SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
The Red Sox will retire Wade Boggs’ number on May 26
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 5, 2016 12:51:34 GMT -5
No but a lot has changed in the last 30 years. I know a lot of people that were around in 86 that hate Clemens too.
The more numbers they retire the less meaningful it becomes, so I'm of the opinion they don't need to use them on these guys and instead save them for guys like Pedro and Ortiz.
Now if Ortiz doesn't get into the Hall of Fame they can always give him a statue instead.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 5, 2016 13:33:52 GMT -5
No but a lot has changed in the last 30 years. I know a lot of people that were around in 86 that hate Clemens too. The more numbers they retire the less meaningful it becomes, so I'm of the opinion they don't need to use them on these guys and instead save them for guys like Pedro and Ortiz. Now if Ortiz doesn't get into the Hall of Fame they can always give him a statue instead. That would explain your lack of appreciation of how great Clemens was during his long heyday with the Red Sox. You didn't see it, it's nothing more than a stat line to you, and your image of him is as a roided up greedy Yankee. I think if you had been around to watch how great Clemens was in Boston, love him or hate him, you'd have an appreciation for how great a pitcher he truly was with the Sox, which I don't think you really have. I'm sure there are plenty of Red Sox fans who watched Clemens in 1986 who grew to hate him, but that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that he was a truly great once in a generation type of pitcher for the Red Sox, which is worthy of his number being retired. He's not some run-of-the-mill fringy all-star that we're talking about - we're talking about arguably the greatest pitcher in Red Sox history (although I would choose Pedro over Roger, Roger's body of work was over a longer duration and almost just as valuable, and the only other person in the discussion would be Cy Young). As far as Ortiz goes, there's absolutely nothing stopping the Sox from retiring his number, HOF or not - it's their own policy. It's a no-brainer that either way his number will be retired. The only question is will the Sox go through the pretense of pretending that whether he makes the HOF or not should be a determining factor before retiring his number, and if Ortiz lingers on the ballot, I doubt they'll wait that long - the only way I could see that changing is if the ownership changes in the next ten years. If that's the case, they might retire his number immediately before they go out the door. I have no doubt that John Henry appreciates what David Ortiz has meant to the franchise.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 5, 2016 13:52:40 GMT -5
Roger's body of work was over a longer period of time because he took PEDs. Then he went to the team with the highest payroll to win the world series. Pedro didn't cheat and still won as a member of the Red Sox. It would be a travesty in my eyes to retire his number alongside Pedro's.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 5, 2016 14:45:14 GMT -5
Pedro wasn't nearly as good in 2004 as Clemens was in his prime as a Red Sox. He was just on a much better team. Maybe we should unretire Ted Williams # too if winning is the main criteria.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 5, 2016 16:49:30 GMT -5
Roger's body of work was over a longer period of time because he took PEDs. Then he went to the team with the highest payroll to win the world series. Pedro didn't cheat and still won as a member of the Red Sox. It would be a travesty in my eyes to retire his number alongside Pedro's. What indications do you have that Roger was roiding up in 1986? Or for any part of his career with the Red Sox? There's absolutely zero proof that he was cheating between 1984 - 1994. I don't know if when he got hurt in 1995 if he turned to the steroids then and it paid off down the stretch in 1996 as he was hitting free agency or if he was clean at that point, but there is very little if anything to say he was cheating when he was with the Red Sox - particularly in his best seasons which were from 1986 - 1992. The fact that he went to the team with the highest payroll to win a World Series means absolutely nothing. Isn't that basically what David Price is trying to do? So what? Roger wanted to win a World Series. There's no crime in that. Players play the game for two reasons - 1) get paid and 2) win Championships. The Red Sox would only be retiring Roger's number for what he did in Boston - not what he did in Toronto, New York, or Houston. It's totally irrelevant what he did elsewhere (including NY) and if he was part of a Champion or not. I honestly think if his resume read Toronto, Los Angeles, and Houston, it wouldn't bother you as much. It's too much of a fixation on the Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 5, 2016 23:13:48 GMT -5
Its not irrelevant. To me and a lot of people his years as a roided out Yankee are very relevant. Its not like he went to Oakland or something and played out his career without scandal like you're making it sound.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 5, 2016 23:27:55 GMT -5
Pedro wasn't nearly as good in 2004 as Clemens was in his prime as a Red Sox. He was just on a much better team. Maybe we should unretire Ted Williams # too if winning is the main criteria. Pedro was fantastic in the 2004 World Series. The 2004 Sox were a wild card team so I don't buy that. Him and Williams played the game clean and are franchise icons. Pedro also has worked for the team and has strong ties to the organization. Thats a bit different than what Clemens did, especially considering some of the morally dubious extraciricular activities he engaged in.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 6, 2016 7:19:48 GMT -5
I give up.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 7:40:49 GMT -5
Roger's body of work was over a longer period of time because he took PEDs. Then he went to the team with the highest payroll to win the world series. Pedro didn't cheat and still won as a member of the Red Sox. It would be a travesty in my eyes to retire his number alongside Pedro's. Interesting assumption.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 6, 2016 10:34:10 GMT -5
Not really when taking into account evidence, common sense and his character. No skeletons in his closet. He doesn't even have a closet.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jan 6, 2016 12:13:35 GMT -5
I just don't get the relevance of whether Clemens or Boggs went to Yankees. Who the f%$* cares. The players wanted free agency, they have it. They maximize earnings. It kind of stinks for fans because your favorite players often leave. Get over it. You aren't 12.
