PDA

View Full Version : Give This A Serious Thought: Jose Canseco in the HOF?


WhiteSoxFan84
02-10-2009, 02:09 AM
I know it's a crazy idea, but the man has played a HUGE part in helping clean up the game. He did something NO ONE else before him would do. Clearly he cheated himself, but he admitted his wrong and started naming names (many can argue he did it for money). He was called a liar and laughed at by many when he first started talking. Now, he looks like the most honest man in baseball.

So, I ask you my fellow WSItes, should the MLB Hall of Fame make an exception and/or a special spot for Jose Canseco? I truthfully don't know how to answer this question myself and want to see how you guys react to it.

I voted "No" mainly because I wanted to see the results.

spawn
02-10-2009, 08:06 AM
Jose Canseco is an assclown of the higest order. Has he been correct in naming users? Yes. The reason? He was one of them. He's an opportunist. The game of baseball definitely needed to be cleaned up, but he doesn't deserve entry based on the fact he wrote a tell-all book. As far as looking like the most honest man in baseball.....that's really not saying much.

Banix12
02-10-2009, 09:42 AM
i wouldn't put him in. Just looking at the numbers, the guy really only had one truly great season, his 1988 40/40 season. He had a few other really good years but he never really reached that level again.

I also would factor in that he could never stay healthy. In a 17 year career he only played more than 150 games 5 times in his career. He played under 100 5 times as well (not including his callup season in 1985.)

to me his career numbers just don't add up to a hall of famer. And that's a player who basically spent his whole career on steroids so we know his numbers were inflated.

ChiSoxFan81
02-10-2009, 09:45 AM
After serious thought, here's my answer:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No.

Uncle_Patrick
02-10-2009, 09:51 AM
No way. He doesn't have the career numbers to get in and he's admitted cheater. He deservedly gets credit for exposing the truth about steroids and baseball, but his motive wasn't to help clean up the game but to drag the MLB through the mud since he holds a grudge against the league.

jabrch
02-10-2009, 10:40 AM
The Jose Canseco story very well warrants being told at the HOF Museum.

Jose Canseco doesn't warrant being inducted himself into the HOF.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 10:48 AM
The Jose Canseco story very well warrants being told at the HOF Museum.

Jose Canseco doesn't warrant being inducted himself into the HOF.
Exactly, though I doubt the Hall of Fame will include very much steroid information in the museum, at least not for quite a while.

As for Canseco himself, just because he named names doesn't change the fact he too cheated. And even with that cheating, he wasn't a good enough player. How did anyone vote "Yes"?

Marqhead
02-10-2009, 10:50 AM
This poll sucks option?

eriqjaffe
02-10-2009, 10:51 AM
He deservedly gets credit for exposing the truth about steroids and baseball, but his motive wasn't to help clean up the game but to drag the MLB through the mud since he holds a grudge against the league.Well, that, the publicity, and the money.

WhiteSoxFan84
02-10-2009, 10:56 AM
This poll sucks option?

Or just don't comment? People complain about waste of bandwith and their the ones wasting some by stupid comments like the one above.


Anyway, some of you are looking at his stats. That's not what I'm asking. He wouldn't go in because of how he did on the field. He would make it strictly for his contributions after retiring (or after teams stopped giving him a chance). Most that voted "No" will still say no but I wanted to clairfy that his career numbers wouldn't be recognized as what got him into the Hall.

Marqhead
02-10-2009, 10:58 AM
Or just don't comment? People complain about waste of bandwith and their the ones wasting some by stupid comments like the one above.


Anyway, some of you are looking at his stats. That's not what I'm asking. He wouldn't go in because of how he did on the field. He would make it strictly for his contributions after retiring (or after teams stopped giving him a chance). Most that voted "No" will still say no but I wanted to clairfy that his career numbers wouldn't be recognized as what got him into the Hall.

I don't complain about wasted bandwith, but I maintain my right to ridicule those who make threads such as this one.

Yes, let's enshrine a cheater who ratted out all of his former teammates in an attempt to become famous and rich by selling books.

You think Canseco did it to clean up the game? Fine. I think he did it for himself.

voodoochile
02-10-2009, 10:59 AM
LMAO!

