Pete Rose is in the news as the commissioner says he’s still banned but his decision is separate from any Hall of Fame actions regarding Mr. Rose and the crew tackles that issue and lots more in this week’s roundtable discussions…
1) Now that Commissioner Rob Manfred has handed down his decision regarding Pete Rose and his future relationship with MLB and it is that Rose will not be reinstated into baseball, it begs the question: If, the Hall of Fame were to lift their rule that a player on the banned list cannot be put in the Hall of Fame what are the chances that the baseball writers will elect Rose to the Hall?
Archie: I’m afraid that today’s bunch is still spineless enough to keep him out.
It’s not easy going against the almighty “integrity of baseball” issue at hand and I don’t think enough of them have the balls to do the right thing.
He is the hit leader and had a Hall of Fame-worthy career, but, if the writers have problems with even voting right now in this PED-era, they will have a very large problem with letting someone who is banned from baseball for betting on the game into the Hall of Fame. But, I think they should let him in based on his credentials playing the game.
Earl: I’d put Rose’s chances at being elected in the Hall of Fame through the baseball writers as minimal.
Unless there is some sort of backlash from the writers, that would see them doing something that flies in the face of the Commissioner, I’d think that the two bodies will keep acting in concert to keep Pete out of the Hall.
Joe: I have always been of the opinion Pete Rose should never be reinstated by MLB and I still feel that way and I believe that Manfred made the right decision. Having said that…
…the door was originally left open when he first got suspended that if he changed his life; faced up to what he did wrong and really changed then he could have his banishment from the game lifted and be reinstated to baseball. However, the truth is that Pete Rose is a liar and has continued to lie to the game of baseball, and, we the people that follow the game and has really only tried to show any contrition when he thought it would best suit his purposes and that has been almost little to never.
Pete, in my opinion, is an obsessive compulsive personality who is addicted to gambling as much as any alcoholic is addicted to the bottle. Still, he is worthy… statistically speaking… of being elected to the Hall.
BUT… until recently I have been of the opinion that he should not have that privilege. If, he is banned by baseball then he should be banned from the Hall.
But, recently I read a piece by ESPN’s Buster Olney and I think it is a genius of an idea.
And essentially Olney says… Let players like Pete into the Hall.
Here’s why and how… when Rob Manfred handed down the decision to continue Rose’s banishment from baseball he said the decision was in relation only to MLB and had no bearing on whether Pete Rose should be elected to the Hall. The Hall of Fame is not part of MLB but a separate entity unto itself and as such makes its own decision and rules. In other words the Hall can create and change its rules any way that it sees fit. It can eliminate the so-called “good character” rule and it can also eliminate the rule that says any player who is banned from baseball is also banned from eligible to be elected to the Hall of Fame.
But, Olney says as a museum of baseball’s history players, such as Peter should be enshrined into the Hall and it is the sports writers’ responsibility to enshrine those players… like Pete… who excelled at playing the game into the Hall.
And, after Rose is elected into the Hall his plaque will list all of his accomplishments… his hits… his all-star games… his excellence on the field of play… but… it will also note… right on the plaque… that he was, and is, permanently banned from baseball because he broke an inviolable rule of the game… no gambling.
Olney says Pete’s nose would probably be in a snit but tough for Pete. The Hall of Fame is a historical museum and as such it is the Hall’s responsibility to report the history of the game… to educate people, now and in the future, about baseball’s beginnings and its growth throughout time. All of its history… the good, the bad and the ugly. It will tell the world that as great as Peter Rose was as a player, he also violated the biggest and most important rule of baseball… no gambling… and that he did it as a player and a manager.
Under that condition, I think it would be acceptable to vote Pete Rose into Baseball’s Hall of Fame.
Steve: Slim to none, the Committee is made up of guys who are all about the integrity of the game, and, until there is a new committee after these guys have passed on, and, Rose has passed on, Pete Rose will never grace the walls of the Hall of Fame.
And, that is a crying shame.
2) As a corollary question to today’s initial question… When the commissioner handed down his decision on Rose he essentially said that just because he has banned Pete from being reinstated to the game that does not have any bearing on whether the Hall should or should not let Pete into their museum. If that’s the case, then, does this open the door to, and, should the majority of the baseball writers reconsider their hitherto stance, on those players that have been associated with PEDs in shape, way or form?
Archie: I am not sure one has anything to do with the other. I know of NO ONE that has been handed down a “Banned for Life” sentence due to PEDs. IF, I missed someone please let me know.
