MLB 2017 Season

[MerrittsMustache]

Bud Selig was elected to the HOF and he allowed the so-called "Steroid Era" to exist by looking the other way on PED use for a long, long time. Deserving players from that era like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and McGwire, who were embraced by MLB at the time even though everyone knew what was going on, should be in the HOF and it should be noted on their plaques that they used PEDs. Additionally, Rob Manfred (and Bud Selig) should be forced to do their penance by smiling and posing for pictures with these players at their HOF inductions.

[MU82]

I like it, MM.

It should be noted that it wasn't the BBWAA that put Selig in the Hall. A different committee did that.

I have talked to a few of my fellow voters and they said that inclusion of Selig gave writers "permission" to vote for steroid cheats. I don't necessarily agree with that; just saying how some rationalize it now.

[wadesworld]

Players have always found a way to cheat.  When one thing gets banned, another thing replaces it.  Greenies, anabolic steroids, HGH, etc.  It wasn't just some 10 year period of steroid users.  There has always been cheaters in baseball, and there always will be.  And a large majority of the best players in baseball will be those that have cheated.  If you removed anybody who's ever cheated from HOF contention you'll end up with a bunch of Craig Counsells making up the HOF.

[MU82]

Players have always found a way to cheat.  When one thing gets banned, another thing replaces it.  Greenies, anabolic steroids, HGH, etc.  It wasn't just some 10 year period of steroid users.  There has always been cheaters in baseball, and there always will be.  And a large majority of the best players in baseball will be those that have cheated.  If you removed anybody who's ever cheated from HOF contention you'll end up with a bunch of Craig Counsells making up the HOF.

Well, I don't know about the "large majority" - pretty hard to prove - but it's hard to argue with your general thesis here.

[BM1090]

More likely he was on HGH the entire season there just was absolutely no book out on the guy for the first month of the season and once pitchers had some experience and some film on him back in the MLB there were some major weaknesses in his bat.

Thames hit .328 with a .995 OPS in September. .284 with a .861 OPS in July. He had good to great months outside of April. But his 3 bad months were REALLY bad.

[buckchuckler]

Bud Selig was elected to the HOF and he allowed the so-called "Steroid Era" to exist by looking the other way on PED use for a long, long time. Deserving players from that era like Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and McGwire, who were embraced by MLB at the time even though everyone knew what was going on, should be in the HOF and it should be noted on their plaques that they used PEDs. Additionally, Rob Manfred (and Bud Selig) should be forced to do their penance by smiling and posing for pictures with these players at their HOF inductions.

Hi nice to meet you, I'm Don Fehr.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Hard to take Joe Morgan seriously with that statement when he believes Pete Rose should be in the hall of fame...

For the record, I believe Rose and all the accused steroid users should be in the fall. Roids or not, it's damn hard to hit a baseball.

[buckchuckler]

Braves set to lose Kevin Maitan and several other prospects.  They worked hard to sign him, but there should be penalties for cheating. 

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

For the record, I believe Rose and all the accused steroid users should be in the fall. Roids or not, it's damn hard to hit a baseball.

Ditto.  The problem is you can't ban someone from the Hall simply for suspect reasons.
Plus steroid batters were hitting steroid pitchers. 
To me it makes the case for Mike Mussina to the HOF even stronger with his reputation of being clean and still dominating in the steroid era.

[4everwarriors]

Joe dude, hello. Da sacred Hall gots steroid users already in it, no doubt, ai na?

[MerrittsMustache]

The Braves lose 13 international prospects and ex-GM John Coppolella banned for life from working in baseball. Ouch!

That's what you get for hiring a Domer.

[CTWarrior]

Joe dude, hello. Da sacred Hall gots steroid users already in it, no doubt, ai na?

They let Pudge Rodriguez in first ballot.  That guy was outed as a juicer by Jose Canseco, who may not be the best guy, but his track record pointing out steroid guys seems pretty darn good.  I was really surprised he got in right away, especially considering they made Piazza and Bagwell wait with no evidence.

