Posted on 08/12/2003 7:28:41 AM PDT by Ray Kinsella
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.
There were four thrown games in 1919: in those, Jackson batted .250, with no RBIs and one run scored. In the other games, he hit .500 with four scores and 6 RBIs. This yields the oft cited "but he averaged .375 in the World Series" stat that Jackson's supporters use.
Back to Pete: Selig's problem here is that he's not made many public statements about this case. He's allowed time -- and Rose himself -- to build a case for re-instatement despite the fact that Rose is accused of the Most Egregious Sin in the game of baseball: allowing events from off the field to influence the outcome and the integrity of games. Gambling is something that baseball specifically and strenuously works to oppose -- which is why the "Lifetime" ban was instituted. You can beat up players on the other team and get suspended for a week or so, but mess with W's and L's via gambling, and that will kill the game.
Selig should have come out strongly and continuously to update the public on the importance of this case. That fact that he hasn't is simply a comment on his personality as much as his competence as Baseball Commish. He treats problems as if they'll simply go away, and seems to refuse to deal with reality. That's led to bad contracts, bad player-owner relations, bad fan-baseball relations and such. The Pete Rose case is nothing different.
But if as reported here, that Pete will be ultimately permitted to return defiantly without remourse (that's within HIS personality, of course!) and ultimately permitted to MANAGE A TEAM again is tantamout to permitting a convicted child molester to raise children again.
Any bets (no pun intended) on his return to gambling? Or whether Rose ever stopped? Here's one vote for booting both Rose AND Selig from baseball for life.
This is about what he did when he was a manager.
I think he was a great baseball player, that they were never able to prove everything or he wouldn't be coming back, and that his baseball career had nothing to do with his managerial career.
I also don't think he should have bet on baseball, either to win or lose. But I see nothing that compromises the integrity of a particular game for him to bet on his team to win.
Also, I see no problem at all with a baseball player betting on a football game or a horserace.
I wonder why the NFL continues to use the TV to broadcast their games since the TV also always reports the odds on the games?
Office pools and online betting mean that these folks better catch up with the times and spell out the varieties of gambling that are harmful to the game.
Yes, it is, unless you live offshore, Atlantic City, or Las Vegas.
The NFL should be appalled at all the action on their games. I know they lecture the players on every team every year. But it doesn't seem to bother them enough.
Really? You, a baseball fan, can't think of any circumstances in which he might compromise his team's future because he bet large amounts of money on one game? Do you not understand that, just possibly, the strong arm guys who come looking for their money might put a little extra pressure Pete, say of the physical variety?
Do you think it is consistent to say, "Go ahead and bet with your team all you want, but don't dare bet against them or we'll throw you out for life"? Are we going to say that sports gambling for players is not bad, it's just who you bat for that counts?
Actually, If that's the charge, he'd fit right in with the old crop of players too. Heck, he could sit down right between Mickey Mantle and the Babe.
Now suppose Pete is managing a game that he has bet $10,000 to win. It is the bottom of the sixth inning and he his team's star 21-year-old pitcher is on the mound, fatigued and calls to his manager in the dugout.
Pete trots out to the mound, realizes that the pitcher spot in first up when the Reds bat and his best reliever is in the bullpen. The pitcher on the mound says, "Hey coach, my arm is about to fall off, it is killing me, I think something is wrong."
Pete knowing he has 10k on the game may very well say "Hey, kid tough it out, I got ten thousand riding on this game and I am counting on you!"
The truth is that a young pitcher's arm is very delicate and can be ruined very quickly if overworked. Look at Mark Fidrych and even Kerry Wood. Each a young MLB pitcher whose arms were either ruined or severely injured due to overwork by their manager.
Now, you want to tell me that it is okay for a manager to bet on a game and put his players entire careers at risk?
That that action is now being repealed shows what "integrity" that game has.
None.
Perhaps it didn't. But what happens if he gets in the hole "one hundred large" to the guys with the crooked noses, doesn't he set himself up to be "asked" to throw a baseball game or two?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.