Announcement

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 10, 2012, 01:03

The idea of "first year HOF" is the funniest (or saddest) thing ever. Its not like it says that on their plaques

.

**-Jrabbit** · January 10, 2012, 01:05

There's a cachet to being first ballot. You know that's true.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 10, 2012, 01:06

But most people really don't know or care 25 years down the road.

**SlowwHand** · January 10, 2012, 01:08

Pete Rose would still take it. I know, some disagree profusely. That's your right. To me, overreaction to the max; and now we're talking 1st year or not for the juicers.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 10, 2012, 01:13

Let me put it to you this way. Joe DiMaggio, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, Eddie Mathews & Mel Ott were not 1st ballot HOFers. Does anyone today care or consider them any less than some of the greatest players in history for that? They are all better players than 1st ballot HOFers Willie McCovey, Kirby Puckett, & Dave Winfield.

**-Jrabbit** · January 10, 2012, 01:39

Doesn't matter that it's a meaningless gesture. I just happen to believe it's what will go down.

**Ming** · January 10, 2012, 09:53

I wonder if any of the "known" juicers will get in. Behind the scene polls of the voters would indicate that they may have a problem getting the 75% needed. About a third of the current voters "claim" they won't vote for anybody that was proven to have taken roids.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 10, 2012, 11:19

I think that's just talk. I bet Bonds and Clemens are going in. I guess it's not that big a deal if Sosa misses out though.

**OzzyKP** · January 10, 2012, 12:31

I dunno. Bonds & Clemens are certainly the most talented of the bunch. But they are also the most tarnished and hated.

**OzzyKP** · January 10, 2012, 12:34

If they make it, it'll take a while. They'll have enough votes to stay on the ballot for 15 years, but there will be enough dissent to stop them from getting on any time soon. Perhaps attitudes about the steroids era will change 10+ years from now, but I dunno. It is entirely possible, but I wouldn't give them high odds of making it.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 10, 2012, 15:58

It would just be ridiculous if they weren't there. Even more ridiculous than Rose not being there.

**rah** · January 10, 2012, 16:14

I also agree that the writers will punish them. More reason to change the process.

**OzzyKP** · January 10, 2012, 16:37

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post

It would just be ridiculous if they weren't there. Even more ridiculous than Rose not being there.

Less ridiculous. Much less. Rose, Bonds & Clemons might be comparable in their greatness, but the crime of Bonds & Clemens is much greater. Rose bet on games, but no one has ever suggested that he bet against the Reds or threw games. So while he broke a rule he didn't affect the game. He didn't cheat. He may have besmirched his own integrity, but never that of baseball altogether. Bonds & Clemens and the other 'roid heads did. Their impact on the game, on records, on everything was far greater.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 10, 2012, 17:07

Much less? For betting on games, which is THE cardinal sin of baseball? The one that is explicitly forbidden since 1919?

**SlowwHand** · January 10, 2012, 17:09

Betting on his own team. I'm sorry, intentions of 1919 or not, it's ridiculous and not what I think they intended.
Their line of thought was probably just to draw a line, with no deviation. I still don't think they would be as strict in their ruling if they were making the ruling on Rose. Forever is a ****load of time, for betting on your own team.
Also, juicing wasn't even being thought of in 1919.

Announcement

MLB 2011!!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment