Pete Rose has once again petitioned to be re-instated in to MLB. Since his initial ban by then Commissioner Bart Giamatti in 1989 he has made an appeal with each new MLB Commissioner, being denied by both Fay Vincent and Bud Selig.
Pete Rose, had he not been banned, would have been a first ballot selection following a career that included 17 All-Star appearances, three World Series titles, the 1973 MVP Award plus records for most hits (4,256) and games played (3,562). After being pegged for gambling on the game while manager of the Reds he agreed to a lifetime ban in 1989 but after 25 years some people have begun to sway their belief to maybe he has served his time.
In 1989 I was a firm believer that when banned he should remain banned for life and his 2004 book “My Prison Without Walls” only strengthened my feelings towards his ban when he finally admitted to gambling, 15 years after being banned. I felt that maybe if he had admitted his gambling in the beginning a suspension would have been fair but with the lying and finally telling the truth in a book to make money the ban should remain in effect.
Manfred has agreed to remain unbiased and will consider the appeal as well as review the Dowd Report and read through Giamatti’s decision to make sure that everything is known as agreed upon by both Giamatti and Rose before making a decision, which I feel is very fair.
If Rose is reinstated, which would mean he would almost certainly appear on the next HOF ballot, does his value increase?
What is your take on the Rose situation?
Personally I would rather see Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver reinstated first. While Jackson initially admitting to taking money it was later shown that he had not taken any money, he did not attend any of the meetings and he never spoke with any of the gambler. In 1999 the U.S. government did an investigation and found he was innocent and urged the MLB to reinstate him. Weaver isn’t a potential Hall of Famer but was banned for simply knowing of the other players involved in throwing the games, a rule that wouldn’t go in to effect for 2 years after he was banned.
Also to support removing Jackson & Weaver’s bans was a situation in 1926 when MLB players Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker and former-MLB players Dutch Leonard and Smoky Joe Wood were cleared by Landis after admitting to betting on the 1919 World Series after they found out about the games being fixed. Cobb and Speaker were forced to “retire” following the 1926 season but none were banned. How can Cobb and Speaker both be Hall of Famers when they both knew about the fix of the 1919 World Series and even bet on the games while Weaver and Jackson, who didn’t take money or bet and played well during the Series, are banned?