Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Calmy. Show Calmy's posts

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

    In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:
    [QUOTE]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).
    Posted by cglassanos[/QUOTE]

    I don't think you can simply ignore a generation of HOF players.  I doesn't do MLB any good to pretend they didn't allow steroids to exist during this time.  Manny, Bonds, Arod, etc... will always be remembered as great players who took steroids, no one, especially father Curt, will ever let anyone forget this. It doesn't mean they are not HOFamers. 

    For the record, Roberto Alomar and Rickey Henderson are both in and you are not convincing me either one of them was clean.  This is way more about bitter sportswriters and fans than about the integrity of the game. 

    Hundreds of players were using PED's, Manny is 1-5 players to retire with a .300+ average and 500 HR's, if the PED's made him do it, he'd have a lot more company.  Matt Lawton and Ryan Franklin tested positive and yet they just don't quite have the resumes of Bonds or Clemens.  I guess Lawton and Franklin just didn't have the good drugs.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from kbair. Show kbair's posts

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

    Yes.
    They should all be let in. The HOF serves the function of not only preserving the feats of baseball players, but of telling the story of baseball.  Steroids is part of the story of baseball which includes segregation, corked bats, sandpaper and spit. The HOF should not be the governing body of baseball, therefore it has no place sifting through the transgressions of the people it enshrines. Or making assumptions about an individual based on that individuals’ peers.
    I am all for putting a bracket around the steroid era or making vocal some distinction surrounding the rules of baseball during this time. Just like the numbers of early baseball players should be put into context: baseball was slow to integrate so how can historic numbers carry any meaning? If you go to the Hall you are immediately confronted with any number of different ways that people have tried to gain an edge over their opponent. Baseball stadiums are built to non-exacting specifications that skew numbers depending on who is playing in which ballpark. Wakefield files his nails so that he can throw the knuckleball better, Giambi and Bernie Williams had eye surgery so that they could have better than 20-20 vision, almost every pitcher will go through a procedure where they replace a tendon in their throwing arm with a tendon from their leg, so how can todays numbers have any relevance to yesterdays? The game has changed and if the HOF wants to remain as any sort of standard, as any sort of achievement, as any sort of storyteller, it needs to change with the game.
    No one can definitively know that Manny would not have hit 555 home runs or maintained his career batting average unaided. Or that Roger Clemens or Andy Pettite would have struck out less people or won less games. Just like no one knows if Babe Ruth would have hit as many home runs if he had to face Satchel Paige for the last ten years of his career. We can say that before baseball was integrated there were several players who hit .400, there has been no one that has accomplished that feat since.
    The Baseball Hall of Fame needs to tell this story. That is why Manny should go in, Bonds should go in, McGuire, Sosa, Rose, they should all go in.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from -EdithBunker-. Show -EdithBunker-'s posts

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

    Manny belongs in the Hall Of Fame
    Posted by Chad Finn,Boston Globe
    I'll keep this as brief as Ellsbury vs. Farnsworth since most of my pro-Manny arguments passed their expiration date last Friday, when one of the most fun and frustrating players we'll ever see shamelessly abandoned one last team with a shrug, the red tail lights heading for Spain while he left his legacy behind in self-inflicted shambles.

    For someone who considers Manny and Pedro (no last names required) Nos. 1 and 1A in terms of the most charismatic and compelling superstars to call Fenway Park home in my lifetime, the ending to Manny's career was both disappointing . . . and appropriate. Leave it to the man-child who once used the inside of the Green Monster as his private urinal to have his career ended by a tragic case of peeing-in-a-cup-gone-wrong.

    I suppose I should apologize for making light of that, since apparently levity is frowned upon by the national baseball media in such Serious Matters as Manny's disrespect for the game. Levity is apparently acceptable only when it's used to make Manny a punch line. The New York Times's outstanding baseball writer Tyler Kepner tweeted this when the news broke Friday: So which hat will Manny Ramirez wear when he's dropped from the Hall of Fame ballot after one year? It's a clever line, one even an accomplished Manny apologist such as myself wishes he'd thought of first. Unfortunately, it also foreshadowed some nonsense to come featuring the same sentiment but lacking the humor.

