2025 MLB Thread

[chasfh]

There are a lot of reasons to not reinstate Pete Rose, and I have articulated several of them on MTS and MTF over the years. But one that occurred to me just recently is: if it turns out Baseball refused to reinstate him while he was alive but did so only now that he’s dead, they’re basically admitting that they were interested only in punishing the man rather than punishing the infraction. That’s something small, petty, vindictive organizations do, and it was be a very, very bad look for Major League Baseball to do this.

When MLB punishes a player for any infraction, even this one, they have to separate the man from the infraction. The punishment must be equal for everyone, and should never turn on the personality of the convicted. It’s the infraction itself they have to remain focused on, irrespective of who committed it. That’s what principled organizations do, and this is yet one more reason why there is nothing in it for Baseball to reinstate Pete Rose. 

Edited 12 hours ago by chasfh

[Tiger337]

8 hours ago, chasfh said:

There are a lot of reasons to not reinstate Pete Rose, and I have articulated several of them on MTS and MTF over the years. But one that occurred to me just recently is: if it turns out Baseball refused to reinstate him while he was alive but did so only now that he’s dead, they’re basically admitting that they were interested only in punishing the man rather than punishing the infraction. That’s something small, petty, vindictive organizations do, and it was be a very, very bad look for Major League Baseball to do this.

When MLB punishes a player for any infraction, even this one, they have to separate the man from the infraction. The punishment must be equal for everyone, and should never turn on the personality of the convicted. It’s the infraction itself they have to remain focused on, irrespective of who committed it. That’s what principled organizations do, and this is yet one more reason why there is nothing in it for Baseball to reinstate Pete Rose. 

There is no honor nor principles in MLB. It's all about money.  

[Motor City Sonics]

10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

There is no honor nor principles in MLB. It's all about money.  

Yep.  I agree with Chasfh, but it's a money thing. 

 

But it's not just the gambling.  Rose was a  true degenerate through and through.  A horrible human being. 

Plus, putting him in will be like a victory for Trump, who will claim he got him in.       They're a lot alike, after all. 

If you put Rose in, why not Joe Jackson?  Why not clear Buck Weaver?   No evidence they booted a ball during the World Series.   Most evidence is that all Weaver did was stay silent.     

Edited 3 hours ago by Motor City Sonics

[Motor City Sonics]

The Dalton Varsho catch.    Nothing will top this in 2025.  It's not possible

 

 

[oblong]

9 hours ago, chasfh said:

There are a lot of reasons to not reinstate Pete Rose, and I have articulated several of them on MTS and MTF over the years. But one that occurred to me just recently is: if it turns out Baseball refused to reinstate him while he was alive but did so only now that he’s dead, they’re basically admitting that they were interested only in punishing the man rather than punishing the infraction. That’s something small, petty, vindictive organizations do, and it was be a very, very bad look for Major League Baseball to do this.

When MLB punishes a player for any infraction, even this one, they have to separate the man from the infraction. The punishment must be equal for everyone, and should never turn on the personality of the convicted. It’s the infraction itself they have to remain focused on, irrespective of who committed it. That’s what principled organizations do, and this is yet one more reason why there is nothing in it for Baseball to reinstate Pete Rose. 

all of what you said is true.... and in a weird way now makes me think there's a chance they will do it.

The last time this came up with Manfred his comment or statement was effectively "Why?  What's changed?  There's no reason to do it now vs 5 years or 10 years ago"

Many of us here are dead against it but I think we're in the minority.  People under 40 don't care, to them Pete Rose may as well be Shoeless Joe.  Some old guy who was last relevent 40 years ago.  And baseball doesn't care if they piss off old people.  Think about it... Pete's prime is as far from us now as Shoeless Joe's prime was when Rose played.  I wouldn't put it past Manfred to consider that in a resintatement.  He gets good press and the only expense of upsetting dinosaurs mad who are still whining about pitch clocks and DH's. 

