Sadly, the voters have spoken.........none of them are getting in based on past voting. I'm not even sure Piazza and the others aren't bunched up in this mess. I really think there needs to be some official statement of some sort regarding this whole thing. I mean Thome is a large man........Thomas was a giant..........Griffey was bionic........Randy Johnson was a freak of nature......Manny was a tremendous hitter....Arod//////where does all of this end? Are they going to skip the entire era except for Maddux and Jeter and Rivera and Hoffman? Someone else mentioned this in another thread.............What's the worst thing to test positive for????---COORS FIELD. This also has to end. And then there's Edgar.......I kind of feel the voters are questioning PED's. I mean when he retired the Commish came and presented him with awards and named the award for best DH in the league after him. He was really respected around the league...........and in the voting he has done nothing.
I can't stand this topic because the moral debate is 2 fold, and only one side of the coin is spoken about:
#1 Players had the moral choice to take or not take steroids.
and
#2 MLB/Milb/NCAA all didn't test for steroids because of expenses and turned a blind eye to that obvious fact that steroids were changing both the way the game was played on the field and the lifestyle that went along with being a major league baseball player.
I ask you honestly, what would you do in this scenario.
You and a competitive teammate have battled through college, minor leagues, and maybe onto the MLB roster. You have beat him out based on talent for 5 years in a row. You are set to be the closer for the season but him and a teammate train in the Dominican Republic and they both come back talking of the new supplementation and steroid use.
You lose your position on the team and lose your bonus that costs you 1.1 million dollars to a lesser player that is over-achieving on steroids.
What do you do ?
Half your teammates are taking on some stuff and your coaches want the best performance because they know they are competing against others on steroids.
I personally believe that there were too many social, economical, and bureaucratic agendas to solely place the blame on these players and keep them out of the hall of fame.
If I was called in front of congress I would have exposed the hypocrisy of the weak political representation allowing illegal substances in America and not having a proper defense for this outbreak.
It was a time in history, just like baseball before Jackie Robinson. Should we keep out all border line HOFs before Jackie?
Buying: Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon 80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name" 90 ProSet Dexter Manley error 90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back 1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”) 81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat) 91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>I can't stand this topic because the moral debate is 2 fold, and only one side of the coin is spoken about:
#1 Players had the moral choice to take or not take steroids.
and
#2 MLB/Milb/NCAA all didn't test for steroids because of expenses and turned a blind eye to that obvious fact that steroids were changing both the way the game was played on the field and the lifestyle that went along with being a major league baseball player.
I ask you honestly, what would you do in this scenario.
You and a competitive teammate have battled through college, minor leagues, and maybe onto the MLB roster. You have beat him out based on talent for 5 years in a row. You are set to be the closer for the season but him and a teammate train in the Dominican Republic and they both come back talking of the new supplementation and steroid use.
You lose your position on the team and lose your bonus that costs you 1.1 million dollars to a lesser player that is over-achieving on steroids.
What do you do ?
Half your teammates are taking on some stuff and your coaches want the best performance because they know they are competing against others on steroids.
I personally believe that there were too many social, economical, and bureaucratic agendas to solely place the blame on these players and keep them out of the hall of fame.
If I was called in front of congress I would have exposed the hypocrisy of the weak political representation allowing illegal substances in America and not having a proper defense for this outbreak.
It was a time in history, just like baseball before Jackie Robinson. Should we keep out all border line HOFs before Jackie? >>
I like many of my friends in the minors chose not to take them. I can only speak for myself, but those guys cheated and put me at a disadvantage. I, more than anyone else, lost out. None of the users should get in. The only problem is drawing the line between those that tested positive and those that are gulity by association.
I played 92-95 and several of the guys listed above I knew personally or knew of through friends who played with them. Are there players that I would bet the farm used steroids that are going to get in the next few years. Yep. It is total BS though, to not hold the players solely, 100% accountable for their choices.
The best pitch to start a hitter off with is always strike one.
I think Bonds and Clemens were Hall of Famers with our without the PEDs. Sosa not at all. If I had a vote I would either use this as my criteria OR I would just assume everyone in the era used so I would vote based on the statistics of the ear.
I do not condone the use of steroids to heighten their position or advance their statistics. However, I have a question. What would the difference between Gaylord Perry, a Hall of Famer, notoriously used many devices (spitballing as they called it), or pine tar on a bat, versus using drug enhancements? Or any other device that gave them an edge of some sort?
