HPC
New member
I voted yes. I personally don't care for Rose the person, but he was one helluva ballplayer. I also don't care that he bet on baseball or whether or not he only bet on the Reds to win. We all know that players are not voted for enshrinement base on their choirboy status, but as either elite players or managers. As a player, he qualifies as a first-ballot guy. Eventually they're going to have to let the steroids-era guys in, too - I think they did more damage to the game than Rose ever could have done.
So, you consider a manager that helps his team lose the same as a player who tries to help his team win?
Because that's pretty much your logic there