Columnists across the U.S. were split by MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred’s policy decision that permanent ineligibility ends upon the passing of the disciplined individual.
BAD CALL: In Toronto, Bruce Arthur wrote the “feckless” commissioner ruling to remove Pete Rose from the banned list was a “transparently pathetic display.” It is “quite a thing to decide ‘permanently’ means ‘lifetime,’” but that “kind of shameless retconning of language is commonplace these days.” Manfred “disgraced himself and baseball” (TORONTO STAR, 5/13). In Boston, Gabrielle Starr writes Rose “got himself banned from baseball” so “dying isn’t a good enough reason to let him back in” (BOSTON HERALD, 5/14).
MLB’S GOLDEN RULE: SI’s Stephanie Apstein wrote MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has “ensured” that his legacy as commissioner “will be one of failure.” Rule 21 -- do not bet on baseball -- is the “holiest of baseball edicts.” If fans cannot “be sure everyone involved is trying to win, the whole enterprise falls apart.” This is an “existential threat to the sport.” It is “impossible to take it too seriously” (SI, 5/13). USA TODAY’s Bob Nightengale wrote, “Apparently it’s OK to gamble on baseball now, even those involving your own team, while making a mockery out of the sport’s most sacred rule” (USA TODAY, 5/13). In Columbus, Michael Arace writes Rose “should remain a deceased example for future generations of baseball players who are surrounded by gambling,” and the league “must resist, with no shrugging” (COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 5/14).
ABOUT TIME: In N.Y., Jon Heyman noted he gets why Manfred “waited to make” this “appropriate” ruling. Heyman: “Understandably, he didn’t want Rose working in the game, influencing young players or executives in any negative way. … Rose was given a lifetime ban. So it was time to lift it” (N.Y. POST, 5/13). NEWSDAY’s Laura Albanese wrote Manfred “was correct in his blanket revision of the ineligible list.” Players are rendered permanently ineligible “for two reasons: 1. So they don’t compromise the integrity of the sport, and 2. So they can serve as a warning to others.” You cannot “compromise baseball if you’re dead,” and you cannot “enjoy enshrinement, either, so the deterrent is still there” (NEWSDAY, 5/13). In Pittsburgh, Paul Zeise wrote Manfred’s latest ruling “marks maybe the first time” he has “written or thought this next sentence in maybe forever: Good job, Manfred. You got it right” (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 5/13).
PUNISHMENT ENOUGH: In Cincinnati, Jason Williams wonders, “why be mad at Manfred?” This decision “needed to happen after Rose’s death.” The league did not “want to run the risk of Rose embarrassing the game one last time.” It would have “been a PR nightmare for a game that can’t afford to lose fans.” As long as Rose “stayed connected to the gambling industry -- which he did until the bitter end -- there was always the risk that he was going to embarrass the game he claimed to love so much” (CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, 5/14). In Lexington, John Clay wrote anything other than a “lifetime ban” punishment for Rose “would have been a blight on the game.” Clay: “Charlie Hustle did not live to receive the honor that, outside of the World Series title, he coveted most. That’s punishment enough” (LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER, 5/13).
PRESIDENTIAL INFLUENCE? THE ATHLETIC’s Ken Rosenthal wrote it is “reasonable to wonder” if pressure on Manfred from President Donald Trump “had a greater impact.” Only after Trump “entered the picture did the commissioner do an about-face.” Manfred is “nothing if not shrewd.” He “surely did not want to risk the president embarrassing him publicly on social media.” He also “likely did not want to get on Trump’s wrong side at a time when he is pushing for a direct-to-consumer streaming service for the league,” and the migration from broadcast to streaming by professional sports leagues “is under government scrutiny.” Also, while Trump is “known to be pro-management,” it is “not out of the realm of possibility that, if sufficiently annoyed, he could threaten baseball’s antitrust exemption” (THE ATHLETIC, 5/13). SPORTSNET.ca’s Jeff Blair wrote Rose’s reinstatement was announced yesterday, but we have “known it was coming since Feb. 28” when Trump sought a pardon of Rose. If that was not enough, Trump “doubled down” in April after meeting with Manfred. Manfred “apparently even called up Trump, who was in Saudi Arabia shopping for planes, to let him know” (SPORTSNET.ca, 5/13). In Philadelphia, Marcus Hayes wrote Manfred “clearly capitulated to Trump.” Hayes: “The question now: What’s in it for Trump?” (PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, 5/13). In Chicago, Paul Sullivan wrote Trump “pressured Manfred. Manfred caved. And here we are.” Sullivan: “As a thanks to Trump, maybe the Hall can have Rose wear a MAGA hat on his Hall of Fame plaque” (CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 5/13).
