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

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Plenty of Pete Rose ahead on ESPN

You can’t spell Ass To Cobb without Bob Costas.

Last week, for example, Mike Greenberg of the “Mike & Mike” ESPN national radio show said that one of the four things he would do on the first day of coming into office would be to “reinstate Pete Rose.” Greenberg then asked his guest, broadcaster Bob Costas, “What do you think?”

“Yes, I think that’s something that should be done,” Costas answered. “And maybe a new commissioner could do it. Maybe Selig felt as if it would have been disrespectful somehow to (former commissioner) Bart Giamatti’s legacy, and Selig was very fond of Giamatti,” who banned Rose on Aug. 24, 1989.

Only eight days after exiling Rose, Giamatti, 51, died suddenly of a heart attack.

“To me, it’s very simple, and has been for a long, long time,” Costas said. “You separate the Hall of Fame from eligibility for other baseball benefits (such as being hired as a manager). … Certainly, Pete Rose deserves to be on the Hall of Fame ballot. If Barry Bonds can be on the Hall of Fame ballot, and the voters can decide yay or nay, why shouldn’t they be able to decide that about Pete Rose?”

Costas articulated what has become a mainstream national opinion on how to handle the Rose case. Almost every national figure believes the Cincinnati native has served more than enough time in exile, and that it would be a healing process for baseball to pardon him. No doubt Selig will have to take some questions on it Friday in Roselawn, especially in the wake of going on ESPN-TV Wednesday to discuss it.

Repoz Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:01 AM | 33 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

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 20, 2014 at 08:13 AM (#4775153)
Almost every national figure believes the Cincinnati native has served more than enough time in exile, and that it would be a healing process for baseball to pardon him.


Per Joe Erardi of cincinnati.com. Six books on Amazon, all about Cincinnati baseball, one specifically about petey.
   2. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:23 AM (#4775155)
Supposedly, every outgoing US president leaves a note for his successor to read when he takes over.

I'd like to think that Selig's note to Manfred is a short one.

"Regarding Pete Rose; let him rot."
   3. The Robby Hammock District (Dan Lee) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:23 AM (#4775156)
Plenty of Pete Rose ahead on ESPN
It's nice to get these regular reminders to never, ever tune in to ESPN unless there's a live sporting event I really want to watch.
   4. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:24 AM (#4775158)
especially in the wake of going on ESPN-TV Wednesday to discuss it.

"ESPN-TV" sounds like a 1960s variant of ESPN: "Watch 'Home Run Derby' tonight on ESPN-TV! In colour...!"
   5. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:24 AM (#4775159)
selig was all set to reinstated rose in some fashion when rose slimed him and the old hall of famers found out about the deal in the works and had a meltdown.

so, there you go
   6. depletion Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:42 AM (#4775171)
If Pete would stay away from casinos and sports books for a period of time, I'd be for reinstatement in a front office capacity only. Rose could not wear a uniform in his new role.
   7. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 20, 2014 at 08:49 AM (#4775175)
If Pete would stay away from casinos and sports books for a period of time

that would mean pete died

   8. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:03 AM (#4775186)
Maybe Selig felt as if it would have been disrespectful somehow to (former commissioner) Bart Giamatti’s legacy, and Selig was very fond of Giamatti,”

It would certainly be disrespectful of Selig's legacy to lift Rose's suspension if Bud doesn't, and Manfred is reportedly quite fond of the guy who got him the Commissioner job. Rose's only chances is an "out the door" pardon similar to what some Presidents and Governors do as they leave office.
   9. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:10 AM (#4775191)
If Pete would stay away from casinos and sports books for a period of time, I'd be for reinstatement in a front office capacity only.


If he could stay away from casinos and sports books for a period of time, he'd have been reinstated years ago.
   10. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:15 AM (#4775193)
“To me, it’s very simple, and has been for a long, long time,” Costas said. “You separate the Hall of Fame from eligibility for other baseball benefits (such as being hired as a manager).

I'd put Rose in the category of Mark McGwire: Let him be hired as a batting coach, put him on the HoF ballot, and then never vote for him.
   11. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4775196)
Banned is banned. He agreed to it, and if he hadn't it likely would have happened to him anyway. Whether banned should mean not allowed on the HoF ballot is a different question, but MLB should never (IMO) allow him back. Gambling on games is not OK.

I am, not fond of retroactively changing the rules to keep him off the ballot - I admit - but like I said the two are separate issues.
   12. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:41 AM (#4775210)
"ESPN-TV" sounds like a 1960s variant of ESPN: "Watch 'Home Run Derby' tonight on ESPN-TV! In colour...!"
Colour? Apparently it's a 1960s Canadian variant of ESPN…
   13. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:01 AM (#4775231)
Almost every national figure believes the Cincinnati native has served more than enough time in exile, and that it would be a healing process for baseball to pardon him.


Two things about this. First, he hasn't served his time because the punishment is the permanent ban. If baseball thinks that the ban should be changed to 25 years (or whatever), then change the rule. If they change the official punishment for gambling, then you can let Rose back in. The only other analogy is time off for good behavior, but Rose clearly hasn't demonstrated any of that. And I'm personally not in favor of changing the rules, but that's the only way you can say that Rose has served enough time.

