Hall of Fame changes criteria (again)

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by marl1220

Ooooo. Your wit and sophomoric insults say way more than your user ID ever could. Or, should I say, they pretty much align. When people knowingly push for proven liars, cheats, or crooks to be rewarded in any way, including sports, I call that hero worship. Or maybe they support that behavior and really see nothing wrong with it. Either way, it's a very telling trait.

Pretending the players you support are squeaky clean and deserve their stats recognized, while those who allegedly cheated or lied, but you don't support them, should not have on-field accomplishments recognized is cognitive dissonance. This isn't about hero worship. It's about just recognizing baseball players. They are all flawed. No one is advocating ignoring flaws of chosen players. It's recognizing every last one is a flawed person, but that has nothing to do with baseball greatness. And you REALLY have to have your head in the sand if you think steroids only affected a handful of blacklisted players' stats. It was widespread to the point where literally ALL are undersuspicion. So it doesn't take hero worship to overlook that. It takes common sense.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

I’ve seen you post about this conspiracy a lot, and I know you believe it all happened. Can we see your unambiguous proof of it?

He’s talking about collusion in the 80s. There’s plenty of proof of it considering the owners lost that legal battle in pretty public fashion. But here’s a write up with some details…

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...l-in-the-1980/

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

He’s talking about collusion in the 80s. There’s plenty of proof of it considering the owners lost that legal battle in pretty public fashion. But here’s a write up with some details…

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...l-in-the-1980/

If there is proof of collusion, how are the colluding parties enshrined and/or not in prison?

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

If there is proof of collusion, how are the colluding parties enshrined and/or not in prison?

MLB has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption since 1922. In any setting applying criminal collusion charges would be difficult. With an anti-trust exemption it would be impossible. Legally, the only thing hindering the owners actions from 1985-87 was an agreement between MLB and the Player’s Union that neither would engage in negotiations in tandem. That agreement is bound by arbitration for disputes which they entered into and players won. As for the HOF, the only executives I can think of that are in the Hall and linked to that era are Lee Mcphail and Bud Selig. Why are they in? I don’t know, but as well and sane as this board has handled discussing player enshrinements, I sure a conversation about executives would be nothing but fruitful and informative.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

If there is proof of collusion, how are the colluding parties enshrined and/or not in prison?

Ask OhioLawyer but if you look MLB is not Interstate Commerce and therefore not subject to Federal Jurisdiction. The elites protect themselves even if they attempt to steal $285 Million in 3 years of fraudulent negotiations. Soon after, Collusion became at least twice as hard to prove. Owners are not ignorant on protecting their cause, greed.

Many sports publications have this as the most damaging for the integrity of Major League Baseball. I believe that the harboring of these individuals should rank 2nd on the list. If these individuals can be allowed to walk in the HOF, then open the doors or have those still around stop lying about their role in cheating the system to what should have been a criminal sentence of fraud. At the time of the collusion, the elements of fraud were met.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

If there is proof of collusion, how are the colluding parties enshrined and/or not in prison?

Mostly because of what sbfinley says below.

Originally Posted by sbfinley

MLB has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption since 1922. In any setting applying criminal collusion charges would be difficult. With an anti-trust exemption it would be impossible. Legally, the only thing hindering the owners actions from 1985-87 was an agreement between MLB and the Player’s Union that neither would engage in negotiations in tandem. That agreement is bound by arbitration for disputes which they entered into and players won. As for the HOF, the only executives I can think of that are in the Hall and linked to that era are Lee Mcphail and Bud Selig. Why are they in? I don’t know, but as well and sane as this board has handled discussing player enshrinements, I sure a conversation about executives would be nothing but fruitful and informative.

