Pete Rose ban remains in place

[Benjamin Grimm]

ESPN.com wrote: Pete Rose remains banned for life from Major League Baseball. Commissioner Rob Manfred announced Monday that Rose's banishment will stay in place for gambling on baseball. Rose was initially banned in 1989. "Mr. Rose's public and private comments, including his initial admission in 2004, provide me with little confidence that he has a mature understanding of his wrongful conduct, that he has accepted full responsibility for it, or that he understands the damage he has caused," Manfred said in his decision. MLB said Manfred contacted Rose on Monday to inform him of the ruling. Manfred also tried to clarify that this does not affect Rose's eligibility for the Hall of Fame. "In my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in Baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility," Manfred wrote. "... Any debate over Mr. Rose's eligibility for the Hall of Fame is one that must take place in a different forum." Manfred said Rose can continue to make appearances in ceremonial activities connected to MLB.

[Edgy MD]

I agree wholeheartedly with both those statements. Well said by Manfred or whoever writes for him.

[Centerfield]

I agree wholeheartedly with Edgy's wholehearted agreement.

Lacking a mature understanding of his wrongful conduct is a great way to describe Pete Rose.

I'm immature too. I would have sent Buddy Harrelson to hand deliver the rejection letter.

[metsmarathon]

so, silly question.

have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character?

[Guest d'Kong76]

metsmarathon wrote: have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character?

Ty Cobb

[Centerfield]

Wow, those PR guys do a great job. Here is the original source material, before edits:

Rob Manfred wrote: Fuck Pete Rose. He's a fucking dick. [stands up and mimics coitus motion] And fuck the Hall of Fame too. They're as much a shitshow as Pete.

[Edgy MD]

metsmarathon wrote: so, silly question. have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character?

100%? Of course not.

I imagine it's made a difference (one way or the other) in a handful of otherwise borderline cases, though. I also imagine it's made a difference in the ultimate vote total of otherwise not-borderline cases, if that matters.

[Edgy MD]

Not to add insult to injury, but hasn't Rose also earned something of a de facto ban from post-season pre- and post-game shows?

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

I'm not at all surprised by the ruling. I believe the odds were 5-1 against Rose being reinstated.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Which way was Pete betting?

[Guest d'Kong76]

Pets's a bookie now, he wins either way.

[Frayed Knot]

I'm sure this will be a major focus on ESPN where they think there's little to discuss about baseball except for Pete's HoF banishment.
But I think most baseball fans, other than Cincy boosters who still worship Rose, have moved on and care very little about his ongoing status.

[Edgy MD]

Oh, I've detected on social media a growing fissure in the culture wars where Pete still has a supportive place in the heart of the Obama's ruining this country/stop coming for my guns/get your head out of the sand/I remember when we had a real president faction/factions.

[Frayed Knot]

Oh Pete certainly still has both supporters and detractors with entrenched opinions on either side. It never occurred to me how, or even if, those camps might be split along political lines and I'm not sure I'd care to dig into it in order to try and find out.

My only point was that the non-baseball portion of the sports media in this country seems to treat the Rose question -- particularly the HoF part -- as if it's the most pressing issue facing baseball today. It's the one they most want to grill Manfred on when given a chance (sometimes to the exclusion of anything else). Those more within the game, on the other hand, have other topics to occupy their thoughts which push Pete's status further down the list of priorities.

[MFS62]

Oh, I've detected on social media a growing fissure in the culture wars where Pete still has a supportive place in the heart of the Obama's ruining this country/stop coming for my guns/get your head out of the sand/I remember when we had a real president faction/factions.

I think its both the image of the crew cut and the fact that he likes to attack people he outweighs by 50 pounds that gets them hard.
Oh, and if any of them can read, point them in this direction:(I tried to cut and paste it, but too many graphics and ads made it difficult.)
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/pete-rose-wouldn-t-stop-betting-on-baseball--which-is-why-he-s-still-banned-202905304.html;_ylt=AwrC1CrVlG9WjhkAk3FNbK5_;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw

Later

[Fman99]

Wow, those PR guys do a great job. Here is the original source material, before edits: Rob Manfred wrote: Fuck Pete Rose. He's a fucking dick. [stands up and mimics coitus motion] And fuck the Hall of Fame too. They're as much a shitshow as Pete.

I see my moonlighting gig has finally been uncovered.

[Frayed Knot]

And just in case you were worried that supporting a continuing Rose ban might put you on the wrong side of the issue, Trump has come out in favor of Pete so you've got that going for you.

[Edgy MD]

Was I right or was I right?