In addition, I would still think that one has to be able enough to hit the ball regardless of their size or speed. Does this mean they should get in on their credentials? Hard to say since they were not reprimanded at the time of their playing, which should have been done. They stripped Lance Armstrong all of his titles, I dont see why they cant do that with these guys.
<< <i>uhhhhh......no. if not for his steroid years, he might have been Juan Pierre. >>
I suggest you study your history. Bonds was an easy HOFer before he juiced. I'm not saying I would vote for him, though I probably would. >>
now Mark, you should know i'm just having fun with the n00b.
but, it is my opinion, and i'm sticking to it, that Bonds most certainly would NOT have compiled his amazing stats without some kind of assistance. it's not my place to speculate directly how.
the extreme conflict in my mind is to say that as his career wound down, would he still be reaching McCovey Cove or slapping balls at gaps?
i want Aaron to have his rightful place in history. and that's truly all that i care about.
Personally I can't stand Bonds but he got "big" after the Sosa/Mac season. Take a look at his stats before then, they are still incredible, he averaged something like 35hr/35sb per season for like a decade before the roids.
Mygotta, The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball.
<< <i>Mygotta, The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game?
<< <i>Mygotta, The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game? >>
None of these guys were prescribed the steroids. They were/are illegal without a prescription.
The best pitch to start a hitter off with is always strike one.
I was drafted in 1992. Spent 4 years in the Red Sox org, got to AA. My knowledge of things definitely isn't limited to the Red Sox. I was never in a bathroom stall with Canseco sticking a needle in his rear end, but guys talk. Different organizations were more known for it than others. I really just started to understand it towards the end.
I have seen what steroids are capable of, and they do make a difference. Just frustrating for me to see people try to make excuses for those that used them. I don't hate those guys, but the playing field wasn't equal for everyone.
The best pitch to start a hitter off with is always strike one.
So if pitchers were throwing against hitters who were on them and hitters were hitting against pitchers on them it seems to somewhat cancel out as it wasnt just a small minority of players on them. All should be easily elected.
<< <i>Mygotta, The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game? >>
Major difference in cortico- and anabolic steroids.
Beyond that, I find the "Bonds was a HOFer before..." argument odd, how do we know when he started using them?
If you could increase your bat speed by 5%-10% by using steroids, how big an advantage would that be to someone like Bonds? I'm not saying he wasn't blessed with a TON of natural ability, but think about the advantages of being able to let the ball track 3 to 6 feet further before starting your swing. Combine thast advantage with the ball going 15 to 20 feet further when you hit it and you have a walk taking, bomb hitting machine which is what Bonds became in his mid-late 30's.
The best pitch to start a hitter off with is always strike one.
They should create a new wing to the hall and call it the "Hall of Shame" and induct all the modern era roiders into that wing. It would be worse than inducting them into the regular hall with an asterisk.
<< <i>They should create a new wing to the hall and call it the "Hall of Shame" and induct all the modern era roiders into that wing. It would be worse than inducting them into the regular hall with an asterisk. >>
This would work for me.
Let's face it, the only reason these players took steroids was to make more money. You take 'roids, your production improves. When your stats get better, you land a bigger contract and get more money, more endorsements, more women who want to hang with the 'best players', etc..... it's just another form of greed.
Not any different than what went on with Wall Street in the 1990's and 2000's. Pure and simple narcissist greed. You get away with it until you're caught, then you deny it under oath, and pretty soon the public forgets about your sins and bails you out by attending ball games, buying products you endorse, etc... then down the 'roid' , you get elected to the HOF and you get more money by appearing at card shows signing your life away to the knucklehead collectors willing to pay for your autograph.
'Mr. Bonds, will you personally sign my baseball, 'I cheated but didn't get caught' ? Sure kid, anything for a true fan, and oh yeah, that will be $200.
In the case of Banking institutions, you get bailed out by taxpayers.
<< <i>Mygotta, The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game? >>
None of these guys were prescribed the steroids. They were/are illegal without a prescription. >>
werent some of these peds able to be bought over the counter?
Bill Rhoden is defending (very weakly) for Bonds and Clemens on CBS new this am. Basically saying the voters will punish them because the courts didn't. He would vote them in, but looks unlikely this year. This guy is not a debater at all.
Then asked about Rose. He said there was a sign on dugouts back then that stated "do not bet" so he shouldn't be inducted. Give me a break. Lame.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
<< <i>Let's face it, the only reason these players took steroids was to make more money. You take 'roids, your production improves. When your stats get better, you land a bigger contract and get more money, more endorsements, more women who want to hang with the 'best players', etc..... it's just another form of greed. >>
You could say the same about team employees, owners, and beat writers because they *all* benefited financially, reaped exposure, and never questioned a thing. I could take it even a few steps further and say fans either turned a blind eye or kept our heads in the sand. After all, we are the end user and directly responsible for ground breaking TV ratings and shattering attendance records.
Alarm bells should have gone off when a reporter found Andro in Big Mac's locker but 99.9% of us turned the other way. So unless your name is Jose Canseco, we all contributed a little bit.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>The ONLY one who has a real shot from Bonds, Clemens and Sosa is Clemens imo. The best pitcher of our generation behind Nolan Ryan.
Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza are in. Morris has the best shot from last year’s "left over’s" which included Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.
At least thats how I see it going down. >>
i think if one was to go in it would be bonds. if not for his steroids years, he would have gone in anyway >>
uhhhhh......no. if not for his steroid years, he might have been Juan Pierre. >>
Did you watch Bonds pre-steroids? His alleged PED use was 2001-on. He was a sure fire HOFer if you end his career at 2000. Everyone used (and still use) PEDs. It is what it is. Players used amphetamines in the 70's and before. Hell, Hank Aaron used them - so basically he's guilty of exactly what Melky Cabrera was. Should he be booted from the HOF?
Looking for PSA HOF autos, PSA Vintage Red Sox and Pedro Martinez
yeah, i watched Barry. plenty. and i know how good he was pre-injec......oh, n/m.
let's clarify: Barry Bonds was not satisfied with being a memorable and productive baseball player with quality performances and stats, since he couldn't handle the thought of being maybe the 3rd or 4th best baseball player because the other better baseball players were doing something else to give them an edge, so obviously he wanted that edge, too.
in bigger, better and most succintly, larger quantities.
i don't wear shutters over my eyes, i know what this game has done to its participants.
Bonds suddenly surfaced as a great player who couldn't stand not being the very best player, so he took what was available and made it that way.
<< <i>Barry Bonds was not satisfied with being a memorable and productive baseball player with quality performances and stats, >>
Nor being known as someone who couldn't throw out a very slow Sid Bream.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
I'd probably give a vote to Barry Bonds--despite the fact he seems to be an arrogant jerk, he was already HOF worthy before he started on the PEDs. Too many were taking them and we'll never know all who really took them to hold out only some of the offenders from that era.
I collect Vintage Cards, Commemorative Sets, and way too many vintage and modern player collections in Baseball (180 players), Football (175 players), and Basketball (87 players). Also have a Dallas Cowboy team collection.
llafoe
Posts: 7,220 ✭✭
Comments
Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza are in. Morris has the best shot from last year’s "left over’s" which included Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.
At least thats how I see it going down.
<< <i>The ONLY one who has a real shot from Bonds, Clemens and Sosa is Clemens imo. The best pitcher of our generation behind Nolan Ryan.
Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza are in. Morris has the best shot from last year’s "left over’s" which included Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.
At least thats how I see it going down. >>
i think if one was to go in it would be bonds. if not for his steroids years, he would have gone in anyway
<< <i>
<< <i>The ONLY one who has a real shot from Bonds, Clemens and Sosa is Clemens imo. The best pitcher of our generation behind Nolan Ryan.
Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza are in. Morris has the best shot from last year’s "left over’s" which included Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.
At least thats how I see it going down. >>
i think if one was to go in it would be bonds. if not for his steroids years, he would have gone in anyway >>
uhhhhh......no. if not for his steroid years, he might have been Juan Pierre.
#1 Players had the moral choice to take or not take steroids.
and
#2 MLB/Milb/NCAA all didn't test for steroids because of expenses and turned a blind eye to that obvious fact that steroids were changing both the way the game was played on the field and the lifestyle that went along with being a major league baseball player.
I ask you honestly, what would you do in this scenario.
You and a competitive teammate have battled through college, minor leagues, and maybe onto the MLB roster. You have beat him out based on talent for 5 years in a row. You are set to be the closer for the season but him and a teammate train in the Dominican Republic and they both come back talking of the new supplementation and steroid use.
