Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(BearSox @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 03:47 PM) So, are you implying with your sarcasm that Coolidge was not one of the best presidents of all time? Coolidge was a smart man. Served a few years when allowed, had the good fortune of presiding over post-war prosperity, and was smart enough to get out knowing that the economy was going to fall. Nothing like Martin Van Buren, in that regard. But "great"? To each his own. I doubt there's any historical book or analysis that agrees with you, but we're all experts in our own ways, right?

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 02:29 PM) Media reports have the Cubs close to acquiring Roberts for Murton/Gallagher/another prospect. He would be just an ideal acquisition for the Cubs. I love this offseason! I hope the Cubs win the World Series just to spite you.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 12:52 PM) While they may not have and moral or intellectual highground, what they do have is votes. It'll come down to those votes as to how this goes. Certainly, but I'm not convinced that the Veteran's Committee will keep these guys out, or that the voters will. It is a wait-and-see. I'm only putting my opinion on what should happen. What do I think will happen? Probably initial rejections. Some guys will get it worse than others. Palmeiro probably won't get in, even though I think he's much better overall than Sosa or McGwire. Sometimes I think McGwire absolutely killed himself by refusing to "talk about the past", but then I think that everyone loved McGwire, he was classy, he's got great HR numbers...so I don't know. I think it'd be a travesty if Bonds and Clemens never got in. I think they're the "safest bets" to get in eventually. Then there's the fact that a lot can change in five years. Maybe Clemens keeps denying it, more evidence surfaces, and he winds up like Pete Rose. Maybe people come to the conclusion I came to and say, "They belong in, anyway." Maybe people completely reverse and say, Never, none, and start adopting that one lunatic's position that you don't vote for anyone from the era. It'll be... fun to watch. EDIT: By "that one lunatic" I don't mean anyone from here. I mean that one voter who justified not voting for Ripken on those grounds.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 09:47 PM) But the human element is part of what makes HOF election so special. The voters are given the right to use their best judgement to determine who is and who is not worthy. The steroid issue WILL figure into the equation. The BBWOA members who vote will be the first to judge. I believe that if a Roger Clemens doesn't get voted in by the writers, that he'll never get in. The 'veterans comittee' is now made up of HOF'ers that got there without the benefit of PED's. I think they'd be much harder on these guys than writers, and the writers seem to be split about 70-30. Certainly, we'll have to see what happens, but aside from the few who were raising the points in the 1990s (Bob Costas, for one...though I don't think he votes) I don't believe they have any moral or intellectual highground on which to stand and I'll be the first to call them hypocrites, users and phonies for referring to players as hypocrites, users and phonies. By the way, Roger Clemens had better be careful. He's starting to play the same game Pete Rose once played.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2007 -> 07:24 AM) No big surprise to me that we are kicking the tires on Mark Prior. I'll bet we are also wispering to Garcia and Colon as well. It also means that the whole Kenny line that everyone went crazy about was crap as well, like a few of us were trying to tell everyone. Kenny doesn't think Danks and Floyd are top flight pitchers, but he has to say that they are. His actions are what we should watch, not his words. The entire planet knows he is full of s***. I'll bet we don't sign any of those. It's just talk. That is KW's MO, IMO. If we do sign any of them, I'd guess Garcia.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 09:05 PM) It's not a suggestion: "...possession, sale or use...is strictly prohibited..." It states that the commissioner CAN discipline those involved: "...players or personnel involved...are subject to discipline by the Commissioner and risk permanent expulsion from the game." It then states that individual clubs, in addition to the Commissioner, can impose punishments. There was no testing. There was no SCHEDULE of punishments, but the potential for punishment was certainly there. Edit: Scare quotes, as in "emphasis" rather than emphasis. I f***ing HATE my computer. It froze on me. It wasn't a "long" response I had but it was a few minutes I have to lose. Urrrrgh. Anyway... ...I don't know how official that memo is. I've only ever heard that memo mentioned in the ESPN piece and by some posters, notably Balta, who love to cite it. According to MLB materials, steroids/HGH weren't banned then. That memo suggests otherwise. I am going to do some research because I want to know what it means, really. As for punishments -- the way I look at it and will is, If Major League Baseball punished someone, that's it; it'd be bogus to pile on, unless they'd be expelled. If MLB didn't punish, then it's not up to the voters to, IMO. MLB was a consenting partner.

I'll call it the way I see it with all of the individual cases. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 08:21 PM) I think you put too little "emphasis" on the authority of the commissioner, and maybe too much "emphasis" on misplaced scare quotes. Umm, what authority? There was no testing, no punishment, and according to MLB itself it was not a formal ban there. It was a memo. It was nothing more, nothing less. As for scare quotes, I don't know what you're talking about -- please explain.

Even if we have an all-out firesale, I don't want Buehrle to go.

What is the problem between McMahon and Randy Savage? Where does it go back to? What is it all about?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 05:05 PM) 1. Beating up guys in drunken fits, that's a dumb question of course I am against that. Who in thier right mind thinks that's fine. 2. Hitting someone with a baseball is not against the rules. The pitchers you mentioned did not crack anyone's head open with a pitch. If they threw at someone's head with the intent of injury , i would be against that. That's why the umps eject them and they get suspended by the league. 3. Taking speed is illegal and they should be prosecuted as well. I've said all along that speed is much more prevalent and changes the game more than steroids. I'm glad they are testing for it and suspending the players. The "leaded coffee" should be outlawed. Mays played before MLB had rules against it, there's nothing you can do to him now. Ty Cobb did not break baseball rules to my knowledge, I did not see him play. Being a complete ass is not against the rules. If the law were to prosecute him that's their business. If they break the rules of baseball severely enough, I personally would keep them out of the HOF. That is on an individual basis. I don't want to get further into this. I just want to say, re: 2., Juan Marichal is in the HOF despite cracking Roseboro's head wide open with his bat at the plate. I'm just saying -- there are some bad, bad men in the Hall, as well as men who were overall good but did a bad thing or two. Character character character! -- As for Jose Canseco -- he's got borderline HOF numbers, and I would like to rethink my statement that he belongs. He's close, considering everything...but giving it a second look I'm not sure I WOULD pull that trigger. As for the other guys (Sosa, Mc, Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro) I stand by it completely.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) The problem is that the Vincent memo was not approved by the players union. It is the equivalent of George Bush writing that: "From now on the use or consumption of alcohol is illegal." Its great that the President came out and spoke out against alcohol, but it really does not mean jack until congress passes the law. Just like if congress came out and said "Tomorrow we are making alcohol illegal" and then Bush never signed the law. Youll also notice in the memo, there is no mention of the consequences. This is because the memo was merely a statement of Fay Vincent's intentions as commissioner (its also interesting to note right after this memo he is no longer commissioner.) The memo is not binding on the players because it was never agreed to under the CBA by the players union. The letter really isnt a rule, its more of the commissioner trying to get a rule started... That's right.

QUOTE(Hatchetman @ Dec 19, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) For those of you keeping score at home Stoney is 6 years younger than Hawk. Wow...Hawk looks bad.

I think certain people, the strictest opponents of steroid use and steroid users mainly, put too much "emphasis" on the Vincent memo.

Let me concur and use this as a small jumping off point to ask a question I asked in the article but would like to re-ask in slightly different terms: is it not unjust to punish people after-the-fact for things nobody punished them for at the time and which were celebrated even though everyone knew years and years ago that they weren't "natural" feats? Would it not be hypocritical for the league to, after-the-fact, after having celebrated these players as reinvigorating the game and using their feats and images to make billions of dollars say, "Oh, hey. You know those things everybody knows about? Everybody knew about? That we didn't care about before? That we don't have positive steroid tests for? Yeah. Those things mean you should leave the game and never make the Hall. Get out! Oh, and by the way...we don't have any serious testing programs and sometimes tell people...but we will crucify you and your career at the altar of public opinion just to get them off of our backs!" Well, that's just what I think MLB would be doing and I am in full support of Mitchell's argument in favor of "amnsesty" or at least leniency, and definitely with the Hall. I never argued that "steroid use is okay because everybody did it" and I don't think I even approached that. I agree that a logical fallacy but note that it isn't my logical fallacy. Truthfully, I don't think you read the article...I think you read the title and the post after, then extrapolated wildly. I have nothing further to add in response.

That would really, really make me laugh.

Yeah, but to mention "Joey Styles" amongst a bunch of other clear irrelevants was weird to me.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2007 -> 09:48 PM) So should players who dip be suspended? That can kill you. What about players that smoke, that is much more likely to harm some one else than "roid rage"? The comment "Just because other people do something or did something doesnt mean its okay", yes thats true. But there is a reason why precedent means something, its because it sets a standard. Now if they want to over turn precedent, if they want to remove players from the hall, than so be it. But otherwise its pretty much a joke. Oh and I agree with you Pratt, but Ive been on this argument for years now. I'm with you on double standards for certain steroid users and the admission of stars into the HOF, if nothing more.

ptac, are you opposed to players who beat guys up in bars in drunken fits, or would you kick Don Drysdale/Bob Gibson out of the HOF because they wanted to crack your head open if you stood too close to the plate? Willie Mays for taking speed? Ty Cobb for being Ty Cobb! I respect your disagreement. I know I'm in the minority re: baseball+steroids/HOF. For all the reasons I cited, I've come to my conclusion...but the biggest might be the after-the-fact nature of it, as well as just how f***ed up it would be for MLB to honor these guys as players and then for Cooperstown to say, Sorry, go away!

