Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="op2" data-source="post: 132042747" data-attributes="member: 419450">I agree with the idea of banning Pete back when it happened.&nbsp; But things have changed so much since then that it simply looks ridiculous now to have him banned.&nbsp; Promoting and making money off of gambling is a major part of MLB (and all the other major sports).The original point of a lifetime ban for gambling was to protect the integrity of the game.&nbsp; But back then, the amount of money you could make by throwing a game was much larger than the amount you got paid for playing fairly.&nbsp; That has completely flipped now.&nbsp; Considering how much money players make now, a player (or manager) would be absolutely crazy to take money to throw a game.&nbsp; I mean, having a harsh penalty for it is still a good idea, but a lifetime ban of no further association with baseball is just silly IMO.And &quot;the integrity of the game&quot; has been damaged so much now that what Pete did pales by comparison to so much other stuff anyway.&nbsp; There's a whole decade or two that is marred by steroids.&nbsp; One World Series was lost because of a strike and another had it's outcome determined by cheating.&nbsp; Teams purposely bring up strong prospects to the majors on the day after they'd qualify for a years service that season, thereby causing the prospect to become a free agent one year later than he otherwise would and thus potentially costing the guy millions of dollars.&nbsp; (That might have been remedied in the most recent labor agreement.&nbsp; I don't know for sure.)MLB has a lot of problems and that fact that Pete Rose gambled while he was managing the Reds isn't one of them.&nbsp; MLB needs an overhaul and if I were in charge, among other things I'd let Pete Rose into that HoF.&nbsp; And considering he's in his 80s now and I've read he's had some health problems, time might be running out.&nbsp; MLB should do it while he's alive, especially considering the &quot;banned forever for gambling&quot; rule looks ridiculous by today's standards.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="op2, post: 132042747, member: 419450"] I agree with the idea of banning Pete back when it happened. But things have changed so much since then that it simply looks ridiculous now to have him banned. Promoting and making money off of gambling is a major part of MLB (and all the other major sports). The original point of a lifetime ban for gambling was to protect the integrity of the game. But back then, the amount of money you could make by throwing a game was much larger than the amount you got paid for playing fairly. That has completely flipped now. Considering how much money players make now, a player (or manager) would be absolutely crazy to take money to throw a game. I mean, having a harsh penalty for it is still a good idea, but a lifetime ban of no further association with baseball is just silly IMO. And "the integrity of the game" has been damaged so much now that what Pete did pales by comparison to so much other stuff anyway. There's a whole decade or two that is marred by steroids. One World Series was lost because of a strike and another had it's outcome determined by cheating. Teams purposely bring up strong prospects to the majors on the day after they'd qualify for a years service that season, thereby causing the prospect to become a free agent one year later than he otherwise would and thus potentially costing the guy millions of dollars. (That might have been remedied in the most recent labor agreement. I don't know for sure.) MLB has a lot of problems and that fact that Pete Rose gambled while he was managing the Reds isn't one of them. MLB needs an overhaul and if I were in charge, among other things I'd let Pete Rose into that HoF. And considering he's in his 80s now and I've read he's had some health problems, time might be running out. MLB should do it while he's alive, especially considering the "banned forever for gambling" rule looks ridiculous by today's standards. [/QUOTE]

Name