PDA

View Full Version : First Jeter MVP, now Ladewski skips Ripken/Gwynn???


caulfield12
01-09-2007, 10:04 AM
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/202985,CST-SPT-ballot09.article

Seriously, take his voting rights away. If you've covered baseball long enough, you know the character of both these guys.

I know, you'll say, what about K. Puckett or Harold Reynolds? Well, if these guys aren't what they represented themselves as, I give up. But my money is on them being legit.

itsnotrequired
01-09-2007, 10:07 AM
He is totally right. It was only in the 1980s that players started using steroids and other performance enhancers. Every player up until 1980 is totally clean.

:rolleyes:

caulfield12
01-09-2007, 10:40 AM
He is totally right. It was only in the 1980s that players started using steroids and other performance enhancers. Every player up until 1980 is totally clean.

:rolleyes:

Are they going to take back Mantle's and Ruth's spots because they drank too much? Are they going to insert a "good character" clause in the HOF?

The only question to me is will Bonds ever make it? He could have a record without an asterisk but still be in the Hall. Well, I guess Pete Rose isn't in either.

itsnotrequired
01-09-2007, 10:47 AM
Are they going to take back Mantle's and Ruth's spots because they drank too much? Are they going to insert a "good character" clause in the HOF?

The only question to me is will Bonds ever make it? He could have a record without an asterisk but still be in the Hall. Well, I guess Pete Rose isn't in either.

''But tell me, except for the players themselves, who can say what they put into their bodies over the years with any degree of certainty?''

My exception is with this statement. You could make the same claim about players in the 1970s and to a lesser degree, the 1960s.

He can take any stand he wants against steroids but I don't feel the HoF ballot is the place to do it, especially for players like Gywnn and Ripken.

Hokiesox
01-09-2007, 10:59 AM
Oh come on!

Not only do their stats demand they be voted in the HOF, but they're 2 of the nicest ambassadors of baseball the game has ever had. Nice guys + stats= unanimous, imho.

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 11:11 AM
what I love about this fiasco, is I'm sure this guy wants us all to pat him on the back b/c of his oh-so-public integrity...

however, it seems to me most people are just assuming he's a moron

thomas35forever
01-09-2007, 11:14 AM
Ladewski's not being fair to the guys who were in their prime before the steroid era (1993-2004 according to Mike & Mike). Shun Big Mac if you want, but don't take your displeasure out on guys whom we know never juiced up. Then again, I'm sure Ripken took some illegal prescription drugs. How else could he never miss a game?

mantis1212
01-09-2007, 11:16 AM
First it was Cowley with the Jeter thing. These guys are really making Chicago sports writers look bad to the rest of the country

SABRSox
01-09-2007, 11:17 AM
Just trying to make a name for himself. Pathetic.

itsnotrequired
01-09-2007, 11:17 AM
what I love about this fiasco, is I'm sure this guy wants us all to pat him on the back b/c of his oh-so-public integrity...

however, it seems to me most people are just assuming he's a moron

I eagerly await his opinions on the inductions of Boggs, Sandberg, Eckersley, Molitor, Murry, Smith, Puckett, Winfield, Brett, Ryan, etc. all of which whom played in the same era as this year's HoF class. Clearly, they too should be placed under scrutiny.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

SABRSox
01-09-2007, 11:18 AM
Then again, I'm sure Ripken took some illegal prescription drugs. How else could he never miss a game?

I don't know about that, but I once heard Tony Gwynn was rude to an autograph seeker that followed him into the bathroom. That alone should be enough to keep him out of the HOF.

Corlose 15
01-09-2007, 11:34 AM
Tony Gwynn's body certainly didn't have the look of a steroid user at the end of his career.:tongue:

Corlose 15
01-09-2007, 11:35 AM
Are they going to take back Mantle's and Ruth's spots because they drank too much? Are they going to insert a "good character" clause in the HOF?

The only question to me is will Bonds ever make it? He could have a record without an asterisk but still be in the Hall. Well, I guess Pete Rose isn't in either.

Drinking too much and cheating are two seperate topics.

