John Perricone over at Only Baseball Matters has some great points re. the Rose case including some citings from Bill James and BP's Derek Zumsteg.
He raises an especially excellent point: What were Bart Giamatti's intentions regarding Rose? Since his death his cadre of owners and execs have made the Rose ban their religion. Given that Giamatti was a baseball scholar (unlike Bud), wouldn't he have been able to have some perspective on the Rose case? As John points out circumstantial evidence says he did. So aren't Bud and the rest completely misguided in trying to continue the ban as if they were trying to "win one for the Gipper"?