Second, healing process for who? Baseball's doing fine without Rose in the game.
   14. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4775235)
If Barry Bonds can be on the Hall of Fame ballot, and the voters can decide yay or nay, why shouldn’t they be able to decide that about Pete Rose?

One guy broke the rule posted in every clubhouse warning of lifetime banishment, which called the integrity of games into question.

The other guy tried to win too hard.
   15. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4775238)
The only other analogy is time off for good behavior, but Rose clearly hasn't demonstrated any of that.


This is the thing that kills me. Rose has been a pretty active jackass since his initial ban. I don't see any case for leniency.

   16. BrianBrianson Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4775242)
Colour? Apparently it's a 1960s Canadian variant of ESPN…


If there's not a twenty-four hour curling channel, what's the point of even owning a TV? Can't imagine anything greater than sitting down with a two-four to watch a two-four of curling, eh?
   17. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4775252)
“To me, it’s very simple, and has been for a long, long time,” Costas said. “You separate the Hall of Fame from eligibility for other baseball benefits (such as being hired as a manager)


The Hall of Fame specifically changed the rules after Rose was banned *because* Rose was banned. Clearly the Hall of Fame does not want permanently ineligible players to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
   18. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4775262)
The other guy tried to win too hard.

Euphemism Primey!
   19. Ziggy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:43 AM (#4775266)
To call Pete Rose a ball of slime would be to insult actual balls of slime. He did the one thing that could actually destroy the sport, and he's been a jerk ever since. Maybe if, in an unexplainable fit of mercy, the HOF decided to go in for postmortem forgiveness, I could tolerate it. That's about it.
   20. AROM Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4775268)
I don't think any such thing was done for Joe Jackson. He received 0.9% in 1936, and 1% in 1946. I don't know if he was on an official ballot, or if those were write in votes.
   21. Ziggy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 10:49 AM (#4775272)
At the risk of turning this into yet another steroids thread, it's not a euphemism, it's a description. Betting on baseball is categorically different than using steroids. Betting on baseball can give you an incentive to lose on purpose (I know Rose says that he never bet against the Reds) - and losing on purpose is a danger to the very existence of competitive sports. By contrast, using steroids is just a way of cheating; doing, in an illegal way, what you, as an athlete, are supposed to do anyway (win games).
   22. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 20, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4775309)
At the risk of turning this into yet another steroids thread, it's not a euphemism, it's a description. Betting on baseball is categorically different than using steroids. Betting on baseball can give you an incentive to lose on purpose (I know Rose says that he never bet against the Reds) - and losing on purpose is a danger to the very existence of competitive sports.

I've been more than willing to see steroids as a lesser violation than gambling. But "trying to win too hard" is still a crock of #### euphemism, and if you don't know it, you should.
   23. Ron J2 Posted: August 20, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4775332)
#20 As I've noted before Joe Jackson versus Hal Chase demonstrates that the HOF always treated being formally banned as an absolute disqualification.

Almost nobody doubts Chase was corrupt -- that he was involved in a whole pile of fixes. Almost nobody disagrees that Jackson was the better player. And yet, Chase did far better in the voting. It was understood by almost everybody that you couldn't vote for Jackson while Chase is one of the few clear cases of the invocation of the character clause. (probably the only one before the whole PED stuff)

And #21, as I've noted before I'm pretty confident that the rules are the way they are because organized baseball has never wanted to put itself in the position of having to demonstrate intent. Hard enough to prove gambling in the first place. They've got zip to gain by allowing people in the game to be involved in gambling, had seen the damage done to cricket in the previous decades and wrote very easy to understand rules. (Don't bet on baseball. Period.)
   24. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4775340)
#20 As I've noted before Joe Jackson versus Hal Chase demonstrates that the HOF always treated being formally banned as an absolute disqualification.


And everyone knew this, including Pete. It was understood that betting on baseball equaled no Hall of Fame.
   25. Ron J2 Posted: August 20, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4775380)
#24 Not clear that this was still understood by everybody. The HOF's position is that they were simply formalizing what had always been a de-facto rule.

The HOF's actions seem to have been prompted by a spate of "I'm going to vote for Pete Rose" articles that came out in that genral time frame and that indicates that at minimum a vocal minority did not see his ban as an absolute bar.

And it's pretty clear that Rose didn't see things that way. Among other things, he turned down Giamatti's offer of a 7 year ban in exchange for a formal admission of having bet on Reds games because he wanted to optimize his chances of making the hall.

He also seems to have assumed (no idea why) that he'd be reinstated fairly quickly even without an admission of having bet on the Reds.
   26. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 20, 2014 at 12:22 PM (#4775390)
#24 Not clear that this was still understood by everybody. The HOF's position is that they were simply formalizing what had always been a de-facto rule.


That's how I always heard it Ron. It was bet on baseball equals ban equals no HoF, a few votes for Shoeless notwithstanding.

