The Return of Pete Rose - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

The Return of Pete Rose

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Lofunzo » Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:17 pm

Bballplaya87 wrote: As for the whole arrogant thing, well if you were a player who was as skilled as Rose was I think he has more than a little bit of a right to be cocky.


The thing is that his arrogance has to do with this whole hall issue and his denial of ever betting on baseball rather than his accomplishments. Getting him to admit that he bet on his team is tough because he still denies that he even bet on the game, let alone his team. Based on his accomplishments, he is a first ballot hall of famer. Hands down. He knows what he needs to do. The game will be spineless if they back down now.
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby benjapage » Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:25 pm

cobb once stepped in freshly poured asphalt and was yelled at by fred collins, a construction worker who happened to be black. cobb responded by slapping collins, knocking him to the ground, and continuing on his way. He was charged with assault and battery and found guilty.

he also beat the hell out of a man whom he mistakenly thought to be a heckling fan, claude lueker (a handicapped man) and was suspended indefinitely, a suspension that held until the rest of his team refused to play games without him.

just before the 1909 world series, he got into a fight with an elevator operator who was black. cobb slashed him, and played in the series with an arrest warrant out for him, but he evaded the warrant by slipping out through canada while the rest of the team took their regular train back to detroit. classy.

and from espn's page 2: "The best story is about a young pitcher who intentionally beaned him in his first plate appearance. Cobb took his base without saying a word. The next time he came up to bat, he dropped a bunt down the first-base line. When the pitcher went to field the ball, Cobb knocked him over, then spiked him on the chest. The pitcher was sliced open and had to leave the game."

and also from espn's page 2, specifically from cobb's relative: "On a golf course he wrapped a golf club around a fellow golfer's head. First basemen were told to watch their feet when he was coming. His drinking and shooting of guns anywhere and at anybody is why in my book, without question, he was the meanest, most psychotic, dirtiest player who has ever lived!
Blake Cobb
St. Petersburg, Fla."
yeah, yes...
benjapage
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2767
Joined: 26 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Postby BeautifulBrunette » Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:41 pm

The flawed argument of a double standard always arises during a debate about Pete Rose. You know, "Darryl Strawberry...Steve Howe… drug dealers…wife beaters...rapists… why can't Pete get a second chance when these guys have been given so many chances?"

This is bogus logic. Nothing in baseball's rulebook says a player caught snorting coke, smoking pot or beating up his wife will be banished for life. This isn't about the laws of society. Rose was banned because he violated a rule posted on every clubhouse wall in major league baseball: anyone betting on the game will be banned for life. It leaves no room for interpretation and there's no fine print at the bottom, listing possible exceptions.

Pete's pride/stubbornness/arrogance will not allow him to admit guilt or remorse or apologize for betting on baseball, including games played by the Reds, the team he was managing at the time (how some folks think that's no problem is beyond me). He has done nothing to demonstrate to the powers-that-be that he is attempting to overcome his gambling problem. That's up to him. But then, baseball can't be blamed for refusing to reinstate him. Pete "can't do nothing" and expect reinstatement.

By betting on games in which he had a hand in the outcome, Pete compromised the integrity and credibility of the game.
BeautifulBrunette
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 245
Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby pkarr5000 » Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:57 pm

benjapage wrote:and from espn's page 2: "The best story is about a young pitcher who intentionally beaned him in his first plate appearance. Cobb took his base without saying a word. The next time he came up to bat, he dropped a bunt down the first-base line. When the pitcher went to field the ball, Cobb knocked him over, then spiked him on the chest. The pitcher was sliced open and had to leave the game.



i wish i could see that. that sounds pretty funny
pkarr5000
General Manager
General Manager

Mock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3935
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby BeautifulBrunette » Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:09 pm

The Dude wrote:So, put aside the rule and ask, did Pete do anything that was wrong - i.e. would affect the game outcomes? Its my understanding that Pete bet on his own team winning. It would certainly be problematic if he was betting on his own team losing, but winning, what's he going to do - cheat to win?


I actually laughed out loud when I read this one. Once again, the sign that is posted in every major league clubhouse states the consequences of betting on the game: a lifetime ban. There's not an asterisk at the bottom that reads "but not if you bet on your own team winning". LOL Dude, you have a flawed argument but I like your style anyway, since I too, have been known to question authority over the years. And we do agree on one point -- we wish the old guy would just go away.
BeautifulBrunette
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 245
Joined: 11 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby JRRNeiklot » Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:54 pm


You're dying to be proven wrong? Here it comes then. First off, you say that you don't THINK that he managed differently. Unless it is 100% certain, then I believe that he should be punished.



That's nice. Guilty until proven innoccent, eh?
JRRNeiklot
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 503
(Past Year: 23)
Joined: 15 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Lofunzo » Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:55 pm

JR.......When it was determined that he bet on baseball and it is clearly stated that there is a lifetime ban if you do, then yes. He is guilty and has done nothing to change that fact.
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

MOOT POINT??

