Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 22, 2014

Pete Rose’s Reckless Gamble

I have taught a variety of sports law courses in the past seven years. Every semester, when my lecture turns to sports gambling, I get some form of this question:

“But what about Pete Rose? He only bet on his team to win. What’s wrong with that?”

The gist of my response: A lot is wrong with that.

 

Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 22, 2014 at 02:40 PM | 58 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cheapskate, dunderhead, human interest story, pete rose, reds, this won't end well

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.

   1. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 22, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4777318)
I assume most here know this, but for anyone who wasn't following baseball then, I'll add that Rose brought his team home in second place four years in a row. Thus, IF you accept that Rose's bets might have had an impact on his team, THEN his bets possibly would have influenced division races and postseasons.
   2. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 22, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4777339)
Great article. No mercy for Rose!
   3. Kid Charlemagne Posted: August 22, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4777377)
Do we know what specific games Rose bet on? It would be interesting to see what the winning percentage of games was of games he both bet on, and did not bet on... And if any of the behavior that the author of the article posited as being possible actually took place.
   4. PepTech Posted: August 22, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4777426)
It would be an interesting data point, I guess, but simply that the behavior *could* have happened is exactly why Rose can rot at the Hall door.
   5. bobm Posted: August 22, 2014 at 09:14 PM (#4777528)
[3]

See this post and others like it in this thread.

IMO it doesn't matter if he bet to win. It's still gambling and gambling is banned. Further, betting to win today affects the game one doesn't bet to win tomorrow, e.g., resting starters, bullpen usage. It also signaled the gamblers as to which games Rose would manage differently.
   6. bjhanke Posted: August 23, 2014 at 01:39 AM (#4777613)
There is another trouble beyond just Rose's personal gambling. Suppose that Rose had a bad streak and got way under to his bookie. This did happen at least once, where he wrote a $34,000 check to his bookie so he could bet on the NCAA basketball tourney, IIRC. But, what if Rose didn't have $34,000 in ready money? Well, his bookie could say, "Look. I know you can't just pull your starting pitcher and use a weak guy at the last minute, because all bets are off if you do that. But you CAN give a 'much-needed day of rest' to your three best players, and the bets are still on. We'll pick a few games where you do that, and you don't bet on them, but I will go in heavy. Eventually, I'll make enough on these games that you'll be back to even."

What will Rose do? He isn't being asked to bet against his own team. Well, I don't know, but I do know that he doesn't have to make that decision if he doesn't gamble. - Brock Hanke
   7. John Northey Posted: August 23, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4777724)
Who was the pitcher he didn't trust at all and wouldn't bet on? I could swear the name is out there but couldn't find it right away.
   8. vortex of dissipation Posted: August 23, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4777737)
Who was the pitcher he didn't trust at all and wouldn't bet on? I could swear the name is out there but couldn't find it right away.


Bill Gullickson.
   9. BDC Posted: August 23, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4777743)
IMO it doesn't matter if he bet to win. It's still gambling and gambling is banned. Further, betting to win today affects the game one doesn't bet to win tomorrow, e.g., resting starters, bullpen usage. It also signaled the gamblers as to which games Rose would manage differently

Yes. And an additional context is supplied by the once-notorious Leonard/Wood/Cobb/Speaker incident (involving a game from 1919, but not publicized till 1926). The allegation was that a game was fixed, allowing some people to bet their team to win (and the others to lose, naturally) in foreknowledge of the outcome.

One always assumes that a given bet is the tip of an iceberg. From all indications, Rose was an isolated bettor, which in itself is good news, because he didn't involve other players and managers in his gambling. But the next guy(s) might not be so principled … hence, it's best not to make fine distinctions about the intentions involved in betting on your own club to win.
   10. Morty Causa Posted: August 23, 2014 at 03:30 PM (#4777765)
The baseball law wrt to gambling on baseball has a point beyond the specific wrongdoing (or not) of the occurrence. You draw a line in the sand so you don't have to get into all that. You might say it is a wrong in and of itself because it compromising the integrity of the game in the eyes of the public. Now, other things do, too, more or less, but that's where the line in the sand is drawn. You categorically cannot go beyond this point.