However, we have ALL seen what the mighty BBWAA has done in their voting procedures with guys like Bonds, Clemens and others. I don’t see any scenario at ALL that will cause them to rethink or reinstate Bonds as a HALL candidate based on the fact he still has a lifetime ban.
Dan: Yes, they should.
I think that they shouldn’t look so much at whether they have used PEDs/drugs but what they did while they were playing the game. It’s overall a case-by-case basis based on each player and each specific situation.
But, I also think they need to open up a lot more with how they conduct voting or otherwise a lot of very deserving players won’t ever make it to the Hall of Fame because of their no-votes, etc…
Earl: It opens the door some, why I answered minimal on the last question, but, I don’t see it getting Rose into the Hall. However, I think it could help those players who have been associated with PED’s.
If the writers association eventually come around on their stance, then I can see them electing guys like Bonds, or Clemens, and others who deserve enshrinement.
Joe: I’m going to make this real simple… read my answer to question 1… utilize the same criteria…
You have to the tell the truth on the plaque.. no innuendo allowed… but, if, a player was involved even in a court battle… e.g. Roger Clemens… due to suspicions of using PEDs then report that… it is part of the history of the game.
And, before we leave this discussion… assuming that any of this ever gets done (which I’m not real hopeful of it ever happening but I think it should)… it’s time for MLB to shit or get off the pot on Shoeless Joe Jackson. What he supposedly did is worse than what even Rose did… he supposedly conspired to fix games… and not only games but the World Series. However, if there is no evidence that he was a part of the conspiracy then let the guy into the Hall… talk about numbers…his are more than deserving.
Steve: It will never happen at least with this core of Veterans. The only way that Rose is going to get in if they ever lift that stipulation. The Veterans committee is made up of guys who firmly believe in the integrity of baseball. If it does happen, and Rose gets in to the Hall of Fame, he will likely be long gone.
So, as far as the committee goes for PED users, I don’t believe their stance will change either. If, you broke the integrity of the game, you will never see the lights of the Hall.
3) The Giants have made some key off-season moves so far this season and have to a degree retooled their roster… in your opinion… does this mean that the Giants will now return to the World Series and continue their string of championships on even years like they won in 2010, 2012, and, 2014?
Archie: I never gave them a chance in ’12 or ’14 so what do I know.
Every off-season for the past 6-8 years we have sat and watched as some team “spend big dollars” or “retooled” to make a championship run only to fall flat on their face while the Giants just maintained a steady pace and actually got there. If, you looked for “retooling” and signing big names, making big trades as the promise for making a run at the playoffs then some teams… cough, choke… spew… spittle… Padres… just came up WAY short. I can see where the D-Backs have fallen into the same trap as the Padres did last year, but, I would be willing to bet a nickle to a donut hole this year that they do NOT make the playoffs.
Dan: I think that they are on a great push but they have a lot of
competition. They will be competing against the Mets again this season, Chicago is improving this off-season with Jason Heyward signing and the Cardinals will be, again, a top force.
Arizona added Zack Greinke and the Dodgers are also a good team and that’s just in the same division.
But, I do think that they’re making their way on to working back to the World Series to continue their pattern of every other year World Series title. Do i think they can do it this year in 2016? No. But, I do think they will make a great run.
Earl: The Giants have one good rotation… Baumgartner, Cueto, Samardzjia, Peavy, and Cain is nothing to sneeze at.
The Giants are taking a risk on Cueto’s elbow and on Samardzjia bouncing back from a so-so season, but, add that staff with guys like Buster Posey, and, you would have to believe they have a shot at getting to the postseason and keeping alive their streak of winning the World Series in even numbered years.
Joe: Right now I give them a better shot than the Dodgers of even making the playoffs.
So, based on that assumption on my part, why the hell shouldn’t they have at least an even chance to keep their string of even year championships going?
Steve: I’m not going to bet against them, as they seem to find the magic every other year this decade so far.
The Cubs may have something to say about that. But, I think the moves they are pulling off, especially signing Cueto, means the Giants are in it to win in next year once more.
4) The Dodgers, White Sox and Reds on Wednesday pulled off a major three-way trade that, most notably, sends All-Star third baseman Todd Frazier from Cincinnati to Chicago. Making this real simple… did the White Sox pull off a hell of a deal to get Frazier?
Archie: This is one of those deals you just scratch your head. Why did Cincy not get more? How did the deal ever get packaged?
