Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.
Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.
Sure id vote for anyone. Hall is already filled with guys who in 70's and 80's did enough speed and coke to kill a horse. He'll there are a bunch of the Pirated from the late 70's dynasty in the hall and they we all coked up. I dont think McGwire is HOF'er either way though. Yes to Bonds and Clemens though
Yes I would vote for both of them as well as Sosa.
They saved baseball they were great players and awesome hitters. I enjoyed every minute of it.. And I don't give a flying fuck that they cheated or where on roids. They made the game fun to watch. Its a damn shame today's players are not as juiced up maybe I would actually watch.
I am a fan of all three guys and I always will be.
Bonds is the biggest asshole (IMHO) who ever played the game...so they'll make him wait.
But like Richard Griffin said, he and Clemens were HOF players before they became obvious juicers. The thing about McGwire and Sosa is that they were one dimensional players...power, that's it. Lousy defence, average everything else. Doesn't make them HOF'ers.
No question Bonds was great and a no-brainer if one doesn't care about PEDs. McGwire is not a no-brainer. Even with his PED use, McGwire had only the 15th highest career WAR of the players eligible to get voted.
That said, I believe Bonds and Clemens will be elected within 10 years. Once the older voters go by the wayside and younger guys come aboard, their vote totals and level of support will continue to grow.
McGwire and Sosa I doubt it. Palmeiro obviously won't unless it's by the Veterans Committee, now that he's off the ballot.
Personally I think PEDs or no PEDs the entire process is fatally flawed. MLB has duped BBWAA into doing their dirty work because they don't have the balls to set down any definitive rules about who gets in and who doesn't, or at the very least what is to be considered and what isn't. If there are published standards its news to me, and I don't think that for a Hall of FAME I should have to go looking for them, and so I haven't. The HoF Museum doesn't belong to "baseball" or the BBWAA or to its members - it belongs to MLB and they need to start acting like it. The Selig departure might bring more common sense but I doubt it, since it could conceivably affect ticket sales. I won't even begin to talk about a balloting process that would make Rube Goldberg giggle with glee.
Cynical? Sure, but sorry Bud - "you made me that way".
Here's my thing, there's probably dozens possibly hundreds already in the hall that has likely taken things that were around in their era, and either got away with it or was legal at the time. I'd simply put trust in the drug testing and say if they don't have a failed drug test under their belt, all I can go with is what I KNOW and not what I/We suspect or assume.
I understand that previous players cheated and got elected but they shouldn't! If you start rewarding cheaters with accolades such as the HOF, how does that stop future players from cheating? Cheat, make big money and get elected into the HOF....what's not to like?