PDA

View Full Version : Sammy Sosa to retire



Eric_the_Red
06-04-2009, 03:04 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4229022

So, Hall of Famer or not?

And, how long until Barry Bonds announces his "retirement"?

cincrazy
06-04-2009, 03:10 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4229022

So, Hall of Famer or not?

And, how long until Barry Bonds announces his "retirement"?

Sosa's a tough case. He's almost certainly not going to get voted in, IMO. But where's the proof that he ever cheated? Do I, from a personal standpoint, remain highly suspicious of him? Yes, I do. But there is absolutely NO proof at all, not even shady proof, that he used steroids. So I find it kind of shocking that he's already assumed to be guilty. If I had a vote, I'd put him in.

_Sir_Charles_
06-04-2009, 03:14 PM
Sosa wasn't already retired? I thought he was.

As for the hall...definite NO in my book. Steroids or no steroids...it's already proven he's a cheater. Ummm...I can't remember, what's that stuff they use to seal wine bottles again? ;)

remdog
06-04-2009, 03:26 PM
Sosa wasn't already retired? I thought he was.

As for the hall...definite NO in my book. Steroids or no steroids...it's already proven he's a cheater. Ummm...I can't remember, what's that stuff they use to seal wine bottles again? ;)

Agree. He should be in the 'Hall of Shame' instead.

Rem

TRF
06-04-2009, 03:28 PM
gasp swoon, he got caught corking one time.

guess we better not let anybody who got caught cheating in. Like Gaylord Perry or Phil Neikro

Brutus
06-04-2009, 03:28 PM
Sosa wasn't already retired? I thought he was.

As for the hall...definite NO in my book. Steroids or no steroids...it's already proven he's a cheater. Ummm...I can't remember, what's that stuff they use to seal wine bottles again? ;)

He had been still trying to find work the last few years.

I have not decided if he should be in or not, but I agree with you he probably will not.

Rojo
06-04-2009, 03:29 PM
A class of players from a tainted generation will soon be eligible. The Hall is going to need to set up some ground rules.

Eric_the_Red
06-04-2009, 03:30 PM
I'd have to really look over his career numbers, but as a Cubs hater, I hope he doesn't make it.

cincrazy
06-04-2009, 03:31 PM
gasp swoon, he got caught corking one time.

guess we better not let anybody who got caught cheating in. Like Gaylord Perry or Phil Neikro

I am 100% behind you here. I don't condone what any of the players did who used steroids. But it is an ENTIRE ERA, literally. I'm not exaggerating that. An entire ERA! I mean, think about that for a second. You have to let them in. As I've said before, build a 'Roids wing for all I care. But they have to do something.

cumberlandreds
06-04-2009, 03:37 PM
I thought he was retired? :confused: I think eventually most of these steriod guys will get in but they may have to wait a while. The writers who vote on this will find it hard to keep so many out all the while knowing most players from the early 90's to the early 2000's probably at least tried something.

_Sir_Charles_
06-04-2009, 03:42 PM
gasp swoon, he got caught corking one time.

guess we better not let anybody who got caught cheating in. Like Gaylord Perry or Phil Neikro

Key word there is "caught" in my mind. And while we're on it, if breaking the rules keeps you out of the Hall like they say with Rose, then yes...keep out all the rule breakers. Or ignore that garbage and induct players on thier stats...period. Hall of Fame will always be a joke in my eyes when the all time hits leader isn't in there. But that's me.

cumberlandreds
06-04-2009, 03:49 PM
gasp swoon, he got caught corking one time.

guess we better not let anybody who got caught cheating in. Like Gaylord Perry or Phil Neikro

When was Phil Niekro caught? His brother Joe was caught scuffing baseballs but I don't remember Phil being caught doing that.

oneupper
06-04-2009, 03:54 PM
Occam's Razor say "Sammy's bad complexion not from him eating chocolate"

http://oneupper.net/RZ/sammy-hair1.jpg

TRF
06-04-2009, 04:10 PM
When was Phil Niekro caught? His brother Joe was caught scuffing baseballs but I don't remember Phil being caught doing that.

