Skip to content

Union head Michael Weiner decries the Hall of Fame results

Jan 10, 2013, 10:31 AM EDT

Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner speaks at news conference to announce new collective bargaining agreement in New York

We had Bud Selig’s statement yesterday. His union counterpart also released a statement in the wake of the Hall of Fame Shutout:

“Today’s news that those members of the BBWAA afforded the privilege of casting ballots failed to elect even a single player to the Hall of Fame is unfortunate, if not sad. Those empowered to help the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum document the history of the game failed to recognize the contributions of several Hall of Fame worthy players. To ignore the historic accomplishments of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, for example, is hard to justify. Moreover, to penalize players exonerated in legal proceedings — and others never even implicated — is simply unfair. The Hall of Fame is supposed to be for the best players to have ever played the game. Several such players were denied access to the Hall today. Hopefully, this will be rectified by future voting.”

Well, it’s not exactly hard to justify the Bonds-Clemens thing. Even if you disagree, it’s a pretty simply justification that makes rational sense assuming you apply your anti-PED position in an even-handed fashion.

But yes on the “others never even implicated.”

 

  1. anotheryx - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    Well, seems alot of (surprisingly enough, newer generation) writers is using the rational that “since union fought testing that hard, they must be all dirty”.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:14 AM

      they should have only one plaque in the HOF, Babe Ruths………………

      • Old Gator - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:54 AM

        Yeah, that Gehrig clown has no place there at all.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM

        Willie Mays!

      • blacksables - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        Bill Mazeroski.

      • kirkvanhouten - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:41 PM

        That would be the crappiest Hall of Fame ever conceived.

        That wouldn’t even really be a Hall of Fame, it would just be Babe Ruth Museum…and one of those already exists.

        http://baberuthmuseum.org/

      • bigharold - Jan 10, 2013 at 6:53 PM

        You had me up until Mazeroski.

  2. historiophiliac - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    Wow, someone needs an interview cap.

    • royhobbs39 - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

      As a bald man myself, I nominate that comment for winning the Internet today.

      • paperlions - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        As a man with a full head of hair, I second your nomination.

      • snowbirdgothic - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM

        Might have something to do with the cancer treatment.

      • historiophiliac - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:47 PM

        FYI, his hair loss pre-dates his cancer treatment.

  3. raulduke11 - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    Still mad

  4. smoochytherhino - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

    Isn’t it also true that the campus at Cooperstown has both a HOF and a museum? And aren’t the Pete Roses and Shoeless Joes acknowledged in the museum section of Cooperstown? If so, then the history of the game can be duly documented without rewarding players with a spot in the HOF.

    And the idea that the HOF is required to follow the results of legal proceedings makes no sense whatsoever. One has nothing to do with the other. Being in the HOF is an honor, not a protectable right.

    • townballblog - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      Sure, but we’re not talking about the history of the game so much as the legacy of a player. To have a one of your bats or gloves in the HOF is pretty awesome, sure, but being an actual Hall of Famer is something completely different and it details your entire career, not one particular play or game.

      • smoochytherhino - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM

        That’s my point. Being in the HOF is “pretty awesome” which is why they are not receiving the honor. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. They are not being erased from history, just being denied something that’s pretty awesome for doing something pretty crappy.

    • fanofevilempire - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 AM

      close down the HOF, as soon as possible.

      • blacksables - Jan 10, 2013 at 12:38 PM

        Who has forced you to be an adherent of it?

    • anxovies - Jan 11, 2013 at 6:53 PM

      Its an honor that should be extended to Pete Rose, who never took a game off, never loafed to 1B, never failed to failed to take the second baseman out, never gave up on a pitch, and woke up every day thanking God he was a baseball player.

  5. clownsfan - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM

    Not as sad as your hair bro…..

  6. dcfan4life - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

    I think this point of view is saying that it is extremely hard to hit a baseball, or throw a pitch where you want it to go. The PEDs made the ball travel further and harder, but the person still had to hit it or throw it. And since so many took PEDs, an exact number we will never know but it could have been more than half, then the best of the best should apply and still make the HOF. Valid argument, but the sports writers dont seem to agree. I expect both Clemens and Bonds NOT to ever get in. Many other worthy non PED implicated guys will be on upcoming ballots like Greg Maddux, Ivan Rodriguez, Tom Glavine, Chipper Jones, and John Smoltz.

  7. townballblog - Jan 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

    Does anyone know who, if anyone, has the authority to change the electoral process of the HOF? To me, it would make more sense if the Player’s Union was in charge of it.

    • paperlions - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:18 AM

      Oddly enough, the HOF is in charge of itself as an independent non-profit organization and they alone decide the rules and who votes. The current process is what they still support.

      Allowing players to judge themselves is a pretty poor approach, it’s like have a group of coaches vote on a national champion.

      • townballblog - Jan 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM

        Hey Paperlions, thanks for the answer. I did not know that was the case.

        I understand where you’re coming from, being a college football fan myself. I don’t know, I just feel that people who actually played the game, or are directly involved with the game, are a better judge of talent than folks who never played it (that’s not to say some in the BBWAA didn’t play).

        Again though, I understand your point…it’s a good one.

  8. makeham98 - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    People would barely mention Rose or Joe Jackson if not for the HOF. Go ahead, make the others martyrs too.

  9. Innocent Bystander - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    This was such a pathetic showing by the BBWAA that I am going to boycott the HoF. I’ve always been a “small hall” guy but this vote is ridiculous. They can induct or not induct whoever the hell they want…I don’t care anymore. The HoF doesn’t represent who I think of as the great players. I’m comfortable having my own HoF and disregarding theirs.

  10. wpjohnson - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM

    Weiner is a typical union thug.

    • Old Gator - Jan 10, 2013 at 11:55 AM

      Really? Your definition of thug is pretty expansive, then – truly Trailer Park Network in its essence.

    • jarathen - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM

      Please define a “typical union thug”, so I know what to watch out for.

  11. bat42boy - Jan 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM

    If the the Hall of Fame is for the best baseball players ever, then Pete Rose should definitely be in the Hall. So go to work for his induction. He’s one the 10 best players ever to play the game with the most hits ever and he didn’t cheat. I want my grandkids and great grandkids to know about his accomplishments as a player. Tell Bud Selig to get a life and reinstate Pete in baseball and in the Hall of Fame.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Jackie Robinson Day is bittersweet
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. T. Wood (5124)
  2. S. Kazmir (4805)
  3. J. Kubel (4655)
  4. K. Uehara (4112)
  5. I. Nova (4003)
  1. G. Springer (3237)
  2. T. Walker (3120)
  3. M. Moore (2974)
  4. M. Machado (2943)
  5. J. Chavez (2887)