Pete Rose is now the shafted hardworking white guy who earned every penny he got, having now been shoved aside by thugs and freeloaders who want everything handed to them (or they'll just take it). I'm not saying what color these people are but look for yourself.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Oh Pete certainly still has both supporters and detractors with entrenched opinions on either side. It never occurred to me how, or even if, those camps might be split along political lines and I'm not sure I'd care to dig into it in order to try and find out. My only point was that the non-baseball portion of the sports media in this country seems to treat the Rose question -- particularly the HoF part -- as if it's the most pressing issue facing baseball today. It's the one they most want to grill Manfred on when given a chance (sometimes to the exclusion of anything else). Those more within the game, on the other hand, have other topics to occupy their thoughts which push Pete's status further down the list of priorities.

I never thought about it this way, but I think you are right. I suspect it's because

1. Everyone knows about Pete Rose. So they can be lazy.
2. It sounds like a more important "moral" issue
3. They don't know even know what qualifying offers are. Much less ask an intelligent question about them.

And most of them have no idea that Pete voluntarily signed a lifetime ban in the beginning.

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: Was I right or was I right? Pete Rose is now the shafted hardworking white guy who earned every penny he got, having now been shoved aside by thugs and freeloaders who want everything handed to them (or they'll just take it). I'm not saying what color these people are but look for yourself.

If we armed Pete and let him guard our country's borders, we'd all be much safer and richer.

[metsmarathon]

Edgy MD wrote: metsmarathon wrote: so, silly question. have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character? 100%? Of course not. I imagine it's made a difference (one way or the other) in a handful of otherwise borderline cases, though. I also imagine it's made a difference in the ultimate vote total of otherwise not-borderline cases, if that matters.

well, that's basically my point though.

setting aside the whole steroids question, has there really been a player who was not voted in for his playing record, first and foremost?

the writers don't go talking about players in the waning stages of their careers as "fred's sportsmanship is off the charts. the way he congratulates opposing hitters when they hit home runs, he's paving his way to the hall of fame" or "there goes billy again, arguing with the ump that he really was out on that play. that kind of integrity is going to get him into the hall after he finally calls it a career" or "after every game, chet goes down to the children's hospital and spends his game check paying for cancer treatments of all the kids - he's been doing it every day of his career now; he's a hall of famer if I've ever seen one."

no, it's all about the playing record, and to a lesser extent the wibbly wobbly contributions to his team thing. I guess that means winning instead of losing.

unless the writers decide they really need something to make a fuss over. then, all of a sudden, oh, this guy didn't have enough character, even though his playing career makes him so much more than a borderline case.

honestly, though, I don't give too much of a flying fuck about pete rose getting into the hall. the inconsistency of the application of the voting standards is what gets me. if character, sportsmanship, and integrity mattered a damn, ty cobb would be nowhere near that place, and Gaylord perry would be persona non grata.

it's all about the playing career. the rest of that shit is just blah blah blah, lets talk nice about the guys we're enshrining - I'm sure they're just wonderful people. but it's all about the playing career.

you know what's on the plaques under the relief images of the players enshrined in the hall?

playing record. not a record of their sportsmanship. not a record of their integrity. not a record of their character. playing career. lets stop the farce.

"pete rose. Charlie hustle, hit king, etc. he bet on baseball as a player and manager, and received a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989"

[Fman99]

I'll stand by my statement of several years ago, because it's still valid.

Pete Rose is a retard. That's why other retarded people have Pete Rose's haircut.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Where does Pete Rose stand on the Syrian refugee controversy?

[Centerfield]

He stands on them. Like literally on them. Boot on their head, pinning their face to the ground. Yelling "This is America dammit!"

[Guest d'Kong76]

I wish I could draw, that would be a funny cartoon.

[Edgy MD]

well, that's basically my point though. setting aside the whole steroids question, has there really been a player who was not voted in for his playing record, first and foremost? the writers don't go talking about players in the waning stages of their careers as "fred's sportsmanship is off the charts. the way he congratulates opposing hitters when they hit home runs, he's paving his way to the hall of fame" or "there goes billy again, arguing with the ump that he really was out on that play. that kind of integrity is going to get him into the hall after he finally calls it a career" or "after every game, chet goes down to the children's hospital and spends his game check paying for cancer treatments of all the kids - he's been doing it every day of his career now; he's a hall of famer if I've ever seen one." no, it's all about the playing record, and to a lesser extent the wibbly wobbly contributions to his team thing. I guess that means winning instead of losing. unless the writers decide they really need something to make a fuss over. then, all of a sudden, oh, this guy didn't have enough character, even though his playing career makes him so much more than a borderline case. honestly, though, I don't give too much of a flying fuck about pete rose getting into the hall. the inconsistency of the application of the voting standards is what gets me. if character, sportsmanship, and integrity mattered a damn, ty cobb would be nowhere near that place, and Gaylord perry would be persona non grata. it's all about the playing career. the rest of that shit is just blah blah blah, lets talk nice about the guys we're enshrining - I'm sure they're just wonderful people. but it's all about the playing career. you know what's on the plaques under the relief images of the players enshrined in the hall? playing record. not a record of their sportsmanship. not a record of their integrity. not a record of their character. playing career. lets stop the farce. "pete rose. Charlie hustle, hit king, etc. he bet on baseball as a player and manager, and received a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989"

You acknowledge up front that these assessments have made a difference, but hen deny that further down.

Character and sportsmanship aresn't supposed to be everything. They're supposed to be a factor. And they are. While it's explicitly listed as a qualifying factor (and always has been), there's nothing farcical about people honoring that. There are borderline cases that have been swung either way by assessments of a guy's character.

As for Rose, it makes little sense to give a guy baseball's highest honor while he's banned. I'm rooting for Rose, as much as he doesn't deserve it. But induction the Baseball Hall of Fame, should it happen, shouldn't be the first step in his rehabilitation. It should be the last.

And yes, there are plaques that mention players' character.

• Gary Carter: "AN EXUBERANT ON-FIELD GENERAL WITH A SIGNATURE SMILE... . ... TIRELESS WORK ETHIC ... ."
  
  
  
• Jackie Robinson: "DISPLAYED TREMENDOUS COURAGE AND POISE IN 1947 WHEN HE INTEGRATED THE MODERN MAJOR LEAGUES IN THE FACE OF INTENSE ADVERSITY."
  
  
  
• Cal Ripken, Jr: "ARRIVED AT THE BALLPARK EVERY DAY WITH A BURNING DESIRE TO PERFORM AT HIS HIGHEST LEVEL. DEDICATION AND WORK ETHIC RESULTED IN... ."

And the moral degeneracy of Ty Cobb, as unpleasant a character as he might have been, is greatly overstated.

[Guest themetfairy]

Centerfield wrote: He stands on them. Like literally on them. Boot on their head, pinning their face to the ground. Yelling "This is America dammit!"

Thanks for the laugh

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: metsmarathon wrote: so, silly question. have they ever voted anybody into the hall based on their integrity, sportsmanship, or character? 100%? Of course not. I imagine it's made a difference (one way or the other) in a handful of otherwise borderline cases, though. I also imagine it's made a difference in the ultimate vote total of otherwise not-borderline cases, if that matters. well, that's basically my point though. setting aside the whole steroids question, has there really been a player who was not voted in for his playing record, first and foremost?

Setting aside steroids, many, I would imagine. Bud Harrelson wasn't voted into the HOF because of his playing record. Dave Schneck, too. Probably. There are others.

[metsmarathon]

You acknowledge up front that these assessments have made a difference, but hen deny that further down.

I miscommunicate my lack of acknowledgement, then persist in denying it.

Character and sportsmanship aresn't supposed to be everything. They're supposed to be a factor. And they are. While it's explicitly listed as a qualifying factor (and always has been), there's nothing farcical about people honoring that. There are borderline cases that have been swung either way by assessments of a guy's character.

what borderline case has it pushed a guy in on? it seems to be a door that swings only one way.

As for Rose, it makes little sense to give a guy baseball's highest honor while he's banned. I'm rooting for Rose, as much as he doesn't deserve it. But induction the Baseball Hall of Fame, should it happen, shouldn't be the first step in his rehabilitation. It should be the last.

it would highlight his career, and his performance on the field.

• Gary Carter: "AN EXUBERANT ON-FIELD GENERAL WITH A SIGNATURE SMILE... . ... TIRELESS WORK ETHIC ... ."
  
  
• Jackie Robinson: "DISPLAYED TREMENDOUS COURAGE AND POISE IN 1947 WHEN HE INTEGRATED THE MODERN MAJOR LEAGUES IN THE FACE OF INTENSE ADVERSITY."
  
  
• Cal Ripken, Jr: "ARRIVED AT THE BALLPARK EVERY DAY WITH A BURNING DESIRE TO PERFORM AT HIS HIGHEST LEVEL. DEDICATION AND WORK ETHIC RESULTED IN... ."

And the moral degeneracy of Ty Cobb, as unpleasant a character as he might have been, is greatly overstated.

And yes, there are plaques that mention players' character.

well fine. I certainly could've researched that one a tad. but none of these guys were borderline. the closest is Jackie, I guess, but it's not like his playing career didn't or wouldn't've merited it by its lonesome.

[Benjamin Grimm]

metsmarathon wrote: what borderline case has it pushed a guy in on? it seems to be a door that swings only one way.

Rick Ferrell, maybe?