Although I can't see him being out of the top 20 even though he only hit for an average of .303 in his lifetime.

He was a great player and deserves to be in the hall of fame as a player.

 

I think he WOULD be in the hall of fame if he hadn't lied and acted like an arrogant jerk all these years. A little remorse would have gone a long way.

Is there a sign in every major league locker room saying that if you do these things that you will be banned from baseball? Didn't think so. So this is not relevant.

 

I'm sorry,but have to disagree.Don't need a sign posted for vaseline,pine tar and other foreign substances of illegally used,as players already know this,but still some will go ahead and do it anyway.So I find this very relevant.

 

Again I'm sorry to disagree,as you are one of my favorite posters on here and a very good role model as well.So please forgive me.

I'm sorry,but have to disagree.Don't need a sign posted for vaseline,pine tar and other foreign substances of illegally used,as players already know this,but still some will go ahead and do it anyway.So I find this very relevant.

 

Again I'm sorry to disagree,as you are one of my favorite posters on here and a very good role model as well.So please forgive me.

 

The point is that the consequences as SET BY BASEBALL for doing those things is not a banning for life. What did Sammy get for the doctored bat, a few games of suspension and ridicule? That is what the rules state. BAseball followed the rules for those things.

 

The consequences for betting on baseball, not eligibility for HOF. That is what the rule states. Baseball is following the rules the same way they follow the rules for the things you mention.

 

Now you might feel that their rules for those things should be stricter and I can see your point.

 

But that is not the argument. Baseball rules for doing those things is not a banning from baseball with possibility of reinstatement.

 

For gambling, it is. That rule was not changed after the fact for Peter Edward. He knew it. And he ignored it.

I never liked Pete Rose as a player, as a coach, or as a human being - but he has the numbers necessary to be in the Hall of Fame and he belongs there. Unless there is some evidence that Rose bet against his team as a player, I see no reason for keeping him out of the HOF. I see many reasons for keeping the guys out who have been caught cheating through steroid use.

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

 

Make no mistake, Rose committed a serious rules violation. Every ball player is aware that gambling on a professional baseball game is a no-no. But, if as evidence suggests, he bet on HIS team, always, then that is not quite the same as intentionally throwing a game, or the most serious case, a WORLD SERIES! Those are the absolute cardinal sins, and should carry a permanent ban from the game. Rose's case is somewhat less serious, and IMO, should carry somewhat of a less penalty.

 

 

The Commisioner's office hasn't exactly been knocking down my door asking for my suggestions, but if they did, I would suggest that 20 years is a long time to be out of the game he loves, but it seems a reasonable amount of time considering what he did.

 

 

I would then suggest they immediately re-instate Rose's elgibility with a life-time probation. One more misstep of any kind and you're gone for life, and forever, including the HOF!

I don't understand the mindset of today's society that a lifetime ban equals 20 years. Especially since there was no sign of good behavior for most of the 20 years.

 

I guess Bud should get on tv and say, I know we said lifetime but we really didn't mean lifetime. So, all you players out there today, if we say lifetime, we don't really mean lifetime but rather it will be dependent on how good of player you were. Babe Ruth type numbers earn you 10-15 years. Mickey Mantle type numbers 15-20 years. And if you have Frank Pastore numbers well that is actually worth two lifetimes.

Im not saying that serious character issues and other factors such as steroid use, should not be factors. However, they are not great examples in this case.

 

If 1 player was caught using steroids, it would not be devastating to baseball. If 1 player was caught using cocaine or even convicted of murder, it would not be devastating to baseball. But, if one player, manager, gm, etc., was caught gambling on a game their team was involved in.........

 

It would take several years, if not decades for baseball to recover. As far as the world of baseball is concerned, gambling rules are more serious than any others.

 

Before I receive a 100 posts telling me that Rose was not caught betting Reds games, the purpose of this post is to seperate the gambling arguement from other issues involving baseball.

