He's expected to admit publicly that he bet on baseball, if he's allowed to manage again. Managers make good money. Rose wants some. If you've ever wondered what moves and shakes Pete Rose, follow the dollar.

It'll be all or nothing. He'll apologize, for something. He'll seek counseling or treatment or whatever it is Baseball requires. He'll be a probationer for a year. When he comes back, he'll be scrutinized by Baseball and the media like no one else in the history of the game. This is what we are hearing, and it rings more true than ever.

Will Rose manage? Someone will hire him. Some team, anxious for local goodwill and more butts in the seats, whose majority owner wants to make a grandstand play to solidify his local reputation as King, whose payroll is substandard, will make a play for Pete Rose.

Sound like any team we know?

Rose is talking about it again. Probably, Baseball wishes he wouldn't. Well, so much for that. Pete's feeling chipper about his chances.

Since Aug. 24, 1989, nothing has changed but the calendar. Rose should be in the Hall of Fame. He should be back in the game. He has earned that much. But as a manager? Isn't Baseball playing with matches? Was there no reason to ban him permanently in the first place?

Do the Reds really want this? Is a cynical, transparent play to sell tickets worth it? Would any other team take the chance? Will Cincinnati come off as Jerkwater USA, again, if Pete returns?

If Rose, after 14 years, comes clean, will that make a difference? You could let bygones be bygones. You could say Rose has done his time. You could suggest, as Rose has, that he has "reconfigured" his life. Maybe you don't care if Rose bet on the game. Baseball has forgiven other miscreants for transgressions you deem equally damaging.

Or you could feel duped. Fourteen years of denials ought to mean something. One sudden burst of truth looks entirely opportunistic.

How will Baseball and Rose couch all this, so each side escapes with some face? If Rose admits to betting on the game, the follow-up questions will last the rest of his life: Did you ever bet against the Reds? Did you ever bet on baseball as a player? Is there anything you'd like to say to John Dowd? Who was that guy Val from Staten Island?

If Rose is allowed to offer some watery mea culpa about gambling in general, that would make Baseball look silly and elicit the obvious question: Why'd you ban him in the first place?

Rose the manager would take second-guessing to a new level. If you thought Bob Boone was a speculation magnet, wait for the first time Rose stays too long with a starting pitcher or uses his closer four games in a row.

Was Rose a good manager? Yes and no. He helped guide the careers of several Reds who helped win the 1990 World Series. But Rose didn't get them there. Lou Piniella did. Will the players now have the same respect for 4,256 the players did then?

I wish Rose would agree to a reinstatement that would get him in the Hall and into a spot that didn't afford him a chance to influence a game. Marty Brennaman has said he wouldn't want Rose in the radio booth, because Brennaman doesn't feel Rose could do play-by-play.

But couldn't a TV network use him? Wouldn't Rose be great in October? Failing that, couldn't Baseball make him an ambassador? The game could use the good publicity. No one sounds more like baseball than Peter Edward.

That'd be perfect. Rose wouldn't go for it. The money wouldn't be right. So he'll plow ahead, as stubborn as he was chasing Cobb's ghost. Rose will win this time, too. Whether that's good or not is anyone's guess.

---

E-mail pdaugherty@enquirer.com

Return to Reds front page...