I've hinted at it before. It's finally up over at Baseball Evolution, and so I will link to it and paste it here. It is my article about why steroid users belong in the Hall of Fame provided they have the resume for it. I tried to be thorough with it and "professional". The reason this is in its own thread is because it is more specific than off-the-cuff talk by HOF voters; it is about something different than the confessions; and I didn't want to muddy up another muddy thread. Hope no one minds. Here we go. http://baseballevolution.com/guest/gregory...ecognition.html

All right, so a bit of research shows a few things: 1. John Clarkson may have killed his wife. He was eventually committed to an insane asylum. From his HOF page: It has been alleged that he slashed his wife to death. I can't "confirm" it through a book or official news article but I have seen it in two places and besides: the word is "suspects" not "convicts". I HAVE read in two places or more that Cobb did NOT kill the man he claimed, although he claimed it, and I've read one place that Clarkson did NOT kill his wife. At this moment, I can't verify anything, though. 2. Cobb, as has previously been noted. (Cobb doesn't need any introduction as a player.) Here's a great piece on whether or not Cobb killed anyone: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=2...amp;postcount=2 (The consensus is No.) That is still two players in the Hall with murder's suspicion on them. I just found it interesting when Cowley made the claim as it is true enough. I was introduced through my search to the sad story of Marty Bergen: http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=2...mp;postcount=74 He was what might've been a great catcher who went nuts and killed his family. Dave Brown, Negro League pitcher, killed someone and ended his career prematurely in the 20s. There's so much history in this game. Oh, and I found rumors that Rube Foster might've run someone over on accident.

What was the purpose of that crack Jericho made about Joey Styles' relevance?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 02:23 AM) Jacksonville lit up Pittsburgh and won by 7 points. New England beat Pittsburgh by 21. That's the same Pittsburgh team, in case you were thinking there may be two different teams that play in Pittsburgh. I also don't know how you can claim the Jags defense is better. The Patriots have allowed 19 fewer points (which is an entire game's worth), allow 36 fewer yards per game, 43 fewer passing yards per game (probably about 3 drives worth) and a mere 7 more rushing yards per game (which is one carry 3 yards short of a 1st down per game). The Patriots have intercepted more passes (17 to 16, so it's close), have forced more fumbles (14 to 10, which is pretty significant), deflect more passes (59 to 57, against close), and get to the QB more (34 to 27, which is again very significant); Jags way better? K, you go ahead and continue arguing that, and you will continue to be wrong, because the numbers disagree with you period, and you also have to realize that about 40% of their games have been played in garbage time where they are playing loose coverage for about the entire second half. New England is a far superior team to Jacksonville, and you arguing differently is laughable. Thanks.

"Banished" but not by the League. I think he'll eventually make it in...and if not, I think he should.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) The HOF is not a bin of stuff that happened. Its a place of honor for the game's greatest. Not voting players is nothing like "deleting" them. Its simply pointing out that they did not represent the best interests of the game. Also, by your standard that some players have gotten in that are not great people... that argument would hold no water in any other circumstance, so why should it here? People break the law all the time, and some of them get away with it. Does that make the law bogus? Of course not. If all you want is statistical performance, then don't bother to have a Hall at all - just have a big old server there that you can plug your Playstation into and drool for a while. Stats are great, but the game is unquestionably more than that. I think it rather humorous to suggest that Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa weren't "in the best interests of the game". The owners' wallets, fans, Bud Selig etc. etc. would all disagree. And it's a little awkward to suggest that X players should be kept out of the Hall of Fame when they were never disciplined for baseball, let alone banned. I'm not going to tell Ty Cobb to get out of the Hall of Fame. I'm not interested in telling Gaylord Perry to pack his things and go and take Don Sutton with him. I'm not going to go down that road. I do not have the same view of history or the Hall of Fame as you; I think time has shown that the HOF is for the best players in the history of baseball who are not banned from baseball. You disagree? Well, we'll see what happens.

1. Baseball's first 300 game winner was injecting monkey testosterone. This goes back a long way. 2. Specifically, in response to the "character clause" Northside brought up -- I respectfully submit that the clause is a joke. Of the initial HOF class, Ty Cobb received the most votes -- more than even Walter Johnson, one of baseball's nicest, "classiest" figures. The voters then don't care about "character" and neither do the current ones and neither do I. Are you a Hall of Famer? Check. As an aside, I don't care about character in baseball HOF matters, provided the guy didn't throw a World Series, molest children or kill anyone. Jerk? "Cheater"? Whatever. This isn't a pure game and I'm not going to punish people for what the league has allowed and does allow. I believe in the Hall as a preservation of history, not an attempt to delete inconvenient parts.