Pete Rose

A Rose By Any Other Name

117 Comments

There are many people in and around baseball who believe that Pete Rose should never be reinstated and should never be allowed in the Hall of Fame. They have a very strong case.

1. Pete Rose as manager of the Cincinnati Reds gambled on baseball games when he knew — fully and completely understood — that the penalty for such gambling was permanent banishment from the game.

2. Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent ban from baseball.

3. Rose, for many years afterward, denied betting on baseball and denied betting on his own team even though he did both. There are many who believe he still lies when saying he never bet on his Reds to lose.

Put together, those three things certainly make a powerful argument against Rose ever being allowed back in baseball. But, like everything in life, there are caveats and subtleties and counterarguments if a person is open to them. Quickly, some of these might be:

1. Is a permanent ban from baseball for gambling on the game a fair penalty? Some say yes. But others would say no. Remember, we are not talking about conspiring with gamblers to throw games, which is at the heart of the 1919 Black Sox and at the heart of the rule. We are talking about betting on baseball. It’s bad. It reflects poorly on the game. It brings the validity of the game into question. Yes. All of it. But we don’t give lifetime sentences for too many crimes. Rose has been banned for 25 years. Isn’t that enough?

2. Rose (and his lawyers) gave up various rights and tactics and accepted the ban passively — Rose clearly believed that in return baseball would view his readmission efforts mercifully. Well, Rose actually believes he was all but promised that reinstatement would follow quickly. He thought they had a deal. Then Commissioner Bart Giamatti died, and Rose believes that baseball reneged.

3. Rose’s dishonesty after the fact is not defensible, but he admitted more than a decade ago that he bet on the game and on his own team. More than a decade ago. At what point has he been flogged enough?

Now, let me repeat: You may not buy any of those counterarguments and you may believe Rose blew his chances at redemption and permanent ban MEANS permanent ban, and you have the absolute power of the rules behind you. I think that’s what it comes down to — the power of the rules vs. the power of mercy. Does Rose deserve mercy in this particular case? I think yes. Others think no. And the beat goes on.

This week, though, former commissioner of baseball Fay Vincent — the man who replaced Bart Giamatti as commissioner until he was essentially booted by the owners — came out of his retirement in Vero Beach with a grumpy, somewhat fact-challenged anti-Rose screed. Vincent’s purpose for doing so was to counter a New York Times editorial by Kostya Kennedy, who has an upcoming book on Rose. I should say here that Kostya is a friend of mine and a fine writer but I have not read his book yet.

Vincent’s main shot is at Kostya’s sentence: “Consider, after all, the players who might have appeared on Hall of Fame ballots cast by baseball writers but did not because baseball had named them permanently ineligible. The list is printed here in its entirety: Pete Rose.”

This was too much for Fay Vincent.

“He ignores the the old Black Sox “Shoeless Joe” Jackson, who might have been a better hitter than Rose,” Vincent writes and he goes on to say, “Kennedy makes other errors but his failure to remember Jackson is damning.”

I cannot tell if Vincent is being willfully ignorant here or if he’s had a nasty case of amnesia. There is not even the slightest possibility that Kostya Kennedy “forgot” Joe Jackson. To suggest that the author of a new book on Rose “forgot” Joe Jackson would be like saying that Walter Isaccson, having just written about Steve Jobs, “forgot” about Bill Gates.

Shoeless Joe Jackson, as Vincent knows, was absolutely eligible for the Hall of Fame and actually received two votes in the very first Hall of Fame balloting and two more in 1946. Voters CHOSE not to vote for Jackson, but he and all other permanently banned players were absolutely allowed to be on the ballot until 1991, which is exactly what Kostya was saying.

What happened in 1991? Right. Pete Rose was about to become eligible for the ballot. And in what felt like an emergency session, a special committee of Baseball’s Hall of Fame got together and recommended that all permanently ineligible baseball players be ineligible for the ballot. The Hall of Fame board quickly approved the recommendation.