Clemens also went to the Jays first. He also left after DDuquette said he was in the twilight of his career. He may have been if not for the "help". If you had seen Clemens during his Sox years and then during his Yankees years, it's highly unlikely he was taking PED's when he was with the Sox. This is an assumption just as likely as yours that Pedro never took PED's (which I agree with).
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 6, 2016 13:01:20 GMT -5
Im not saying he took PEDs when he was with the Sox, but no, its not "just as likely." Not even close.
Lots of fans don't want to see his number retired. Thats just a fact. I get it that some really liked him when he was on the team but for others we cannot ignore what he did off the field and after he left. That number will be up there every Red Sox game and they don't need to bend the rules for a guy like Clemens.
You're supposed to retire with the team, thats one of the main rules. They bent it for Pedro but he also came back and worked for the team. He is working with E Rod I believe at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 6, 2016 13:52:49 GMT -5
Im not saying he took PEDs when he was with the Sox, but no, its not "just as likely." Not even close. Lots of fans don't want to see his number retired. Thats just a fact. I get it that some really liked him when he was on the team but for others we cannot ignore what he did off the field and after he left. That number will be up there every Red Sox game and they don't need to bend the rules for a guy like Clemens. You're supposed to retire with the team, thats one of the main rules. They bent it for Pedro but he also came back and worked for the team. He is working with E Rod I believe at the moment. Short of murdering somebody or being a lowlife violent person I don't think what Clemens did off the field or if he played for the Yankees really matters. If he was roiding up with the Sox and that's why he had the seasons he did from 1986 - 1992, I wouldn't want his number retired with the Sox, but I don't see any proof that he did. What rules are they bending? You know that Bobby Doerr's last gig in baseball was as a Toronto Blue Jays hitting coach, correct? Should #1 be unretired? Should the Sox give Clemens a 1 day gig so that he qualifies under these "rules"? These rules were made up so that they could retire Joe Cronin's (who in a lot of ways harmed the franchise more than he helped it) number, the X amount of years, the "finished" with the team as if it matters, must be in the HOF. These were archaic rules made up three decades ago that make very little sense. The Sox should retire numbers of their truly greatest players that impacted the franchise, and I think that Clemens qualifies under that. It's not surprising that nobody has worn #21 since Clemens left.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 6, 2016 13:59:34 GMT -5
I think we can agree to disagree that what he did off the field and after he left matters. That seems to be the main point of our disagreement and move on. I respectfully disagree.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 14:44:07 GMT -5
Not really when taking into account evidence, common sense and his character. No skeletons in his closet. He doesn't even have a closet. As always, the best "evidence" that a player didn't use comes down to "I like the guy and he played for my favorite team". Pedro is basically as likely a user as anyone else. Doesn't matter to me either way.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 6, 2016 15:28:25 GMT -5
Wrong.
Pedro doesn't have any of the red flags, his head size didn't explode, he didn't have anyone or any reports accusing him - and most importantly - he didn't have a personal trainer testify to investigators and members of Congress that he injected him with steroids.