You lose your position on the team and lose your bonus that costs you 1.1 million dollars to a lesser player that is over-achieving on steroids.
What do you do ?
Half your teammates are taking on some stuff and your coaches want the best performance because they know they are competing against others on steroids.
I personally believe that there were too many social, economical, and bureaucratic agendas to solely place the blame on these players and keep them out of the hall of fame.
If I was called in front of congress I would have exposed the hypocrisy of the weak political representation allowing illegal substances in America and not having a proper defense for this outbreak.
It was a time in history, just like baseball before Jackie Robinson. Should we keep out all border line HOFs before Jackie?
Topps White Out (silver) letters Alex Gordon
80 Topps Greg Pryor “No Name"
90 ProSet Dexter Manley error
90 Topps Jeff King Yellow back
1958 Topps Pancho Herrera (no“a”)
81 Topps Art Howe (black smear above hat)
91 D A. Hawkins BC-12 “Pitcher”
<< <i>I can't stand this topic because the moral debate is 2 fold, and only one side of the coin is spoken about:
#1 Players had the moral choice to take or not take steroids.
and
#2 MLB/Milb/NCAA all didn't test for steroids because of expenses and turned a blind eye to that obvious fact that steroids were changing both the way the game was played on the field and the lifestyle that went along with being a major league baseball player.
I ask you honestly, what would you do in this scenario.
You and a competitive teammate have battled through college, minor leagues, and maybe onto the MLB roster. You have beat him out based on talent for 5 years in a row. You are set to be the closer for the season but him and a teammate train in the Dominican Republic and they both come back talking of the new supplementation and steroid use.
You lose your position on the team and lose your bonus that costs you 1.1 million dollars to a lesser player that is over-achieving on steroids.
What do you do ?
Half your teammates are taking on some stuff and your coaches want the best performance because they know they are competing against others on steroids.
I personally believe that there were too many social, economical, and bureaucratic agendas to solely place the blame on these players and keep them out of the hall of fame.
If I was called in front of congress I would have exposed the hypocrisy of the weak political representation allowing illegal substances in America and not having a proper defense for this outbreak.
It was a time in history, just like baseball before Jackie Robinson. Should we keep out all border line HOFs before Jackie? >>
I like many of my friends in the minors chose not to take them. I can only speak for myself, but those guys cheated and put me at a disadvantage. I, more than anyone else, lost out. None of the users should get in. The only problem is drawing the line between those that tested positive and those that are gulity by association.
I played 92-95 and several of the guys listed above I knew personally or knew of through friends who played with them. Are there players that I would bet the farm used steroids that are going to get in the next few years. Yep. It is total BS though, to not hold the players solely, 100% accountable for their choices.
In addition, I would still think that one has to be able enough to hit the ball regardless of their size or speed. Does this mean they should get in on their credentials? Hard to say since they were not reprimanded at the time of their playing, which should have been done. They stripped Lance Armstrong all of his titles, I dont see why they cant do that with these guys.
uhhhhh......no. if not for his steroid years, he might have been Juan Pierre. >>
I suggest you study your history. Bonds was an easy HOFer before he juiced. I'm not saying I would vote for him, though I probably would.
<< <i>uhhhhh......no. if not for his steroid years, he might have been Juan Pierre. >>
I suggest you study your history. Bonds was an easy HOFer before he juiced. I'm not saying I would vote for him, though I probably would. >>
now Mark, you should know i'm just having fun with the n00b.
but, it is my opinion, and i'm sticking to it, that Bonds most certainly would NOT have compiled his amazing stats without some kind of assistance. it's not my place to speculate directly how.
the extreme conflict in my mind is to say that as his career wound down, would he still be reaching McCovey Cove or slapping balls at gaps?
i want Aaron to have his rightful place in history. and that's truly all that i care about.
The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball.
<< <i>Mygotta,
The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game?
<< <i>
<< <i>Mygotta,
The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game? >>
None of these guys were prescribed the steroids. They were/are illegal without a prescription.
I would be interested in knowing what level mr 123slider achieved?
and who did he have the aquaintence of back then (no implication of who took)
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
I have seen what steroids are capable of, and they do make a difference. Just frustrating for me to see people try to make excuses for those that used them. I don't hate those guys, but the playing field wasn't equal for everyone.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mygotta,
The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game? >>
Major difference in cortico- and anabolic steroids.