[chasfh]

40 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

There is no honor nor principles in MLB. It's all about money.  

In the end, yes, it’s all about the money. No argument there.

That being stipulated, there is a difference between going for one dollar now and only now regardless of the cost in public perception and goodwill and the future prospects of each, versus going for two dollars both now and later by paying attention to what their various target markets think of them. It’s not as though a principled, or even intelligent, organization would go for that single dollar now without giving a flying **** what their market thinks. Even a craven organization like MLB has to be concerned what the future prospects of the business are based on how their actions today affect the perceptions of their target audiences.

The way I see it as an outsider with some education and experience in business, Baseball probably has three basic target audiences for the game itself that I can think of: one that loves the game and respects its history and its dedication to integrity of competition and wants to maintain that; one that likes the game on the field but doesn’t care so much about what goes on off of it or anything that went before this game, or this season, or these players; and one that doesn’t care much about or watch the games and use it only as a conduit for laying parlays and other action. The first one mostly hates Pete Rose and wants him to remain out; the last one mostly either doesn’t care or sees Pete as a martyr and wants him back in, if for no other reason than to justify their own approach to baseball; and the one in the middle mostly either doesn’t care, or maybe likes what they perceive about Pete’s grit and hustle and sure, let him back into the game, why not?

There could be three other target audiences Baseball has to consider as well: one is the steward of their federal antitrust exemption, the federal government, which consists of shifting elements within who have different opinions about whether Baseball should even maintain this unique privilege; another that doesn’t care about baseball the game or Baseball the business, but who have an opinion about gambling in general and who may apply their pressure on government and maybe their votes based on that; and a third, the corporate community, upon whom Baseball relies on for billions in annual revenue and who care about the impact Baseball’s decision might have on the public perception of their own brands in relation to The Game’s dalliance with gambling in general.

Baseball’s calculation, which they are surely noodling in a suite of spreadsheets somewhere, is how important each bucket is and how much revenue will be generated by each, both in and outside the ballpark, today and in both the near-term and long-term future?

I guess we’ll have our answer when Manfred hands down his decree. If I had to … ahem … bet on it, I’d bet Pete will still be out. But at this point it’s got to be roughly 50/50.

[chasfh]

13 minutes ago, oblong said:

all of what you said is true.... and in a weird way now makes me think there's a chance they will do it.

The last time this came up with Manfred his comment or statement was effectively "Why?  What's changed?  There's no reason to do it now vs 5 years or 10 years ago"

Many of us here are dead against it but I think we're in the minority.  People under 40 don't care, to them Pete Rose may as well be Shoeless Joe.  Some old guy who was last relevent 40 years ago.  And baseball doesn't care if they piss off old people.  Think about it... Pete's prime is as far from us now as Shoeless Joe's prime was when Rose played.  I wouldn't put it past Manfred to consider that in a resintatement.  He gets good press and the only expense of upsetting dinosaurs mad who are still whining about pitch clocks and DH's. 

But he and the game will also get bad press, lots of it, and it will set a bad precedent with players who may be more likely to believe that betting on a game in which they have a duty to perform isn’t as big a problem as that hypocritical organization that posts the don’t-you-dare poster in their locker rooms tries to bull**** them into believing it really is.

[Tiger337]

I think there is a good chance they will let him in.  The only target audience that cares about keeping him out is the one that's going to keep watching regardless.  Good luck to him getting into the Hall of Fame though. If they won't let Bonds and Clemens in, they won't let Rose in either.      

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Yep.  I agree with Chasfh, but it's a money thing. 

 

But it's not just the gambling.  Rose was a  true degenerate through and through.  A horrible human being. 

Plus, putting him in will be like a victory for Trump, who will claim he got him in.       They're a lot alike, after all. 

If you put Rose in, why not Joe Jackson?  Why not clear Buck Weaver?   No evidence they booted a ball during the World Series.   Most evidence is that all Weaver did was stay silent.     

