Which Bad Boy of Baseball gets your vote?

[EarlJam]

Of the following players who have thus far been shunned from the baseball Hall of Fame (or shall likely be shunned in the future) due to doing very bad things, which one would you vote IN if you had to vote for one of them?

Pete Rose
Mark McGuire
Barry Bonds
Sammy Sosa

Left out Roger Clemens as the jury's still out on him. No write-in votes allowed. This is a public poll

-EarlJam

[hc5duke]

I voted for Rose. My theory has always been that Pete Rose will get in once he dies. I don't have any insight on Selig's private world, that's just what I think will happen.

[j.j. jones]

I voted for Rose. My theory has always been that Pete Rose will get in once he dies. I don't have any insight on Selig's private world, that's just what I think will happen.

I've always been a huge Rose supporter, even during the past 15-20 years or so, up until maybe a couple of years ago when it became more than obvious that he had lied about his gambling. Personally, I feel that gambling on games you're playing in or managing is more serious than using substances (legal or otherwise) which may or may not enhance your performance (or ease your pain), whichever the case may be. So, I voted for Bonds. I wouldn't mind seeing Rose get in, but if he does, then Shoeless Joe should get in as well, IMHO.

[wilson]

I understand that it's a cardinal rule of baseball, and as such Pete Rose had an obligation to comply, but I don't get why the "no betting on baseball" thing is so serious. As long as you don't bet against your own team, I have no real problem with it. It's not cheating like performance-enhancing drugs are. There is no unfair advantage and it does not alter the game itself.

[hc5duke]

As long as you don't bet against your own team, I have no real problem with it. It's not cheating like performance-enhancing drugs are. There is no unfair advantage and it does not alter the game itself.

Right, from what I remember, there was no evidence that he bet against his own team, unlike Shoeless Joe.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

They have all dishonored the game

And it is OUR game - we all grew up playing baseball

[hc5duke]

They have all dishonored the game

And it is OUR game - we all grew up playing baseball

I saw this as a "would you rather" type of poll. Would you rather stick your hand in a bee hive or swim around in a pond full of leeches? You don't have to WANT to do/vote for anything, just pick the least disgusting choice.

p.s. I'll go with the bee hive, given this is a regular old honeybees and there is medical personnel on hand

[greybeard]

Pete Rose. Paul Hornning bet on the Packers to win; they did and he's in the football hall.

Barry Bonds too. He was a better player way before steroids ever arguably came into play than anyone currently in the Hall. Steroids is a baseball issue not just a Barry Bonds issue. Keeping him out lets baseball off the hook.

[rasputin]

So you've been betting on the team you manage. Tonight you haven't put down a bet, or a smaller bet than usual. Is this the night you give your star player the night off he needs? Will you leave your failing starting pitcher in to take a pounding so the bullpen gets a rest? Even betting on your team harms the integrity of the game.

[ugadevil]

I'd take Rose because he is the only one who has admitted to doing anything wrong, and I believe the others are all guilty but won't come out and say it.

[greybeard]

So you've been betting on the team you manage. Tonight you haven't put down a bet, or a smaller bet than usual. Is this the night you give your star player the night off he needs? Will you leave your failing starting pitcher in to take a pounding so the bullpen gets a rest? Even betting on your team harms the integrity of the game.

I'm not getting your point. I think you are implying that you, the manager, have a better shot at winning your bets than other people, or that the people who run the betting will read your non-bets and therefore have an edge over the other bettors, beyond what the bookies normally have? If so, I'm still not getting your point. How does this harm the game?

[greybeard]

Second baseman named Bob asks for 5 mill in contract negotiations. The owner says, "I'll give you 3, with a mill bonus if you play in 145 games or more, 1.2 mill if it's more than 150, and a full 2 mill if you hit more than 15 out.

The second baseman says, deal. We now know what we know. Did the owner undermine the integrity of the game? How can it be otherwise, and how can people still insist that whether Barry or Roger did roids has anything to do with why roids has infused all levels of the game?

[pamtar]

I saw this as a "would you rather" type of poll. Would you rather stick your hand in a bee hive or swim around in a pond full of leeches? You don't have to WANT to do/vote for anything, just pick the least disgusting choice.

p.s. I'll go with the bee hive, given this is a regular old honeybees and there is medical personnel on hand

Id probably go with the leaches - as long as I was clothed. Don't want to end up like River Phoenix!

[hurleyfor3]

Second baseman named Bob asks for 5 mill in contract negotiations. The owner says, "I'll give you 3, with a mill bonus if you play in 145 games or more, 1.2 mill if it's more than 150, and a full 2 mill if you hit more than 15 out.

I'm pretty certain MLB contracts cannot contain performance-based bonuses (hitting a certain number of home runs, or reaching a certain batting average or ERA). That said, they can contain bonuses for games played or winning awards, and I completely agree with your thesis that people singling out individual players (such as Bonds) are deceiving themselves and letting MLB as an organization off the hook.

[dukie8]

I understand that it's a cardinal rule of baseball, and as such Pete Rose had an obligation to comply, but I don't get why the "no betting on baseball" thing is so serious. As long as you don't bet against your own team, I have no real problem with it. It's not cheating like performance-enhancing drugs are. There is no unfair advantage and it does not alter the game itself.

you might not have a problem with it but every other professional sports league does. yes, if you bet on other baseball games, your position as manager/coach doesn't matter at first glance. however, it's a very slippery slope. it doesn't take that much of an imagination to see what will happen if you start losing your bets on anything (other teams, other sports, cards, etc) and cannot pay -- you are going to be asked to shave points to repay the debts. i just saw snatch and if you have seen that you will know how badly things can snowball.

regarding betting FOR your team, it, too, doesn't sound that bad because you should be trying to win anyway. however, if you have a bet on your team, you clearly will be doing things that you normally wouldn't do. some examples would be leaving a less than 100% star player in the game even after the outcome of the game no longer is in doubt (thereby risking greater injury); using a closer when he really isn't necessary which would make him not available the next night when you really do need him or being much more aggressive in general (eg, stealing in the 9th with a big lead).

the bottom line is if you are involved with the outcomes of one of the major sports in this country you shouldn't be betting on anything. if you have a problem with that, then you should get a new job and bet away.

[camion]

There's also the problem of the losing gambler. A gambler in debt is someone who can be manipulated. With a few exceptions that's where the major problems usually arise.

[Jim3k]

BTW, that's 'McGwire'

[Olympic Fan]

I didn't vote because the poll didn't offer me the option I wanted to use ... none of the listed players should be in the Hall of Fame.

And that includes Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[cspan37421]

None belong in, unless the hall is going to make a special wing for record-breakers who got away (at the time) with cheating or manipulating games for gambling interests. Some say, sure, put them in, and put on their plaque their misdeeds and why they are harmful to baseball, to educate the public.

But before he was a manager, Pete Rose played the game with a gusto and verve I've rarely seen. That was the good side of him, and as a player, he was great to watch. It is hard to imagine him having thrown a game as a player, he put forth such effort. As a manager, not so. But when you fail to make a regular bet on an outcome over which you have some control, the signal to gamblers (to whom you're indebted) is that you expect to lose, and you'll probably manage that way. It is as bad as betting against your team, because you've led others to do so, for your own benefit.

As far as "keep them out" or "put them in the hall of shame wing", probably more good can come to the latter. My guess is that none of them want to go in if it means that treatment. So maybe we're back to "keep them out."