Exactly right on the reason. Well said. Lee MacPhail was not part of the collusion. It was Ueberroth and the owners of the time. Bud Selig is the only owner in the Hall from that time. Steinbrenner has shown up on a Veterans Committee ballot but has never been close to getting in.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Ask OhioLawyer but if you look MLB is not Interstate Commerce and therefore not subject to Federal Jurisdiction. The elites protect themselves even if they attempt to steal $285 Million in 3 years of fraudulent negotiations. Soon after, Collusion became at least twice as hard to prove. Owners are not ignorant on protecting their cause, greed.



Many sports publications have this as the most damaging for the integrity of Major League Baseball. I believe that the harboring of these individuals should rank 2nd on the list. If these individuals can be allowed to walk in the HOF, then open the doors or have those still around stop lying about their role in cheating the system to what should have been a criminal sentence of fraud. At the time of the collusion, the elements of fraud were met.

Are you obsessed with me or something? Why do you keep talking about me? Cite your own sources, pal.

[Handsome Wes]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

Mostly because of what sbfinley says below.



Exactly right on the reason. Well said. Lee MacPhail was not part of the collusion. It was Ueberroth and the owners of the time. Bud Selig is the only owner in the Hall from that time. Steinbrenner has shown up on a Veterans Committee ballot but has never been close to getting in.

Random aside, you know who probably deserves a spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame (owner's wing) but, as far as I know, has never even been considered? Ted Turner. He bucked other owners and signed free agents. Even got in trouble for trying to sign a free agent before that player became one. Increased broadcast visibility for baseball - became a cable TV pioneer, and helped build the Atlanta Braves into a powerhouse.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Are you obsessed with me or something? Why do you keep talking about me? Cite your own sources, pal.

I figured if there was anybody who could step up in this thread and define why the elite were allowed to skate free of criminal prosecution instead of civil prosecution it would be you. Instead, your responses seem to be diverting away from accountability of the owners & executives while having the character clause / integrity of the game be allowed on the players, etc.

Those who participate within MLB in any way and then are selected to go into the same HOF, should receive the same standards of conduct and integrity otherwise the entire process is meaningless. Sometimes, those not selected by the elite have to demand equality. If they can get away with it in baseball then the elite are getting away with equal accountability in the rest of society.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

I figured if there was anybody who could step up in this thread and define why the elite were allowed to skate free of criminal prosecution instead of civil prosecution it would be you. Instead, your responses seem to be diverting away from accountability of the owners & executives while having the character clause / integrity of the game be allowed on the players, etc.

Those who participate within MLB in any way and then are selected to go into the same HOF, should receive the same standards of conduct and integrity otherwise the entire process is meaningless. Sometimes, those not selected by the elite have to demand equality. If they can get away with it in baseball then the elite are getting away with equal accountability in the rest of society.

In no way have any of my responses indicated a diverting accountability away from the owners. You keep responding as if that's the case. But it's blatantly false. In fact, my responses have always indicated that I believe the character clause is stupid and I would vote all the players in whose numbers were good enough to get in, steroids, character, or otherwise. I have no idea where you get it in your head that I believed the opposite.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

In no way have any of my responses indicated a diverting accountability away from the owners. You keep responding as if that's the case. But it's blatantly false. In fact, my responses have always indicated that I believe the character clause is stupid and I would vote all the players in whose numbers were good enough to get in, steroids, character, or otherwise. I have no idea where you get it in your head that I believed the opposite.

Name one phrase / sentence from your response at the top of this page to indicate anything other than the players actions being scrutinized differently than the owners and executives. One location - HOF, with polar opposite accountabilities to enter and that is the bottom line.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Name one phrase / sentence from your response at the top of this page to indicate anything other than the players actions being scrutinized differently than the owners and executives. One location - HOF, with polar opposite accountabilities to enter and that is the bottom line.

Um, you name one word or phrase that indicates my belief that players should be scrutinized differently than owners and executives.

I have never once espoused that view. Nor would I ever. I have repeatedly made it clear on this board that my position is to let them all in, and that the character clause has no business being used as a weapon to keep worthy players/executives/owners/umpires/whoever out of the hall. I went back and looked at every post I made in this thread, and not a single one even mentions exectives or owners.

