John_Havok

But no Bonds, because reasons.

Maybe Delgado gets a chance now. Guy was railroaded off the ballot with a whimper when his numbers in many respects are very comparable to Ortiz. Better hitter on a rate basis but didn't have those extra 3 or 4 years at the end to push him higher. Didnt get the postseason success overall but when he did make the playoffs with the Mets, he hit very well. Just happened to be on the ballot when 1b/DH types weren't cool.

I think the argument there is that the voters were idiots when it came to Martinez, not that they got it wrong with Ortiz. Also, comparing the DH to position players is not apples to apples.

His only real knock is that he was DH for pretty much his whole career and while I can entertain and understand that argument to a point, there's no denying his actual numbers are worthy of induction.

Precedent has already admitted cheaters to the Hall of Fame. The list is incredibly long. Keep trying. Whoever said that is full of s*** trying to feel good about himself.

Great. So was the rest of the league and he still never failed a test. And it's still heresay. Heresay isn't evidence, it's belief. HGH wasn't banned by baseball until January 2005. Clemens last played in 2003.

"The two sides already agreed to a universal DH with the elimination of draft pick compensation that penalizes teams for signing premier free-agent players. " NIce

And I just flatly don't care about whether they kicked puppies on the sidewalk or read to seniors every night at the home. If the people who gave them contracts to play for their teams and make them millions and millions of dollars thought they were good enough people to play for them and make them millions and millions of dollars, they're good enough to be in the Hall of Fame of the sport they dominated. End of story for me.

I don't know for sure. Nobody does except for Bonds, Clemens, and anyone who may have witnessed their injections. Literally anything else is heresay. Me, yes I think they used along with 75%+ of the league. Just like everyone in the 60's and 70s used ampethamines like they were candy, and even had a cockatail called "red juice" that was extremely common in the 70s and 80's. Are amphetamines the same as steroids? No. but they still helped players perform better or they wouldn't have used them. They were also illegal. What pisses me off the most about this, is that these writers have NEVER historically given 2 shits about players that used performance enhancing substances, but somehow steroids are seen as this miracle substance that turns terrible players into Hall of Fame talents and they "needed" the steroids to be good at baseball. It's such a ******** argument. Players of the past didn't "need" amphetamines to be great ballplayers, they just used them to enhance their own talents and perform at their peak for longer. Steroids did the same thing, just better. The hypocrisy of the writers that don't vote for alleged steroid abusers is astounding. Unless they were in the room when the injection happened, they don't KNOW anything. But since they don't like Bonds and Clemens because they might have been *******s, they use the steroid thing as the excuse to keep them out of the Hall. These are the same writers that covered baseball in the late 90's, with dwindling attendance, s***** national visibility and lower revenues due to the 1994 strike. Then the HR chases, the records being broken, huge surge in popularity and NOT ONE OF THEM said jack s*** about steroids at the time, because they were making their living off the renewed popularity of the sport. Any writer that didn't vote for alleged steroid abusers while making money off what they did, are dirt-bag hypocrites who's opinions aren't worth the paper they were printed on at the time. Every single one of them should give up their vote and f*** off into the sunset.

Naw, just charged the stands and lit into him. The guy didn't even have hands due to some accident, and someone yelled at Cobb to stop as they guy had no hands and allegedly Cobb yelled back "I don't care if he got no feet" and kept beating him until the ump and cops pulled him off. Story says that the fan implied that Cobb's mother was black. Cobb being a racist, took offense.

True. But the Veterans Committee (Today's game section) that meets in December is considering players from 1988 - 2016, so ... they actually could get in next year if the committee doesn't have it's head up it's own ass.

Cobb was suspended for charging the stands and assaulting a fan who was trash talking him during the game. Suspended for 10 games. There's absolutely tons of evidence that Cobb was a despicable human being both on and off the field.

There are many who think Delgado should already be there. Dude was a monster

Best commanded pitch of the last century. Better than Maddux could ever do.

I understand the character clause being there. It's been there since the 10th year of Hall of Fame eligibility. Technically, people can use that to argue as to why Ty Cobb got in, because there was no specific "character clause" for his vote. However, with precedent set by the BBWAA of the past since that clause was added to the consideration for the Hall, anything short of committing murder while on the field of play is not sufficient to invoke that clause. In fact, most baseball historians seem to think that the character clause was meant to help get people IN to the Hall, not keep them out. Kind of a "he's such a great human and was great for baseball, but didn't quite have the numbers" clause.

Rose is really the only one I understand not being there, but only because he willingly accepted a lifetime ban from baseball. I would still put him there without hesitation but that he willingly took the settlement that included the ban, I accept that. Nobody on the current ballot was banned. The ones with the requisite numbers should be in.

And it's official, the Hall of Fame for MLB in 2022 welcomes.... David Ortiz. That's it. Complete joke of an institution.

Just watching the start of the HOF announcemnet show... i didnt think i could be more impressed with Bonds, then they said " From age 34-42, his stats are better than many current Hall of Famer's entire careers." Just... put the guy in already. He's the best there has ever been. Stop being whiney ****s and get him in.

Should have it's own display in the Hall under glass with the simple designation of "savior"

I like the idea, I'm just wondering as to the mechanism of payout. Some years there could be pretty big variance between the top guy with under 3 years of service time and the 30th best. There could also be years where the best guy has 7 WAR, other years the best might only have 4. Would they get a hard slot bonus for being on top or some sort of sliding scale like... dollars per WAR?

If that's the case then it should be a lot smaller than it is now. Ty Cobb was one of the most despicable human beings to ever play the game, and he got more HOF votes than Ruth. There's a laundry list of players in the Hall Of Fame who were complete douchebag humans and cheaters in the game but they're all still there. That's probably what pisses me off the most. The precedent is already set that you don't have to be a saint to get in, as long as you excelled on the field, but now the writers are pretending like it's their holy purpose in life to protect the sanctity of a Hall of Fame that's already riddled with scumbags. And yes, i got the sarcasm. Just wanted to rant a bit.

Yeah I guess, seems weird to give individual player bonuses out that way, but I guess the intent of revenue sharing is so that the smaller market teams spend more on players, so maybe not that weird. But that would have to be over and above the other revenue sharing already in place or it really would be just taking from one hand to give to another Next question... would it apply only to those players that aren't already signed to guaranteed extensions? IE, would Wander Franco qualify for a piece of that pool next season? Or would it only apply to those going year to year like the vast majority do?

Was listening to MLB network radio on my way back to work today and Nitkowski and Spillborgs were talking about steroids. I don't recall which one said which, but one of them said he had teammates that used, were all open about it, they were great friends at the time and remain to this day, and he would gladly play on their team and go out to compete to win every day, but he would never vote for them to get into the hall of fame. I couldn't think of a more hypocritical thing to say. They're good enough to be teammates, tight and close friends, but... nope, wouldn't vote for them if they were eligible to be in the hall. Also said he knows players used ampethemines and other things in earlier eras and said they should only be non HOFers if they were caught. There wasn't even testing back then for virtually anything, so... how would they get caught? Just, nonsensical garbage.

Good question, especially for pitchers.

"MLB agreed to accept parameters of a pre-arbitration bonus pool for top 30 WAR. MLBPA seeking $105M. League offered $10M." Where does this bonus pool come from?