McGwire doesn't fit with Cards greats

[CubsLadyinSTL]

I didnt say it, really, there was an article in the sports section of todays newspaper.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/BB650166604166C68625725E001AB2C3?OpenDocument

 

 

You have to wonder if a St. Louis writer is bashing him, how do the rest of the critics look at his chances of getting in. I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF. There are so many other players that never messed with that crap that deserve to be recognized first.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF.

 

 

Then no one should make it because the players union resisted testing for years.

[kente777]

I didnt say it, really, there was an article in the sports section of todays newspaper.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/BB650166604166C68625725E001AB2C3?OpenDocument

 

 

You have to wonder if a St. Louis writer is bashing him, how do the rest of the critics look at his chances of getting in. I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF. There are so many other players that never messed with that crap that deserve to be recognized first.

 

What do you do with a player who never tested positive for steroids, yet we all know cheated? Example: Sammy Sosa

 

Because baseball never really tested for steroids for a long period of time, to be fair, you should only exclude players who legally tested positive. Otherwise, it is just hearsay.

 

McGuire should get in....Sammy should get in. Bonds should not.

 

Ken

[Chris]

What do you do with a player who never tested positive for steroids, yet we all know cheated? Example: Sammy Sosa

 

Are you talking about steroids or the corked bat? If the cheating reference is in regards to steroids, I'd love to hear how you know.

[CubsLadyinSTL]

I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF.

 

 

Then no one should make it because the players union resisted testing for years.

 

Hey thats a great idea. Or maybe we should just not include the people who sat on national television in front of a grand jury and could not deny using steriods. Someone who even made his supporters doubt him. Hmmmmm

[C.C.]

I didnt say it, really, there was an article in the sports section of todays newspaper.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/BB650166604166C68625725E001AB2C3?OpenDocument

 

 

You have to wonder if a St. Louis writer is bashing him, how do the rest of the critics look at his chances of getting in. I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF. There are so many other players that never messed with that crap that deserve to be recognized first.

 

What do you do with a player who never tested positive for steroids, yet we all know cheated? Example: Sammy Sosa

 

Because baseball never really tested for steroids for a long period of time, to be fair, you should only exclude players who legally tested positive. Otherwise, it is just hearsay.

 

McGuire should get in....Sammy should get in. Bonds should not.

 

Ken

 

Did Bonds ever legally tested positive?

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Why can't Tony Gwynn or ANYONE who didn't hit HRs not have taken steroids?

 

Alex Sanchez took 'em. So did Jason Grimsley.

 

My question is why do we penalize only the great power hitters in the end? It's pretty obvious very good and great players weren't the only people that juiced, but they are really the only ones who truly get penalized long term. Sure, guys get suspended but do you think in 50 years people are going to be talking about Alex Sanchez and Jason Grimsley and steroids? Nope, people will be talking about the Mark McGwire's and Barry Bonds' and still arguing that they don't belong somewhere baseball important because of steroids.

 

Steroids seems like one of those things that people fail to realize just how big it was. It wasn't one or two very good players who hit for power doing it. It could be anyone, hell it could have been everyone.

 

Thats why I think the steroid debate is a pretty pointless one that leads to alot of paranoia and accusation more than anything else.

Edited January 10, 2007 by KingKongvs.Godzilla

[shnsajax]

I didnt say it, really, there was an article in the sports section of todays newspaper.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/BB650166604166C68625725E001AB2C3?OpenDocument

 

 

You have to wonder if a St. Louis writer is bashing him, how do the rest of the critics look at his chances of getting in. I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF. There are so many other players that never messed with that crap that deserve to be recognized first.

 

What do you do with a player who never tested positive for steroids, yet we all know cheated? Example: Sammy Sosa

 

Because baseball never really tested for steroids for a long period of time, to be fair, you should only exclude players who legally tested positive. Otherwise, it is just hearsay.

 

McGuire should get in....Sammy should get in. Bonds should not.

 

Ken

 

Did Bonds ever legally tested positive?

 

5 years ago Bonds was a HOF. I don't see why he is not now, especially if the other two make it in.

[Amazing_Grace]

I don't have any sympathy for people who may have taken illegal drugs to get ahead in their careers. So it wasn't technically in the big book of baseball rules. Are we really to suggest that baseball's rules take precedence over the law and common sense? Are baseball players to be treated like children who shouldn't be held responsible in any way because "they weren't told any different" or "it wasn't really against the rules". These are adults who knew full well what they were doing and the consequences of being caught. Otherwise, why go to such trouble to hide it, even after their baseball careers are done. If a writer plagiarizes everything they write and doesn't get caught until well after their career is over, then they probably don't deserve to be remembered as a great writer. The thing is, regardless of who they were, they were doing something illegal, in secret, to excel in their careers and make more money. If you or I did that, we'd probably never work again if it were ever found out, and we certainly wouldn't be looking for lifetime achievement awards from the organizations we cheated.