While Schebler probably has the most upside to the guys the Reds got in return, the other two are nothing to brag about. Peraza is now with his third team in less than one calendar year and has not done much with the first two. I don’t see him being a big help in Cincy, so why would the reds trade away Frazier in this deal?
The Dodgers get a young prospect pitcher in Montas who is not slated for a starting role; actually looks to be a bullpen guy mostly if ever regularly. They get a light hitting rookie 2nd baseman in Micah Johnson; still rookie status and not projected very high at this point. And lastly they do get Trayce Thompson who shows promise and an upside should the Dodgers need an outfielder, but, right now where is Trayce going to platoon or fit in?
Dan: I thought the White Sox did something really good in order to get Todd Frazier.
They didn’t give up a lot to get him; they were able to work a 3-team deal in order to lesson what they gave up to Cincinnati and Chicago came off on top of this deal.
Earl: Yeah, it’s a great deal.
He’ll be 30 by the time the season starts and is in his prime. He’s got home run power and should look good next to Jose Abreu in the middle of the lineup.
Joe: I follow the game of baseball somewhat well but admittedly I am not the type of guy who knows the statas and stuff of every prospect coming up or of which team has what guys being developed in the minors.
But, from what I been reading in the newspapers and online.. the White Sox pulled of a hell of a deal to get Frazier without giving up all that much. In fact, most reports I see say that the Reds came out the worst of the three teams with the players that they got in this deal.
But, heck… who knows… two, three years down the road and maybe the players they got will all develope into all-stars while all the others become journeymen.
Steve: I think surprised is more the word here.
Up until this point I had the White Sox last in the AL Central, now, I just have no idea how good they can be. Frazier is a huge bat to the Sox’s already pretty good lineup. So, yeah, they pulled off a steal of a deal to get an All Star like Frazier. But, I still think, outside of Sale, they have a lot of work to do on the mound.
5) It’s sort of a foregone conclusion… although if you ask them they will say no… that the Nationals would like to trade Jonathan Papelbon… however considering Papelbon’s rep for being a bit snarky, obnoxious and boorish, plus the fact that he has a “no-trade list” of 17 teams, is it realistic for the Nats to think they will be able to trade Papelbon without essentially giving him away… if, they can trade him at all?
Archie: Here is the thing; there are certain players that get the “cancer” label on them whether they earn it or not and that appears to be the case with Papelbon. He has seemed to “not fit it” anywhere, even in his last days with Boston. The Nats only have him under contract for this 1 remaining year and they may have to give up more than him to be able to move him.
The fact they fired their manager after last season and Pap has one year left, it may be best the Nats give the new manager a chance to right the ship there in D.C. and not be to hasty is their decision to move him. Personally, if I were the new man coming in he would be one of the first guys I talked to and let it be known I expect my closer to be a huge part of the team in every
Dan: I think they realistically can, and, it is realistic for them to think that. If, they can’t, why would they even try?
What they need to do is look for a team that’s not on his no-trade clause and go for them. Look at what they can give. They can get a couple mid-level prospects for him easily as he’s still a good closer, he just runs his mouth a little too much. but, I really don’t see that as a major problem.
Unless, the Nationals eat a bunch of that salary, I can’t see them finding a willing taker for Papelbon. Not now, anyway. It may have to take another club suffering an injury to their closer, or key set up man, before the Nationals can get out under the Papelbon era in D.C.
Joe: I don’t see the Nationals trading Papelbon and getting anything of real value in return.
Also, even if the Nats can work out deal that they feel gives them some value in so far as the player(s) they get in return for Papelbon I think they still will need to eat some salary.
The best thing for them is hope that the truce that has been floated in the media between Harper and Paps has some truth and keep him until the trade deadline approaches and then some team in contention might be real desperate for some bullpen help and then they might be able to work out some deal that might be a tad better than if they trade him now.
However, they still will have to worry about whether the team that wants Paps is not on his no trade list….
Steve: I don’t think so.
As good as a pitcher Papelbon is, he is a cancer to the clubhouse and will disrupt any chemistry a team may have. I’m not saying he was the reason the Nationals failed last year, but, it certainly didn’t help matters much.
However, eventually someone will take a chance on Papelbon, but, I don’t think they will eat much of his salary if they do.
Picture of a class act…
In September, Chicago Cub Anthony Rizzo stopped by Lurie Children’s Hospital to see some of the patients. He brought teddy bears and hats; signed autographs and posed for photos. He also has started a new tradition, he asked the children to sign his jersey. Someday, he intends to get it framed.
Tiny URL for this post: