Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 02, 2007

Bonds may boycott Hall of Fame over asterisk

If Cilly Brystal can somehow work Bruce McGill in as dilapidated Ralph Houk again for 756*...I’m all for it!

Barry Bonds said in an interview to be aired on Countdown with Keith Olbermann that he will boycott baseball’s Hall of Fame if it decides to display his record-breaking home run ball with an asterisk.

The free-agent slugger told Jim Gray: “I don’t think you can put an asterisk in the game of baseball and I don’t think that the Hall of Fame can accept an asterisk in their Hall of Fame. You can’t, you cannot give people the freedom, the right to alter history, you can’t do it. There’s no such thing as an asterisk in baseball.”

Gray: Is that subject being reconsidered or is it definite that if you are elected to the Hall of Fame there is no way you will be there?

Bonds: Like I said at this time I will not be there. That’s my emotions now, that’s how I feel now. When I decide to retire five years from now we’ll see where they are at that moment. We’ll see where they are at that time and maybe I’ll reconsider. But its their position and where their position will be will be the determination of what my decision will be made at that time.

Repoz Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:13 AM | 181 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: giants, hall of fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. bibigon Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:27 AM (#2602920)
Oh my - this might end up being win/win if he goes through with it. And by win/win, I mean the Bonds haters win twice.
   2. Fat Al Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:30 AM (#2602925)
Pretty wishy-washy by BB. That's not exactly an ultimatum there.
   3. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2602929)
And this matters because...?
   4. Honkie Kong Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:37 AM (#2602930)
I agree with Barry. He doesn't need to put up with crap. And he doesn't need the HoF to be remembered as one of the greatest offensive players of all time.
Well, offensive in more senses than one
   5. Fat Al Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:42 AM (#2602935)
And this matters because...?


Well, if you're going to start saying things like that, you'll kill 90% of the threads on BTF.
   6. BeanoCook Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:52 AM (#2602948)
When I decide to retire five years from now we’ll see where they are at that moment.


Wait a minute, they dusted off Jim Gray so Bonds could retire on national TV (ok, not quite "national tv") but then Gray didn't post any follow up questions regarding Bonds' retirement announcement?
   7. mike f Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:07 AM (#2602969)
When I decide to retire five years from now we’ll see where they are at that moment.

I think taking that hyper-literally leads to the conclusion that he plans on playing for five more years, then retiring...
   8. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:18 AM (#2602979)
you cannot give people the freedom


Barry Bonds is a terrorist.
   9. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:19 AM (#2602983)
Good for Bonds. The HOF needs the participation of the players a lot more than the players need the HOF.
   10. Neil Kinnock...Lord Palmerston! (Orinoco) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:35 AM (#2602991)
sigh, with this and Zumaya, it's so hard to separate hot stove news from an Onion article nowadays.
   11. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:37 AM (#2602992)
Good for Bonds. The HOF needs the participation of the players a lot more than the players need the HOF.


I'd agree with this if it were more than one player (unless someone else is boycotting that I don't know about).

I can see how much not having the all-time hits leader is harming the HoF. I'm sure being ignored by the all-time HR leadre will shut the doors.
   12. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:38 AM (#2602994)
This is like a dream come true.

If there were a Nobel Prize for baseball, I'd give it to Marc Ecko, who's obviously set off a bomb underneath Bonds's previously unruffled feathers.

The HOF "needs" the "participation" of Barry Bonds about as much as the proverbial fish needs a bicycle. They can hire a hundred liars for off a streetcorner for ten bucks each if they need someone to make a speech.
   13. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:44 AM (#2602997)
Pretty wishy-washy by BB. That's not exactly an ultimatum there.

I think it is pretty well thought out remark by Bonds. He is saying he is angry now over the issue but that he isn't going to damn them to hell. If the issue gets resolved then it is no longer an issue. Talking in ultimatums is for movies and politicians. The rest of us actually have to live in this world.


And really what else do you else do you expect out of Bonds or really any human being who is about to get snubbed like that? It is a slap in his face and why should he be happy about the "holy shrine" of his business accepting something that is an insult to him?
   14. Srul Itza Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:20 AM (#2603023)
The HOF "needs" the "participation" of Barry Bonds about as much as the proverbial fish needs a bicycle. They can hire a hundred liars for off a streetcorner for ten bucks each if they need someone to make a speech.

Actually, they do. HOF induction week is the biggest money-making week for the HOF. They live in dread of a year when nobody is elected. That is one of the reasons why a revamping of the Veterans' "Pull up the Ladder, Boys" Committee was pretty much assured when they did not vote anyone in.

If Barry is the only guy they vote in, and he doesn't show up, the ceremony is not going to be much of a draw.

Always remember, the Baseball HOF and National Museum exists for solemn and uplifting purpose of providing a regular income for the residents of Cooperstown. Honoring baseball is just a happy by-product.
   15. Honkie Kong Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:33 AM (#2603036)
If there were a Nobel Prize for baseball, I'd give it to Marc Ecko, who's obviously set off a bomb underneath Bonds's previously unruffled feathers.

The HOF "needs" the "participation" of Barry Bonds about as much as the proverbial fish needs a bicycle. They can hire a hundred liars for off a streetcorner for ten bucks each if they need someone to make a speech.


Ecko is just an attention seeking #########, and pretty damn classless. I am sure you supported teh case for Maris getting an asterisk for his 61 HR season too.
This is the HoF, to celebrate baseball's greatest achievements. This is not the Hall of very nice people. If so, Sean Casey would be the person you would be electing, not Ty Cobb.
   16. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2603039)
The HOF "needs" the "participation" of Barry Bonds about as much as the proverbial fish needs a bicycle. They can hire a hundred liars for off a streetcorner for ten bucks each if they need someone to make a speech.

Actually, they do. HOF induction week is the biggest money-making week for the HOF. They live in dread of a year when nobody is elected. That is one of the reasons why a revamping of the Veterans' "Pull up the Ladder, Boys" Committee was pretty much assured when they did not vote anyone in.

If Barry is the only guy they vote in, and he doesn't show up, the ceremony is not going to be much of a draw.

Always remember, the Baseball HOF and National Museum exists for solemn and uplifting purpose of providing a regular income for the residents of Cooperstown. Honoring baseball is just a happy by-product.


Well, in the event that Bonds is the only inductee that day, it would certainly make for an educational moment, wouldn't it?

You have to assume that the ball will never be turned over to the HOF without a guarantee that the asterisk will remain in place, and that any refusal to display it in all its splendor would result in the ball's return to Ecko. I "assume" that on the grounds that Ecko would have to be completely nuts not to make this a written condition.

And you also have to assume that Bonds (in this case, anyway) is a man of his word. So something would have to give.

A temporary removal of the ball during induction weekend would be one possibility, but would Bonds agree to that? I doubt it.

Or you could envision a permanent return of the ball to Ecko, who could then re-auction it for what would likely be a hefty profit---and don't anyone kid themselves on that score, not with all that free publicity surrounding it. That would make Bonds and the local businessmen happy for one weekend out of the rest of their lives, at the expense of having the ball on permanent display.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, since I doubt that there's much room for any real compromise.
   17. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:44 AM (#2603043)
If there were a Nobel Prize for baseball, I'd give it to Marc Ecko, who's obviously set off a bomb underneath Bonds's previously unruffled feathers.

I think they already gave that particular award to the NY Post photographer who caught A-Rod with his stripper, who did an equally important and revelatory service for the benefit of mankind. But if there were a Nobel for Mixed Metaphors, "bomb under the feathers" would be a worthy honoree.

The HOF "needs" the "participation" of Barry Bonds about as much as the proverbial fish needs a bicycle. They can hire a hundred liars for off a streetcorner for ten bucks each if they need someone to make a speech.

Actually, the Hall of Fame very badly needs the physical participation of its inductees. Past elections are examples: whenever the BBWAA has chosen too few (or no) players, past Veterans Committees have frequently found "extra" candidates to fill the annual "gap."

It may be worth a giggle today to think of the HoF choosing its relationship with Ecko over one with Bonds, but the serious chances of that happening are close to nil.

And it's worth catching the actual tape of Bonds and Gray-- though Bonds is surely packing a personal agenda, he comes off as pleasant, responsive, intelligent, and more or less at peace. It's also worth catching the Olbermann/Gray wrapup, in which Gray endorses Bonds' views-- and it's not as if Jim Gray has ever been shy about grandstanding or emphasizing the negative.
   18. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:57 AM (#2603060)
If there were a Nobel Prize for baseball, I'd give it to Marc Ecko, who's obviously set off a bomb underneath Bonds's previously unruffled feathers.

I think they already gave that particular award to the NY Post photographer who caught A-Rod with his stripper, who did an equally important and revelatory service for the benefit of mankind. But if there were a Nobel for Mixed Metaphors, "bomb under the feathers" would be a worthy honoree.


I'll gladly take any Nobel Prize, Gonfalon. It'd sit right up there with my runner-up trophy in the 1957 DC Boys' Club ping pong tournament.

The HOF "needs" the "participation" of Barry Bonds about as much as the proverbial fish needs a bicycle. They can hire a hundred liars for off a streetcorner for ten bucks each if they need someone to make a speech.

Actually, the Hall of Fame very badly needs the physical participation of its inductees. Past elections are examples: whenever the BBWAA has chosen too few (or no) players, past Veterans Committees have frequently found "extra" candidates to fill the annual "gap."


Which they could easily do in this case. And there's no guarantee that (a) there wouldn't be any other inductees that year, or that (b) Bonds would be that big of a draw to begin with, since his fan base is a continent away.

It may be worth a giggle today to think of the HoF choosing its relationship with Ecko over one with Bonds, but the serious chances of that happening are close to nil.

That certainly makes sense, but it's hard to believe that the HOF couldn't have predicted Bonds's reaction to this. Which either makes them extremely principled or extremely stupid. My heart says principled, but my head says stupid.

And it's worth catching the actual tape of Bonds and Gray-- though Bonds is surely packing a personal agenda, he comes off as pleasant, responsive, intelligent, and more or less at peace. It's also worth catching the Olbermann/Gray wrapup, in which Gray endorses Bonds' views-- and it's not as if Jim Gray has ever been shy about grandstanding or emphasizing the negative.

This is all at least five or six years in the future. I doubt if anyone at that point will care one way or the other what Jim Gray has to say about all this. Or what any of us are saying, for that matter.
   19. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:01 AM (#2603065)
He is setting up his excuse as to why he doesn't get elected to the HOF.
   20. BeanoCook Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:01 AM (#2603066)
I wonder if Bonds could do it over again, if he would put a pretty good bid in on that *ball. Has anyone asked him this?
   21. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:03 AM (#2603070)
This is all at least five or six years in the future. I doubt if anyone at that point will care one way or the other what Jim Gray has to say about all this.

True enough. But the point about the rather stark contrast between just reading the quotes and actually watching the interview and discussion is still a valid one.
   22. BDC Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:10 AM (#2603075)
that’s how I feel now. When I decide to retire five years from now we’ll see where they are at that moment

Actually he can't say much fairer than that. I remember when he decided to retire five years ago, and then changed his mind and played another five years. His feelings were always pretty clear at the moment, but they kept changing.
   23. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:14 AM (#2603079)
I'll gladly take any Nobel Prize, Gonfalon. It'd sit right up there with my runner-up trophy in the 1957 DC Boys' Club ping pong tournament.

You were jobbed! Recount!

...it's hard to believe that the HOF couldn't have predicted Bonds's reaction to this. Which either makes them extremely principled or extremely stupid. My heart says principled, but my head says stupid.

They want the ball. They're going to want Bonds. If push comes to shove-- which it probably won't-- the HoF will soberly consider whether 60,000 people will travel to an out-of-the-way town on the same weekend to look at a 6-year-old baseball, and they'll behave accordingly.

there's no guarantee that... Bonds would be that big of a draw to begin with, since his fan base is a continent away.

Tony Gwynn played in San Diego and was a substantial draw. And just wait until Ichiro gets in.

[Bonds] is setting up his excuse as to why he doesn't get elected to the HOF.

I think not. The sportswriters will crank out an endless parade of columns explaining their voting decision down to the subatomic details, making all alibis or interpretations unnecessary. And with only three basic options, too:
I Will Not Be A Party To This;
With A Heavy Heart, I Do What I Must;
or The Record Speaks For Itself.

Oh, what preordained fun!
   24. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:35 AM (#2603084)
They want the ball. They're going to want Bonds. If push comes to shove-- which it probably won't-- the HoF will soberly consider whether 60,000 people will travel to an out-of-the-way town on the same weekend to look at a 6-year-old baseball, and they'll behave accordingly.