 

I forget who posted it and where, but I saw someone post a MLB memo from 1991 that does specifically mention performance enhancing drugs and maintaining the integrity of the game or some such thing. That might be relevant here.

 

All this ignores the fact that it's sportswriters that vote for the HOF anyway. They can take anything into account that they want to, including anything. MLB really doesn't have any checks on the system. IMHO, McGwire and Sosa who had huge offensive explosions at the end of their careers that accompanied radical changes in their build that defied common sense and defined their careers are not worthy of the HOF. At the very least, we can say that the HR is devalued as a stat in the 90's era, and both, McGwire especially, were one dimensional players. Bonds probably does deserve HOF consideration for what he did before he had his noticeable change in build and huge HR boost. I think his career was diminished somewhat by the controversy surrounding him at its end. Had he retired 6 years ago, he'd probably be in the HOF today.

[fromthestretch]

I didnt say it, really, there was an article in the sports section of todays newspaper.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/BB650166604166C68625725E001AB2C3?OpenDocument

 

 

You have to wonder if a St. Louis writer is bashing him, how do the rest of the critics look at his chances of getting in. I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF. There are so many other players that never messed with that crap that deserve to be recognized first.

 

What about players that took amphetamines, or pitchers who threw spitballs or scuffed up baseballs? There are plenty of those in the Hall of Fame.

 

In my opinion, it is wrong to assume that certain people took steroids and penalize them without any proof.

 

As someone mentioned, it's not just the power hitters that are taking steroids. Over half the guys caught at the major AND minor league levels since the beginning of the 2005 season have been pitchers. A lot of the hitters that have tested positive are guys like Matt Lawton and Alex Sanchez, players that no one would have suspected. Until it's proven that a player took anything illegal, there's no justification for excluding them from the Hall of Fame, assuming their performance warrants consideration. I could just as easily make the assumption that Ripken was able to play 2,600+ consecutive games because he used amphetamines to give him the energy to keep playing everyday, but without proof, it's pure speculation.

[Abe Frohman]

It's hard to justify not having Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Mark McGwire in the Hall of Fame. Bonds and Raffy have positive tests - but deny knowingly using PEDs.

 

Regardless, I think the MLB Players Union AND the MLB Owners are just as much to blame as the players - as the only way to secure a place in the game was to use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to be on par. This was stated by Jose Canseco and others who had no loyalty to the Player's Union.

 

In my opinion, it would be a disgrace if any of those players were Hall of Famers, as it would destroy the pureness and good reputation of the HOF. I am not saying that they never should be members, but until we are more informed on who used, when they used, and how that affected the game - all players retiring after the mid 90's should be put on hold for HOF consideration. We just don't know enough and can only speculate.

 

I do know this for a fact - sluggers are not the only ones using PED's. It is a shame that we have to even talk about this.

 

That's what I think.

[fromthestretch]

I don't have any sympathy for people who may have taken illegal drugs to get ahead in their careers. So it wasn't technically in the big book of baseball rules. Are we really to suggest that baseball's rules take precedence over the law and common sense? Are baseball players to be treated like children who shouldn't be held responsible in any way because "they weren't told any different" or "it wasn't really against the rules". These are adults who knew full well what they were doing and the consequences of being caught. Otherwise, why go to such trouble to hide it, even after their baseball careers are done. If a writer plagiarizes everything they write and doesn't get caught until well after their career is over, then they probably don't deserve to be remembered as a great writer. The thing is, regardless of who they were, they were doing something illegal, in secret, to excel in their careers and make more money. If you or I did that, we'd probably never work again if it were ever found out, and we certainly wouldn't be looking for lifetime achievement awards from the organizations we cheated.

 

And if they get caught, they should be punished by law (which isn't much to begin with), not by baseball, unless baseball specifically has rules or even guidelines for penalizing players for this type of action. You can argue that it may hurt the player's integrity or character, which are both taken into consideration when voting for the Hall of Fame. Those are things left up to the individual voter. But right now, baseball has a rule that says if you get caught once, you are suspended 50 games. It does not say that if you are caught once that you are not eligible for the Hall of Fame. Let's say that Player A is 30 years old and is on pace for a Hall of Fame-type career. He then gets busted using steroids and is suspended 50 games. He comes back, never tests positive again, and finishes his career with elite numbers. Are you (this question is posed to anyone, not just Amazing_Grace) going to hold him out of the Hall of Fame, essentially penalizing him twice for the same "crime?" I only ask because people are saying they don't want certain players in the HoF simply because they ALLEGEDLY took steroids, when there is no proof they actually did.

[fromthestretch]

It's hard to justify not having Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Mark McGwire in the Hall of Fame. Bonds and Raffy have positive tests - but deny knowingly using PEDs.

 

Regardless, I think the MLB Players Union AND the MLB Owners are just as much to blame as the players - as the only way to secure a place in the game was to use steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to be on par. This was stated by Jose Canseco and others who had no loyalty to the Player's Union.

 

In my opinion, it would be a disgrace if any of those players were Hall of Famers, as it would destroy the pureness and good reputation of the HOF. I am not saying that they never should be members, but until we are more informed on who used, when they used, and how that affected the game - all players retiring after the mid 90's should be put on hold for HOF consideration. We just don't know enough and can only speculate.

 

I do know this for a fact - sluggers are not the only ones using PED's. It is a shame that we have to even talk about this.

 

That's what I think.

 

There are plenty of guys in the Hall of Fame that aren't pure.

[Rob]

I'd rather have the Big Mac than any other Cards' HOFer not named Gibson, Hornsby, or Musial.

[CuseCubFan69]

Let's face it, we have a lot more information on todays players than the public did years ago. This reminds me of all the cases of child kidnapping that happened years ago but no one really knew about compared to the milk carton don't let the kid out of your site days of today. All the information that we keep getting and all the little details we now know about every players life just puts them all under the microscope more and more each year. Years ago would we know if a player beat the heck out of his wife? I really doubt it. The press also kept a lot of information to themselves back then and now they look for the tinest hint of scandal, especially in NYC. IMO players have cheated throughout baseball history to get an edge on the competition and jumping on the steroid boys and not them is misguided. Maybe the writers don't want to look in the mirror because they are just as much to blame for hiding the facts as the players themselves back then.

[oldstyle81]

I didnt say it, really, there was an article in the sports section of todays newspaper.

 

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/columnists.nsf/bryanburwell/story/BB650166604166C68625725E001AB2C3?OpenDocument

 

 

You have to wonder if a St. Louis writer is bashing him, how do the rest of the critics look at his chances of getting in. I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF. There are so many other players that never messed with that crap that deserve to be recognized first.

 

What do you do with a player who never tested positive for steroids, yet we all know cheated? Example: Sammy Sosa

 

Because baseball never really tested for steroids for a long period of time, to be fair, you should only exclude players who legally tested positive. Otherwise, it is just hearsay.

 

McGuire should get in....Sammy should get in. Bonds should not.

 

Ken

 

Did Bonds ever legally tested positive?

 

well if you consider testifying before a grand jury that he took steroids testing, then yes

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I am an advocate to NEVER let anyone even a little involved with the steriods scandal into the HOF.

 

 

Then no one should make it because the players union resisted testing for years.

 

Hey thats a great idea. Or maybe we should just not include the people who sat on national television in front of a grand jury and could not deny using steriods. Someone who even made his supporters doubt him. Hmmmmm

 

You said anyone "even a little involved". What does that exactly mean? Guilty by association is very unfair. How do you know Cal Ripken hasn't used? Where do you draw the line?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think the VC allowing Mazeroski into the HOF did a lot more to destroy the integrity of the Hall than allowing McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and Palmeiro would.

[UMFan83]

I really don't see how the Cubs executive VP of business operations Mark McGuire fits in with the Cardinals greats either.

 

Ok bad joke off a misspelling.

[The Voice of Reason]

I think Barry Rozner got it right.

 

There is no right answer when you vote for the Hall of Fame, just as there isn’t when you choose between politicians.

 

It’s completely subjective, and you can only vote what you believe to be right.

 

So while there are daggers being thrown on both sides of the steroid debate — and, for the record, I did not vote for Mark McGwire — you can’t fault any voter for his/her choice.

 

However, the electorate has spoken — and spoken with a vengeance.

 

Mark McGwire’s 23 percent tells you a lot about what’s going to happen to Sammy Sosa and the rest of the inflatable cartoon characters of the last 10 years.

 

Barring a shocking change of heart, they all can pretty much forget about seeing their plaque on a wall in Cooperstown.

 

Unless it’s at the local card shop, where you’ll often find Pete Rose signing autographs.

[treebird]

I think Barry Rozner got it right.

 

There is no right answer when you vote for the Hall of Fame, just as there isn’t when you choose between politicians.

 

It’s completely subjective, and you can only vote what you believe to be right.

 

So while there are daggers being thrown on both sides of the steroid debate — and, for the record, I did not vote for Mark McGwire — you can’t fault any voter for his/her choice.

 

However, the electorate has spoken — and spoken with a vengeance.

 

Mark McGwire’s 23 percent tells you a lot about what’s going to happen to Sammy Sosa and the rest of the inflatable cartoon characters of the last 10 years.

 

Barring a shocking change of heart, they all can pretty much forget about seeing their plaque on a wall in Cooperstown.

 

Unless it’s at the local card shop, where you’ll often find Pete Rose signing autographs.

 

sometimes i wonder what things would be like now if sammy had hit 66 home runs in 1997. would he still be so attached to mcgwire? everyone was fine with mark until the congressional hearing. why did sosa (apparently) fall with him?

[cbbryan]

The great part to me is that all these writer are going to vote Bonds in, I guarantee it. And their argument is going to be that he was a HOF before the "steriod" numbers. My argument to that would be that Pete Rose was a HOF too before he gambled.

 

What doesn't get talked about here is what if Mac or Sammy didn't do steriods? What if they just took supplements and worked their respective arses off to be muscular? Mac always hit HR from the day he walked on to a MLB field, so if he took roids it was probably from the very beginning. Sammy gradually got more powerful, it's not like he hit 4 HR and they he hit 90. When he went on his tear, he laid off the slider down and out alot better, he had better pitch recognition, and he was just overall a better hitter.

 

Anyway, my point is this........ WHAT IF Sammy and/or Big Mac didn't use. How much of an injustice would be done?

[The Voice of Reason]

I think Barry Rozner got it right.

 

There is no right answer when you vote for the Hall of Fame, just as there isn’t when you choose between politicians.

 

It’s completely subjective, and you can only vote what you believe to be right.

 

So while there are daggers being thrown on both sides of the steroid debate — and, for the record, I did not vote for Mark McGwire — you can’t fault any voter for his/her choice.

 

However, the electorate has spoken — and spoken with a vengeance.

 

Mark McGwire’s 23 percent tells you a lot about what’s going to happen to Sammy Sosa and the rest of the inflatable cartoon characters of the last 10 years.

 

Barring a shocking change of heart, they all can pretty much forget about seeing their plaque on a wall in Cooperstown.

 

Unless it’s at the local card shop, where you’ll often find Pete Rose signing autographs.

 

sometimes i wonder what things would be like now if sammy had hit 66 home runs in 1997. would he still be so attached to mcgwire? everyone was fine with mark until the congressional hearing. why did sosa (apparently) fall with him?

 

 

Goose Gossage to ESPN on Mark McGwire’s testimony before Congress: “He got some bad legal advice. He should have done what (Sammy) Sosa did and pretend he couldn’t speak English anymore.’’

[fromthestretch]

The great part to me is that all these writer are going to vote Bonds in, I guarantee it. And their argument is going to be that he was a HOF before the "steriod" numbers. My argument to that would be that Pete Rose was a HOF too before he gambled.

 

Problem is, the punishment for betting on baseball - lifetime banishment -was clearly defined when Rose got caught. To my knowledge, Baseball Writers Association of America members are not allowed to consider anyone that has been banned when they are casting their votes. However, the Veterans Committee can.

 

Players are not banned from baseball for using steroids, unless they are caught three times. Bonds hasn't officially tested positive.

 

What doesn't get talked about here is what if Mac or Sammy didn't do steriods? What if they just took supplements and worked their respective arses off to be muscular? Mac always hit HR from the day he walked on to a MLB field, so if he took roids it was probably from the very beginning. Sammy gradually got more powerful, it's not like he hit 4 HR and they he hit 90. When he went on his tear, he laid off the slider down and out alot better, he had better pitch recognition, and he was just overall a better hitter.

 

Anyway, my point is this........ WHAT IF Sammy and/or Big Mac didn't use. How much of an injustice would be done?

 

I think that does get talked about here...just not much by the mainstream media. Right now with McGwire, Sammy, and many others, it's just pure speculation. I'm sure many of us could come up with a decent list of players that we suspect took steroids, but obviously, no one has any proof.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

Anyway, my point is this........ WHAT IF Sammy and/or Big Mac didn't use. How much of an injustice would be done?

 

With the HOF a 15-year referendum, then there's nothing wrong with patience. While I wouldn't vote this way, if a person is withholding a vote saying I need more info right now, then I have trouble finding fault with that voter. In essence, the voter is saying I know we can't remove them once enshrined, so let's exercise some caution and patience. I'm ok with that.

 

But if in year 10 or 12 or so forth of a candidate's time on the ballot we still do not have that. If a voter at that point can't say they know a player took PED's, then I think it is unfair and a bit presumptuous to still not cast a vote based on that player's accomplishments alone.