Farewell Jim Leyland

It's not necessarily a moral judgment, no. Not as I understand morality.

 

Then somebody's moving the damn goalposts.

Bonds would get my vote because he's the single best all-around player I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I'm still waiting to hear the first good counter-argument.

 

I feel now, and have always felt, that taking money to lose and then not following through is just as bad as playing to lose.

Kind of like when people say George Wallace wasn't really a racist, he just catered to racists to get elected.

You can't have it both ways.

 

I could be the best poker player you've ever seen if I picked out the royal flush cards prior to each hand. That's hyperbolic, but to a degree, it's what Bonds and pals did.

As I've argued before, he put fellow players in the following position: Risk your health and jail time if you want to keep up.

 

Judge Landis entered with a bang. There is no doubt he was the best man for that particular job. He did it swiftly and he did it correctly. There is no second chance when it comes to game-fixing. Americans will excuse anyone for anything and love to criticize those that must take a stand and act. Jackson is as guilty as the rest. There is no degree of culpability here. He was in the meetings, he wispered like the rest, he deceived his teammates, he received his payoff and he took the field and watched Cicotte plunk the first batter as a symbol of the fix. Argue the merits of his involvement but nevertheless he was involved. I'll grant you Landis was arbitrary and basically a hinderance to the evolution of the game but this one time he got it right.

 

You're unwilling to listen.
Period.

Bonds would have been a HOF'er w/o peds, I don't think that's really a debate. As good as A-Rod, Jeter or Griffey, Ichiro? Maybe. Maybe Not.

But he cheated so we'll never know.
End of story.

Anyone who votes for him has ZERO credibility.
He.
Cheated.
Period.

 

It was not against the rules at the time, so.........

 

Oh, bullshit.

They didn't test, so I suppose it was de facto "not against the rules at the time." But there was a memo that made clear that it was against the rules. It was and has long been presumed illegal in sports. And it is against the law in the United States.

This was not, to use an analogy from the real world, the United States polluting the air before we knew smoke was bad for you. The idea that it was no different than a cup of coffee is revisionist bunk and it doesn't pass the laugh test. Although the further I venture into this side of the argument, the more nervous I get, because I'm opposed to BuckWeaver, who is: (1) More knowledgeable than me; (2) Smarter than me. That's not a comfortable place to be.

 

Zero credibility? Seriously?

So we've busted every steroid user to ensure that none of them ever sullies the hallowed ground of the Hall of Fame, right?

 

All right, jacking this thread back on track as it morphs into version 12,393,287 of the 'who should be banned from the HOF or not' thread, speculation on Leyland's replacements seem to be focusing on,

1) In-house: Probably Brookens. Lamont is too old. McClendon maybe a longer shot.

2) From the free agent field: Alomar, Ausmus, Lovullo and Acta.

3) Off-the-wall: Mattingly, Ripken, LaRussa.

 

What the heck has McClendon done to earn another shot given how bad things were in Pittsburgh? Sure, there were plenty of issues beyond his control, but what exactly does anybody find impressive about him? I just don't see why the Tigers would even consider that move.

 

In that period of baseball history, 40 to 50 percent of players were probably Bonds' "pals." That Bonds is not in and the greenie head Willie Mays is is a traveshamockery.