Dibbs
01-09-2007, 12:33 PM
This idiot is obviously looking for publicity. It is a shame because this is very important to many people.

caulfield12
01-09-2007, 12:38 PM
Drinking too much and cheating are two seperate topics.

But there are spitballers/junkballers in the HOF, like Gaylord Perry.

skottyj242
01-09-2007, 12:53 PM
I think he's just making a statement and I agree with him. Without concrete proof on anyone how can you make a judgement on one guy and not on another when they're all "clean?"

BA: The Hitman
01-09-2007, 01:04 PM
This clown is obviously trying to gain publicity and make a name for himself. And it seems to be working judging by his appearance on national radio this morning on mike and mike on espn radio.


This whole thing that all these writers have about how no one deserves to be a unanimous first ballot hall of famer is just plain ridiculous.

Trav
01-09-2007, 01:28 PM
I don't mind this at all. Not only will it hurt the cheaters, but it will hurt the clean players who decided to help screw the game of baseball and the players who would come after them (nevermind the fans) by not speaking out on the subject that was apparently rampid in every clubhouse. I feel bad for players who did try and takea stand (that Sox team in spring training a few years back) but there are too many that decided it wasn't worth their time to address the issue.

Dibbs
01-09-2007, 02:16 PM
I think the whole process is screwy. How does a player (who retired years ago) get a different amount of votes from year to year? A player is either worthy of the Hall of Fame or not. A certain writer may not vote for a guy in 2007, but he will in 2008!!! How is that even possible...it's ridiculous.

Also, how did Ken Caminiti get 2 votes! I wonder if those guys left Big Mac off their lists...I wouldn't doubt it.

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 02:46 PM
I think he's just making a statement and I agree with him. Without concrete proof on anyone how can you make a judgement on one guy and not on another when they're all "clean?"

Keep in mind, he also left off players from the 70's and early 80's

itsnotrequired
01-09-2007, 02:58 PM
Keep in mind, he also left off players from the 70's and early 80's

Hence my earlier list...

caulfield12
01-09-2007, 03:22 PM
Keep in mind, he also left off players from the 70's and early 80's

So why even give him a vote at all? If he can definitively prove malfeasance on the part of these players from the past, then he should bring forth evidence and vote no.

Just because somebody testifies or not, admits usage or not...was rumored by Jason Grimsley to have used or not (does this mean Clemens won't get in either?)...well, we still have the presumption of innocence in this country.

Or do we have to go by the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt."?

Paul Ladewski is not equipped to ascertain any of this information.

Fenway
01-09-2007, 03:27 PM
First it was Cowley with the Jeter thing. These guys are really making Chicago sports writers look bad to the rest of the country

WEEI has called him a moron about 25 times now since 2 PM

Trav
01-09-2007, 04:24 PM
So why even give him a vote at all? If he can definitively prove malfeasance on the part of these players from the past, then he should bring forth evidence and vote no.

Just because somebody testifies or not, admits usage or not...was rumored by Jason Grimsley to have used or not (does this mean Clemens won't get in either?)...well, we still have the presumption of innocence in this country.

Or do we have to go by the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt."?

Paul Ladewski is not equipped to ascertain any of this information.
It isn't a court of law so none of that matters.


And the Chicago Media has been a laughing stock for some time now so this doesn't change anything.

AnkleSox
01-09-2007, 05:39 PM
First it was Cowley with the Jeter thing. These guys are really making Chicago sports writers look bad to the rest of the country

Most Chicago sportswriters have been in that same boat for a long time...

TheOldRoman
01-09-2007, 08:36 PM
First it was Cowley with the Jeter thing. These guys are really making Chicago sports writers look bad to the rest of the country
Well, Cowley was right about Jeter not being MVP. He makes Chicago writers look bad because he didn't fall for the hype machine? And if you have read anything from around the country, 90% of the writers are as stupid as these clowns. They don't need his help looking bad.

fquaye149
01-09-2007, 08:41 PM
Well, Cowley was right about Jeter not being MVP. He makes Chicago writers look bad because he didn't fall for the hype machine? And if you have read anything from around the country, 90% of the writers are as stupid as these clowns. They don't need his help looking bad.

