Thanks to the behind-the-scenes lobbying from some of the most influential Hall of Famers, commissioner Bud Selig is said to be seriously considering lifting Pete Rose’s lifetime suspension from baseball.
The tip-off that Selig may now be inclined to pardon baseball’s all-time hit king was Hank Aaron’s seemingly impromptu interview session with a small group of reporters in the lobby of the Otesaga Hotel on Saturday. In declaring for the first time that he would want an asterisk put on the achievements of any steroid cheats elected to the Hall of Fame, Aaron brought up Rose, who, in August of 1989, was given a lifetime ban for gambling on baseball, saying: “I would like to see Pete in. He belongs there.”
It is no secret that Selig considers Aaron one of his closest friends and values his opinions over perhaps all others. It was also learned by the Daily News that in a meeting of the Hall of Fame’s board of directors at the Otesaga later on Saturday, two of Rose’s former teammates on the board, vice chairman Joe Morgan and Frank Robinson, also expressed their hope that Selig would see fit to reinstate Rose.
...
If Selig does reinstate him, Rose then would become eligible for the Hall of Fame, but on the Veterans Committee ballot, as his 15 years on the Baseball Writers ballot expired during his time on the ineligible list. He would thus have to be elected by his peers, the 65 living members in the Hall of Fame, not all of whom agree with Aaron, Morgan and Robinson that Rose has done his time. It’s hard to say if he would get the necessary 75% for election. “I know there are still guys who feel strongly against him,” said one Hall of Famer, “and I don’t know if that would change even if Selig clears him.”
Good morning, Bud.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Has anyone asked Aaron's opinion about Rose allowing a steroid dealer to live with him?
Groundhog year on primer!
The "Shoeless Joe wuz innocent!" folks try to argue that one, too, saying that since he's dead, the lifetime ban is over, ignoring that he was also banned forever.
As a question, would people here be bothered if Rose was re-instated after his death? In that case, he'd no longer be able to benefit from the induction, and baseball would no longer risk further embarassment from either having to repeatedly defend their decision, or from Rose's actions.
Is this really the evidence we've got that Selig thinks that? Aaron speaks for Selig? I'm skeptical.
One has to remember that Selig isn't the only gatekeeper here. Any agreement will have to have Jane Forbes Clark on board.
As I've said before, I don't think that he will ever get 75% of support from people who have votes during his lifetime. And I highly doubt that he could have secured that from the BBWAA had he been eligible. Over 50%? Maybe. But 75% is a very tall order.
That's my take as well, but a lot of folks here think the writers would have long ago elected Pete had he been left on the ballot.
And I kind of don't care. I've changed my mind on this a few times over the year, but I'm starting to get cool with the idea of the Hall of Fame as-museum/historical society as opposed to honorary society, and I don't like the idea of whitewashing history. Maybe you do don't give him his big day on the podium like Rice and Henderson had yesterday, but not having his plaque up there bothers my sense of historical accuracy far more than having it up there would bother my sense of ethics. And obviously the plaque has to mention his bannination and the reasons for it.
I realize that reasonable people disagree on this point, of course.
A lot might be an overstatement, and the conditions under which most of them think he might have been elected have changed - the general consensus (among those who thought he might have been elected) was that it could have happened in the years immediately after the ban, where Rose still had a number of very vocal defenders who felt he had been railroaded or otherwise deceived.
Once he admitted that "Well, maybe I did bet on baseball, but I never bet on the Reds" he lost a big chunk of his support. Once he admitted that "Okay, maybe I did bet on the Reds" he lost almost all his remaining support. Basically, he had a window in the early 90s where it was unlikely, but possible. Nowadays, there's no chance in hell that the BBWAA would put him in, or even let him get close.
With respect to the VC? I have no idea, as I can't figure out how those guys vote on anything.
Writers don't like to say "forever". It totally kills the drama.
(That's an observation, not a criticism or rebuttal to Mahnken)
I would. The rule is a simple one and was in place LONG before Rose broke it.
bet on baseball = banned forever
This isn't some retroactive punishment, this is like getting a speeding ticket and being upset that you have to pay the fine. Hey Pete, you knew the rule, you broke the rule, now go the #### away. His actions since his initial banishment including going to Cooperstown every year to try to upstage the HoF inductions, his book release the day of Molitor and Eckersley's announcement, a prison term and 15 years worth of "Ididn'tdoitididn'tdoitididn'tdoitididn'tdoit...oh wait, yes I did" do not provide justification for mercy.