[buckchuckler]

The Braves lose 13 international prospects and ex-GM John Coppolella banned for life from working in baseball. Ouch!

That's what you get for hiring a Domer.

And future restrictions.  And a loss of a draft pick for next year. 

MLB brought the hammer.

[MU82]

Ditto.  The problem is you can't ban someone from the Hall simply for suspect reasons.

Well, there is nothing suspect about the reasons Rose is not in the HoF.

Many years ago, I actually wrote a couple of columns saying that Rose the player should be in the Hall but that Rose the unrepentant, disgraced, gambling, ex-manager should not be allowed anywhere near the game (not as manager, coach, GM, front-office type, "ambassador," nothing). My premise was that there was no evidence Rose gambled when he was a player. But since then, believable evidence has come out that Rose DID gamble as a player, and that's a disqualifier.

Does Morgan really think Rose should get in? That's disappointing.

Gambling on baseball is MLB's version of Star Trek's "prime directive." Absolutely forbidden. There have been signs in every clubhouse pointing out the consequences of doing so for decades and decades - before steroids were even heard of. Even before greenies.

I don't feel one iota sorry for Rose.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Wouldn't mind the Cubs taking a look at Tyler Chatwood if he can be had on a reasonable deal. Only 28 and solid numbers outside of Coors.

[MUBurrow]

Wouldn't mind the Cubs taking a look at Tyler Chatwood if he can be had on a reasonable deal. Only 28 and solid numbers outside of Coors.

traderumors chat today discussed him - moderator was a big fan, and thinks he'll do at least 3 yr - $20M, which still sounds pretty reasonable to me. He could easily return more value than Cobb on that deal.

[Jockey]

Wouldn't mind the Cubs taking a look at Tyler Chatwood if he can be had on a reasonable deal. Only 28 and solid numbers outside of Coors.

I was hoping the Brewers might take a look at him.

ERA under 3.50 away from Coors.

[Lennys Tap]

Players have always found a way to cheat.  When one thing gets banned, another thing replaces it.  Greenies, anabolic steroids, HGH, etc.  It wasn't just some 10 year period of steroid users.  There has always been cheaters in baseball, and there always will be.  And a large majority of the best players in baseball will be those that have cheated.  If you removed anybody who's ever cheated from HOF contention you'll end up with a bunch of Craig Counsells making up the HOF.

How did Ruth, Ted Williams, Mays, Aaron, etc., "cheat"? Comparing greenies with anabolic steroids or HGH is the equivalent of comparing a student who looked at their neighbor's paper for an answer with someone who plagiarized a novel. It's an imperfect solution, but I would vote "yes" for those who I thought were Hall of Famers before they cheated (Bonds, Clemons) and no on those who only deserve consideration because they cheated (McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero). As for Rose, I'd vote yes.

[MU82]

How did Ruth, Ted Williams, Mays, Aaron, etc., "cheat"? Comparing greenies with anabolic steroids or HGH is the equivalent of comparing a student who looked at their neighbor's paper for an answer with someone who plagiarized a novel. It's an imperfect solution, but I would vote "yes" for those who I thought were Hall of Famers before they cheated (Bonds, Clemons) and no on those who only deserve consideration because they cheated (McGwire, Sosa, Palmiero). As for Rose, I'd vote yes.

Lenny, we are in agreement about almost all of this.

BBWAA voters are given great latitude in how they want to deal with the steroid issue. Neither the Hall nor MLB has issued any guidance whatsoever. My personal policy is pretty much exactly what you stated: If the preponderance of evidence suggests that a player was Hall-worthy before he took steroids, he will get my vote; if not, he won't. Yes, it's subjective. It's ALL subjective. For every slam-dunk obvious HoFer, there are a dozen or two borderline cases that involve opinion and nuance.