    Heaven knows we've heard a lot of ridiculous commentary on ESPN's "Sunday Night Baseball" the past 20 or so years, most of it having to do with slidepieces and the Big Red Machine and stubbornly wrongheaded conventional wisdom. But Joe Morgan is finally gone this year -- I almost miss his habit of falling silent whenever a replay would prove him wrong -- and the thoroughly professional and informed team of Dan Shulman, Orel Hershiser, Bobby Valentine and reporters Wendi Nix and Buster Olney is in place.

    My regard for all of them is high, particularly Olney, whose column, a mix of insight, statistics, and links, is worth the price of ESPN Insider alone. Which is why it was so aggravating Sunday night during the Red Sox-Yankees telecast to hear Olney say that he's voted for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame, that he will probably vote for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, but that he will not vote for Manny. He was one among a number of prominent writers to suggest in the aftermath of Manny's adios that he would not get the requisite five percent of the vote to remain on the ballot a second year.
    To which I say: You have got to be kidding me. I mean, I don't even know which decoder ring I need to use to try to decipher that tangled logic. Olney sort of explained or implied that Manny is held to a different standard because his transgressions -- two failed tests since April 2009 -- came after performance-enhancing drug testing was implemented in 2004. (He also reportedly tested positive for a banned substance in 2003.)

    [Update: According to The Big Lead, Olney has said Manny's transgressions are worse because baseball is trying to clean up the sport. In other words, it was OK to do it when Bud Selig and the players union turned a blind eye to the epidemic. Huh? I'm more confused than before.]

    But the notion that Bonds (whose homer totals -- 37, 49, 73 -- grew at a similar rate to his cap size), Clemens ("Uh, them is Debbie's syringes"), and especially McGwire (whose benefits from PEDs are right there www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mcgwima01.shtml">in bold type on his baseball-reference.com page, and yet are probably less fraudulent than that prolonged charade with the Maris family in the summer of '98) could and maybe even will get in while Manny, whose www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ramirma02.shtml">outstanding but hardly bloated numbers rarely fluctuated from season to season, is one-and-done . . . well, that's just warped. All of the aforementioned superstars cheated. The real difference between them and Manny, as I see it, is twofold: Major League Baseball was complicit in duping the public before testing was implemented. And Manny was dumb and dumber enough to fail the test twice.

    Now, I realize I sound like a Giants fan defending the indefensible Bonds, or a Cardinals fan still deluded that their McGwire memories were the genuine article. So be it. Watching Manny hit -- when he was really locked in, when he'd set up the pitcher and annihilate a pitch he'd missed earlier in the game -- ranks among the all-time great joys of being a Red Sox fan. It's disappointing that so many fans around here dwell on the ugly scenes and the departures -- from Boston, from the game itself -- more than they do all of the good times, all of the endearingly goofy antics, the silly handshakes, the two championships, and did I mention the long drives over the Monster that looked like they'd soar all the way to Worcester?

    Manny's legacy in my mind is best captured by his three-run homer off Barry Zito in Game 5 of the 2003 ALDS. The bomb, off one of the best pitchers in baseball at the time, was as clutch as it got at that point in Red Sox history. And yet before the baseball landed deep into the left field seats, the broadcasters were caterwauling about the disgrace of Manny pausing to watch it. Sometimes, he couldn't win for winning. And when he did something wrong or offensive, which was more than occasional, you get what you had last Friday: analysis that alternated between solemn and vicious, with the same tired conclusion. Manny disrespected the game, and it is our duty as alleged guardians to punish him for it. No Hall for you, Ramirez.