And what embarrassment of having to defend the decision? People are all up in arms that baseball isn't harsh enough on PED users this is something be proud of. "We have a rule designed to protect the integrity of the game and even one of our all time greats and a major record holder is being disciplined according to the rule."
Embarrassment was probably the wrong word. Annoyance was probably closer, in that they would no longer have to deal with the non-stop pro-Rose campaign, or him and his supporters showing up at the Hall of Fame inductions to shill whatever new merchandise he's signed, or the annual set of "Why isn't Rose in the Hall" articles or (as you basically cover) the "Why is Rose banned, when these PED cheats are still allowed to play" articles.
Plus, it'd allow them to slap a "Banned from baseball for his decision to gamble on the game" on his plaque.
To clarify, I'm also in favor of keeping him out, and not just because he was (rightly) banned for gambling, but also for his refusal to do anything to learn from or even admit his errors. To this day, he just honestly (hah!) doesn't seem to believe that there was anything wrong with his actions.
Then there's Rube Benton. He was permanently banned for guilty knowledge of game rigging -- including the Black Sox affair.
Reinstated (at least in part) for his help in figuring out what was going on with the game fixing rings. And in part because when you get right down to it, Landis had over-stepped the rules -- though nobody was going to call him on it (and there was a certain amount of controversy in his reinstatement)
I don't know anything about the Benton situation but to apply it to Rose I would ask what Rose has done to earn leniancy? This isn't a "he said/she said" we now have Rose confessing to it (though maybe he's lying now but wasn't lying the 15 years previously) and his actions since being banned haven't provided me with any reason to feel he is worthy of "parole."
Re: #17 Rose is in the Hall already with memorabilia displays. There were some items of his on display this weekend.
If Selig did that, I'd promise never to mention that he's starting to look like Skeletor again.
Seems likely she's already on board. At least she signed off on the old FAQ which said in part, "If and when he is re-instated
by Baseball, he then would automatically be a candidate for election,(were he to meet the other requirements for eligibility)."
She is of course free to change her mind, but nothing I've heard from her (a grand total of two interviews) makes me feel that's likely.
Only if Rose agrees to take Joe Morgan with him.
There's great reason to be confident that his gambling isn't under control.
A local sports radio guy up here used to live down in Vegas, and still has a lot of contacts in the city. He's said on several occasions that the Casinos love to bring in Rose for signings, since they know he'll take whatever earnings they pay him, and immediately head to the tables, slots, or sports book, and just keep gambling until it's all gone (plus whatever else he brought with him). He's basically paying them to sign autographs.
I announce tomorrow that Rose is conditionally reinstated. Conditions of that reinstatement:
On probation for 5 years, failure to meet these conditions for five years results in a permanent ban with no further appeal.
Absolutely no gambling, of any kind, no discussion of gambling except as an illness with clues on how to get help.
No appearances at a casino or any business associated in any way with gambling.
Required to attend Gamblers Anonymous, or something similiar, at least once every week, for the whole five years.
Allowed to come to baseball games, allowed to make appearances at games or other events sponsored by teams, but without pay for at least two years.
May not charge for autographs or public appearances within a mile of any baseball stadium, major or minor, or the HOF.
After two years may, based on the extent of his public renouncing of gambling in all its forms, request the commissioner for permission to be employed within baseball.
If he takes employment with a baseball team part of that employment is that he is only allowed to make public appearances on behalf of that team, or MLB, and that he cannot make any other public appearances, nor may he charge for autographs while in the employ of any entity involved with baseball.
At any public appearance he makes he will sign autographs for free.
He will work with MLB at no charge to provide autographed memorabilia to be sold for charity, the quantity of this memorabilia to be based on the maximum amount he sold over the previous five years.
Rose was a pretty decent manager by the way.
I will make a friendly wager to the contrary.
If you can't trust him as a coach or a manager, in what possible way does it make sense to afford him the highest honor the game can bestow?
And the Reds bringing him back as a manager would be a circus. The first time he does something unconventional the questions would start "is the game on the up and up?" It would be insane.
I'd take that friendly wager - the only way the Reds don't do it is if they're told specifically by MLB not to. There's no way that they don't at least try.
Quoting from the old Rose FAQ that the HOF used to have up:
Very simply, our Board felt that it would be incongruous for anyone who has been declared ineligible by Baseball and therefore banned from the nation's ballparks, to still be eligible for Baseball's greatest honor
(All you have to do is change the wording slightly. Something to the effect that if he can't work in MLB he shouldn't be eligble for the hall)
I've mentioned the old FAQs before. No longer online, but last I checked they could still be found at archive.org.