For example, some here have lobbied for Sosa. Maybe they have forgotten that he also was caught using a corked bat - making him a double-cheater. He has done nothing but lie about both the corked bat and the roids - making him a double-cheater and a pathological liar. It's very easy for me to not vote for him.

I am curious why you think Rose should be in. Gambling on games while one is an active player is the single worst baseball offense that a player can commit. (I say "baseball offense" so folks don't counter with murder or some other crime.) It has been strictly forbidden for decades, players know it, and consequences have always been severe. Despite this, Rose brazenly did it.

It's all moot anyway - Rose will never get in, and he's not on the BBWAA ballot. But it is an interesting conversation.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny, we are in agreement about almost all of this.

BBWAA voters are given great latitude in how they want to deal with the steroid issue. Neither the Hall nor MLB has issued any guidance whatsoever. My personal policy is pretty much exactly what you stated: If the preponderance of evidence suggests that a player was Hall-worthy before he took steroids, he will get my vote; if not, he won't. Yes, it's subjective. It's ALL subjective. For every slam-dunk obvious HoFer, there are a dozen or two borderline cases that involve opinion and nuance.

For example, some here have lobbied for Sosa. Maybe they have forgotten that he also was caught using a corked bat - making him a double-cheater. He has done nothing but lie about both the corked bat and the roids - making him a double-cheater and a pathological liar. It's very easy for me to not vote for him.

I am curious why you think Rose should be in. Gambling on games while one is an active player is the single worst baseball offense that a player can commit. (I say "baseball offense" so folks don't counter with murder or some other crime.) It has been strictly forbidden for decades, players know it, and consequences have always been severe. Despite this, Rose brazenly did it.

It's all moot anyway - Rose will never get in, and he's not on the BBWAA ballot. But it is an interesting conversation.

I understand why gambling on games as an active player was once the worst offense imaginable. Any association with gamblers for guys who made more money in the offseason selling shoes or insurance than they did playing the game threatened baseball's integrity at its core. Times have changed, and given players salaries it's inconceivable to me that gamblers could "get to" enough players to affect the outcome of games. In addition, I don't think anyone in the history of baseball put forth more effort between the lines than Rose - so for me, his gambling problem was largely beside the point. What he did (and his subsequent denials) was wrong but I think the price he's already paid fits the crime. Just one guy's opinion, though.

[Jockey]

Lenny, we are in agreement about almost all of this.

BBWAA voters are given great latitude in how they want to deal with the steroid issue. Neither the Hall nor MLB has issued any guidance whatsoever. My personal policy is pretty much exactly what you stated: If the preponderance of evidence suggests that a player was Hall-worthy before he took steroids, he will get my vote; if not, he won't. Yes, it's subjective. It's ALL subjective. For every slam-dunk obvious HoFer, there are a dozen or two borderline cases that involve opinion and nuance.

For example, some here have lobbied for Sosa. Maybe they have forgotten that he also was caught using a corked bat - making him a double-cheater. He has done nothing but lie about both the corked bat and the roids - making him a double-cheater and a pathological liar. It's very easy for me to not vote for him.

I am curious why you think Rose should be in. Gambling on games while one is an active player is the single worst baseball offense that a player can commit. (I say "baseball offense" so folks don't counter with murder or some other crime.) It has been strictly forbidden for decades, players know it, and consequences have always been severe. Despite this, Rose brazenly did it.

It's all moot anyway - Rose will never get in, and he's not on the BBWAA ballot. But it is an interesting conversation.

Mike,  what were your thoughts on Gaylord Perry if you were a voting member back then?

How does throwing an illegal pitch compare with corking a bat? How do we/you decide what is Ok and what isn't?

Ball players have always cheated or looked for advantages billy Martin used to steal the other team's signs. Mike Schmidt said he would have taken steroids if they were around during his time.

Other than Rose, where do we draw the line? What is acceptable cheating to the baseball writers? Just on a common sense level, cheating by purposefully breaking the basic rules of the game seems worse to me than cheating by taking stimulants or steroids.

