I've tried to weigh these two situations and have come to this.

Both suck and involve shitty people. But IMO there's a difference, albeit small yet important.

Rose bet on games on his own team. He made decisions about his team that could have cost them a game, thus impacting his possible bet. "Forget" to signal a shift on a batter who ropes a single or double for runs? Oops, "brain fart." I believe Rose said he never bet on the Reds to lose, but that spectre - not to mention that "no gambling" is THE most hammered rule in baseball, stemming from the Black Sox - still is a possibility. Rose also was not apologetic and lied to everyone about it, for years. So IMO a lifetime ban was warranted.

The Astros used technology to cheat only to win games. Did it negatively impact the game? Yes. It's a black blip that will be part of baseball's history. But already there's an attitude of "Everyone does it, if you're not trying to steal signs you're not a player" as if it's no big deal. Same in NASCAR. Same in the NFL and college, where you're looking for "that edge" to get the other team, which often means stealing sideline signals and relaying them to coaches or players.

Compared to betting on your own team, I don't think using tech to steal signs is as bad and doesn't warrant a lifetime ban. But it's pretty damned close.

Thing is, by June when the sunshine's out and hotdogs are hot and the beer is cold, no one will give two rips about what the Astros or Red Sox did three years ago.