CT poll- Rose in/out

[Rojo Johnson]

In.

[RunSup]

Pete iRose is in
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... pe01.shtml

Shoeless Joe is in
https://www.baseball-reference.com/play ... jo01.shtml

Eddie Cicotte ... in.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cicoted01.shtml

[Carp4Cy]

In

[sikeston bulldog2]

Tally 32-8. That’s Still just around 80 percent.

[Cranny]

In

As a player he's a slam dunk, 1st ballot Hall of Famer and that's what he's going in for not his managing which s u c k e d.

Once the Hall started letting STEROID freaks in, there was no reason to exclude Rose the Player anymore.

412-373 Managerial Record

All 4 full seasons above .500.

In/out

Twisted SBD

He absolutely belongs in. I just don't want him in now because it isn't about honoring Rose, it is about Manfred garnering attention and media hype over a dead legend. This should have been done years ago when Pete could stand up, speak, and atone for his transgressions during a speech on a stage in Cooperstown.

I disagree. I saw the ban as lifetime and his capitulating after 20 years of lies doesn't erase that. He came out to sell his book. Now he's dead, he can be voted in

Didn't deserve to see himself make the HOF

+1...he's dead, still don’t want him in...and that he only bet on his team to win is bull[shirt]...he [fork]ing lied for 20 years.

I tend to agree with this.

And as far as whoever said “since steroid freaks are in, so should Rose be in”, I disagree.

Fat Papi got in, but:
Manny Ramirez - no
Barry Bonds - no
Mark McGwire - no
Roger Clemens - no
Gary Sheffield -no
Sammy Sosa - no
Rafael Palmeiro - no

Nor should they be.

Just like Rose.

All IMO.

Performance enhancement was not written on all walls as illegal
nor was it tested for. It's not the same offense. Players are enhancing their production. It plays out different
if all the players take it versus all players betting. It's mostly unfair to other players competing
with them, not the game itself.

Rose is an extremely difficult thing, especially for a guy with Reno in his name. Gambling isn't
much compared to other things BUT. Pete wasn't kept out for gambling. He could still gamble. He knowingly broke the
long standing rule and denied it. Arrogance?, He had more to lose than most.

I say that for those who say he only bet "on" his team to win. That's Pete's story. MLB dropped it
and let their decision ride on the black and white of that decision. Not all information was made
public. It's been suggested that the evidence was overwhelming.

As a player he, and all the all-time record holders should be in, yet here we are having reports and journalists
messing with or decision-making process. Pete complicates this further by being caught only while
being a manager not as a player.

Do asterisks or separate rooms really work? I don't think they do.

Sadly for all of that I must say, No.

After a full investigation, there was no evidence that he ever bet against his team. But the points made about him managing differently to win one game to the overall detriment of his team are valid. Very good points.

[Ozziesfan41]

In

As a player he's a slam dunk, 1st ballot Hall of Famer and that's what he's going in for not his managing which s u c k e d.

Once the Hall started letting STEROID freaks in, there was no reason to exclude Rose the Player anymore.

412-373 Managerial Record

All 4 full seasons above .500.

In/out

Twisted SBD

He absolutely belongs in. I just don't want him in now because it isn't about honoring Rose, it is about Manfred garnering attention and media hype over a dead legend. This should have been done years ago when Pete could stand up, speak, and atone for his transgressions during a speech on a stage in Cooperstown.

I disagree. I saw the ban as lifetime and his capitulating after 20 years of lies doesn't erase that. He came out to sell his book. Now he's dead, he can be voted in

Didn't deserve to see himself make the HOF

+1...he's dead, still don’t want him in...and that he only bet on his team to win is bull[shirt]...he [fork]ing lied for 20 years.

I tend to agree with this.

And as far as whoever said “since steroid freaks are in, so should Rose be in”, I disagree.

Fat Papi got in, but:
Manny Ramirez - no
Barry Bonds - no
Mark McGwire - no
Roger Clemens - no
Gary Sheffield -no
Sammy Sosa - no
Rafael Palmeiro - no

Nor should they be.

Just like Rose.

All IMO.

Performance enhancement was not written on all walls as illegal
nor was it tested for. It's not the same offense. Players are enhancing their production. It plays out different
if all the players take it versus all players betting. It's mostly unfair to other players competing
with them, not the game itself.

Rose is an extremely difficult thing, especially for a guy with Reno in his name. Gambling isn't
much compared to other things BUT. Pete wasn't kept out for gambling. He could still gamble. He knowingly broke the
long standing rule and denied it. Arrogance?, He had more to lose than most.

I say that for those who say he only bet "on" his team to win. That's Pete's story. MLB dropped it
and let their decision ride on the black and white of that decision. Not all information was made
public. It's been suggested that the evidence was overwhelming.

As a player he, and all the all-time record holders should be in, yet here we are having reports and journalists
messing with or decision-making process. Pete complicates this further by being caught only while
being a manager not as a player.

Do asterisks or separate rooms really work? I don't think they do.

Sadly for all of that I must say, No.

After a full investigation, there was no evidence that he ever bet against his team. But the points made about him managing differently to win one game to the overall detriment of his team are valid. Very good points.

And even if he only bet on them to win he then put himself in a position where the bookie could blackmail him into losing games also

[renostl]

In

As a player he's a slam dunk, 1st ballot Hall of Famer and that's what he's going in for not his managing which s u c k e d.