The old urls were:
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/members/rosefaq.html and
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/members/rosestat.html
Even worse, tWWL just ran a piece on SportsCenter with Hank Aaron arguing for Pete's reinstatement; given how close he is to Selig, it may be a foregone conclusion.
Kurkjian, however, suggested that Pete will NOT be allowed to manage again, which is what he really wants to do. He should never even be allowed in as a paying customer again, IMO.
And if I ever make it to the moon, I guarantee you I'll bring back proof that Kevin lost China.
Well, that's certainly good news for Rose. As you know, they were quite concerned about the stances of some of the old time Hall of Famers and Rose. Maybe they'll harden the line if Rose's return looks more than theoretical, but then again, maybe some of the old-timers passing on and others mellowing over time would make that less of a worry.
Nobody's really surprised to find Feller with strong opinions. What allowed him to carry the day in the past is that he was clearly speaking for some of the quieter members.
Michael Sokolove, the guy who wrote the Rose expose/bio, Hustle, is in this camp. Last time I read Posnanksi's take on it, he said he would like Rose in as well. Sokolove emphatically does not want Rose to have a job with a team, but thinks putting his bust in a "museum" is OK.
bet on baseball = banned forever
I have some thoughts on this but am having a tough time pinning down some critical facts.
Is it true that, with no exceptions, uniformed personnel betting on baseball results automatically in a lifetime ban? If the Pirate bullpen coach goes to Vegas on his offday and bets $50 straight up on Dodgers over Giants, is he automatically banned for life? Assume no inside information of any kind and no communication to anyone about the bet.
Does the commissioner (or anyone else) have the authority to modify the penalty?
Same scenario as above, but substitute player for Pirate bullpen coach? Automatic lifetime ban?
Does the commissioner (or anyone else) have the authority to modify the penalty?
How does the CBA deal with gambling-related discipline of players? Is it carved out from the CBA, mentioned, or some other treatment? Are there certain processes due the player?
Is it true that, with no exceptions, uniformed personnel betting on their own team to win is automatically a lifetime ban?
Does the commissioner (or anyone else) have the authority to modify the penalty?
So, if he is actually reinstated and hired by the Reds, I think he should be brought back as a commentator for radio/TV. That way, he couldn't hurt the team/game, and all the people in Cincinnati and environs who love him could hear/see him all the time. And, I actually think he'd be pretty good at it.
I can't see the team's being dumb/desperate enough to put him in a uniform again, but you never know.
My understanding is that if you bet on another team, it's an automatic minimum of a one year suspension. If you bet on your own team, it's an automatic lifetime suspension. In both cases, I suppose the commissioner could modify it by changing the rule.
After he becomes the Red manager, how soon before he puts his name on the line-up card?
That could work, provided that you slap him on a seven second delay, to bleep out anything start with "I bet...."
Heh. I wasn't kidding, though. I come from that part of the country, and lot of people there still loves them some Charlie Hustle. That is what I would offer him if I ran the Reds, and Selig actually brings Rose back (which is in the believe-it-when-I-see-it category).
Is there a readily-available cite for the basis of this?
I'm having a hard time squaring the commissioner being able to come in and do whatever he wants in the penalty phase, and the term "automatic."
That would happen if Jeter (or anyone else) cleared 4000 hits and was closing in.
i'd seriously consider giving up on the game if rose is reinstated.
If a convicted felon, who admitted to violating one of the primary rules of baseball, can get into the HOF...
I believe the language is something like bet on baseball, one-year ban, unless you have a "duty to perform" in the game, then it's forever. So, betting on a game not involving your team would not invoke the permanent ban.
I don't think Jocketty is that dumb. Ownership...maybe. But I, uhh, wouldn't bet on Rose's getting a shot to manage the Reds. The guy is 68, has been out of baseball for 20 years, and was not particularly successful his first go-round.
You have all that BEFORE you get to the gambling issue.
I think very little.
I can state with absolute certainty that Rose AT MINIMUM would be made a coach. And at the first opportunity (team is tanking even worse) be made manager.
And Walt would be steamrolled if he tried to get in the way.
In Cincy it's still 1975. Don't forget Mark Twain's old line, "if the world comes to end I want to be Cincinnati because that is the last place it will happen"
What I can see them doing is turning him into some sort of fan ambassador executive type with an amorphus title whose only responsibility is to whip up excitement in the community, gladhand the corporate backers and advertizers and serve as a general statesman for Cincinnati Reds baseball. He's wildly popular in the community to ths day. I was at a game last summer and he got a standing ovation simply coming to sit in the seats he paid for back behaind home plate. The crowd cheered louder when he tipped his hat.
