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

Thursday, December 05, 2013

Deadspin: Who should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

I’m going to guess that the Deadspin ballot ends up being better than 90% of the writer submitted ballots.

To recap, we have purchased a vote from a veteran member of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America on behalf of the Deadspin readership, which will vote through the polls below. You’re free to vote for or against as many or as few candidates as you wish; the results will be kept hidden for now so as to prevent Hall of Fame officials from cross-checking our results against the ballots they receive and so disqualifying our inside man/woman. Take your time with this. Polls will remain open until 12:01 a.m. on Dec. 29.

Remember: Any candidate who obtains a majority of the vote will make the Deadspin ballot. If more than the ballot-maximum 10 players receive a majority, the 10 with the highest percentages will be chosen.

The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 04:15 PM | 53 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: deadspin, hall of fame, let's face it, you're going to vote, mockery of tradition, sludge merchants, worst website ever

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.

   1. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 04:41 PM (#4611298)
When does Repoz start up his ballot counting machine or whatever it is?
   2. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4611301)
My ballot:

Lou Whitaker
Alan Trammell
Buck O'Neill
Ted Simmons
Alex Gordon
Dan Quisenberry
The Phillie Phanatic
   3. DL from MN Posted: December 05, 2013 at 04:49 PM (#4611302)
HoM will run the mock-HoF ballot here after the HoM ballot is over.
   4. Ron J2 Posted: December 05, 2013 at 04:53 PM (#4611305)
#2 I assume your lack of support for Chris Getz is due to his having been released. Seems like a bit of front-running to me.
   5. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 04:54 PM (#4611307)
I went maximalist in my voting:
Bagwell, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Piazza, Martinez, McGwire, Mussina, Walker, Biggio, Glavine, Schilling, Raines, Thomas, Trammell, Kent, McGriff, Palmeiro, Sosa.

Kent, McGriff, Palmeiro, and Sosa were all very borderline to me, and if it were only my vote that counted I probably wouldn't vote for them, but since it's a simple majority to get on the ballot, and then the top 10 percentage-wise who get on the ballot if more than 10 break 50% I decided to vote for even the guys who are probably on the other side of borderline as it makes a full ballot more likely while not actually hurting any of the players I actively think should be in the Hall of Fame.

Glad all my tags made it through the submission process :)
   6. Repoz Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:04 PM (#4611313)
When does Repoz start up his ballot counting machine or whatever it is?

Ray, when I get a decent enough sampling. Very few full ballots thus far.
   7. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4611327)
Had the same ballot as you Scott. If I had an actual ballot, I'd exclude Maddux, and maybe Glavine and Biggio to fit in 1-3 guys from the lower end of my list.
   8. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4611330)
Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas.

What I think my ballot will end up as.
   9. G.W.O. Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:21 PM (#4611332)
Does anyone want to buy my ballot from me?
   10. G.W.O. Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4611338)
Bagwell, Biggio, Glavine, Maddux, Bonds, Clemens, Maddux, Martinez, Mussina, Piazza, Raines, Schilling, Thomas, Trammell.

Oh, and Morris -- mainly to annoy the vociferous, tedious, order-by-WAR-and-draw-cutoff, crowd.
This is supposed to be fun, goddammit.
   11. Gonfalon B. Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:30 PM (#4611339)
If Mike Timlin stands outside my house and does just ten jumping jacks, I will vote for him.
   12. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4611340)
What's interesting is that there will be, what, 20 or 30 ballots turned in that match the deadspin ballot? So that will immediately narrow the focus and place the heat on 20 or 30 voters, who will be forced to defend themselves.
   13. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:36 PM (#4611343)
Well, not all ballots are public, so it'd have to be a BBWAA investigation rather than someone on the internet figuring it out.
   14. Danny Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:39 PM (#4611347)
Deadspin has already said that the voter will out himself once the results are announced.
For obvious reasons, the voter will remain anonymous for now, but he/she will be filling out his/her ballot on behalf of Deadspin readers, who will be polled in binding elections. The voter will announce his/her name and motivations once his/her vote has been officially cast.
   15. Baldrick Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4611352)
Yep, same as #5 and #7. McGriff is the toughest call for me. I included him in one of the BBTF ballots a couple years ago as my #10 guy before the ballot got totally stuffed. While I would definitely not vote for him on the current ballot, I think he deserves a positive answer to the simple yes/no question. Somebody has to be the 50.1% guy, and for me it's McGriff.

