Kolek planning to go pro
Betting on games that he managed was bad enough. It could have impacted how he handled his pitching staff, the line ups he put on the field, who he rested and when.Betting on games in which he played though is far worse. It could have impacted how he fundamentally played the game. It is for that reason that it is the #1 rule that cannot be broken.His lifetime ban will end. He can get into the HOF when he is dead.
As far as I've read, he only bet on the Reds to win. If that is the case, then it wouldn't have impacted how he fundamentally played the game, since he would be playing to win anyway. As a manager, you could make decisions to win a particular game that are detrimental to your season, so I think that is worse. To me, this is the hierarchy of gambling related things you can do as a player/coach/manager1. Accepting money to purposely lose a game2. Accepting money to allow opponent to cover a spread3. Accepting money to insure that you cover a spread (agreeing to run up the score)4. Betting against your team in a game in which you have the obligation to participate5. Betting on your team as a head coach/manager6. Betting on your team as a player7. Betting on other games in your sport in which you have no obligation to compete8. Betting on other sportsI would imagine everybody has a line they would draw in the above list where the behavior is unacceptable (for me, the line is anything above step 6 would be permanent ban). Baseball has, since around 1920, clearly articulated that any gambling on baseball would not be tolerated and that those who break the rule are out of baseball. Rose knowlingly broke that rule and should be out of baseball.
Down 1 w 5 seconds left. Doable.
While I completely agree that betting against your team is far worse than betting for your team, I think baseball still has a legitimate gripe against a player betting on his team to win. If a player bets money on a game, even if it is on his own team to win, this player now has an added incentive to play harder, run faster, etc. Now this alone may not be that bad, but it would give this player an advantage over the other players who actually followed the rules.
Who cares?Everyone knows that Rose is a scumbag and a degenerate gambler. He was also an all-time great hitter and deserves to be in the HOF. I'd rather see him be inducted than borderline guys like Craig Biggio and Jim Rice.
the rules are as clear as can be. he doesn't deserve to be in the hof or any part of baseball. it's quite simple.
Well, the HOF is divided between the Hall where the plaques are and the majority of the building which is the museum.I perfectly understand him not having a plaque in the Hall of Fame, but what about the museum. Should he be mentioned there?
If I was Pete rose, I'd be sittin in the sports book at Caesars with a couple of bimbos, nonstop booze and pipes of MLB betting slips F--- em.
We had a debate on this last year and I haven't waivered a bit. I used to work for a MLB club, and in EVERY clubhouse it is plastered everywhere...NO BETTING. LIFETIME BANISHMENT.He knew this. This new news is nothing new in my opinion and doesn't change a thing. You can't bet as a player, manager, etc. It is drilled into everyone's heads...employees, players, etc.Sorry Pete, you lied and lied and were caught. No soup for you. Black and white, cut and dried.
He broke a rule, both as player and manager. Want to hang him for it, fine. But their is NO evidence that he ever gave less than his best as a player or manager. Lots of players in the Hall you can't say that about. And there's NO evidence he ever cheated the game itself with PEDs. Rule breaker? Absolutely. Scumbag? Quite possibly. The fiercest competitor to ever play or manage? Maybe. A Hall of Famer? I'd say yes.
Pete Rose has been denied employment in basically the only trade for which he is qualified for long enough. He's never going to manage again. I suspect he would have had a very lengthy career in that role. Enough is enough. I don't think many people have ever said he's a "bad" guy. He's a gambler. I know several. Everybody has their faults. The punishment does not fit his crime. Rapists do less time in prison.I believe he should be able to broadcast and participate in activities with the Reds, etc.
It is just too bad that none of that matters. Betting on baseball is a lifetime ban. Rose knew it. He did it anyway. He needs to remain expelled. Not just because of what he did (which is reason enough), but to continue the precedent and show other players what will happen to a player who bets on baseball, regardless of their skill and attitude on the field. I don't understand why this is so complicated. There is a rule with a defined punishment. Why should Rose not be subject to the stated punishment? Because he slid headfirst? Cmon.
Keep him out of MLB. That's fine. I can understand that. But to keep the all-time hit leader out of the Hall of Fame makes no sense.
What a scumbag.He probably wasn't ever going to get into the Hall of Fame, anyway. But all those who made the argument that at least he never bet when he was a player so he should have gotten in on his playing exploits ... well, that's gone.If I'm Rob Manfred, I immediately remove Rose from the activities he was going to be allowed to be part of during All-Star Game festivities in Cinci. Pete Rose should not be allowed anywhere near any big-league ballpark ever again.
Important to note that it is not really MLB that is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame added a clause to its eligibility rules in 1990, stating that players who were on the ineligible list could not be considered as candidates. This was done specifically to address Pete Rose. It would have been interesting to see if he would have gotten voted in anyway had that ban not been added. Given the sanctimonious nature of a large percentage of baseball writers, I doubt he would have gotten the necessary 75%.While I agree that Pete Rose should be banned from MLB, I would not have a problem with his election to the Hall of Fame.