Are you nuts? I'm not even going to read the reasoning. I'll assume it's because he blew the lid off the steroid scandal, but that's not the reason the HOF exists. His numbers are bad and those he does have are obviously steroid inflated. I mean the reason he knows all these guys did steroids is because he supplied them and taught them how to use them, right? There might not have been a scandal if Canseco hadn't been in the league. Okay, that's pushing it, but this man was a HUGE part of the diseased culture that was allowed to exist these past 20 years. He was right at the center of it all.

Now because he's tattling on those he corrupted he's suddenly a good guy? No, he's an opportunistic putz. I'm glad he came clean, but where was he 20 years ago? Injecting his own ass with steroids and teaching Mark McGwire how to do the same thing. That's no hero, that's the root of all evil disquised as a hero...

RockyMtnSoxFan
02-10-2009, 11:23 AM
Jose Canseco did not play a huge part in cleaning up the game. He played a huge part in ruining it in the first place. He served as the role model to show players what they could get by cheating. He also helped introduce lots of players to steroids. He does not get credit for subsequently tattling on the people who cheated with him.

bigsoxfan420
02-10-2009, 11:28 AM
NO. An neither should Bonds, Clemens, or anyone else who tested or test postive for steroids or other performance enhancing drugs.

SSrep
02-10-2009, 11:33 AM
He did it all selfishly...I'm sure he foolishly squandered his money and this was an easy way to fill his pockets

jabrch
02-10-2009, 11:36 AM
Exactly, though I doubt the Hall of Fame will include very much steroid information in the museum, at least not for quite a while.

If the HOF wants to be taken seriously it can not ignore the role steroids have played in the past 15 years. It may take some time, but if guys like McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds and Sosa are kept out of induction into the HOF, then the HOF museum has an obligation to tell some of the "story".

khan
02-10-2009, 11:55 AM
Why not? I've devalued the Hall of Fame ever since Jim Rice was let in, just as the dollar will be devalued in the near term.

But to the point of Canseco:

MLB has a serious problem with an entire generation of players. When Bagwell and Sosa and others who are highly likely to have been cheats are eligible, what will the stupid polesmoking writers do? MLB has already screwed this one up royally in so many ways.

I say have an entire WING in Cooperstown for the less-than-desireables in baseball history. Put the racist bigots like Cobb in some sort of "Gallery of Rogues." Put the gambling addicts like Rose in some sort of "Gallery of Rogues." Put Bonds and A-Fraud and Sosa in there, too. If MLB won't reinstate them, put the 1919 Black Sox team in there, ALONG with that cheapskate Comiskey.


Of course, I wouldn't give the Rogues an induction ceremony. I'd list their crimes and character issues FIRST on their busts, and their accomplishments second. Have an exhibit that displays how Barry Bonds' hat size [EDIT] grew in a short period of time. Have an exhibit that displays how Jeff Bagwell and Eric Gagne and others lost ~50# in an offseason. In sum, if these assclowns want to cheat, let their crimes be remembered in perpetuity.

ChiSoxFan81
02-10-2009, 11:59 AM
Why not? I've devalued the Hall of Fame ever since Jim Rice was let in, just as the dollar will be devalued in the near term.

But to the point of Canseco:

MLB has a serious problem with an entire generation of players. When Bagwell and Sosa and others who are highly likely to have been cheats are eligible, what will the stupid polesmoking writers do? MLB has already screwed this one up royally in so many ways.

I say have an entire WING in Cooperstown for the less-than-desireables in baseball history. Put the racist bigots like Cobb in some sort of "Gallery of Rogues." Put the gambling addicts like Rose in some sort of "Gallery of Rogues." Put Bonds and A-Fraud and Sosa in there, too. If MLB won't reinstate them, put the 1919 Black Sox team in there, ALONG with that cheapskate Comiskey.


Of course, I wouldn't give the Rogues an induction ceremony. I'd list their crimes and character issues FIRST on their busts, and their accomplishments second. Have an exhibit that displays how Barry Bonds' hat size shrunk. Have an exhibit that displays how Jeff Bagwell and Eric Gagne and others lost ~50# in an offseason. In sum, if these assclowns want to cheat, let their crimes be remembered in perpetuity.

LOL. I think Hall of Shame would be fine.