I'd be fine with such a role, by the way. As long as he had no responsibility on the baseball operations side of things and had no authority over players, coaches, or anyone else who could impact the outcome of a game.
While I can't argue with the first two, he was 412-373 as a manager. I don't know, however, how well that record squares with the talent he had available to him.
OK, HW, if Rose is reinstated, in "honor" of Pete, let's place a friendly wager on it.
Could even rule it "stupid but not criminal" (Landis' exact phrasing at the end of the Eddie Collins/Bill James affair)
Wouldn't be wise to test the envelope though.
I do know that as far back as Marvin Miller/Bowie Kuhn there was agreement that the commissioner's best interests of baseball powers apply to gambling. Don't think this is explicitly stated in the CBA though.
A player is due a hearing and has the right to appeal for reinstatement as often as he feels like making the appeal. He has no right to a hearing on reinstatement (Selig's position is pretty much, "call me when you have new evidence")
It is true that betting your own team to win is treated in the same manner as betting against it. And always has been. I think it's simple pragmatism. Baseball has never wanted to be placed in a position of having to demonstrate damage. And its hard enough to get proof of betting, never mind the direction of the action.
At any rate, here's the wording of the earliest no gambling rule I'm aware of:
1857.
Rule 30. Gambling/Substitute No person engaged in a match, either as umpire, referee, or player, shall be directly or
indirectly interested in any bet upon the game.
The penalty (since there were no leagues) is removal from the game. Which is why it's in the rules on substitutes.
(The rule for substitutions was simple. None except for emergencies -- unless the player is tossed for gambling)
And any player tossed for gambling of any kind would be black balled for life.
And here's the NA's rules
Any player who shall, in any way, be interested in any bet or wager on the game in which he takes part, either as umpire,
player, or scorer, or who purchases or has purchased for him any "pool", or chance, sold or given away, or the game in which he takes part, he shall be dishonorably expelled from both his club and the association.
Umpires, players and scorers who have wagers on any other association game shall be suspended for the season.
The only change the NL made to this was to change the word association to league.
EDIT: Note that the scorer is prohibited from having any money on the game.
As for Rose working within MLB, it doesn't matter to me personally as I have little or no contact with the sport as presently constituted. There's far too much prostitution going on for us to be worried about a little whore like Pete Rose at this point.
That's it. And it's completely wrongheaded and precisely the wrong thing to do.
Unless its part of a deal the ballclub WILL GET HIM IN THE DUGOUT. Somehow, some way.
One of his biggest problems was playing himself. IMO, he was not a terrible manager, and not a great one, overall, looking just at talent/performance. As has been detailed here, some of his pitching usage now looks suspicious in light of the gambling.
and that is just one persons opinion, I think this time it counts is a good idea(or at worse a break even idea with what was there previously), the WBC is a brilliant/great/fantastic idea, considering Pete Rose is a good idea, (of course any reinstatement that happens has to prevent him from being an active coach) Interleague play is awesome(mind you the extreme unbalanced schedule sucks royal ass).
sure he has other idiotic ideas, but he has helped the game gain more mass exposure than other commissioners, and honestly he is perfectly reasonable in telling traditionalist to go f--k themselves.
I think I do, coming from there. But I still don't see Reds' execs doing it. And, I think it is possible, as you suggest, that Rose's not being in uniform might be part of a Selig-offered deal.
Have his 15 years of BBWAA eligibility been hanging in limbo during his banishment, and the clock starts on them once he's reinstated since the writers never had an opportunity to vote on him?
Or since he's past the 15 years since he retired would he go to the VC?
Or are the rules fuzzy enough that they could take their pick?
He had a truly unusual amount of young talent come through in his tenure and did a poor job of turning that talent into players.
Unless its part of a deal the ballclub WILL GET HIM IN THE DUGOUT. Somehow, some way.
Wow, I can't believe Bonds is still going and getting closer and closer to 1000 home runs out there in SanFran.
Can you believe Babe Ruth won 6 more WS titles as a Yankees manager? Who would have thought he was that good of a manager?
There is no way any team in any league is going to bring back a person who did what he did as a manager to manage their team. To do so is to invite a shvtstorm that most people are adverse to. The Reds gain absolutely nothing by having a 68 year old gambling addicted selfish lying two faced person in to manager their hundreds of millions of dollar asset. They just are not doing it.
even if 78 is wrong, I would think that they would at least make a special ruling that allows the writers to vote at least once, I don't think that the HOF would really put someone in without granting the BBWAA a chance to weigh in.
