Pete Rose could be reinstated as early as friday.

Link

And would be eligible for the next Hall of Fame session.

Your thoughts?

Personally, they either have to reinstate him or they have to ban everyone associated with steriods. If what he did is cheating or unethical so is everything else.

EDIT : Evidently the whole "as early as friday" part of the article was not substantiated and has since been edited out.

Rose has no business in the Hall or anywhere else in baseball. What he did was far more damaging to the game than juicing.

What he did while it is pretty bad has nothing to do with his personal accomplishments as a player. Even if he threw games he still has all those hits.

I think him being in the hall based on his playing is a lot more warranted than a juicer being in there based on theirs.

I dont really agree with him being fully reinstated or having anything to do with baseball, i just think he deserves to at least be eligible to get on a HoF ballot. Even though everyone knows he would never get in.

He belongs in the hall and i hope he gets in for what he did while playing baseball.NetYankEagle

Totally. Taking roid's is so much worse than betting on your own team, not saying betting on your own team is right but it's not nearly as bad as taking steriods

Totally. Taking roid's is so much worse than betting on your own team, not saying betting on your own team is right but it's not nearly as bad as taking steriods

Boston_Boyy

What? Rose came just shy of outright throwing games and you say that's not as bad as steroids?

It's not like Rose was betting to win on every game. He picked which games to bet on and then made lineup revisions based upon his selections. He'd do stuff like purposefully NOT bring a good reliever into a tight game so that the pitcher would be fresh for a game he had money riding upon. He may not have intentionally lost games per say... but he definitely was intentionally not trying to win certain games.

That is far worse than juicing.

i think he belongs in the hall. i think he should be reinstated. also he still has to get voted in so let that be what it is. and if he makes it on the list for next year it will be a tough choice. there are some good first year eligible players like andres galragga, edgar martinez, fred mcgriff just to name a few. xbox360isgr8t

[QUOTE="xbox360isgr8t"]i think he belongs in the hall. i think he should be reinstated. also he still has to get voted in so let that be what it is. and if he makes it on the list for next year it will be a tough choice. there are some good first year eligible players like andres galragga, edgar martinez, fred mcgriff just to name a few. mattykovax

[QUOTE="mattykovax"][QUOTE="xbox360isgr8t"]i think he belongs in the hall. i think he should be reinstated. also he still has to get voted in so let that be what it is. and if he makes it on the list for next year it will be a tough choice. there are some good first year eligible players like andres galragga, edgar martinez, fred mcgriff just to name a few. xbox360isgr8t

Pete Rose among the other Hall of Famers is welcomed, but it all depends if they make it seem that once/if he gets re-instated will that be his 1st year of eligibility and thus being up to the writers, or will they make it seem that he has been on the ballot for 20 years leaving it to the Veterans Committee.Mister__Awesome

[QUOTE="Boston_Boyy"]

Totally. Taking roid's is so much worse than betting on your own team, not saying betting on your own team is right but it's not nearly as bad as taking steriods

What? Rose came just shy of outright throwing games and you say that's not as bad as steroids?

It's not like Rose was betting to win on every game. He picked which games to bet on and then made lineup revisions based upon his selections. He'd do stuff like purposefully NOT bring a good reliever into a tight game so that the pitcher would be fresh for a game he had money riding upon. He may not have intentionally lost games per say... but he definitely was intentionally not trying to win certain games.

That is far worse than juicing.

ALL AS A MANAGER! All his problems came as a manager. He's not Earl Weaver, Joe Torre, Tony Larussa, etc. He wouldn't go into the hall as a MANAGER he'd be going in as a PLAYER. There was never any proof that he did anything wrong as a player. That's like saying if Griffey Jr would retire today and become the manager of the Mariners next year and start betting on his team, then that would in some way take away from what he did on the field. That makes no sense. With that being said, he won't get voted in anytime soon because if i'm not mistaken, since it's so long since he's been retired, his eligibility goes straight to the veteran's committee and they wont vote him in. sixringz1

I'm curious as to what part of the process you object to. Is it MLB's placing Rose on the ineligible list? (an action I'd like to point as one that Rose voluntarily accepted.) Is it HOF's rule against players on the ineligible list? Maybe you object to MLB only maintaining a single list?

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]ALL AS A MANAGER! All his problems came as a manager. He's not Earl Weaver, Joe Torre, Tony Larussa, etc. He wouldn't go into the hall as a MANAGER he'd be going in as a PLAYER. There was never any proof that he did anything wrong as a player. That's like saying if Griffey Jr would retire today and become the manager of the Mariners next year and start betting on his team, then that would in some way take away from what he did on the field. That makes no sense. With that being said, he won't get voted in anytime soon because if i'm not mistaken, since it's so long since he's been retired, his eligibility goes straight to the veteran's committee and they wont vote him in. Oleg_Huzwog

I'm curious as to what part of the process you object to. Is it MLB's placing Rose on the ineligible list? (an action I'd like to point as one that Rose voluntarily accepted.) Is it HOF's rule against players on the ineligible list? Maybe you object to MLB only maintaining a single list?

...but his managing had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his playing career.sixringz1

Don't forget he was baseball's last player-manager. His managing most definitely had something to do with his playing career. Hell, one could argue that he was the only manager in the game who was willing to keep sticking him in the lineup long enough for him to break Cobb's record.

He didn't cheat at the game of baseball, he cheated at gambling. As a player, he's a surefire hall of famer. If he were under consideration as a manager I'd say keep him out, but as a player he absolutely deserves to be in.

He didn't cheat at the game of baseball, he cheated at gambling. As a player, he's a surefire hall of famer. If he were under consideration as a manager I'd say keep him out, but as a player he absolutely deserves to be in.

theone86

Since when is cheating a reason to keep someone out of the HOF? Gaylord Perry is in.

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]...but his managing had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his playing career.Oleg_Huzwog

Don't forget he was baseball's last player-manager. His managing most definitely had something to do with his playing career. Hell, one could argue that he was the only manager in the game who was willing to keep sticking him in the lineup long enough for him to break Cobb's record.

I read in the paper this morning that this is totally false. Second_Rook