Hank Aaron should be commissioner

[Arles]

Every time this guy talks, he makes a ton of sense. Yet again, he hits the mark:

PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. -- Hank Aaron wants the list of players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003 to be released.

In a wide-ranging interview Tuesday night with The Associated Press, the Hall of Famer said releasing the list would help Major League Baseball get past the so-called "Steroid Era." The list was supposed to remain anonymous and is now under court seal, but big names have continued to leak out.

"I wish for once and forever that we could come out and say we have 100 and some names, name them all and get it over and let baseball go on," the former home run king said. "I don't know how they keep leaking out. I just wish that they would name them all and get it over with."

Aaron also wanted to make a few other things clear.

No, he has not spoken with commissioner Bud Selig about banned Pete Rose being reinstated in baseball. But he does think it's time Rose, the career hits leader, be reinstated and voted into the Hall of Fame.

Rose agreed to a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989 after an investigation concluded he bet on the Cincinnati Reds to win while he was manager of the team.

"How long does a person have to die?" Aaron said. "I think the thing that bothers me is that he is missing out on a lot of things. He made a mistake. I don't know what else can be done, or what else can be said. I just think at some point he needs to start enjoying being a Hall of Famer."

Aaron spoke to the AP before a banquet for the 17th Annual RBI World Series. The program is designed to increase participation and interest in baseball for youths and minorities -- one of the primary issues Aaron is working on.

With the number of blacks in the majors dwindling in the past few decades, Aaron said MLB -- and everyone -- could do more to curb the numbers.

"You always think that a program needs to do more, no question about it, if you have the funds," Aaron said. "We all need to do more. I think we all need to do more to help."

However, since steroids have come become one of baseball's biggest problems, the thought that the game is still tainted doesn't sit well with Aaron, who held the home run record with 755 until Barry Bonds broke it.

Neither does the fact that some of baseball's biggest names -- including a New York Times report last week that identified Boston slugger David Ortiz and former teammate Manny Ramirez -- continue to pop up on what has simply become known as "the list."

There were no penalties for a positive test in 2003 -- the anonymous tests were conducted to determine if it was necessary to impose mandatory random drug testing across the major leagues in 2004. But federal agents seized the results as part of the BALCO investigation. The players' union has argued the search was illegal, and the case is currently before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

At the event in Palm Beach Gardens on Tuesday night, Aaron said he often delivers a message to kids about getting involved in baseball but also about staying out of trouble. He thought the same message could apply to some major leaguers.

"I tell them you may not be able to hit 700 home runs, but you need to do the right things," Aaron said. "There's no shortcuts in life. Everything is going to catch up."

Hank Aaron wants 2003 list of failed tests revealed - ESPN

I've always been pretty ambivalent on the steroids issue. It's no different from a historical perspective than spitballs, not playing against black players or players popping greenies IMO. Still, I think Aaron's right in that they just need to get this list out and be done with it. Steroids are part of the culture of baseball from 1990 until now and we can either admit that and move on or play selective morale cop and guess who did and didn't (ie, Tony Gwynn, Ripken and Maddux don't fit the profile so they're in). I prefer to elect the top players from the era with the understanding that steroids was a part of it (like Greenies in the 60s and spitballs at the turn of the century).

I also agree that Rose should be allowed to be on the ballot.

[molson]

The leaks of the names so far, and any future names, has nothing to do with MLB. They couldn't release the names if they wanted to, and they're not responsible for the names that have come out (except for the possibility of a rogue, anonymous employee).

A lot of people are talking about these leaks as if it's some conscious strategy to keep this in the news.

[larrymcg421]

Pete Rose should not be allowed in. I'm one of the most anti-steroid people there are, but I'd rather vote every single player on that list into the Hall of Fame before Rose.

[ISiddiqui]

No, Hank Aaron shouldn't. I wonder what he'd say if someone suggested that all the amphetamine users from the 60s and 70s should get their records stricken?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Arles

Every time this guy talks, he makes a ton of sense.

