K-Town

He may not get the opportunity........... you're right. My guess is that the sun will still shine on he and his family at their California home, even if he doesn't get into the HOF. He'll be fine. Why would anybody ask him that, at a HOF ceremony? Unless it's going to be standard for them to ask ALL inductees, then it wouldn't be appropriate, and I think he'd be wise to tell them to kiss his .......".

I don't think he "volunteered". I think when he was asked if he would help, he said he would. Has anybody asked for his help? Has anybody asked him to speak anywhere? I didn't say that had any effect on me, but in numerous articles on the subject, I've seen it mentioned. My biggest issue, is his repeated statements that he doesn't want to talk about the past. If that's the case, why should we consider any of his "past" in electing him to the HOF? He never said that he didn't want to talk about the past, did he? He said (paraphrasing) "I'm not HERE to talk about the past", meaning that he wasn't going to be a player in Congress' little circus. My interpretation - there's an appropriate time and a place to talk about certain things. A HOF ceremony would certainly be an appropriate time and place to talk about his baseball accomplishments.

I don't think he "volunteered". I think when he was asked if he would help, he said he would. Has anybody asked for his help? Has anybody asked him to speak anywhere?

Yes, it was very much legal and he openly admitted using. so people are basing their non-vote for McGwire on Canseco's book and the general increase in HR's during the 90's, coupled with his congressional statement, and through no basis of fact? I think there was an FBI agent who also implicated McGwire...but his non-denial is what is mostly doing him in. I agree....... that's what's "doing him in". I also agree with those who say that the voters probably won't let him in. My point is that it's bogus. When they want to judge EVERYBODY the same way that they judge McGwire, then it'll be justice. Until then, it's simply a witch-hunt. What about amphetamines? What about cocaine? What about all of those years when players had an "unfair advantage", because the best blacks, hispanics, etc. weren't allowed to play? You think there weren't statistics "beefed up" because only the best white, American players were allowed in the game? Singling out steroids, and then specifically only pointing the finger at certain players for it, is bogus and hypocritical.

McGwire had NO chance to "clear his name". Sosa denied using. Nobody believes him. Nobody would have believed McGwire, either. Did McGwire add muscle mass? Sure he did. He also admitted to using Andro, which wasn't "cheating". What do you want him to admit to? The Congressional hearing wasn't a "fact-finding" mission. What facts did they find out from the players? None! It was nothing but political propoganda.

McGwire did neither as Miklasz points out. Good points. I think not only will McGwire be hurt by the fact voters won't want to give a first ballot entry to someone who may be tainted, but they also won't want those allegations to take away from the enshrinement of Ripken and Gwynn. If a reporter in the heart of Cardinal Country feels this way, imagine how voters across the country will view it as well. Virtually every Cardinal fan in St. Louis (other than "The Faction) believes that Bernie is a stone-cold idiot. If the Cards won six World Series in a row, Bernie would whine because they didn't win seven. How do we know that Gwynn and Ripken weren't using steroids? And why weren't they called before Congress? You can't just pick and choose whom you want to point the finger at. If it's the "steroid era", then look at EVERYONE.......... and if you're going to assume that SOME are guilty, then assume that they're all guilty. Not to mention, what about the amphetamine era? What about the cocaine era? Why didn't we make assumptions during THOSE eras, to keep players out of the Hall?

McGwire's statement was basically an advisory from HIS attorney, also. Why is what Sosa did any better or worse than what McGwire did? Why wasn't Bonds required to be there? Why wasn't Clemens required to be there? The players were hand-picked for nothing more than propoganda purposes, and that's not fair. I'm glad McGwire chose not to be a freak in their little circus. People don't like it, but sometimes you have to go against the grain. Frankly, I don't think McGwire gives a rat's nose what people think, including Congress. And if the HOF voters are going to judge him on that mockery of a hearing, then I'll bet he doesn't care what THEY think, either.

It was unfair that they were drug into the process to begin with. I don't blame McGwire for being contrary about the whole thing. Congress' agenda was pretty clear (it was a publicity stunt), and Mac didn't give them the pleasure of twisting his words to mean what they wanted them to mean. It's very common to hold hearings before passing legislation. Bottom line - without intervention form Congress, Baseball would have done nothing about steroids. Congress deserve a lot of credit and all that "witchhunt" crap was a bunch of BS. Big Mac (and eveyone else) knows that if he had denied using steroids (under oath), no one would be questioning his credibility today. It's obvious (at least to me), that his objective wasn't to teach Congress a lesson but to avoid a perjury investigation (ala Palmeiro). You can't possibly be serious. You think that since Sammy Sosa denied using steroids under oath, that nobody questions his credibility?? I don't have a major problem with Congress intervening. They didn't need to drag players through the mud on a public forum in order to help. And if they're going to question players, then why only question a handful of hand-picked players? It was a joke.