Once the Hall started letting STEROID freaks in, there was no reason to exclude Rose the Player anymore.

412-373 Managerial Record

All 4 full seasons above .500.

In/out

Twisted SBD

He absolutely belongs in. I just don't want him in now because it isn't about honoring Rose, it is about Manfred garnering attention and media hype over a dead legend. This should have been done years ago when Pete could stand up, speak, and atone for his transgressions during a speech on a stage in Cooperstown.

I disagree. I saw the ban as lifetime and his capitulating after 20 years of lies doesn't erase that. He came out to sell his book. Now he's dead, he can be voted in

Didn't deserve to see himself make the HOF

+1...he's dead, still don’t want him in...and that he only bet on his team to win is bull[shirt]...he [fork]ing lied for 20 years.

I tend to agree with this.

And as far as whoever said “since steroid freaks are in, so should Rose be in”, I disagree.

Fat Papi got in, but:
Manny Ramirez - no
Barry Bonds - no
Mark McGwire - no
Roger Clemens - no
Gary Sheffield -no
Sammy Sosa - no
Rafael Palmeiro - no

Nor should they be.

Just like Rose.

All IMO.

Performance enhancement was not written on all walls as illegal
nor was it tested for. It's not the same offense. Players are enhancing their production. It plays out different
if all the players take it versus all players betting. It's mostly unfair to other players competing
with them, not the game itself.

Rose is an extremely difficult thing, especially for a guy with Reno in his name. Gambling isn't
much compared to other things BUT. Pete wasn't kept out for gambling. He could still gamble. He knowingly broke the
long standing rule and denied it. Arrogance?, He had more to lose than most.

I say that for those who say he only bet "on" his team to win. That's Pete's story. MLB dropped it
and let their decision ride on the black and white of that decision. Not all information was made
public. It's been suggested that the evidence was overwhelming.

As a player he, and all the all-time record holders should be in, yet here we are having reports and journalists
messing with or decision-making process. Pete complicates this further by being caught only while
being a manager not as a player.

Do asterisks or separate rooms really work? I don't think they do.

Sadly for all of that I must say, No.

After a full investigation, there was no evidence that he ever bet against his team. But the points made about him managing differently to win one game to the overall detriment of his team are valid. Very good points.

We both come here to hear other viewpoints.
And this is a difficult No for myself.

[Bomber1]

Is it illegal for the owner of a horse entered in the Kentucky Derby, to bet on his horse to win? That’s what Rose did. He never bet against his own team which is critical.

That is a terrible analogy.

Why? If you bet on your team to lose, you can make moves to hurt their chances. If you bet on them to win, the moves you make to win are moves you would make anyway.

It apparent you either didn’t read or completely ignored several earlier posts that covered this.

If you need clarification re-read this thread.

[Cranny]

Is it illegal for the owner of a horse entered in the Kentucky Derby, to bet on his horse to win? That’s what Rose did. He never bet against his own team which is critical.

That is a terrible analogy.

Why? If you bet on your team to lose, you can make moves to hurt their chances. If you bet on them to win, the moves you make to win are moves you would make anyway.

It apparent you either didn’t read or completely ignored several earlier posts that covered this.

If you need clarification re-read this thread.

Actually, Bomber, I was away for awhile, came back and saw the quotes and thought they were very good points.

[Bomber1]

Is it illegal for the owner of a horse entered in the Kentucky Derby, to bet on his horse to win? That’s what Rose did. He never bet against his own team which is critical.

That is a terrible analogy.

Why? If you bet on your team to lose, you can make moves to hurt their chances. If you bet on them to win, the moves you make to win are moves you would make anyway.

It apparent you either didn’t read or completely ignored several earlier posts that covered this.

If you need clarification re-read this thread.

Correction - I saw your above post after posting this - my apologies.

[icon]

In. As I recall, when he bet on his own team, he only bet on them to win.

Does it matter?

Yes, because he could do things to lose.

The facts show that he managed certain players differently when he was betting on his team or not betting at all on his team to win. He didn't bet on them every game. That's why the rule states what it does. He knew it and broke it.

Out

[icon]

In. As I recall, when he bet on his own team, he only bet on them to win.

Does it matter?

Yes, because he could do things to lose.

Going out of his way chasing a win also is detrimental. Burning up your bully because you bet to win has repurcussions

Good point. Hadn't thought about that before.

Of course, it's a good point. That's why the rule exists.

[icon]

In. As I recall, when he bet on his own team, he only bet on them to win.

Which if true is even more of a reason to ban him. Is that how he communicated to other gamblers? If i’m not betting on them today so you shouldn’t. Why was he not betting on them today? Did he run his bullpen in the ground trying to win the last two games he bet on? But by all means let this overrated P[ositively] O[bnoxious] S[impleton] of a ballplayer in while actual generational stars like Bonds are vilified .

Amen about Rose.

[Horseradish]

Is it illegal for the owner of a horse entered in the Kentucky Derby, to bet on his horse to win? That’s what Rose did. He never bet against his own team which is critical.

No one is talking about legality. He broke the rules, he knew he broke the rules, and the rule along with its associated penalty are very clear.

[Horseradish]

I vote Out.

[ramfandan]

Tally 32-8. That’s Still just around 80 percent.

IF that % holds true for the 16 man 'committee that would be 12.8 .. so 12 or 13 Yes votes with 3 or 4 NO votes.