Clemens settled with McNamee in court and paid him. To compare the steroid likelihood of the two as similar is pretty laughable.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 16:35:19 GMT -5
Wrong. Pedro doesn't have any of the red flags, his head size didn't explode, he didn't have anyone or any reports accusing him - and most importantly - he didn't have a personal trainer testify to investigators and members of Congress that he injected him with steroids. Clemens settled with McNamee in court and paid him. To compare the steroid likelihood of the two as similar is pretty laughable. Mid-career velo bump and coinciding freakish peak doesn't count? I'm not accusing the guy, and I don't care anyway, but players (Bagwell and Piazza come to mind) have been implicated for far less. The whole practice of anointing certain guys from that era as "clean" is really silly because there's literally no way to know and you're inevitably going to be wrong about some of them. You're never going to un-scramble this egg, so don't bother trying.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jan 6, 2016 17:01:23 GMT -5
I think we can agree to disagree that what he did off the field and after he left matters. That seems to be the main point of our disagreement and move on. I respectfully disagree. I think the other main point of our disagreement was over how good Clemens truly was with the Red Sox. You made a comment about retiring just anybody's number or something to that affect, and Clemens wasn't just some other player. He was the franchise for a decade. Boggs was the teams best offensive player, but Clemens was the man the Sox revolved around. How well they played always depended upon how well they filled in around him. Unless I'm misreading you I get the sense that you think all of Clemens' numbers should be tossed out because he was a Yankee and he did PEDs at some point in his career (most likely after he left the Red Sox). This is where I disagree and will tell you that what I think he did with the Sox during his best days from 1984 - 1994 was authentic and the last two years I'm not sure about. Doesn't mean that I'm right but the likelihood that he was doing steroids during the vast majority of his Red Sox career is pretty low. So what I'm saying is that his accomplishments with the Red Sox were pretty amazing. Do you agree on this point or disagree on this point? And while I might not agree with your answer I'll respect it and say it was nice debating you. And believe it or not, while I fully support Clemens' number being retired with the Sox, I don't think (at least for now) I would vote for him for the HOF. His overall career is pretty tainted. I'm not much in doubt as to whether he'd have had a HOF career if he didn't enhance - I believe he would have. I'm pretty convinced he was pretty much clean during most if not all of his Red Sox career. I'm pretty convinced that Clemens from around 1997 or 1998 or so on was juicing. So in totality I have a problem voting for him in the HOF - same problem I'd have with Bonds who I think started juicing in 1999. But honoring Clemens' Red Sox career to me (with the Red Sox HOF and a retired number) is different than honoring his entire career (with a HOF vote) which has lots of questions marks. Since I can't vote, it really doesn't matter what I think, but if I were a HOF voter I'd be pretty conflicted. As it is, I'd easily be able to come up with 10 HOF candidates to vote for before ever considering Bonds and Clemens.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 6, 2016 18:38:24 GMT -5
Wrong. Pedro doesn't have any of the red flags, his head size didn't explode, he didn't have anyone or any reports accusing him - and most importantly - he didn't have a personal trainer testify to investigators and members of Congress that he injected him with steroids. Clemens settled with McNamee in court and paid him. To compare the steroid likelihood of the two as similar is pretty laughable. Mid-career velo bump and coinciding freakish peak doesn't count? I'm not accusing the guy, and I don't care anyway, but players (Bagwell and Piazza come to mind) have been implicated for far less. The whole practice of anointing certain guys from that era as "clean" is really silly because there's literally no way to know and you're inevitably going to be wrong about some of them. You're never going to un-scramble this egg, so don't bother trying. Considering his strong numbers before/after his peak, that his peak came during a normal age range (25-34; with best years at 28 & 29) and that he reached his peak by gaining control/command - no, this in no way indicates any type of performance enhancing drugs. I don't remember a velo jump at all from Pedro and can't find his pre-2007 velocities. Do you have anything to back this? As far as I can tell there is no evidence Pedro took any PEDs. This doesn't mean he hasn't, and you're right that we don't know everyone who did (and likely there will be several PED users in the hall whether we try and keep them out or not) but lumping everyone into the same boat just isn't fair to the players or the game. At some point a known user like Clemens/Bonds/Arod will get in due to their staggering numbers, but I also don't think it's fair to throw Bagwell/Piazza in with that crew as i've never heard anything aside from 'rumors' about them. I personally believe through anecdotal evidence that Chipper took PEDs as he gained substantial amounts of body weight to the point where he could hardly play LF defense and later was once again able to play IF defense, which is a very strange aging curve (plus his chronic mid-career hamstring injuries - which are more common with steroid users). More importantly, during an interview he went off talking about how steroids don't help you play baseball. It would be nice if the hall created an 'asterisk' section for all Pete Rose, Joe Jackson, Barry Bonds, etc. where they can be voted in without the 'character' issues being considered. Then if someone else in the hall is shown to be a user, the veterans committee can decide to move them to the other room. Who knows - maybe one of these days baseball will be nothing but huge roid users vs robots and none of this will seem to matter.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 6, 2016 19:47:43 GMT -5