Yes, and not just the old guys who were banned, but also, they could never permanently ban anyone for betting on the game today or in the future. If they can’t manage and control gambling by players within the game itself, how are we, the fans, supposed to trust the outcome of any game or season ever again? Or does that not matter at all because money today?

In the end, I’m having trouble seeing how Baseball makes a lot more money by letting Pete back into the game, versus all the extra nonsense they will have to manage by doing so. Even having a Pete Rose-only exception is a fraught decision for them to make, and I think that’s got to be the least likely outcome, because if they did that, no one would ever believe or trust or fear them on anything ever again, especially the people within the game.

[chasfh]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

I think there is a good chance they will let him in.  The only target audience that cares about keeping him out is the one that's going to keep watching regardless.  Good luck to him getting into the Hall of Fame though. If they won't let Bonds and Clemens in, they won't let Rose in either.      

I believe there’s no point to reinstating Pete Rose if the Hall of Fame is going to still keep him out. When it comes to that, I gotta believe it’s going to be a love me, love my Pete situation between Baseball and the Hall. No way the two entities are going to war over that.

[oblong]

37 minutes ago, chasfh said:

But he and the game will also get bad press, lots of it, and it will set a bad precedent with players who may be more likely to believe that betting on a game in which they have a duty to perform isn’t as big a problem as that hypocritical organization that posts the don’t-you-dare poster in their locker rooms tries to bull**** them into believing it really is.

I don't think they'll get a lot of bad press.  They will from die hards in outlets with small viewings.  But on CBS This Morning or NBC Today or The Bob and Joe Zany Zoo Morning Show in Santa Fe, NM they will be talking about it in a not so negative light.  Your average person on the street who knows who Pete Rose is will say something like "It's been long enough, the man is dead, gambling sponsors the games... it's time"   That's the depth they will take this.

I don't know what Manfred will do.  My gut says nothing will change but I wouldn't bet $100 on it.

 

[Motor City Sonics]

Baseball writers are not going to let him in.   Especially because he was given the chance to go speak to teams and young people on the dangers of gambling and he refused to do it.  They gave him an out and he refused it.   Plus, playing the victim.........most people with a shred of dignity hate when someone who put themselves in a hole, play the victim.   Ooooh, Poooor Pete.   My arse.      That dude was every sleazy stereotype of a gambling addict.     

 

A lot of these athletes - they get too old to compete because time is undefeated.   So they need that edge and gambling is the thing that gives it to them, but I don't want to hear sob stories when it burns them.    Phil Mickelson complains about how high his taxes are when he's lost over $40 million from gambling in just a four-year stretch.  

[oblong]

Regarding the baseball HOF.... they are a non profit with their own board of directors.  I just checked and it does include Mandred, Reinsdorf, Art Moreno, and a handful of former players like Ripken, Griffey, Ozzie, and BIggio.  But also business leaders. 

I"m sure they are governed by a set of bylaws that can't be deviated from so anything regarding Pete's election to the HOF would go through the normal channels, meaning he has to be voted onto a ballot then voted again for unduction.  That means 24 out of 32 people have to agree to put him in. (12 of 16 on each).  That is a tall order.

[Tiger337]

41 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I believe there’s no point to reinstating Pete Rose if the Hall of Fame is going to still keep him out. When it comes to that, I gotta believe it’s going to be a love me, love my Pete situation between Baseball and the Hall. No way the two entities are going to war over that.

They could let him in to make Trump happy or to appease their gambling partners.  I don't think it will cause any big damage to the industry.  I don't think the world cares about Pete Rose anymore. It's just baseball nuts like us who care.  

[papalawrence]

3 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

There is no honor nor principles in MLB. It's all about money.  

The hypocrisy is thick with MLB. Mays and Mantle were both suspended from MLB just because they did some work with casinos. Iirc Mantle was a spokesperson for the March of Dimes and worked with casinos to raise money.

Fast forward a few decades and Fan Duel is now a major media platform for MLB. I fully agree, all about money