever seen and it is ashamed not to have him in there. But I guess it really doesn't matter. In or not he is still one of the best and better than a lot of players in the HOF.
Ag_07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're right...This is completely different than a Bonds or Clemens situation. Those guys never agreed to a ban. They're just being blackballed.

Rose agreed to the ban so MLB would stop the investigation and he would avoid further implications charges etc.

You can't agree to a punishment then years later bang the door that you wanna reneg on the deal.

Rose is an all time great baseball player and all time POS human being and the game is better the further away he is from it.
docb
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Actually there are several POS human beings in the HOF.
Ag_07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah I know...That's just my own take.

If he would not have agreed on the ban I'd probably be OK with him being in but again it's the renegging of the agreed on punishment that doesn't fly with me.
AgRyan04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's EXACTLY my take as well
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From 86-89, he denied betting on baseball repeatedly and called everyone who said he did a criminal.

The Dodd report shows he gambled 30 days in a row on games at one point in 1986, including games he played in while the Reds' player-manager.

Only when he was presented the full breadth of the evidence they had gathered on him - the way he was so flippant about the gambling, how he would say baseball couldn't do anything about it, and even times when he said he would consider throwing a game if the odds were right - then he took the ban.

If he hadn't gotten banned and the report had been disseminated and reported in the media, even back in the 80s/90s before the Internet, it would have ensured he never made the Hall of Fame anyways because the media would have turned on him.

Maybe he'd get in 25 years after he died with the vet committee, but they'd never let him speak at Cooperstown.
Feels so good, feelin' good again.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He has still never admitted to betting on the game as a player, which he 100% did. He only admitted to betting as a manager to sell his book, which oh btw he released on the day they were announcing the newest inductees at the time.

Regardless, I am 100% with Rob Manfred on this -> he should remain on the MLB ineligible list until he's in the ground as he should never be part of the actual game again, but whether he should be put into a museum is an entirely different debate and not MLB's decision. The Hall probably should have just let voters decide vs implementing the "can't induct ineligible list guys" rule copout. But either way, whether he goes into a museum shouldn't be MLB's responsibility to decide. But he's rightfully banned from the game itself.
DannyDuberstein
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Btw, that was a great 4 part series that I highly recommend. It also illustrates how the guy is constantly his own worst enemy. Been that way for 35 years and will be that way til he croaks.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.