PDA

View Full Version : Bonds: McGwire and Rose belong in Hall of Fame



Degenerate39
01-18-2007, 10:35 AM
.
Bonds: McGwire and Rose belong in Hall of Fame

By DIONISIO SOLDEVILA, Associated Press Writer
January 17, 2007

SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic (AP) -- Barry Bonds thinks Mark McGwire and Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame.

The Baseball Writers' Association of America elected Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn to the Hall last week, but denied McGwire. The former slugger ranks seventh on the career list with 583 home runs, but his legacy was tarnished when he stonewalled Congress two years ago amid accusations of steroid use.


"I congratulate Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn for their induction to the Hall of Fame because they were great ballplayers," Bonds said Wednesday in the Dominican Republic. "But I also think McGwire and Pete Rose should be in Cooperstown."

The 23.5 percent vote McGwire received represented the first referendum on how history will judge an age when bulked-up players came under suspicion of using performance-enhancing drugs. Baseball didn't ban steroids until after the 2002 season.

Hall of Fame voters might face a similar decision on Bonds, who is under investigation by a federal grand jury as to whether he perjured himself when he testified in 2003 in the BALCO steroid distribution case that he hadn't knowingly taken any performance-enhancing drugs.

Rose, meanwhile, was given a lifetime ban from baseball in 1989 for betting on the sport, something he denied for years. The career hits leader with 4,256, Rose has never appeared on the Hall of Fame ballot but received four write-in votes this year.

Arriving in the Dominican Republic for the Juan Marichal Golf Classic, Bonds told reporters he expects to become baseball's career home run leader this season.

"I'm sure I'm going to break the record this year," said the San Francisco left fielder, who needs 22 homers to surpass Hank Aaron's mark of 755. "But right now I'm just thinking about golf."

Bonds declined to discuss ongoing negotiations with the Giants over his contract, or his reported positive test for amphetamines last year.

Bonds hit .270 with 26 home runs and 77 RBIs for San Francisco last season.

Redsland
01-18-2007, 10:38 AM
You lost me at Bonds:

:)

RedsManRick
01-18-2007, 10:40 AM
This is hilarious. Bonds thinks cheating shouldn't keep you out of the hall. I wonder why...

Razor Shines
01-18-2007, 10:46 AM
Bonds went on to say that he has "no respect for guys like Ripken or Gwynn because they're wusses and could have been better if they let me 'help' them."

bomarl1969
01-18-2007, 10:54 AM
Bonds and McGwar (the redneck pronunciation) should not be in the HOF for obvious reasons...Rose gambled...again, SO WHAT? He did not do anything to jeopardize records like Bonds and McGwar did.

westofyou
01-18-2007, 11:13 AM
http://www.baseballmusings.com/


I'm sure that's going to change minds. It's like Michael Myers endorsing Jason Voorhees for the camp counselor hall of fame.

TRF
01-18-2007, 11:19 AM
Bonds and McGwar (the redneck pronunciation) should not be in the HOF for obvious reasons...Rose gambled...again, SO WHAT? He did not do anything to jeopardize records like Bonds and McGwar did.

you have GOT to be kidding.

seriously.

McGwire has never been proven to have taken steroids. He admitted to taking Andro, a substance that was legal both in the U.S. and MLB at the time. His stats speak for themselves.

All Pete did was break baseball's biggest rule. Then he lied about it for 18 years. And by betting on his team, even to win, he may have cost the reds a playoff spot a time or two. By needing to win a game he bet on, he likely used pitchers when they needed rest when a game was on the line. 4 straight seasons of second place finishes in the 80's. Had they been managed properly, the Reds could have had a near Dynasty from 1985-1990.

bomarl1969
01-18-2007, 11:22 AM
you have GOT to be kidding.

seriously.

McGwire has never been proven to have taken steroids. He admitted to taking Andro, a substance that was legal both in the U.S. and MLB at the time. His stats speak for themselves.

You've GOT to be kidding me...just look at McGwar, you can tell he was on the roids...and he just happened to "retire" at his convenience didn't he?

Don't start that crap about Rose, you don't save a pitcher for tomorrow, tomorrow it may rain. And its stupid that gambling is baseball's #1 sin. Gambling is great...int he words of Pete what would sports be like without gambling?

TRF
01-18-2007, 11:29 AM
You've GOT to be kidding me...just look at McGwar, you can tell he was on the roids...and he just happened to "retire" at his convenience didn't he?

Don't start that crap about Rose, you don't save a pitcher for tomorrow, tomorrow it may rain. And its stupid that gambling is baseball's #1 sin. Gambling is great...int he words of Pete what would sports be like without gambling?

He retired at age 37. His body was beat up. A lot of guys retire around that age. Do I think he took steroids? yes. Can anyone prove it? No.

BTW, greenies enhance performance too. I think Pete had his share of greenies. and my share, and your share, and my dog's share...

As for what sports would be without gambling.. how about honest? fair?

And yes, when down 3-4 runs in the 8th, you do save your best relievers for tomorrow. It's not that you accept defeat, it's that you accept it's a long damn season. You don't lose tomorrows game because you bet on today's and you are getting your butt handed to you.