BadBobbyJenks
02-10-2009, 12:14 PM
I refuse to give this topic a serious thought. A roider wrote a book about other roiders in order to cash a check so he should get into the Hall of Fame?
Does. not. compute.

ode to veeck
02-10-2009, 12:22 PM
I know it's a crazy idea, but the man has played a HUGE part in helping clean up the game. He did something NO ONE else before him would do. Clearly he cheated himself, but he admitted his wrong and started naming names (many can argue he did it for money). He was called a liar and laughed at by many when he first started talking. Now, he looks like the most honest man in baseball.

So, I ask you my fellow WSItes, should the MLB Hall of Fame make an exception and/or a special spot for Jose Canseco? I truthfully don't know how to answer this question myself and want to see how you guys react to it.

I voted "No" mainly because I wanted to see the results.

what's the score dude!?! even if you voted no, this is probably the most clueless poll in the history of talking baseball

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 12:44 PM
If the HOF wants to be taken seriously it can not ignore the role steroids have played in the past 15 years. It may take some time, but if guys like McGwire, Palmeiro, Bonds and Sosa are kept out of induction into the HOF, then the HOF museum has an obligation to tell some of the "story".
Oh, I agree totally, and I'm not advocating that the Hall exclude the story, just saying that it probably won't include anything for quite some time.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 01:40 PM
Or just don't comment? People complain about waste of bandwith and their the ones wasting some by stupid comments like the one above.

Their is not "they are."

FedEx227
02-10-2009, 01:42 PM
Do his numbers even warrant HOF consideration?

.266/.353/.515, 462 HR, 1407 RBI, 1 MVP, 1 Rookie of the Year

:scratch::scratch:

No.

VeeckAsInWreck
02-10-2009, 01:51 PM
Will he have a White Sox hat on his plaque?

khan
02-10-2009, 01:57 PM
Do his numbers even warrant HOF consideration?

.266/.353/.515, 462 HR, 1407 RBI, 1 MVP, 1 Rookie of the Year

No.
Why not? .298 BA, .502 SLG, 382 HR got the highly-overrated Jim Rice into Cooperstown.


Beyond that:

What Canseco did for baseball by exposing the cheaters and the coverup [whether you like his motives or not] far outweighs ANYTHING Jim Rice did for MLB. Like it or not, his books will impact the way baseball is played for decades.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 01:59 PM
Beyond that:

What Canseco did for baseball by exposing the cheaters and the coverup [whether you like his motives or not] far outweighs ANYTHING Jim Rice did for MLB. Like it or not, his books will impact the way baseball is played for decades.

What Canseco did for baseball by roiding up for years and then revealing -- 100% for his own financial gain, and not with any intent to "clean up" baseball - should in no way outweigh any actual baseball accomplishment.

FedEx227
02-10-2009, 02:00 PM
Why not? .298 BA, .502 SLG, 382 HR got the highly-overrated Jim Rice into Cooperstown.


Are we still doing this?

era (rhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif) n.
1. A period of time as reckoned from a specific date serving as the basis of its chronological system.
2. A period of time characterized by particular circumstances, events, or personages

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 02:05 PM
Why not? .298 BA, .502 SLG, 382 HR got the highly-overrated Jim Rice into Cooperstown.
Give it up, khan. Do you really want to compound the mistake of Rice getting elected by letting other undeserving players in?

FedEx227
02-10-2009, 02:07 PM
It's really getting annoying because we refuse to acknowledge the changes in era.

Using that stupid logic the fact that Phil Rizzuto is in, David Eckstein is a first-ballot HOFer.

khan
02-10-2009, 02:10 PM
What Canseco did for baseball by roiding up for years and then revealing -- 100% for his own financial gain, and not with any intent to "clean up" baseball - should in no way outweigh any actual baseball accomplishment.

Again, as I said, "whether you like his motives or not." What did occur is a GOOD thing, IMO for MLB.

khan
02-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Give it up, khan. Do you really want to compound the mistake of Rice getting elected by letting other undeserving players in?

Too late, unfortunately. It's already happened. Jim Rice turned the HOF into the Hall of Pretty Good.

jabrch
02-10-2009, 02:14 PM
Oh, I agree totally, and I'm not advocating that the Hall exclude the story, just saying that it probably won't include anything for quite some time.


Agreed - the folks who run the museum won't want to talk about the games current dirt. But over time, I would expect that to change a bit.