Obviously you haven't had the misfortune of hearing him over the last couple of decades when he usually focused solely on race this & race that, whether it was baseball or otherwise.. Just because he's close enough to right in this instance isn't any reason to put him within 50 miles of a position of actual authority.

For starters, it isn't a matter of "just release the names already". Legally, neither the league nor the union has the authority to do that unilaterally.

[tarcone]

Whomever is leaking the names should be arrested. And Pete Rose should be put in the HOF as a player. There isnt any evidence he gambled as a player. Keep the ban but put him in.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Pete Rose should not be allowed in. I'm one of the most anti-steroid people there are, but I'd rather vote every single player on that list into the Hall of Fame before Rose.

I don't think I can get behind Neifi Perez for HOF- just too many painful memories

But, yeah, Rose gets no HOF. You can't influence a game with gambling. Then again, this debate is, as one of the KC sports talk hosts puts it "every lazy talk show host's dream"

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I don't think I can get behind Neifi Perez for HOF- just too many painful memories

But, yeah, Rose gets no HOF. You can't influence a game with gambling. Then again, this debate is, as one of the KC sports talk hosts puts it "every lazy talk show host's dream"

SI

Heh, I forgot about Neifi, but still I'd say:

64 OPS+ > Bet on baseball, and almost certainly fixed games.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

and almost certainly fixed games.

If I believe that were the case, I'd be against his inclusion as well.

But I don't (and I absolutely despised Rose as a player, Garber's stoppage of the hitting streak is still an all-time top 5 sports memory for me) so I'd have restored his eligibility a long time ago.

[larrymcg421]

You don't believe he managed games he bet on differently than games he didn't bet on? You don't believe he made decisions that increased the likelihood of his team winning a single game, while sacrificing the team's long term gain? If so, then he fixed games. I believe he probably did even more than that, but I think it's naive to assume he didn't at least do those two things.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You don't believe he made decisions that increased the likelihood of his team winning a single game, while sacrificing the team's long term gain?

So how is Dusty Baker still in the league if that's somehow prohibited?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So how is Dusty Baker still in the league if that's somehow prohibited?

Well of course I meant intentionally and not just outright stupidity, but I'll give you credit for that one. Well played.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You don't believe he managed games he bet on differently than games he didn't bet on? You don't believe he made decisions that increased the likelihood of his team winning a single game, while sacrificing the team's long term gain? If so, then he fixed games. I believe he probably did even more than that, but I think it's naive to assume he didn't at least do those two things.

He doesnt deserve to be in the Hall as a manager even if he didnt bet on games.
But he certainly deserves to be in as a player. Again, Keep the ban in place. Keep Rose out of baseball. But as a player, Pete Rose deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Whomever is leaking the names should be arrested. And Pete Rose should be put in the HOF as a player. There isnt any evidence he gambled as a player. Keep the ban but put him in.

Agreed. On all counts.

[larrymcg421]

Wait. We really think he only gambled on baseball in the three year period where he was manager, but not player? He didn't gamble on baseball at any point over a 23 year period, but suddenly started gambling after he retired?

Wow.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In the book, Rose finally admitted publicly to betting on baseball games and other sports while playing for and managing the Cincinnatti Reds.

Is this incorrect?

[Arles]

Yeah, I've missed a lot of Aaron's racial remarks. I've heard four interviews of late from him and all made sense to me. Still, maybe it's a stretch to name him commish.

Then again, maybe good ole' Bud's run his course and I'm ready for just about anyone to be head of MLB

[ISiddiqui]

Actually though, I don't really care if he gambled as a player. His actions on the field are what they are, regardless of outside pressures. Same I feel about the "Eight Men Out".

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You don't believe he managed games he bet on differently than games he didn't bet on? You don't believe he made decisions that increased the likelihood of his team winning a single game, while sacrificing the team's long term gain? If so, then he fixed games. I believe he probably did even more than that, but I think it's naive to assume he didn't at least do those two things.

I guess you can call me naive then. The Pete Rose I watched play baseball and manage had one goal and that was to win a 162 games. I have no doubt that he bet, with his inside knowledge of the Reds, on games he felt he couldn't miss. IE he new his players and how they matched up against the pitcher they would be facing, oppostion's bullpen situation (who's rested, who's not), and injury information that others didn't have. I don't think he used his closer four days in a row or played an injured player that shouldn't be playing because he bet on today's game at the risk of burning him out or injury that would hurt the Reds chances of making the playoffs. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part but I just don't see it as part of Rose's personality.

As far as Rose being in the HOF, I don't see how MLB can let it happen and get around the "Golden Rule" of betting = lifetime ban. To let him in you have to either make an exception to the rule or change the rule. Neither one is particularly good for MLB IMHO.

[Bad-example]

People always miss the point about Rose and his gambling. It isn't that he only bet on his team to win or that he tried harder to win games on which he had money.

Pete Rose gambled on baseball, exposing himself to potential pressure and outright blackmail from the unsavory characters he dealt with. Any game he played in or managed is suspect.

[stevew]

This is a horrid premise for a thread.

[Abe Sargent]

I think you should put Pete Rose in after he dies.

[RainMaker]

I don't know if Hank is the answer but I do think baseball could really use a strong commissioner. A guy like David Stern.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

People always miss the point about Rose and his gambling. It isn't that he only bet on his team to win or that he tried harder to win games on which he had money.

Pete Rose gambled on baseball, exposing himself to potential pressure and outright blackmail from the unsavory characters he dealt with. Any game he played in or managed is suspect.

They must have pressured him to play really well then.

[Danny]

In a post game interview with a pitcher who gave up a home run late in the game, I'd LOVE to hear him say that the batter who hit the home run was on his fantasy team and he needed the extra points.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

People always miss the point about Rose and his gambling. It isn't that he only bet on his team to win or that he tried harder to win games on which he had money.

Pete Rose gambled on baseball, exposing himself to potential pressure and outright blackmail from the unsavory characters he dealt with. Any game he played in or managed is suspect.

I don't know? What could he do other than clue them into unknown player injuries and guys that we thought were questionable while he knew they couldn't play?

I'm not a gambler but isn't baseball bet on win\lose? There's no point spread to manipulate is there? Even if there were how would you, as manager, shave a run here or there and know you would still hang on to win by one or two? As player on second would you stop at third instead of scoring on a single to keep the game under the spread? Again, how do you know that will hold up?

The reason the Black Sox fixing the WS worked is because the unsavory characters were able to buy several players. One player or just the manager wouldn't have been enough. So unless Pete was recruiting players to help him (why would he have to the players were all trying to win, including Pete) throw games I'm not sure how the results are suspect.

What pressure could they put on Pete? Lose tonight or else? Win tonight or else? Why would a mobster blackmail someone to do something that would basically be impossible to do? I get in basketball with a powerhouse team you can shave points and still have the talent to win if things start to go bad, but baseball? Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to come up with scenarios that blackmail and baseball would fit into?

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

They must have pressured him to play really well then.

Yeah. Pete ran Ray Fosse over in a meaningless (other than pride) all-star game. Now maybe Pete had bet on the NL, who knows and won a $100. But with Pete it really didn't matter he was running Fosse over either way

[Logan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Is this incorrect?

Someone who knows/remembers better can correct me, but I believe that sentence is worded kinda poorly, in that he admitted to betting on other sports as a player, and baseball (and other sports) as a manager.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Sweed

What pressure could they put on Pete? Lose tonight or else? Win tonight or else? Why would a mobster blackmail someone to do something that would basically be impossible to do? I get in basketball with a powerhouse team you can shave points and still have the talent to win if things start to go bad, but baseball? Maybe I'm not imaginative enough to come up with scenarios that blackmail and baseball would fit into?

