PDA

View Full Version : Pete Rose possible reinstatement..



33bird
07-27-2009, 10:50 AM
I always thought that Selig would tackle the reinstatement of Rose in 2009. Why? 20 years since the banishment was handed down. Isn't 20 years long enough? Anyway, it's been reported Selig is looking at it once again, and Hank Aaron said Rose should be in the HOF this weekend. I think the Hammer being in support of Rose being in the HOF will really help the cause. I know Rose has handled all of this terrible in the last 20 years but the worst thing he did was bet on HIS REDS to win. I don't believe that is an unforgivable sin. I think 20 years out of the game covers that sin. If he had bet against his team then I'd be in support of never letting him back in, but he did not do that. I know there are a few HOFs that don't like it. Feller and some others, but I think the majority feel he should in-just like Aaron. I'd also like to see him back on the bench. I'm sure the same mistakes would never happen again. Just my 2 cents.

joelsabi
07-27-2009, 11:07 AM
How about Shoeless Joe Jackson

http://www.blackbetsy.com/joejackson-1920-grand-jury-testimony-vhof.pdf

rj_lucas
07-27-2009, 11:18 AM
Selig confirmed at the All-Star Game press conference that the Joe Jackson file is under review. The transcript of the press conference can be found here (the JJ question is about 2/3 of the way down):

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=57808

Of course, he said the same thing in 1999, so don't hold your breath. From the Washington Post, May 29, 1999:

"Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig is "reviewing the entire file" of banned baseball legend Shoeless Joe Jackson, Sen. Tom Harkin (D- Iowa) said yesterday.

Harkin wrote to Selig in March, asking the commissioner to reinstate Jackson to baseball, a move that would make him eligible for the Hall of Fame."

Selig has made it known that he'll be stepping down sooner rather than later, so perhaps he'll reinstate Rose and Jackson as one of his last official acts to go out on a high note.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

justinwc80
07-27-2009, 11:22 AM
Its time! He is an alltime great that should be in the hall. Its not a hall of morality, its a hall of fame.

rj_lucas
07-27-2009, 11:23 AM
Sorry, one additional thought. There is a precedent for reinstating Rose.

People forget that Bowie Kuhn banned Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays from baseball for their ties to a Las Vegas casino, and this was AFTER they had been inducted in the Hall of Fame.

Mantle and Mays were later reinstated by Peter Ueberroth.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

joelsabi
07-27-2009, 11:31 AM
I always thought that Selig would tackle the reinstatement of Rose in 2009. Why? 20 years since the banishment was handed down. Isn't 20 years long enough? Anyway, it's been reported Selig is looking at it once again, and Hank Aaron said Rose should be in the HOF this weekend. I think the Hammer being in support of Rose being in the HOF will really help the cause. I know Rose has handled all of this terrible in the last 20 years but the worst thing he did was bet on HIS REDS to win. I don't believe that is an unforgivable sin. I think 20 years out of the game covers that sin. If he had bet against his team then I'd be in support of never letting him back in, but he did not do that. I know there are a few HOFs that don't like it. Feller and some others, but I think the majority feel he should in-just like Aaron. I'd also like to see him back on the bench. I'm sure the same mistakes would never happen again. Just my 2 cents.

http://deadspin.com/5323634/hank-aarons-convoluted-logic-could-put-pete-rose-in-the-hall-of-fame

sorry looks like i am side tracking your thread with my post of Joe Jackson but I think if they want to relook at Rose they should do the same for Joe Jackson.

brianborsch
07-27-2009, 12:37 PM
If Rose gets in then they HAVE to allow Joe Jackson. Joe Jackson was found not guilty in a court of law for God's sake! We can't say the same for Pete Rose.

Not to mention that a person's sentence is over when they die. That's how the prison system has always done it. So why is Joe Jackson's sentence still going on? Landis was a pompous a-hole and Joe Jackson was the sacrificial lamb of baseball in the 20's.

33bird
07-27-2009, 01:14 PM
The only thing Pete was ever convicted of was tax evasion. The debate I've heard against Shoeless Joe-is go look at the numbers. They aren't great because he didn't play long enough.

brianborsch
07-27-2009, 01:26 PM
His numbers are better than a few HOFers. Take Hack Wilson for example. He played 13 seasons, batted .356 with an OBP of .423 and a SLG of .517! He has practically 1800 hits! That's enough to get in. The hold up was that he was banned by the idiot commisioner at the time Mountain Landis. Besides his lower numbers, he should be allowed in simply because he was wrongly convicted and wrongly withheld from finishing his career. We all know that if he was allowed to finish his career, he would have dwarfed some of these other HOFers easy. Anyways, we'll see where it falls.

sylbry
07-27-2009, 02:58 PM
Landis was a pompous a-hole and Joe Jackson was the sacrificial lamb of baseball in the 20's.

Amen!

Although I think the legend of Shoeless Joe Jackson is greater than Hall of Famer Shoeless Joe Jackson. Shoeless Joe is like Babe Ruth's called shot. It is a story that should never conclude.

skinsfan0521
07-27-2009, 03:14 PM
His numbers are better than a few HOFers. Take Hack Wilson for example. He played 13 seasons, batted .356 with an OBP of .423 and a SLG of .517! He has practically 1800 hits! That's enough to get in. The hold up was that he was banned by the idiot commisioner at the time Mountain Landis. Besides his lower numbers, he should be allowed in simply because he was wrongly convicted and wrongly withheld from finishing his career. We all know that if he was allowed to finish his career, he would have dwarfed some of these other HOFers easy. Anyways, we'll see where it falls.
I'm not going to pretend to know anything about how good Shoeless Joe was or debate if he should get in or not...

What I will debate though is your comment about how if he were allowed to finish his career, he would have dwarfed other HOF numbers... people were saying the same things about Ken Griffey Jr., Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders, etc. How they were going to crush all the numbers and records and it wasn't even going to be a contest. Well, lots of other things can happen during a career that can derail the putting up of extreme numbers.

Again, I have no idea what kind of talent or numbers Shoeless Joe had when he was playing, but you shouldn't just put somebody in based purely on their potential.

Imagine all the people who could be put in on potential...

Just my .02

-Brian

skyking26
07-27-2009, 04:00 PM
Rose made the gambling mistakes we are all aware of, and made it worse by lying about them for so many years. However, I think 20 years is punishment enough. We all know the integrity of the game is suspect with roids, etc., so let Rose in... He's the hit KING.

RK

staindsox
07-27-2009, 04:46 PM
I think baseball needs to Rose out. We are already dealing with one cancer (PEDs). We don't need to invite a second problem back in. People are missing the big picture on this issue. Re-instating him doesn't just mean being eligible for the Hall. It also means he can be on the field again. I heard an interview where he said he wants to coach again. We also know he is still gambling. If any team would be stupid enough to give him a chance, he would only end up doing the same damn thing again.

As if that weren't enough, the fact that he is selling these baseballs tells me his "apology" is less than sincere.

He is a cancer and is where he belongs...on the outside.

Chris

http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://product.images.prosportsmemorabilia.com/44-16/44-16498-P.jpg&usg=AFQjCNH8_reowZN5OVvL1_mclInAKjhzSQ

staindsox
07-27-2009, 04:49 PM
He is also selling t-shirts and hoodies on his site. Good thing he apolgized.

The only thing he is sorry about is that he got caught.

http://product.images.fansedge.com/41-63/41-63155-F.jpg

33bird
07-27-2009, 08:08 PM
Yea, I agree with some of what was said. I don't think Pete has ever felt bad about anything except how it all affected his nice life. But, I'm not saying he should manage again. In fact, it looks like he'd have to agree not to manage. I think that's only fair. Let him be a hitting coach or bench coach or announcer. That would be much better than seeing him sign at the forum mall 3 days a week.

Swoboda4
07-27-2009, 08:46 PM
Rose bet for the Reds to win -Jackson bet for the White Sox to lose.
Both are bad one is worse-Jackson's. Jackson was good enough to let balls fall in for hits and not look like misplayed errors. Fact is he could have caught them. Rose bet on a game to the detriment of the previous days game because there's the risk he won't overplay people the day before. His focus was on the one he going to bet on. Rose definitely can't be allowed on a MLB roster but should be eligible for that private organization,the Hall of Fame.
I met him yesterday at Cooperstown and kind of feel sorry for him. I like him. His jersey and bat are on display in the museum,why if he shouldn't be there.
Everyone has a tale to tell. Mays and Mantle were banned for being associated with gambling casinos. Feller had no problem shaking Mays' hand yesterday afternoon.
Jackson is a slick person who allowed his team to lose.

cincy13
07-27-2009, 09:06 PM
I'm a native cincinnatian, and a reds fan, but Pete should not be allowed back in baseball. People think since he bet on the reds to win, it's ok, the fact is, he bet on the reds to win if certain pitchers were in the lineup on that day; which means if the other pitchers were pitching he wouldn't bet, the bookies then knew what pete thought of the reds chances of winning on that day. The other reason is, the pros are never satisfied with what they make, if rose gets in, you will see players being bought to throw a game. Pete did bet on baseball when he was a player, some think it was only when he was a manager (according to an ex-player whos been aroung a loooong time). I loved watching Pete play, but greed rules; letting Pete in would only tell the current players that it's ok, you'll get in the HOF even if you throw a game. I'm just sayin.....

redoctober
07-27-2009, 09:16 PM
LET HIM IN!!! LET HIM IN!!!


Seriously though... I am as big of a Rose supporter as anyone. I just wish that he had handled all of this better throughout -- I know he wants to manage again, but he has a chance to get into the HOF if he agrees to no involvement in today's game. One part of me says -- let it go... just get into the Hall.

The other side of me says... F--- it -- get full reinstatement or nothing. The man clearly loves baseball, understands baseball,& still has a lot to GIVE to baseball.

The more I think about it... he should hold out for full reinstatement -- this is what would truly make him happy. The HOF nod at this point is actually kind of like going through the motions. It is important, but EVERYBODY acknowledges that he belongs -- isn't that all that really matters??

Plus... as Rose ages, he will be allowed into the HOF before he passes. Unless he dies suddenly, he will be let in if he becomes ill in a life threatening manner. I know this sounds grim, but even BUD would give him his due at that point.

So -- I say -- hold out to manage the Reds again, Pete!!!!!!

redoctober
07-27-2009, 09:23 PM
I'm a native cincinnatian, and a reds fan, but Pete should not be allowed back in baseball. People think since he bet on the reds to win, it's ok, the fact is, he bet on the reds to win if certain pitchers were in the lineup on that day; which means if the other pitchers were pitching he wouldn't bet, the bookies then knew what pete thought of the reds chances of winning on that day. The other reason is, the pros are never satisfied with what they make, if rose gets in, you will see players being bought to throw a game. Pete did bet on baseball when he was a player, some think it was only when he was a manager (according to an ex-player whos been aroung a loooong time). I loved watching Pete play, but greed rules; letting Pete in would only tell the current players that it's ok, you'll get in the HOF even if you throw a game. I'm just sayin.....


SERIOUSLY?????? You clearly have no idea about betting limits or sports betting in general. NO casino/bookie/sportsbook will take enough action on ONE game to make it worth "throwing" a game for a major league baseball player. PERIOD. The most you could get down is less than 5 figures -- please don't tell me that you believe that this is enough for a player to "throw a game"!!! Especially in baseball, where one player has much less impact than in a sport like say basketball.

Reinstating Rose would mean absolutely ZERO to current players, except that they may be able to benefit from his expertise if he was fully reinstated!!!

Compare Rose to the "steroid boys" and tell me who has affected the integrity of the game more. SERIOUSLY, is it even a debate????

murfsteve25
07-27-2009, 09:34 PM
To bring a good point back up that was said earlier:

It's the Hall of FAME, not Morality.

There are reasons why each member of the HOF is in there, it's because they were beyond good at what they did. Pete is the all time hit leader, so its obvious that he was beyond good at hitting right? So he should be in. He didnt cheat to get those hits. He didnt use PED's. He did it right. He just happened to do something on the side that was away from his moments at the plate.

33bird
07-27-2009, 09:41 PM
No offense Cincy13 but you're way off base. I'm with Red October. Pete played to win every game and he managed the same way. The info is that he bet on the Red EVERY game-not just with certain pitchers. How much he bet I don't know. There's no way he manages and starts betting again baseball again. He'll probably always gamble but I'm sure he could give up betting baseball.

schubert1970
07-27-2009, 10:03 PM
I'm a huge Rose fan and when I initially heard the news today I was stunned.

As much as I think Pete was a great player, his gambling could have done more damage than good for the game of baseball. There are no excuses and he will never be in the HOF. If Pete was let in, what message will this send to the next player that thinks he's larger than the game itself. I think by keeping him out, it sends a srtong remider to the other players. If anything he will always serve the purpose as a stong example of what not to do.

For 90 years this rule has been posted in every clubhouse.

Rule 21
d) BETTING ON BALL GAMES. Any player, umpire, or club official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has no duty to perform shall be declared ineligible for one year.

Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever upon any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible.

Seems simple to me.

joelsabi
07-27-2009, 10:12 PM
this is an interesting interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7-SaS1AsRg&feature=related

brianborsch
07-27-2009, 10:22 PM
Joe Jackson was proven innocent in court. He should never have been banned. Besides that he is long dead. his sentence is up. Let him appear on the ballot already!

tacprc
07-27-2009, 10:57 PM
Forgiving people for their past mistakes is a beautiful thing.

I am a huge Pete Rose fan and collector.

I support Selig reinstating Rose -- at least for the purpose of allowing the current Baseball HOF members to vote on his HOF entry.

Chuck Lumb
Cincinnati native
Chicago resident

NYCrulesU
07-27-2009, 11:05 PM
Forgiving people for their past mistakes is a beautiful thing.

I am a huge Pete Rose fan and collector.

I support Selig reinstating Rose -- at least for the purpose of allowing the current Baseball HOF members to vote on his HOF entry.

Chuck Lumb
Cincinnati native
Chicago resident

Chuck,

Do you have an email that I could contact you at?

skyking26
07-27-2009, 11:26 PM
To bring a good point back up that was said earlier:

It's the Hall of FAME, not Morality.

There are reasons why each member of the HOF is in there, it's because they were beyond good at what they did. Pete is the all time hit leader, so its obvious that he was beyond good at hitting right? So he should be in. He didnt cheat to get those hits. He didnt use PED's. He did it right. He just happened to do something on the side that was away from his moments at the plate.
This is a solid point. You start going thru that Hall, you will find off the field adventures most likely aplenty. Rose for the Hall.

tacprc
07-28-2009, 12:56 AM
My email address is tacprc@yahoo.com. Thanks. Chuck

cincy13
07-28-2009, 01:58 AM
I knew I'd get blasted in here, but remember the NBA ref who made sure Tim Duncan fouled out to fix the playoffs? Come on, it could happen in baseball.

coxfan
07-28-2009, 05:45 AM
I've no objection to putting Joe Jackson in the HOF and posthumously removing the ban on Buck Weaver, whose only offense was not revealing the others' plot. But I disagree that the "innocent" verdict exonerated anybody. The trial was a farce. Legal tecnicalities ( mainly ambiguities in the law) would have cleared them even if they'd all confessed! After the trial, the jury full of Sox fans celebrated at supper with the players.

Joe Jackson did confess, but his signed confession magically disappeared before the trial. Then it magically reappeared in the White Sox offices later when he sued them. Because of that, the lawsuit judge blocked his judgment on the grounds that he'd obviously perjured himself at one of the trials.

The real culprit who got away was Charles Comiskey, who almost certainly obtained and hid the confession in an effort to keep his players. There's no way he belongs in the HOF, but he's there.

sylbry
07-28-2009, 08:15 AM
To bring a good point back up that was said earlier:

It's the Hall of FAME, not Morality.

There are reasons why each member of the HOF is in there, it's because they were beyond good at what they did. Pete is the all time hit leader, so its obvious that he was beyond good at hitting right? So he should be in. He didnt cheat to get those hits. He didnt use PED's. He did it right. He just happened to do something on the side that was away from his moments at the plate.

Time heals all wounds.

If you think about it, that is what is happening here. The people who were outraged by Rose initially are losing interest and others who adamantly supported his ban are being replaced by a new generation who only see his performance, not his transgressions.

Makes me wonder how McGwire, Sosa, Clemens and the rest will be perceived in 20 years.

cohibasmoker
07-28-2009, 04:31 PM
Joe Jackson and Pete Rose BOTH paid their dues and they should be allowed into the Hall of Fame.

If the Commissioner is worried about the integrity of the game, who's he kidding? Hey Commissioner, what about the guys who took steroids under your watch?

Jim

tacprc
07-28-2009, 11:28 PM
Yeah, I have a problem with Selig making this decision.

He allowed the 1994 World Series to be canceled.

Note: That act may have doomed the Montreal Expos franchise.

He used his position to have the Milwaukee Brewers -- the team that he owns -- moved to the NL Central division.

He allowed baseballs to be juiced.

He allowed steroids to happen.

jbsportstuff
07-29-2009, 09:39 AM
I'm all for Rose being in the HOF. I hate the fact that he bet on baseball...and also that he lied about it.

However, I watched him play and give his all to the game. He played to give his team the advantage....head first slides, hard slides, sacrificing self. Plus..he's the hit king. :)

cjclong
07-29-2009, 03:53 PM
The rule was plain, and Rose knew it, that if you bet on baseball you are banned. It seems to me that some compromise could be worked that he is allowed in the HOF where his numbers show he belongs and is continued to be banned from baseball otherwise. I think that would be a fair compromise. I understand rules would have to changed to allow it. I'm not a Rose fan, but I think that would be fair. If he doesn't like that, who cares. Betting nearly destroyed baseball in the past and it can't be allowed by those in the game. As for the steroid crowd. at least they were trying to win. We'll see how they are viewed later.

redoctober
07-30-2009, 12:11 AM
Yeah, I have a problem with Selig making this decision.

He allowed the 1994 World Series to be canceled.

Note: That act may have doomed the Montreal Expos franchise.

He used his position to have the Milwaukee Brewers -- the team that he owns -- moved to the NL Central division.

He allowed baseballs to be juiced.

He allowed steroids to happen.


I cannot agree more in regards to your Bud Selig comments. It continues to be an absolute joke what has happened on his "watch." This is what happens when the owners appoint a fellow owner to be the "commissioner."

An absolute mockery of what a commissioner should be, yet he will not be replaced for years to come.

suicide_squeeze
07-30-2009, 01:38 PM
OK, my turn :)


Here is what I know about Pete Rose:

He is stubborn as a mule.

He thinks he knows baseball as well if not better than anyone in the game.......an arguable point indeed.

He always gave 110% on the field.

He was one hell of a teammate.

He has a personality like a soapdish.

He was a HIGHLY competitive person.

His competitive nature led him into a spiraling out-of-control gambling habit.

He surrounded himself with trashy friends, which was intended as he needed to do his gambling deeds underground.

He was a ladies man.

He was one of the greatest baseball players to ever play the game.

He has more hits than anyone in the history of the game.

He corked his bats towards the end of his career to gain an advantage he thought he was losing with age.......(this is probably more of a psychological advantage than anything else, tests have proven).

He is anything but politically correct.

He doesn't know the meaning of contrition, being humbled, or accepting someone else's opinion on what he did that was wrong.

He doesn't understand that what he did was the ultimate sin in baseball lore......(and this is because he never had any intent of doing any harm to baseball).

He's not smart enough to do any damage to baseball.



He belongs in the Hall Of Fame..........he has paid enough for his wrongdoings and personality flaws.

Bobby Jenks
07-30-2009, 05:09 PM
He is also selling t-shirts and hoodies on his site. Good thing he apolgized.

The only thing he is sorry about is that he got caught.


Why should he be sorry for anything besides getting caught? He bet his team would win, he never coached his players to throw a game. The Rose-Jackson debate is invalid because Jackson actually may have been involved in the throwing of a game. Giving that the commissioner was a total prick and he was found not-guilty. It may seem wrong in your eyes, but you are looking at the rule aspect of it, not the practicality of the incident. Lane Kiffin boasts about his team with words, Rose boasted about his with money.

staindsox
07-30-2009, 06:59 PM
Why should he be sorry for anything besides getting caught? He bet his team would win, he never coached his players to throw a game. The Rose-Jackson debate is invalid because Jackson actually may have been involved in the throwing of a game. Giving that the commissioner was a total prick and he was found not-guilty. It may seem wrong in your eyes, but you are looking at the rule aspect of it, not the practicality of the incident. Lane Kiffin boasts about his team with words, Rose boasted about his with money.

First of all, Rose signed an agreement to be banned to stop the investigation. John Dowd, who headed it, believes had he been given more time, he would have proven Rose bet against the Reds. Even if we give Pete the benefit of the doubt here, the true problem is that he was the manager. THE REASON HE BET ON HIS OWN TEAM IS HE COULD PLAY A ROLE IN THE OUTCOME. He would be in a position to misuse how he plays his team to cover bets. That means when he uses his pen, rests his players, uses the bench, etc. For instance, he could overuse his bullpen on Monday by using five pitchers to overprotect a win to be sure he wins his bet. Then the pen is shot for Tuesday and Wednesday. Funny, they lose the two games, but Pete didn't bet on them. Even though he didn't make any money off a bet on those two losses, his gambling hurt the team; they just lost two of three.

Let's not forget spreads too. Not only could he misuse his team to overprotect a win, but he could put crummy players into the lineup late in the game to make sure the Reds didn't score too many runs. He basically point shave (run shave in this case) and since he is the manager, nobody would say anything other than a poor decision to use a certain player in a certain situation. He may have even lost some games doing this by trying to keep the game close.

Point is there are numerous ways to damage your team even though it appears your managing to win. It is bad enough that players have done it, but a manager betting on a game his team is playing is still the most criminal act in the game.

33bird
07-30-2009, 07:34 PM
I want to see it in writing where Dowd said that about Rose betting against the Reds. I've read everything about Rose that's available and I've never ever seen that. I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I've never seen or heard it. Please advise.

staindsox
07-30-2009, 07:47 PM
I want to see it in writing where Dowd said that about Rose betting against the Reds. I've read everything about Rose that's available and I've never ever seen that. I'm not saying he didn't say that, but I've never seen or heard it. Please advise.

Just Google it. It's all over the place. Dowd said it in an interview at least five years ago. I believe he later retracted it (to avoid any legal issues). The fact that he even said that on the record in the first place is interesting.

33bird
07-30-2009, 08:16 PM
You're mistaken. Just read that dowd said he thought if he could keep investigating he thought he might be able to prove that, and then later he apologized and said he never should have said that. Even Selig said that Dowd did a thorough investigation and nothing was ever found that he bet against his own team. I'm sure if he did bet against his team Dowd would have found it. Rose was not careful while betting and that was one of the main reasons he was caught. Was interesting thought that Dowd said he never bet on Soto or Gullickson when they pitched and bookies caught on to that and would bet the other side. That's why no principal in the game should bet for or against his team.

redoctober
07-31-2009, 01:49 AM
[quote=33bird;154584]Just read that dowd said he thought if he could keep investigating he thought he might be able to prove that, and then later he apologized and said he never should have said that. quote]


This is the amazing thing to me about the investigation. It REALLY bothers me that a supposedly "independent" investigator would say that he "suspected" anything!! This comment, even years later, shows a clear bias.

That said, it is clear that Rose was involved in betting on Reds games. However -- the investigator says years later that he believed that he could have proven more??? Come on... an investigator should be completely unbiased and should be professional enough to only comment on documented facts.


Either way, yes, Rose bet on baseball. However, IT IS TIME... let it go already and put him in!

tacprc
07-31-2009, 01:56 AM
I have never seen anyone offer any evidence that Rose did anything but try to win each and every Reds game.

tacprc
07-31-2009, 02:11 AM
I have never seen anyone offer any clear evidence that Rose corked his bats or, more importantly, used a corked bat in a game.

Granted, this evidence would be hard to find -- short of a Chris Sabo-like bat explosion -- but I doubt that Rose would have done the corking himself so at least one other person must have been involved.

Note: There is nothing wrong with using a corked bat in batting practice - as Sammy Sosa said he did.

I have seen two alleged corked bats in two auctions, but there was no independent confirmation that 1) the bats were corked; 2) the corking dated back to 1985/86; or 3) Rose actually used the bats in a game.

Tommy Gioiosa said that Rose used a corked bat, but I don't believe that he provided any details. Moreover, Gioiosa is a convicted felon and not the most reputable source.

suicide_squeeze
08-01-2009, 11:57 PM
I have never seen anyone offer any clear evidence that Rose corked his bats or, more importantly, used a corked bat in a game.

Granted, this evidence would be hard to find -- short of a Chris Sabo-like bat explosion -- but I doubt that Rose would have done the corking himself so at least one other person must have been involved.

Note: There is nothing wrong with using a corked bat in batting practice - as Sammy Sosa said he did.

I have seen two alleged corked bats in two auctions, but there was no independent confirmation that 1) the bats were corked; 2) the corking dated back to 1985/86; or 3) Rose actually used the bats in a game.

Tommy Gioiosa said that Rose used a corked bat, but I don't believe that he provided any details. Moreover, Gioiosa is a convicted felon and not the most reputable source.

Hmmmmmm.......stay tuned, I'm going to post some interesting stuff on this tomorrow.....but

suicide_squeeze
08-01-2009, 11:59 PM
(oops, got cut off)

but.......right now, it's night night http://messenger.msn.com/MMM2006-04-19_17.00/Resource/emoticons/77_77.gif

suicide_squeeze
08-02-2009, 11:47 AM
Good morning forum....

I want to start by saying I am probably one of the very few who has actually taken the time to read the entire Dowd report. The exhibits, the testimony of the subpoenas, etc. It was obvious what Pete Rose was involved in, what he tried to cover up, and why he plea bargained in the end.

That said, I am a believer that Pete Rose is a flawed man, like every single human being walking the face of the earth. Yes, he bet on baseball. Yes, he bet on the Reds. But he did not, ever, bet against them, or try to throw a game for financial profit. I also don't buy the arguments that he may have made decisions to keep a pitcher in too long, risking that players health, or used his whole staff in an attempt to win a game he bet on.....atc., just so he could win a bet.

Remember folks, when you bet on a major league game, you bet on the PITCHER. The line on the game is set by the starting pitchers. By the time the game is in it's late stages, changing pitchers is done out of necessity to keep your lead if you have one. In a lot of these games, the outcome may have already been determined. In a case where it was a close game, Pete's decision(s) on who to put in was of course going to be similar to any other game under the same circumstances. Use logic: As a manager, you are trying to win every single game. What possible reason would you have for making a choice that would be different from any regular untainted un-bet-on game?.....you still want to WIN IT, and as the manager of the team, you still need to make the move that best places your team in a position to do just that. The argument of over-using one particular pitcher just doen't hold water.

So then what was Pete all about?

He was a highly competitive baseball player. Maybe he wasn't the smartest guy in the world, worldly in other areas of life outside of baseball, but a baseball guy he is.

It is my opinion that Pete Rose felt he knew more about the game than anybody. Whether or not that is true, he definately knows a ton, and is one of the greatest players to have ever played. Why do I bring this up? Because it leads to the whole "mental aspect" of intent.

Did Pete Rose "intend" to do damage to baseball?


Not a chance. No way. Absolutely not.....he loves the game.


But as a flawed, highly competitive guy, who thinks he knows more about it than anything else, a guy who played it to the best of his abilities, and in doing so earned his spot on top of the all-time hit platform, he felt he could take some liberties, and use them to his advantage to do the things he was all about: being competitive.....gambling on games. Showing himself and everyone close to him that he knew what he was doing. Unfortunately, as nuch as one knows about the game, there is still a reason they play the games......because the outcome is never set in stone. Gamblers usually go all in the same direction, eventually. Broke. Anyone will common sense and understanding know it's the bookies and houses taking the "action" that make the money.

Again, back to the point. Pete, being the kind of guy he is, displayed his personality in many different ways. He played hard, all of the time. He won World Series on different teams. He climbed to the pinnacle of the all-time hits record of Ty Cobb. and in doing so, he, like other mortals, had their problems at times.

Tommy Gioiosa was living with Pete for a period of time, and running his bets. Tommy was like a surrogate son to Pete. Those of you who don't think Tommy didn't know everything about Pete....well, you are mistaken. Even after Pete and Tommy had a "falling out", Tommy still considered him a friend and protected what he knew for years. But, when he finally heard things Pete was saying in regards to him, and basically making Tommy realise that Pete was all about himself, and discretiting anyone around him for his own benefit, that's finally when Tommy Gioiosa finally started talking.

Everything he said was true. Pete bet on baseball. He bet on the Reds.

And he did cork his bats when he was slumping, and he used them in games.

Why do you think Pete used to sand off the paint on his black Mizuno's? To see the wear on the wood from use? Are you kidding??

He did that to see if he could see the starting signs of separation in the grain, a telling sign the bat may be about ready to explode on the field on the very next hit ball!

He probably experimented on different sized cork insertions, length, you name it. This guy was no dummy in his world. He was in control, and did things for a reason. He felt he was losing his "pop" pff the bat as he was getting older, and eventually approaching Ty Cobb's record. So he had played with a couple of guys who claimed that corking a bat would lighten it up, give him that bat speed back, and the ball would jump off the bat better. Pete, somewhere along the line bought it, and the rest is history.

to be cont.

suicide_squeeze
08-02-2009, 12:35 PM
(cont.)....


So some of you don't believe he corked his bats?

Consider this scenario.

Along comes a Lelands auction in 2005. Within a year of the time frame Pete had released his Book "My Prison Without Bars" where he admitted, finally and officially, that he did in fact bet on baseball. In this auction, there is a bat that claimed to be corked.....a Black, 1985 beautiful gamer with perfect game use aspects of Pete's. He also has signed and inscribed it, apparently hitting his second to last career home run (#159) with it. The bat was expected to go for around $4,000-$6,000.

It sold for over $103,000. :eek:

Why?

How could that be?

I was one of the bidders.....I wanted that bat badly. I spulled out of the bidding when it hit $20,000 as I just couldn't see paying that kind of money for it above that. As it climbed throught the night, eventually reaching $50,000, I was left breathless and scratching my head.

Before going to sleep at around midnight, the bat was at $86,000. It was the craziest auction item I has ever seen in all my days of being in the hobby.

The next morning, I called Lelands to ask who won it. Of course, they have privacy laws that dictate they can't divulge that info. I eventually learned, by a press release the very next day, that an off-shore Casino won the bat. They publicly announced that they were going to hold a charity event, and cut the bat in two pieces to show everyone, live, if it truely was corked.

But a funny thing happened on the way to this revelation. The "event" never happened. There were rumors that this offshore company had "gone out of business". They have not, they are still in business. I have tried on several occasions to contact the Casino in an attempt to ask what happened to this bat, and what their intentions were in regards to it. No luck.....until one day, I did actually get a guy on the phone explaining to me I would have to email management to get a response. I did, three separate times....no response.

Have any of you wondered why a bat like this would go for over $100,000? Babe Ruth bats can be obtained for less.....true gamers from the GOD of baseball himself......and a supposed corked Rose gamer goes for over $100,000???

Well, I have a theory. Do you guys raise an eyebrow over the fact that an offshore Casino won this bat? Do you think that there may be a possibility that Pete Rose, himself, was the winner of this bat to get it off the market, in his plight to possibly one day get himself into the Hall of Fame? Remember, Bud "The Geek" Selig had just completed meetings with Pete, and the topic was possible reinstatement if he would just come clean. Pete did so, but by way of a book, and that once again set him back in Selig's eyes (because the timing was also horrendous....coming on the day before Eckersley and Molitor were announced to be the new Hall members).

I believe Pete Rose, who still gambles to this day (which is his legal right, I might add), was using this off-shore Casino to do his betting through, and when word came of the pending auction of this bat found out to be corked, Pete asked the Casino to bid on the bat to win it, and Pete would pay for it, thus getting it out of the public's hands. Unfortunately for Pete, some high spender really wanted this bat, so Pete, through the off-shore cloak bidder in his place, had to pay through the NOSE to get the bat back. How else do you explain an off-shore Casino even bothering to bid on it, let alone win it? How else do you explain that the bat has disappeared from the face of the earth?

Unfortunately for Pete, his personality has gotten in his own way again, and he is still stumbling through his plight to be reinstated. Add to that that Lelands sold off yet ANOTHER Black Mizuno, a cracked gamer with a piece missing, that was claimed to have a "cork-like substance" inside of it which was exposed at the end of the barrel. That one went for just over $5,000. Maybe it wasn't a real gamer, just game issued, but got into the hands of another fradulent opportunistic criminal who wanted to cash in on Pete's troubles (knowing the other bat went for over $100,000) so he drilled it our and stuffed it with......something?

In any case I just want you all to know, I believe Pete has suffered enough. He is human, and maybe has done some things that he would like to take back, including corking a few bats, but I don't believe he needs to be punished any longer for what he has done. He never intended to profit from the game by thowing games, or manipulating the games he bet on in any other way than to just outright win them. And in regards to the corking of his bats, studies have been done, and outside of a miniscule benefit of having the bat be a bit lighter (which may help your timing if you are in a slump.....allowing you a split fraction of a second longer to focus on hitting the ball), there are no real benefits hitting a ball further, or better by using a corked bat. What you gain in bat speed or timing, you lose in impact on the ball which won't travel as far due to lost velocity from the lighter weight of the bat.

So put Pete in the Hall of Fame. He belongs there. He was one of the greatest players to ever play the game. He has paid his dues, suffered through the humility of being bannished for life. What purpose does it serve to not give him his porper spot in Copperstown? He didn't take steroids to improve his performance.....his corked bats may have given him what?.....20 extra hits he may not have had without them? WHo really cares.....spitballers probably have 20 extra wins in their careers because of these types of incidental "cheatings" in baseball. They are instilled in the fabric of the game, they are incidentals.....not something to judge a whole career by.

Bud......you've been a freaking disgrace to the game for so long. Do something right for a change and, although making it clear Pete shouldn't be involved in baseball anymore (because his past transgressions were a direct reflection of his character flaws.....the same ones that should keep an alcoholic out of a bar), he does belong in the Hall for what he accomplished on the field.

Put him in, let him be, and let's close this chapter of baseball. The next chapter, the steroid one, will be consuming enough of baseball's energy for the forseeable future.

tacprc
08-05-2009, 02:26 AM
I believe that Pete sanded his black Mizuno bats because the varnish chipped and/or he wanted to be able to see the ball marks.

Pete sanded all of his black Mizuno bats -- several dozen in both 1985 and 1986. Very few, if any, have cork inserts.

tacprc
08-05-2009, 02:35 AM
Based on what I know about Pete, I don't believe that he would spend a penny out of his own pocket to buy one of his bats in an auction. He's shameless, hungry for cash, and besides there is nothing illegal about using a corked bat in batting practice.

I guess it's possible that a casino might buy an alleged corked bat as a favor to Pete, but $100K is a big favor. Plus, if the casino intended to give the bat to Pete or just destroy it, then why did it publicize the purchase instead of remaining anonymous and keeping quiet?

Bobby Jenks
08-06-2009, 11:38 AM
First of all, Rose signed an agreement to be banned to stop the investigation. John Dowd, who headed it, believes had he been given more time, he would have proven Rose bet against the Reds.

You're trying to hold water with a broken bucket. I can find no sources that even mention Dowd even hinting at Rose betting against his team. And if Rose bet against his own team do you not think the runners would talk about that.

staindsox
08-06-2009, 12:35 PM
The article was in the NY Post in early December of 2002. Whether he bet for or against his team is immaterial. A manager can misuse how he uses his players, particularly his bullpen, in order to cover bets. Would you use your best middle innings man for three innings against the Royals or Pirates with a five run lead? You might if you have a bet on it, especially if you bet you would win by 4 or more runs. That reliever then needs a few days to recover because you overused him. He's shot for the next series when the Dodgers or Yankees come to town, so you don't have your best middle innings guy for a tough series...this hurts the team. This would be far less an issue had Pete bet on a Tigers Twins game, a game in which he had absolutely no influence on the outcome. By betting on his own team, he was in a situation where he could mismanage a team because of bets. Even if his team won the game he bet on, the way he manages could hurt their overall record. This is the point.

staindsox
08-06-2009, 12:45 PM
I am not arguing about Rose as a player. That is a different issue. What I want to know, putting the issue of legal vs. illegal gambling aside, who here on the forum is comfortable with players, managers, and coaches betting on their games (if even they always bet to win)?

suicide_squeeze
08-06-2009, 01:24 PM
I believe that Pete sanded his black Mizuno bats because the varnish chipped and/or he wanted to be able to see the ball marks.

Pete sanded all of his black Mizuno bats -- several dozen in both 1985 and 1986. Very few, if any, have cork inserts.


That always came off to me as a laughable explanation....."he wanted to see the ball marks."

How better to see a ball mark than on a black laquer painted barrel of a bat? If you sand off the paint, the raw wood grain will show some of the ball mark, but not as much as the black finish would. You can see the stitching marks from the ball easily on the black finish.....the impression it leaves is unmistakable. There are much harder to see on raw wood.


In any case, getting back to the corked bats, I know of ONE for sure.

I own it.

I've met Pete Rose, and took a few pictures with him holding the bat. He acknowledged to Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn at the signing that it was a bat he gave to one of his old coaches , and was stated to them he was perplexed by the fact that old friends he had given game items to had, apparently over the years turned around and sold them off for money. This is kinda how it went down:

When I was at the show, I was fiddling with my camera with the bat leaning up against me in a clear bat tube, and there were a many people busstling around. All of a sudden, I hear a voice say "Now there's a nice bat". I look up, and no more than 10 feet from me is Pete Rose, standing in the crowd, taking pictures with fans. I was blown away....caught off guard. I told him "Yes, It's one of your '85 gamers." He said "I see that...Where did you get it? I told him I won it in a major sports auction. I said I wanted to get a few baseballs signed by him, but I brought the bat to see if he would be kind enough to take a picture or two with me, and the bat. Without hesitation he said "Sure, wait until the line dies down, then take it out of the tube and bring it up there to me"....pointing to where he's be sitting. He asked to see it. I handed it to him, and he read the inscription on it. He asked me how much I paid for it.....you know Pete, never shy when it comes to money. I told him "$7,000". He handed it back to me as he looked off in the distance like he was thinking "Damn.....and to think I just gave this away...."

A very weird moment for me.

Once I got up to the finally see him, he waved his hand as to say "Give me the bat..." I took it out, and he instantly stood up and took some practice swings with it, then turned to Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew and said what I mentioned earlier.

Rod shook his head as if too say "What a shame"....and Tony Gwynn blurted out "Well I would have done the same thing, Pete, because you're worth a LOT of money!" They all laughed while Pete just forced out a big perplexed grin.

The bat has his custom tape job, the proper staining from the pine tar, Pete's signature and inscription to his friend........and the part that I found most amazing....

When I won the bat in an auction, finally received it, took it out of the bat tube, the first thing I remember thinking while I was holding it was "Wow, Pete's bat feels light?" Then, it hit me. No way! Could this thing be corked? NAWWWW! I spun it around and looked at the end of the barrel under a light in my kitchen, and a chill ran down my spine. You can see the start of a perfect round 3/4" hole starting to separate through the paint on the barrel end of the bat where it had been plugged, and them painted over. I immediately called around a few x-ray places and finally found one that would x-ray the bat.

The whole office stopped, and stood around me as I pulled the bat out and explained to them why I was there. The head x-ray tech said, "Well, if it's corked, we'll know in a minute....". I'll never forget the look on his face as he walked out of the developing room with the x-ray in his hand. He was smirking at me, never taking his eyes off of me as he walked over to the light box, released the clamp at the top to hold the x-ray, and he shoved it in place, let go of the clamp, turned his back to me and walked away. I said out loud, "It's not corked?? I didn't think....OH MY GOD!"

I looked at the lit up x-ray on the lighted backgound.

It has a 6" long piece of cork, clearly visible in the barrel, filled in with about a 5" long wood plug. The bat is absolutely pounded with use. The paint on the end of the barrel had just started to seperate due to 20+ years of existence. We were all shocked to say the least. I actually was a bit saddened by this discovery. I told them I would not be doing anything with the bat until Pete had his day in being reinstated, as I wanted nothing to do with adding to his troubles. I liked him (he was a hell of a nice guy when I met him), he was a great ballplayer, and I felt he deserved to be in the Hall in light of his gambling errors as I didn't see they were meant to hurt the integrity of the game (even though they were wrong, and about as poor of judgement as he could have ever used.)

My last comment on the whole event, was something that I found very strange. While Pete was holding it, he looked at me and, while rubbing his finger lightly over the inscription, he said "Why don't you rub off all of this garbage and just leave my signature on it? That would be much nicer, don't you think?" I put my hands up and said "NO....it means a lot more to the provenance of the bat, and actually makes it worth more!" Again, he kind of looked perplexed and said "Really........O.K."

I wonder to this day if he wanted to disassociate the guy he gave the bat to, with the fact that he had given that bat. Did he know it was corked? Why would he suggest to remove that inscription? I still wonder....

suicide_squeeze
08-06-2009, 01:37 PM
I am not arguing about Rose as a player. That is a different issue. What I want to know, putting the issue of legal vs. illegal gambling aside, who here on the forum is comfortable with players, managers, and coaches betting on their games (if even they always bet to win)?

I am not comfortable with it.

But on a side note........do you actually believe it NEVER happens?

I am SURE there are a small handful of people in baseball who partake in the practice.......most definately through a friend or family relative. And, as with Pete, it's an honest bet, a gesture to try to win a little cash for something you feel strongly about.....in no way made to attack the integrity of the game......in no way causing another action to insure victory.

Pete Rose just took it to a whole new level, and being who he was, and what he had accomplished in the game......well, what can you say? He is living his own self-inflicted hell. I say forgive him already. Don't allow him back in the game in an active role, but reinstate him, with stipulations, so he can at least see his day for voting on induction to the Hall. He deserves that, IMO.

tacprc
08-06-2009, 04:50 PM
suicide squeeze wrote, "That always came off to me as a laughable explanation....."he wanted to see the ball marks." How better to see a ball mark than on a black laquer painted barrel of a bat? If you sand off the paint, the raw wood grain will show some of the ball mark, but not as much as the black finish would. You can see the stitching marks from the ball easily on the black finish.....the impression it leaves is unmistakable. There are much harder to see on raw wood."

Rose's black Mizuno bats were not merely stained black, they had a hard lacquer finish.

Again, I believe that Pete sanded his black Mizuno bats because the finish chipped and/or he wanted to be able to better see the ball marks.

Remember that Pete sanded all of his black Mizuno bats -- several dozen in both 1985 and 1986. Very few, if any, have cork inserts.

I am sure that Pete would explain why he sanded his bats if someone asked him. I will do so if I ever get the chance.

frikativ54
08-06-2009, 04:57 PM
That always came off to me as a laughable explanation....."he wanted to see the ball marks."

How better to see a ball mark than on a black laquer painted barrel of a bat? If you sand off the paint, the raw wood grain will show some of the ball mark, but not as much as the black finish would. You can see the stitching marks from the ball easily on the black finish.....the impression it leaves is unmistakable. There are much harder to see on raw wood.


In any case, getting back to the corked bats, I know of ONE for sure.

I own it.

I've met Pete Rose, and took a few pictures with him holding the bat. He acknowledged to Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn at the signing that it was a bat he gave to one of his old coaches , and was stated to them he was perplexed by the fact that old friends he had given game items to had, apparently over the years turned around and sold them off for money. This is kinda how it went down:

When I was at the show, I was fiddling with my camera with the bat leaning up against me in a clear bat tube, and there were a many people busstling around. All of a sudden, I hear a voice say "Now there's a nice bat". I look up, and no more than 10 feet from me is Pete Rose, standing in the crowd, taking pictures with fans. I was blown away....caught off guard. I told him "Yes, It's one of your '85 gamers." He said "I see that...Where did you get it? I told him I won it in a major sports auction. I said I wanted to get a few baseballs signed by him, but I brought the bat to see if he would be kind enough to take a picture or two with me, and the bat. Without hesitation he said "Sure, wait until the line dies down, then take it out of the tube and bring it up there to me"....pointing to where he's be sitting. He asked to see it. I handed it to him, and he read the inscription on it. He asked me how much I paid for it.....you know Pete, never shy when it comes to money. I told him "$7,000". He handed it back to me as he looked off in the distance like he was thinking "Damn.....and to think I just gave this away...."

A very weird moment for me.

Once I got up to the finally see him, he waved his hand as to say "Give me the bat..." I took it out, and he instantly stood up and took some practice swings with it, then turned to Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew and said what I mentioned earlier.

Rod shook his head as if too say "What a shame"....and Tony Gwynn blurted out "Well I would have done the same thing, Pete, because you're worth a LOT of money!" They all laughed while Pete just forced out a big perplexed grin.

The bat has his custom tape job, the proper staining from the pine tar, Pete's signature and inscription to his friend........and the part that I found most amazing....

When I won the bat in an auction, finally received it, took it out of the bat tube, the first thing I remember thinking while I was holding it was "Wow, Pete's bat feels light?" Then, it hit me. No way! Could this thing be corked? NAWWWW! I spun it around and looked at the end of the barrel under a light in my kitchen, and a chill ran down my spine. You can see the start of a perfect round 3/4" hole starting to separate through the paint on the barrel end of the bat where it had been plugged, and them painted over. I immediately called around a few x-ray places and finally found one that would x-ray the bat.

The whole office stopped, and stood around me as I pulled the bat out and explained to them why I was there. The head x-ray tech said, "Well, if it's corked, we'll know in a minute....". I'll never forget the look on his face as he walked out of the developing room with the x-ray in his hand. He was smirking at me, never taking his eyes off of me as he walked over to the light box, released the clamp at the top to hold the x-ray, and he shoved it in place, let go of the clamp, turned his back to me and walked away. I said out loud, "It's not corked?? I didn't think....OH MY GOD!"

I looked at the lit up x-ray on the lighted backgound.

It has a 6" long piece of cork, clearly visible in the barrel, filled in with about a 5" long wood plug. The bat is absolutely pounded with use. The paint on the end of the barrel had just started to seperate due to 20+ years of existence. We were all shocked to say the least. I actually was a bit saddened by this discovery. I told them I would not be doing anything with the bat until Pete had his day in being reinstated, as I wanted nothing to do with adding to his troubles. I liked him (he was a hell of a nice guy when I met him), he was a great ballplayer, and I felt he deserved to be in the Hall in light of his gambling errors as I didn't see they were meant to hurt the integrity of the game (even though they were wrong, and about as poor of judgement as he could have ever used.)

My last comment on the whole event, was something that I found very strange. While Pete was holding it, he looked at me and, while rubbing his finger lightly over the inscription, he said "Why don't you rub off all of this garbage and just leave my signature on it? That would be much nicer, don't you think?" I put my hands up and said "NO....it means a lot more to the provenance of the bat, and actually makes it worth more!" Again, he kind of looked perplexed and said "Really........O.K."

I wonder to this day if he wanted to disassociate the guy he gave the bat to, with the fact that he had given that bat. Did he know it was corked? Why would he suggest to remove that inscription? I still wonder....

Best story I've read in a while. Thanks for sharing.

tacprc
08-06-2009, 05:03 PM
suicide squeeze, why don't you ask Rose about the bat the next time you see him, and see what he has to say about it?

Aren't there many legitimate reasons why Rose might have such a bat (e.g., training, batting practice, rehab following an injury, just for fun)?

33bird
08-06-2009, 06:03 PM
I don't buy the part about sanding the bat to see if the bat was starting to splint, etc. I had a Rose Mizuno-not shaved-and you could perfectly see the raising of wood and dead wood, etc. with the black on there. In a Joe Morgan book I have he said he and Pete would clean the barrel of their bats with rubbing alcohol after each game so they could see if they were hitting the ball on the good wood. I believe that's why he sanded his Mizunos-same reason. By shaving you wouldn't have to rub them clean after each game. Just my 2 cents. Also, I've never heard of betting a baseball game to win by 4 runs or more. In Vegas you can take a bet to win by 1.5 runs or you get +1.5 runs if you're the dog. Some of what you say makes sense, but when you say he bet his team to win by 4+ runs I don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to gambling.

Bobby Jenks
08-06-2009, 07:31 PM
Well if Rose gets reinstated then by all means Joe Jackson should be. I mean heck Kenesaw Landis banned players for almost no reason, he especially likes to keep players banned that were acquitted of their crimes (J. Jackson and B. Kauff). He banned three players for wanting to be released. The guy was a total prick in my eyes. Yet he did catch the players who needed to be caught.

suicide_squeeze
08-06-2009, 11:09 PM
suicide squeeze, why don't you ask Rose about the bat the next time you see him, and see what he has to say about it?

Aren't there many legitimate reasons why Rose might have such a bat (e.g., training, batting practice, rehab following an injury, just for fun)?

I thought about that. I considered it in my mind, and ran through the possibilities.

But it soon became obvious to me that if I asked him publicly about it, I would be backing him into a corner he may not want to be in. He would most likely say "I didn't cork that bat!", get upset, and then the whole meeting would head south from there.

I suppose it would be a decent thing to do if the opportunity was there.....no one else around, I could explain to him that I in NO way would ever want to question his motives, or hurt his chances of being reinstated by exposing a legit "gamer", inscribed and given to one of his old coaches who was at the time, a manager of a major league team just after Pete broke Ty Cobb's record.....that was corked!?? Eesch. Yeah, that would be a good story to tell.

But I just have a feeling it would start off badly, and just go striaght into the crapper. I think Pete would get pissed.

But I will consider it. Because if I did give him the opportunity to explain it, he may just give an honest answer, and it may be one of the possibilities you mentioned.

But again, I am puzzled why Pete would pick a small patch on his bats to sand the laquer paint off of. Cleaning off previous marks to see new ones made.....Sure. That makes sense. He could then see if he was making contact with the sweet part of the bat grain. But sanding OFF the hard laquer finish?? There had to be another reason.