I don't see Kent and Sosa as particularly tough calls. They have about the same WAR as McGriff, but do much better in WAA. And that matters more to me for HOF purposes. Mediocre seasons that don't budge WAA much but drive up WAR don't do much for me. Kent's prime was more impressive than McGriff and Sosa's was MUCH better. 10 years of genuine excellence combined with a bunch of other essentially replacement level seasons outside of that prime is more impressive than McGriff pumping out slightly-below-average seasons for a decade.
   16. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4611355)
Deadspin has already said that the voter will out himself once the results are announced.


Deep Throat turns out to be.....MURRAY CHASS!??!?
   17. Fancy Pants Handle doesn't need no water Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4611360)
Oh, and Morris -- mainly to annoy the vociferous, tedious, order-by-WAR-and-draw-cutoff, crowd.
This is supposed to be fun, goddammit.

Being spiteful and mean-spirited sure sounds like a lot of fun. So does making strawmen actually.
   18. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4611363)
Ah.

My first guess was someone who no longer covers baseball - is now writing about pottery or Byzantine art or something -- but still has a vote.

But this voter is too interested/invested in making a point for that.

So my guess is that it will be a voter who is dismayed about the process with regard to steroids in some way. And since the anti-steroids jihadists have won and have rendered the HOF incapable of honoring anyone (*), thus turning the HOF into a farce, my bet is on the voter being someone who is upset that steroids players aren't in. And the fallout from this voter selling his vote over this is going to shine an unpleasant light on the HOF. I mean, the selling of the vote in itself has the capability to render the process a farce, which is why the HOF will take immediate steps to ban the voter from ever voting again in an attempt to mitigate the damage. (This in itself will be a change for the HOF, which has never to my knowledge actually taken the privilege of voting away from people who do things like refuse to vote for players they deem are deserving on the first ballot.)

(*) By this I do not mean that the HOF will never succeed in electing anyone again due to the crowded ballot; the HOF will still elect people like Maddux, now or later, but when deserving players like Clemens and Bonds aren't in because a new/double standard is being applied in relation to amps users of past eras, the HOF has lost the ability to honor anyone even if it elects people. I do think that the crowded ballot issue has already irretrievably screwed up the process, and, thus, has revoked the Hall's high standing and credibility. There's a backlog and a domino effect from that, and players like Palmeiro will soon drop off the ballot. It's a mess. I like participating in HOF discussions and will continue to do so but I no longer care who gets in and who doesn't. I doubt I am alone in this, even if at this point it's still a minority view. The fact that serious HOF discussions always have to include the words "steroids aside" (EG, "All of the players above him would be in, steroids aside") means that the HOF is in a very bad place.

I mean, what other theories for why this voter is protesting are there? That the voter is upset that Pete Rose isn't in, and is finally protesting years later?
   19. Baldrick Posted: December 05, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4611368)
Related question: I think there's probably a line where a guy's WAA is high enough that he becomes a definite HOF yes no matter what happens afterward. Basically: a quantification of the 'bus' test.

Is there anyone who has ever crossed 40 WAA and then failed to put together a HOF-worthy career?

Even more tightly considered, is there anyone with a consecutive prime (ignoring the sub-average beginning and ends of their career) that cleared 40 WAA who isn't a worthy HOFer? 35?
   20. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: December 05, 2013 at 06:06 PM (#4611376)
One thing that I should mention I like about this ballot is it requires you to affirmatively vote against someone. You can't just vote for only a couple of them and have it affect all the players on the ballot. That means that if you want to vote for just Jack Morris (Mr. Chass, party of one) you have to click No on every other player. I think it'll result in higher percentages than if it was filling out a single, combined ballot.
   21. Danny Posted: December 05, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4611391)
Even more tightly considered, is there anyone with a consecutive prime (ignoring the sub-average beginning and ends of their career) that cleared 40 WAA who isn't a worthy HOFer? 35?

Depends on who you consider worthy. Chase Utley? Jim Edmonds? Dick Allen? Reggie Smith? Andruw Jones?
   22. Eric J can SABER all he wants to Posted: December 05, 2013 at 07:01 PM (#4611459)
Yep, same as #5 and #7.

I left off McGriff after a moment of mental debate, but same group for me apart from that.
   23. alilisd Posted: December 05, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4611464)
Deep Throat turns out to be.....MURRAY CHASS!??!?


No way. You can't have Murray's ballot until you pry it from his cold, dead hands.
   24. Gonfalon B. Posted: December 05, 2013 at 07:23 PM (#4611474)
Deep Throat turns out to be.....MURRAY CHASS!??!?

How far does Murray Chass have to go to untangle his tingle?!?
   25. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 05, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4611617)
It doesn't appear that they've taken any measures against ballot stuffing. If you vote and reload the page, you can re-vote.
   26. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 05, 2013 at 11:26 PM (#4611633)
I was surprised to see that on that JAWS list, Clemens was that far ahead of Maddux. There was a bigger gaps between Clemens and Maddux than there was between Bonds and Clemens.

This was kind of sweet:

I immediately handed this post to my girlfriend and asked her consider as carefully as she could the merits of each candidate and vote accordingly, thus contributing to the "mockery and farce of the increasingly solemn and absurd election process." I'll post her votes in reply. Today 1:38pm


dopeUdope511L
Brackets { } = Vote

Quotes " " = Her response

Parenthesis ( ) = My thoughts

Italics = My response

Moises Alou: "Sure" {Yes}

Jeff Bagwell: "No" {No}

Armando Benitez: "On the fence" {no vote}

Craig Biggio: "Yes." {Yes}

Barry Bonds: "I thought he was a drug user, so, no. AAARRGG. SWING BATTER!! GRRR! I EAT POTATOES!" (she's actually eating potatoes). {No}

Sean Casey: "I like that. Sounds like an actor. A good one. Yes." {Yes}

Roger Clemens: "Yes. I feel like I heard that before as like a positive thing. Like not a cheater." {Yes}

Ray Durham: "Sounds like a NASCAR driver. Do they have a Hall of Fame? They shouldn't have a Hall of Fame. So, no." {No}

Eric Gagne: "Gange? He plays baseball? For sure? If he plays baseball, then yes." {Yes}

Tom Glavine: "Yes, 'cause he was a Brave. Thats why we chomp" (???) {Yes}

Luis Gonzalez: (As I'm editing this, I realized I somehow missed recording her answer, but marked "yes," so I'm sticking with yes). {Yes}

Jacque Jones: "Frenchman?" "I don't know." "Sure, I bet he has a cool accent." {Yes}

Todd Jones: "Yeaaaah." {Yes}

Jeff Kent: "Who? Yeah. Sounds like an American All-star." {Yes}

Paul Lo Duca: "How is the that name spelled? His middle name is Lo? Well, if baseball is like music then all people named Lou are good. But his name is Lo, so I don't know." {no vote}

Greg Maddux: "YEAHBECAUSEHEWASABRAVEC'MON!" {Yes}

Edgar Martinez: "Martenez… [nudges me] Can I be on the fence about him? HAHAHA!" (Ugh, I guess she forgot she already said that exact phrase about an Hispanic player and just now figures it makes for funny joke.) {Yes}

Don Mattingly: "Mattingly? That sounds like a football player, so yes. Football players have nice butts. So do baseball players when they have the high socks (?). (Disappointed but not surprised she didn't make the Braves connection) {Yes}

Fred McGriff: "McGriff, that sounds good. He sounds like a Brave." {Yes}

Mark McGwire: "Yeah, Brave. What do I look like, a moron?" (I am dead ####### serious this is a real exercise) {Yes}

Jack Morris: Like Saved by the Bell?" "No, Jack Morris" "Yeah, he seems like he could be in the Hall of Fame. Like and old guy. JACK MORRIS!" {Yes}

Mike Mussina: "Yeah, he sounds mafia, so we better let him in." {Yes}

Hideo Nomo: "No" {No}

Rafael Palmeiro: "?Teenage mutant ninja turtles!? yeah!" {Yes}

Mike Piazza: "Yeah, that sounds like I've heard his name before." {Yes}

Tim Raines: "Yeah, sure." {Yes}

Kenny Rodgers: "He's a singer, and he has a chicken joint, and he's a Georgian." (He's not) {Yes}

Curt Schilling: "He sounds familiar, so we'll go yes." {Yes}

Richie Sexon: "Eww, that sounds touchy-feely-gross." {No}

Lee Smith: "Yeah, because my middle name is Lynn and my first name is Emily. So, Em-ah-LEE." {Yes}

