I say yes. The man could hit a baseball better than almost anyone who ever lived. His career OPS+ of 154 is tied with Frank Robinson for 25th all-time, and he finished his career with a .312/.411/.585 slash line and 555 home runs. By any measure of performance the man is a Hall of Famer.

Baseball has a system of punishment in place for violating its banned substance policy, and it does not involve ineligibility for Cooperstown. By the same token, I can’t think of any other rule-breaking that evokes similar outrage from Hall of Fame voters. You’re infamous for illegally doctoring the baseball as a pitcher? Not only will you get in the Hall of Fame, we’ll all have a good laugh about your vast array of rule breaking for years to come. You’re suspected of using a banned (or not even officially banned) chemical substance during a portion of your career? No Hall for you!

Whatever the Hall of Fame should be, one thing it shouldn’t be is a final punishment for rule breaking. The Hall isn’t about holding out some final consequence for breaking a rule or sinning against the game in some abstract sense, it’s about remembering and immortalizing the greatest baseball players of all-time and all eras. At least until we have some concrete proof that steroids drastically increase offensive production, the idea that one of the top 30 hitters in the long and storied history of baseball has a better chance of not being on the ballot in his second year of eligibility than of ever making it into the Hall is a shame, and an outrage.

This post has been removed.

yes, the HOF for comedians.
man, that MANNY was a funny dude. he sure could make me laugh.
remember when he took a whiz in the green monster, or when he sat on the baseball, or when he cut off a throw from damon?
i was on the floor laughing.
and those signs he used to carry around; the man was a genius.
a combination of richard pryor and george carlin.

MANNY definitely gets my vote.

feel free to add some of your own FUNNY MANNY MOMENTS.

Funny? He helped the Sox win 2 World titles. Sox fans suffered for 86 years. That wasn't funny.

I totally agree with EdithBunker's sentiment on 86 years (and many more in years taken off people's lives...)... My Papou, perhaps the single most important person in my life, lived and died and suffered the late summer swan dives of Red Sox teams past.  He passed on his love of baseball, the Red Sox, New England, and compassion towards his fellow person to me.  I am a live-and-breathe-and-die hard Red Sox fan.  I am of conflicted opinion on 2004 and 2007.  I accept the wins as they represent pairty amongst competition at the time.  But I will not accept parity against the past.

I say "No, Manny Ramirez should not be in the Hall of Fame."  For that matter neither should any other individuals suspected of cheating (beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion, since we all know Selig is a puzzie and will never stand firm).

By inviting in known cheaters (again, not convicted, but "known" in terms of beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion) you're denigrating past achievements such as 61 (it still stands!!!!), .406, 56, 2,632, 755, and on and on.

Celebrating Bonds is denigrating Aaron and spitting on the legacy of Robinson.  Celebrating McGuire despite his affable nature belittles the working class heroism of Maris.  It creates an atmosphere of acceptance towards the likes of folks such as an Albert Belle, Jose Canseco, Manny Ramirez and... sad as it is for me to say it... Big Papis...

The voters must stand firm and recognize both the moral fiber of what being invited into the Hall of Fame means as well as the singular achievements themselves.

No

i totally agree with cglassanos;
using PED'S is equal in cheating as using a CORKED BAT.
sammy sosa used both, PED'S and a CORKED BAT.

perhaps, someday the powers that be can build a STEROID HOF for the players mentioned as users.

eventually

maybe it's best if the veterans committee vote the users in


after  they die

Just had a really good conversation with my fellow Sox fan and co-worker...

I asked him basically if he were the Commish, would he allow these folks' (i.e. Clemens, Bonds, Manny, McGuire, Palmeiro etc, etc) achievements to stand as well as allow them to enter the HoF.  His answer, eloquently and solidly put forth, but shortened for the nature of this post, was "No, because you invite a slippery, moving target, slope for both past achievements as well as folks who have been suspected of cheating but have not surpassed that 'reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion'."  I agree with the points he made, they're absolutely valid and cut to the heart of the issue.

However, I disagree.  I believe that MLB is essentially a "private club" or, even better, an issue of free time and non life vital importance.  Issues such as self governance, public law, food and shelter, freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness (all within the law of course), those are of vital importance.

My solution to the problem is to create a standing multi-partisan, diverse committee, completely independent of the Commish (somewhat akin to our Supreme Court of Justice), and give them the responsibility to:

1) Decide which players are put on the HoF ballot and which are not

2) Investigate the issue of important records, their breaking, and the issue of cheating surrounding the record bearers themselves, and, ultimately, issue a verdict on whether or not they should stand

3) Investigate and issue binding verdicts, as they see fit, regarding the moral issues of competition of the past and present as it relates to records and HoF eligibility.  This is important, once in the HoF, one cannot be removed or have his/her records impinged

This committee or group would not have jurisdiction over MLB Rules (as in the official Rule Book), the management of MLB business, day to day operational stuff etc.  They would be strictly in charge of issues of records and HoF eligibility and their judgements in these areas of importance would supercede any judgment issued by the Commish.  The Commish could still render decisions if he/she so chooses, but they could be subject to reversal by the Committee. 