That's about my take on it, too. Which makes me wonder why the HOF was so eager to grab the ball in the first place, since anyone could have predicted Bonds's all too human reaction, and they certainly can't be dumb enough to think that they're going to be able to keep the ball and somehow remove the asterisk. My strongest guess is that the ball reverts to Ecko, who then re-auctions it and easily doubles his money---because not only would the "purists" be bidding (if I can be forgiven that rather ironic word in the context of a juicer) but they'd be competing with a fair number of those who would likely see the ball as high camp or pop art, with all sorts of academic jargon thrown in.

there's no guarantee that... Bonds would be that big of a draw to begin with, since his fan base is a continent away.

Tony Gwynn played in San Diego and was a substantial draw. And just wait until Ichiro gets in.


I guess one can never tell about such things, but I'm not certain that you can assume that the enthusiasm for Mr. Juicy is quite going to approach the level for two of the more popular players in history.

But I'm sure that the city of Houston would be well represented. I fully expect BBC to bake a big cake for the occasion. And maybe Kimberly Bell can be hired to pop out of it and sing the National Anthem.
   25. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:02 AM (#2603098)
Assuming they both retire next year, this just gives more time for Curt Schilling to talk.
   26. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:12 AM (#2603100)
I guess one can never tell about such things, but I'm not certain that you can assume that the enthusiasm for Mr. Juicy is quite going to approach the level for two of the more popular players in history.

You are crazy if you think Bonds wouldn't draw a huge crowd.

- 75% would be his fans
- 20% would be people showing up to boo or hold badly worded protest signs
- 4.9999% would be people showing up to see the two crowds clash
- and the last person would be that guy that always streaks at public sporting events
   27. ronh Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:34 AM (#2603107)
Tony Gwynn played in San Diego and was a substantial draw.

And how do you know what percent of the fans were there for Gwynn and which were there for Ripken?
   28. David Wrightwing obstructionist Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:37 AM (#2603108)
I don't think I am lucky enough for Barry to do me this favor, besides I boycotted Barry about 6 cycles ago.
   29. Smelly is a Firework Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:45 AM (#2603112)
I was always curious about the reason Matt Murphy sold the ball. It seems totally ridiculous that he would have to pay taxes on something like that.

It also seems like he probably wouldn't have had to pay taxes on it if he had kept it. So the reason he might have to pay tax on it is that there is a law that you have to pay tax on found property the year you find it. The counter argument is that when murphy found the ball, Bonds hadn't crossed home plate yet. So when murphy obtained possession of the ball, it was worth as much as any other ball. Only after bonds crossed home plate did it become "HOMERUN BALL #756!!" and the ball becomes a capital asset which he wouldn't have to pay taxes on until he sold it.

The latter definition makes more sense to me. And also meshes with baseball rules. That and I can't imagine the IRS would bother trying to collect on something like that.
   30. base ball chick Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:04 AM (#2603117)
Andy Posted: November 01, 2007 at 11:35 PM (#2603084)

But I'm sure that the city of Houston would be well represented. I fully expect BBC to bake a big cake for the occasion. And maybe Kimberly Bell can be hired to pop out of it and sing the National Anthem.


- excuse you boy!!

if anyone gonna be jumpin out of barry lamar's cake it's gonna be the one who made it you know what i'm sayin

i feel like jessica rabbit
cmere boy, i'm gonna bake you a carrot cake...
   31. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:56 AM (#2603137)
Andy:

Well, in the event that Bonds is the only inductee that day, it would certainly make for an educational moment, wouldn't it?


And the lesson would be...? That if you insult the person you're trying to honor, he won't feel very honored, and you'll diminish your institution?

A temporary removal of the ball during induction weekend would be one possibility, but would Bonds agree to that? I doubt it.


You mean if they stop insulting him for that weekend, and patronize him instead, Bonds still will not want to be there?

Shocking.
   32. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: November 02, 2007 at 07:44 AM (#2603159)
Solid interview. Tivo set!

I was also reminded while watching the Olberman/Gray exchange, just how much Kieth Olberman hates Barry Bonds. I believe it was him anyways, a few years ago, he said "I wish Barry would just quit breathing." .. ehh .. Olbermann, the NBC political spinmaster, tried to spin that interview with Jim Gray at every opportunity, and a number of times Jim Gray looked at him, semi confused, and said .. "Ummm, no Kieth that shouldn't be the case," .. "ummm, no Kieth, no he did not." .. classic.

Also, I bet I am the only guy in the room that actually pumped his fist more than once during that interview.

:)

I heart you Barry!
   33. schuey Posted: November 02, 2007 at 10:07 AM (#2603170)
The Hall of Fame survived Ty Cobb deliberately showing up late in 1939 because he was mad at Judge Landis. It will survive if Barroid Bonds doesn't show up.
Is Roger Clemens still threatening not to go if "he doesn't go in as a Yankee"? He threatened that in a 2003 interview when he was wearing a non-Yankee hat.
I'm not a tax accountant but everything I read said Murphy would have to pay taxes on his 2007 return for catching the ball. Screwy reasoning but look at the extra Y chromosome people from both parties running the country.
   34. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:37 PM (#2603214)
The Hall of Fame survived Ty Cobb deliberately showing up late in 1939 because he was mad at Judge Landis. It will survive if Barroid Bonds doesn't show up.


I think Cobbs being late for a ceremony where there were a slew of great players showing up anyway is not the same as if Bonds were to be the only inductee. They're not comparable events.
   35. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 12:39 PM (#2603215)
A temporary removal of the ball during induction weekend would be one possibility, but would Bonds agree to that? I doubt it.


Would anyone here agree to something like that if it were you? I know I wouldn't.
   36. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:05 PM (#2603225)
This is the HoF, to celebrate baseball's greatest achievements.

And they will celebrate Barry's achievements, such as they are, by displaying the asterisked 756 HR ball.

I haven't been to Cooperstown, but I believe there is a Black Sox exhibit, isn't there?
   37. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:12 PM (#2603231)
they certainly can't be dumb enough to think that they're going to be able to keep the ball and somehow remove the asterisk

Of course, they can just keep the ball in a safe deposit box somewhere. They own literally tons of memorabilia that they don't have on display in the museum.
   38. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:14 PM (#2603234)
I haven't been to Cooperstown, but I believe there is a Black Sox exhibit, isn't there?


I believe in the museum section, but obviously not in the HOF section (you mean Abbott & Costello are not in the HOF? ;-).
   39. Dan Szymborski Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:14 PM (#2603236)

I haven't been to Cooperstown, but I believe there is a Black Sox exhibit, isn't there?