J.T. Snow: "Yeah, sounds like the Game of Thrones guy." {Yes}

Sammy Sosa: "Either definitely did, or definitely didn't… cheat… with drugs…. so I'm gonna go with… no. He's like that black guy but not really black? Don't write that." (Again, I swear this is real) {No}

Frank Thomas: "That's like two first names. I don't like people with two first names so I'm gonna ex-nay that." {No}

Mike Timlin: "Timlin? I like the way that sounds. We'll go yes." {Yes}

Alan Trammell: "It sounds like the TV show about Louisiana. I like the songs. So, yes. That's how i pick horses when I bet on horses, by the name." — (THE CRUX! Also, she has never bet on horses) — "I like Herchel Walker so I'll go yes. He's my number 34." {Yes}
   27. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: December 06, 2013 at 12:52 AM (#4611669)
I mean, what other theories for why this voter is protesting are there?


I go the other way: I think it's somebody goofing off because they regard the whole process as farce. Something in the "writers shouldn't be making news"-slash-"you shouldn't rank athletes at all" area.
   28. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 06, 2013 at 01:01 AM (#4611671)
The only guess I'd make is that it's someone who isn't employed by a publication at the moment.

I can see a guy frustrated with the process (for any number of reasons) turning over his vote to his readers. But whatever message he's trying to send will be lost by him selling it.

   29. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 06, 2013 at 08:43 AM (#4611722)
But whatever message he's trying to send will be lost by him selling it.


I think they're only paying a nominal fee ($150?), and he could always reveal that he's given the money to cancer research or whatever.
   30. zonk Posted: December 06, 2013 at 09:37 AM (#4611734)
Before I submit my clicks, I'll echo GWO and offer to sell my votes to anyone willing to pay for them.... $10?
   31. LargeBill Posted: December 06, 2013 at 10:24 AM (#4611753)
Am I the only one who has a lingering suspicion that no one responded to Deadspins request to buy a ballot? Not saying I have any proof that Deadspin is lying, but I also have no reason to believe they are telling the truth. They could say after the fact that it was done as a social experiment or to claim the seller asked not to be disclosed based on all the vitriol from the other voters. THey could be telling the truth. However, I'm skeptical. Cynics deal with less disappointment so I've got that going for me.
   32. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 06, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4611758)
think they're only paying a nominal fee ($150?), and he could always reveal that he's given the money to cancer research or whatever.


I don't think any fee is nominal in this case. As for the donation, that might get him off the hook, but I'm skeptical. I still think "Sold his vote" will blot out the message.

   33. The Pequod Posted: December 06, 2013 at 11:10 AM (#4611793)
Am I the only one who has a lingering suspicion that no one responded to Deadspins request to buy a ballot? Not saying I have any proof that Deadspin is lying, but I also have no reason to believe they are telling the truth. They could say after the fact that it was done as a social experiment or to claim the seller asked not to be disclosed based on all the vitriol from the other voters. THey could be telling the truth. However, I'm skeptical. Cynics deal with less disappointment so I've got that going for me.


My favorite theory is that their plan is to claim to have turned in a ballot that's pretty reasonable, it'll match 30 or so real ballots, and they'll send the BBWAA into panic mode over nothing.

Some holes in that, though.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 06, 2013 at 11:15 AM (#4611801)
Am I the only one who has a lingering suspicion that no one responded to Deadspins request to buy a ballot? Not saying I have any proof that Deadspin is lying, but I also have no reason to believe they are telling the truth. They could say after the fact that it was done as a social experiment or to claim the seller asked not to be disclosed based on all the vitriol from the other voters. THey could be telling the truth. However, I'm skeptical. Cynics deal with less disappointment so I've got that going for me.


But as Danny noted, the voter will apparently unveil himself in due course.
   35. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: December 06, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4611808)
But as Danny noted, the voter will apparently unveil himself in due course.


I think he's suggesting that the vitriol will scuttle those plans at self-identification, a development only Deadspin would be in a position to reveal.

   36. Fanshawe Posted: December 06, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4611838)
I don't think any fee is nominal in this case. As for the donation, that might get him off the hook, but I'm skeptical. I still think "Sold his vote" will blot out the message.


Not even $1? If the voter's reasoning is even remotely compelling, the response "you got a dollar so your critique is inherently invalid" is pretty weak. "Sold his/her vote" will only be an issue (to most people, not to BBWAA members heavily invested in this being the worst thing ever) if the dollar figure is big enough to seem enriching. That's not going to be the case with $1 or $10. I mean, plenty of people will just incorrectly assume that some amount of money has to change hands to make it "official."
   37. cardsfanboy Posted: December 06, 2013 at 04:11 PM (#4612444)


No way. You can't have Murray's ballot until you pry it from his cold, dead hands.


I hate to do this, but I think Murray is being unfairly portrayed here. He's actually said he was thinking of giving up his ballot after Morris is no longer eligible.

Oh, and Morris -- mainly to annoy the vociferous, tedious, order-by-WAR-and-draw-cutoff, crowd.
This is supposed to be fun, goddammit.


Who uses WAR in an argument for or against Morris? ERA is pretty much the extent of the necessary argument. People oppose Morris for the simple fact he doesn't have a peak or a good enough career as indicated by his seasonal and career era numbers. There are many different tools to make the argument, but it boils down to his runs allowed per game were too high for a guy trying to get into the hall of fame as a pitcher. Every argument for Morris has been an attempt to downplay that one simple inescapable fact.
   38. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 06, 2013 at 04:20 PM (#4612451)
I mean, plenty of people will just incorrectly assume that some amount of money has to change hands to make it "official."


I'm not sure if a contract like this can be binding, but if it is, then yes, some money needs to change hands to make it enforceable. Paul McCartney was paid ?1 for performing at the Olympics in order to make it binding.

edit: What the...? I put in the HTML code for the British pound symbol, and it was correct in preview, but upon submitting it became a question mark.
   39. cardsfanboy Posted: December 06, 2013 at 04:33 PM (#4612460)
Did you surround it with the "code" option?
   40. SouthSideRyan Posted: December 06, 2013 at 05:15 PM (#4612511)
[25]You can "re-vote" but when you click your vote the message comes up saying "thanks, we've already counted your vote."
   41. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 06, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4612513)
Did you surround it with the "code" option?


no. I figured if it worked in preview, it worked.
   42. Fanshawe Posted: December 06, 2013 at 05:27 PM (#4612518)
I'm not sure if a contract like this can be binding, but if it is, then yes, some money needs to change hands to make it enforceable. Paul McCartney was paid ?1 for performing at the Olympics in order to make it binding.


Nope. Each party has to provide something of value but "of value" really only means doing something you are not already legally obligated to do or refraining from doing something you are legally able to do. X promises to pay Y money is the most common type of that thing, but it's not the only one. My promise to to grant Deadspin full and exclusive use of my 2014 Hall of Fame vote in exchange for Deadspin's promise to publish and promote my essay entitled "Baseball Writers are Dummies" on its popular website on January 9, 2014 is a valid contract.
   43. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 06, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4612521)
Nope. Each party has to provide something of value but "of value" really only means doing something you are not already legally obligated to do or refraining from doing something you are legally able to do. X promises to pay Y money is the most common type of that thing, but it's not the only one. My promise to to grant Deadspin full and exclusive use of my 2014 Hall of Fame vote in exchange for Deadspin's promise to publish and promote my essay entitled "Baseball Writers are Dummies" on its popular website on January 9, 2014 is a valid contract.


So the McCartney thing could have been "I'll do the performance for free as long as you promise to put me on the telly?"
   44. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: December 06, 2013 at 05:43 PM (#4612529)
Having everyone as a Yes/No decision is a good way to do it.

Turned out that I did not have to think for a single second about any of them except Edgar Martinez.
   45. Fanshawe Posted: December 06, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4612550)
So the McCartney thing could have been "I'll do the performance for free as long as you promise to put me on the telly?"


In that case you're essentially trying to trade something for itself (I promise to perform on your television program if you promise to let me perform on your television program) which sounds like an unenforceable sham bargain to me, but I don't have the contract experience to say for sure. "I'll do the performance if you wash my car" is fine though.
   46. cardsfanboy Posted: December 06, 2013 at 06:12 PM (#4612560)
I'm reading the comments on the article after doing my vote.... and a guy was helpful enough to post a list of war leaders with jaws 7 and the like... My beef is that he posted that there is a big drop off from Sosa to Kent so he didn't bother to put Kent on there. I think that there is almost nothing separating Kent and Sosa, and if there is something out there that says there is a significant difference, then that is a system that needs to be dumped as it makes no logical sense.
   47. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 06, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4612582)
"I'll do the performance if you wash my car" is fine though.


