With the whole A-Rod press conference debacle getting a lot of pub today, I've been thinking a lot about A-Rod's Hall of Fame candidacy. Would you put him in today? I'd be curious to hear your opinions.
I would say no. To me, if you leave out McGwire, Clemens, and the bunch, you have to leave out A-Rod as well. Fair is fair, right? You either let them all in, or you don't. But for me personally, I have a tough time stomaching steroid users. I really do resent them. As a baseball guy, I feel cheated and betrayed. I don't like thinking that homeruns hit might have been otherwise, and I don't like being lied to.
And that's what gets me about A-Rod. Like most of the rest, he's a liar. When the Mitchell report came out, he lied when he went and voluntarily did an interview with Katie Couric. That's just ridiculous. Then, in the past two weeks, his story keeps getting stranger and stranger. What am I supposed to believe? I'll tell you what I don't believe- that A-Rod did steroids for a mere three year period while with the Rangers. No, not for a second will I believe that. You're telling me that after you got the richest contract in baseball history, you decided you need the performance boost? That you needed to live up to the contract? Seriously, you want me to believe that??? You were already putting up other-worldly numbers...which makes me think that you must have been using before. It's seems common sense that you wouldn't start steroids when you're on top of your game and putting up huge numbers. Not buying it for a second.
So A-Rod is a liar, and I wouldn't put him in the Hall. An interesting question posed by a Baltimore radio station was this: Who would you put in the Hall: Pete Rose or Alex Rodriguez? I'd have to choose Pete, to be honest. I mean, neither would get in if I had a choice, but if I were to choose one, I'd pick Pete.
~Mikey D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I definitely don't think you can put any admitted steroids users or guys that test positive. That being said, it is difficult because there are 103 guys out there who tested positive in 2003 that we don't know about - and we shouldn't know about. It's unfair to the outed steroids users that there may be some HOF candidates in that group that are safe just because we didn't find out about them.
Pete vs. ARod? Easy.
There names will come out eventually, it's just a matter of time, whether we should or shouldn't know about them.
"Pete vs. ARod? Easy." Ummm...easy what?
You have to put them in eventually.
Baseball cannot just pretend like the steroid era did not happen. McGwire, Bonds, and yes, A-Rod....they all have a place in Cooperstown. If you want to put up a sign next to the players in the steroid era stating that their stats are artificially inflated, that's fine. If you want to put an asterisk in all of the record books, that's fine. But they definitely have a place.
Barry Bonds has the home-run record! He's a cheating asshole, but he still holds the record. Baseball either needs to erase that record from the books, along with the stats of every other proven steroid user, or put him in the hall of fame.
And Pete Rose should get in too.
You don't have to erase the steroid era or pretend that it didn't happen. Just because guys are elected into the Hall of Fame doesn't mean their careers didn't happen. Trust me, that era won't be forgotten, Hall of Fame or not.
Whatever records these men hold is irrelevant to me in the discussion. You don't need asteriks to let everyone know he's a cheater and fake. We already know it, which is why cheaters and fakes don't deserve to be in the Hall. HE'S A BIG FAT PHONEY!
It just makes my stomach churn to think that guys like Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire could be next to great ballplayers and guys like Ripken, Gwynn, Ruth, Williams, etc.
Records, and especially the home run record, are NOT irrelevent to a Hall of Fame discussion!
Is it your belief that nobody who is currently in the Hall of Fame has taken performance-enhancing drugs?
Not that I know of. And if I found out otherwise, I would not want them in there.
I don't want cheaters in a place that celebrates accomplishments and careers.
And there will be a place for the McGwires, Palmeiros, and the such. Cooperstown does a great job of showcases everything baseball- both good and bad. Pete Rose is in the Hall...his stuff is there in exhibits. The Blacksox have their own place, including Shoeless Joe. Racism in baseball is even discussed in a special section with a tribute to Negro Leaguers. Baseball will include/incorporate the players that helped shape baseball in the 90's-early 00's.
I just don't want to see their plaques. It would cheapen the meaning of Hall of Famer, and I would be disgusted.
Pete Rose would easily get in over ARod. Many have forgiven Pete Rose since he didn't bet on his own games and so much time has passed.
I love Costas' idea (as he discussed on M&M today). Let the records stand, but put a note in the record book and a plaque in the hall that says there have been changes in the game over the years (dead ball era, shorter/taller pitching mounds, etc) has changed gameplay and altered records and that the steroid era has artificially altered some stats.
"Meanwhile, the Hall of Fame is filled with people who admitted to using drugs (Paul Molitor, Ferguson Jenkins, etc.), who willingly cheated (Gaylord Perry threw spitballs, Don Sutton and Whitey Ford cut baseballs, players undoubtedly corked bats), who enthusiastically used illegal performance-enhancers (that would be anyone who ever popped an amphetamine to get a boost, and it's likely that represents a high percentage of Hall of Famers) and so on."
http://m.si.com/news/wr/wr/detail/1419947;jsessionid=EA86A00C784AB61B1D8BB8EBE1F48496.cnnsilive9i
What's your point, though?
Do I want them in still, or ever? No. They were borderline Hall players to begin with.
And didn't Pete Rose bet on his own games? I thought he did, but it was the fact that he bet on his teams to win that made people less angry.
Steroids aside, and this is a whole separate discussion, my definition of a Hall of Famer is different than most I think. I think it's a place that should be reserved for literally the all-time greats. The names that come to your mind when you think of baseball legends. Not Ryne Sandberg or Jim Rice. Yes, they were great players, but not Hall of Famers.
I hate how one of the reasons for including players from the steroid era is that if they don't, then there wouldn't be any Hall of Fame classes for a few years. So? What's wrong with that? So Cooperstown doesn't get an influx of tourists for a few summers. The Hall would carry more meaning and legitimacy if it didn't seem to "search" for a class every year.
You seem to be talking about what you wish the Hall would be, not the way it is now.
And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but my point was that A-Rod is no worse than players who are already in. He's not "cheapening the meaning" of a Hall of Famer, in my opinion the Hall has already lost the moral high ground.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Perhaps. But what about taking a stand now? I mean, they're obviously not going to take elected guys out of the Hall, but why not make it a point not to let cheaters in now?
To make an awful analogy, if a guy commits murder and gets away with it (an old ballplayer elected to the Hall, and then found to have cheated much later on) doesn't mean we should give a free pass to all current-future murders just because in the past some got away.
To me, the Hall would gain more respectability if it came out and took a stand against the cheating and didn't allow these steroid users in.
If being a murderer prohibits you from entering the hall of fame, then the only way the hall would gain any respectability in my eyes would be to remove any murderers from the hall BEFORE bannning any current and future murderers.
Otherwise, it's just like saying stabbing people to death is ok, but shooting them is not.
That's fine with me!
But if you're not, well let's start doing the right thing, in my eyes, now.
Post a Comment