The image is what is being protected. Baseball says we don't care if you didn't do this or did do that, and we're not going into all that because it just the act itself looks like ####. It's like a 21-year old rookie teacher in high school. There's nothing morally or legally wrong with him dating one of his 18-year old students, but he's probably going to get fired and he certainly isn't going to get the Rookie of the Year award, no matter how great a teacher he is. There are always just some things that will not be tolerated, much less validated.
   11. Posada Posse Posted: August 23, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4777771)
Who was the pitcher he didn't trust at all and wouldn't bet on? I could swear the name is out there but couldn't find it right away.


I remember reading that Rose didn't bet on games Mario Soto (1986-88 version) pitched.
   12. Baldrick Posted: August 23, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4777784)
The image is what is being protected. Baseball says we don't care if you didn't do this or did do that, and we're not going into all that because it just the act itself looks like ####. It's like a 21-year old rookie teacher in high school. There's nothing morally or legally wrong with him dating one of his 18-year old students, but he's probably going to get fired and he certainly isn't going to get the Rookie of the Year award, no matter how great a teacher he is. There are always just some things that will not be tolerated, much less validated.

Not to bring up a whole thing again here but there is ABSOLUTELY something morally wrong with a teacher dating one of his HS students, and there's no 'probably' about him getting fired if he does.
   13. bobm Posted: August 23, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4777789)
From [5]:

CINCINNATI — John Dowd, who wrote the 1989 report that resulted in Pete Rose being banned from baseball, said Thursday that Rose did not bet on the Reds every night when Rose was the Reds' manager. ...

"When (Mario) Soto and (Bill) Gullickson pitched, he didn't bet on the Reds," Dowd said on Thursday, when reached at his Washington, D.C., office. "We only put in the report what we could find and corroborate three different ways." ...

   14. spike Posted: August 23, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4777795)
It's like a 21-year old rookie teacher in high school. There's nothing morally or legally wrong with him dating one of his 18-year old students

WTF? It's always morally wrong and frequently (if not always) legally wrong.
   15. Morty Causa Posted: August 23, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4777797)
It's wrong or illegal for a 21-year old to date a 18-year old? A school teacher makes the difference? In the parlance of the time, "WTF"? I think it's unethical for a teacher to date a student, but I'm not seeing the immorality or illegality here.
   16. Morty Causa Posted: August 23, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4777798)
But, if my hypo upsets you so, I'm sure you can find another one on point that is more to your liking.
   17. Jimmy Posted: August 23, 2014 at 06:50 PM (#4777844)
how did we start talking about the ethics of teacher-student dating ?

my first thought would be similar to any sort of employer-employee dating situation. nothing wrong with 2 people both choosing to date one another, but if they do, the employer-employee relationship should end.

rose is hated by the writers and such, because he has always been an arrogant obnoxious person.

karras and hornung both got suspended for a year when i was a kid for betting on their own teams.

but they did not get kicked out of football.

as far as the argument about rose being allowed because a lot of other losers were allowed has no merit.

the only thing here is actions that hurt the sport, not whether they may or may not get you into heaven !!!!
   18. Bhaakon Posted: August 23, 2014 at 07:42 PM (#4777856)

It's wrong or illegal for a 21-year old to date a 18-year old? A school teacher makes the difference? In the parlance of the time, "WTF"? I think it's unethical for a teacher to date a student, but I'm not seeing the immorality or illegality here.


The morality of the situation comes down to whether or not the teacher is abusing their authority over the student for sexual/romantic favors, which can be hard to suss out from outside the relationship (or even inside; it's certainly possible for the student to feel pressure even when the teacher isn't trying to exert any).

A quick google search suggests that it's flatly illegal in Texas and Missouri, while recent court rulings in Washington and Georgia have allowed it.
   19. BDC Posted: August 23, 2014 at 08:01 PM (#4777861)
I'd argue that teacher-student relationships are unethical whether it's 21/18 in high school or 41/38 in graduate school. As for morality, I cast stones at nobody.

