By
Steve Kallas (posted by Rick Morris)
Last
week, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred gave ESPN an interview on
his thought process behind his denial of Pete Rose’s request to be removed from
the permanently ineligible list.
Certainly,
with a well-written opinion and a well thought-out interview, Manfred painted
the picture that Rose had not “reconfigured his life.” The question, from T.J. Quinn, was asked of
Manfred this way: “The standard, ever
since Bart Giamatti signed that agreement, through Fay Vincent, Bud Selig, has
been, he had to reconfigure his life.
What did that mean to you?”
WHAT
REALLY WAS THE STANDARD, AT LEAST FOR THE HALL OF FAME?
But
that is definitely the WRONG question to ask about the possible induction (or,
at least, eligibility) of Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame. Here’s why:
When
Pete Rose was banned for life in 1989, Commissioner Bart Giamatti was asked,
point blank, whether his banned for life status would have any bearing on his
(eventual) Hall of Fame candidacy.
Giamatti would have none of it, saying: “You [referring to the baseball
writers who vote for the Hall of Fame] will decide whether he belongs in the
Hall of Fame.”
While
Rose wouldn’t be eligible to the Hall of Fame for another two years (five years
after retirement), unfortunately Bart Giamatti died a few days later, paving
the way for a “sham” committee to eventually pass the “Pete Rose” rule, and
paving the way for Fay Vincent, Bud Selig, and now Rob Manfred, to ignore the
directive of Bart Giamatti.
Up
is down, down is up. How could this
happen?
HERE’S
HOW IT HAPPENED
Kostya
Kennedy, in his fine book, “Pete Rose: An American Dilemma,” goes into detail
about the “sham” process that eventually would not allow Rose to be considered
for the Hall of Fame (remember, up until this meeting in 1991 when the Pete
Rose rule was passed, Shoeless Joe Jackson was eligible to get into the Hall of
Fame and did receive some votes for the Hall).
Kennedy
goes into great detail in Chapter 17 of his book as to what a joke the meeting
was (it took place in a New York City hotel on January 10, 1991 – Rose would
have been eligible for consideration later in 1991). According to the Kennedy book, not only was
it a done deal that this “special committee” was going to bar Rose from getting
into the Hall, but also there was an overwhelming majority of the 10-member
committee who simply would agree with the proposal of the rule to eliminate all
people on the permanently ineligible list from being considered for the Hall.
Kennedy
makes a compelling case that Lee MacPhail, former American League President and
influential in baseball circles, was the ringleader in keeping Rose out. According to Kennedy, it was MacPhail who
made the motion, actually saying that he was “very concerned” that Rose might
be inducted. MacPhail proposed language
that was eventually slightly changed but passed: “Persons on the ineligible
list cannot be eligible candidates.”
Two
famous baseball writers, Jack Lang and Phil Pepe, were on the committee and
strongly disagreed with the notion of removing the writer’s authority to let
them vote on Pete Rose (apparently there is no record of whether Bart
Giamatti’s explicit direction, that the Pete Rose ban would not have anything
to do with whether he makes the Hall of Fame, was discussed).
Hall
of Fame writer Lang, discussing the committee process, said: “It was a sham,
from start to finish.”
WHICH
BRINGS US BACK TO THE PRESENT TIME
Another
question asked of Manfred is a perfectly good one (paraphrasing here): How can
PED guys get back on the field when Pete Rose can’t? Manfred’s answer is fascinating: after
stating that gambling goes to the integrity of the game (what? PEDs don’t?) and the public’s confidence in
the game (what? PEDs don’t?), here’s what the commissioner of baseball said:
“[T]he fact of the matter is, it [PED usage] does not create a suggestion that
somebody’s not trying to win the game.
As a matter of fact, it’s the opposite.
They’re trying too hard to win the game.”
Yikes! Does anybody thing that Pete Rose wasn’t
trying to win the game? Do you think
that any PED user wanted to win more than Pete Rose? Like him or not, here’s a man with more
competitive drive and will to win than, arguably, anybody who has ever played
the game.
Once
again, people don’t understand the difference (and it’s a big one) from betting
on your team to win and betting on your team to lose. It’s gigantic and should
result in different penalties under Rule 21(d).
TIME
TO TALK TO JEFF IDELSON
Rob
Manfred actually dodged the Hall of Fame question by saying it’s not for him to
decide (hard to believe that Bart Giamatti would have seen it this way). Rather, he said, it’s up to the Hall of
Fame. Jeff Idelson, head of the Hall of
Fame and a well-respected and intelligent man, said he saw no reason to change
the rule as it presently is (that is, ineligibility for Rose and all others,
including Shoeless Joe).
But
maybe someone can send Idelson a copy of Kennedy’s book (discussing, at length,
the sham process) and tell him about Bart Giamatti’s directive on the day Pete
Rose was banished for life.
Maybe
he will see the light.
But
don’t bet on it (no pun intended).
©
2015 BY STEVE KALLAS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No comments:
Post a Comment