I would be very surprised if Pete Rose is reinstated. I'm going to take a different line on this.
This is a clip from CBS Sports, so thank you to them for this.
http://www.cbssports.com/video/player/videos/541199939729/0/rob-manfred-talks-pete-rose
It's very interesting that Rob Manfred announced so soon that he wants to address this issue. Also, from what he said in the interview, these are my takeaways.
1. Rob Manfred wants to, first and foremost, address this issue once and for all early in his mandate so that it does not continue to be a lingering issue during his tenure as Commissioner of Baseball. All we heard during Bud Selig's time as Commissioner is, will Rose be removed from the Permanently Ineligible List (PIL). In a way, he addressed it, by doing very little, but those questions lingered. Once Manfred clearly draws the line in the sand on this issue, the case will be closed once and for all.***
*** - As long as Rose is still alive (he's 74 years old this year). Once he dies, the questions will dissipate. He'll fade into the shadows, similar to Shoeless Joe Jackson.
2. He clearly drew a distinction between the PIL and the bylaws of the Hall of Fame. From this, it's clear that:
(a) He's not likely to remove Rose from the PIL.
(b) He's going to leave it in the
hands of the Hall of Fame to determine if some kind of amendment can be made to give Rose a chance to be voted in. Then, a secondary question comes of this, does he go through the (up to 10 year) voting window of the BBWAA since he wasn't on the BBWAA ballot previously, or will it be up to the Veterans Committee? How will the BBWAA or the Veterans Committee feel if they had to make a decision on Rose?
3. He's more than aware of the strong stance MLB has had on Rose since he was banned in 1989. A precedent has been set that makes it, to me, virtually impossible for a future commissioner to ever remove Rose from the PIL. The additional complication here is that the original commissioner, Bart Giamatti, died not longer after the ban was implemented, so we'll never know where he stands on the issue. But, I think it's probably not far off from the stance of former commissioner, Fay Vincent. He still feels, to this day, that Rose should not be eligible for enshrinement.
John Dowd, who conducted the original investigation, concurs that nothing has changed in the last 30 years with Rose that would warrant even considering him to be removed from the PIL.
To me, I think that there's too much pressure on Manfred to remove Rose from the PIL. For him to do that, he's essentially suggested that Rose's gambling on the Reds during his time as manager, and perhaps even as a player, even if he did it with the spirit of always trying to win (which doesn't justify his doing so in the first place) is alright. I think Manfred doesn't have a decision to make, time and precedence gives him only one choice, and that is to keep his situation as status quo. Rose's actions over the last 25+ years has not helped his case. I myself, saw Pete Rose about 10 years ago sitting in front of a sporting paraphernalia store just yards away from Caesar's Palace (Las Vegas) selling his autograph.
Then, Manfred has closed the door on any future debate, and Rose will live the rest of his life as the all time hit king, but not eligible for Hall of Fame enshrinement.