Which is probably Morty's point. Actions no-one would bat an eye at outside of a professional context become anathema inside of one. If I'd bet on the Reds to win in 1986, SFW. Pete was different.
   20. Jimmy Posted: August 23, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4777865)
The morality of the situation comes down to whether or not the teacher is abusing their authority over the student for sexual/romantic favors, which can be hard to suss out from outside the relationship (or even inside; it's certainly possible for the student to feel pressure even when the teacher isn't trying to exert any).


correct, which is why i think the teacher-student relationship should end.

it then becomes a moot point.
   21. Jimmy Posted: August 23, 2014 at 08:32 PM (#4777866)
which is what baseball is doing.

if gambling is strictly against the rules, they dont have to try to ascertain a bunch of unascertainables !!
   22. Jimmy Posted: August 23, 2014 at 08:39 PM (#4777867)
i dont like rose at all. and i dont think he was anywhere near as great a player as some of you guys do.

however, knowing his general behavior, i sincerely doubt if rose held back pitchers, fielders, hitters, or did anything in a certain game to intentionally help him in a game that he would bet on. that isnt his style.

he probably tried his hardest and best to win the games, but was honest with himself in which games he had better chances of winning, and bet on those ones - purely as a gamester would do.

the fact that you dont think your chances of winning arent as good, would logically tend to keep one from betting, but not from attempting to win.

rose had a huge and obnoxious ego. winning to him, whether as a player or manager, probably meant a lot more to him than dollars in his pocketbook.
   23. God Posted: August 23, 2014 at 08:46 PM (#4777869)
he probably tried his hardest and best to win the games, but was honest with himself in which games he had better chances of winning, and bet on those ones - purely as a gamester would do.


Yes, but maybe you're tempted to keep Barry Larkin in the lineup for a game you have money on, even though his nagging injury probably needs a day off. Maybe you push Rob Dibble for that extra inning, even though it would make him unavailable for tomorrow's game. etc. etc.

Even betting on your team to win opens up a gigantic can of worms. Those who agree with Rose's ban aren't doing so because they like being pedantic about the letter of the law, but because such bets, even if to win, truly are a heinous crime against the game. Anyone who can't see that (like Rose) belongs as far away from the field as possible.
   24. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 23, 2014 at 09:06 PM (#4777884)
however, knowing his general behavior, i sincerely doubt if rose held back pitchers, fielders, hitters, or did anything in a certain game to intentionally help him in a game that he would bet on. that isnt his style.


This raises one of the biggest reasons for the rules that are in place: you really just can't know anyone's intent, and the person with the greatest ability to take advantage of the benefit of any doubts is the person with the impeccable reputation. The person known as a crazed competitor is precisely the person who can pull his punches now and then, no discernible conflict with probabilities, and have no one suspect it even after gambling is revealed.
   25. StHendu Posted: August 23, 2014 at 09:09 PM (#4777886)
Do we know what specific games Rose bet on? It would be interesting to see what the winning percentage of games was of games he both bet on, and did not bet on... And if any of the behavior that the author of the article posited as being possible actually took place.


All we have is the unreliable Paul Janszen's notes of bets, available through Pete Rose's wikipedia page. Rose said he bet on all the Reds games for them to win, but his word is also worthless.

Additionally, Dowd's word is worthless. Dowd's report says "no evidence was discovered that Rose bet against the Reds", but Dowd said he believes Rose did. Dowd said Rose never bet on the Reds when Soto or Gullickson was pitching, but paul janszen's notes in the Dowd report, which Dowd relied upon unquestionably, list bets on the Reds for those games.

The betting notebook shows Rose allegedly "did in fact place bets on 5 of the 6 games Soto started in 1987.[43] The lone exception was April 26, 1987, when Rose allegedly placed bets on hockey and basketball games but no baseball games. Those records also show he bet on every game that Gullickson started during the time period which the betting notebook covered."
-wikipedia pete rose page

Dowd appears to be saying that some of the entries in Janszen's notebook are not Rose's bets, those listed for Soto and Gullickson's starts, so... why should we believe any of the entries are Rose's? Janszen said all listed were Rose's bets.
   26. Jimmy Posted: August 23, 2014 at 10:20 PM (#4777912)
it wasnt my intention to make a case for rose.

as i said, the no gambling rule precisely gets rid of any guessing.

but if i were to guess, i dont think rose allowed his gambling to interfere with his managing - that has nothing to do with making a case for him.
   27. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: August 23, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4777948)
there's no 'probably' about him getting fired if he does.


To be a nitpicking pedant, there's the question of whether anybody finds out. But that's the only probably.