FedEx227
02-10-2009, 02:16 PM
Too late, unfortunately. It's already happened. Jim Rice turned the HOF into the Hall of Pretty Good.

era (rhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifrhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif) n.
1. A period of time as reckoned from a specific date serving as the basis of its chronological system.
2. A period of time characterized by particular circumstances, events, or personages.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 02:18 PM
Too late, unfortunately. It's already happened. Jim Rice turned the HOF into the Hall of Pretty Good.
Yeah, Rice doesn't deserve to be in. Duh. But why elect more undeserving players?

"Oh, I already ran one red light, that's turned me into a bad driver. Better run some more!"

kittle42
02-10-2009, 02:34 PM
Again, as I said, "whether you like his motives or not." What did occur is a GOOD thing, IMO for MLB.

Ends, means, and whatnot. You can't seriously argue that his motivation is irrelevant.

spawn
02-10-2009, 02:59 PM
Again, as I said, "whether you like his motives or not." What did occur is a GOOD thing, IMO for MLB.
Yeah, I can see his HOF plaque now:

"Jose Canseco Capas, Jr.(July 2, 1964- )
This player didn't have the requisite stats to merit HOF induction. however, he self-servingly wrote a tell-all book documetning his own steroid abuse by ratting out his former colleagues, which in turn precipitated mandatory drug testing, and thus is ensrhined in these hallowed halls along side such players as Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Christy Matthewson, and others that played the game hard, and played the game the right way."

Boondock Saint
02-10-2009, 03:21 PM
Absolutely not. I'm sure the majority of the people he's selling out right now are people that he himself introduced to steroids. So even if he turns in every single player that he gave roids to, it still won't change the fact that he used steroids shamelessly. Not only that, he still encourages steroid use as a means to get ahead. This guy is scum.

D'Sphitz
02-10-2009, 03:29 PM
Even with the juice Canseco isn't a HOF'er. Take away the roids and he's probably on par with his brother, a borderline pro ball player.

As for letting him in because he helped clean up baseball, that's not the point of the Hall of Fame. And besides, with the number of juicers connected to Canseco it looks like he did more to usher in the steroid era than anyone else.

Pete Rose on the other hand... (Joe Jackson too)

khan
02-10-2009, 04:21 PM
Yeah, I can see his HOF plaque now:

"Jose Canseco Capas, Jr.(July 2, 1964- )
This player didn't have the requisite stats to merit HOF induction. however, he self-servingly wrote a tell-all book documetning his own steroid abuse by ratting out his former colleagues, which in turn precipitated mandatory drug testing, and thus is ensrhined in these hallowed halls along side such players as Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Christy Matthewson, and others that played the game hard, and played the game the right way."

Actually, I'm for having a "gallery of rogues" wherein steroid cheats like Canseco, Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens, A-Rod, Gagne, and others are remembered/ridiculed in perpetuity elsewhere in Cooperstown. I don't advocate them being enshrined "along side" Ruth, et. al.

As an aside, I enjoy the over-the-top nature of your response. Comedy gold!


As I see it, this is the problem that MLB has at this point:

The late 80s, the 90s, and the early part of this decade occurred. MLB, the players, the union, and the media screwed it up by not trying to get PEDs out of the sport. They did not force Giambi, A-Roid, or Bagwell to give back the MVP awards. They did not force Gagne or Clemens to give back the Cy Youngs. They did not put asterisks next to Bonds' or Sosa's HR totals.

Now, when these guys come up for HOF consideration, MLB will either have to admit to their failings, or ignore an entire era. If the segregated era is any indication, MLB will eventually admit some of these clowns to the HOF. To me, why not permanently smear their reputations? Why not enshrine their shame forever? Hence, the "gallery of rogues."

khan
02-10-2009, 04:24 PM
Yeah, Rice doesn't deserve to be in. Duh. But why elect more undeserving players?

"Oh, I already ran one red light, that's turned me into a bad driver. Better run some more!"

Hey, don't take it up with me. Take it up with Fenway and all the east cost polesmokers and ESPN and all the clowns that voted for Rice. I don't have a vote.

Rice's induction lowered the bar significantly. So if HE is the standard, then the standard is now a hell of a lot worse than before he was included.

Nellie_Fox
02-10-2009, 04:28 PM
So if HE is the standard, then the standard is now a hell of a lot worse than before he was included.He is not "the standard." No one is "the standard." There is no single "standard." Each player is considered individually, and his playing statistics are just one part of what is considered. You are making the mistake of trying to make a fairly subjective process into an entirely objective one.