Just because you have clearly mistaken my position, doesn't make it so. You are literally arguing against no one.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Handsome Wes

Random aside, you know who probably deserves a spot in the Baseball Hall of Fame (owner's wing) but, as far as I know, has never even been considered? Ted Turner. He bucked other owners and signed free agents. Even got in trouble for trying to sign a free agent before that player became one. Increased broadcast visibility for baseball - became a cable TV pioneer, and helped build the Atlanta Braves into a powerhouse.

It's funny, I think about his case from time to time. And you are right. From an attention standpoint, Turner definitely brought a lot of attention to the game. He invented the "Super Station" concept, and he made his Braves a national team. His Braves did manage to win a championship and a bunch of division titles once he brought Schuerholz and Cox in and got out of the way.

On some level he is a modern day Bill Veeck, only with less charm. Also Veeck's antics were about making a spectacle of things to draw more fans in to his stadium while Turner's antics were about making a spectacle to get more viewers for his TV station.

Lastly, Turner is still disliked by the owners and most of them viewed him as an outsider who disrupted their game (and not for the better). And then there's the shadow of Collusion. Turner was right there cheering on the system. I don't think he'll get in, but if he ever does get in, it will likely be like Veeck, posthumously.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

In no way have any of my responses indicated a diverting accountability away from the owners. You keep responding as if that's the case. But it's blatantly false. In fact, my responses have always indicated that I believe the character clause is stupid and I would vote all the players in whose numbers were good enough to get in, steroids, character, or otherwise. I have no idea where you get it in your head that I believed the opposite.

As I speak a little Stifle, allow me to interject. He's not talking about steroids, he's talking about collusion. Stifle brought you in to the discussion simply because you, being a lawyer, would know about Interstate Commerce and why the Owners were not put in jail for their collusion. Nothing to do with your beliefs or the PED era.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

MLB has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption since 1922. In any setting applying criminal collusion charges would be difficult. With an anti-trust exemption it would be impossible. Legally, the only thing hindering the owners actions from 1985-87 was an agreement between MLB and the Player’s Union that neither would engage in negotiations in tandem. That agreement is bound by arbitration for disputes which they entered into and players won. As for the HOF, the only executives I can think of that are in the Hall and linked to that era are Lee Mcphail and Bud Selig. Why are they in? I don’t know, but as well and sane as this board has handled discussing player enshrinements, I sure a conversation about executives would be nothing but fruitful and informative.

Executives - MLB Commissioners Office - Commissioner and those that worked for him such as the League Presidents, etc. There are GM’s and Owners who were in the know. Many of these people come up for election without the scrutiny of being in the collusion era compared to the players when they are a possible selection for the HOF. This is the harboring of the elite and it’s only equal to call their actions out as well.

Bart Giamatti was a League President during the collusion scandal and had Pete Rose banned years after becoming the Commissioner. Maybe Bart should have looked in the mirror and pointed banned as his judgment ? Why nobody ever discusses this fact, the elite are harbored.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

As I speak a little Stifle, allow me to interject. He's not talking about steroids, he's talking about collusion. Stifle brought you in to the discussion simply because you, being a lawyer, would know about Interstate Commerce and why the Owners were not put in jail for their collusion. Nothing to do with your beliefs or the PED era.

I understand he's talking about collusion. The problem is that he specifically claims I asserted players should be held to a different standard than owners. I said, nor implied, nothing of the sort. I never even mentioned owners in any point I made in this thread. I was specifically talking with Rats about players.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I understand he's talking about collusion. The problem is that he specifically claims I asserted players should be held to a different standard than owners. I said, nor implied, nothing of the sort. I never even mentioned owners in any point I made in this thread. I was specifically talking with Rats about players.

Correct, you never mentioned owners in this thread as having their character / integrity to the game be critiqued as HOF worthy, but went off on the players. Some members believe that the stance I’m taking is about the players, nope. It’s not about the heroes or anybody but equal accountability that some members refrain from acknowledging.