But what 21-year-old is qualified to teach high school? Doogie Howser, I guess?
   28. Bhaakon Posted: August 23, 2014 at 11:48 PM (#4777958)
but if i were to guess, i dont think rose allowed his gambling to interfere with his managing - that has nothing to do with making a case for him.


Considering how many times he inserted himself into the starting lineup in 1986, I'm not as confident in his ability to separate his responsibilities as the team manager from conflicting personal desires.
   29. Jimmy Posted: August 24, 2014 at 01:35 AM (#4778014)
i had stopped watching professional sports quite a bit before that !!

i hope they dont elect him after he dies, though - i think that is sending the wrong message home.
   30. Dr. Vaux Posted: August 24, 2014 at 02:34 AM (#4778016)
There could be a difference between morals and ethics in some contexts. If something doesn't do intentional harm to anyone, it could be moral but still unethical, because it does create a conflict of interest. Betting on your own team to win might well fall into that category.
   31. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 24, 2014 at 03:39 PM (#4778178)
But what 21-year-old is qualified to teach high school? Doogie Howser, I guess?


My sister had a master's degree at age 20. If she hadn't gone to work in a corporate research lab, she was more than qualified to teach high school. I had a bachelor's degree at 21 and could have taught high school myself. Instead I went to graduate school, where as a teaching assistant I taught college students who were high school graduates.
   32. BDC Posted: August 24, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4778184)
I taught my first college class when I was 22, and every few years now I have a graduate student who's doing the same.

It's almost easier to teach college at 22 than high school. There are a lot of requirements for HS certification. College, though, as Cultist says, you just need a BA/BS and a TAship.
   33. LionoftheSenate (Brewers v A's World Series) Posted: August 24, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4778203)
I was at Mandalay Bay 2.5 years ago and saw Rose with his stripper/porn girlfriend betting NCAA games. He had a large roll of cash wound by a rubber band.
   34. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4778213)
post 33

would not be surprised to learn that the money you saw was everything rose had in the world.
   35. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: August 24, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4778215)
Jarrod Saltalamacchia is married to his high school gym teacher.
   36. Cargo Cultist Posted: August 24, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4778217)
He had a large roll of cash wound by a rubber band.


There's a reason why a man with a stripper girlfriend might have a large role of ones.
   37. The District Attorney Posted: August 24, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4778248)
Rob Neyer with a #smarttake
If you believe that Pete Rose should remain banned forever, [perhaps] it's because you believe... Justice is immutable, and once a law has been passed or a sentence levied, it must stand eternally... I will just remind you that for much of American history, it was illegal to marry someone deemed of a different "race" than yours. Now, I'll assume you believe those laws were unjust. Do you also believe that anyone convicted of such a crime should remain in prison after the laws were ruled unconstitutional? What if someone was sentenced to life for selling marijuana? In today's world, does he still belong in prison forever?
   38. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 24, 2014 at 06:41 PM (#4778255)
da

please. this is simple minded claptrap

most obviously because gambling on baseball remains 'the' rule in baseball

   39. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: August 24, 2014 at 06:51 PM (#4778259)
The difference between Rose and what Neyer said is that in my opinion Rose's penalty was a just one. Gambling on your sport just opens up too big a can of worms to be tolerated and needs to be treated harshly.

If MLB goes and changes the rule on gambling then yeah, Rose should be commuted (or whatever the right term would be) but they shouldn't change the rule.
   40. RJ in TO Posted: August 24, 2014 at 09:12 PM (#4778310)
would not be surprised to learn that the money you saw was everything rose had in the world.


I have heard stories about how the casinos love to bring Rose in for signings, as no matter what they pay him, he immediately turns around and blows it at whatever casino he's in, plus whatever cash he brought with him. He's a guarantee they'll turn a profit, even if no one else shows up.
   41. bobm Posted: August 24, 2014 at 09:22 PM (#4778312)
[35] interesting.


ajc.com > Sports > Braves
BRAVES REPORT
Fame finds slugger's wife

By DAVID O'BRIEN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/20/06
Jupiter, Fla. — He has become a celebrity at Royal Palm Beach High School, and by extension, so has she.

Ashley Saltalamacchia is the wife of top Braves prospect Jarrod Saltalamacchia. She is also a physical education teacher at the Florida high school he graduated from three years ago.

There's no way around the proverbial elephant in the room, so here are the quick answers: She's in her 30s, significantly older than the 20-year-old catcher; she never taught a class with him in it; she said their personal relationship didn't begin until the fall of 2004, a year after he graduated.