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:28 PM
Actually, I'm for having a "gallery of rogues" wherein steroid cheats like Canseco, Bonds, Bagwell, Clemens, A-Rod, Gagne, and others are remembered/ridiculed in perpetuity elsewhere in Cooperstown. I don't advocate them being enshrined "along side" Ruth, et. al.

Sorry, but I just don't believe in a "gallery of rogues". this gallery would be in the HOF, thus putting them alongside the greats as Ruth, Aaron, etc., no matter what designation they are under. There are probably more "rogues" that could be enshrined as there are actually HOF'ers.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 04:29 PM
Hey, don't take it up with me. Take it up with Fenway and all the east cost polesmokers and ESPN and all the clowns that voted for Rice. I don't have a vote.

Rice's induction lowered the bar significantly. So if HE is the standard, then the standard is now a hell of a lot worse than before he was included.
No, no, no, no, no. Just because a bad player is elected, that doesn't mean everyone better than him should go in. He is not the standard, he is a mistake.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Sorry, but I just don't believe in a "gallery of rogues". this gallery would be in the HOF, thus putting them alongside the greats as Ruth, Aaron, etc., no matter what designation they are under. There are probably more "rogues" that could be enshrined as there are actually HOF'ers.
I agree, I don't like the Gallery of Rogues idea, either. What makes someone a "rogue", anyway? Is Ty Cobb a rogue? Rogers Hornsby? Enos Slaughter? What about players who took amphetamines? Or cocaine?

khan
02-10-2009, 04:30 PM
Ends, means, and whatnot. You can't seriously argue that his motivation is irrelevant.
So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:32 PM
Sorry, but I just don't believe in a "gallery of rogues". this gallery would be in the HOF, thus putting them alongside the greats as Ruth, Aaron, etc., no matter what designation they are under. There are probably more "rogues" that could be enshrined as there are actually HOF'ers.

Well, as I posted:

MLB will either have to ignore an entire era [which didn't happen with a hateful bigot like Judge Landis]

OR

Admit what happened, and use the HOF to record baseball's history.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:34 PM
No, no, no, no, no. Just because a bad player is elected, that doesn't mean everyone better than him should go in. He is not the standard, he is a mistake.

I agree that he is a mistake cause by the polesmokers on espn and in the east coast media. But him getting in [wrongfully, IMO] happened, and he lowered the bar.

Nellie_Fox
02-10-2009, 04:35 PM
he lowered the bar.There is no "bar" except in the minds of people who only look at stats.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 04:35 PM
So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious.
Um, didn't Canseco also help to usher in PEDs? If so, wouldn't that kind of cancel out the helping-to-usher-out bit?

khan
02-10-2009, 04:36 PM
He is not "the standard." No one is "the standard." There is no single "standard." Each player is considered individually, and his playing statistics are just one part of what is considered. You are making the mistake of trying to make a fairly subjective process into an entirely objective one.

Oh, I agree. But the statistical record makes up a significant part of what makes a player HOF worthy. His numbers [yes, even in his era] simply weren't good enough when he was first eligible. They shouldn't be HOF worthy now.

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:36 PM
So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious.
As has been mentioned already, Canseco helped usher in the steroid era, and now you believe he should be enshrined because he wrote a tell-all about it?

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 04:37 PM
There is no "bar" except in the minds of people who only look at stats.
I'd say, more accurately, there is a bar (there's got to be some sort of standard, no?), and that Rice slipped in under it.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:38 PM
Um, didn't Canseco also help to usher in PEDs? If so, wouldn't that kind of cancel out the helping-to-usher-out bit?

I don't think anyone knows the answer to your first question.

Do YOU know who was the first player in MLB to take 'roids or HGH? If in fact it was Canseco [which I don't believe to be the case], then you're line of thought has some merit. If not, then I reject this line of thought.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:41 PM
As has been mentioned already, Canseco helped usher in the steroid era, and now you believe he should be enshrined because he wrote a tell-all about it?

Yes. The HOF records the glorious history of baseball [2005 World Series], as well as some of the infamous history of baseball. [Segregation and Negro league era, for example.]

