K-Town

No, YOU made it seem as if Cardinal fans are "different", with your description of the game that you were at. You're the one that made a huge deal out of the Cardinals' reaction. I think you're making a bigger deal out of the steroids "allegations" than they actually are. Lots of players were using steroids in 1998....... I think that's obvioius. None of the others his 70 home runs. So I think it's wrong to completely trivialize what McGwire accomplished, with or without "help". McGwire's run and ultimate record-breaking feat was a magical moment in St. Louis. Maybe you don't see it that way, which is fine. I wouldn't condemn you for not applauding McGwire. Everyone's different. If 50,000 people want to enjoy a harmless moment in a world smothered in tragedy, I say more power to them.

Yes, that's it exactly. BTW, I was not comparing steroid using to being a rapist, because that is not a valid comparison. I was merely making a statement to illustrate how maniacal the Cardinal fans were about McGwire. I believe that statement too. The next day, the Post-Dispatch had a full page photo of McGuyver, uh, I mean McGwire in his follow-through after hitting his record-breaking home run on the front page. It was the front page, the whole front page, not the sports page, but the front page (you know where normally an article about a presidential impeachment hearing would be). It had St. Louis Post-Dispatch across the top, and then the picture all the way to the bottom, and across the bottom of the photo, in 1.5 inch red lettering was: JUBILATION! :shock: I was absolutely stunned. I guess I shouldn't have been. That paper is such a rag. It ranks beside the Sun-Times in terms of journalistic abuse. They just fed the frenzy though - it sold papers. I threw the paper away, but my wife picked it out of the dust bin, and said it might be worth some money some day. Good point. We still have it....I should scan it in and post it on this thread. Anyhoo, my point is that it is a game. The greatest game, IMO, but still just a game. The players are people, not gods. To make these things out to be more than that is completely out of touch with reality. Yet another example of out out of hand it was that summer. I wouldn't expect you to understand. You're not a Cardinal fan. That doesn't make Cardinal fans wrong. And if you want to read about the impeachment without turning the page, then I suggest you vacation somewhere besides St. Louis in the summertime. You're right, it IS a game, played by human beings. That's why this thread is a little bit absurd. McGwire has given millions of dollars to charity, brought alot of joy to St. Louis, been a great P.R. rep for St. Louis, speaks highly of the game and the fans of St. Louis, clearly loves his family and spending time with them............. and yet he should be booed because he "might have" tampered with the integrity of the game....... a GAME, mind you, by using steroids??? If it's just a game, why are you getting so worked up over our comments? I'm not "worked up" at all.

It would definitely be worth $50. Heck, I'd like to have one. I wonder how you'd authenticate it, though. I wasn't aware that they were doing work on Wrigley. What's the plan?

Yes, that's it exactly. BTW, I was not comparing steroid using to being a rapist, because that is not a valid comparison. I was merely making a statement to illustrate how maniacal the Cardinal fans were about McGwire. I believe that statement too. The next day, the Post-Dispatch had a full page photo of McGuyver, uh, I mean McGwire in his follow-through after hitting his record-breaking home run on the front page. It was the front page, the whole front page, not the sports page, but the front page (you know where normally an article about a presidential impeachment hearing would be). It had St. Louis Post-Dispatch across the top, and then the picture all the way to the bottom, and across the bottom of the photo, in 1.5 inch red lettering was: JUBILATION! :shock: I was absolutely stunned. I guess I shouldn't have been. That paper is such a rag. It ranks beside the Sun-Times in terms of journalistic abuse. They just fed the frenzy though - it sold papers. I threw the paper away, but my wife picked it out of the dust bin, and said it might be worth some money some day. Good point. We still have it....I should scan it in and post it on this thread. Anyhoo, my point is that it is a game. The greatest game, IMO, but still just a game. The players are people, not gods. To make these things out to be more than that is completely out of touch with reality. Yet another example of out out of hand it was that summer. I wouldn't expect you to understand. You're not a Cardinal fan. That doesn't make Cardinal fans wrong. And if you want to read about the impeachment without turning the page, then I suggest you vacation somewhere besides St. Louis in the summertime. You're right, it IS a game, played by human beings. That's why this thread is a little bit absurd. McGwire has given millions of dollars to charity, brought alot of joy to St. Louis, been a great P.R. rep for St. Louis, speaks highly of the game and the fans of St. Louis, clearly loves his family and spending time with them............. and yet he should be booed because he "might have" tampered with the integrity of the game....... a GAME, mind you, by using steroids???

First a steroid comparison to murder, and now a rapist. And you think that those Cardinal fans were out of grasp with reality?? Just because you don't understand how those fans felt about it, that doesn't make it wrong. The fans in St. Louis love their Cardinals like no other. Your post is simply another example of how other teams' fans don't understand how important the Cardinals are to the city of St. Louis. Which is fine. I don't expect you to understand.

If you strictly go by the numbers, then Lee would have to win, because his overall numbers are slightly better. I'm not sure if you can go strictly by the numbers, however. Alot of people have the perception that Pujols' presence in the lineup and the clubhouse makes those around him much better, while I don't think that Lee has necessarily earned that reputation yet. Like I said, I wouldn't have a major problem with Lee winning.

I could live with that.

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win. I'm pretty sure that's what I wrote :?: OK. I was probably too stupid to figure it out. I agree with you, then.