The generally accepted interpretation is that he would go on the VC ballot, and skip the BBWAA ballot. The reasoning is generally that the BBWAA ballot is specifically stated as covering players from 5 years after their retirement, until 20 years after their retirement. There's no special "unless he's suspended" clause.
If so, is there any reason to think that as a group, players would not vote the way the public at large seems to feel? (Which, in my anecdotal opinion, is that Rose belongs in the Hall, especially compared to these "steroid cheats.")
It seems to me that an awful lot of people draw their bright line at "he never bet against the Reds." Betting on the Reds, or even just the consorting with gamblers, doesn't seem to bother a rather scary number of people.
I can understand it if there was some sign of honest change on Rose's part. If he had joined Gambler's Anonymous (because when your gambling gets you banned from your primary source of employment, you have a problem), or become heavily involved in charity and lecturing about the problems with gambling. But, basically, all he's done is waited around a while without changing. Why should that change anything?
Still, no real reason that either Redus or Daniels couldn't have been moved to first if one of the young OF had to move. Not like either were anything special with the glove.
I'd be happy to see him in the HoF, posthumously.
Rule 30. Gambling/Substitute No person engaged in a match, either as umpire, referee, or player, shall be directly or
indirectly interested in any bet upon the game.
The penalty (since there were no leagues) is removal from the game. Which is why it's in the rules on substitutes.
(The rule for substitutions was simple. None except for emergencies -- unless the player is tossed for gambling)
Thanks.
Do the current Rules of Baseball, or any written guidance that directly or indirectly governs the game or its personnel, say that if you gamble on a game you're involved with, you will be banned for life (or some synonym, like "permanently ineligible")?
Hmmm. I wonder if this is part of Selig's thinking. Get Rose elected before Bonds/Clemens, etc. are on the ballot, then the morality argument against Bonds/Clemens, etc. falls apart, helping shorten the years it takes to induct them, so that all of the inner circle on-field talents are eventually inducted, with the controversy minimized as much as possible.
Rose has never spent a single year on the BBWAA's ballot so it is impossible for him to have spent 15 years on their ballot.
I think very little.
I disagree. I think it would be a situation where de facto and de jure bans are rethought. IMHO, some SWs would immediately let him in on the flawed logic that is in the Rice threads, ie "If they let in Charlie Hustler, we should definately let in ABC." Others would use it as a means to set up a penalty phase, e.g. a de facto, "Not on the sportswriters ballot. Steroid cheats go in on the veterans committee where its voted on by the players who can best assess the impact of the cheating." Others would impose a penalty for a term, "I will not vote for him for 10 years, one half of Charlie Hustler's punishment."
I'm not advocating those positions, I am merely predicting those positions. Personally, I believe in some quality of mercy and think it would be ok to open the door to some of these banned players.
As for the Bud should do x,y, and z; I can't agree with that at all. MLB should not try to "act in Pete Rose's own good." IMHO, they can adopt a "zero tolerance" policy toward his behavior in baseball. That is, they can keep him on double secret probation if he beomes a Reds coach for gambling offenses, and impose the pre-existing penalty if they catch him. They can't tell him he can't go to casinos if he doesn't have a baseball job.
This is undoubtedly part of the thinking. Lifting the ban on Rose and putting him in the HOF ends, in an instant, the constant arguing about steroids and HOF inductions. The players, writers, league and fans would all like that to end.
Pete Rose, the savior of baseball.
And they have tossed an owner over gambling. Decades ago to be sure, but nobody's in any doubt that the same thing would happen today.
as always, with Bud it comes to the bottom line. The debate alone whether to consider Rose will generate buzz and hopefully keep baseball in the news(more likely during the offseason he'll probably respond with more information)
also this could be a distraction from steroid and hof talk that seems to already be a big deal this week.
Well, I lived near Cincinnati for 15 years, so I have some idea. And my perspective is that Rose's support has softened considerably, since many of his backers discovered he'd been lying to him for a dozen years.
I think there is still greater support for Pete in the HoF than there is elsewhere, but I don't think there is a huge groundswell for Pete: The Manager 2.
"(d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or
employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in
connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared
ineligible for one year.
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."
MLB Rule 21 (d)
http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/rule21.html
as far as casual fans go, the percentage of people I know(not living close to cincy)is that Pete should be put into the hof. I can go to any sports bar in the area and hold a survey and it will be a very high percentage for Pete in the hall, and usually those that oppose are almost always more than just casual fans.
If Pete becomes eligible and fans are allowed to vote he would go in by a landslide, it's the writers, players and hard core fans that oppose his induction, and few of the casual fans think the issues between Pete Rose and PED users is similar.
It's a pretty awesome image.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main