Perry was, and he's in the Hall.

I'm sure woy could provide a better list.

It's supposed to be the Hall of Fame. Sammy had Fame.

Rose had Fame, but the Hall, not baseball changed it's eligibility rules. I wish people would start getting that right.

_Sir_Charles_
06-04-2009, 04:15 PM
Rose had Fame, but the Hall, not baseball changed it's eligibility rules. I wish people would start getting that right.

Yeah, I knew that. Doesn't change my opinion on it though. It should be about stats...not character or lack thereof.

MrCinatit
06-04-2009, 04:18 PM
Sosa wasn't already retired? I thought he was.

As for the hall...definite NO in my book. Steroids or no steroids...it's already proven he's a cheater. Ummm...I can't remember, what's that stuff they use to seal wine bottles again? ;)

He'd been retired for a couple of years, only nobody told him.

Add Whitey Ford to those in the HOF who have cheated - I believe in one of his autobiographies, he admitted to using a wedding ring to tear up the ball. When suspicions arouse about that, catcher Elston Howard would tear the ball to shreds on his catching gear. This was at the end of Ford's career.
But, does that mean Sosa belongs? I lean largely towards "no". I've long said the steroids problem has most likely been in baseball for far longer than we care to admit - we've had rumblings from the mid-1980s (I would not be surprised to hear earlier), but that certainly does not make it right.

Roy Tucker
06-04-2009, 04:25 PM
Mark McGuire is eligible and hasn't made it yet, has he?

After drug testing started, Sammy sure did decline quickly. There isn't any proof positive but I'd bet my mortgage money that Sammy did PEDs.

Excluding him from the HoF is about all MLB can do to him and I don't see that happening. Its up to the baseball writers.

_Sir_Charles_
06-04-2009, 04:27 PM
Its up to the baseball writers.

And therein lies one of the Halls BIGGEST problems in my eyes. But I digress.

Chip R
06-04-2009, 04:36 PM
Mark McGuire is eligible and hasn't made it yet, has he?


Shammy was more of a complete player than McGwire was.

flyer85
06-04-2009, 04:45 PM
A class of players from a tainted generation will soon be eligible. The Hall is going to need to set up some ground rules.they have a set of ground rules ... 75%

Rojo
06-04-2009, 04:46 PM
Yeah, I knew that. Doesn't change my opinion on it though. It should be about stats...not character or lack thereof.


I don't care about character either but PED's isn't about character.

_Sir_Charles_
06-04-2009, 05:47 PM
I don't care about character either but PED's isn't about character.

Agree to disagree on that one. While it might not have been against the written rules back then...I don't think any of those players thought it was the RIGHT thing to do. And that's ALL about character in my book. Just because "everybody's doing it" is no reason to make that decision.

Eric_the_Red
06-04-2009, 05:51 PM
Agree to disagree on that one. While it might not have been against the written rules back then...I don't think any of those players thought it was the RIGHT thing to do. And that's ALL about character in my book. Just because "everybody's doing it" is no reason to make that decision.

Be careful about heading down that slippery slope. How many players have ever corked their bat, or threw a spit-ball, or stole signs. I think many fans would be surprised at the amount of "cheating" that has (and still does) gone on in baseball.

_Sir_Charles_
06-04-2009, 06:06 PM
Be careful about heading down that slippery slope. How many players have ever corked their bat, or threw a spit-ball, or stole signs. I think many fans would be surprised at the amount of "cheating" that has (and still does) gone on in baseball.

I know. Which is why I think they should toss the whole character debate out the freaking window. They can't get away with the double standard in my mind. That means...let in Pete. The sole determining factor should be stats. For me, that's the end of the discussion.

Rojo
06-04-2009, 07:30 PM
Agree to disagree on that one. While it might not have been against the written rules back then...I don't think any of those players thought it was the RIGHT thing to do. And that's ALL about character in my book. Just because "everybody's doing it" is no reason to make that decision.

Don't misunderstand, I'm NOT for giving out passes on this. I just don't care about the "character" part of the issue. If a HOF candidate had shown up drunk every game, I wouldn't care. Its about the integrity of the game, not the individuals. Gambling (that is throwing games) screws with that, so do PED's.

Red in Chicago
06-04-2009, 09:51 PM
Sammy Sosa made the Cubs completely intolerable. Once he left, my hatred towards the team went down significantly. I'm far from a Cub fan, but I'm at the point now, where the Cardinals have actually taken over as my least favorite team.

As for the Hall, he wouldn't get my vote, because I think he cheated. Corked bat, sudden loss of the English language in front of congress, bulked up size, is all I need.

Good riddance!

mth123
06-05-2009, 05:12 AM
I know. Which is why I think they should toss the whole character debate out the freaking window. They can't get away with the double standard in my mind. That means...let in Pete. The sole determining factor should be stats. For me, that's the end of the discussion.

The character stuff should be a factor when a guy is a borderline case, yet borderline cases with character issues during their careers (Orlano Cepeda for example) made it in. Guys with 500+ Home Runs or 4000 plus hits aren't borderline. Put 'em all in. Roids, betting or whatever, these guys defined an era of the game's history. A museum about this history of baseball is a sham without them.

RedFanAlways1966
06-05-2009, 09:12 AM
I feel dumb for asking, but this group is the place to ask these things....

Is Sosa eligible for the Hall 5 years after the season he played his last game or 5 years from the announcement of his retirement?

Thanks in advance. :thumbup:

Chip R
06-05-2009, 10:21 AM
I feel dumb for asking, but this group is the place to ask these things....

Is Sosa eligible for the Hall 5 years after the season he played his last game or 5 years from the announcement of his retirement?

Thanks in advance. :thumbup:


I would think it would be after he played his last season.

RedFanAlways1966
06-05-2009, 10:35 AM
I would think it would be after he played his last season.

You are correct, Chip. I went to the Baseball Hall-of-Fame site and found this:

Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.

TRF
06-05-2009, 10:52 AM
The character stuff should be a factor when a guy is a borderline case, yet borderline cases with character issues during their careers (Orlano Cepeda for example) made it in. Guys with 500+ Home Runs or 4000 plus hits aren't borderline. Put 'em all in. Roids, betting or whatever, these guys defined an era of the game's history. A museum about this history of baseball is a sham without them.

Do you think they aren't represented in the Hall? I'm pretty sure Sammy and especially Pete have exhibits in the museum. Pete lacks a plaque. That's on him. Sammy might get in someday when the anger has died down.

mth123
06-05-2009, 01:13 PM
Do you think they aren't represented in the Hall? I'm pretty sure Sammy and especially Pete have exhibits in the museum. Pete lacks a plaque. That's on him. Sammy might get in someday when the anger has died down.

Been there many times and there are exhibits. They still need to be on the roll call of the greatest players of all time.

_Sir_Charles_
06-05-2009, 01:54 PM
The character stuff should be a factor when a guy is a borderline case, yet borderline cases with character issues during their careers (Orlano Cepeda for example) made it in. Guys with 500+ Home Runs or 4000 plus hits aren't borderline. Put 'em all in. Roids, betting or whatever, these guys defined an era of the game's history. A museum about this history of baseball is a sham without them.

Well, my opinion on borderline guys is different I guess. If people are on the fence about the player...then he shouldn't be in there. Period. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of pretty darned good. But I agree 100% about the museum being about the history of the game...you can't show a clear history if you leave out the parts with the blemishes.

RedlegJake
06-05-2009, 02:52 PM
It's context, too - Bonds, McGwire and Sosa still led everyone else in homers by a wide margin even though lots of other guys juiced too. Maybe you can say Bonds would have hit 56 or 58 homers, or Sosa would've had 3 50 homer years instead of three 60 homer years etc. but they would still have been the epitome of slugging in the game. Their ultimate numbers were skewed by juice but not their position as the eras best power hitters. They belong, imo.

Eric_the_Red
06-05-2009, 02:58 PM
Excellent points, Jake. And let's not forget that so far more pitchers have been busted for PEDs than hitters.

Sea Ray
06-05-2009, 04:54 PM
During Sammy's era there was very little chance that we'd come across hard evidence of steroid use but there are some troubling parts of Sammy's history.

--He was asked point blank by Rick Reilly, while playing for the Cubs, to take a steroid test and Sammy answered him with a profanity laced tirade and a big "no".

--He seemed to forget how to speak English during the Senate Hearings which, in my mind, is as bad as Mark McGwire's no comment

--He changed in size from his rookie year to his peek years and then went back down in size again after they instituted testing...just look at him in a Baltimore uniform and compare it to a Cubs picture

--His HR numbers took a huge leap from the low 30s to 60s in one year

So no we don't have enough evidence to accuse him in a criminal law case but I think there's enough to keep me (and most writers) from voting for him.

Sea Ray
06-05-2009, 04:59 PM
Maybe you can say Bonds would have hit 56 or 58 homers, or Sosa would've had 3 50 homer years instead of three 60 homer years etc. but they would still have been the epitome of slugging in the game. Their ultimate numbers were skewed by juice but not their position as the eras best power hitters. They belong, imo.

If you look at the young Sammy Sosa, you will not see a guy capable of even hitting 50 HRs. He was a thin, leadoff type hitter. I think steroids contributed greatly to his numbers but I agree we can't prove how much.

If they let in Sammy then they also have to let in Bonds and McGwire, agreed?

mth123
06-05-2009, 07:19 PM
If you look at the young Sammy Sosa, you will not see a guy capable of even hitting 50 HRs. He was a thin, leadoff type hitter. I think steroids contributed greatly to his numbers but I agree we can't prove how much.

If they let in Sammy then they also have to let in Bonds and McGwire, agreed?

Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro - let em all in. They were the best players of their era and not the only ones juicing.

Eric_the_Red
06-05-2009, 07:22 PM
Sosa, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Palmeiro - let em all in. They were the best players of their era and not the only ones juicing.


I agree. You cannot simply ignore an entire era of baseball based on speculation. If the baseball writers/players/owners/offices/fans don't like it, they shouldn't have had their heads buried in the sand for the 20 years the problem ran rampant.

Brutus
06-05-2009, 09:04 PM
If you look at the young Sammy Sosa, you will not see a guy capable of even hitting 50 HRs. He was a thin, leadoff type hitter. I think steroids contributed greatly to his numbers but I agree we can't prove how much.

If they let in Sammy then they also have to let in Bonds and McGwire, agreed?

Got to love the transformation from 22 years old on...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0706/gallery.mlb.sammy.sosa/images/1989.white.sox.jpg

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a230/dd51/sosa.jpg

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2007-12/34310665.jpg

http://kelvinmaphoto.com/img/photo/full/3/31.jpg

http://nbcsportsmedia4.msnbc.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070826/070826_vmed_sosa_8p.widec.jpg

http://msnlatino.telemundo.com/_cache/content/Crossover-2009/Photo/Steroids_Sammy-Sosa___484x363.jpg

Though, admittedly, not as much enjoyable as these...

http://www.thesportstruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/barry-bonds-pre-steroids.jpg

http://thesportsunion.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/barry-bonds.jpg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/04/barry_bonds.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mollyguinness/BarryBonds.jpg

http://www.prosportsmemorabilia.com/Images/Product/33-65/33-65731-F.jpg

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s264/TankerGuy4/mcgwire.jpg

http://cache.deadspin.com/sports/markmcquire.jpg

http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/autographed/memorabilia/sports/collectibles/authentic/Baseball/8x10%20Photos/mark_mcgwire_8x10_mid.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1992/0601_large.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0805/mlb.baseball.all.scandal.team/images/mcgwire.jpg