Yes, but there's no Black Sox stuff with HAHA PWN3D defaced with black marker.
   40. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 01:38 PM (#2603265)
I was always curious about the reason Matt Murphy sold the ball. It seems totally ridiculous that he would have to pay taxes on something like that.
And yet, there we are. (Since when does the Internal Revenue Code conform to anybody's notion of what's not ridiculous?)
It also seems like he probably wouldn't have had to pay taxes on it if he had kept it. So the reason he might have to pay tax on it is that there is a law that you have to pay tax on found property the year you find it.
Those sentences seem to contradict each other, but the second one is correct.
The counter argument is that when murphy found the ball, Bonds hadn't crossed home plate yet. So when murphy obtained possession of the ball, it was worth as much as any other ball. Only after bonds crossed home plate did it become "HOMERUN BALL #756!!" and the ball becomes a capital asset which he wouldn't have to pay taxes on until he sold it.
This is somewhat confusing on your part, but if your argument is that it didn't really have value for the 30 seconds it took Bonds to get around the bases, well, I'd advise you to argue it yourself, because you're going to have a hard time finding a lawyer willing to make an argument as frivolous as that one.

You have to pay taxes on income. The ball was income when he got it. That it's a "capital asset" is irrelevant to that point. If you win a house in a sweepstakes, you have to pay taxes on that capital asset right away. (You also pay capital gains taxes when you sell the asset, assuming there are in fact gains.)

There's nothing strange about this. If one could escape paying incomes taxes on something one received merely because it wasn't cash, then employers would start paying people in goods rather than $. Now, I guess you could argue that unearned goods (prize winnings, treasure trove) should be treated like gifts rather than income -- that is, they shouldn't be taxed. That would be reasonable. But the government likes taxing more things rather than fewer things.
   41. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:03 PM (#2603306)
A temporary removal of the ball during induction weekend would be one possibility, but would Bonds agree to that? I doubt it.

Would anyone here agree to something like that if it were you? I know I wouldn't.


If I were Bonds, I sure as hell wouldn't agree to that.

and they certainly can't be dumb enough to think that they're going to be able to keep the ball and somehow remove the asterisk

Of course, they can just keep the ball in a safe deposit box somewhere. They own literally tons of memorabilia that they don't have on display in the museum.


And if I were Marc Ecko, I sure as hell wouldn't let the HOF get away with that, either. I doubt if he has it in mind to make a $750,000 donation to a storage unit in the middle of nowhere. But if he didn't envision a Bonds power play in advance and make sure (in writing) that the HOF would have his back on this and not Bonds's, then he really is as dumb as some people here have surmised.

The bottom line is that if both sides (Bonds and Ecko) stick to their principles (which they should), you've got an irreconcilable standoff. Which is why I say that this is going to be one interesting educational moment.
   42. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:09 PM (#2603314)
To that last post I should add that if I were Ecko, I'd allow a compromise which removed the ball from display at any time Bonds chose to visit the museum on 24 hours notice. Or I might allow the ball to be displayed for only a few months a year. But if I were Bonds, I'd never agree to that, either, since the principle would remain the same. The HOF is not going to be able to have it both ways if both Ecko and Bonds stick to their guns.
   43. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:12 PM (#2603320)
The HOF is not going to be able to have it both ways if both Ecko and Bonds stick to their guns.


If their only choices are A) Accept the Ball with the Asterisk and Display it all the time or B) Have Bonds be willing to show up to various occasions, I think they'll choose B. Bonds' appearances are worth more to them, and gives them a better shield against those who dislike the decision ("We wish to preserve history, and Mr. Ecko has defaced it...).
   44. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:14 PM (#2603322)
And if I were Marc Ecko, I sure as hell wouldn't let the HOF get away with that, either. I doubt if he has it in mind to make a $750,000 donation to a storage unit in the middle of nowhere.


Unless he's viewing this as one big commercial. How many people, me included, didn't know who the hell Mark Ecko was before this?
   45. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:17 PM (#2603325)
I haven't been to Cooperstown, but I believe there is a Black Sox exhibit, isn't there?

I was there last year and I believe the answer is no. That is not to say they never had one up it just isn't up now.

Special exhibits that I recall that had little to with an individual player and focused on some general theme:
No hit balls
Baseball Cards
Lockers for all 30 teams
World Series Programs
World Series rings and pendants
Awards
Stadiums
Womens Baseball
Plaques
Broadcasters-journalists
19th century baseball
Art
Black Baseball
   46. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 02:25 PM (#2603339)
And if I were Marc Ecko, I sure as hell wouldn't let the HOF get away with that, either. I doubt if he has it in mind to make a $750,000 donation to a storage unit in the middle of nowhere.

Unless he's viewing this as one big commercial. How many people, me included, didn't know who the hell Mark Ecko was before this?


That makes a certain amount of sense, Ray, but unless he can hedge his bet by reclaiming the ball in case the HOF backs off displaying it, how stupid can he be?

It's one thing for the ball not to be in the HOF. It's another thing altogether for it to be out of Ecko's control in the event the HOF changes its mind.

From a strictly commercial standpoint, Ecko's ideal scenario would be for the HOF to cave in to Bonds, for the ball to be returned, for Ecko to milk it for all its worth in a series of staged public pseudo-"events" (which you know the media will gladly---gleefully---go along with), and then after a decent interval (say somewhere around the time of Bonds's induction ceremony) have it auctioned off as a sort of counter-event to what would be going on in Cooperstown.

Do you think that this sort of scenario has never crossed Ecko's mind? The only fly in the ointment would be if he didn't get it in writing that the ball had to be returned immediately if it were not going to be part of the museum's permanent exhibits. But it would be hard for me to believe that he hadn't thought of that.
   47. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:13 PM (#2603398)
That makes a certain amount of sense, Ray, but unless he can hedge his bet by reclaiming the ball in case the HOF backs off displaying it, how stupid can he be?


But he already got the publicity, so he might feel that what he got already was worth it, no matter what the Hall does with the ball.
   48. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:23 PM (#2603416)
That makes a certain amount of sense, Ray, but unless he can hedge his bet by reclaiming the ball in case the HOF backs off displaying it, how stupid can he be?

But he already got the publicity, so he might feel that what he got already was worth it, no matter what the Hall does with the ball.


Maybe so, but if you were Ecko, wouldn't you rather make sure that if the Hall reneged on what you thought was an agreement, you'd then be able to reclaim the ball and do with it whatever you liked? Ecko certainly doesn't seem like the sort who wouldn't realize that:

(a) Bonds wouldn't exactly go along attending an induction in the company of an asterisked ball, and

(b) historically, the Hall of Fame is not necessarily the world's most steadfast institution when it comes to honoring donor's wishes.

Therefore I can't help but think (yeah, maybe the word here is "hope") that Ecko would be smart enough to make sure that any agreement with the HOF was both explicit and in writing, with no escape clauses about display that didn't allow for the option of reclaiming the ball if the HOF tried to deep six it in a storage unit for any indeterminate length of time. That seems to me to be only common sense on his part. Whether he has that degree of common sense remains to be seen.
   49. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:30 PM (#2603431)
I seriously doubt the hall is going to enter into any kind of agreement beyond their standard donation agreement. Donate your item, we will house it and not sell it. Period nothing more, nothing less. Is the hall in the habit of accepting things on loan? I don't think so, maybe they do but I haven't heard of it.

I would say this was all a publicity stunt and if you haven't noticed yet but the Hall doesn't have the ball. This isn't launching a rocket to Mars here, if Ecko truly wanted to give the ball to the Hall then they would have it by now. I'm betting Ecko never gives the ball to the hall and ends up selling it for a profit.
   50. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2603437)
(b) historically, the Hall of Fame is not necessarily the world's most steadfast institution when it comes to honoring donor's wishes.

What is the history here?
   51. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:40 PM (#2603455)
I would say this was all a publicity stunt and if you haven't noticed yet but the Hall doesn't have the ball. This isn't launching a rocket to Mars here, if Ecko truly wanted to give the ball to the Hall then they would have it by now. I'm betting Ecko never gives the ball to the hall and ends up selling it for a profit.

If that's the case then Ecko is safe, and the publicity has just begun. For his sake I hope he hasn't turned the ball over without some sort of agreement that goes beyond their "standard donation agreement." This isn't any ordinary donation we're talking about here, either with or without any asterisk.

(b) historically, the Hall of Fame is not necessarily the world's most steadfast institution when it comes to honoring donor's wishes.

What is the history here?


Among other scandals, they sold a large collection of duplicate (but quite valuable) World Series programs that had been donated in good faith. The Sporting News exposed this several years ago.

Not that anything like that would be likely to happen in this case, but I'd still want to have an explicit agreement in writing if I were making any kind of a donation.
   52. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:49 PM (#2603476)
Now, I guess you could argue that unearned goods (prize winnings, treasure trove) should be treated like gifts rather than income -- that is, they shouldn't be taxed.

Gifts are taxed, aren't they? Except it's the giver who pays the tax, right? Sounds like a win-win in this case -- Murphy gets to keep the ball and Bonds writes a check for $240,000 to the IRS.

EDIT: do you think he could find a lawyer to make that argument?
   53. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:52 PM (#2603482)
For his sake I hope he hasn't turned the ball over without some sort of agreement that goes beyond their "standard donation agreement."


For his sake, or yours? If this was solely a publicity stunt by Ecko, has he played you (and others like you) for a patsy?
   54. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 03:56 PM (#2603492)
This isn't any ordinary donation we're talking about here, either with or without any asterisk.

It is a home run ball, it is a milestone ball. The Hall has dozens of them if not hundreds of them. This ball in the long run (and for almost any term involving more then 1 news cycle) is no different, no more special, no more gate attraction worthy then Babe's bat, Ted's hat, Rickey's shoes, Mickey's balls (I know where that could go). Getting this ball doesn't send the Hall into another stratosphere. It is just another item, it isn't the mona lisa of the baseball world.

Among other scandals, they sold a large collection of duplicate (but quite valuable) World Series programs that had been donated in good faith. The Sporting News exposed this several years ago.

I'm guessing you are referring to the scandal that happened over 25 years ago and wasn't the hall doing it. In 1973 the hall loaned MLB 411 items as part of an exhibit that the MLB was showcasing. The commissioners office then stored those items in their own storeroom never returning the items. A decade later an assistant to the Commish named Joe Reichler got a hold of the items and sold them off.

The Hall of Fame never sold off those items and as far as I know have never ever sold any item donated to them.
   55. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2603498)
I'm guessing you are referring to the scandal that happened over 25 years ago and wasn't the hall doing it. In 1973 the hall loaned MLB 411 items as part of an exhibit that the MLB was showcasing. The commissioners office then stored those items in their own storeroom never returning the items. A decade later an assistant to the Commish named Joe Reichler got a hold of the items and sold them off.

The Hall of Fame never sold off those items and as far as I know have never ever sold any item donated to them.


That's still pretty sloppy and irresponsible on the part of the Hall.
   56. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:26 PM (#2603546)
For his sake I hope he hasn't turned the ball over without some sort of agreement that goes beyond their "standard donation agreement."

For his sake, or yours? If this was solely a publicity stunt by Ecko, has he played you (and others like you) for a patsy?


Jesus, Ray, I've already had more than my share of fun since this story first broke, reading you and the other Bonds fans sputter and fume about the so-called "desecration" of this sacred object. And it hasn't cost me a penny.

But if I were Ecko, I do think I'd appreciate the extra money---and the extra publicity---that a re-auctioning of that ball might bring. Especially if that auction were (coincidentally) to coincide with Bonds's induction weekend.

------------

As for Hall of Fame's reliability with regards to protecting donated items, read this.

BTW at some point after Joe Reichler's death, his family sold me (my book shop) a lot of great baseball memorabilia, including many special All-Star bats and signed photographs. Fortunately they were pretty much all personalized to Reichler himself and never passed through the HOF.
   57. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:38 PM (#2603562)
As for Hall of Fame's reliability with regards to protecting donated items, read this.

Wait, it is the Halls fault that somebody broke into a display and stole items? We are going to blame the victim for the attackers deeds now?
   58. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:47 PM (#2603577)
Maybe he can sell autographed bats on the next block like Rose used to do?

As long as Ron Kittle doesn't want to buy one. Remember, St. Barry is very particular about who he honors with an autograph.

Of course, a few months ago, Barry said he didn't care about this ball either. I don't blame him, its like free milk. Why buy the ball, when you can chortle and grunt and get what you want with the ball.

As for his boycott, he already was limiting what he was giving to the hall b/4 his lil feelings got hurt by Mr. Eko.