Jeter perhaps should not have been MVP (probably, even) but Cowley's ballot was absurd.

He has the right to make it any way he wants, but Jeter should be on everyone's ballot, or they should expect to face the consequences.

It would be as if some sportswriter voted for Sutton, Gossage, Dawson, and Rice but left Ripken off his HOF ballot

santo=dorf
01-09-2007, 09:27 PM
I think he's just making a statement and I agree with him. Without concrete proof on anyone how can you make a judgement on one guy and not on another when they're all "clean?"
Yep! Guilty until they prove themselves innocent.

I suppose neither you or Ladewski will put Frank on the ballot because he played in this same era? :?:

The Racehorse
01-09-2007, 09:54 PM
I listened to this Ladewski-guy this morning on ESPN's Mike & Mike radio show, and he [Ladewski] didn't sound at all compelling when it came to justifying his blank votes.

As for Gwynn, if he did do 'roids, he chased down each D-bol shot with a few dozen Krispy Kreme donuts. I heard Tim Kurkjian say that when comparing Gywnn's career average with his stolen base total, only three others had better numbers in the last 80 years. Amazing.

TheOldRoman
01-09-2007, 10:03 PM
Jeter perhaps should not have been MVP (probably, even) but Cowley's ballot was absurd.

He has the right to make it any way he wants, but Jeter should be on everyone's ballot, or they should expect to face the consequences.

It would be as if some sportswriter voted for Sutton, Gossage, Dawson, and Rice but left Ripken off his HOF ballot
I disagree. Jeter didn't deserve anything. He had a fine season, but he didn't mean anything to his team like Dye, Morneau, Mauer, Ortiz, or Hafner did. Besides that, if writers should "expect to face the consequences" for doing something dumb, where is the outrage over Harold Baines only getting 5% of the vote for the HOF? He will never get in to the hall because he played for the White Sox. The thing that condemns Cowley for not overrating Jeter is the same thing that will keep Harold out of the hall.

ondafarm
01-09-2007, 10:12 PM
I understand his point but don't like the way he made the statement. Why punish the non-offenders along with the offenders?

the_valenstache
01-09-2007, 10:38 PM
Ladewski has not been a baseball writer for the Southtown for over a year now. He's the Bulls beat writer. Someone close to me, who has worked at the Southtown for decades, has confirmed that every insult the Score threw at this guy is 100% correct. Whether or not his moral cause is just, he absolutely should not be voting on this sort of thing.

It disappoints me because the Southtown is a very good publication that happens to employ a few self-serving, idiot writers.

ondafarm
01-09-2007, 11:39 PM
It disappoints me because the Southtown is a very good publication that happens to employ a few self-serving, idiot writers.

Unlike the Cubune, which is a very poor publication that happens to employ many self-serving, idiot writers.

fquaye149
01-10-2007, 12:54 AM
I disagree. Jeter didn't deserve anything. He had a fine season, but he didn't mean anything to his team like Dye, Morneau, Mauer, Ortiz, or Hafner did. Besides that, if writers should "expect to face the consequences" for doing something dumb, where is the outrage over Harold Baines only getting 5% of the vote for the HOF? He will never get in to the hall because he played for the White Sox. The thing that condemns Cowley for not overrating Jeter is the same thing that will keep Harold out of the hall.

Sigh...this again?

He put up exceptional numbers for a ss

And how did he mean less to the Yankees than Dye did to the White Sox---whose team also featured a borderline MVP performance from Thome.

Morneau and Mauer were on the same team (as was another MVP candidate...Johan Santana).

Ortiz had Manny.

Who did Jeter have that was in that league for the Yankees? Sheffield? A-Rod? Giambi?....come on now

oh and he played SS...his VORP (not that I put TOO much stock in VORP, but it's an interesting stat) was the highest in the league.

Don't get me wrong: I DO NOT LIKE JETER. Nor do I think that he HAD to be the MVP. I think that you could make a very strong case for pretty much any one of about 3 or 4 players.

But Cowley had him 5th?? AND he had AJ ahead of Mauer?

Cowley's ballot was a joke

Nellie_Fox
01-10-2007, 02:55 AM
Are they going to take back Mantle's and Ruth's spots because they drank too much? Are they going to insert a "good character" clause in the HOF?Drinking too much hardly improves your athletic performance. There's already a "good character" clause in the HOF.

From the HOF website: Rules for election:

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played. [emphasis added]

But there are spitballers/junkballers in the HOF, like Gaylord Perry.Just because there are past cheaters in the hall doesn't mean that more cheaters should be added.

Over By There
01-10-2007, 08:31 AM
I've heard Ladewski on the radio in the past, and he's on record as saying that he doesn't believe any player should make it in on the first ballot. IMO, this "blank ballot" business is an embarassing and transparent cop out for not having to vote for two obvious first-ballot HOFers. (So he doesn't have to defend himself for not voting for Ripken and Gwynn.) This guy should lose his vote.

Norberto7
01-10-2007, 08:48 AM
It's a very poor attempt at making an inherently gray issue into a black and white one. His rationale is terrible. What "evidence" is going to come out and prove Ripken and Gwynn never did drugs? Who knows, maybe they did, but you have to look at the cirucmstances and discern what you can and make a freaking ballot.

Nellie_Fox
01-11-2007, 12:23 AM
I've heard Ladewski on the radio in the past, and he's on record as saying that he doesn't believe any player should make it in on the first ballot.That is such crap. If you're a voter, your decision should be made solely on whether you think the player meets the criteria for admission. How many times he's been on the ballot is irrelevant. How does he become more qualified next year than he was this year?

FedEx227
01-11-2007, 01:19 AM
That is such crap. If you're a voter, you decision should be made solely on whether you think they player meets the criteria for admission. How many times he's been on the ballot is irrelevant. How does he become more qualified next year than he was this year?

I've never quite understood that either. How can one year a guy recieve 17% of the votes and only 5 years later get 89%. And it's not the players he's against, bull... they can vote in as many deserving guys as they need to.

This guy's a tool. The only drugs Tony Gwynn ever took were deep-fried and placed in a Red-White striped box.

Britt Burns
01-11-2007, 02:03 AM
Because i is pretty clear Gwynn and Ripken juiced...or, not.

How does a guy like this get a ballot?

caulfield12
01-11-2007, 07:53 AM
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/203805,101NWS1.article

Another DailySouthtown writer responds to controversy

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/ladewski/201907,081LAD2.article

Ladewski defends himself

TommyJohn
01-11-2007, 09:52 AM
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/203805,101NWS1.article

Another DailySouthtown writer responds to controversy

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/sports/ladewski/201907,081LAD2.article

Ladewski defends himself

Anybody catch this cheap shot?


Should we turn it over to the fans? Please. The P.R. department that brought us "Vote for Scott" and "Punch A.J." would have launched "Campaign Baines," and the newest class at Cooperstown would have owed not to career accomplishment but to the team whose fan base had the fastest Internet connections


That's correct, Phil. Tiger fans would NEVER stuff the ballot box for Alan
Tramell, Red fans would scoff at the idea that Davey Concepcion belongs,
the Twins and Twin fans would never do anything like invade the internet
to help out Bert Blyleven. No, only us lowlife, technogeek white trash
White Sox fans would cast votes for a questionable choice like Harold
Baines. Jerkoff.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-12-2007, 10:09 PM
I blame Scum-Times management for this embarrassment. They don't give a damn about how ridiculous their paper looks. They just want publicity to sell more papers. Their feature sports columnist is the biggest self-promoter in the business, and his most effective trick is making patently ridiculous statements to draw attention to himself. They actually PROMOTED Tailgunner Joe to the big paper after writing stacks of **** for the Southtown!

Slezak and Ladewski clearly see this as the best way to get ahead at the Scum-Times. Who can blame them for writing such ****? The higher you stack it at the Scum-Times, the further your career will go.
:o: