Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hall should forgive them all

    18 46.15%
  • Dont let any of the cheaters in, keep the Hall clean

    11 28.21%
  • could care less, disgusted by all of it

    10 25.64%
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 109

Thread: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

  1. #31
    Playoffs Cyclone792's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    6,271

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool View Post
    So the tainted on-field accomplishments of the junkies are fine, and the fact that they broke an existing rule is fine?
    I could honestly give a lick about steroids - I just don't care.

    I know if steroids were as healthy as eating fruit, nobody else would care either. And that's my problem with the overreactions. We know that steroids - in today's form at least - have some negative health consequences. As a result, people love to hang that "cheater" label on anybody who uses them.

    It's really an interesting connection people are subconsciously making. Healthy = not cheating. Unhealthy = cheating.

    That connection makes as much sense as well ... betting on baseball.
    Barry Larkin - HOF, 2012

    Put an end to the Lost Decade.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Member blumj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern MA
    Posts
    4,667

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclone792 View Post
    I could honestly give a lick about steroids - I just don't care.

    I know if steroids were as healthy as eating fruit, nobody else would care either. And that's my problem with the overreactions. We know that steroids - in today's form at least - have some negative health consequences. As a result, people love to hang that "cheater" label on anybody who uses them.

    It's really an interesting connection people are subconsciously making. Healthy = not cheating. Unhealthy = cheating.

    That connection makes as much sense as well ... betting on baseball.
    Actually, it makes plenty of sense to me. We don't want athletes having to choose between using substances that may be dangerous to their health and being unable to keep up with those who are willing to.
    "Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons

  4. #33
    Member OnBaseMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    34,844

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    I'd put Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame but I'd never let him manage again. I'd also induct the steroids users like A-Rod, Bonds, and Clemens. They are all first-ballot Hall of Famers in my book and they would've been without the steroids, which makes my wonder why they would do them in the first place.

    IMO, they did cheat.

    #61 and #755 were considered nearly unreachable and were two of the most prestigious records in sports and then a few juicers come along and make a mockery of those records. That's what ticks me off the most.
    Last edited by OnBaseMachine; 02-10-2009 at 11:59 AM.
    I miss Adam Dunn.

  5. #34
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,629

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    I don't care about the HOF anymore. It is what it is and Rose and the PED users are represented there. Maybe not plaques, but their accomplishments. Note I didn't put that word in quotes. PED aided or not, Bonds hit 73 HR's in one season. Gambler or not, Rose is the Hit King. Sosa/McGwire's chase is a good memory despite the suspicion. As is 4192, and even 756. To a point.

    Honestly, I just don't care anymore. I don't think PED user when a guy steps to the plate. (ok, maybe Chris Duncan... dude just looks weird.) I've watched about 10 minutes of ARod coverage, and all i really keep thinking of is will Jacque Jones take PT from Dickerson?

    just... don't.... care.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  6. #35
    Member blumj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Northern MA
    Posts
    4,667

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron View Post
    Can you imagine the HOF induction ceremonies of Rose or Bonds or Clemens?
    But this is a pretty good point, too. Who'd want to go? Other than for the unintentional comedy potential of all that awkwardness.
    "Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons

  7. #36
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,275

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool View Post
    So the tainted on-field accomplishments of the junkies are fine, and the fact that they broke an existing rule is fine?
    No, but some of them are HOF players regardless - Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod. McGwire, IMO, is not -- he played his entire career on the juice and if he were just somewhat powerful he wouldn't have gotten a sniff of Cooperstown.

    It'll take decades to sort out because MLB keeps trying to "move on" rather than treat the infestation with sunlight. Probably what will happen is some guys will make it in and then we'll learn they juiced. Some probably already have. And it'll be guys you wouldn't expect (e.g. Tony Gwynn, not that I'm saying he did, just that he'd shock a lot of people if he did).

    At that point the conversation will move from "keelhaul the players" to a recognition that the entire era was tainted and how do we reflect that while still admitting there was some excellence on the field among those tainted players.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  8. #37
    Member OnBaseMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    34,844

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    No, but some of them are HOF players regardless - Bonds, Clemens, A-Rod. McGwire, IMO, is not -- he played his entire career on the juice and if he were just somewhat powerful he wouldn't have gotten a sniff of Cooperstown.
    I agree. Same with Sammy Sosa. It pains me to say that because I always liked McGwire, but he just doesn't belong in the HOF, IMO.
    I miss Adam Dunn.

  9. #38
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,520

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Let them all in and make it's clear what their offenses were.

    However, it's not necessarily up to the HOF. The sportswriters are the key. McGwire's been eligible and he isn't even close to getting in. If the HOF said tomorrow that all ineligible players were now eligible, they still may not get in.
    Last edited by Chip R; 02-10-2009 at 12:15 PM.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  10. #39
    Beer is good!! George Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    4,754

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron View Post
    Can you imagine the HOF induction ceremonies of Rose
    I can see Pete giving his induction speech wearing the hat of the corporation that was the highest bidder.
    "Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard

  11. #40
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,434

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Are NFL players who get caught taking steroids not allowed in the Hall of Fame? Shawn Merriman got caught roiding up and made the pro bowl the same year.

    Nowhere in the CBA has it ever said you get banned for life for using steroids, nor should it. It does say that you get a lifetime ban for betting on baseball. I don't think very many if any admitted users will get voted in the Hall anyways, but the two are unrelated.

  12. #41
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,802

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    We've treaded this territory before.

    http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ds+banned+1991
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  13. #42
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,888

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    But you can prove Pete Rose threw games. He runs around the country insisting he didn't ... and he's a pathological liar.
    I offer no defense for Rose's character, but I am unaware of proof that he actually threw games, as opposed to "merely" betting on them. I did once read that Dowd thought that Rose had thrown games, but I have never seen any proof that he did so.
    Obviously, if Rose bet on the Reds when Tom Browning was his starter and placed no bet at all when Mario Soto was starting, that certainly may have let others know how Rose felt about the Reds chances, but that doesn't itself mean Rose threw the latter game. Part of the problem would be that Rose could burn out his pitching staff trying to win a game upon which he had a big bet, but we saw Dusty Baker almost burn through his entire rotation in an extra inning game last year and no one argued this was because Dusty had placed a bet--it was just Dusty being Dusty.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."

  14. #43
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,275

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsBaron View Post
    I offer no defense for Rose's character, but I am unaware of proof that he actually threw games, as opposed to "merely" betting on them. I did once read that Dowd thought that Rose had thrown games, but I have never seen any proof that he did so.
    To be fair, there is no hard evidence. Yet when Rose finally admitted to betting on the Reds, he immediately added the rejoinder that he never bet against them. He'd do anything for love, but he won't do that. Now he says it in every interview.

    And that's what convinced me he did throw ballgames. If he'd have just said he bet on the Reds and left it at that, I might have taken him at face value. Yet he's got to add that he never bet against the team, all the time. He's just got to lie about something, can't stop himself. Even when he tells a little bit of truth, he's got to work in a new lie (which exposes way more of the truth than his admissions).

    And if he ever tells the truth about that, his new lie will be only as a manager, never as a player.

    If I were sitting on a jury, I'd have to acquit him because the evidence isn't there (or at least not known), but there's no doubt in my mind he did it. He's convinced me.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  15. #44
    Member Jpup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southern KY
    Posts
    6,967

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Pete Rose, on MLB Home Plate channel on Sirius XM Radio, asked his reaction to A-Rod admitting to being a steroid cheat: "I don't want to listen to all this B.S. on ESPN about how he was a kid and didn't know what he was doing and stuff like that. I mean, you did it. You admitted it. Go on with your life. In 2003 I believe he was 29 years old. He came up in '93 so he had seven or eight years in the big leagues. I'm just not one of these guys that believe if you sign a $250 million contract that you have any kind of pressure to have to play like a superstar. Just go out and play. It's got to be easier playing when you get a $250 million contract, doesn't it?" -- Sirius XM Radio
    "My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton

  16. #45
    Big Red Machine RedsBaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Out Wayne
    Posts
    22,888

    Re: Should Hall let Pete and the Junkies in the Hall?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Anderson View Post
    I can see Pete giving his induction speech wearing the hat of the corporation that was the highest bidder.

    Have you ever seen a NASCAR race driver in the winner's circle after a race, as his hat constantly is changed so that each sponsor gets some screen time? That's how I picture Rose at a HOF induction ceremony. Every few sentences of his acceptance speech Pete could put another a different hat and get in a plug for each sponsor.
    "Hey...Dad. Wanna Have A Catch?" Kevin Costner in "Field Of Dreams."


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25