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win. The fact is there really is no historical perspective. Alex Rodriquez and Andre Dawson won while playing for last place teams. Other players, however seem to have benefited from playing for play-off teams. Bonds won it last year and his team missed the playoffs. You can't simply apply a historical significance, because the voters have voted all over the map. Bonds won last year because nobody else was close (not even Pujols). Maybe I'm wrong, but historically, if there are two candidates that put up similar stats, the guy on the winning team will win.

If people knew that one came from the White House, and the other one didn't, then they'd take the one that came from the White House. But playing for the Cards in intrincally no more valuable than playing for the Cubs. In fact, considering things like marketability, it might be more valuable to play for the Cubs. Cubs fans believe that, and they should. I would, if I were a Cubs fan. Everyone else probably views Pujols as being more valuable this year, but we'll see.

The playoffs are a crap shoot. The Padres have as good a chance to get hot as any of the other teams.

If you want to use historical perspective, then Pujols should definitely win.

If people knew that one came from the White House, and the other one didn't, then they'd take the one that came from the White House.

You never will.

Any answer I give you will simply open the door for you to call me a foolish blind homer. Why should I bother? I don't think I have implied that you were blind, foolish, or homerish, it was a serious question. Just trying to understand both sides/opinions if you will. "What I will not do, however, is participate in naming names and implicating my friends and teammates. I retired from baseball four years ago. I live a quiet life with my wife and children. I have always been a team player. I have never been a person who spread rumors or said things about teammates that could hurt them. I do not sit in judgment of other players, whether it deals with their sexual preference, their marital problems, or other personal habits, including whether or not they use chemical substances. That has never been my style, and I do not intend to change this just because the cameras are turned on. "Nor do I intend to dignify Mr. Canseco's book. It should be enough that you consider the source of the statements in the book, and that many inconsistencies and contradictions have already been raised. "I've been advised that my testimony here could be used to harm friends and respected teammates, or that some ambitious prosecutor can use convicted criminals who would do and say anything to solve their own problems and create jeopardy for my friends. "Asking me or any other player to answer questions about who took steroids in front of television cameras will not solve the problem. If a player answers no, he simply will not be believed. If he answers yes, he risks public scorn and endless government investigations. My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself. I intend to follow their advice. Granted, the panel never asked him to "name names", but I don't think that McGwire knew what to expect, going into the hearings, so he and his attorney simply designed a strategy to take the safe route. All of the players at the hearing looked foolish, in my mind. People like to single out McGwire because he took a different direction than the other players at the hearings.

Any answer I give you will simply open the door for you to call me a foolish blind homer. Why should I bother?

I'm not sure it's that simple. If you have two portraits of Abe Lincoln (exact duplicates), and one of them is documented to have been in my attic, while the other has been documented to have been hanging in the halls of the White House, then most people would pay more for the one from the White House, don't you think? Wouldn't that make it "more valuable"? But in your example the "value" comes from it having been in a prominent place not from the work of art itself. It's why people will buy a brick from Busch stadium and not from my house. People are valuing sentimentality not quality there. But if you bought the Abe Lincoln portrait documented from the White House, it's value would not change regardless of where you hang it. I guess it depends on how you view "value". If somebody is willing to pay more for it because it's been in the White House, then I would say that it has higher "value". Likewise, since Pujols is playing on the "White House" of baseball teams, people may perceive that he has more "value". Maybe it's just perception......... I can see your point.

Did McGwire get caught cheating? Has he proven he didn't cheat? No. Has anybody?

Rose betting on baseball, on his own team, could have had a HUGE effect on games. did he bet on games he played or on games he managed? and betting doesn't tarnish the fact that he was statisically the most accomplished hitter of all time Absolutely. I'm not questioning that, at all.

Did McGwire get caught cheating?

I'm not sure it's that simple. If you have two portraits of Abe Lincoln (exact duplicates), and one of them is documented to have been in my attic, while the other has been documented to have been hanging in the halls of the White House, then most people would pay more for the one from the White House, don't you think? Wouldn't that make it "more valuable"?

Rose betting on baseball, on his own team, could have had a HUGE effect on games.

"Love" is probably too strong of a word. Most Cardinal fans do appreciate Mac, though. Templeton didn't respect St. Louis fans. McGwire did. There's your difference. Cardinal fans reciprocate in like. If you play the game hard, and respect the city & the fans, then you can get away with quite a bit in St. Louis. That's why Cardinal fans still cheer McGwire.

Sosa has done less to incriminate himself than Mac has?? Mac refused to answer questions at a Congressional Circus. Sosa claimed that he didn't understand the questions, and had his bat spew cork across the Wrigley infield. How on earth do you conclude that what Mac has done is more incriminating? If you don't want to cheer Sosa, that's your choice. Personally, I'm proud that Cardinal fans can cheer a decent human being that brought them many enjoyable moments. If they want to like the guy, why should you have a problem with that? Mac has been a part of the Cardinal family. In my world, you ARE able to overlook some of the faults of people in your family. That's cool.

I think that a large percentage of ball players cheat. And you cheer many of them. Basically, YOU are turning a blind eye to the ones who haven't been "busted" yet. If you're naive enough to think that Bonds, Sosa, Palmiero, and McGwire are the only "cheaters" on baseball, then I've got some property near Lake Michigan that you might be interested in.