They were married eight months ago on an off day during Saltalamacchia's breakout season at Class A Myrtle Beach, where the switch-hitting slugger hit .314 with 35 doubles, 19 homers and 81 RBIs in 129 games. ...
   42. vivaelpujols Posted: August 24, 2014 at 09:40 PM (#4778319)
I think this is kind of an asinine article, although I stopped reading halfway through. The only cogent point he makes is this IMO:

If he had a wager on that night’s game, he could be more inclined to burn through his bullpen in a less-than-optimal way. He may have used pinch hitters and pinch runners differently. In an all-out-effort to win a single wagered-upon game, he could, in turn, be sacrificing the team’s chances in a number of future games. Similarly, in games where he didn’t bet at all, he may rest certain players so they are fresh in the next game, when he was wagering on the Reds.


That could be a big issue or it could be an extremely minor issue. But generally managers play to win anyway if the game is close and I doubt that Rose was ever burning the bullpen trying to salvage a 7 run deficit in the 6th. I'm guessing Rose's bullpen and substation use patterns are indistinguishable from the average manager.

This argument, which he makes at several points in the article,

Differing bet amounts are telling. If he bet $100 one game and $1,000 another game, what message is he telling his team? Or his bookie? Or himself? It shows he had fluid levels of confidence in certain games versus others.


seems completely irrelevant to me. It's not the job of Major League Baseball to uphold the integrity of gambling. If Vegas wants to go after Rose for inadvertently giving bookies inside information that's up to them. As for not showing confidence in his team, again managers do that all the time. Tony La Russa would put 3 backup players into the lineup if his team had already won the first two games of the series.

I don't have a dog in the this race, but this article and most others condemning Rose are not particularly convincing to me.
   43. vivaelpujols Posted: August 24, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4778324)
Not to bring up a whole thing again here but there is ABSOLUTELY something morally wrong with a teacher dating one of his HS students, and there's no 'probably' about him getting fired if he does.


Agree with the latter, don't agree with the former at least not in all cases. I honestly don't even know how you can make that statement. Is it wrong to date anyone if there's an imbalance in power (or some bullshit)?
   44. vivaelpujols Posted: August 24, 2014 at 09:49 PM (#4778327)
Yes, but maybe you're tempted to keep Barry Larkin in the lineup for a game you have money on, even though his nagging injury probably needs a day off.


You realize Rose decides which games he puts money on, right? If Barry Larkin needs a rest, chances are Rose benches him and doesn't bet on the game. It's in his best interest to have the highest amount of winnable games in the future.
   45. smileyy Posted: August 24, 2014 at 11:54 PM (#4778356)
[44] You're presuming Rose acts rationally with his long term best interests in mind, and doesn't need to win some money (out even just get a gambling "fix") right then and there.
   46. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:18 AM (#4778364)
gosh, rose seems to be even more of a jerk than i already knew about !!

in any case, there is no way i can see them justifying a change, and letting him in.

i dont think they will allow him in posthumously, but i guess only time will tell.
   47. JL Posted: August 25, 2014 at 09:57 AM (#4778447)
i dont think they will allow him in posthumously, but i guess only time will tell.


That is actually his best chance, as he can't do any more stupid things.

A big part of Rose's problem is that he is gone about that about as bad as he could. He kept up a long and loud campaign about how wronged he was. Then he decided to admit to his gambling once he needed to sell his book. So those against him from the beginning got to crow about being right, while his defenders have to eat that crow.

Since then, he continues the dumb stuff that reminds people that he hung them out to dry.
   48. Traderdave Posted: August 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4778463)
What if Rose had "reconfigured his life" as Giamatti suggested?

What if he swore off gambling, did some Gamblers Anonymous charity work, etc? Would that have been enough to reinstate him to MLB? What about the HOF? In my opinion, no to MLB but yes to HOF, but curious what others think.
   49. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4778517)
I have heard stories about how the casinos love to bring Rose in for signings, as no matter what they pay him, he immediately turns around and blows it at whatever casino he's in, plus whatever cash he brought with him.

yes
   50. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM (#4778520)
What if he swore off gambling, did some Gamblers Anonymous charity work, etc? Would that have been enough to reinstate him to MLB? What about the HOF? In my opinion, no to MLB but yes to HOF, but curious what others think.

yes. if rose had resisted all his worse instincts for a period of years mlb would have relented

but he can't. he never will. it's who he is
   51. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4778553)
I have heard stories about how the casinos love to bring Rose in for signings, as no matter what they pay him, he immediately turns around and blows it at whatever casino he's in, plus whatever cash he brought with him.