    If you're familiar with the baseball nerdhood that powers this blog, you know I love the Hall of Fame. Love going to Cooperstown and the museum, love writing about who's on the ballot and who should be elected and who isn't quite worthy, love all of the nostalgia and circumstance. But I also have some longstanding problems with its machinations, beginning with the arbitrariness of who's in and who's out and the pretzel logic that often leads to such contradictions. Tell me again why Catfish Hunter is and Luis Tiant isn't, or why Lou Whitaker lasted just a single season on the ballot while the inferior Phil Rizzuto is in or . . . well, we could write a couple of chapters on all the scumbags, rascals and racists who are revered while the all-time hit leader remains banned.

    Maybe I'm too much of a completionist, or maybe I'm not putting the appropriate stock in the morals of the game, but to me, the Hall of Fame is supposed inform us about the history of the game as much as it celebrates it, and that means acknowledging the dark days with the sunny. Legendary players who may have built that legend by nefarious means shouldn't be ignored.

    Even with Jose Canseco's dubiously motivated but relatively accurate whistle-blowing, there's still so much we don't know about who and how many were using from the late '80s on. But this is certain: You watch a classic game from 1998 or 2001 or 2004 now, and you will be astounded at how much bigger almost all of the players are than they are now. The Mitchell Report was not an epilogue. There are other Radomskis and McNamees out there who will eventually tell another first-person sordid tale that indicts even more of the presumed innocent. It's premature and irresponsible to say a player who tested positive last week won't and shouldn't get in five years from now. The context is still hazy.

    Admittedly, my opinion on who should be a Hall of Famer has changed by several degrees in the aftermath of the steroid era. I do believe Bonds should get in, I do believe Clemens should get in, and I will always loathe both of them. And I will listen to arguments for the likes of McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, both of whom would probably be distant afterthoughts on the ballot if not for their apparent chemical advantages.

    Ultimately, the Hall of Fame is incomplete when the definitive players of each era are not recognized. Mention steroids and failed tests and obstruction of justice convictions on the cheaters' plaques; hell, put a giant asterisk on their bronzed foreheads. But give me honesty and perspective and the whole story over arbitrary judgment any day. I'd rather see all the juicers who turned the record book into a comic book get in than have a single clean player excluded because of wrongful suspicions, and I'd rather see all of the game's history acknowledged than just those moments suitable for all audiences. Bonds, Clemens, Manny . . . maybe they don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. They probably don't. But they belong in the Hall of Fame.

    (OK, so that wasn't brief. Hopefully we'll say the same thing about Manny's stay on the ballot in five years.)

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from emp9. Show emp9's posts

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

    If Clemens, Bonds, Mcgwire, Palmeiro, Pettitte (his post-season record is crazy) get in, then Manny should get in as well. All or none.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

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

    In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:
    [QUOTE]Manny belongs in the Hall Of Fame Posted by Chad Finn,Boston Globe I'll keep this as brief as Ellsbury vs. Farnsworth since most of my pro-Manny arguments passed their expiration date last Friday, when one of the most fun and frustrating players we'll ever see shamelessly abandoned one last team with a shrug, the red tail lights heading for Spain while he left his legacy behind in self-inflicted shambles. For someone who considers Manny and Pedro (no last names required) Nos. 1 and 1A in terms of the most charismatic and compelling superstars to call Fenway Park home in my lifetime, the ending to Manny's career was both disappointing . . . and appropriate. Leave it to the man-child who once used the inside of the Green Monster as his private urinal to have his career ended by a tragic case of peeing-in-a-cup-gone-wrong. I suppose I should apologize for making light of that, since apparently levity is frowned upon by the national baseball media in such Serious Matters as Manny's disrespect for the game. Levity is apparently acceptable only when it's used to make Manny a punch line. The New York Times's outstanding baseball writer Tyler Kepner tweeted this when the news broke Friday: So which hat will Manny Ramirez wear when he's dropped from the Hall of Fame ballot after one year? It's a clever line, one even an accomplished Manny apologist such as myself wishes he'd thought of first. Unfortunately, it also foreshadowed some nonsense to come featuring the same sentiment but lacking the humor. Heaven knows we've heard a lot of ridiculous commentary on ESPN's "Sunday Night Baseball" the past 20 or so years, most of it having to do with slidepieces and the Big Red Machine and stubbornly wrongheaded conventional wisdom. But Joe Morgan is finally gone this year -- I almost miss his habit of falling silent whenever a replay would prove him wrong -- and the thoroughly professional and informed team of Dan Shulman, Orel Hershiser, Bobby Valentine and reporters Wendi Nix and Buster Olney is in place. My regard for all of them is high, particularly Olney, whose column, a mix of insight, statistics, and links, is worth the price of ESPN Insider alone. Which is why it was so aggravating Sunday night during the Red Sox-Yankees telecast to hear Olney say that he's voted for Mark McGwire for the Hall of Fame, that he will probably vote for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, but that he will not vote for Manny. He was one among a number of prominent writers to suggest in the aftermath of Manny's adios that he would not get the requisite five percent of the vote to remain on the ballot a second year. To which I say: You have got to be kidding me. I mean, I don't even know which decoder ring I need to use to try to decipher that tangled logic. Olney sort of explained or implied that Manny is held to a different standard because his transgressions -- two failed tests since April 2009 -- came after performance-enhancing drug testing was implemented in 2004. (He also reportedly tested positive for a banned substance in 2003.) [ Update: According to The Big Lead, Olney has said Manny's transgressions are worse because baseball is trying to clean up the sport . In other words, it was OK to do it when Bud Selig and the players union turned a blind eye to the epidemic. Huh? I'm more confused than before.] But the notion that Bonds (whose homer totals -- 37, 49, 73 -- grew at a similar rate to his cap size), Clemens ("Uh, them is Debbie's syringes"), and especially McGwire (whose benefits from PEDs are right there www.baseball-reference.com/players/m/mcgwima01.shtml " /> in bold type on his baseball-reference.com page, and yet are probably less fraudulent than that prolonged charade with the Maris family in the summer of '98) could and maybe even will get in while Manny, whose www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ramirma02.shtml "> outstanding but hardly bloated numbers rarely fluctuated from season to season, is one-and-done . . . well, that's just warped. All of the aforementioned superstars cheated. The real difference between them and Manny, as I see it, is twofold: Major League Baseball was complicit in duping the public before testing was implemented. And Manny was dumb and dumber enough to fail the test twice. Now, I realize I sound like a Giants fan defending the indefensible Bonds, or a Cardinals fan still deluded that their McGwire memories were the genuine article. So be it. Watching Manny hit -- when he was really locked in, when he'd set up the pitcher and annihilate a pitch he'd missed earlier in the game -- ranks among the all-time great joys of being a Red Sox fan. It's disappointing that so many fans around here dwell on the ugly scenes and the departures -- from Boston, from the game itself -- more than they do all of the good times, all of the endearingly goofy antics, the silly handshakes, the two championships, and did I mention the long drives over the Monster that looked like they'd soar all the way to Worcester? Manny's legacy in my mind is best captured by his three-run homer off Barry Zito in Game 5 of the 2003 ALDS. The bomb, off one of the best pitchers in baseball at the time, was as clutch as it got at that point in Red Sox history. And yet before the baseball landed deep into the left field seats, the broadcasters were caterwauling about the disgrace of Manny pausing to watch it. Sometimes, he couldn't win for winning. And when he did something wrong or offensive, which was more than occasional, you get what you had last Friday: analysis that alternated between solemn and vicious, with the same tired conclusion. Manny disrespected the game, and it is our duty as alleged guardians to punish him for it. No Hall for you, Ramirez. If you're familiar with the baseball nerdhood that powers this blog, you know I love the Hall of Fame. Love going to Cooperstown and the museum, love writing about who's on the ballot and who should be elected and who isn't quite worthy, love all of the nostalgia and circumstance. But I also have some longstanding problems with its machinations, beginning with the arbitrariness of who's in and who's out and the pretzel logic that often leads to such contradictions. Tell me again why Catfish Hunter is and Luis Tiant isn't, or why Lou Whitaker lasted just a single season on the ballot while the inferior Phil Rizzuto is in or . . . well, we could write a couple of chapters on all the scumbags, rascals and racists who are revered while the all-time hit leader remains banned. Maybe I'm too much of a completionist, or maybe I'm not putting the appropriate stock in the morals of the game, but to me, the Hall of Fame is supposed inform us about the history of the game as much as it celebrates it, and that means acknowledging the dark days with the sunny. Legendary players who may have built that legend by nefarious means shouldn't be ignored. Even with Jose Canseco's dubiously motivated but relatively accurate whistle-blowing, there's still so much we don't know about who and how many were using from the late '80s on. But this is certain: You watch a classic game from 1998 or 2001 or 2004 now, and you will be astounded at how much bigger almost all of the players are than they are now. The Mitchell Report was not an epilogue. There are other Radomskis and McNamees out there who will eventually tell another first-person sordid tale that indicts even more of the presumed innocent. It's premature and irresponsible to say a player who tested positive last week won't and shouldn't get in five years from now. The context is still hazy. Admittedly, my opinion on who should be a Hall of Famer has changed by several degrees in the aftermath of the steroid era. I do believe Bonds should get in, I do believe Clemens should get in, and I will always loathe both of them. And I will listen to arguments for the likes of McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, both of whom would probably be distant afterthoughts on the ballot if not for their apparent chemical advantages. Ultimately, the Hall of Fame is incomplete when the definitive players of each era are not recognized. Mention steroids and failed tests and obstruction of justice convictions on the cheaters' plaques; hell, put a giant asterisk on their bronzed foreheads. But give me honesty and perspective and the whole story over arbitrary judgment any day. I'd rather see all the juicers who turned the record book into a comic book get in than have a single clean player excluded because of wrongful suspicions, and I'd rather see all of the game's history acknowledged than just those moments suitable for all audiences. Bonds, Clemens, Manny . . . maybe they don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. They probably don't. But they belong in the Hall of Fame. (OK, so that wasn't brief. Hopefully we'll say the same thing about Manny's stay on the ballot in five years.)
    Posted by -EdithBunker-[/QUOTE]

    I don't agree, but I LOVED reading the post. This guy can write.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

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

    This could easily be the most well written thread on this entire board. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BaseballGM. Show BaseballGM's posts

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

    No, but all of the other juicers have to be kept out, as well. Tiger Woods got caught using the HGH candy man, Dr. Galea. All PED users should have a career history of shame.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from evansisthereal24. Show evansisthereal24's posts

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

    My opinion is usually against the grain on the HOF.  I think these are the stars of the time.  I believe we don't leave out the top HR hitters (Bonds and ARod), one of the best pitchers we were alive to see (Clemens), just as I wish Rose was in.  I think an acknowledgement of the ERA should be on the plaquard but these guys were the best in their time of playing.  They should be in.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

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

    In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:
    [QUOTE]My opinion is usually against the grain on the HOF.  I think these are the stars of the time.  I believe we don't leave out the top HR hitters (Bonds and ARod), one of the best pitchers we were alive to see (Clemens), just as I wish Rose was in.  I think an acknowledgement of the ERA should be on the plaquard but these guys were the best in their time of playing.  They should be in.
    Posted by evansisthereal24[/QUOTE]

    A serious thought part IISmileCool
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

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

    In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame? :   ... I hope that is because you were crying ...
    Posted by SpacemanEephus[/QUOTE]

    LOL...of course!
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytf25. Show jaytf25's posts

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

    It's a tough question. But what that hypocrite Buster Olney said the other day irks me. He said right now he would vote for Mcguire and Bonds but not Manny? Does that make sense??? Either all or none! Don't play favorites. I didn't listen to the entire inteview to find out why but this makes no sense.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

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

    jay i'm guessing its because bonds and mcquire did it before there was a steroid policy put in place by MLB, manny was tested and caught after 2005, not once, but twice.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from cglassanos. Show cglassanos's posts

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

    In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:
    [QUOTE]This could easily be the most well written thread on this entire board. 
    Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE]

    Totally agree!  The comments on Finn's main article page are amazing.  Some of the most thoughtful, though-provoking, passionate posts I've read in a long time.

    Really great stuff!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from justbaseball. Show justbaseball's posts

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

    J-Bay, I think that is a very strong point.  It seems that MLB almost encouraged PED use to boost HR's and fan interest so it is difficult to punish the players prior to there being a PED policy in place.  However, failed drug tests after the policy was put in place is another story, well done.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from evansisthereal24. Show evansisthereal24's posts

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

    Also he said because Manny was a proven user and Bonds was assumed.  I am not sure he said he voted for McGwire.  But any proven or admitted he said he wouldn't but otherwise he would.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

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

    In Response to Re: Do you think Manny Ramirez should be voted into the Hall Of Fame?:
    [QUOTE]Also he said because Manny was a proven user and Bonds was assumed.  I am not sure he said he voted for McGwire.  But any proven or admitted he said he wouldn't but otherwise he would.
    Posted by evansisthereal24[/QUOTE]

    that makes sense, i was wondering how olney could say he'd vote for mcquire since he's admitted it and not manny. If he think bonds is only an assumed user, he needs glasses
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from BoylestonBB. Show BoylestonBB's posts

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

    Numbers say yes, actions say no, think it is unlikely
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

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

    He cheated and cheats dont get it - now if you want to add a special wing to Cooperstown that addresses this issue and includes recognition of the steroid era stars and how are all stats, particularly batting, were tainted -then I think that might acceptable. Clemens. Bonds, Manny should be in that special wing of Cooperstown because of their accomplishments, but most of all as a cautionary tale to young fans....dont cheat.

    This is the best solution to this sordid mess.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

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

    Totally agree! The comments on Finn's main article page are amazing. Some of the most thoughtful, though-provoking, passionate posts I've read in a long time.

    Really great stuff!  -- cglassnos

    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    And you can consider your posts in the same category. I don't know if you write for a living, but you should think about it. I've seen "writers" on this board who can't even compare. I'd be surprised if I was the first person to say this to you.

    Btw, I haven't seen Finn's main page, but are you familiar with this quote...

    "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

    Something to think about.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheFutureNow. Show TheFutureNow's posts

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

    Absolutely....to think otherwise is naive.

    I don't think any spectator looked at Manny for 10 years and saw anything other than a HOF-er. What drama at the plate.....and it was not due to Roids...

    Comparisons with McGuire or even Bonds are not correct, did you really ever stop to say " wait a minute - I just gotta Mcguire/Bonds hit ?

    I think i watched entire games just to see Manny's at bats....

    Rgds

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from joel49. Show joel49's posts

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

    Like geo said, when they institute a PED wing.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from andrewmitch. Show andrewmitch's posts

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

    Which is why ARoids, PEDittee, and Clemens should be banned from consideration.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

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



    "No" to Manny being in the Hall of Fame.

    The guy got caught twice during the past two years.  And then he decides to disappear into retirement. 
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

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

    Should he be? Yes. Will he be? Maybe not.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

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

    Im serious about the PED wing - it should be designed as ultra modern and so that all can see how conspicously out of place it is from the rest of the hall...inside they can address all the cheaters like rose and the black sox with the room enlarging into a PED exhibit complete with stats that show the effects that they have on strength, conditioning....this will rightfully obscure the stats of those cheaters and give everyone perspective on those tainted records....baseball has to deal with it imho
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share