I could go back and show in length detail how often I have demanded equality in allowing equal forgiveness because the owners and executives have been allowed in. I’m sure I could see where the stance or lack of was communicated n those threads.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

Correct, you never mentioned owners in this thread as having their character / integrity to the game be critiqued as HOF worthy, but went off on the players. Some members believe that the stance I’m taking is about the players, nope. It’s not about the heroes or anybody but equal accountability that some members refrain from acknowledging.



I could go back and show in length detail how often I have demanded equality in allowing equal forgiveness because the owners and executives have been allowed in. I’m sure I could see where the stance or lack of was communicated n those threads.

What are you even talking about? It's like you don't even care who or what you are arguing. You just want to rant about a pet peeve. I have literally said nothing that contradicts your point, yet you still want to argue.

I'll say it slowly so you can comprehend. I. BELIEVE. OWNERS. AND. PLAYERS. SHOULD. BE. HELD. TO. THE. SAME. STANDARD.

There, was that slow enough for you?

Btw, at the risk of actually getting a glimpse into your deranged mind, what do you even mean that I "went off on the players?" I'm interested to know what you actually think my position is. Because I know your understanding is rarely what is actually said.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

What are you even talking about? It's like you don't even care who or what you are arguing. You just want to rant about a pet peeve. I have literally said nothing that contradicts your point, yet you still want to argue.

I'll say it slowly so you can comprehend. I. BELIEVE. OWNERS. AND. PLAYERS. SHOULD. BE. HELD. TO. THE. SAME. STANDARD.

There, was that slow enough for you?

Btw, at the risk of actually getting a glimpse into your deranged mind, what do you even mean that I "went off on the players?" I'm interested to know what you actually think my position is. Because I know your understanding is rarely what is actually said.

My mind is at ease but I question yours. Unlike Buck Weaver who was banned for his silence of knowing what was taking place, Bart Giamatti was silent in his role but still held Pete Rose accountable when Bart himself should have faced the fire of going to at least Civil Court and testifying what he knew.

I know that I have ranted on the owners & executives in other threads. Some members remain silent and it’s taken for granted on how they wish to dismiss the owners and execs. In all the years that I have been ranting on the inequality of integrity and character to the game that I have witnessed a negative response to the elite on your behalf.

Here is what I’m getting to if you can comprehend logic. If Weaver was banned for being silent of the integrity of the game being tarnished. Shouldn’t Giamatti’s ruling be overturned since he himself was acting in the same fashion as Buck Weaver and then was able to rule on Pete Rose as a commissioner. I know this is a toughie for you to take in but please attempt to do your best at understanding my stance. Bart shouldn’t have had a ruling until he was cleared of his involvement / knowledge of the Collusion Scandal.

You may believe that there isn’t a elite group that is able to slither underneath the same accountabilities as others but I know there is.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

My mind is at ease but I question yours. Unlike Buck Weaver who was banned for his silence of knowing what was taking place, Bart Giamatti was silent in his role but still held Pete Rose accountable when Bart himself should have faced the fire of going to at least Civil Court and testifying what he knew.

I know that I have ranted on the owners & executives in other threads. Some members remain silent and it’s taken for granted on how they wish to dismiss the owners and execs. In all the years that I have been ranting on the inequality of integrity and character to the game that I have witnessed a negative response to the elite on your behalf.

Here is what I’m getting to if you can comprehend logic. If Weaver was banned for being silent of the integrity of the game being tarnished. Shouldn’t Giamatti’s ruling be overturned since he himself was acting in the same fashion as Buck Weaver and then was able to rule on Pete Rose as a commissioner. I know this is a toughie for you to take in but please attempt to do your best at understanding my stance. Bart shouldn’t have had a ruling until he was cleared of his involvement / knowledge of the Collusion Scandal.

You may believe that there isn’t a elite group that is able to slither underneath the same accountabilities as others but I know there is.

Ok, you clearly can't read. Nothing in this post is remotely on point to anything I've said. I literally agree with you that the owners aren't held to the same standards as players. Yet you still rant. You are truly a moron.

[ScooterD]

Originally Posted by Skipscards

He’s talking about collusion in the 80s. There’s plenty of proof of it considering the owners lost that legal battle in pretty public fashion. But here’s a write up with some details…

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...l-in-the-1980/

Originally Posted by sbfinley

MLB has enjoyed an anti-trust exemption since 1922. In any setting applying criminal collusion charges would be difficult. With an anti-trust exemption it would be impossible. Legally, the only thing hindering the owners actions from 1985-87 was an agreement between MLB and the Player’s Union that neither would engage in negotiations in tandem. That agreement is bound by arbitration for disputes which they entered into and players won. As for the HOF, the only executives I can think of that are in the Hall and linked to that era are Lee Mcphail and Bud Selig. Why are they in? I don’t know, but as well and sane as this board has handled discussing player enshrinements, I sure a conversation about executives would be nothing but fruitful and informative.

Thank you both for the added context - very appreciated.

Stifle has made a few posts since then… is everything he has recently said 100% true and proven?

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Ok, you clearly can't read. Nothing in this post is remotely on point to anything I've said. I literally agree with you that the owners aren't held to the same standards as players. Yet you still rant. You are truly a moron.

OL, put the pin back in the grenade or you might frag yourself. Ease up there cannibal Joe. I don’t want to be responsible for you having a stroke or heart attach. I figured you wouldn’t touch that question and go to berating, that’s ok. I do give you props for not going AWOL with the time before. It’s good to know you at least take a stance for something instead of sitting on the fence. Work on long breaths and take care.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by ScooterD

Thank you both for the added context - very appreciated.

Stifle has made a few posts since then… is everything he has recently said 100% true and proven?

Giamatti had the opportunity to reinstate Shoeless Joe Jackson in 89 but declined. Bart was the NL League President in 86 & 87 during collusion. For him to be oblivious of the knowledge of collusion is equal to the Black Sox not asking Eddie Cicotte to be a member.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Stifle

OL, put the pin back in the grenade or you might frag yourself. Ease up there cannibal Joe. I don’t want to be responsible for you having a stroke or heart attach. I figured you wouldn’t touch that question and go to berating, that’s ok. I do give you props for not going AWOL with the time before. It’s good to know you at least take a stance for something instead of sitting on the fence. Work on long breaths and take care.

What question are you even talking about? I literally have agreed with everything you've said about the owners (although I'm second guessing ever agreeing with you on anything). It's like I'm in a bizarro world.

I'll just say this, if nice men show up with white coats, just go with them. They are there to help you.

[Stifle]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

What question are you even talking about? I literally have agreed with everything you've said about the owners (although I'm second guessing ever agreeing with you on anything). It's like I'm in a bizarro world.

I'll just say this, if nice men show up with white coats, just go with them. They are there to help you.

Mountain Landis was given full power to act in the sports best interests. Therefore he banned Bucky Weaver for not speaking up about the impending fix that would harm the integrity of the game. Nearly 7 decades later Bart Giamatti had the ability to reinstate Shoeless Joe Jackson but chose to honor Landis with his decision. As a National League President who was basically second in line to Commissioner Peter Ueberoth, Bart would have known about the collusion. Everything Giamatti utilized in retaining the integrity of baseball in his decision against Pete Rose and Joe Jackson was negated in the decision that Landis made on Buck Weaver. Bart knew the owners were defrauding the players out of honest negotiations the same way the 8 men out were banned for defrauding “throwing games”.

Landis made his decision well before a HOF was created. The decision he made was for the integrity of the game by everybody in the game. Bart was guilty of being banned no differently than Buck Weaver but still had the cowardly gall to keep Jackson banned while allowing Rose to be banned.

Did Bart have the right to allow any ruling because Landis would have cleaned house with owners and anybody else who attempted to harm the integrity of the game?