Johnny Footstool
01-18-2007, 11:34 AM
All Pete did was break baseball's biggest rule. Then he lied about it for 18 years. And by betting on his team, even to win, he may have cost the reds a playoff spot a time or two. By needing to win a game he bet on, he likely used pitchers when they needed rest when a game was on the line. 4 straight seasons of second place finishes in the 80's. Had they been managed properly, the Reds could have had a near Dynasty from 1985-1990.

Actually, Pete's teams were always very close to their Pythag projections -- meaning that they won about as many games as they should have based on runs scored and allowed. They were usually above average on offense and slightly below average on the mound, which is why they usually won between 84 and 89 games. They were nowhere close to being a dynasty team, unless it's a Dynasty of Slightly Above Average.

TRF
01-18-2007, 11:45 AM
Actually, Pete's teams were always very close to their Pythag projections -- meaning that they won about as many games as they should have based on runs scored and allowed. They were usually above average on offense and slightly below average on the mound, which is why they usually won between 84 and 89 games. They were nowhere close to being a dynasty team, unless it's a Dynasty of Slightly Above Average.

But teams can outperform their pythag. Say that's what happens in 1987 and the Reds win the division. Perhaps in 1988 the get a FA pitcher that again could have put them over the top. Winning attracts those kinds of guys. Then in 1989 no distractions. No media circus. Maybe they finish second again. maybe they win their division. I don't know that Rose cost the reds games, like I don't know McGwire used steroids.

But I think both happened.

registerthis
01-18-2007, 12:05 PM
Bonds and McGwar (the redneck pronunciation) should not be in the HOF for obvious reasons...Rose gambled...again, SO WHAT? He did not do anything to jeopardize records like Bonds and McGwar did.

Gambling is worse.

Johnny Footstool
01-18-2007, 12:10 PM
But teams can outperform their pythag. Say that's what happens in 1987 and the Reds win the division. Perhaps in 1988 the get a FA pitcher that again could have put them over the top. Winning attracts those kinds of guys. Then in 1989 no distractions. No media circus. Maybe they finish second again. maybe they win their division. I don't know that Rose cost the reds games, like I don't know McGwire used steroids.

But I think both happened.

That's an awful lot of speculation and "what ifs".

That's fine if you choose to believe that, but the evidence tells me the Reds did about as well as can be expected.

TRF
01-18-2007, 12:35 PM
That's an awful lot of speculation and "what ifs".

That's fine if you choose to believe that, but the evidence tells me the Reds did about as well as can be expected.

I get that I do. I'm just saying there is no way his gambling didn't cost them a few wins. Maybe they played right to there level. Maybe under a different manager they could have done more, identified and acquired better pitchers.

Maybe they wouldn't have been a traveling circus freak show in 1989.

bomarl1969
01-18-2007, 12:50 PM
Gambling is worse.


:laugh: you need psychiatric evaluation!

Razor Shines
01-18-2007, 12:52 PM
:laugh: you need psychiatric evaluation!

I guess I do too.

bomarl1969
01-18-2007, 12:57 PM
Maybe they wouldn't have been a traveling circus freak show in 1989.

I guess you are quick to forget what happened the year after that circus freak show.

RedsManRick
01-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Gambling is worse.

The use of PEDs affects your performance and potentially skews the games based on what you've done. But it doesn't disrupt the underlying assumption that everybody on the field is doing their best to win the game.

Gambling erodes the very foundation, the purpose, of the game. Once gambling is involved, playing to win is no longer necessary. People who are taking steroids are simply trying to do better at what they already want to do. Gambling risks a change in the alignment of purpose.

That's why it's different, and worse. Now yes, you could say that Pete only gambled on games he could not affect or when he did bet on the Reds, it was for them to win. But even then, what if he played a guy nursing an injury because he "needed" to win that particular game -- even though it wasn't in the team's best interest long term? It's a slippery slope that you can't afford to even begin to go down.

To me, it's not an issue of contrition. I think the HoF should be a museum of history, and thus Pete Rose should be banned from baseball, and in the HoF regardless. But that's neither here nor there.

TRF
01-18-2007, 02:41 PM
I guess you are quick to forget what happened the year after that circus freak show.

Oh I remember. Lou Piniella led them to a World Series while Pete was sitting in prison.

SunDeck
01-18-2007, 03:04 PM
Maybe Barry hopes those guys will precede him to the HOF so that he can then say, "Hey, you let Mac and Rose in...why not me too?"

Matt700wlw
01-18-2007, 03:25 PM
For the first time I ever, I agree with 1 little, itty bitty thing Bonds said....

Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame.

George Foster
01-18-2007, 09:02 PM
For the first time I ever, I agree with 1 little, itty bitty thing Bonds said....

Rose belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Totally agree. A manager's job is try and win every game. If I had a $250 on a game I would try my best to win that game. Playing a hurt player would not make much since, poor argument. You play to win that night. Let tomorrow take care of itself. Rose put together the 1990 team. He would be wearing another ring if he was managing that team as well.

westofyou
01-18-2007, 11:56 PM
Totally agree. A manager's job is try and win every game. If I had a $250 on a game I would try my best to win that game. Playing a hurt player would not make much since, poor argument. You play to win that night. Let tomorrow take care of itself. Rose put together the 1990 team. He would be wearing another ring if he was managing that team as well.

Did you that MLB started watching Rose's gambling way back in 1970?

They had 15 years of questions before started managing for a living.

paintmered
01-19-2007, 12:02 AM
I have no problem with keeping all three out of the hall.

:dunno:

George Anderson
01-19-2007, 12:17 AM
Totally agree. A manager's job is try and win every game. If I had a $250 on a game I would try my best to win that game. Playing a hurt player would not make much since, poor argument. You play to win that night. Let tomorrow take care of itself. Rose put together the 1990 team. He would be wearing another ring if he was managing that team as well.

Look I think Pete belongs in the HOF also, but keep in mind that gambling has zero place in the game even if you are betting on your team to win. If you are a gambling manager you may decide going in to a game that you dont have a real good chance of winning, so thus you dont bet $250 on the game. All during that game however you have in the back of your mind that you need to manage so that the next game that you are betting on, you will have a fresh bullpen or bench so as to allow them to be used the next game when you have the better chance of winning.

No smart gambler is going to wager on a team to win if he he doesnt think he has a good chance at winning. He is going to pick and choose when he should place his bets and then manage his team accordingly. Having a manager more worried about strategizing how to make money off the game or the next game will ultimately affect the integrity of the game.

Jpup
01-19-2007, 02:13 AM
Bonds will be the only one that will get in anytime in the near future IMO. Right or wrong, the writers know that Bonds was a Hall of Famer before he started using. They can't say that about McGwire. They have to justify it somehow.

DaReds22
01-19-2007, 09:22 AM
I think all of them should be in the Hall. In my opinion Bonds is in the top five players of all time and has won more mvps than any one else. McGuire was a homerun threat his whole career, and it was never proven that he took steroids. Pete rose did the worst thing in baseball. But i think he has served his time and been banished long enough.

bomarl1969
01-19-2007, 08:07 PM
Rose put together the 1990 team. He would be wearing another ring if he was managing that team as well.

Exactly. Rose should get the credit for the 90 Champs, not Pinella. Pinella was a good manager, but Rose laid the foundation and the team would gel under Pete.

Chip R
01-19-2007, 11:05 PM
Exactly. Rose should get the credit for the 90 Champs, not Pinella. Pinella was a good manager, but Rose laid the foundation and the team would gel under Pete.


You know what Whitey Herzog said about Pete's managing skills? He said he loved managing against Pete because he couldn't manage a bullpen.

I always thought that a good comparison to Pete, the late 80's-early 90's Reds and Lou was the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War. I liken Pete to Gen. George McClellen. McClellen was a top notch general. His troops loved him. Everybody had all the confidence in the world that he would rout Gen. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia and win the war. McClellen made those men into soldiers just like Pete made those kids into maor league ballplayers. Only problem was it didn't quite happen the way it was supposed to and eventually Lincoln fired him cause he wouldn't fit unless he was so sure he had the upper hand. McClellen had a little Bob Boone in him too, it seems. Lincoln brought him back in a Steinbrennerish move but eventually fired him again and eventually brought in Ulysses Grant who had done some fine work out west. Thanks to McClellen, the soldiers knew how to fight. They just needed the right guy to lead them. The Reds needed the right guy to lead them too and that was Lou Piniella. Both deserve a lot of credit for that championship.

mth123
01-19-2007, 11:07 PM
You know what Whitey Herzog said about Pete's managing skills? He said he loved managing against Pete because he couldn't manage a bullpen.

I always thought that a good comparison to Pete, the late 80's-early 90's Reds and Lou was the Army of the Potomac in the Civil War. I liken Pete to Gen. George McClellen. McClellen was a top notch general. His troops loved him. Everybody had all the confidence in the world that he would rout Gen. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia and win the war. McClellen made those men into soldiers just like Pete made those kids into maor league ballplayers. Only problem was it didn't quite happen the way it was supposed to and eventually Lincoln fired him cause he wouldn't fit unless he was so sure he had the upper hand. McClellen had a little Bob Boone in him too, it seems. Lincoln brought him back in a Steinbrennerish move but eventually fired him again and eventually brought in Ulysses Grant who had done some fine work out west. Thanks to McClellen, the soldiers knew how to fight. They just needed the right guy to lead them. The Reds needed the right guy to lead them too and that was Lou Piniella. Both deserve a lot of credit for that championship.

Good post with a well explained point. I agree.

I also learned a little about the Civil War in the process.

Chip R
01-19-2007, 11:53 PM
Good post with a well explained point. I agree.

I also learned a little about the Civil War in the process.


Thanks. It's a bit of an oversimplification of it cause I didn't want to do a Ken Burns mini-series on here. :)

RedsBaron
01-20-2007, 01:09 AM
Good post with a well explained point. I agree.

I also learned a little about the Civil War in the process.

I agree-it was a good post. My only question is: Does that post mean that Marge Schott was the Reds Abraham Lincoln?;)