The independence of the Committee from the Commish would enable them to still be effective in the face of weak moral conviction by the Commish.  The Commish would appoint the Committee members.  Their appointments would be for life or until they choose to step down.  At that time the standing Commish would appoint other Committee members.  Any Committee verdict/decision would be unanimous or none at all, much like Presidential Commissions and their bi-partisan reports.  There must be agreement and in winning over other Committee Chairpersons to the argument, therein lies the robustness, vitality, and fairness of the decision.

But what about the issue of 'reasonable doubt'?  And how would the Committee decide who to investigate and who not to?  What records to stand and what records to be *asterisk'd* (so to speak)?

The Committee would decide.  You (the Commish) chose them and, hopefully, did so with the utmost care for the integrity and future life of the game.  The Committee would decide who to investigate, what amounts to beyond a reasonable doubt and what does not and so on.  Their current and past judgments would then benefit future Committee Chairpersons, much like previous Supreme Court decisions inform and help shape the debate and choices of standing Justices.  Future Committees could override previous Committees' decisions OR use them as a trail-blazed path and guide in future decisions.

Remember, and this is of vital importance... it is a game.  A game.  This is not real life, this does not affect anything of real import.  This simply affects the prestige and legacy of the player who, depending on their choices, either chose to embrance the true nature of competition and spirit of American baseball, or who chose to enrich him/herself personally at the cost of their future legacy (i.e. taking a 'competitive advantage'... i.e. cheating, in order to make more money). 

This would not affect their income as a player, at least not directly.  Just their legacy.  They could possibly fool the league during their career, but not forever.

Thoughts?

"The Steriod Era" player with *, how can you vote a whole generation of HOF players?

As the greatest right-handed bat ever, YES...

However, Manny has lost much repect with writers with his behavior...

Look at Jeff Bagwell, got 44% of vote and he only had suspicion of Roids...

If manROID goes into the HOF, we have to put the following on the 2004 and 2007 WS Tropohy...

*

I totally agree with EdithBunker's sentiment on 86 years (and many more in years taken off people's lives...)... My Papou, perhaps the single most important person in my life, lived and died and suffered the late summer swan dives of Red Sox teams past. He passed on his love of baseball, the Red Sox, New England, and compassion towards his fellow person to me. I am a live-and-breathe-and-die hard Red Sox fan. I am of conflicted opinion on 2004 and 2007. I accept the wins as they represent pairty amongst competition at the time. But I will not accept parity against the past.

I say "No, Manny Ramirez should not be in the Hall of Fame." For that matter neither should any other individuals suspected of cheating (beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion, since we all know Selig is a puzzie and will never stand firm).

By inviting in known cheaters (again, not convicted, but "known" in terms of beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of public opinion) you're denigrating past achievements such as 61 (it still stands!!!!), .406, 56, 2,632, 755, and on and on.

Celebrating Bonds is denigrating Aaron and spitting on the legacy of Robinson. Celebrating McGuire despite his affable nature belittles the working class heroism of Maris. It creates an atmosphere of acceptance towards the likes of folks such as an Albert Belle, Jose Canseco, Manny Ramirez and... sad as it is for me to say it... Big Papis...

The voters must stand firm and recognize both the moral fiber of what being invited into the Hall of Fame means as well as the singular achievements themselves. ----cglassanos
-------------------------------------------------

OK. Where did this guy come from?  That's impressive.

No negative clouds or desparate PED use can possibly erase the beautiful image of Manny's swing or the electricity of Manny playing cat & mouse with a pitcher on an October night.  No doubt for me:  HALL OF FAME!!

"I call this reckless, arrogant, and self-absorbed behavior"

If you want to use substance abuse, Peds as an excuse to keep Manny, Bonds and others from the HOF I can agree, but if you want to use charactor, "arrogance, self absorbed" etc, you might as well start holding hearings for who you can kick out. I'm sure there are many athletes in amateur and pro sports who have and had many charactor flaws, but that's not reason enough to bar someone from the HOF. If you look at football, will Randy Moss get into footballs hall, of course. Some may hold his charactor against him but he'll get in easily because his resume dictates that he be included. 

Hetchinspete
 

Personally I think he should be, he can only be compared against his peers and it seems that MOST of his peers were guilty of some sort of PED or another.  That being said, then Bonds,Clemens and all the others should be judged under the same criteria.

"arrogance and self-absorbed"---i think you just described the majority of posters on this board, myself included.

but i agree, one's personality, or lack of same, should not reflect on how one achieves on the field. if it did the HOF would be a pretty empty building.

besides the players who used PED'S, a lot of the blame should be thrown at baseball itself (particularly the owners) for not having a competent commissioner at such a crucial time.

oh I don't know..........why not wait and ask Bill-806 how he feels...........

In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:


Wow spaceman, that is some lovely imagery!

Manny is a yes just like Clemens, Bonds, and Arod.  All the moral policemen/women out there who want to keep these guys out of the hall really don't understand what the HOF is. 

In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:


I totally feel the same way right up until the HoF part.  I don't necessarily think keeping "known" cheaters out of the HoF really denigrates them or makes them less special, especially considering Manny's legacy as a pure hitter.  And he was, too!  He possessed the best eye, hand-eye coord, temperament, and hitting intellect inside he white lines of that batter's box. 

When he was down in the count 0 - 2, I didn't think "Oh shh... ", rather I thought, "This pitcher is f_ _ _ _ _ ! LOL!@"  The man was a genius hitter and kind of a degenerate in every other respect... lackadaisical, premadona, even perhaps deliberately loafing in order to lose (to send a message). But I agree, I'll always love Manny for the pure fun of watching one man at the pinnacle of

But, a counter point to the argument that the juicers that were "pure hitters" should be allowed in the HoF as opposed to simple HR jackers, is this: all PEDs, no matter what the substance, give you an unfair edge.  Take even the mildest form of prescription steroids... they are simply amazing.  At some point or another everyone has had poison ivy.  I had a mild case of it while working a summer job in college at a driving range.  But the damn thing just lingered.  I went to the doc, got Prednazone (sp?), and wham-O, gone nearly the next day.  But that wasn't all... my entire mood was affected.  It was like having a sunshine enema, I couldn't help but be all bright eyed and bushy tailed. 

Steroids, as explained many times elsewhere, also have other important benefits when taken for sound reasons: they greatly increase the regenerative power of the body, improve eye sight (very, very important) a small albeit noticeable amount as well as many other fringe benefits.

If Manny was juicin, for whatever reason, to heal faster, to stay in the game longer, to last so many seasons, whatever, it gave him an unfair advantage and directly impacted his ability to hit for average (muscular response times, a body that feels alert and fresh on the last inning of a coast to coast road trip, etc).

And for that reason I think we can myth bust the "pure hitter" argument as baloney.  PEDs, regardless of the reason one takes them, give individuals many varied advantages aside from the obvious intended ones.

I still loved Manny and will forever be grateful for 2004 and 2007 though.  Just goes to show you that we're all hypocrites at some small level.

By the way, Spacemaneephus is the shizzle!  I get more laughs out of his posts than any other person on this board.  If I didn't know better I'd swear he was the man himself!

In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:


I've read and re-read all the posts on this thread and I don't think anyone even implied keeping someone out of the HoF based on moral issues.  BUT there are a lot of moral issues involved once you've determined that "Yes, this person cheated".  THEN morals come into the equation of "Should we allow this person vs. that person in the HoF". 

For me, I do personally care about an individual's competitive ethics as well as their nature.  But were I a HoF voter I would never consider voting against someone based on personality/morals/a-holishness alone.  If they've got the stats and they're a Ty Cobb like miser, they get in, no questions asked.  I loved it in '95 when Big Mo got the MVP over Belle, but even then, we all knew it was phoney.  It didn't feel as good as if Mo had nailed it down because he was better.

So, I totally agree, personality/moral stuff cannot be part of the equation.  If you can get in on stats, regardless of the rest, you should be in... except if you've knowingly cheated (and there are various levels of cheating, I know, but I'm talking about blatant, ongoing, complete C-H-E-A-T-I-N-G a la Palmeiro waggin his limp dikt finger at Congress).

There is a subtle difference in my mind between Manny's situation and the other well known "sinners".  Manny has presumably failed twice after the institution of random testing as a result of the steriod scandal, while the others are accused of using at a time when baseball was essentially turning a blind eye toward PEDs.  If you believe some reports, almost half of players used something that today would generate a failed test result.  If I were voting for HOF entry, I would somewhat reluctantly exclude those proven users prior to testing, but without a second thought would exclude anyone who has been confirmed to fail a test under the current system.  So even though he was among my favorite players and a fabulous hitter, Manny would not get my HOF support.

In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:


Wow, I need a Kleenex...

In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:

 

As long as we are on the topic of ROIDS and the Sox..

How do you dyed-in-the-wool fans feel about Ortiz?

Did you believe his indignant, staged press conference from 2 years ago?

Do you believe he could be so close with ManROID and NOT be using?

Do you believe his meteoric rise then fall of production was merely a coincidence of just great crystal ball vision by Theo?

It will be interesting to see how many will be objective.

This is what I am talking about....