 

 

 

You make some credible points here, but consider:

 

 

Rose's betting on his team to win amounted to him breaking a rule.

 

 

The steriod users simply were CHEATERS!

 

 

They did illegal (and possibly harmful) acts in order to gain an unfair advantage over the competetion. Kinda like the banker in Monopoly slipping himself a few hundred extra dollars when no one looks. Gives himself a better chance to win by breaking rules.

 

 

In no way, shape, form, or fashion, did Rose gain an unfair advantage by his gambling.

 

 

I have heard the argument that the games he gambled on were "tainted", but I submit to you that games that players like Bonds, McGuire, and Clemmons participated in (if they were guilty, would be hard for most anyone at this point to think they are innocent), were, if not to a point fixed, then they were at least seriously compromised!

 

 

And, I will also suggest that Rose's transgressions did far less harm to the game than the strike of '94.

Im not saying that serious character issues and other factors such as steroid use, should not be factors. However, they are not great examples in this case.

 

If 1 player was caught using steroids, it would not be devastating to baseball. If 1 player was caught using cocaine or even convicted of murder, it would not be devastating to baseball. But, if one player, manager, gm, etc., was caught gambling on a game their team was involved in.........

 

It would take several years, if not decades for baseball to recover. As far as the world of baseball is concerned, gambling rules are more serious than any others.

 

Before I receive a 100 posts telling me that Rose was not caught betting Reds games, the purpose of this post is to seperate the gambling arguement from other issues involving baseball.

 

 

 

You make some credible points here, but consider:

 

 

Rose's betting on his team to win amounted to him breaking a rule.

 

 

The steriod users simply were CHEATERS!

 

 

They did illegal (and possibly harmful) acts in order to gain an unfair advantage over the competetion. Kinda like the banker in Monopoly slipping himself a few hundred extra dollars when no one looks. Gives himself a better chance to win by breaking rules.

 

 

In no way, shape, form, or fashion, did Rose gain an unfair advantage by his gambling.

 

 

I have heard the argument that the games he gambled on were "tainted", but I submit to you that games that players like Bonds, McGuire, and Clemmons participated in (if they were guilty, would be hard for most anyone at this point to think they are innocent), were, if not to a point fixed, then they were at least seriously compromised!

 

 

And, I will also suggest that Rose's transgressions did far less harm to the game than the strike of '94.

 

 

All might or might not be true, but one thing remains. Rose knew the rules and chose to broke them fully knowing the consequences of his gambling.

 

Based on the agreement he signed, he should have come out and remorsely said, I knew the rules and I was stupid to break them. I deserve my punishment and if baseball ever sees it fit to have mercy on me and allow me back in, than I would humbly be honored for it and protect that with my ever fiber of being.

 

He has not been banned for 20 years in his mind and I would say baseball's. He was unfairly singled out for something he did not do except for only the few years since his book came out.

I don't understand the mindset of today's society that a lifetime ban equals 20 years. Especially since there was no sign of good behavior for most of the 20 years.

 

I guess Bud should get on tv and say, I know we said lifetime but we really didn't mean lifetime. So, all you players out there today, if we say lifetime, we don't really mean lifetime but rather it will be dependent on how good of player you were. Babe Ruth type numbers earn you 10-15 years. Mickey Mantle type numbers 15-20 years. And if you have Frank Pastore numbers well that is actually worth two lifetimes.

 

 

What Bud SHOULD do on TV is admit the truth.

 

 

"I believe that Pete Rose was at least a contributing factor in the death of a very dear friend of mine. Although I know it was not intentional, I cannot, in good conscience, make an impartial ruling on Pete Rose and his application for re-instatement.

 

 

Remember Rose was never BANNED from baseball. He has applied for reinstatement at least twice. What are the criteria for re-instatement??

 

New grounds here, on one has ever gone there before.

 

Good behavior?? Well, Pete COULD have done a lot better, admittedly.

 

Remorse???? He has shown remorse, but he should have done so years earlier.