[Jockey]

I understand why gambling on games as an active player was once the worst offense imaginable. Any association with gamblers for guys who made more money in the offseason selling shoes or insurance than they did playing the game threatened baseball's integrity at its core. Times have changed, and given players salaries it's inconceivable to me that gamblers could "get to" enough players to affect the outcome of games. In addition, I don't think anyone in the history of baseball put forth more effort between the lines than Rose - so for me, his gambling problem was largely beside the point. What he did (and his subsequent denials) was wrong but I think the price he's already paid fits the crime. Just one guy's opinion, though.

Would you feel the same way about a poor college basketball player who gambled on his team?

I find it interesting that you condemn and then are OK with cheating in the same post.

That's what I asked 82 about. What is the acceptable level of cheating and how do we - myself included - make that decision? Is it fair to players that we all have opinions based, I guess, on our own experiences and prejudices?

[MU82]

Mike,  what were your thoughts on Gaylord Perry if you were a voting member back then?

How does throwing an illegal pitch compare with corking a bat? How do we/you decide what is Ok and what isn't?

Ball players have always cheated or looked for advantages billy Martin used to steal the other team's signs. Mike Schmidt said he would have taken steroids if they were around during his time.

Other than Rose, where do we draw the line? What is acceptable cheating to the baseball writers? Just on a common sense level, cheating by purposefully breaking the basic rules of the game seems worse to me than cheating by taking stimulants or steroids.

It's a fine line. Nuanced, not black and white. I'm pretty sure that if corking his bat was Sosa's only offense, he would have sailed into the HoF. But it gives voters a nice out: "Not only was he a rampant juicer, but that wasn't enough for him. He even got caught corking his bat."

The ballot expressly states we should take integrity, character and sportsmanship into account, and I'm sure some voters use that to eliminate all cheaters. But that's a tough one because there are a LOT of effen SOBs in the Hall - lots and lots of racists, for one thing.

I can't speak for my fellow voters, but I consider all of these factors, take my responsibility very seriously and do the best I can. I know there have been those who have made a mockery of it by letting readers or radio listeners fill out their ballots, etc. (I think Le Batard was one who did this, and he had his vote taken away.)

It IS subjective, and it's one of the fun sports topics folks like to argue about. I think it's great that we have so many voters, upwards of 500, because if somebody makes it on 75% of the ballots it says something.

[Jockey]

It's a fine line. Nuanced, not black and white. I'm pretty sure that if corking his bat was Sosa's only offense, he would have sailed into the HoF. But it gives voters a nice out: "Not only was he a rampant juicer, but that wasn't enough for him. He even got caught corking his bat."

The ballot expressly states we should take integrity, character and sportsmanship into account, and I'm sure some voters use that to eliminate all cheaters. But that's a tough one because there are a LOT of effen SOBs in the Hall - lots and lots of racists, for one thing.

I can't speak for my fellow voters, but I consider all of these factors, take my responsibility very seriously and do the best I can. I know there have been those who have made a mockery of it by letting readers or radio listeners fill out their ballots, etc. (I think Le Batard was one who did this, and he had his vote taken away.)

It IS subjective, and it's one of the fun sports topics folks like to argue about. I think it's great that we have so many voters, upwards of 500, because if somebody makes it on 75% of the ballots it says something.

Thanks, Mike.

I think your point about 75% is well taken. When arguing about so many possible choices, 75% is darn near unanimous consent.

Too bad all of the writers aren't as conscientious as you - although I am sure the vast majority are.

I don't think the baseball writers are nearly as petty now as they were years ago - witness Ted Williams batting .406 and winning 2 Triple Crowns, but not getting an MVP award in any of those 3 years.

[Lennys Tap]

Would you feel the same way about a poor college basketball player who gambled on his team?

I'd feel differently about someone who bet on his team vs someone who bet against his team.