YES Network.com

Didn't he get into some legal trouble too, not too long ago? A few years back maybe? Something with taxes maybe? I seem to remember something, but can't remember what.

Pretty much a loser, IMO.

the problem is the criteria isn't clearly articulated and the standards of society keep changing (hopefully) to become less tolerant of liars, cheaters and criminals. but how can you justify keeping a modern day player out if a guy of similar questionable character from days past is in. and do we know the lengths to which old timers went to "get an advantage". is the media so large and prevalent now that we have more insight as to what goes on in clubhouse? and does that it turn work against modern day players?

personally, i think that the criteria should change with the day. if you in any way corrupt the game of baseball for you own personal advantage, then you don't deserve to be in. that said, you can probably make amends by showing certain positive changes after your playing days are over.

i would let rose in - he's different than the roiders. he bet on the games, yes that corrupted the game and he used it to his personal advantage, but that advantage was economic. he did not directly give himself a playing field advantage. bonds, mcgwire, raffy, sosa - no way.
mattingly - yes. :--)