 

 

Time served?????? Once again, IMO 20 years served is pretty severe. It is not a lifetime sentence, but once again, we are talking about possible re-instatement. If this were an out-and -out ban, there would be not talk about this.

[

 

 

You make some credible points here, but consider:

 

 

Rose's betting on his team to win amounted to him breaking a rule.

 

 

The steriod users simply were CHEATERS!

 

 

They did illegal (and possibly harmful) acts in order to gain an unfair advantage over the competetion. Kinda like the banker in Monopoly slipping himself a few hundred extra dollars when no one looks. Gives himself a better chance to win by breaking rules.

 

 

In no way, shape, form, or fashion, did Rose gain an unfair advantage by his gambling.

 

 

I have heard the argument that the games he gambled on were "tainted", but I submit to you that games that players like Bonds, McGuire, and Clemmons participated in (if they were guilty, would be hard for most anyone at this point to think they are innocent), were, if not to a point fixed, then they were at least seriously compromised!

 

 

And, I will also suggest that Rose's transgressions did far less harm to the game than the strike of '94.

 

I agree with you in many aspects here. The major point of my post was to try and get some posters to view it from the eyes of baseball executives. If it becomes known by the public that someone may be fixing games, it becomes a disaster. Im not accusing Rose of this, just trying to draw a picture of the ice he was at least skating on.

 

By the way, totally agree with the last paragraph. I didnt watch a game for almost a decade afterward. and still watch very few today.

I still do not watch Professional baseball becasue they cancelled a World Series. Still agrivates me to this day.

 

The NBA seems to have recovered rather quickly from a gambling scandle.

 

"when did 20 years become a lifetime?" - Murdering Criminals get out in less time than Charlie Hustle.

 

When was that punishment fro gambling changed to state that if caught, you would be inelgible for the HOF?

Pete Rose Needs to be in the Hall Of Fame period.:madman:

I still do not watch Professional baseball becasue they cancelled a World Series. Still agrivates me to this day.

 

The NBA seems to have recovered rather quickly from a gambling scandle.

 

"when did 20 years become a lifetime?" - Murdering Criminals get out in less time than Charlie Hustle.

 

When was that punishment fro gambling changed to state that if caught, you would be inelgible for the HOF?

 

 

 

Feb. 4, 1991, the year before Rose would have been on the ballot. I still find that to be amazing. Understand, MLB has nothing to do with HOF voting. This rule was made by the Baseball Writers Association of America, the writers who do the actual voting. I find it amazing because no one was more accessible to the media than Pete Rose was; he thrived in the spotlight, and at the same time, made these writers' jobs a whole lot easier. I thought they would be the last people to turn on him, no matter what he did.

I agree with you in many aspects here. The major point of my post was to try and get some posters to view it from the eyes of baseball executives. If it becomes known by the public that someone may be fixing games, it becomes a disaster. Im not accusing Rose of this, just trying to draw a picture of the ice he was at least skating on.

 

By the way, totally agree with the last paragraph. I didnt watch a game for almost a decade afterward. and still watch very few today.

 

 

 

You know, I talk to people all the time that tell me they refuse to watch MBL BECAUSE OF the strike and cancellation of the 1994 World Series, which happened over 14 years ago. While some of the larger markets have finally seen attendance improve, Television ratings, which is the bread and butter of most teams, have tanked and go down year after year.

 

 

I have never heard a single person say they quit going to games or watching them on TV because of Pete Rose.

So what is this sign that is supposedly posted in clubhouses that Pete new he would not go in the HOF for gambling on baseball? He retired in 86, bet on baseball from 85 to 87. Received his ban from bart in 89. THen a change in 91 is what is keeping him out of the HOF?

 

If he was banned from baseball in 89, then how would he have seen the signs in the clubhouse in 91?

 

Just trying to figure it all out.

 

Spoiled little brats, I still will not watch MLB!

 

CHARLIE HUSTLE - HALL OF FAME!