Pete Rose

This week, Major League Baseball decided to not grant Pete Rose his reinstatement. Rose apparently forgets details, doesn't fully admit what he did, and still gambles. That's a real shame. It isn't good for Rose, and it isn't good for baseball. As a result, Baseball's Hall-of-Fame will probably continue to deny Rose his eligibility.

First, I feel like you have to separate the two issues- reinstatement and the Hall-of-Fame. No owner is going to hire Pete Rose in 2016- not as a manager, not as a general manager, and not as a coach of any kind. No one would trust him in those roles at this point, and no one is going to chance their franchise on that. He's been out of baseball 27 years this coming season, so I'm not even sure he'd be qualified anymore. Nothing in Rose's past or present suggests he should be reinstated to work in baseball. MLB can't do that in good faith, given that they wouldn't hire him themselves.

Then there's the Hall-of-Fame issue. Before you say "they are one in the same," Commissioner Manfred wrote:

It is not part of my authority or responsibility here to make any determination concerning Mr. Rose's eligibility as a candidate for election to the National baseball Hall of Fame ("Hall of Fame").  In fact, in my view, the considerations that should drive a decision on whether an individual should be allowed to work in Baseball are not the same as those that should drive a decision on Hall of Fame eligibility.

In other words, Rose shouldn't work in baseball ever again, but the Hall-of-Fame is a different matter altogether. Rose is 74 years old, and Manfred is essentially signaling to Cooperstown that they can do as they wish. They are choosing not to though.

I disagree with that decision. The Hall-of-Fame is a museum. It is there to commemorate baseball history, a history Rose has earned a place in that we can't take away from him. Sure, it's a good argument to say that lots of Rose artifacts are in that museum already, so he's been acknowledged. That is true. That doesn't cut it though, at least for me. The plaque in the Hall-of-Fame is not an "honor," it is a historical document commemorating the most significant players of an era. Rose was that player in the 1970s and early 1980s. In my view he should have a plaque. It should talk about his career. It should also talk about his gambling addiction and how it got him thrown out of baseball. Rose has earned both of those distinctions being memorialized well beyond his life. He is 74 years old, and he should be acknowledged in the same way that other legendary ballplayers were. He also should be acknowledged for his failings on that same plaque. This isn't about the honor, it's about the truth, the history of it. Let's not "white wash" away the "bad guys," let's acknowledge them for who they are.