Beyond that, I find the "Bonds was a HOFer before..." argument odd, how do we know when he started using them?
Bonds is a jerk, but the numbers speak for themselves
<< <i>They should create a new wing to the hall and call it the "Hall of Shame" and induct all the modern era roiders into that wing. It would be worse than inducting them into the regular hall with an asterisk. >>
This would work for me.
Let's face it, the only reason these players took steroids was to make more money.
You take 'roids, your production improves. When your stats get better, you land a bigger
contract and get more money, more endorsements, more women who want to hang with the 'best players',
etc..... it's just another form of greed.
Not any different than what went on with Wall Street in the 1990's and 2000's.
Pure and simple narcissist greed. You get away with it until you're caught, then you
deny it under oath, and pretty soon the public forgets about your sins and bails
you out by attending ball games, buying products you endorse, etc... then down the
'roid' , you get elected to the HOF and you get more money by appearing at card shows
signing your life away to the knucklehead collectors willing to pay for your autograph.
'Mr. Bonds, will you personally sign my baseball, 'I cheated but didn't get caught' ?
Sure kid, anything for a true fan, and oh yeah, that will be $200.
In the case of Banking institutions, you get bailed out by taxpayers.
As a buddy of mine often says, 'it's all a scam'.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mygotta,
The answer is simple. STEROIDS are illegal. As in the law ILLEGAL; not just banned by sports. Perry used a little grease, dug in a ball with his nails and spit on the ball. >>
I understand banned by sports. But since when are steroids illegal on a federal level? They are prescribed medicinally all the time. At the same time, isn't a pitcher tampering with a ball illegal in a game? >>
None of these guys were prescribed the steroids. They were/are illegal without a prescription. >>
werent some of these peds able to be bought over the counter?
Then asked about Rose. He said there was a sign on dugouts back then that stated "do not bet" so he shouldn't be inducted. Give me a break. Lame.
Thanks,
David (LD_Ferg)
1985 Topps Football (starting in psa 8) - #9 - started 05/21/06
<< <i>Let's face it, the only reason these players took steroids was to make more money.
You take 'roids, your production improves. When your stats get better, you land a bigger
contract and get more money, more endorsements, more women who want to hang with the 'best players',
etc..... it's just another form of greed. >>
You could say the same about team employees, owners, and beat writers because they *all* benefited financially, reaped exposure, and never questioned a thing. I could take it even a few steps further and say fans either turned a blind eye or kept our heads in the sand. After all, we are the end user and directly responsible for ground breaking TV ratings and shattering attendance records.
Alarm bells should have gone off when a reporter found Andro in Big Mac's locker but 99.9% of us turned the other way. So unless your name is Jose Canseco, we all contributed a little bit.
edited to add: 'Is Mark McGwire on Steroids?' Aug. 25, 1998 via Slate
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The ONLY one who has a real shot from Bonds, Clemens and Sosa is Clemens imo. The best pitcher of our generation behind Nolan Ryan.
Craig Biggio and Mike Piazza are in. Morris has the best shot from last year’s "left over’s" which included Tim Raines and Jeff Bagwell.
At least thats how I see it going down. >>
i think if one was to go in it would be bonds. if not for his steroids years, he would have gone in anyway >>
uhhhhh......no. if not for his steroid years, he might have been Juan Pierre. >>
Did you watch Bonds pre-steroids? His alleged PED use was 2001-on. He was a sure fire HOFer if you end his career at 2000. Everyone used (and still use) PEDs. It is what it is. Players used amphetamines in the 70's and before. Hell, Hank Aaron used them - so basically he's guilty of exactly what Melky Cabrera was. Should he be booted from the HOF?
yeah, i watched Barry. plenty. and i know how good he was pre-injec......oh, n/m.
let's clarify: Barry Bonds was not satisfied with being a memorable and productive baseball player with quality performances and stats, since he couldn't handle the thought of being maybe the 3rd or 4th best baseball player because the other better baseball players were doing something else to give them an edge, so obviously he wanted that edge, too.
in bigger, better and most succintly, larger quantities.
i don't wear shutters over my eyes, i know what this game has done to its participants.
Bonds suddenly surfaced as a great player who couldn't stand not being the very best player, so he took what was available and made it that way.
<< <i>Barry Bonds was not satisfied with being a memorable and productive baseball player with quality performances and stats, >>
Nor being known as someone who couldn't throw out a very slow Sid Bream.