And that's because 90% of gamblers are much more interested in the rush of the "action" than they are in actually coming out ahead at the end of the day. There are a handful of serious poker players and sports bettors who know what they're doing and can keep ahead of the game, but they're the rare exceptions.

Where it crosses the line between harmless stupidity and borderline insanity is when people start betting money that they can't afford to lose. As someone with the instincts of the latter type but with constant influxes of easy cash to temporarily cover his losses, Rose has probably passed over that dividing line and back hundreds of times during his gambling "career". Unfortunately the great majority of compulsive gamblers don't have Rose's level of income to fall back on.
   52. RJ in TO Posted: August 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4778564)
What if Rose had "reconfigured his life" as Giamatti suggested?

What if he swore off gambling, did some Gamblers Anonymous charity work, etc? Would that have been enough to reinstate him to MLB? What about the HOF? In my opinion, no to MLB but yes to HOF, but curious what others think.


Johnny Bench has talked about Rose being given multiple opportunities to get back into the game, provided he was willing to go along with MLB's conditions. He's always been unable to.

So, I guess the answer to your questions is yes, there are (or were) paths for him to get reinstated.
   53. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4778638)
they may be more stupid than i would have ever thought, but allowing rose in after he dies is way the wrong message.

because it would then be proven that 100% of the reason for his disqualification is a personal vendetta, and has nothing really to do with the integrity of the game or one's actions.

he did something that he knew he could get disqualified for, and did it.

he should not be allowed back in, irregardless of him being contrite about it.

but most certainly not after he dies. that would be an absolute travesty.
   54. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 25, 2014 at 01:36 PM (#4778669)
because it would then be proven that 100% of the reason for his disqualification is a personal vendetta, and has nothing really to do with the integrity of the game or one's actions.

disagree. the player while alive refused to change his lifestyle. being dead means that against the player's choice his lifestyle habits HAVE changed

not being cute. just pointing out the difference in perspective
   55. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4778727)
ouch - hopefully no one on the committee is able to rationalize to that extent.
   56. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 25, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4778943)
jimmy

well it's not a vendetta. baseball reached out their hand many, many times over the year to rose looking to HELP HIM. it was rose who spat in their face. so baseball shrugged and said to h8ll with you already.

now he's racing after them telling them he didn't mean it

please
   57. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4778954)
believe me, i aint feeling one bit sorry for rose.

but even if rose had responded to the reach, i dont think he should be put back in.

he obviously has huge emotional problems. and he needs help.

he has been led to the water. he has to choose to drink it.

but if they let him in posthumously, it is still a personal vendetta.

you weren't willing to be contrite, so we kept you out while you were alive.

but after you are dead, we will put you in ?

that is a terrible message to send to the kids of the day that it would get done.
   58. Jimmy Posted: August 25, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4778957)
we all do things that are mistakes, and then we need to learn to take responsibility.

but just cuz we take responsibility, and may even be forgiven by our trespassers does not mean that everything should be forgotten and no penalties to pay.

rose aint in jail. he is simply banned from baseball. and that is the way it should stay.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(14 - 10:40am, Nov 23)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogPablo Sandoval leaning toward Red Sox, to decide next week — Padres have highest offer, all offers on table (including SF Giants’) - John Shea
(5 - 10:28am, Nov 23)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(135 - 10:04am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4171 - 10:04am, Nov 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(554 - 9:48am, Nov 23)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(21 - 9:10am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(19 - 9:05am, Nov 23)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(5 - 8:55am, Nov 23)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(13 - 8:53am, Nov 23)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(101 - 8:37am, Nov 23)
Last: Scott Lange

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(29 - 8:20am, Nov 23)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(13 - 3:52am, Nov 23)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(966 - 2:27am, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(48 - 11:13pm, Nov 22)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(24 - 10:32pm, Nov 22)
Last: Moeball

Page rendered in 0.6904 seconds
53 querie(s) executed