33bird
09-07-2009, 02:54 PM
Suicide Squeeze-the conspiracy theorist! Well, the 100k Rose corked bat is up for auction AGAIN by Heritage right now. Guess they (the casino) didn't buy it to protect Rose and dispose of it after all? Please come back to reality now.

suicide_squeeze
09-07-2009, 03:21 PM
Suicide Squeeze-the conspiracy theorist! Well, the 100k Rose corked bat is up for auction AGAIN by Heritage right now. Guess they (the casino) didn't buy it to protect Rose and dispose of it after all? Please come back to reality now.

I never left.

What explanation do you have for that bat selling for over $100,000?

It was sooo outlandish I found myself believing there had to be something else behind it. I could care less if I was wrong. I just like to use some cerebral juice to figure things out in this world. It was just one of many possibilities, so I threw it out there as food for thought.

So, why didn't the Casino "cut the bat in half in a live event for all to see" like they has stated in their press release in 2005 when they won it....only to have it disappear from the face of the earth until now?

Please, forum members, don't let the threat of having yourself labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" hold you back from giving your opinions.....:rolleyes:

suicide_squeeze
09-07-2009, 03:29 PM
By the way, Greg, I'll go on record and state right now that I predict that bat sells for something no where near $100,000.

My guess is maybe $16,000-20,000.

So why would the place that spent a bundle on this bat decide to sell it for a HUGE loss without going through the public cutting display they had planned? Certainly they could make up the losses with attendance and advertising for such an event one would think? Obviously, and certainly they understand, the bat will sell for a whole lot less than what they paid for it.

So what gives?

The Casino owner wants to get what he can out of it now, since his plan (for whatever reason) didn't come to be? Hmmmmmm.....what a strange chain of circumstances?

suicide_squeeze
09-07-2009, 10:37 PM
Or.......maybe Pete himself is so sure he'll be reinstated soon, he just decided to sell the bat himself to pick up some "gambling change" since football season is starting?

suicide_squeeze
09-08-2009, 12:42 PM
And by the way.....

I just called Heritage to straighten them out on their facts.

They are advertising the Rose home run bat as "Pete's last career home run bat."

Pete Rose hit 160 home runs in his career. That bat was used to hit his career home run 159.

Look to have them make that correction soon in the listing of this bat.

chakes89
09-08-2009, 12:50 PM
Joe Jackson was acquitted of throwing the world series in 1921

He should have been reinstated right after that

But Bowman Landis had to go all Roger Goodell and banned all that were involved for life

suicide_squeeze
09-08-2009, 12:55 PM
Joe Jackson was acquitted of throwing the world series in 1921

He should have been reinstated right after that

But Bowman Landis had to go all Roger Goodell and banned all that were involved for life

chakes89,

Do you really think Shoeless Joe was innocent? I understand he was found innocent in a court of law, but the dude was guilty as all hell. Just read about his defensive "performance" in the series. He was shaving runs like a fiend. He was (like so many others) just sorry he got caught.

chakes89
09-08-2009, 01:01 PM
I do believe that he is innocent

His batting stats show nothing to disprove that and first hand accounts of the game state that all of the supposed triples that he botched were never hit to him

rj_lucas
09-08-2009, 02:38 PM
I do believe that he is innocent

His batting stats show nothing to disprove that and first hand accounts of the game state that all of the supposed triples that he botched were never hit to him

Read historian Gene Carney's book, called 'Burying the Black Sox: How Baseball's Cover-Up of the World Series Fix Almost Succeeded'.

Even Eddie Cicotte stated that the $5000 given to Jackson (which, by the way, was given to Jackson AFTER the World Series and which he attempted to return) was 'hush money', and that Jackson did not participate in the fix.

In Jackson's 1924 civil trial against Charles Comiskey (which Jackson won, but was overturned on a technicality), Comiskey himself testified under oath that Jackson 'played all games to win'.

The fact that Comiskey is in the Hall of Fame and Jackson is not is a travesty that should have been addressed decades ago.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

chakes89
09-08-2009, 05:40 PM
I also read that Jackson tried to tell Comiskey what was happening but Comiskey wouldn't see him

So who is to say that Comiskey wasn't involved as well

NYCrulesU
09-08-2009, 06:34 PM
I'm with Chakes and Lucas, I've always believed Joe Jackson was innocent. There are too many documented testimonies from others not to see this. The rumors that he shaved points is pure nonsense and can't be supported with facts. But it does make for good arguement material, if you're one who likes to argue just to argue. :rolleyes:

staindsox
09-08-2009, 08:37 PM
Everyone knew about the fix before the series...Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey...everyone. Joe tried to return the money twice and Comiskey wouldn't see him. Since Commy knew before the Series, he could have lost his franchise. He wanted to distance himself from it as much as possible...which is why his lawyers got confessions out of Jackson and Cicotte. Who were they protecting; the players???

suicide_squeeze
09-08-2009, 09:42 PM
Everyone knew about the fix before the series...Ban Johnson, Charles Comiskey...everyone. Joe tried to return the money twice and Comiskey wouldn't see him. Since Commy knew before the Series, he could have lost his franchise. He wanted to distance himself from it as much as possible...which is why his lawyers got confessions out of Jackson and Cicotte. Who were they protecting; the players???


.....the point being......there were a LOT of rotten eggs in the basket besides the "8 men out".

Maybe it should have been called the "8 scapegoats a grazing"?

Why do you think Shoeless Joe tried twice to return the $5K? Because he wasn't involved? He may not have activly participated, but he knew.

So I ask you....what's the difference? He took the $5K for hush money? C'mon........

schubert1970
09-08-2009, 09:55 PM
I think the Mantle/Mays thing could be different then Rose. If Shoeless isn't getting in anytome soon, Rose has no shot at all. I'll give you 10-1 odds.
:)

staindsox
09-08-2009, 10:33 PM
.....the point being......there were a LOT of rotten eggs in the basket besides the "8 men out".

Maybe it should have been called the "8 scapegoats a grazing"?

Why do you think Shoeless Joe tried twice to return the $5K? Because he wasn't involved? He may not have activly participated, but he knew.

So I ask you....what's the difference? He took the $5K for hush money? C'mon........

Jackson is a scapegoat...THEY ALL KNEW.

It is funny if you read Landis' statement. Where was Jackson more guilty than anyone else?

"Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will ever play professional baseball."

Joe:

1) Never sat in conference with the players when fixing games was discussed (even Weaver did this).

2) Never promised to throw games. They used his name to make the fix sound sweeter to the gamblers.

3) Was given money AFTER the Series, but and tried to return it the next day (yes, this is prompt). Then tried to bring it up again when he signed his 1920 contract.

Guess what...Schalk and Collins both knew about a fix (just as much as Jackson) and didn't come forward. Comiskey knew too and even tried to bury it. Ban Johnson was in the same boat. Those are a lot of tarnished Hall of Fame plaques.

The point is that it is easy to assign blame to eight players and everyone has a tendancy to view this as a somewhat isolated incident. EVERYONE was involved to some level; whether fixing a game, trying to cover it up, or just trying to ignore it. Several Series before 1919 had been fixed and the Black Sox dumped games in the 1920 pennant race too. Game fixing was pervasive and almost destroyed the game. Viewing it through this lens, it is understandable why MLB has consistantly taken such a harsh stance on gambling since 1920.

33bird
09-08-2009, 10:48 PM
Well, unlike Pete, Shoeless's joe's statistics don't warrant HOF induction. Go check em' out and you'll agree with me. And you can't say shoulda, woulda, coulda either. If you do we'll put Bo Jackson in the HOF too.