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:42 PM
Yes. The HOF records the glorious history of baseball [2005 World Series], as well as some of the infamous history of baseball. [Segregation and Negro league era, for example.]
That still doesn't justify enshrining Jose Canseco because as a steroid user, he ratted out other steroid users.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:44 PM
Is Ty Cobb a rogue? Rogers Hornsby? Enos Slaughter? What about players who took amphetamines? Or cocaine?

Yes, to all of them. I'd throw in Kenesaw Landis into this category, too.

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:45 PM
Yes, to all of them. I'd throw in Kenesaw Landis into this category, too.
So you'd throw Babe Ruth into the "Gallery of Rogues" as well?

khan
02-10-2009, 04:45 PM
That still doesn't justify enshrining Jose Canseco becasue as a steroid user, he ratted out other steroid users.

OK, so: [Cut/paste from a previous post]

"So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious."

As an aside, where you one of those people that was upset that the defendants in the Family Secrets trial were "ratted out?"

kittle42
02-10-2009, 04:46 PM
As has been mentioned already, Canseco helped usher in the steroid era, and now you believe he should be enshrined because he wrote a tell-all about it?

Do YOU know who was the first player in MLB to take 'roids or HGH? If in fact it was Canseco [which I don't believe to be the case], then you're line of thought has some merit. If not, then I reject this line of thought.

Whether or not he was the first to take anything is really not relevant to whether he should be enshrined in the HOF because, wholly as a side effect of his attempt to recoup his wealth and notoriety via a tell-all book, he caused baseball to take a hard look at itself.

I really don't see the argument - at all - that a man who was among the "cheats," then revealed a bunch of them after he pretty much pissed away his last few years in baseball and then all his wealth, and not in ANY attempt to "clean up" baseball, but only to get himself some cash, should be enshrined, regardless of the unintended results of his actions.

Methinks you are just arguing for argument's sake, because I really don't think you can believe what you are advocating.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 04:48 PM
OK, so:

So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious.

He isn't front office. He isn't the Union. He is a man who took advantage of his own experience cheating and the fact that there would be NO REPERCUSSIONS for outing others because he was already a joke and out of baseball and wrote a scandalous (albeit mostly truthful) book to MAKE MONEY, not to clean anything up.

No, helping to usher out PEDs is certainly not a bad thing, but that is not why he did what he did.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:49 PM
Whether or not he was the first to take anything is really not relevant to whether he should be enshrined in the HOF because, wholly as a side effect of his attempt to recoup his wealth and notoriety via a tell-all book, he caused baseball to take a hard look at itself.

So I'll ask you too: [Again, cut/paste from a previous post]

"So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious."

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:50 PM
OK, so:

So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious.
Turn his head and ignore what happened? HE WAS PART OF IT!!! If he was an average player that didn't inject an illegal substance, but ratted out the players that did because it gave them an unfair advantage, and because his love of baseball outweighed his loyalty to other players, your line of thought may have merit. The fact of the matter is, he didn't do it for the good of baseball. He did it for purely self-serving reasons. And now, you want him to profit from it...again?

khan
02-10-2009, 04:50 PM
No, helping to usher out PEDs is certainly not a bad thing, but that is not why he did what he did.


Thank you for agreeing with me.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 04:51 PM
So I'll ask you too: [Again, cut/paste from a previous post]

"So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious."

And to add to my above post, no, it isn't a bad thing that he wrote his book at all. But the unintended consequences of one's self-concerned action does not merit enshrinement into the Hall of Fame.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 04:52 PM
Thank you for agreeing with me.

No one disagrees that it was a bad thing.

Man, I really hope this is an act, because otherwise, your argument style is mind-boggling.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:53 PM
And now, you want him to profit from it...again?

See, you misunderstand:

I'd want Canseco, Bonds, Clemens, A Roid, Gagne, Bagwell, and the other cheats to have their disingenuous ways recorded for perpetuity. Recorded for all posterity, and with no opportunity to have their records cleared or forgotten.

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:54 PM
As an aside, where you one of those people that was upset that the defendants in the Family Secrets trial were "ratted out?"
Are you ****ing kidding me? *** does the "Family Secrets Trial" have to do with Jose Canseco writing a tell all? I've never said I was upset Canseco ratted out these players. I just don't think he deserves enshrinement in the HOF for it.

spawn
02-10-2009, 04:56 PM
See, you misunderstand:

I'd want Canseco, Bonds, Clemens, A Roid, Gagne, Bagwell, and the other cheats to have their disingenuous ways recorded for perpetuity. Recorded for all posterity, and with no opportunity to have their records cleared or forgotten.
That's what history books are for.

khan
02-10-2009, 04:57 PM
I've never said I was upset Canseco ratted out these players. I just don't think he deserves enshrinement in the HOF for it.

