Replies

But as future generations pass into oblivion the records broken and ferocity of game play that was "Pete Rose" can never be denied as having happened. They can name him player "X", they can black out his face and his number, and they can do all of that with ease of mind because of Mr. Rose's breaking of the rules.

But they can't undo recorded game play from one of the greats. They can't just say player "X" never existed.

Pete Rose should be mentioned in the Hall of Fame. Not necessarily in a positive light, and not with any ceremonial induction (even if he's alive when his mention is put in there). After all, someone has to have been on record playing his position in the games he was in.

Alternatively, someone could see if they could sublet out some space from a building next to or near the Hall of Fame. Even if not the official Hall of Fame refused to acknowledge the Pete Rose exhibit, those who wanted to could still see it; I suspect there are enough Pete Rose supporters to maintain a small display.

When my family and I visited Cooperstown 3 years ago we went to the HOF. Rose's stats and some of his memorabilia were displayed in the museum. Interesting aside that the museum also displayed some of "Shoeless" Joe, Cicotte, and other Black Sox players.

This whole discussion is whether Rose should be permitted to have his name submitted to the baseball writers for possible induction to the HOF. Induction would be the inclusion of a bronze plaque hanging in a wing of the building with baseball's notables. It will not repair any of Rose's shortcomings.

I followed with great fondness Rose's career. But, unfortunately, he crossed the line. The evidence against him was overwhelming. There has been no credible refutation of the evidence gathered and shared publicly. No evidence has been submitted by him, or those on his behalf. He chose not to contest it before Commissioner Giamatti, and voluntarily accepted a lifetime suspension by being put on the inelgible list.

I seem to recall that Willie Mays had a similar problem after he retired. He associated with gamblers and Vegas interests. He was asked to disassociate from those individuals and interests. He did so. Rose had an opportunity to do the same. He did not. So, my assessment for Rose is that "a deal is a deal." He should have stood and fought at that time rather than let the evidence trail grow 13 years old.

His intransigence in addressing his errors is intolerable. My memory is that other than his friend Joe Morgan, other HOFers oppose his name being put on a ballot. Two come to mind: Al Kaline and Johnny Bench (a former teammate of Rose).

His is indeed a sad circumstance. I wish him the best, but he should not be removed from the ineligible list even if he shows contrition. But, of course he will never express remorse. This situation has allowed me to have meaningful discussions with my 15 year old son.

Gwjack

I agree. But MLB will never let a loose nickel out of their grasp so an alternative shrine to Rose would be immediately answered with either a lawsuit or the HOF finally inducting him if for nothing else than to prevent anyone but MLB & HOF to benefit from his years in the league.