On the Hall of Fame board? Right. The commissioner of baseball. Fay Vincent.

Vincent was part of the process to keep ineligible players off the Hall of Fame ballot. He wasn’t just part of the process, he was the person running baseball at that very moment in time. He KNOWS this, so why would he write otherwise? I think it’s part of the piling on that never seems to stop when it comes to Rose.

Consider this amazing paragraph from Vincent:

Why would Rose be reinstated? The answer is he will not be unless some commissioner takes the risk that such reinstatement will not reduce the deterrent effect of the no-gambling rule. Suppose that deterrent is reduced and a virulent spate of gambling breaks out in baseball. One thing we know is the gambling prohibition works perfectly. Everyone in baseball is wary of gambling because the punishment is so severe. Gambling is the one capital crime of baseball, and it is well absorbed into the baseball DNA. The issues with performance enhancing drugs should not be confused with the gambling policies.

Wow. With so many arguments against Pete Rose, THIS is the one he takes? Vincent is saying that reinstating a 73-year-old Rose — after TWENTY FIVE years of banishment — would reduce the deterrent effect of the no-gambling rule? Seriously, he’s saying that? He’s saying that people would look at Rose’s life the last 25 years and think, “Hmm, thats not too bad a punishment. I think I’ll gamble.” He’s saying, “Well, a lifetime ban — no, I’m not going to gamble. But if it’s a ban where I might someday in my 70s have a chance to be forgiven, sure, get my bookie on the line.”

And the bit about the gambling prohibition working “perfectly” — I’d be pretty wary of anybody saying that ANYTHING works perfectly.

Vincent also writes that Ted Williams did not want Rose in the Hall of Fame, which seems gratuitous. It’s not hard to quote numerous other Hall of Famers, like Joe Morgan, who thinks Rose deserves to be on the ballot.

Then he quotes Tom Seaver offering what he calls the killing question: “Look Commissioner, if Rose is allowed into the Hall of Fame, does that mean a pitcher like me with over 300 wins can bet on baseball?”

I don’t follow that the killing question at all — “No, Tom, if you bet on baseball you will be be banned from the game like Rose has for the last 25 years” — but then none of it makes too much sense. Pete Rose is not going to the Hall of Fame. He could be declared eligible tomorrow, and he would have exactly no chance of getting 75% of the vote no matter who is voting. I don’t see a scenario for Rose to get elected to the Hall of Fame even after he’s gone. Maybe that’s as it should be.

For me, the killing question is this: Should Rose be forgiven by baseball at some point here? You could argue yes, he’s served his time and he was a brilliant player who brought much joy to the game. You could argue no, permanent means permanent and Rose has not earned forgiveness. Both arguments have their merits and their drawbacks.

Or you could argue that reinstating Rose would encourage others to gamble on baseball.

I wish Fay Vincent would just enjoy retirement a little bit more in Vero Beach.

CC Sabathia: getting in shape and ready for baseball

sabathia getty
1 Comment

CC Sabatha made headlines in October when he abruptly left the Yankees to go into alcohol rehab. After a month there he came back and gave interviews about his decision and his battle with the bottle and then disappeared into the offseason the way most players do.

He emerged the other day and spoke with the New York Daily News’ Mark Feinsand and says that he’s ready for baseball once again. Indeed, in some ways he’s more ready now than he usually is by mid February. He’s been throwing bullpen sessions for the past three weeks — he normally waits until he gets to Tamps — and he says his troublesome knee is feeling good.

 

Sabathia will turn 36 during the season. In 2015 he was 6-10 with a 4.73 ERA in 29 starts and posted his lowest strikeout rate in a decade. Late in the season, however, with the help of a knee brace, he was at his most effective in some time. He won’t need to return to 2008 form in order to help the Yankees this season, but he will need to look more like he did in September if he is to help the Yankees to the playoffs.

Jacob deGrom open to extension with Mets

New York Mets starting pitcher Jacob deGrom talks during media day for the Major League Baseball World Series against the Kansas City Royals Monday, Oct. 26, 2015, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
AP Photo/Charlie Riedel
1 Comment

The Mets are currently enjoying the spoils of the best young rotation in the game, but the big question is whether this is just a brief window or the start of sustained success. Given the huge prices on the free agent market, it’s going to be next to impossible to keep the band together, but at least one member of the rotation is open to sticking around for the long-term.

While there haven’t been any talks yet, All-Star right-hander Jacob deGrom told Kevin Kernan of the New York Post that he could see himself discussing an extension with the Mets.

“I’m a little bit older, so I might be more willing to do something like that,’’ deGrom told The Post at Mets pre-camp. “You just have to look at what is fair so both sides get a decent deal. It’s something I’d have to look into and make sure I agree with it.’’

It makes sense from deGrom’s perspective. He broke into the majors later than most prospects, so he’ll be 28 this June. Depending on whether he qualifies as a Super Two, he’ll be arbitration-eligible for the first time after either 2016 or 2017. Either way, he’s under team control through 2020, which means that he’s currently on track to hit free agency after his age-32 season. The market might not be kind to him even if he manages to stay healthy, so it could behoove him to get as much guaranteed money as possible right now. The Mets could always decide to play things year-to-year, but perhaps deGrom would be willing to settle for a discount in order to get them to buy out a free agent year or two. It’s a really interesting situation to think about, but odds are the two sides will wait on contract talks until he’s arbitration-eligible for the first time.

DeGrom owns a 2.61 ERA in 52 starts over his first two seasons in the majors. Among starters, only Zack Greinke, Jake Arrieta, and Clayton Kershaw have a lower ERA since the start of 2014.

Royals, Mike Moustakas avoid arbitration with two-year deal

Kansas City Royals' Mike Moustakas celebrates after hitting an RBI single against the Toronto Blue Jays during the eighth inning in Game 2 of baseball's American League Championship Seriesagainst the Toronto Blue Jays  on Saturday, Oct. 17, 2015, in Kansas City, Mo. (Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT
Nathan Denette/The Canadian Press via AP
1 Comment

The Royals and third baseman Mike Moustakas have avoided arbitration by agreeing to a two-year, $14.3 million deal, reports Jon Heyman of MLB Network.

The deal, which was initially discussed last month, buys out Moustakas’ final two years of arbitration. Jeffrey Flanagan of MLB.com reports that it’s believed he’ll make $5.6 million in 2016 and $8.7 million in 2017.

The 27-year-old Moustakas posted an underwhelming .668 OPS over his first four seasons in the majors, but he enjoyed a big postseason in 2014 before breaking out last season by batting .284/.348/.470 with 22 home runs and 82 RBI.

Report: Rays having “advanced talks” with free agent reliever Tommy Hunter

Baltimore Orioles relief pitcher Tommy Hunter throws to the Miami Marlins during the seventh inning of a baseball game in Miami, Friday, May 22, 2015. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)
AP Photo/J Pat Carter
1 Comment

ESPN’s Jerry Crasnick reported this morning that free agent reliever Tommy Hunter required core muscle repair surgery earlier this offseason. Coming off a disappointing 2015, it’s understandable why he’s still on the market, but it sounds like he has at least one significant lead.

Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times hears that the Rays are having “advanced talks” with Hunter as they attempt to add an experienced arm to their bullpen. Nothing is considered close and Hunter is also talking to other clubs. Meanwhile, the Rays have been in touch with veteran reliever Ryan Webb while monitoring the trade market.

Hunter posted a 2.88 ERA as a late-inning arm from 2013-2014, but he compiled a mediocre 4.18 ERA over 58 appearances last season between the Orioles and Cubs. On the bright side, his velocity has held steady and his control is still very good. Despite the down year and core muscle surgery, Topkin writes that Hunter may be holding out for a multi-year deal.