Where Pete deviated from this was a) a number of people who held out believing Pete didn't bet on baseball (since he refused to admit it), and b) a number of people who wanted to separate Pete's actions as manager vs. Pete the player when it came to the Hall.

   27. dr. scott Posted: August 20, 2014 at 12:48 PM (#4775444)
so if shoeless Joe had been an unrepentant blowhard for 30 years after his ban showing up in front of any camera he could find and charging for autographs in front of the hall of fame he could have been in too? These strategy guides are sometimes so unintuitive.
   28. McCoy Posted: August 20, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4775490)
He also seems to have assumed (no idea why) that he'd be reinstated fairly quickly even without an admission of having bet on the Reds.

Because he always got away with it before. Baseball knew Rose was a gambler for many many years before he actually got banned. The man was not and may still not be in touch with reality.
   29. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 20, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4775495)
Baseball knew Rose was a gambler for many many years before he actually got banned. The man was not and may still not be in touch with reality.

this is something that is often forgotten. a number of people within baseball approached rose over the years with the advice to 'cool it'. stop hanging out with known criminals/gamblers. stop hanging out at the racetrack so much. quit boasting about how you are cheating the irs. when dowd called in rose to chat this was likely something rose interpreted as 'here we go again'. so he didn't take it seriously, he brushed off the questions and didn't recognize that dowd was not like the guys before him and giamatti wasn't other commissioners.

baseball leadership has some blame for creating an environment where one of its workers had a very different set of rules than eveyrone else. but when they did tell teh worker that things were changing the worker should not have been so tone deaf.

but then pete was never big on listening to anyone other than pete.
   30. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: August 20, 2014 at 02:09 PM (#4775537)
but then pete was never big on listening to anyone other than pete.

it had worked out for him before that point
   31. SouthSideRyan Posted: August 20, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4775538)
If Pete would stay away from casinos and sports books for a period of time

that would mean pete died


Don't be so sure about where he wants those ashes scattered.
   32. alilisd Posted: August 20, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4775577)
If Barry Bonds can be on the Hall of Fame ballot, and the voters can decide yay or nay, why shouldn’t they be able to decide that about Pete Rose?”


I used to like Costas, but his position on PED's has become annoying, and this is the final straw. Really, Bob? You can't see the difference between someone who broke a cardinal rule of conduct which is posted in every clubhouse throughout the game and someone who never broke any MLB rule, and never tested positive despite being active for several years post-testing implementation?
   33. Walt Davis Posted: August 20, 2014 at 11:09 PM (#4776024)
“To me, it’s very simple, and has been for a long, long time,” Costas said. “You separate the Hall of Fame from eligibility for other baseball benefits (such as being hired as a manager)

And as Costas should know, these were separate decisions made by separate organizations. Obviously the HoF and MLB are a symbiotic relationship but MLB does not own and does not make decisions for the HoF.

I personally don't care if the HoF lifts its ban on Rose. MLB should never let him be part of the game again.

But "trying to win too hard" is still a crock of #### euphemism

No problem. What's not a euphemism and is in fact stone cold fact is that Barry Bonds violated no rules of baseball.*

Pete Rose did violate a rule of baseball. In fact he broke the big one.

The two cases have absolutely nothing to do with one another and certainly the eligibility of Bonds for the HoF is irrelevant to the question of whether Rose should be eligible.

The case you want is Palmeiro who was caught using or Manny if/when he hits the ballot. Then you can debate whether the difference in the severity of the rules violation justifies the difference in HoF eligibility.

So, once again, for everybody on whatever side of the debate you might be on -- the difference between Pete Rose and Barry Bonds is that Pete Rose violated the rules of baseball and Barry Bonds did not.

Motive ain't got nothing to do with it.

* It is of course possible that Bonds used banned substances after the ban was in place but, other than a first-time stimulant violation, there is no evidence that he did so.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BFFB
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-19-14
(53 - 9:53pm, Sep 19)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3354 - 9:51pm, Sep 19)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogHBT: Talking head says Jeter is “a fraud” and “you are all suckers”
(22 - 9:50pm, Sep 19)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: September 2014 College Football thread
(278 - 9:32pm, Sep 19)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogRon Washington Acknowledges Infidelity, Doesn’t Explain Why He Resigned
(54 - 9:29pm, Sep 19)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogEn Banc Court May Call Foul on Bonds Conviction
(11 - 9:23pm, Sep 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(58 - 9:21pm, Sep 19)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(279 - 9:09pm, Sep 19)
Last: Mark S. is bored

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(77 - 8:17pm, Sep 19)
Last: alilisd

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(201 - 7:23pm, Sep 19)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-19-2014
(38 - 6:49pm, Sep 19)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-18-2014
(170 - 6:00pm, Sep 19)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogAraton: The Other Side of a Derek Jeter Hustle Play
(30 - 5:26pm, Sep 19)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogUmpire ejects Braves fan for heckling Bryce Harper
(71 - 5:21pm, Sep 19)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogIt’s quite the turnaround for Angels and General Manager Jerry Dipoto
(13 - 5:16pm, Sep 19)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 0.4641 seconds
53 querie(s) executed