K-Town

And he punched a kid in the face on his way back to the dugout. :lol: :lol:

Why do you believe secondhand accounts of illegally leaked grand jury testimony, but not firsthand accounts from an eyewitness/collaborator. Like I said, I'm not sure WHAT to believe. Personally, I'd let Bonds, McGwire, AND Sosa in the Hall of Fame. McGwire has been scrutinized plenty, and so has Bonds. I'm not sure what the Fox reporter was getting at. It's not like people haven't taken shots at McGwire. Well I'll agree with you on one thing....McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are all linked. Either they all go or none do. I say none. You say all. While I disagree, it's just a matter of interpreting the evidence and the what we want in an HOF inductee differently. What about the players who used amphetamines? You know, I'm honestly not sure. But Bonds, McGwire and Sosa are a little bit victims of their own success here. The 3 of them were so successful, that the spotlight shines more brightly on them than others. None of them have confessed or apologized, but have made excuses and dodged direct answers. There's some PR involved in getting a HOF election, and the 3 of them have played that game poorly. Not only do I think those 3 shouldn't be in there, but I don't think they WILL be. I think this is an opportunity for the baseball writers to flex their muscles and keep these guys out. I also don't think Giambi or Palmerio should make it. See, you can't just pick & choose. To me, that's not the American way. McGwire should have just as much opportunity to get in as Roger Clemens has. Whatever has happened has happened, and we'll never know the full truth about every player, so move on. There have been injustices in the past (amphetamines, cocaine, blacks not being allowed to play, etc.), and nobody was kept out of the HOF for those things. Baseball just try to correct the problems, and moved on.

My vote is for none of them. There would be no better message to clean up this game than to have Mr 70, his trusty sidekick, and the all-time king playing euchre with Pete Rose somewhere lamenting their fate. Again..... If you're going to keep those three out, then you'd better be prepared to scrutinize every single player from that generation. Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds were the top of the class, breaking records, etc. So there was alot of scrutiny, and alot of digging done on those players. Unless you're going to do that type of digging for EVERYONE, then I say leave them alone, and move on. We're talking about the HOF. How many more are going to be eligible and worthy of votes? They will all be scrutinized. Just because had 500+ HR during that era won't guarantee admission. That's fine. Anybody who has ANY chance at going to the HOF should be scrutinized, then. It's only fair.

My vote is for none of them. There would be no better message to clean up this game than to have Mr 70, his trusty sidekick, and the all-time king playing euchre with Pete Rose somewhere lamenting their fate. Again..... If you're going to keep those three out, then you'd better be prepared to scrutinize every single player from that generation. Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds were the top of the class, breaking records, etc. So there was alot of scrutiny, and alot of digging done on those players. Unless you're going to do that type of digging for EVERYONE, then I say leave them alone, and move on.

Why do you believe secondhand accounts of illegally leaked grand jury testimony, but not firsthand accounts from an eyewitness/collaborator. Like I said, I'm not sure WHAT to believe. Personally, I'd let Bonds, McGwire, AND Sosa in the Hall of Fame. McGwire has been scrutinized plenty, and so has Bonds. I'm not sure what the Fox reporter was getting at. It's not like people haven't taken shots at McGwire. Well I'll agree with you on one thing....McGwire, Sosa and Bonds are all linked. Either they all go or none do. I say none. You say all. While I disagree, it's just a matter of interpreting the evidence and the what we want in an HOF inductee differently. If you're going to keep those three out, then you'd better be prepared to scrutinize every single player from that generation. Sosa, McGwire, and Bonds were the top of the class, breaking records, etc. So there was alot of scrutiny, and alot of digging done on those players. Unless you're going to do that type of digging for EVERYONE, then I say leave them alone, and move on.

Why do you believe secondhand accounts of illegally leaked grand jury testimony, but not firsthand accounts from an eyewitness/collaborator. Like I said, I'm not sure WHAT to believe. Personally, I'd let Bonds, McGwire, AND Sosa in the Hall of Fame. McGwire has been scrutinized plenty, and so has Bonds. I'm not sure what the Fox reporter was getting at. It's not like people haven't taken shots at McGwire.

If you need a reason to hate him, that's about as good a reason as any.

Of course those are two completely different things. One is getting pumped and the other ridiculous showboating. If Pujols had pumped his fast after that homerun, I wouldn't have even thought twice about it. How is it different? Zambrano's instincts tell him to pump his fists (because he doesn't have bat to throw on the mound, maybe?). Pujols' instincts tell him to throw his bat in the air after that really good feeling of knowing that you just connected. Ahahahahahaha. You are the biggest homer ever. I'M a homer? Be real........ Like you haven't seen players from EVERY team get excited (and react) about a good thing, even when they're behind in a game? I think you're reaching a little bit. Everyone so far has agreed with me. Aramis does this from time to time and it's stupid. You see, I can say it. It's not that hard. Honestly, I would prefer that he (Pujols) react more like Rolen, but suggesting that someone throw a ball at his head is a little extreme.

Did anyone suggest that a pitcher throw at his head?

He may have used steroids. Althoug if he were using steroids, I'm not sure why he would have needed the Andro. Heck, a large percentage of players from that era were probably users. We'll never be able to know for sure who was and who wasn't.

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying. McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony) The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless. I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence. Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true. True. But what makes Canseco not credible. He hit the nail on the head with Palmeiro, even down to getting the exact substance correct. Maybe he's credible. I don't know. It's not really for me to decide. You obviously choose to believe him. The reporter obviously believes him. That's fine. I know that there were SEVERAL inconsistencies documented from his book. On a witness stand (which this isn't), that would probably be reason for a jury to question what he says. Like I said, believe what you want to.

Of course those are two completely different things. One is getting pumped and the other ridiculous showboating. If Pujols had pumped his fast after that homerun, I wouldn't have even thought twice about it. How is it different? Zambrano's instincts tell him to pump his fists (because he doesn't have bat to throw on the mound, maybe?). Pujols' instincts tell him to throw his bat in the air after that really good feeling of knowing that you just connected. Ahahahahahaha. You are the biggest homer ever. I'M a homer? Be real........ Like you haven't seen players from EVERY team get excited (and react) about a good thing, even when they're behind in a game? I think you're reaching a little bit.

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying. McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony) The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless. I'd say an eye-witness is pretty damning evidence. Some are, and some aren't. Witness credibility should be taken into account. I could say that I snorted cocaine with Roger Clemens, but that doesn't make it true.

I assume you're talking to Vance? I'm talking to everyone. That includes Vance, yes. I agree with you.............. wholeheartedly.

There would be consequences for responding to those kids. There are no consequences on a message board. That's why you (and Edmonds) don't have a problem responding in an "unprofessional" manner. When Edmonds is at work (on the field), he doesn't respond, just like you don't when YOU are at work.

Of course those are two completely different things. One is getting pumped and the other ridiculous showboating. If Pujols had pumped his fast after that homerun, I wouldn't have even thought twice about it. How is it different? Zambrano's instincts tell him to pump his fists (because he doesn't have bat to throw on the mound, maybe?). Pujols' instincts tell him to throw his bat in the air after that really good feeling of knowing that you just connected.

I assume you're talking to Vance?

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying. McGwire wasn't dealing with people dumb enough to get caught(if he was doing anything illegal) I'm not indicting McGwire, just saying it's disingenuous to say that if McGwire did anything wrong the evidence must be out there since Bonds's evidence has been found(according to grand jury testimony) The point is that the juice IS there on Bonds.......... regardless of how it got there. And there's not the same type of incriminating material for McGwire. So comparing the two is pointless.

Sure. I don't have a problem with a reporter saying "Canseco said........". If you readers want to believe Canseco, that's entirely their choice.

You're not ignoring. What does that make you? I didn't call anybody anything. I'm not the one who made the rules that definte one as a "prick". All I was saying is that you should be careful about playing by those rules, because it could backfire. Honestly, no one in the world believes that post was anything but a shot at Vance. By HIS rules, what would that make him. That's all I'm saying. Like I said, I didn't make that generalization........ HE did. Personally, I don't agree with the generalization that he made. Edmonds isn't a prick for responding, and Vance isn't necessarily a prick for responding, either. I'm just showing him how that sort of connection (responding = prick) isn't a good way to go.

Knew you couldn't finish your post without that. For the talk about SF reporters doing the work to find Bonds guilty, you can't compare it to McGwire or most anybody else. Bonds appeared in front of a grand jury. Reporters don't have that luxury with McGwire, et al. Why don't they have that luxury? Could it be because McGwire isn't connecting himself to shady characters? If you can't make the connection, then don't make the accusation. Find something to back up what you're saying, or stop saying it. That's all I'm saying.

You're not ignoring. What does that make you? I didn't call anybody anything. I'm not the one who made the rules that definte one as a "prick". All I was saying is that you should be careful about playing by those rules, because it could backfire.

i liked flipping the bat 12 feet in the air. how does he not get drilled in the head for doing that? Because if you drill him in the head, then he'll hit the ball 600 feet his next time at bat, and do a jig all the way around the bases. With Pujols, you can't win. Unless you're already up 8-0. Then you win. Or if you're the Cubs. Well, obviously I didn't mean that the Cards are going to win every game. I meant that Pujols will get you, eventually. You don't drill a guy for celebrating. Heck, I've seen Zambrano get pumped up after a strikeout in games that he's not winning. Emotions happen. I think you're overreacting. I doubt if anyone's stupid enough to throw at Pujols' head, whether he throws his bat in the air or not.

i liked flipping the bat 12 feet in the air. how does he not get drilled in the head for doing that? Because if you drill him in the head, then he'll hit the ball 600 feet his next time at bat, and do a jig all the way around the bases. With Pujols, you can't win.

You're not ignoring. What does that make you?