What did Rob Manfred really mean about Pete Rose?

Pete Rose 1There has been a lot of press about Rob Manfred’s appearance on the Dan Patrick Show, and his comments regarding Pete Rose. The headlines talk about possible reinstatement before the end of the year. If that happens (and that is a major if), this would be a radical departure from the position of Fay Vincent and Bud Selig.

But what I found most interesting was this – Manfred seemed to be saying one very clear thing: Major League Baseball is not keeping Rose off the Hall of Fame ballot; the Hall itself is doing it. He kept going to pains to say that, when it comes to the question of reinstatement, all he is considering is Pete Rose fitness to be employed by a club. He also pointed out that tomorrow, the Hall could have before Rose the veterans committee if they are so inclined. Of course, Manfred sits on the board of the Hall….so he still has some say on eligibility. But his overall point that the Hall is the one keeping Rose out of the Hall is absolutely correct.

What struck me as significant about that statement is this. I have always believed that Baseball was in denial of the fact that this issue will not go away as long as Rose is Hall ineligible. They need some sort of final resolution, or the successor of Manfred’s successor will talking about this. It could well be that Manfred says “You know what? The Hall started all of this by changing their rules on eligibility. I don’t want Rose back in Baseball, but he is 74, and if some club hires him to be a token bench coach for the next 2 or 3 seasons, so what. I am done with this – let the HOF spend the next 25 years talking about Pete. He is reinstated.”

All speculation of course – but watching that interview, I saw a guy who is fed up talking about this issue, and wants to remind everyone that Hall eligibility is the decision of the Hall. He may put an exclamation point on that last part by tossing it all over to them.

30 thoughts on “What did Rob Manfred really mean about Pete Rose?

  1. [note I’m 35, so not from the “Pete Rose is one of the elite” generation we get on HBT]

    Even if Manfred re-instates Rose, would a team actually hire him? I mean, does anyone actually believe Rose has told the truth about what really happened? I know I wouldn’t believe him if he did, but it seems like the PR hit would be far worse than the good he’d do. Maybe Cincinnati would…

    Like

    • I hear ya on that – when i originally wrote this, said it as “no one will hire him anyway”.

      As things are now, no one would hire Rose, no way. Not even Cinci, IMO. But….you never know what the future holds, and were he to be reinstated, thigns could change. Use your imagination – he does an interview with Roy Firestone, starts to tear up as he says betting was the worst mistake of his life as it took away his one true passionate. He is so grateful to Rob Manfred for giving him a second chance (more tears), “…even if I never set foot in a dugout again….just knowing that I am once again welcomed (uncontrollably sobbing) it just means more than I can ever say, Roy”

      So I agree, as things are now, no way Rose gets hired. But Manfred must take into account that reinstatement means baseball no longer has any control over the question

      Like

    • Oh, I think a team would hire him. The Reds had him there for the All-Star festivities, right? He still draws fans. That would probably die down once the controversy did, but I think he could get some kind of hand-shaking job at least.

      Like

    • Okay, we need a resident cynical asshat here. The ONLY reason Rose even cares about the HOF is it will legitimately move him from setting up a card table in front of Cooperstown, instead of in it selling autographs for a hundred dollars a pop! Yeah, most hits, blah blah, whatever!

      He broke the ONLY RULE they post on clubhouse doorways! No unwritten rule, no playing the game the wrong way rule, no misunderstanding of the rule. He is welcome to go in after they let Bonds, Clemons and anyone else who isn’t in it already because of “maybe” breaking a rule that wasn’t invented yet!

      Kinda sucks that the ones who are keeping them out are ONLY doing it because they were either incompetent, blind, or bought off from reporting it in the first place!

      Also; Fuck….cause I can and didn’t do it the whole post.

      That’s fucking restraint fuckers! Haha

      Liked by 2 people

  2. I’d say reinstate him and then let the teams decide to ignore him, which my guess is that they would. Then, who does Rose claim is persecuting him? At last, he’d be left out in the open to stand before himself and be one with the things he achieved on the field, the mistakes he made and the lies he told. Bart Giamatti left the question of his reinstatement open to posterity. Time to turn it over to posterity once and for all.

    As far as the hall is concerned, I’ve written this before and I’ll repeat it: I don’t give a flying fark at a rolling bagel what the hall does or things. When the morons on the Veterans’ Committee failed to honor Buck O’Neil, who was a great ballplayer, a greater ambassador for the game and a far, far greater gentleman than any of the jackasses on the committee who ignored him, they and the hall lost my interest completely. To hell with them.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Pete Rose has lied every step of the way, and only admits to the truth once he is caught and proven to be a liar. Then he lies to make himself look less guilty than it’s painfully obvious he is. So I’m on the camp of keeping him banned, as he’s proven time and time again that he is a liar and cannot be trusted. Nothing has changed, do not allow this guy to come in and make fools of us all once again. Stay away.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. As I have stated elsewhere, on other blogs, I don’t believe for even one second that he suddenly started betting large sums (up to 20K a day) once he became a manager.
    I would be in no way surprised if he was betting on baseball while a player, not just in Cincy, but Philly, too.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I am completely against a Rose reinstatement. There are other players with far less evidence against them who are banned, and Rose was involved in not just gambling but also in pushing PEDs on his young players when he was a manager.

    Like

  6. Manfred makes an important point. It was the HOF changing their own rules AFTER Rose was banned that created this mess. At the time of Rose’s banishment, he was eligible for the HOF….just like Joe Jackson was eligible for many decades and never enshrined.

    The conflation of banishment and HOF eligibility is unfortunate. Let him be eligible for the HOF, there is really no justification whatsoever for that rule change? But he should remain on the permanent ineligible list.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Why? Rose bet on some games. So what. The hyperventilation about it is kind of silly….there is a huge gap between betting on games and throwing games. Guys that threw games did so without ever betting on games…they did it because the owners were a bunch of miserly assholes and they could make more money throwing a couple of games than they could make in a few years of playing ball.

        I know there is this historical perception about gambling on baseball leading to people questioning the integrity of the sport…but it isn’t actually based in reality because such a thing has never happened.

        Like

        • I hate his ugly mug.
          2.Do you believe him? Because if you do, I have an oil patch in the panhandle I’d like to sell you.
          It’s about the appearance of impropriety anyway (but I don’t believe he’s that innocent).
          He absolutely knew the rules, and I think there are some hard lines to be drawn. Gambling is one of them.
          He’s not sorry.
          I hate his ugly mug — and his sexist bs stupid self-absorbed whiny person.

          Like

        • Well, yeah, I hate his ugly mug and he’s a general jackass….but, you know…so are a lot of other people.

          The gambling hard line is just stupid though…because it is a line drawn for no reason. There wasn’t some gambling scandal that resulted in the rule.

          There were games thrown because an owner never kept his word, refused to give players raises, and was a cheap bastard. If they wanted to keep game from being easily fixed by gamblers, then a better rule would have led to owners not treating players in such a way that would make throwing games more profitable.

          The rule should be about throwing games, not gambling.

          Like

        • Look how we’re still arguing about the Black Sox’ guilt. It’s nearly impossible to “prove” to people’s satisfaction (like rape accusations) . That is an unworkable standard. The blanket “no gambling” is necessary.

          Like

        • IDK why my numerical listing failed there…. Also, I forgot to add about the drug thing. As far as I’m concerned, Rose is the opposite of sportsmanship. Never gonna be in favor of that.

          Like

        • If we are being honest, it is likely that a large proportion of MLB players are “the opposite of sportsmanship”. Baseball isn’t about sportmanship, it is about winning and making money….mostly, making money.

          Like

Join in on the conversation!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s