HOF announcement in a couple of minutes

[tonsofcommons]

I've got my niece here, so I can't change it off of some animated pig family show on Nickelodeon, so I'd appreciate it if somebody could post here when there is an update .

Show some love for Peppa Pig (OINK!)

 

[Krom]

I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.

I agree with you that they will atleast be kept out for awhile but i think after a few years Bonds gets in then you really cant keep them out. Bonds had a HOF carrer before steroids and i think he is the only one (maybe clemens) that can say that.

So did Arod but they chose their paths. I don't think they will eventually let them in look at how long Shoeless Joe has been kept out, way after he died.

 

[jpruitt2]

Larkin was 3rd in the voting with 361 votes(62.1%). Looks like he has an excellent chance to get in the next few years.

Larkin gets in next year, maybe as the only one. A week crop coming, making way for some big names the following year.

Next year will be his last shot for a few years. None of next years first time eligibles will get in:

Edgardo Alfonzo
Pedro Astacio
David Bell
Jeromy Burnitz
Vinny Castilla
Scott Erickson
Carl Everett
Jeff Fassero
Alex S. Gonzalez
Danny Graves
Rick Helling
Dustin Hermanson
Jose Hernandez
Brian Jordan
Matt Lawton
Javy Lopez
Bill Mueller
Terry Mulholland
Jeff Nelson
Phil Nevin
Brad Radke
Joe Randa
Tim Salmon
Ruben Sierra
Jose Vizcaino
Bernie Williams
Eric Young

2013 will have, among others,....
Bonds
Clemens
Biggio - gets in
Schilling - will get more votes than the rest on this list, but will miss
Sosa
Piazza
Lofton

2014 is going to be all about Maddux, Glavine and Frank Thomas

2015 has Randy Johnson, Smoltz and Pedro

2016 Griffey

Next year you will see Larkin and Bagwell.

Larkin maybe, but noway Bagwell gets in next year if at all. He won't make up the other 34% of the votes that he will need in one year. I would put any amount of money on that.

 

[Mozzie22]

Glad to see Larkin's vote total on the rise. He deserves it but so does Trammell.

 

[TwinGnats]

My "card" coverage of the announcement http://www.examiner.com/baseball-card-i ... ll-of-fame

I've been trying to think up a good special collection to start, and I thought of Jack Morris as it looks like he'll eventually get inducted. I thing though I'm going to start a better collection than that. I have a bat with 14 Autographs of Minnesota born players who played with the Twins (have Mauer, Alomar, Morris and Hrbek but missing Winfield) I think a card collection of those players would be a good concept.

 

[SilverandBlack]

[quote="Sean_C":1x2o7ux4]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.

I agree with you that they will atleast be kept out for awhile but i think after a few years Bonds gets in then you really cant keep them out. Bonds had a HOF carrer before steroids and i think he is the only one (maybe clemens) that can say that.

So did Arod but they chose their paths. I don't think they will eventually let them in look at how long Shoeless Joe has been kept out, way after he died.[/quote:1x2o7ux4]
The Shoeless Joe thing cant even be brought up in the discussion since he has been banned from baseball. The steroid guys have not been banned they just carry the stigma. Unless the commish lifts the ban Shoeless Joe cant even be put on the ballot. Also i'd bet if the ban was lifted he would go in the first time he's on the ballot

 

[elmalo]

Bagwell and Martinez should be in as well.

Why?

 

[sdsportsfan1214]

Bagwell and Martinez should be in as well.

Why?

Bagwell yes, Martinez not so much

 

[elmalo]

So Blyleven wasn't good enough the first 10 years, but now is? HOF is a farce! Congrats to Alomar who should have been first ballot, as should all real HOFers!

Agreed! Blyleven belongs in the Hall of Good.

 

[elmalo]

I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Agreed

 

[elmalo]

I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

 

[elmalo]

I was on the fence about Schilling getting in but hell, If Blyleven got in than Schilling is first ballot.

 

[hofmichael]

I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Ty Cobb is in and he did the same thing Pete Rose did.

 

[elmalo]

[quote="Sean_C":amf2ngea]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Ty Cobb is in and he did the same thing Pete Rose did.[/quote:amf2ngea]
As is Hal Chase. Rose did a lot more than just the gambling.

 

[Krom]

I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.

 

[SilverandBlack]

[quote="Sean_C":jfcv23zg]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:jfcv23zg]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.

 

[elmalo]

[quote="Gonzaleznut":6x86lglv][quote="Sean_C":6x86lglv]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:6x86lglv]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.[/quote:6x86lglv]
Agreed. Which is why Bonds. Clemens McGwire Palmeiro, et should get in.

 

[Krom]

[quote="bondofan38":2mh5yb0r][quote="Gonzaleznut":2mh5yb0r][quote="Sean_C":2mh5yb0r]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:2mh5yb0r]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.[/quote:2mh5yb0r]
Agreed. Which is why Bonds. Clemens McGwire Palmeiro, et should get in.[/quote:2mh5yb0r]
But it doesn't. You can't take Cobb out because he was a nasty human being, Mantle because he was a drunk etc. Also that way of thinking will not help the roiders, they have already kept them out (obvious ones) and will not let them in because some hofers were bad people so why not let the roiders in - it doesn't work that way.

 

[elmalo]

[quote="Krom":2wrokqrm][quote="bondofan38":2wrokqrm][quote="Gonzaleznut":2wrokqrm][quote="Sean_C":2wrokqrm]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:2wrokqrm]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.[/quote:2wrokqrm]
Agreed. Which is why Bonds. Clemens McGwire Palmeiro, et should get in.[/quote:2wrokqrm]
But it doesn't. You can't take Cobb out because he was a nasty human being, Mantle because he was a drunk etc. Also that way of thinking will not help the roiders, they have already kept them out (obvious ones) and will not let them in because some hofers were bad people so why not let the roiders in - it doesn't work that way.[/quote:2wrokqrm]
Cobb bet on baseball and was punished by the comisioner. Rogers Hornsby and Hal Chase as well. Did Roger Clemens ever fail a drug test and get punished by MLB? Barry Bonds? Mark McGwire?

 

[Krom]

[quote="elmalo":zclyrlnl][quote="Krom":zclyrlnl][quote="bondofan38":zclyrlnl][quote="Gonzaleznut":zclyrlnl][quote="Sean_C":zclyrlnl]I'm surprised by Bagwell's vote total, as I thought it would have been a lot higher. While I don't want to insult those that are fans of Juan Gone, I'm surprised he got even 5%.

What a crock!! While I acknowledge that I am a big fan of Juan. He is one of the best players of his era. Period. He deserved waaaaayyyyy more votes. The writers are egomaniacal wimps about the steroids era players.

Palmeiro should be in, so should McGwire, Bonds and Sosa. Anyone who says otherwise is just silly.

Either you let 'em all in or no players from 1990 - 2005 should be let in including pitchers because it is impossible to tell the clean players from the not so clean players.

Bonds is head and shoulders above those guys and its not even close. Bonds was the most dominate player arguably ever. If the steroid issue never came up he would be a top 5 all time guy. Any of the other steroid guys even in that discussion?

I don't think it matters. Bagwell, Mcgwire, Clemens or anyone suspected of juicing will not be voted in. I know i might be in the minority but i agree with that way of thinking, they will be left out.
Edit - I guess i am silly like that, there is so much debate as to the Hall being watered down, i think the voters would prefer that over it being tainted. I think Shoeless should be in over Palmeiro, Mac, Bonds or Sosa. Hell even Rose i can deal with betting as a manager over roiding.

Why? You would rather have guys who lost games on purpose in than guys who made themselves better players? That doesnt make any sense to me. And by the way, Rose had a lot to do with steroids.

Who lost on purpose? I think we would have heard by now from those who were forced to lose on purpose so Rose could make a few extra bucks.[/quote:zclyrlnl]
If ethics is gonna come into play then we need to remove a lot of guys from the Hall. There are a ton of pre-war guys, both plyers and managers that were known to associate with mobsters and gamblers. There are numerous drunks, racists, wife beaters, etc, etc that are in the hall.[/quote:zclyrlnl]
Agreed. Which is why Bonds. Clemens McGwire Palmeiro, et should get in.[/quote:zclyrlnl]
But it doesn't. You can't take Cobb out because he was a nasty human being, Mantle because he was a drunk etc. Also that way of thinking will not help the roiders, they have already kept them out (obvious ones) and will not let them in because some hofers were bad people so why not let the roiders in - it doesn't work that way.[/quote:zclyrlnl]
Cobb bet on baseball and was punished by the comisioner. Rogers Hornsby and Hal Chase as well. Did Roger Clemens ever fail a drug test and get punished by MLB? Barry Bonds? Mark McGwire?[/quote:zclyrlnl]
They all are believed to have and that will be enough. There doesn't have to be written proof for the voters to keep them out. If you think those 3 were clean through all of their careers you are crazy.