I ask this with all sincerity: Who CARES if he bet on baseball? So long as he didn't bet that the team he played on or managed or otherwise controlled would LOSE, why is his betting such a detriment to the sport?

Well, if my memory serves me right, he DID bet on his team...

He will be in the Hall of Fame at some point. The over/under is 4 years.

Bet on the under, Pete.

Derek, other than the obvious "it's illegal", the problem is that there are decisions the manager can make that will maximize the chances of winning the game that he has wagered on at the expense of the team's goals further down the line. Leaving in a starter too long and slagging his arm the next turn in the rotation, refusing to play a rookie so that the young player can develop, or not resting players who are tired are all things that a manager can do that may help win a given game while making it harder for the team to achieve its long-term goals.

I hope you're right, Dave, but I fear that Easycure is more likely correct on this point. While the writers should have the integrity not to vote for Rose, the real blame remains with Selig, who is going to reinstate someone who committed baseball's one death penalty offense.

The way I see it, the real travesty in a reinstatement here isn't the fact that baseball will have let a blatant rule-breaker and low-life back in again, but rather that by letting him slide on this, baseball will have opened up a HUGE can-of-worms for the future. Baseball has had this long-standing rule for over 100 years. The rule is clearly understood, you bet on the game and get caught, you are done - PERIOD. If Dud Selig decides to bend the rules and let Rose slide, what does that say to the next guy who is tempted to break the same rule? And THAT would be the worse part about a reinstatement in my opinion.

I believe Rob Neyer said exactly the same thing in a column about a year ago (and no doubt said it more concisely and eloquently.)

it isn't right that if pete admits he committed baseball's most serious crime, the fact that he admittted committing the crime should NOT exonerate him. it should prove that he should stay banned. but since he committed his crimes as a manager, not a player, he should be allowed in the hall as a player, if voted in. so selig is a two faced, lying scuzzball. what else is new!

I have to agree with lisa. Rose belongs in as a player...unless it is proved he bet on baseball anytime from '63 to '86.

If he is voted into the Hall as a player he should never again be allowed to work in baseball. Period.

And I say tie his election to Joe Jackson's...if Bettin' Pete goes in it should be on the heels of Shoeless Joe. There is a weaker case to keep Jackson off the ballot than Rose.

Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but Shoeless Joe took money from gamblers under the presumption that he would throw the World Series, along with the other Black Sox. At that point, I don't think that it mattered what his performance was.

The fact remains, however, that letting Pete Rose back in baseball is a slap in the face to all the troubles that baseball had historically with the gambling industry and throwing games. Just because he holds a couple career records doesn't make him immune to the rules. I've never been in a major league clubhouse, but I understand there's a pretty big sign when you walk in that says in no uncertain terms that betting on baseball is grounds for permanent banishment.

Barron, I think that sign is actually in every professional baseball clubhouse, from the Rookie Leagues on up.

Gary Peterson has a good column about the whole thing. One of the items he touches on is the timing; anyone doubt this is gonna diminish the joy any newly-elected member of the Hall might feel, since all the media will go hog-wild about Rose?

So Pete finally admits he bet on baseball and asks forgiveness for past sins RIGHT NOW TODAY after lying and denying for 14 years.

Sorry Pete. You compounded the crime. The clock starts today. Go away and wait for the call.