Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose
And if the HoF had not made that rule how many writers do you think would vote for him? More then 5%?
It doesn't really matter whether Rose was wrong or not, that was not the point of the discussion. The point being debated is whether or not Rose agreed to be banned from the HoF. He did not.
OSHA-certified Moderator
No, but since when does the guilty party have say in his punishment?
Tom Tresh George Kell Mark Fidrych Bob Feller
Ernie Harwell Soupy Sales Alex Chilton Sparky Anderson
Joe Nuxhall Gary Carter MCA Emanuel Steward
Sonny Elliot Dave Brubeck Earl Weaver Stan Musial
Jonathan Winters.
When the person wasn't found guilty, and yes guilty parites do have a say in their punishment.
Again though that is not the point. The point wasn't what the HoF did was right or not. But whether or not Pete Rose agreed to be banned from the hall. He never even talked to the hall, there was no meeting there was no agreement. To say Pete Rose agreed to be banned from the hall is a complete fabrication.
OSHA-certified Moderator
One kind of goes hand in hand with the other-banned from baseball, banned from the Hall of Fame. if all you're arguing about is some people said he agreed to that ban, then this discussion isn't worth continuing.
Tom Tresh George Kell Mark Fidrych Bob Feller
Ernie Harwell Soupy Sales Alex Chilton Sparky Anderson
Joe Nuxhall Gary Carter MCA Emanuel Steward
Sonny Elliot Dave Brubeck Earl Weaver Stan Musial
Jonathan Winters.
Registered User
if i had a vote, yes he is in. gambling on baseball is a horrible thing but want he did during his career, like him or not, deserves recogniztion
Registered User
Illogical. Rose knew what the consequences of gambling on baseball were, and he knew what the consequences of being banned from baseball would be in regards to the HOF.
Perhaps he fantasized that the HOF would grant him an exception, but that's a HUGE stretch when the parallel case of Shoeless Joe has been out there for decades.
Last edited by moviegeekjan; 08-22-2005 at 11:11 PM.
Navy Sailor & P.Rose Fan
Rose should and will get in, he deserves it more than anyone that is playing right now
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America is ruled by it like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come. -James Earl Jones as Terence Mann in Field Of Dreams
Sailors Creed
11 General Orders of Sentry
B.Robinson v. Brett #5
One thing that has always amazed me about Pete Rose's case for the HOF is that there are a handfull of fans, voters, and media types that claim they would still vote for Pete Rose to get into the HOF if they could because as a player, he undoubtedly deserved it and more so that he only gambled as a MANAGER. I believe Pete Rose himself is currently on record as saying that he ONLY gambled on baseball while he was a manager NOT as a player.
So this is what amazes me. It is never brought up to these people that, according to the Dowd Report, Rose gambled on baseball in the years 1985 - 1987. Yes, indeed Pete Rose was the Manager of the Reds those season however, he was also a player on the roster for the Reds in 1985 and 1986 and accumulated close to 200AB during those years.
So, if you believe the Dowd report, I think it's inaccurate to say that Rose didn't gamble as a player. The years clearly overlap.
Has anyone on this board ever looked at that more closely?
Registered User
I can think of at least Bonds and Clemens off the top of my head that deserve it more than Rose, and I bet there are as many as 10 others I'd put in ahead of Rose even basing it strictly on on-field performance.
Navy Sailor & P.Rose Fan
Bonds is a dirty cheater, if you let him in thats ruining the intergrty of the game
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America is ruled by it like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come. -James Earl Jones as Terence Mann in Field Of Dreams
Sailors Creed
11 General Orders of Sentry
Registered User
Funny that Bonds has never been tested positive for steroids yet you are calling him a "dirty cheater", whereas Rose has admittedly gambled before yet he isn't a "dirty cheater"? Sounds like a hell of a moral double-standard you have going there. Placing Rose in the HOF would damage its integrity far more than placing Bonds in there, provided that Bonds never tests positive for steroids.
Registered User
He should be in. He's a jerk but he still should be in. Baseball ought to put him in there but without the fanfare and ceremony reserved for all other inductees. No speach, no hob knobbing with other HOF'ers, etc. But he should be in there.
"Clemente would've had that" --- My DAD
Registered User
NO!
Navy Sailor & P.Rose Fan
one thing is, he sure is healthy to play now, but won't because he is letting all the roids leave his system, no one goes from hitting 15 HR a year to hitting 50 a year, everyone ends up sucking as their career comes to a close cept for pitchers, but hitters, man Aaron started sucking as he got older, willie mays, babe ruth, mickey mantel, and bonds just keeps doing better, not from hard work, but steroids
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America is ruled by it like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come. -James Earl Jones as Terence Mann in Field Of Dreams
Sailors Creed
11 General Orders of Sentry
Registered User
So, you've seen his test results?
Or this is mere idle speculation?
Registered User
LOL Bonds went from 15 HR to 50? Last I checked, Bonds averaged well over 30 HR per season during the '90s with multiple 40 HR seasons. At least get your numbers right if you are going to make a ludicrous argument. Bonds was a 1st ballot HOFer before the 2000s, they just made him a top 5 all-time player.
And Aaron sucked when he got older? The same Hank Aaron that had 40 HR at age 39 and a career high 47 HR at age 37? Or is there a different Hank Aaron?
Baseball Is Life
The Hall of Fame does NOT judge players on their morals, it celebrates their accomplishments. If morals were involved, there'd be very few players enshrined in Cooperstown. As a player, yes, Pete should be there. Are all these home run hitting cheaters who were juiced on steroids going be inducted? To me that is much worse than gambling.
Navy Sailor & P.Rose Fan
anyone that votes for cheaters, McGwire, Sosa, Palmerio, Bonds, should first put Rose in, cheating with steriods is worse than betting
The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America is ruled by it like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time. This field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and that could be again. Oh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come. -James Earl Jones as Terence Mann in Field Of Dreams
Sailors Creed
11 General Orders of Sentry
World Champs Moderator
Sorry, anyone who says this should rethink their position. Perhaps if you took off your "Rose" colored glasses you'd see this better. As I've said more than once, Pete put MLB in danger of being the WWE. Palmeiro didn't come close to doing that. Now how is that worse???
KH14
“Well, I like to say I’m completely focused, right? I mean, the game’s on the line. It’s not like I’m thinking about what does barbecue Pop Chips and Cholula taste like. Because I already know that answer — it tastes friggin’ awesome!"--Brian Wilson
Registered User
So you have McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds' test results? Where do you obtain this special knowledge of their positive tests? There is much more evidence supporting Rose cheating than evidence supporting the other guys cheating.
And think about this, if those players cheated, they were helping their teams win more, whereas Rose's gambling could have caused his team to lose more, if he was gambling on the opponents.
Registered User
Totally illogical argument, coming after bogus accusations.
Every baseball player knows that gambling on the game is the one unpardonable sin, and every player is fully aware of the consequences of being caught.
MLB was slow on the draw on the steroids issue, largely because weight training and the whole culture that goes with it didn't become such a big thing in baseball until the 1990's. McGwire and Sosa readily admitted that they used creatine (while McGwire also acknowledged using Andro), but these were not banned by baseball at that time... in fact, a number of teams provided free creatine in their clubhouses. The clubs themselves encourage players to improve their performance, yet see if you can find just one club that encourages its players to break the gambling rule.
Of the people you named, only Palmeiro has tested positive for using a substance banned by baseball. All the others are nothing but unproved speculation.
On the other hand, Rose has signed a document that acknowledges that he violated the gambling rule and agreed to the lifetime suspension.
Last edited by moviegeekjan; 08-29-2005 at 09:00 AM.
Pedrophile/Food Metaphor
I know that we are all innocent until proven guilty, but do YOU believe that these guys are/have been clean?
A voter's opinion is all the evidence he needs, they are VOTERS, not jurors. A Vote is nothing but an opinion. If somebody wants to vote for Sosa or Big Mac (bonds goes anyway) that's their right and I respect that. However if somebody doesn't want to vote for those guys, they don't need to produce a positve steroid test to justify it. Some may not think its fair, but that's the way it is...
Registered User
If they want to not vote for a player on the grounds of steroid use, then they should have test result evidence. Otherwise, I believe they are abusing their power to assume steroid use when there is no proof of it.
And as far as do I think the guys are clean. No I don't think Sosa and Bonds are clean. But I believe McGwire used legal (at the time) andro for his muscle-gaining routine. He was always a big guy and hit 49 HR as a rookie so his power shouldn't come as a surprise. But even so, without positive tests it is all speculation anyway. In the case of Rose, to get back on topic, there is actually concrete admission of his wrongdoing, so it is fair to criticize and punish him for it. And like I said previously, Rose's transgressions could have negative impact on his team's ability to win if he tanks it to win a bet. Steroid users are actually helping their team win by enhancing their performance. So that would make gambling seem far worse than steroid use, and especially mere speculated steroid use.
Baseball Is Life
Hmm. Players who were on steriods helping their team to win more games. Well. That logic could be used to justify just about any kind of cheating in any business category, couldn't it?
Steroids, gambling. It's all cheating. One external, one internal. All bad, all unhealthy. Rose got caught, Palmeiro got caught. Is Rose the only contemporary player who ever gambled on baseball? I doubt it. Are the current big-name players the only ones who took steroids? I doubt it. Again, the Hall of Fame is not a moral compass, though we'd all like to think it always represents baseball's best and brightest. If that were the case, Ty Cobb (for one) would never be there. In Rose's case, (if I'm not mistaken) his feats as a player had nothing to do with his gambling as a manager. Should his gambling as a manager preclude his accomplishments as a player? Steroid use, given the logic above, may give a player and his team an extra win to make it into the playoffs ahead of another team that had no users. Bottom line is, it's all cheating, and it's all bad.
Outta Here
>>>
The Rose/Jackson comparison confuses sometimes, as banned players (including Joe) weren't actually ineligible for the HOF until 1991. And Joe passed away back in the '50s (wouldn't they have considered him posthumously)??
Aside from enough voters, themselves, just not voting for Joe (and some still did), was there ever some other (perhaps "quiet") official rule actually forbidding any banned player's induction - until 1991?
I'm not knocking Joe. Just strange that anyone (including Joe Jackson) could have been voted in prior to 1991/Rose. And these two are are always compared as players in these debates.
I talk to so many people who say "Well. Rose gave up the HOF when he signed that agreement with Giamatti in 1989".
The HOF rule didn't even exist then.
Last edited by FrenchyLefebvre; 08-30-2005 at 05:01 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks