Rose bet on team every single night

[IlliniKrush]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2798498

[thedoctor]

dude has a problem.

[HuskyCaucasian]

for whatever reasons he may have for doing it now, I am still very happy he has finally continued to admit his guilt.

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

I can't believe people want this guy in the hall.

[Chisoxfn]

Rose should never even smell the hall. No way, no how, never.

[SoxAce]

Well he did say that he doesn't care about the hall anymore and if he's reinstated (which probably won't happen), he wants to manage again (probably won't happen) in the future.

[ShoeLessRob]

Give the man a break, good for him for finally admitting his mistakes. He won't even be reinstated but he deserves to be in the hall more then some others with question marks above their heads.

[DrunkBomber]

If theyre gonna let Bonds in, which they will. Rose should get in. I know Bonds hasnt failed a drug test but hes linked to everything involved with performance enhancing drugs.

[Gregory Pratt]

Hypothetically: What if it comes out that, say, Greg Maddux is a crackhead.

Are we going to keep him out of the hall because that's "messed up" or something?

Keep him out for the kids?

 

What if, say, it comes out that Mariano Rivera gambled on his own performances. "I'll bet I can save this game." Should he be kept out?

 

I can't understand why Pete Rose isn't a HOFer. Because MLB wants to make a point about gambling? about lying? as if this organization of Jeff Loria's and Barry Bonds' is some living breathing allegory?

 

I'm all for players being role-models but I don't think Kirby Puckett's violence against women should keep him from the Hall. I don't think Paul Molitor or Tim Raines' drug use should keep them from the Hall. I don't think Pete Rose' gambling should keep him from the Hall.

 

Guess I'm just crazy.

[greasywheels121]

Rose should never even smell the hall. No way, no how, never.

 

Agreed 100%.

[shipps]

Rose should never even smell the hall. No way, no how, never.

At the rate they vote players in we would never have to worry about that issue.

[The Critic]

If they can prove he bet on baseball during his playing days, he shouldn't be in the Hall Of Fame.

If they can't, he should be inducted for his achievements as a player.

That's my take on it anyway. I completely understand why people would disagree, though.

[southsider2k5]

Rose should never even smell the hall. No way, no how, never.

 

^^^^

[Kyyle23]

Hypothetically: What if it comes out that, say, Greg Maddux is a crackhead.

Are we going to keep him out of the hall because that's "messed up" or something?

Keep him out for the kids?

 

What if, say, it comes out that Mariano Rivera gambled on his own performances. "I'll bet I can save this game." Should he be kept out?

 

I can't understand why Pete Rose isn't a HOFer. Because MLB wants to make a point about gambling? about lying? as if this organization of Jeff Loria's and Barry Bonds' is some living breathing allegory?

 

I'm all for players being role-models but I don't think Kirby Puckett's violence against women should keep him from the Hall. I don't think Paul Molitor or Tim Raines' drug use should keep them from the Hall. I don't think Pete Rose' gambling should keep him from the Hall.

 

Guess I'm just crazy.

 

To me, using drugs for personal use or to enhance ones self for playing the game is bad, but forgiveable because these people are trying to win. With a manager betting on his own team, well, you cannot say that Rose didnt try to lose some games to keep bookies happy. And this is the big difference for me. Every manager makes questionable decisions during games(as we all see during White Sox game threads), now Rose has admitted that he gambled on the games he managed. Of course he is going to say he bet on his team to win. The guy has been lying about gambling for the last 15 years, why would he stop now?

 

Everything that has come about in the last 5 years with Rose being "truthful" should have been done the minute he was convicted(aside from the book cash grab). Rose made this bed, now he has to lie in it.

[southsider2k5]

Hypothetically: What if it comes out that, say, Greg Maddux is a crackhead.

Are we going to keep him out of the hall because that's "messed up" or something?

Keep him out for the kids?

 

What if, say, it comes out that Mariano Rivera gambled on his own performances. "I'll bet I can save this game." Should he be kept out?

 

I can't understand why Pete Rose isn't a HOFer. Because MLB wants to make a point about gambling? about lying? as if this organization of Jeff Loria's and Barry Bonds' is some living breathing allegory?

 

I'm all for players being role-models but I don't think Kirby Puckett's violence against women should keep him from the Hall. I don't think Paul Molitor or Tim Raines' drug use should keep them from the Hall. I don't think Pete Rose' gambling should keep him from the Hall.

 

Guess I'm just crazy.

 

Its not like this is a new thing. Since 1920 it has been known that if you are caught betting on baseball at all, you will be banned from the game, period. Its not about making a point, its about protecting the integrity of the game. All of the other things you sited, while not nice, are not bannable offenses in baseball.

[Gregory Pratt]

The HOF is a slimy little place.

 

It's sanctimonious, it's disingenuous, it's political.

 

Pete Rose should be in for his achievements. Shoeless Joe, too.

 

Why don't we kick Ty Cobb out for being a bad guy?

 

Besides, I think a lifetime ban from playing the game should have nothing to do with being kept out of the HOF.

[CanOfCorn]

Here is an argument I heard once about Barry Bonds vs. Pete Rose.

 

Let's just say Barry Bonds DID take steroids or HGH or whatever. He still has to see the ball and hit the ball. He still has to hit the ball hard enough and high enough. Maybe, in that one year, 20 balls that wouldn't get out if he wasn't taking something, did. But, there are many other factors...wind, pitcher's stuff, etc. Barry Bonds, IF he never took the stuff, is still one of the greatest hitters with one of the best batting eye's of all time. And he still would have made the hall.

 

Now there's Pete Rose. He's got money on the game...he can purposely put in a pitcher that has no success against a certain batter and call it "a hunch." He can call a meatball knowing the hitter is expecting it. He can use a lineup that is certain to succeed or fail. It still comes down to the players doing what they can, but, as the manager, there are little things he can do to help or hurt his team. Even if it's not direct. Look at Joey Cora, we all know he was wave happy, if he was 3rd base coach for Pete Rose, that's inside info that you can use to your advantage. It's inside information.

 

There are obviously holes in both arguments, but betting on a team you are managing DIRECTLY affects every game.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And when I said 'I never bet on baseball' all those years, what I meant to say was 'I never missed a chance to bet on baseball. It's a subtle difference I know, but apparently it is an important one to some folks.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I am still very happy he has finally continued to admit his guilt.

 

And that is what makes him such a poor excuse for a professional, right there. "Finally continued to admit his guilt"???? He's been lying over, and over, and over, and over again, to all of baseball and its fans, for years. He denied it all, then admited a little but said never on baseball, then he bet on baseball but not his own team, then his own team only rarely, not almost every night. I mean come on.

 

No way a guy who disgraces the game that gave him everything should be enshrined in its Hall of Fame. The Hall and its selections may not be what we all think is perfect, but I'm quite proud of the fact that unlike other sports, votes for the Hall are in part judged on total impact on the game, beyond just in-play performance. Ultimately, if you love baseball, its not just the stats that matter.

[Balta1701]

 

And that is what makes him such a poor excuse for a professional, right there. "Finally continued to admit his guilt"???? He's been lying over, and over, and over, and over again, to all of baseball and its fans, for years. He denied it all, then admited a little but said never on baseball, then he bet on baseball but not his own team, then his own team only rarely, not almost every night. I mean come on.

 

No way a guy who disgraces the game that gave him everything should be enshrined in its Hall of Fame. The Hall and its selections may not be what we all think is perfect, but I'm quite proud of the fact that unlike other sports, votes for the Hall are in part judged on total impact on the game, beyond just in-play performance. Ultimately, if you love baseball, its not just the stats that matter.

And of course, he didn't actually admit that he bet on baseball until he could get a book deal out of it.

[southsider2k5]

The HOF is a slimy little place.

 

It's sanctimonious, it's disingenuous, it's political.

 

Pete Rose should be in for his achievements. Shoeless Joe, too.

 

Why don't we kick Ty Cobb out for being a bad guy?

 

Besides, I think a lifetime ban from playing the game should have nothing to do with being kept out of the HOF.

 

Because Pete Rose isn't being banned from baseball for being a "bad guy", he is banned for betting on baseball. No matter what the "what if's" he knowingly bet on baseball. Betting on baseball has been a bannable offense since Landis was the commish of baseball. I don't care if Barry Bonds was injecting crack into his aorta while kicking puppies at nuns on Easter Sunday, none of that is a bannable offense under the rules that MLB has had for nearly 100 years. Pete Rose knowingly broke the one rule in baseball that you cannot break. I don't even care that he lied about it like a little b****, the fact remains he bet on baseball repeatedly for a long period of time.

 

Like the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[ShoeLessRob]

Here is an argument I heard once about Barry Bonds vs. Pete Rose.

 

Let's just say Barry Bonds DID take steroids or HGH or whatever. He still has to see the ball and hit the ball. He still has to hit the ball hard enough and high enough. Maybe, in that one year, 20 balls that wouldn't get out if he wasn't taking something, did. But, there are many other factors...wind, pitcher's stuff, etc. Barry Bonds, IF he never took the stuff, is still one of the greatest hitters with one of the best batting eye's of all time. And he still would have made the hall.

 

Now there's Pete Rose. He's got money on the game...he can purposely put in a pitcher that has no success against a certain batter and call it "a hunch." He can call a meatball knowing the hitter is expecting it. He can use a lineup that is certain to succeed or fail. It still comes down to the players doing what they can, but, as the manager, there are little things he can do to help or hurt his team. Even if it's not direct. Look at Joey Cora, we all know he was wave happy, if he was 3rd base coach for Pete Rose, that's inside info that you can use to your advantage. It's inside information.

 

There are obviously holes in both arguments, but betting on a team you are managing DIRECTLY affects every game.

 

That would be about 420 less homers at this point in his life.

[LosMediasBlancas]

Does the gambling eliminate the things he did as a player? Even if I found out he gambled on himself to go 3 for 4 or 4 for 4 every night, I wouldn't care, HE STILL DID IT.

 

Induct him into the HOF for his accomplishments as a player.

Keep him banned from managing.

[Gregory Pratt]

That's right.

[Gregory Pratt]

Every reporter should have a story written about him, or failing that, have about 100 stories written about a story he generated. It’s the best reminder you can get of how easily assumptions, misunderstandings, and sloppiness can creep into the coverage of almost anything, from the weather forecast to a Pope’s funeral.

 

Case in point: Pete Rose, who rather matter-of-factly admitted “I bet on the Reds every night” to Dan Patrick and me on ESPN Radio Wednesday afternoon. To Pete, it was a simple correction of the timeline, an amplification on his previous confessions, a trading of further detail of one sorry sin, in order to expunge another sorry sin.

 

That’s not the way the rest of the media saw it.

 

Fiction: The CBS Evening News had Armen Keteyian put together a package built around Rose’s remarks (if you listen carefully, you can hear me say “ok” as Pete talks – they edited Dan out, the bastards), which ended with Katie Couric’s pithy observation that after what he said to us, Rose’s Hall of Fame chances were now “kaput.”

 

Fact: Pete’s HOF chances have been pretty “kaput” for 18 years now. He certainly didn’t make them any worse, and there’s a slim chance he actually improved them. It took him forever, but he’s owned up to his transgressions and – and I’m saying this as somebody who had no sympathy for him from the time of the ban in 1989 right through to last April – I think that’s enough to merit reinstating him, provisionally.

 

Fiction: a Canadian website headlined this story “Rose Admits He Bet On Reds.”

 

Fact: Well he’s done that before, in his book in 2004 and in a memorable interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC. Last year, with Dan and me, he was downright contrite. He’s still the swaggering smartass who earned the derisive nickname “Charlie Hustle” from Whitey Ford in spring training of 1962, but he finally seems to have gotten it – he was wrong, he needed to admit it, he needed to fix himself. In the interview today he said he frankly doesn’t understand the gambling addiction he had, but he finally understands that he had it.

 

Fiction: a Buffalo radio station reported, at least on its website, maybe on the air itself, that Rose said “he isn’t ashamed to have bet on his team.”

 

Fact: Quite the contrary. Rose was saying he believed in his players, and in the strange way an addiction like compulsive gambling alters one’s perception, he felt he was expressing that conviction while betting.

 

He now seems plenty ashamed of the whole thing. But while he was doing this, betting on the Reds every night seemed to him like an expression of loyalty and pride.

 

Fiction: Sports Net New York – the Mets’ house all-sports station – referred to Rose making an “announcement” while on air to shamelessly promote himself.

 

Fact: Dan and I asked Rose to come on, not to promote himself, but because of something I saw in the media notes handed out by the Reds in Tampa last week. They were to stage, inside their ballpark in Cincinnati, a meet-and-greet with Rose, in advance of the opening of an exhibition at the Reds’ Hall of Fame, inside their ballpark in Cincinnati, paying tribute to “The Hit King.”

 

Needless to say, something like that had to have had baseball’s approval, and it seemed like quite a departure from an outright banishment so strict that when Rose simply showed up at a minor league game five seasons ago and interacted with some of the players, Baseball reprimanded the team and the players.

 

We wanted to know if this was some kind of precursor to baseball fully reinstating him.

 

He wasn’t promoting anything.

 

Fiction: This is being widely seen as a damning admission that his gambling was far worse than we ever thought.

 

Fact: It may be the other way around. It might have been slightly less awful. His admission of nightly betting came up only because, before he came on the air with us, I had repeated the standard history of his gambling while Reds’ manager: that he never bet against his own team, but that he often didn’t bet at all on their games. This, to me, was as great a transgression as the gambling itself, because it left open the prospect that he wouldn’t use his closer or would rest his key players during the games in which he had no wager. To me that was a kind of passive-aggressive game-fixing.

 

Rose was correcting me. Used that term. The emphasis was not “I BET on the Reds every night,” but “I bet on the Reds EVERY night.” To me, that takes a little of the sting out of the process. At least Pete Rose the manager wasn’t subservient to Pete Rose the compulsive gambler. At least the game outcomes weren’t affected because he was saving John Franco until a night he had $500 riding on the result.

 

Anyway, that’s the story. Obviously Dan and I recognized the significance of the remark as soon as he made it. I only wish everybody else reporting the story, second-hand, had a better grasp of its context.