Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

2016 MLB Hall of Fame Thread


Joe Lucia
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's no way to know if Griffey ever did anything, same with anyone dating back for about 45 years, so that's just stupid.

Oh, I agree. But if you're going to wonder about a guy, maybe wonder about the guy who went from 27 to 45 homers in a year and had tons of muscle issues.

Definitely not accusing Griffey, just saying he's a little more likely than Hoffman.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Griffey but I always thought he was a PED guy. I don't care though because if MLB really cared they would've acted a lot sooner than they did. They milked it and then acted like they cared after the fact. Bonds and Clemens need to be in baseball's Hall of Fame. It's not the hall of nice guys who played the right way (whatever that is).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They got together and decided 12 was no longer even, part of the Common Core Standards. Get with the times, Phil. "How you gonna Rippa it like this son, how you gonna Rippa it like that son!" - The Hip Hop Rippa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The douche from the Chicago Sun-Times probably is the club house leader for worst voter this time around

 

Basically stating that his only mission is to keep roiders out of the Hall so he only voted for Junior, Trammell and Hoffmann and apparently he "fretted" over Hoffmann because he wasn't sure he didn't do PEDs

 

I am not linking to it because fuck him and his fucking shitty paper

 

More proof: If this is going to be the way of things for the next 20 or so years, then it's only fair we force the BBWAA to fall under the same standard they put HOF credentials under.

 

With this in mind, the modest proposals:

 

 
1- Any BBWAA voter who has ever been busted for plagiarism, at any level of their writing career (in their books, in their articles, or even down to during their school years), immediately loses their HOF vote. If a baseball player who cheats isn't worthy of the HOF, it's only fair that any BBWAA voters who cheated should have their votes taken away.
 
2- Any BBWAA voter who has been charged with any crimes involving drugs (including DUIs), also immediately loses their HOF vote. Again, if a drug user for PEDs isn't worthy of the HOF, a voter shouldn't be allowed to vote if they committed a drug or alcohol-related crime.
 
This includes crimes they were acquitted of (after all, if a player appeared in the Mitchell Report or the BALCO scandal, but were never formally charged with it- they have it held against them), or even "they worked at a newspaper or magazine where another member of the staff had a drug charge on their record" (after all, players who merely played at the same time PED users played but was never charged with any wrongdoing, they have it held against them), as well as immediately taking the vote away from any beat writer who covered the Rockies or Mariners (even if marijuana's legal in those states, it's still a crime nationally so they obviously know people who use it legally... and if a player said they used steroids before they were banned in the '80s, they'd be crucified for it).
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Bonds, Clemens and Rose aren't in is kind of a black mark on the HOF. If Bonds and Clemens had never touched PEDs, they'd still be HOF caliber players and I don't think that the gambling BS should affect Rose's eligibility. Ban him from baseball but not the HOF. 

 

I don't like A-Rod but I'll feel the same way when he inevitably fails to make it in. The BBWAA are not a judge and jury of baseball players, vote them in for their accomplishments on the field. If we start keeping guys out of the HOF for PED usage, should we also take away the trophies of the teams that they played for? Not induct managers who had PED users on their teams?

 

Fuck that noise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should the "gambling BS" NOT keep Pete out of the Hall?

Because Pete earned his way in on the field. Rose and Jackson should be in the Hall. It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Good People. Keeping baseball's hit king out is also ridiculous.

He bet on games as a player violating the one major rule posted in every clubhouse. Period.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the major difference between Rose/Jackson and Bonds/Clemens.

 

Rose and Jackson are formally banned from baseball. Bonds and Clemens are not. The only justification for removing Rose's ban is "he's served his time!".

 

Considering that earlier this year, Manfred ruled against removing Jackson's ban, Rose's ban isn't going anywhere, especially with how much more we know about his gambling (and how much we're still learning) than Jackson's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Why should the "gambling BS" NOT keep Pete out of the Hall?

Because Pete earned his way in on the field. Rose and Jackson should be in the Hall. It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Good People. Keeping baseball's hit king out is also ridiculous.

He bet on games as a player violating the one major rule posted in every clubhouse. Period.

 

 

Far worse, he bet on games as a manager which put him in a position to ruin careers, etc. 

 

The worst that can be proven about Joe Jackson is that he knew about the fix and said nothing. What Rose did was far more reprehensible, putting him in company with scumbags like Lenny Dykstra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I specifically mentioned Rose betting as a player since the main argument in favor of Rose was "he only bet as a manager, put him in as a player!!!!!!"

Your argument totally blows away the "he bet as a manager" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Why should the "gambling BS" NOT keep Pete out of the Hall?

Because Pete earned his way in on the field. Rose and Jackson should be in the Hall. It's a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Good People. Keeping baseball's hit king out is also ridiculous.

He bet on games as a player violating the one major rule posted in every clubhouse. Period.

 

 

Far worse, he bet on games as a manager which put him in a position to ruin careers, etc. 

 

The worst that can be proven about Joe Jackson is that he knew about the fix and said nothing. What Rose did was far more reprehensible, putting him in company with scumbags like Lenny Dykstra.

 

 

Being fair, though- if you're going to say Joe Jackson should be freed since the worst that can be proven about Jackson is "he knew the fix was in, but he said nothing"- then you can argue the same should be said for Pete Rose's gambling since the worst that can be proven was "he gambled on baseball, but he never actively bet AGAINST his team...the worst he did was not ALWAYS bet ON his team." In that format, you could at least argue that, since he always had money on his team to win, by definition he'd be trying harder to win those games (and even if the "he didn't ALWAYS bet on his team" to win was clearly sending a huge sign to those gamblers 'the manager doesn't think the Reds can win this game- bet on the opponents', it's still got as much wiggle room as Jackson.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...