I think we can agree to disagree that what he did off the field and after he left matters. That seems to be the main point of our disagreement and move on. I respectfully disagree. I think the other main point of our disagreement was over how good Clemens truly was with the Red Sox. You made a comment about retiring just anybody's number or something to that affect, and Clemens wasn't just some other player. He was the franchise for a decade. Boggs was the teams best offensive player, but Clemens was the man the Sox revolved around. How well they played always depended upon how well they filled in around him. Unless I'm misreading you I get the sense that you think all of Clemens' numbers should be tossed out because he was a Yankee and he did PEDs at some point in his career (most likely after he left the Red Sox). This is where I disagree and will tell you that what I think he did with the Sox during his best days from 1984 - 1994 was authentic and the last two years I'm not sure about. Doesn't mean that I'm right but the likelihood that he was doing steroids during the vast majority of his Red Sox career is pretty low. So what I'm saying is that his accomplishments with the Red Sox were pretty amazing. Do you agree on this point or disagree on this point? And while I might not agree with your answer I'll respect it and say it was nice debating you. And believe it or not, while I fully support Clemens' number being retired with the Sox, I don't think (at least for now) I would vote for him for the HOF. His overall career is pretty tainted. I'm not much in doubt as to whether he'd have had a HOF career if he didn't enhance - I believe he would have. I'm pretty convinced he was pretty much clean during most if not all of his Red Sox career. I'm pretty convinced that Clemens from around 1997 or 1998 or so on was juicing. So in totality I have a problem voting for him in the HOF - same problem I'd have with Bonds who I think started juicing in 1999. But honoring Clemens' Red Sox career to me (with the Red Sox HOF and a retired number) is different than honoring his entire career (with a HOF vote) which has lots of questions marks. Since I can't vote, it really doesn't matter what I think, but if I were a HOF voter I'd be pretty conflicted. As it is, I'd easily be able to come up with 10 HOF candidates to vote for before ever considering Bonds and Clemens. No, I don't contest he was great with the Red Sox. I just have an issue with the off the field issues afterwards, the PEDs, beaning Red Sox players as a member of the Yankees... The dog and pony show where he would wait until halfway into the season to decide which team to join (and then just pick the Yankees and money after pretending he was looking at other things). That to me is not an exemplary member of the team who should have his no. retired. Red Sox hall of fame, sure. But not retiring the number. To me thats a very big deal that should be reserved for a select few. Part of its because I live right next to Fenway and go to a lot of games so I will see it a lot.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 6, 2016 19:58:10 GMT -5
Does anyone know the 'rules' now for retiring Red Sox numbers? As much as it's nice to have more players honored - I always liked the strict rules given and felt that it differentiated the 'All-Time Great Red Sox' from the 'Very Good Red Sox' and 'All-Time Great Players'. (and was stark contrast to the Yankees retiring so many numbers)
I mean Yaz, Williams, Doerr, Cronin - there was no debate about the greatness or the team legacy for these players. Pesky as a special exception was nice as well do to what he meant to the Franchise. But I'd like it if the Red Sox established new rules to show 'who' qualifies to have their number retired.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jan 6, 2016 19:59:40 GMT -5
Wrong. Pedro doesn't have any of the red flags, his head size didn't explode, he didn't have anyone or any reports accusing him - and most importantly - he didn't have a personal trainer testify to investigators and members of Congress that he injected him with steroids. Clemens settled with McNamee in court and paid him. To compare the steroid likelihood of the two as similar is pretty laughable. Mid-career velo bump and coinciding freakish peak doesn't count? I'm not accusing the guy, and I don't care anyway, but players (Bagwell and Piazza come to mind) have been implicated for far less. The whole practice of anointing certain guys from that era as "clean" is really silly because there's literally no way to know and you're inevitably going to be wrong about some of them. You're never going to un-scramble this egg, so don't bother trying. This is just false Fenway. You have jumped on most every PED claim for years, followed by the not caring line. You care. I happen to agree with you on Boggs. But PED"s matter to you and most of us that follow the game. What to do about it is the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 20:49:45 GMT -5
This is just false Fenway. You have jumped on most every PED claim for years, followed by the not caring line. You care. I happen to agree with you on Boggs. But PED"s matter to you and most of us that follow the game. What to do about it is the discussion. I care about the argument. I really don't care if guys used, at least up to the point where an actual testing program was in place, and I'm very much opposed to trying to re-construct history based on who we think did or didn't use.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jan 6, 2016 21:15:08 GMT -5
Excluding steroid users from the hall isn't re-constructing history. People literally testified in court and before memberd of Congress they injected Clemens with roids.
Thats not "just as likely" as some random baseball player that got elected to the hall of fame.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jan 6, 2016 21:24:46 GMT -5
Yeah. I know. He did steroids. He's also no worse than one of the five best pitchers in baseball history and belongs in the HOF.
|
|
|