Brutus
06-05-2009, 09:05 PM
And note the pecks in this picture, and what characteristics they have that is familiar with use of certain substances...

http://images.dailyradar.com/media/uploads/ballhype/story_large/2009/02/07/arod3.jpg

Sea Ray
06-06-2009, 10:41 AM
I agree. You cannot simply ignore an entire era of baseball based on speculation. If the baseball writers/players/owners/offices/fans don't like it, they shouldn't have had their heads buried in the sand for the 20 years the problem ran rampant.

:confused:

The writers didn't have their heads in the sand. I recall reading articles questioning how all of a sudden hallowed records like 61 were being challenged every year and by multiple players.

The fans definitely suspected juicing. Sportstalk often discussed how guys like Brady Anderson and Bret Boone became power hitters.

The owners were in no position to force testing on the players. The Union was too strong. It was only after Congress got involved that some sort of testing program was put in place.

So overwhelmingly the culprit in all of this was the Players Union. The ironic thing is that while they thought they were protecting their union members, in reality they brought suspicion to innocent ones because they refused testing of any kind. So they really were hurting their players more than they helped.

In the end, this era will be largely ignored by the Hall of Fame because the writers and the existing Hall members feel very strongly that juicers should not be admitted to their club and those are the folks that "count" where the Hall is concerned

Hoosier Red
06-06-2009, 10:51 AM
During Sammy's era there was very little chance that we'd come across hard evidence of steroid use but there are some troubling parts of Sammy's history.

--He was asked point blank by Rick Reilly, while playing for the Cubs, to take a steroid test and Sammy answered him with a profanity laced tirade and a big "no".

--He seemed to forget how to speak English during the Senate Hearings which, in my mind, is as bad as Mark McGwire's no comment

--He changed in size from his rookie year to his peek years and then went back down in size again after they instituted testing...just look at him in a Baltimore uniform and compare it to a Cubs picture

--His HR numbers took a huge leap from the low 30s to 60s in one year

So no we don't have enough evidence to accuse him in a criminal law case but I think there's enough to keep me (and most writers) from voting for him.

I'm going to take issue with the first two points on here.

-Rick Reilly's a joke, and was just looking for a splashy way to make headlines. No player in the union would have done that.

-Everyone makes fun of this but Sammy's english really never was very good. He could answer a question or two from the press and probably recite lines in a commercial. But appearing before Congress is a big deal. If you say one thing the slightest bit incorrectly, they can nail you to the wall. I'd probably want to do it in my native tongue as well.

Sea Ray
06-06-2009, 10:53 AM
I'm going to take issue with the first two points on here.

Great. Let's hear your issue

Eric_the_Red
06-06-2009, 12:15 PM
:confused:

The writers didn't have their heads in the sand. I recall reading articles questioning how all of a sudden hallowed records like 61 were being challenged every year and by multiple players.

The fans definitely suspected juicing. Sportstalk often discussed how guys like Brady Anderson and Bret Boone became power hitters.

The owners were in no position to force testing on the players. The Union was too strong. It was only after Congress got involved that some sort of testing program was put in place.

So overwhelmingly the culprit in all of this was the Players Union. The ironic thing is that while they thought they were protecting their union members, in reality they brought suspicion to innocent ones because they refused testing of any kind. So they really were hurting their players more than they helped.

In the end, this era will be largely ignored by the Hall of Fame because the writers and the existing Hall members feel very strongly that juicers should not be admitted to their club and those are the folks that "count" where the Hall is concerned

Okay, so maybe having our heads in the sand for 20 years was too much. How about 10 years? Where was the speculation in the late 80's when Canseco & McGwire looked like bodybuilders crushing 500 ft. homers? The steroid era, IMO, started in the mid to late 80's. You didn't really start hearing fans & media openly questioning these things until the late 90's/early 2000's.

Remember the reporter wrote about the Andro in McGwire's locker? The reporter was blasted by many, many people for "snooping" and trying to create a story.

And, I think I know what the straw that broke the camel's back was: Barry Bonds. When the surly, angry, diva player began crushing records, many in baseball were up in arms. As long as it was the lovable to most McGwire & Sosa, very few people cared. But fewer people were willing to turn their heads when it was Bonds.

cincrazy
06-06-2009, 04:25 PM
Okay, so maybe having our heads in the sand for 20 years was too much. How about 10 years? Where was the speculation in the late 80's when Canseco & McGwire looked like bodybuilders crushing 500 ft. homers? The steroid era, IMO, started in the mid to late 80's. You didn't really start hearing fans & media openly questioning these things until the late 90's/early 2000's.

Remember the reporter wrote about the Andro in McGwire's locker? The reporter was blasted by many, many people for "snooping" and trying to create a story.

And, I think I know what the straw that broke the camel's back was: Barry Bonds. When the surly, angry, diva player began crushing records, many in baseball were up in arms. As long as it was the lovable to most McGwire & Sosa, very few people cared. But fewer people were willing to turn their heads when it was Bonds.

I don't think anyone is right or wrong in this argument. It's a combination of all of these factors. Yes, steroids were kind of a hidden little "secret" within the game and maybe even the media. But, some were called out. I can't remember the name of the writer, but someone called Canseco out in the late 80's or early 90's. But, he was ignored. So some people did speak up, but it was all swept under the rug for a number of reasons.

Highlifeman21
06-07-2009, 09:44 AM
Key word there is "caught" in my mind. And while we're on it, if breaking the rules keeps you out of the Hall like they say with Rose, then yes...keep out all the rule breakers. Or ignore that garbage and induct players on thier stats...period. Hall of Fame will always be a joke in my eyes when the all time hits leader isn't in there. But that's me.

Then maybe the all time hits leader shouldn't have tarnished the integrity of the game by betting on the game. But that's just me.

Chip R
06-07-2009, 10:21 AM
I don't think anyone is right or wrong in this argument. It's a combination of all of these factors. Yes, steroids were kind of a hidden little "secret" within the game and maybe even the media. But, some were called out. I can't remember the name of the writer, but someone called Canseco out in the late 80's or early 90's. But, he was ignored. So some people did speak up, but it was all swept under the rug for a number of reasons.


That was Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post.

Highlifeman21
06-07-2009, 10:37 AM
I know. Which is why I think they should toss the whole character debate out the freaking window. They can't get away with the double standard in my mind. That means...let in Pete. The sole determining factor should be stats. For me, that's the end of the discussion.

It's not a character issue.

It's a "he broke the rules and therefore is no longer eligible for the ballot" issue.

Pete did a lot of things right as a ballplayer and put up some staggering numbers, but he broke a rule and now must continue to suffer the consequences.

... and with steroids, PEDs, greenies, etc, only recently have they fallen under the category of a rule breakable offense.

mth123
06-07-2009, 12:06 PM
It's not a character issue.

It's a "he broke the rules and therefore is no longer eligible for the ballot" issue.

Pete did a lot of things right as a ballplayer and put up some staggering numbers, but he broke a rule and now must continue to suffer the consequences.

... and with steroids, PEDs, greenies, etc, only recently have they fallen under the category of a rule breakable offense.

A rule that was changed after the fact BTW.

Sea Ray
06-07-2009, 12:45 PM
It's not a character issue.

It's a "he broke the rules and therefore is no longer eligible for the ballot" issue.

Pete did a lot of things right as a ballplayer and put up some staggering numbers, but he broke a rule and now must continue to suffer the consequences.

... and with steroids, PEDs, greenies, etc, only recently have they fallen under the category of a rule breakable offense.

This isn't about Pete. There's no comparison.

Pete is banned from even being on the ballot. No one is suggesting that Sosa be banned from the ballot. Big difference