It was unfair that they were drug into the process to begin with. I don't blame McGwire for being contrary about the whole thing. Congress' agenda was pretty clear (it was a publicity stunt), and Mac didn't give them the pleasure of twisting his words to mean what they wanted them to mean.

Sosa was treated unfairly. So was Palmeiro. The entire Congressional hearing was a farce. It was political propoganda. Why do you pick and choose players to question? Was it because of Canseco's book? Yeah, there's a credible source, with no agenda. Yeah right. Well everyone attacked Canseco's credibility (myself included), it seems with Palmeiro, not only was he right, but he even named the right steroid in his book. While there are many reasons to question Canseco's motives, it looks as if, at least in Palmerio's case, that he wasn't just blowing smoke. I don't completely disagree with you. I think Canseco got a worse rap than he should have. But you don't call a random group of baseball players before Congress and berate them and embarrass them, based on nothing more than a book written by a guy with a clear agenda. They picked and chose who they wanted to question. It was a blatant case of political propoganda, and I don't blame McGwire for not playing their silly game.

Sosa was treated unfairly. So was Palmeiro. The entire Congressional hearing was a farce. It was political propoganda. Why do you pick and choose players to question? Was it because of Canseco's book? Yeah, there's a credible source, with no agenda. Yeah right.

By that reasoning, every player who has never answer the "steroid question" before a Congressional committee is a liar. That's faulty logic. When every other player in baseball is scrutinized the way Mac was and is, then you can criticize him. Until then, he's being treated unfairly.

Either hendry sweetened a deal including Prior or offered something like: Murton, Hill, Pie for Tejada What does "move on" mean? I wonder what the urgency is.

I think somebody is a little upset/jealous that his team lost out in the AJ Burnett derby. Could that be why you are rooting against Toronto? Just a hunch, but thats my guess. :wink: Yeah, that's probably part of it. :cry:

Interesting, because I was just reading this thread, and thinking "wow.........PieOnMyHands makes a strong case..... probably even stronger than I could....... I really like the way this guy thinks!". PieOnMyHands...... I've never been accused of being a "troll" here...... I just tend to be somewhat argumentative and resilient in what I believe. For the record, Pie and I are NOT the same poster. Today is the first time I've seen him post. I like how you put that K. "Resilient." That about sums it up, yeah. I don't think K-Town is a troll. He argues stuff he believes, not just arguing for the sake of it. I just figured that since you appeared at roughly the same time he stopped posting as much it would make sense for him to get a new identity. He alienated himself a little bit because he does what you do: Says something disagreeable then turns a thread into an endless back and forth between him and a dozen or so detractors. Well, honestly............ when you're a Cardinal fan, debating a Cardinal point on this board, you're going to be a minority, and will likely have AT LEAST a dozen detractors. That doesn't mean that he's wrong, and the rest are right. It probably just means that he's preaching to the wrong congregation.

I was just wondering about the "O's" reference.

Touche'! :lol: What are you trying to say, UK?? :wink:

It's only a million dollars is a horrible justification for the signing. Macias made less than 1 mil. last year, can I justify Hendry making the dumb as "oh well, it's only 1mil". There can't be anything like a weight clause, but they do have conduct clauses as Neagle had. Hell, this money could be allocated towards Byrnes or someone useful. Well, Macias has ZERO upside. I'm not sure that the same can be said of Ponson. You seem convinced of it. Obviously, I hope you're wrong. We shall see.

if you think they're "a mold for all that's wrong with the game", you probably should be able to pinpoint why you don't like them. i, for one, love ricciardi's team. Well, I mentioned that I think they helped to drive salaries up this off-season. It's mainly the money-spending thing, I guess. They've been in the bottom 1/3 in baseball in attendance for 5 years in a row (barely beating out teams like Cincy, Colorado, and Pittsburgh), and yet they're able to spend like there's no tomorrow? I mean, I don't HATE them..... they just don't ever seem to have much personality.

Is anybody besides me rooting AGAINST Toronto? They seem to be a mold for all that's wrong with the game, and in some ways I hold them mostly responsible for driving the salaries up this off-season. I just don't like them, but I can't pinpoint why not. In fact, I wish that entire division would just cease to exist.

I understand being in that position, but to expect any of those options to work out is ludicrous. The fact that Womack or Tavarez did has no bearing on whether Bigbie or Spivey or Tub-o-Ponson will. Back to my gambling analogy. If I go to the slots every week and after blowing 50-100 bucks, I hit a jackpot that pays...it doesn't mean that I'm going to hit that every time. In fact, that becomes the gambler's fallacy. That the odds will pan out in the end. In fact, the casinos are hoping I buy into it, because sooner rather than later, I'm going to get burned. The odds are that the Cardinals will have a decent pitching staff in Carpeneter, Mulder, Marquis, Suppan, and Reyes...that Ponson will bust and that outside of Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds the offense will be average to pretty craptastic. Slot machines are 100% random, though....... and often times you put your money in, and get NOTHING out of them. The Cards have put money in Spivey, Ponson, Bigbie, etc., and will likely get SOMETHING out of them. The randomness of gambling doesn't necessarily exist in baseball transactions. Duncan may see something in Ponson that he likes (he's done well with journeymen veterans before). Spivey has some tools, and has had a moderate amount of success....... and will likely be nothing worse than an average second-baseman, for a below-average price. Bigbie costs less than a million bucks. I'll be surprised if he doesn't earn that money, at least. As for the Cards' offense, they were 2nd in the NL last year. They have Rolen replacing Nunez. Spivey won't be worse than Grudz, offensively, in my opinion....... especially hitting around guys like Pujols, Edmonds, Rolen. Cardinal right-fielders had a .795 OPS last year. It's not out of the question that Encarnacion can do that. Cardinal left-fielders had an OPS of .834 last year. That feat, with some sort of Taguchi/Bigbie combination, may be a bit difficult to live up to. On the other hand, I won't be shocked if Molina continues to improve. It's hard to say. Regardless, I don't expect a MAJOR drop-off, offensively.

Vance - But the Cards are basically in a situation and a market where they HAVE to find the diamonds in the rough. What are their options? Basically, they've thrived on exactly that, for the last several years. It's enough to drive Cardinal fans nuts, but we inevitably end up eating our words when an Eckstein, a Womack, a Tavarez, an Al Reyes, or whomever............. ends up performing well. I'm guessing (hoping?) that a Bigbie or a Spivey will pay dividends. If it doesn't happen, then you're not out much. The Encarnacion thing is an entirely different matter. The 3 years seems like a mistake to me. Not a crippling mistake on the Tino Martinez level, but a mistake, nontheless.

UK - It's only a million bucks, for Ponson. Also, I haven't seen the stipulations of the contract, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a weight claus, or a stipulation that the contract is voided if he drinks. Maybe not, but it would seen like a good idea to have something like that included. Maybe the Player's Union wouldn't allow it....... I'm not sure. Still seems like a pretty low risk for a guy who's only being counted on the be a 5th-starter type of guy.

So his career OPS is below 2B average, but that's OK 'cause he does it consistently? So what you're telling me is that besides last year's anamoly (since good players stay very consistent to their "normal" self), Derrek Lee is only a slightly above-average offensive 1st baseman? Or does the Lee season count, but the Spivey season not? Let me quote myself in this topic: Directly refute Junior Spivey signing for $1.5 million team that had a huge question mark at 2nd base, given the market and his history. A big difference with Lee and Spivey has to do with their most recent performance. Spivey's most recent performance is atrocious. Lee's most recent performance isn't. I think what a player did last season is more relevant than what they did in 2002. But since career numbers are most important, I guess you're expecting Sosa to have a rebound year as well....or would that only happen if he signed with the Cards? Geeze! I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but you just made a case for the Encanacion signing being "not so bad". For the record, I think that it WAS a bad signing. The other Cardinal signings and trades so far this off-season........ I'm fine with them. It's typical Jocketty (low-risk, high-reward), only a larger dose of it. I agree with an earlier poster who basically said that at least one or two of the low-dollar signings will turn to gold, and make all of the others pretty much irrelevant.

Interesting, because I was just reading this thread, and thinking "wow.........PieOnMyHands makes a strong case..... probably even stronger than I could....... I really like the way this guy thinks!". PieOnMyHands...... I've never been accused of being a "troll" here...... I just tend to be somewhat argumentative and resilient in what I believe. For the record, Pie and I are NOT the same poster. Today is the first time I've seen him post.