Well, those unsavory characters, once they got their hooks into him, could indeed pressure him to throw games. The incentive of canceling out his gambling debts plus the threat of outing him as a degenerate gambler compromised Rose's integrity. The rules are quite clear and Rose put his entire baseball career and legacy on the line. Hey, he gambled and lost. Fuck him.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

They must have pressured him to play really well then.

Had he won all his games or committed zero errors in his career, your point might be valid.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Obviously you haven't had the misfortune of hearing him over the last couple of decades when he usually focused solely on race this & race that, whether it was baseball or otherwise..

I have no reason to think Aaron would be a good commissioner, but after what he went through I'm not going to begrudge him talking about race a lot. I imagine any of us would.

[molson]

The Rose supporters always assume the very best. That we know absolutely everything about what happened. That's extremely unlikely. That's why it's important this is a non-exception, no-second chance kind of ban. We'll never know the 100% truth of what was going on in his head, how his bets impacted his actions, how much in debt he was, etc. We knew he bet, and that's enough. His legacy, to him, was worth risking on a few bucks, and he lost. He doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Well, those unsavory characters, once they got their hooks into him, could indeed pressure him to throw games. The incentive of canceling out his gambling debts plus the threat of outing him as a degenerate gambler compromised Rose's integrity. The rules are quite clear and Rose put his entire baseball career and legacy on the line. Hey, he gambled and lost. Fuck him.

I'm not saying he is innocent and belongs in the HOF. He made his bed and he can lay in it IMHO. FWIW I hated Rose like I hated Larry Bird. A great player that only hurt the team I rooted for but still a great player that I respected. Being dumb and gambling on baseball tarnishes his reputation in my mind but doesn't take away from his abilities as a player.

I'm really trying to understand how a player or manager can throw a particular game to insure a mobster is going to win without involving others ala the Black Sox?

It is much easier to bet your team to win and then in the normal course of events try to make that happen. Even then you can't guarantee the unsavory characters that a bet on your team will insure they win.

Again maybe my lack of imagination prevents me from seeing how throwing games becomes possible with only one player or manager involved?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by molson

The Rose supporters always assume the very best. That we no absolutely everything about what happened. That's extremely unlikely. That's why it's important this is a non-exception, no-second chance kind of ban. We'll never know the 100% truth of what was going on in his head, how his bets impacted his actions, how much in debt he was, etc. We knew he bet, and that's enough. His legacy, to him, was worth risking on a few bucks, and he lost. He doesn't deserve any benefit of the doubt.

My only assumption is that,when Rose bet on his team, he only bet the them to win. After that I agree with everything in your post.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm not saying he is innocent and belongs in the HOF. He made his bed and he can lay in it IMHO. FWIW I hated Rose like I hated Larry Bird. A great player that only hurt the team I rooted for but still a great player that I respected. Being dumb and gambling on baseball tarnishes his reputation in my mind but doesn't take away from his abilities as a player.

I'm really trying to understand how a player or manager can throw a particular game to insure a mobster is going to win without involving others ala the Black Sox?

It is much easier to bet your team to win and then in the normal course of events try to make that happen. Even then you can't guarantee the unsavory characters that a bet on your team will insure they win.

Again maybe my lack of imagination prevents me from seeing how throwing games becomes possible with only one player or manager involved?

It's an interesting side-discussion, how to throw a game but it would be foolish for MLB to say, "well, unless there's 8 people betting on the same team to lose, then it's OK. Where do you draw the line? The most obvious place is 1. 1 person, one bet. That's where the numbers needs to be for this to matter. You're never going to know the whole story, how much money, games, or people are involved. The best you can do is stomp out any bit of smoke that does emerge.

And I know people say he was a great player and should be the HOF for that, but really, the HOF is a reward. And Rose doesn't deserve that award.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Sweed

My only assumption is that,when Rose bet on his team, he only bet the them to win. After that I agree with everything in your post.

And we don't even know for sure that that's true.

Rose agreed to the lifetime ban, in exchange for MLB ending the investigation against him. Obviously he had more to hide. We'll never know, because he agreed to a ban.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm really trying to understand how a player or manager can throw a particular game to insure a mobster is going to win without involving others ala the Black Sox?

A player can only do so much, but striking out 4-5 times and committing 2-3 errors might be enough to lose you a game. A manager fills out the lineup card and decides on pitching changes. I see both as having significant ability to tank a game. But your point that neither can guarantee a loss is well taken.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by molson

It's an interesting side-discussion, how to throw a game but it would be foolish for MLB to say, "well, unless there's 8 people betting on the same team to lose, then it's OK. Where do you draw the line? The most obvious place is 1. 1 person, one bet. That's where the numbers needs to be for this to matter. You're never going to know the whole story, how much money, games, or people are involved. The best you can do is stomp out any bit of smoke that does emerge.

And I know people say he was a great player and should be the HOF for that, but really, the HOF is a reward. And Rose doesn't deserve that award.

Agreed it has to stop with one player\manager. I'm just trying to get the "unsavory characters" could blackmail Pete into fixing games. I just don't see it.

These people aren't going to try to fix a game and bet millions of dollars unless the know they are going to win. Too much risk if you only have one person trying to fix the game.

Are you arguing or saying it's possible Pete accepted the ban to stop an investigation that would implicate others? If so than was MLB offering the deal to sweep it all under the rug?

IMHO there was too much media attention and Pete fought it too long for this to be true. Turn on the tv at the time and the news reporters(not just sports reporters) had his phone records, places he was seen, and tons of things from the investigation all over the air. If others were involved I'm pretty sure it would have come out. I don't think with all of the attention Rose received that MLB would take the risk of covering up a gambling\game fixing ring. If found out it would destroy the game. Much better to get out in front and ban anyone even remotely involved. Also if there was any inkling of others being involved it would be used to bolster MLB's banning of Rose putting to rest the argument he only bet the Reds to win, taking away any support Rose has received over the years from most die-hards.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your post but this comment made me ask..

You're never going to know the whole story, how much money, games, or people are involved.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Agreed it has to stop with one player\manager. I'm just trying to get the "unsavory characters" could blackmail Pete into fixing games. I just don't see it.

These people aren't going to try to fix a game and bet millions of dollars unless the know they are going to win. Too much risk if you only have one person trying to fix the game.

Are you arguing or saying it's possible Pete accepted the ban to stop an investigation that would implicate others? If so than was MLB offering the deal to sweep it all under the rug?

IMHO there was too much media attention and Pete fought it too long for this to be true. Turn on the tv at the time and the news reporters(not just sports reporters) had his phone records, places he was seen, and tons of things from the investigation all over the air. If others were involved I'm pretty sure it would have come out. I don't think with all of the attention Rose received that MLB would take the risk of covering up a gambling\game fixing ring. If found out it would destroy the game. Much better to get out in front and ban anyone even remotely involved. Also if there was any inkling of others being involved it would be used to bolster MLB's banning of Rose putting to rest the argument he only bet the Reds to win, taking away any support Rose has received over the years from most die-hards.
Maybe I'm reading too much into your post but this comment made me ask..

I have no idea if others were involved, or if Rose bet to lose and rigged those games. We don't know the whole story, and while it's interesting to speculate, it certainly doesn't change what should happen to him.

But in terms of what I think - I would guess that he did bet to lose on occasion, if he knew he had a pitcher that was going to get shelled. There was probably a temptation to leave that guy in longer, or let him start at all. I believe that Rose thinks that his actions were never influenced, but once you start getting involved with gambling, there's no way to know even how it effects yourself.

As far as what's possible - a manager can do a lot, especially with the pitching staff. You can leave a guy in too long, start a guy who should be relieving, don't use your rested ace reliever because you need him for tomorrow's game that you have money on. I think you're right in that baseball it's difficult to guarantee an outcome, but you can increase your odds, and over a couple of games, that creates a huge advantage for gamblers.

And what if Rose got in horrible debt, and his bookies told him they were going to go public unless he could convince a young pitcher to throw a game. Maybe Rose could tell the fringe pitcher that if he worked with him, he's guarantee him at least 15 more starts in the big leagues (and a cut of the money of course).

[larrymcg421]

No, a player/manager cannot guarantee a win or loss in any individual game, but obviously if a gambler knows they have a manager/player on the hook long term, then continually betting against them is likely a profitable decision.

It's not about whether there's proof or not that Rose did this. The point is that his actions make it uncertain. We will never know for sure. That is precisely why the MLB has a rule against gambling on baseball. Pete Rose knew this rule. He saw the sign every day in the clubhouse and decided to ignore it. He put the integrity of the game at risk, and someone who does that does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

[stevew]

What if Rose wasn't betting on a particular game? You think he really used his better relievers to win that one? It would be easy to manipulate your pen to only use the guys in certain games if you wanted to.

Or scheduling hitters off days. I would have to think he wasn't going to be betting on the game if Eric Davis was scheduled to be off that day.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

People always miss the point about Rose and his gambling. It isn't that he only bet on his team to win or that he tried harder to win games on which he had money.

Pete Rose gambled on baseball, exposing himself to potential pressure and outright blackmail from the unsavory characters he dealt with. Any game he played in or managed is suspect.

This is my reasoning as well. Professional sports exist only as long as you believe they aren't fixed. To call that into question cannot be permitted in any way shape or form.

I think old Kenesaw Landis was wrong in more ways than I can count, but he was spot on here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

You think he really used his better relievers to win that one?

Yeah, I do.

My cynical streak is fairly well noted here I think but if there's much of anything I believe about someone I don't know, it's that Rose hated losing enough that he was looking to win. He's always struck me as a guy who would look for a decisive win over a toddler playing tiddlywinks (not that there's anything wrong with that), much less baseball.

There's not a lot left in sports that would surprise me, but that he ever didn't look for a win on the field in any way possible, even once, would qualify as more of a shock than a surprise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by path12

Professional sports wagers exist only as long as you believe they aren't fixed.

"Fixed" that for you.

I believe that a decent amount of the pro sports I watch are rigged in one way or another, just not always for betting purposes. It's a complete sucker play to bet on 'em if you believe that, so I don't bet. But it's still watchable as background noise.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, I do.

My cynical streak is fairly well noted here I think but if there's much of anything I believe about someone I don't know, it's that Rose hated losing enough that he was looking to win. He's always struck me as a guy who would look for a decisive win over a toddler playing tiddlywinks (not that there's anything wrong with that), much less baseball.

There's not a lot left in sports that would surprise me, but that he ever didn't look for a win on the field in any way possible, even once, would qualify as more of a shock than a surprise.

I agree, Rose was win at all costs. It was his nature.

If someone had him by the short-hairs they would be best served to approach Pete to find info on a game he thought he couldn't lose. Not try to convince him to throw a game. The former he might find out who would be playing (he now knows Eric Davis will be in the lineup despite being listed as questionable), match-up info, or that Charlton's arm is feeling much better etc. The latter would probably get him a punch in the mouth

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

No, a player/manager cannot guarantee a win or loss in any individual game, but obviously if a gambler knows they have a manager/player on the hook long term, then continually betting against them is likely a profitable decision.

It's not about whether there's proof or not that Rose did this. The point is that his actions make it uncertain. We will never know for sure. That is precisely why the MLB has a rule against gambling on baseball. Pete Rose knew this rule. He saw the sign every day in the clubhouse and decided to ignore it. He put the integrity of the game at risk, and someone who does that does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

Oh, I agree he shouldn't be allowed in the HOF. I watched the majority of his career both hating and admiring him. I've tried a million ways in my mind to justify letting him back into baseball and into the HOF, I can't come up with any reason things should change. In the end he fucked it up for himself. He has nobody else to blame and no exception should be made for him.