Postby Lofunzo » Tue Aug 12, 2003 3:59 pm

It might all be moot as this is on http://www.espn.com. We all know how these things go but here goes:



Report called 'unfounded' and 'irresponsible'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESPN.com news services


Major League Baseball's chief operating officer, Bob DuPuy, shot down a Baseball Prospectus report Tuesday that claimed Pete Rose already has signed an agreement to be reinstated in 2004, calling it "totally unfounded, totally unsubstantiated" and "journalistically irresponsible."

DuPuy, who spoke to ESPN.com's Jayson Stark, said there has been "no decision, no agreement, no nothing" clearing the way for Rose to return to the game next year.

Baseball Prospectus, in a statement in response to DuPuy's denial, stood by its story, saying the report "was compiled using reliable sources. We believe that, in the end, our report will be found to be accurate."

Warren Greene, Rose's business agent, said Tuesday no agreement has been reached.

""We absolutely know nothing of it," Greene said.

A number of different sources familiar with Rose's situation have told Stark in recent days that Rose's case will become a top priority for commissioner Bud Selig right after the World Series. And indications are that, barring some unforeseen development, Rose could be reinstated before Thanksgiving.

However, contrary to the Baseball Prospectus report, the sources have consistently indicated that Rose would have to admit to betting on baseball and would have to apologize for damage he's done to the sport.

In fact, it wasn't until Rose sent word to Selig that he was open to some sort of admission and apology that the commissioner changed his stance last year on reinstatement.

"When a decision is made, it will be reported through the appropriate channels," DuPuy said in a statement later Tuesday.

Those same sources also dispute Baseball Prospectus' report that Rose would be able to manage, or take any other job in baseball without restrictions, starting in 2005. ESPN has been reporting for months that the commissioner would have to specifically approve any job Rose is offered in baseball. Sources also have said it's unlikely Rose would be permitted to manage at any point in the foreseeable future.

Last week, Stark reported that Cincinnati Reds owner Carl Lindner intends to hire Rose as the team's manager and has agitated for Rose's reinstatement for some time.

According to Tuesday's report, published on Baseball Prospectus' Internet site (the organization also provides content for ESPN.com), Rose signed an agreement after a series of preseason meetings involving himself, Hall of Famer and former Phillies teammate Mike Schmidt, and at different times, high-level representatives of Major League Baseball including Selig and DuPuy.

Rose has been banned from the game for life since reaching an agreement in 1989 with then-commissioner Bart Giamatti. The agreement did not include an admission that Rose bet on baseball. The deal ended an investigation of baseball's all-time hits leader.

Rose's last season was 1986, and Hall of Fame eligibility rules require that a player appear on the ballot within 20 years of the end of his playing career. If he is reinstated but not included on the 2004 ballot, Rose would have one year of eligibility for election by voters at large. If Rose is not elected by a vote, he would have to be elected by the Veterans' Committee.
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby The Dude » Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:46 pm

BeautifulBrunette wrote:
The Dude wrote:So, put aside the rule and ask, did Pete do anything that was wrong - i.e. would affect the game outcomes? Its my understanding that Pete bet on his own team winning. It would certainly be problematic if he was betting on his own team losing, but winning, what's he going to do - cheat to win?


I actually laughed out loud when I read this one. Once again, the sign that is posted in every major league clubhouse states the consequences of betting on the game: a lifetime ban. There's not an asterisk at the bottom that reads "but not if you bet on your own team winning". LOL Dude, you have a flawed argument but I like your style anyway, since I too, have been known to question authority over the years. And we do agree on one point -- we wish the old guy would just go away.


I'm glad we agree on something, but you missed my point. I don't really care what's written on the wall in MLB stadiums or what commandments God handed down to Moses, or even if the US Government tells me that smoking marijuana is illegal because its bad for me, but its ok to drink... rules are made to be questioned, and often broken... period. I just want logical consistency out of the rule. In essense, I want to know if Pete actually did something wrong or if he just broke a rule (whether it be a cardinal rule or not... cardinal rules are often the most assinine). One person pointed out that he could have left a pitcher in too long - well, is there evidence of this? What's to say that a manager's desire for glory wouldn't lead him to do the same thing? Seems to me this happens all the time in sports. I just feel that this letter-of-the-law lawyer-esque way of going about this problem is bound to end up in an infinite regress of argumentation. I am yet to be convinced that Pete actually did something detrimental to the game... I know he broke a rule, but one time, I broke the speed limit and didn't kill anyone... and one time, I even took the Lord's name in vein. Rules mean nothing without substantive reasoning behind them. Let's not question if he broke the law... let's question if what he did was actually harmful.
The Dude Abides
The Dude
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 104
Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby benjapage » Tue Aug 12, 2003 5:49 pm

"I even took the Lord's name in vein"

whoa. shooting up on blasphemy? i didn't know that you could do it that way. did you get a more intense buzz? you junky. :*)

b
yeah, yes...
benjapage
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafeholic
Posts: 2767
Joined: 26 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact