IlliniKrush Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 sorry if this was posted already http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=2194 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 sorry if this was posted already http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/arti...?articleid=2194 ACK!! I can't read it - damn firewall.. Can ya post the article.. please..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 by Derek Zumsteg and Will Carroll Printer- friendly Pete Rose and Major League Baseball have reached an agreement that would allow him to return to baseball in 2004, and includes no admission of wrongdoing by Rose, Baseball Prospectus has learned. According to several sources, Rose signed the agreement after a series of pre-season meetings between Rose, Hall of Fame member Mike Schmidt, and at different times, high-level representatives of Major League Baseball, including Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball's Chief Operating Officer, and Allan H. "Bud" Selig, Commissioner of Major League Baseball. The agreement includes removal of Rose from baseball's permanently ineligible list. This would allow Rose to appear on ballots for baseball's Hall of Fame, which bars such banned players from consideration. The agreement allows Rose to be employed by a team in the 2004 season, as long as that position does not involve the day to day operations. That employment restriction would be removed after a year, allowing Rose to return to managing a team as early as the 2005 season if a position is offered to him. In December, several publications reported that Rose and Bud Selig met in Milwaukee last winter, and that lawyers for both sides were exchanging proposals to end Rose's lifetime ban from baseball. Jayson Stark of ESPN wrote in a column August 7th that Reds owner Carl Lindner intends to hire Rose as the team's manager and has agitated for Rose's reinstatement for some time. Pete Rose has been banned from baseball since he reached an agreement with then-Commissioner Bart Giamatti that included a lifetime ban from baseball for conduct detrimental to the sport, but which did not include an admission that Rose gambled on baseball. The August 23, 1989 agreement ended the investigation by baseball, led by John Dowd. Dowd's findings are published at www.dowdreport.com. Dowd concluded that Rose had bet on games he was involved in, citing such evidence as telephone records including calls to a bookie from the Reds clubhouse, bank records of large payments, and betting notes that handwriting experts identified as Rose's, which matched records of bookie Ron Peters. Baseball Prospectus has published several articles on the continuing controversy over Rose, including a lengthy evaluation of baseball historian and Boston Red Sox analyst Bill James's criticisms of the Dowd Report. Rose has always denied that he has bet on baseball. The agreement would secure a place on the Hall of Fame ballot for Rose as his eligibility window closes. Rose played his last season in 1986, and Hall of Fame eligibility rules require that a player appear within 20 years of the end of their playing career. There would be significant barriers to Rose appearing on the 2004 ballot, which would leave only one year of eligibility for election by voters at large. If Rose failed to be elected by a vote, he would have to be selected by the Veterans' Committee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I'm still on the fence about this whole thing, but I do wish him well. He was a damn fine player and a pretty good Manager as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I'm still on the fence about this whole thing, but I do wish him well. He was a damn fine player and a pretty good Manager as well. I saw the link to the Dowd Report. Once I have time I am going to sit and read that, and then really make an educated judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 I saw the link to the Dowd Report. Once I have time I am going to sit and read that, and then really make an educated judgement. You got a free month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 You got a free month? Well I could get a job at the Cincy and have it done in a week Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiff Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 My educated judgment is that Pete Rose is a douche. He admitted way back when that he bet on baseball, and agreed to be banned for life, and ever since he's acted like it's everyone else's fault, and the banning was only temporary. I'm tired of him and I wish he would go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Lopez Ghost (old) Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Great ball player, moral moron. I'm sorry they're letting him back in. It will be interesting to see if any current hall of famers protest his induction. Bob Feller has been outspoken (course he's crotchedy) and Bench used to be against it. He'll be managing the Reds in two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Thanks SS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 MLB has put out a press release denying all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 MLB has put out a press release denying all of this. Why does this not surprise me one bit Here's the statement Major League Baseball statement Bob DuPuy, Major League Baseball President and Chief Operating Officer, issued the following statement regarding an internet report about the status of Pete Rose: "The story that appeared on the Baseball Prospectus website today regarding the return of Pete Rose to baseball in 2004 and the alleged written agreement that had been reached by Rose and Commissioner Selig is unsubstantiated and totally unfounded. The report is wholly inaccurate. "As has been reported many times by the Commissioner and as recently as one week ago, Commissioner Selig and Mr. Rose have met regarding his pending application for reinstatement, which originally was filed in 1997. The Commissioner has not made a decision and no agreement with Mr. Rose has been reached or signed. When a decision is made, it will be reported through the appropriate channels. Any unnamed source to the contrary or any report suggesting otherwise is both unfortunate and journalistically irresponsible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 My educated judgment is that Pete Rose is a douche. He admitted way back when that he bet on baseball, and agreed to be banned for life, and ever since he's acted like it's everyone else's fault, and the banning was only temporary. I'm tired of him and I wish he would go away. about says it all for me except I am a bit more hardcore, but Spiff says it well enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 I still don't understand the people that say let him in baseball and the Hall if he admits stuff What difference does that make? personal satisfaction? I didn't know honesty changed someone's previous actions and how they are viewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Was the guy a great player..or not? Therein lies your answer if he should be in the hall then.. IMO of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeportHeather Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 It's BS that he hasn't been inducted into the Hall yet. YES, he gambled on the game; however, he was an awesome player. Koch This, you seem to be knowing of the baseball rulebook...Does it say anything in there with regards to dealing with people who have gambled with the game before? I say that, if it isn't explicitly written in there, then what's the big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerbaho-WG Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Ethics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 It's BS that he hasn't been inducted into the Hall yet. YES, he gambled on the game; however, he was an awesome player. Koch This, you seem to be knowing of the baseball rulebook...Does it say anything in there with regards to dealing with people who have gambled with the game before? I say that, if it isn't explicitly written in there, then what's the big deal? Gambling on the game of baseball and associating with known felons is very clearly prohibited by the rules of baseball. I don't get the outpouring of sympathy for Pete Rose. The rules are VERY clear, there is no gray area at all. Why should there not be consequences for doing what he KNEW was wrong? That is like saying that people like Michael Milken should still be trading because they made a lot of money doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 this sucks, how bout joe jackson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkdog Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Gambling on the game of baseball and associating with known felons is very clearly prohibited by the rules of baseball. I don't get the outpouring of sympathy for Pete Rose. The rules are VERY clear, there is no gray area at all. Why should there not be consequences for doing what he KNEW was wrong? Damn straight. There's no franchise more aware of this than the White Sox. Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver were great players as well - Jackson arguably one of the best. But they knew about that fix in '19 - they may have played great - but they knew about it - so they were in on it. No gray area. Rose bet on baseball. He was in a position were he could control the outcome of a game to his advantage if he wished. The opportunity for foul play existed. No gray area. If they reinstate Rose - Jackson and Weaver should be next on the list. If this deal between MBL and Rose is true, Selig is going to create a huge double standard. He may be counting on the fact that those who care to see Jackson and Weaver reinstated arhave passed on or on oxygen today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 Well I could get a job at the Cincy and have it done in a week Ouch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 MLB has put out a statement denying a deal is done. http://www.msnbc.com/news/950115.asp?0cv=CB10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 It's BS that he hasn't been inducted into the Hall yet. YES, he gambled on the game; however, he was an awesome player. Koch This, you seem to be knowing of the baseball rulebook...Does it say anything in there with regards to dealing with people who have gambled with the game before? I say that, if it isn't explicitly written in there, then what's the big deal? Gambling on the game of baseball and associating with known felons is very clearly prohibited by the rules of baseball. I don't get the outpouring of sympathy for Pete Rose. The rules are VERY clear, there is no gray area at all. Why should there not be consequences for doing what he KNEW was wrong? That is like saying that people like Michael Milken should still be trading because they made a lot of money doing it. Right on, it's not a judgment made, it is in the rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted August 12, 2003 Share Posted August 12, 2003 It's BS that he hasn't been inducted into the Hall yet. YES, he gambled on the game; however, he was an awesome player. Koch This, you seem to be knowing of the baseball rulebook...Does it say anything in there with regards to dealing with people who have gambled with the game before? I say that, if it isn't explicitly written in there, then what's the big deal? Heather, every single person who plays, coaches or is in anyway involved in the game of baseball (trainers, umpires, etc.) are very well aware of the rule against gambling. There is a very large poster posted in every Major and Minor League clubhouse every year, all year. MLB has speakers come in during Spring Training and lecture everyone on gambling policies and the penalties for violation of it. There is NO way possible for Pete Rose to not have known gambling is against baseball rules and NO way possible for him not to have known the penalties. Pete CHOSE to do what he did. For him to lie about it the past 15 years is basically spitting in the face of the game of baseball. For him to ask to be reinstated without coming clean about his actions, would be like saying "f*** You to and laughing at" a boss who just re-hired you and gave you a second chance. There is a major difference in gambling, a crime against the game, than a crime against society (drug use, etc.). As soon as fans begin to question whether the outcome of the game could be fixed, the game could come crumbling down. Even the perception of that possibillity could be enough to cripple the game. As bad as other situations damage the image of the game, gambling is the one thing that could bring down the game itself, rather than just give it a black eye. If baseball lets Pete Rose back in under the conditions of the prospectus article, then they are basically telling every player that plays the game today that it is OKAY to gamble and bet on the game. It is a precedent baseball cannot allow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted August 12, 2003 Author Share Posted August 12, 2003 It's BS that he hasn't been inducted into the Hall yet. YES, he gambled on the game; however, he was an awesome player. Koch This, you seem to be knowing of the baseball rulebook...Does it say anything in there with regards to dealing with people who have gambled with the game before? I say that, if it isn't explicitly written in there, then what's the big deal? Heather, every single person who plays, coaches or is in anyway involved in the game of baseball (trainers, umpires, etc.) are very well aware of the rule against gambling. There is a very large poster posted in every Major and Minor League clubhouse every year, all year. MLB has speakers come in during Spring Training and lecture everyone on gambling policies and the penalties for violation of it. There is NO way possible for Pete Rose to not have known gambling is against baseball rules and NO way possible for him not to have known the penalties. Pete CHOSE to do what he did. For him to lie about it the past 15 years is basically spitting in the face of the game of baseball. For him to ask to be reinstated without coming clean about his actions, would be like saying "f*** You to and laughing at" a boss who just re-hired you and gave you a second chance. There is a major difference in gambling, a crime against the game, than a crime against society (drug use, etc.). As soon as fans begin to question whether the outcome of the game could be fixed, the game could come crumbling down. Even the perception of that possibillity could be enough to cripple the game. As bad as other situations damage the image of the game, gambling is the one thing that could bring down the game itself, rather than just give it a black eye. If baseball lets Pete Rose back in under the conditions of the prospectus article, then they are basically telling every player that plays the game today that it is OKAY to gamble and bet on the game. It is a precedent baseball cannot allow. Excellent In particular i support your view on the difference between a crime against the game and a crime against society If they let Rose in, they open the doors to a whole lot of bulls*** they will have to deal with for years to come Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.