You're fond of pointing to Canseco as having "ratted out" other cheats. You've said as much in this thread.

See, "ratting out" is exactly how evidence is uncovered, more often than not. Whether or not it was for his profit is less important to baseball than it is to have a legit product to watch, IMO.

spawn
02-10-2009, 05:00 PM
You're fond of pointing to Canseco as having "ratted out" other cheats. You've said as much in this thread.

See, "ratting out" is exactly how evidence is uncovered, more often than not. Whether or not it was for his profit is less important to baseball than it is to have a legit product to watch, IMO.
That's because it's what he did. To say he didn't would be disengenious. And the way he did it, by profitting from it, makes him a rat in my eyes. He didn't do it so there would be a "legit product to watch." He didn't do it because he wanted MLB to clean up its act. he did it because he knew he could make easy money from it. Hell, he's not even ashamed he took the roids. You want to respect him for it? Go right ahead. Count me out.

khan
02-10-2009, 05:01 PM
That's what history books are for.
The HOF's motto is: "Preserving History, Honoring Excellence, Connecting Generations."

Note that "Preserving History" comes first, not "Honoring Excellence." I posit that the Steroid Era was/is part of MLB history. And if the HOF is to "Preserve" such history, a gallery of rogues is one such way to do so.

As such, some of the cheats will be a part of this history, like it or not.

spawn
02-10-2009, 05:03 PM
The HOF's motto is: "Preserving History, Honoring Excellence, Connecting Generations."

Note that "Preserving History" comes first, not "Honoring Excellence." I posit that the Steroid Era was/is part of MLB history. And if the HOF is to "Preserve" such history, a gallery of rogues is one such way to do so.

As such, some of the cheats will be a part of this history, like it or not.
I'm done. Maybe you can make a "Gallery of Rogues" in your basement. Have fun with that.:rolleyes:

khan
02-10-2009, 05:05 PM
That's because it's what he did. To say he didn't would be disengenious. And the way he did it, by profitting from it, makes him a rat in my eyes.

So the question still stands:

"So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious."

No matter how Canseco arrived at what he did, the outcome was, IMO, a GOOD thing for MLB. Do you disagree?

MUsoxfan
02-10-2009, 05:08 PM
Eh....I rushed and picked the wrong poll option. I don't believe he belongs in the HOF, but I do think that he's done a great job exposing the game and forcing MLB's hand in cleaning it up. I don't care what his motivations were

Navarro's Talent
02-10-2009, 05:14 PM
If Canseco reached 500 homeruns and was guaranteed a spot in the Hall of Fame, he probably never would have written that book. He would have kept his mouth shut.

He deserves credit, but his motivations probably had very little to do with morality.

Eddo144
02-10-2009, 05:18 PM
I don't think anyone knows the answer to your first question.

Do YOU know who was the first player in MLB to take 'roids or HGH? If in fact it was Canseco [which I don't believe to be the case], then you're line of thought has some merit. If not, then I reject this line of thought.
He may not have been the first player to use (I highly doubt he was), but in his book he discusses how he personally introduced many high-profile players to steroids. Does that not count as helping to usher in the era?

kittle42
02-10-2009, 05:26 PM
So the question still stands:

"So do you believe that helping to usher out PEDs is a bad thing? That it would've been better for Canseco to turn his head and ignore what was happening? As Selig did? As the Union did? As many front offices did? As many field managers and coaches did? As much of the media did/still does?

I'm just curious."

No matter how Canseco arrived at what he did, the outcome was, IMO, a GOOD thing for MLB. Do you disagree?

Where can my employer send the bill for the hole I just left in the wall from bashing my own head through it?

spawn
02-10-2009, 05:29 PM
Where can my employer send the bill for the hole I just left in the wall from bashing my own head through it?
That's why I just gave up. It's not worth the aggravation. :shrug:

khan
02-10-2009, 05:30 PM
I'm done. Maybe you can make a "Gallery of Rogues" in your basement. Have fun with that.

