EVIL~! alkeiper

Oh dear god, not this again...... Last year, the Rangers spent $105 million on payroll. Subtract Alex's contract. That leaves you with $80 million. 5 of the 8 teams in the playoffs last year had lower payrolls than that. Because that's a bullshit argument. How do you know who sparks the team and who just happened to be there? How exactly do you spark the Rangers pitching staff anyway? Are you telling me that if Ichiro or Tejada played on the Rangers, their pitching would get better? Honestly. The hell? Baseball is a fickle business. You get injured, and your career could be over. You can't play your entire life. Forget the money. Someone offers you a TEN YEAR contract. You would be absolutely stupid not to accept that deal. And when Moyer and Martinez retire, and Teixeira, Blalock, and Rodriguez are tearing up the league, it'll look a whole lot different. Because they had alot of good players having career years. And if you follow that reasoning, then why did they make the playoffs for the first time in team history the year he showed up in Seattle?

A-Rod is every bit as good as Ichiro. Why shouldn't he get the same consideration? Just because the Mariners' pitching happens to be better?

You can be valuable on a losing team. Here's how I look at it. Take away the pitching stats of each team, and just look at the hitting stats. The Rangers are 3RD in runs scored. They're a better offensive team than the Seattle Mariners, where Ichiro Suzuki plays. So why are we honoring Suzuki? Because of his team's pitching. That's complete bullshit. A player is honored because of his teammates' contribution to the game, and that should not happen. A player needs to win the award on his own merits, or else the award loses all credibility. First off, you're committing a fallacy comparing the '95 and '96 seasons by pure totals. Remember the '95 season was shortened by 18 games. But you're right about Larkin. Problem was, the '95 award was bullshit, and he didn't deserve it in '96 either. Frankly, I don't get the '95 voting. Maddux was more deserving, and he played on a winning team as well. But why should we reinforce the mistakes of the past? Why not? A pitcher can be most valuable once in a while, as long as he's dominant, and a starter.

To hell with the Hank Aaron award. Its meaningless. No one has ever cared. It was a bullshit honor just to name something after Aaron. Its pointless anyway, because it only honors what the MVP award was meant to do in the first place. Honoring the best player in the league. And yes, you can be the most valuable player and play on a losing team.

Bullshit. I went over this a million times last year. The MVP is for the best player, period.

Right now my pick is A-Rod again. 4th in the league in OPS while playing shortstop. 15 steals as well. When will people realize what a great player Rodriguez is?

How is he not a winner? Because he doesn't have good teammates? He's made the playoffs 3 times, and he's a .340 hitter in the postseason.

Which category does Don Denkinger fall under?

Don't be silly. Heenan would immediately recognize the coach as John Tolos.

I can't believe I missed Shane Douglas. I was just working off the PWI Almanac, and they don't list him for some reason. I'd put him on the pride list. He was a decent worker in his prime.

PENNSYLVANIA Prides ------ Bruno Sammartino Kurt Angle Billy Kidman Shame -------- Ian Rotten

I would argue the exact opposite. Without Pujols, the Cards still have Edmonds, Renteria, and Rolen powering the offense. Without Bonds, the Giants' offense is crap.

I voted Phillies. The Marlins are playing over their heads, and the Phillies just brought up some good minor league talent.

You're grasping for straws here. Rose was banned from baseball. MLB decided that ineligible players should not be eligible for the Hall. Simple as that. So what if it happened after he stopped playing? Rose was dismissed from MLB in disgrace. Why then should he be honored with baseball's highest honor?

Whether these things hurt the outcome of games is open to debate, but it doesn't matter. Rose broke the rule that was in place. Did he bet on his own team? Honestly, I'm not sure, but that's another issue. If Rose is innocent, then by all means, let him in. Newsflash. Players have been skirting the rules since the dawn of time. Trick bats existed in the 20s. I honestly can't tell you. The rules state that a player may be judged on the whole of his accomplishments. However, you really need to excel at one area or the other.

*sigh* The rule against gambling is explicitly written, and post in every clubhouse. YOU DO NOT GAMBLE. It says in black and white, you gamble on baseball, and you are suspended. It says nothing about drug addiction, or off the field behavior. It prohibits gambling. YOU CAN NOT COMPARE GAMBLING WITH OTHER BEHAVIOR. Like I said in the first page. The single most important aspect of baseball, above all else, is that it must be seen as a legitimate athletic contest. Gambling by participants tarnishes that image. A player who is high or drunk is cheating himself. A player who gambles is cheating everyone involved, from the fans right on down to the participants.

I agree with Vern. The Baseball Writers are good at selecting the all stars. They leave deserving players out, but I'm hard pressed to find a selection in the last 15 years who didn't deserve the honor. Because he made cheating an artform.

The Cobb and Speaker story. Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were accused by Dutch Leonard of throwing games. Dutch incriminated himself, but was pretty much blacklisted afterwards. There was some evidence against Cobb, but not enough to convict him. There was NO evidence against Speaker apart from Leonard's allegation, so really he should be clear of this whole thing. Refer back to Dr. Tom. ROSE BROKE THE RULES. That's what sets him apart. And incriminating the rest of baseball is not going to get Rose into the Hall.

What's the point? From the looks of John Henry Williams, Ted's DNA obviously means squat.

I remember watching UFC 11 when they ran out of alternates, and didn't have a final. Man was I ticked off.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B07220CIN1986.htm July 22, 1986. Mets vs. Reds Strawberry is ejected in the top of the 6th for arguing balls and strikes. Ray Knight and Kevin Mitchell are ejected for brawkling in the tenth. Needing a position player, Davey Johnson alternates Jesse Orosco and Roger McDowell in the outfield, bring Orosco in against lefties, McDowell against righties, and putting the other in the outfield.

Its not THAT bad. Dunn and Kearn still have a very bright future with the Reds.

John Henry- Owner of the Red Sox, former owner of the Marlins. John Henry Williams- Ted's son. Of no value to mankind.

I should clarify my position on the issue. I am not opposed to Rose returning. I am not sure whether he gambled on baseball or not. I've read a few writers who say the evidence just isn't there. What I object to is people who have the issues wrong.

Players should not bet, PERIOD. If you find yourself in debt to a bookie, the potential conflict of interest is there. You're $2 million in debt, about to lose a thumb, but you can save your ass by throwing a game. That's why the gambling rule is in place. And anyone who bets on a LITTLE LEAGUE game should get kicked out immediately. Hey, I pointed out that he took the money first. Except for Weaver, Bored was just repeating me. Did you mean Ty Cobb? I can't recall Honus Wagner ever having been mentioned among gamblers. But yes, there have been scandals of the past, even involving Babe Ruth. But the Speaker/Cobb issue was investigated (by Commissioner Landis no less), no ban was issued, and that's that.