not really fantasy baseball but still interesting...........
The Return of Pete Rose
Exclusive--He's Back in Baseball in 2004
by Derek Zumsteg and Will Carroll
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 http://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.
A good read. My opinion on this has changed a bunch of times. IMHO, even though he will be able to be on the ballot, a lot of people still won't vote for him. All of this half stuff is getting old. Let him in a little just for a taste. What's next? Let him manage only away games? Tap the phone? I guess that RIGHT NOW, I would like to see him get in the hall but not be able to work in baseball. It is funny how cocky and stubborn he has been through all of this especially since he signed a lifetime ban.
If this is true I will be very disappointed. To have Pete Rose involved with any MLB team's day to day operations is a horrible idea. The fact that he won't admit wrong doing erks me even more. I recently heard an interview where Rose said that if he isn't enshrined in the Hall during his lifetime what good is it. He is nothing but a glory seeker and publicity hound. He doesn't respect the game or its history.
Pogotheostrich wrote:To have Pete Rose involved with any MLB team's day to day operations is a horrible idea. The fact that he won't admit wrong doing erks me even more. He doesn't respect the game or its history.
As a Reds fan, I agree 100%+. While I loved Pete as a player, his arrogance just really rubs me the wrong way, like he's above admitting that he made a mistake. I've been a Reds fan for over 20 years but if they hire him as manager or other position involved in day to day operations, I am gone and I say that in all seriousness.
It would be so easy for Pete -- he could have a press conference, cry, call upon his humble roots, ask for forgiveness and he could have the public eating out of his hand. Americans are a forgiving bunch. But on the other hand, that would open up a whole other can of worms -- if he admitted wrongdoing, he'd also have to 'fess up to lying about it for the past 13-14 years. What a tangled web.
his arrogance irks me, too. he's not trustworthy. you know what? i'll guess he's probably betting on something right now.
but people, to quote one of my favorite insights from this matter,
"Steve Howe (banished 11 times for drugs) is back in the game. They turn their eyes, quite conveniently, away from any number of wife-beaters, and drug addicts, every day." http://www.mcn.org/2/laks/pete.htm#tirade
ty cobb was a vicious criminal. completely unlikeable, as stories go. but the hall of fame should not be a popularity contest--and the rules have already been bent for the allowance of past competitors, so those boys are in there. why disallow the hit-king?
i like him none. i would not vote for him as mayor, would not hire him to babysit my little brother, and wouldn't even want to see him manage my reds. but it's a crime that he has not already been enshrined.
benjapage wrote:his arrogance irks me, too. he's not trustworthy. you know what? i'll guess he's probably betting on something right now.b
Pete was recently spotted in a casino.
benjapage wrote:but people, to quote one of my favorite insights from this matter,
"Steve Howe (banished 11 times for drugs) is back in the game. They turn their eyes, quite conveniently, away from any number of wife-beaters, and drug addicts, every day." http://www.mcn.org/2/laks/pete.htm#tiradeb
I agree that they are too lenient with drug offenders but there isn't a big sign in the lockerroom that says that they will be banned for LIFE for doing drugs as there is regarding betting.
IMHO, Pete either needed to show contrition and/or work on fixing the questionable things in his life. He has done neither. I would love to let him in the hall based on his accomplishments but something irks me about him. It seems like a joke.
Last edited by Lofunzo on Tue Aug 12, 2003 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
benjapage wrote:i like him none. i would not vote for him as mayor, would not hire him to babysit my little brother, and wouldn't even want to see him manage my reds. but it's a crime that he has not already been enshrined.
My sentiments exactly. It'd be troubling to see him manage again, but IMO enshrinement should be based on performance alone, so he should be in the Hall.
This has me very upset. To paraphrase the prosecutor in the Rose case on ESPN, "We have something here in America, that the rules apply to everyone. No exceptions can be made to the rules." And as he states in the case, there are very specific rules about betting on baseball, that everyone who played or mananged knew about.
With the wife-beaters and such, it is true that they are bad people, but there are NO specific rules in baseball that say wife-beaters cannot be in the Hall of Fame or involved with baseball. There ARE however, specific rules regarding betting on baseball. The biggest point is that his actions involved baseball and undermined the sport, rather than the character of the player. This is not to say that wife-beaters and the like are better than gamblers (I feel its the opposite), but the rules apply to betting on the sport, which again, involves the sport and undermines the sport.
What kind of example does this set for the future? It says that if you are an exceptional ballplayer, you can break the rules and be permanently banned baseball, but since you were an exceptional player an exception to the rules will be granted.
If the rules don't apply to everyone, what's their purpose?
Also remember that Pete Rose is not absent in the Hall of Fame. When someone goes to the HOF, they can see various things relating to Pete Rose- bats, balls and you can learn that he is the all-time hit king and that he played hard.
To enshrine Pete Rose, who still refuses to admit it, despite overwhelming evidence, would open up a new can of worms and set another terrible example of how the rules don't matter in a day when a triple time murderer, sentenced to 3 life sentences, can get out in 15 years. This is not to liken Rose to a murderer, but to present another example of how the rules are being increasingly set aside for sentimental garbage.
blankman wrote:Also remember that Pete Rose is not absent in the Hall of Fame. When someone goes to the HOF, they can see various things relating to Pete Rose- bats, balls and you can learn that he is the all-time hit king and that he played hard. *end rant
This is one of my pet peeves. The HoF is very hypocritical in that they banned Rose but still have his stuff on display. If they don't want Pete in, then take down all the Pete Rose displays. Why should the HoF "profit" from Rose's name?