Indeed. This powerful rejoinder will be long-remembered. The speed of thought you possess is mind-blowing. :rolleyes:

spawn
02-10-2009, 05:31 PM
Indeed. This powerful rejoinder will be long-remembered. The speed of thought you possess is mind-blowing. :rolleyes:
Does this mean I'll be enshrined in your "Gallery of Rogues"? If so, I'm touched!

white sox bill
02-10-2009, 05:34 PM
Am I the only one here who is counting the days until ST begins? If nothing else so we can put all this crap to rest. Think I'll opt out of any and all PED threads and concentrate on what we really should be concerned with: Back end starters,CF & two infield positions.

I feel like we are a bunch of little old ladies down at the local cafe looking out the window at who's cheating on who, who's sleeping with who and who's smoking what and gossiping about all of it. Its done its over. Period.

kittle42
02-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Am I the only one here who is counting the days until ST begins? If nothing else so we can put all this crap to rest. Think I'll opt out of any and all PED threads and concentrate on what we really should be concerned with: Back end starters,CF & two infield positions.

I feel like we are a bunch of little old ladies down at the local cafe looking out the window at who's cheating on who, who's sleeping with who and who's smoking what and gossiping about all of it. Its done its over. Period.

If you think it's done and over, I'd stay away from discussing CF.

Steelrod
02-10-2009, 06:39 PM
I guess he can be given some credit for cleaning up some of the game, even if it wasn't his motive.

soxinem1
02-10-2009, 06:52 PM
So, I ask you my fellow WSItes, should the MLB Hall of Fame make an exception and/or a special spot for Jose Canseco?

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/05/20/200_psycho.jpg

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Britt Burns
02-10-2009, 09:37 PM
worst idea ever

WhiteSoxFan84
02-10-2009, 11:42 PM
Their is not "they are."

Thank you. Huge pet peeve of mine. Can't believe I did it.

Also, to those of you saying he used roids and that was why he knew everyone that used them, didn't other steroid users also know other guys using them? Why didn't they come forward and start naming names?

It breaks down like this; if Canseco hadn't done what he did, chances are we'd STILL be in the dark about just how serious steroid use in baseball was. Eventually and slowly stories would've came out, but not to the extent and/or the expedited fashion as we saw after Canseco spoke. Congress got in involved, testing became a possibility, and other people began voicing their opinions about cleaning up the game.

Yes, Canseco did cheat. Yes, even with help from steroids his career numbers are not good enough for the Hall. But he didn't have to do what he did. He could've easily found other ways to make money off of this. Why not blackmail the guys you were about to rat out?
"Hey A-Rod, give me $5M or I'll rat you out."
"Mark, I'll need you to give me $1M or so to keep my mouth shut."

He is a scumbag, don't get me wrong. But he did a great thing (no matter what his motives were/are) and has been a HUGE part of cleaning up the game. Even if he was part of the problem.

spawn
02-11-2009, 08:26 AM
Also, to those of you saying he used roids and that was why he knew everyone that used them, didn't other steroid users also know other guys using them? Why didn't they come forward and start naming names?
That's easy. These other steroid users haven't admitted to taking steroids or PED's.

Yes, Canseco did cheat. Yes, even with help from steroids his career numbers are not good enough for the Hall. But he didn't have to do what he did. He could've easily found other ways to make money off of this. Why not blackmail the guys you were about to rat out?
"Hey A-Rod, give me $5M or I'll rat you out."
"Mark, I'll need you to give me $1M or so to keep my mouth shut."
Um, because blackmail is a crime. Extortion is a crime. The easiest way to profit off of the steroid era without the stigma of going to jail was to write a book. And we all know Canseco is all about taking the easy way out.

He is a scumbag, don't get me wrong. But he did a great thing (no matter what his motives were/are) and has been a HUGE part of cleaning up the game. Even if he was part of the problem.
I don't think anyone here is saying the outcome wasn't good for baseball. Seedy or not, his book has gone a long way towards cleaning up drug use in baseball. But to say he deserves enshrinement in the HOF because he wrote a tell all book detailing his drug use along with others he introduced the drug to is bat**** crazy.

kittle42
02-11-2009, 10:42 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying the outcome was good for baseball. Seedy or not, his book has gone a long way towards cleaning up drug use in baseball. But to say he deserves enshrinement in the HOF because he wrote a tell all book detailing his drug use along with others he introduced the drug to is bat**** crazy.

/End of line.