Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2013 Hall of Fame Voting

CatofWar

By CatofWar,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

CatofWar Newbie

CatofWar

Posted
Posted

We know no one was voted in this year. The steroid stigma will probably keep the rocket and Bonds out for a long while, if not forever. The two guys who I spent my entire childhood and part of my adult life watching did pretty well.

jeff-bagwell-mangin2.jpg?w=298&h=356

CraigBiggio9.28.07LastHomeSeries.jpg

Granted it was bagwells third time around. I hope they both get in one day. Biggio has a better chance.

Does anyone think the greats from the "steroid era" will get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goondal Newbie

Goondal

Posted
Posted

Biggio should have been in this time but will be eventually.

As far as the steroid guys, I think some will. Fifteen years is a long time. By the time the next wave of guys (A-rod for example) come up I suspect people will have softened their stances some. I think Bonds, Clemens and A-Rod will all be in eventually, at least I hope I am right.

McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro never will be though in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goondal Newbie

Goondal

Posted
Posted

Fug MLB.

They allow cheats like Sosa, Bonds etc on the ballot while the most prolific hitter in MLB remains banished.

The entire process is a hypocritcal lump of poo.

Let Pete in!

Two totally different situations. It was well established before Rose was even born that gambling on a baseball game where one was participating would be accompanied with a lifetime ban.

There was no such rule for steroids. In fact there still is no such rule until a third positive test. Outside of Palmeiro there is nobody on the ballot with even one positive test.

This is nothing out of the ordinary either. Neither NFL nor NBA give out lifetime bans for one positive test either and they certainly do not do it for those that are only under suspicion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goondal Newbie

Goondal

Posted
Posted

Uh, you know McGuire came clean right?

Rose' gambling as a manager had nothing to do with his brilliant playing career.

Get a clue MLB.

I am well aware McGwire came clean and never claimed otherwise. If there was a rule from prior to the steroid era that stipulated that any use of steroids would result in a lifetime ban then his admission would give MLB grounds to treat him the same as Rose. The thing is that no such rule, and even now it takes three positive tests. An admission does not equate to three positive tests, nor is there any language that states the rule should be applied retroactively.

I agree that Rose's actions as a manager have no impact on his playing career. Honestly, if MLB decided to lift the ban I would have no problem with it and would support his election to the Hall. That was not my point. My point was that the rule was very clear and had in place since the twenties. Rose chose to violate it and therefore MLB is well within their rights to ban him. They had no such "lifetime ban" rule for steroids and therefore have no just cause to ban these players and that is what makes the two situations different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goondal Newbie

Goondal

Posted
Posted

What I don't get is Clemens got 8 more votes than Bonds... I get not voting for either. But how do you justify voting for one and not the other?

That was the most absurd thing about the whole vote. Personally I would have voted for both, but understand those that did not. But as you said, there is no real way to justify voting for one and not the other. Probably some reporters that are butthurt because Bonds was once mean to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...