Wait, it is the Halls fault that somebody broke into a display and stole items? We are going the victim for the attackers deeds now?


That certainly creates a new scenario. Bonds fans can break into the Hall and take the asterisk ball. If they can't find enough people, maybe they could take up a collection on Primer and hire the OJ Simpson Memorabilia Recovery Service.
   59. Evil Twin Posted: November 02, 2007 at 04:51 PM (#2603582)
FWIW, I think it would be a pretty bad precedent to say that defacing artifacts of the game with personal commentary is o.k. Would you want a Yankee fan to get ahold of a significant ARod ball, mark it up, and then donate it to the Hall? Or any significant home run hit in a visiting stadium? That's a potential Pandora's box.
   60. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2603599)
FWIW, I think it would be a pretty bad precedent to say that defacing artifacts of the game with personal commentary is o.k.

You are right. Its a much better precedent to have people on an internet message board tell others what they can do with their property.

Where is Nieporent when I need him.
   61. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:04 PM (#2603603)
Its a much better precedent to have people on an internet message board tell others what they <strike>can</strike> should do with their property.
Has there ever been a thread on BTF that didn't have at least one post opining on what someone should do about something?
   62. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:05 PM (#2603604)
Is the hall in the habit of accepting things on loan? I don't think so, maybe they do but I haven't heard of it.

I think lots of things are on loan.
   63. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2603606)
he already was limiting what he was giving to the hall

Like every HOF player.
   64. baseball fanatic Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:08 PM (#2603608)
You are right. Its a much better precedent to have people on an internet message board tell others what they can do with their property.


Right. Evil Twin stated that Ecko couldn't write on his ball or deface anything else he owns at any time. Yeah, that's the ticket!

You're a jackass.
   65. rr Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:11 PM (#2603615)
Jesus, Ray, I've already had more than my share of fun since this story first broke, reading you and the other Bonds fans sputter and fume about the so-called "desecration" of this sacred object. And it hasn't cost me a penny.


Whereas you, on the other hand, are a "disinterested scholar" looking at this "anthropologically" who only wants to "clean up the game."

I guess one can never tell about such things, but I'm not certain that you can assume that the enthusiasm for Mr. Juicy is quite going to approach the level for two of the more popular players in history.


It is impossible to know what the dynamics will be five/six years, but I think Bonds will be a very big draw if he is there as RTG said. A lot of people will show up to #### with him; and a lot of SF fans will make the trip to support him.
   66. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2603619)
A lot of people will show up to #### with him; and a lot of SF fans will make the trip to support him.


Kevin had the best idea; he should do a show with Pete down the street. Bring OJ along as a special guest.

I think Bonds will be a very big draw

Yeah, you would need two sheets of paper just to fit in his head.
   67. Evil Twin Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:21 PM (#2603622)
You are right. Its a much better precedent to have people on an internet message board tell others what they can do with their property.


Yeah, it's an awful precedent to think about what you're potentially encouraging. Record breaking balls with stuff like "AFraud" and \"####-face" written on them. Or potential political statements. Nope, nothing wrong with setting the precedent that personal commentary on artifacts is o.k.

From a historical perspective, encouraging the preservation of artifacts in as close to their original condition as possible is a good thing. And likely to lead to much fewer problems in the future.
   68. rr Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2603624)
Kevin had the best idea; he should do a show with Pete down the street. Bring OJ along as a special guest
.

It's not about Bonds as a person; it's about cleaning up the Hall.

How you doing BL? bbc misses you. Talks about you all the time.
   69. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:26 PM (#2603626)
I think lots of things are on loan.

Is that a guess like mine or is this something based on things you have actually thing? I'm asking not to try and disprove you but because I am genuinely curious if they accept things on loan.
   70. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:28 PM (#2603629)
As for Hall of Fame's reliability with regards to protecting donated items, read this.

Wait, it is the Halls fault that somebody broke into a display and stole items? We are going to blame the victim for the attackers deeds now?


I dunno about "fault," but whoever's "fault" it was, it doesn't say much for the HOF's security system.

Jesus, Ray, I've already had more than my share of fun since this story first broke, reading you and the other Bonds fans sputter and fume about the so-called "desecration" of this sacred object. And it hasn't cost me a penny.

Whereas you, on the other hand, are a "disinterested scholar" looking at this "anthropologically" who only wants to "clean up the game."


Robin, even disinterested scholars like myself are allowed to have some anthropological fun now and then, in between our thankless hours of latrine duty. The pay ain't much but it's worth it for the good times.

I guess one can never tell about such things, but I'm not certain that you can assume that the enthusiasm for Mr. Juicy is quite going to approach the level for two of the more popular players in history.

It is impossible to know what the dynamics will be five/six years, but I think Bonds will be a very big draw if he is there as RTG said. A lot of people will show up to #### with him; and a lot of SF fans will make the trip to support him.


More butter on the grill for us fun lovers, eh? This'll sure be more interesting than some platitudinous Cal Ripken speech.
   71. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:29 PM (#2603630)
FWIW, I think it would be a pretty bad precedent to say that defacing artifacts of the game with personal commentary is o.k.

Well, to play the arsehole a huge chunk of the artifacts are defaced and we don't mind it at all in fact we encourage it. The hall has plenty of items on display that are "defaced". Hell Andy just linked to an article in which Taft defaced a ball with a personalized message and almost nobody in this world would say that it somehow ruined the historical artifact.
   72. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2603631)
I dunno about "fault," but whoever's "fault" it was, it doesn't say much for the HOF's security system.

Of 35 years ago.
   73. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:33 PM (#2603639)
How you doing BL? bbc misses you. Talks about you all the time.

Doing well, I miss all of you guys, I don't get out here enough anymore. I did exchange some emails with bbc earlier this week.

It's not about Bonds as a person; it's about cleaning up the Hall.

Or not dirtying the Hall in the first place.

Record breaking balls with stuff like "AFraud" and "####-face" written on them.

That would crack me up.

From a historical perspective, encouraging the preservation of artifacts in as close to their original condition as possible is a good thing.

Yep, and the best way to do that is for all you Bonds lovers to pool your money and buy the "artifact" Heck, if you can't get the money, you could have just voiced your desire on Mr. Eko's bulletin board. You had your chance, and you blew it. And now you have new kids posting who don't even understand what you are proposing.
   74. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2603643)
Well, to play the arsehole a huge chunk of the artifacts are defaced and we don't mind it at all in fact we encourage it.

Most sports ownership groups take "artifacts", cut them up into little bitty pieces and sell them off for money.

Besides, this "artifact" is actually making a very telling statement about the history of the events.
   75. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2603645)
I dunno about "fault," but whoever's "fault" it was, it doesn't say much for the HOF's security system.

Of 35 years ago.


We could go back and forth on this for way too much time, McCoy. I doubt if either of us would imagine that the HOF would "lose" the asterisked ball---the stink would be way too huge and they'd risk losing other donations because of what such a "loss" might imply about their security system---but I don't think that even today their inventory control is exactly that of your friendly neighborhood bank. There's simply too much stuff going in there to keep full track of it. That Walter Johnson baseball is but the most prominent example, and I'm sure it's not the only one.
   76. Evil Twin Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2603647)
Well, to play the arsehole a huge chunk of the artifacts are defaced and we don't mind it at all in fact we encourage it. The hall has plenty of items on display that are "defaced". Hell Andy just linked to an article in which Taft defaced a ball with a personalized message and almost nobody in this world would say that it somehow ruined the historical artifact.


Well I can understand that argument. But, I do think that you want to discourage publicity seeking people with an agenda (and heck, I don't disagree with the agenda in the case of Bonds) from using the Hall as their own personal soapbox. You allow that now and you are going to have problems in the future.
   77. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:41 PM (#2603648)
Besides, this "artifact" is actually making a very telling statement about the history of the events.

Watch it, BL, you're going to be starting a whole new anthropological funfest with remarks like that. I can already hear those sputter machines warming up.
   78. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2603649)

Watch it, BL, you're going to be starting a whole new anthropological funfest with remarks like that. I can already hear those sputter machines warming up.


Not really, I think most people are good enough at identifying the same old troller that they're probably not going to respond to it.
   79. rr Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2603652)
Besides, this "artifact" is actually making a very telling statement about the history of the events.

We had a long discussion about this about a month or so ago. Personally, I would like to see the "undecorated" ball displayed with two multimedia educational displays, telling both sides of the story, and some stuff for kids about steroids etc. But I don't like the asterisk. I think it is just a way of ####### with Bonds, so some people are saying "That rocks!" but I don't see it as having educational value, and I reject Andy's argument that it "ensures balance" and prevents future "whitewashing" for reasons I detailed in the previous thread. People worried about whitewashing ought to be looking hard at Selig, not Bonds. Bonds has been written about and investigated and will almost certainly be associated with PEDs indefinitely.
   80. rr Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2603656)
I can already hear those sputter machines warming up.


Click. Click. Whirrr. VROOM VROOOOMMMMMMMMMMM
   81. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2603662)
Personally, I would like to see the "undecorated" ball displayed with two multimedia edcautional displays, telling both sides of the story, and some stuff for kids about steroids etc. But I don't like the asterisk. I think it is just a way of ####### with Bonds, so some people are saying "That rocks!" but I don't see it as having educational value, and I reject Andy's argument that it "ensures balance" and prevents future "whitewashing" for reasons I detailed in the previous thread. People worried about whitewashing ought to be looking hard at Selig, not Bonds. Bonds has been written about and investigated and will almost certainly be associated with PEDs indefinitely.


The two exhibits would be cool. I can see the "Sputter machine" (thanks Andy, I like that) whining about the contents of the multimedia presentation. The asterisk is a much more subtle and much more artistic. I'm sure Andy, Kevin, JC, or other enlightened individual has already made those statements so I will not give you the long form of the exposition.

I am just enjoying the new set of posts, where you have somebody proscribing what others can do with their property, and some kids not even understanding that is what is happening. I'm wondering where all the libeterians are for this one. Where is Szym and Nieporent?
   82. baseball fanatic Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2603664)
Andy's argument that it "ensures balance" and prevents future "whitewashing" for reasons I detailed in the previous thread.


I'm sure Andy would have been extremely concerned about "ensuring balance" if someone had made an asterisk on his #61.
   83. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:54 PM (#2603668)
I'm sure Andy would have been extremely concerned about "ensuring balance" if someone had made an asterisk on his #61.

Baseball primer censoring people because of the content of what they write. Heavens to Betsy, what a dreadful thought.
   84. rr Posted: November 02, 2007 at 05:59 PM (#2603671)
Where is Szym and Nieporent?


Szymborski was very active in the other thread. I agreed with some of his points. I don't think David has said much about the asterisk.

The asterisk is a much more subtle and much more artistic. I'm sure Andy, Kevin, JC, or other enlightened individual has already made those statements so I will not give you the long form of the exposition.


I am not enlightened, but the asterisk is anything but "subtle." Depending on one's view, it could be "guerilla art" (Andy) a "teenage prank" (several posters on the other side) "political grafitti" or "a clever stunt" or "petty stupidity" and to some extent all of these.

There was also a long side discussion about the different ways the asterisk might look to future generations.
   85. McCoy Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:00 PM (#2603672)
but I don't think that even today their inventory control is exactly that of your friendly neighborhood bank.

I think it is pretty clear that the role you think the Hall should play and the role I think the hall should play are very different.

A bank has a different function then a musuem and it has a much much more different function then the baseball hall of fame. The BHOF's main function (well, okay besides making money) is to make baseball history accessible to the common fan, and it does this very very well. But by performing this wonderful service risks are created. But the risks must be taken in order to satisfy the service.

When I went to the hall this year I could have stolen them blind. They were open and accomadating to my research needs.

Now then if you went to your friendly neighborhood bank and said you would like inspect their vault, all of their money, their safety deposit boxes, and their financial statements are they likely to comply? No, because a bank isn't their to exhibit money.

Could the hall do a better job? Sure and in the early 70's the hall paid a price for their innocence and naivete. Did they get better, it looks like they did to me. Are there still risks to theft and losses? Sure, but I am glad the hall willing to take that risk to keep the info openly available to fans.
   86. Backlasher Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2603678)
I am not enlightened, but the asterisk is anything but "subtle." Depending on one's view, it could be "guerilla art" (Andy) a "teenage prank" (several posters on the other side) "political grafitti" or "a clever stunt" or "petty stupidity" and to some extent all of these.

That is the genius of the asterisk. And to do or say all those things. To say more than two multimedia presentations. That's fukkin genius.
   87. Chris Dial Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:09 PM (#2603689)
Is that a guess like mine or is this something based on things you have actually thing? I'm asking not to try and disprove you but because I am genuinely curious if they accept things on loan.

IIRC, Pete Rose loans stuff and takes it back. Like his 4192 stuff.
   88. baseball fanatic Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:14 PM (#2603693)
I'm sure Andy would have been extremely concerned about "ensuring balance" if someone had made an asterisk on his #61.

Baseball primer censoring people because of the content of what they write. Heavens to Betsy, what a dreadful thought.


The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains.

I figured I would join you in the non sequitur swing of things.
   89. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2603703)
Andy's argument that it "ensures balance" and prevents future "whitewashing" for reasons I detailed in the previous thread.

I'm sure Andy would have been extremely concerned about "ensuring balance" if someone had made an asterisk on his #61.


We had a long sub-thread about this a few months ago. And although the Maris ball didn't come up, the same principle I gave then would apply.

If Frick himself, or the fan who caught the ball, had put the asterisk on at the time, I'd love it. It would have reflected the passions of the debate, and as such would have made the ball even more interesting. (Never mind that Frick never talked about any asterisk to begin with, but that's another story.)

But if somebody NOW put such an asterisk on, it'd be a genuine defacement.

Same with the Bonds ball. If the ball had been bought by a Bonds fan and then donated to the HOF, and if some Bonds hater had broken into the Hall at a later date and put an asterisk on it, that would also be defacement---and even though I'd still agree with the sentiment behind the act, I'd prosecute the defacer to the fullest extent.

-------------------

McCoy, we don't really disagree about this HOF security stuff, since both of us are fans and neither of us are likely to donate anything to the HOF. IOW whatever lapses there may be in their security is no skin off either of our backs. Let's just let this sub-topic rest.
   90. rr Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:22 PM (#2603704)
To say more than two multimedia presentations. That's fukkin genius
.

The asterisk tells one side. Cleverly, or pettily, depending on one's view. People who agree with that side, don't like Bonds, and think that a lot of media and fans still fawn over him, will like it.
   91. Hack Wilson Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2603706)
What would Barry do if instead of an asterisk a happy face was put on the ball?
   92. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:23 PM (#2603708)
BTW, baseball fanatic, you might want to disabuse yourself of any notion that I have any generational or team loyalty stake in any of this. I don't, and if you think I do, it only shows you haven't been reading these threads.
   93. Rodder Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:25 PM (#2603709)
I don't, and if you think I do, it only shows you haven't been reading these threads.

This is where everybody plays gotcha.
   94. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:25 PM (#2603711)
What would Barry do if instead of an asterisk a happy face was put on the ball?

Or maybe one of those yukky faced poison symbols you see on an Iodine bottle. That might also be appropriate.
   95. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:26 PM (#2603714)
BTW, baseball fanatic, you might want to disabuse yourself of any notion that I have any generational or team loyalty stake in any of this. I don't, and if you think I do, it only shows you haven't been reading these threads.

This is where everybody plays gotcha.


Or tries their hand at baseless innuendo if they don't have the facts on their side.
   96. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:29 PM (#2603717)
http://squirrelqueen.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/big-head-barry-bonds-clear.jpg
   97. Rodder Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:30 PM (#2603719)
This is where everybody plays gotcha.

Or tries their hand at baseless innuendo if they don't have the facts on their side.


Nothing personal Andy, I was just looking for an opportunity to inject weak current events humor.
   98. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:40 PM (#2603732)
I think it would be cool if Bonds boycotted the HoF. He'd be doing us all a favor. I can't imagine how his induction speech would go over, provided he gets elected in the first place.

You know what would be awesome? If, like, Barry Bonds was on the podium giving his speech, and then suddenly both his knees exploded, and he fell down and was screaming, "Ow God no why did I take so many steroids Greg Anderson you bastard," and then, like, the podium tipped over and crashed into Barry's big head and went on fire, and then, like, all the real Hall of Famers were clapping and laughing, and Stan Musial ended up dancing on Bonds' burnt corpse playing "Turkey in the Straw" on his harmonica, and then the HoF President came up and announced it was all a big prank and Bonds had really gotten zero votes and wasn't elected at all, and then they buried Barroid's ashes in an asterisk-shaped grave and the next day Jeff Kent gouged it up with his dirt bike? C'mon, even if you wouldn't approve of that exact sequence of events, at least admit it would be "an educational moment."
   99. baseball fanatic Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:44 PM (#2603737)
BTW, baseball fanatic, you might want to disabuse yourself of any notion that I have any generational or team loyalty stake in any of this. I don't, and if you think I do, it only shows you haven't been reading these threads.


Who mentioned the Yankees, Andy? If Maris had been a Red Sock, I would have posted the same thing.

As for the generational aspect, while you may have publicly stated back then that you would have had no problem with an asterisk on #61 (which I don't doubt, BTW), I do doubt that your heart would have been it.
   100. Dan The Mediocre Posted: November 02, 2007 at 06:47 PM (#2603742)
A happy face with 2 asterisks for eyes would be cool.


Does this mean you're getting a tattoo?
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Darren
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3411 - 8:48am, Oct 24)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogWhat's Buster Posey's best trait as a catcher? Here's what his pitchers had to say - Giants Extra
(7 - 8:47am, Oct 24)
Last: Yoenis Cespedes, Baseball Savant

NewsblogWall Street didn't kill sabermetrics - Beyond the Box Score
(2 - 8:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Downtown Bookie

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(2 - 8:31am, Oct 24)
Last: Cris E

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(370 - 8:02am, Oct 24)
Last: Merton Muffley

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(868 - 7:52am, Oct 24)
Last: TFTIO is familiar with the works of Pablo Neruda

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-23-2014
(14 - 7:43am, Oct 24)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogAJC: Hart says ‘yes’ to Braves, will head baseball operations
(16 - 6:46am, Oct 24)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogGleeman: Royals may bench Norichika Aoki for Game 3
(21 - 3:00am, Oct 24)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(8 - 2:52am, Oct 24)
Last: mex4173

NewsblogKey question GMs have to weigh with top World Series free agents | New York Post
(28 - 12:50am, Oct 24)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(44 - 11:31pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoyals are not the future of baseball | FOX Sports
(39 - 11:25pm, Oct 23)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8370 - 11:22pm, Oct 23)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogI hope this doesn't get me fired. | FOX Sports
(23 - 11:17pm, Oct 23)
Last: Walt Davis

Page rendered in 1.0481 seconds
52 querie(s) executed