Thats your opinion. But IMO the all time leader in hits should be in the Hall. I don't care what he did off the field, I care what he did on it.

this man gambled while he was manager. Now there's no proof that he bet against his team, but who's to say he didn't? it would be easier to not use your top closer in that particular game, and nobody would be any the wiser.

Gdawgs, Cbf, T-monay; if you think Rose should be in the hall, then you must agree that Shoeless Joe should be in. I think neither should be in, but what Shoeless Joe did (considering he was illiterate) doesn't SEEM as bad.

flyingswoosh Wrote:this man gambled while he was manager. Now there's no proof that he bet against his team, but who's to say he didn't? it would be easier to not use your top closer in that particular game, and nobody would be any the wiser.

Gdawgs, Cbf, T-monay; if you think Rose should be in the hall, then you must agree that Shoeless Joe should be in. I think neither should be in, but what Shoeless Joe did (considering he was illiterate) doesn't SEEM as bad.

Shoeless Joe should certainly be in the Hall.

how can you say that? He threw a game. And not just a game, a WS game! Never mind, you're an NFL fan, where there's no such thing as morals. in baseball there's a "morals clause", and you have to follow the rules for the good of the game. The National Felons League has no morality, so i can see why you would think Rose and Joe should be in.

flyingswoosh Wrote:how can you say that? He threw a game. And not just a game, a WS game! Never mind, you're an NFL fan, where there's no such thing as morals. in baseball there's a "morals clause", and you have to follow the rules for the good of the game. The National Felons League has no morality, so i can see why you would think Rose and Joe should be in.

I am talking about the Hall of Fame. It is for the best players on the field. Make another Hall for the "moral players", but Rose and Jackson are Hall of Fame worthy guys.

I have already said I don't care what they did off the field, yet you still have the same argument. When you get a different one, let me know.

why would i change my argument? I'm trying to say that to get into the hall, there is a certain morals clause one MUST follow and those two guys didn't follow it. There are guys in the hall who disrespected their own lives, but no the game of baseball. Rose and Joe undermined and made a mockery of the game, and in that respect, they didn't follow the guidelines that are set for players to be allowed in.

I agree that gambling should most probably not be in the rules. But Rose did it while it was in the rules.....and still lies to our faces about it......so no no to HOF pete boy

flyingswoosh Wrote:why would i change my argument? I'm trying to say that to get into the hall, there is a certain morals clause one MUST follow and those two guys didn't follow it. There are guys in the hall who disrespected their own lives, but no the game of baseball. Rose and Joe undermined and made a mockery of the game, and in that respect, they didn't follow the guidelines that are set for players to be allowed in.

And I responded by saying morals should not be any part of it. So lets just leave it at that, unless you have any other reasons on the field he should not be in the Hall. I would love to hear them.

betting on the game, while he is in the game, would count as bad on the field behavior

tysramm1 Wrote:betting on the game, while he is in the game, would count as bad on the field behavior

No. You don't know what you are talking about. ON THE FIELD PLAY. Anybody try and give me a reason he should not be in based on that.

cbfranchise3 Wrote:

tysramm1 Wrote:betting on the game, while he is in the game, would count as bad on the field behavior

No. You don't know what you are talking about. ON THE FIELD PLAY. Anybody try and give me a reason he should not be in based on that.

based on his "on the field play" you are right. But as much as you don't want morals to be a part of it, they are. So deal with it.

flyingswoosh Wrote:

cbfranchise3 Wrote:

tysramm1 Wrote:betting on the game, while he is in the game, would count as bad on the field behavior

No. You don't know what you are talking about. ON THE FIELD PLAY. Anybody try and give me a reason he should not be in based on that.

based on his "on the field play" you are right. But as much as you don't want morals to be a part of it, they are. So deal with it.

Thats your opinion. I have mine. Leave it at that.

cbfranchise3 Wrote:Thats your opinion. I have mine. Leave it at that.

i don't want to, but ok.

[quote="flyingswoosh"] [quote="cbfranchise3"] Thats your opinion.

10MAN Wrote:I see you haven't grown up at all, Kid

what? i was arguing that rose shouldn't be in the hall. There's nothing wrong with that. Me and cbf argue the way we do, because we're best friends, we do this at lunch all the time.

cbfranchise3 Wrote:

tysramm1 Wrote:betting on the game, while he is in the game, would count as bad on the field behavior

No. You don't know what you are talking about. ON THE FIELD PLAY. Anybody try and give me a reason he should not be in based on that.

No one is denying he should be in....if it was just on the field. But the rules stated otherwise...as stupid as it may be...

SouthLink02 Wrote:

cbfranchise3 Wrote:

tysramm1 Wrote:betting on the game, while he is in the game, would count as bad on the field behavior

No. You don't know what you are talking about. ON THE FIELD PLAY. Anybody try and give me a reason he should not be in based on that.

No one is denying he should be in....if it was just on the field. But the rules stated otherwise...as stupid as it may be...

I agree