And if one party breaches the contract, how is that handled if it goes to trial. Can someone be compelled to wash a car? Are they required to do a good job?
   48. Fanshawe Posted: December 06, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4612598)
And if one party breaches the contract, how is that handled if it goes to trial. Can someone be compelled to wash a car? Are they required to do a good job?


Depends on a lot of different things. Those sorts of questions are why contracts often use money for one half of the bargain, it's convenient. But if the parties want to exchange other things they can.
   49. Morty Causa Posted: December 06, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4612726)
The theory behind working out a breach of contracts starts with the idea of restitution: to put the wronged person back in the place he was before the contract was breached. This can be done by specific performance: you give me money for something. I don't deliver it for some reason The remedy is me being made to deliver the thing to you. Or me giving you back your money. Which it'll be depends on if you still want the thing or if you want the money. Too, it could depend if I still have the thing or the money. Besides that, I will probably owe for associated costs or damages you suffered. Even maybe penalties.
   50. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4612799)
I mean, plenty of people will just incorrectly assume that some amount of money has to change hands to make it "official."

I'm not sure if a contract like this can be binding, but if it is, then yes, some money needs to change hands to make it enforceable
.

No, as long as there's offer, acceptance, and consideration in some form (I'm simplifying) the contract will be binding.

Now, perhaps one could argue that a contract such as this is against public policy and therefore unenforceable. I mean, it clearly flies in the face of the spirit if not the rules that a voter has to follow. But the argument that it is against public policy would probably fail, because usually this means that you can't contract for something that's illegal (e.g., to sell cocaine), and this isn't.

The $1 you see in many legal documents is basically an attempt to avoid the argument that the consideration (if not money) wasn't really anything of value. Courts will rarely challenge the actual amount of the exchanged consideration. So you'll see something like "for one dollar and other good and valuable consideration."
   51. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 07, 2013 at 12:33 AM (#4612808)
And if one party breaches the contract, how is that handled if it goes to trial. Can someone be compelled to wash a car?


Probably not in that case, since money would make the plaintiff whole again. But there are cases where the thing at issue is so unique that specific performance can be compelled. Let's say the plaintiff was attempting to buy back a family heirloom. In that case money could well be seen as an inadequate remedy.

This isn't a great analogy since it's a different legal situation but if ARod loses his arbitration and appeals, he will likely ask the judge to grant him a TRO enjoining MLB from keeping him off the field while his court case is pending, since there is no way for him to ever play games that he misses again.
   52. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: December 24, 2013 at 03:35 AM (#4623324)
Apparently, Deadspin's contact fell through, but they got a new one. And they weren't actually buying the ballot, but giving a donation to charity.

http://deadspin.com/deadspin-loses-one-hall-of-fame-vote-but-gains-another-1488349916
   53. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: December 24, 2013 at 04:07 AM (#4623326)
And they weren't actually buying the ballot, but giving a donation to charity.


Or as they put it, "We can also tell you that the deal was not a straight cash-for-ballot swap, as was assumed in some of the dumber precincts of the press," even though they're the ones who led their announcement with this sentence: "Recently, as you may recall, we announced our plan to subvert the annual elections for baseball's Hall of Fame by buying votes from voters."

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(528 - 11:32pm, Apr 24)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogToronto Star: Blue Jays pave way for grass at the Rogers Centre
(20 - 11:26pm, Apr 24)
Last: Boileryard

NewsblogJonah Keri Extended Interview | Video | Late Night with Seth Meyers | NBC
(15 - 11:24pm, Apr 24)
Last: Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016

NewsblogConnie Marrero, oldest Major Leaguer, dies at 102
(23 - 11:20pm, Apr 24)
Last: Russ

NewsblogOMNICHATTER for 4-24-2014
(60 - 10:59pm, Apr 24)
Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes

NewsblogMichael Pineda ejected from Red Sox game after pine tar discovered on neck
(126 - 10:33pm, Apr 24)
Last: AJMcCringleberry

NewsblogJosh Lueke Is A Rapist, You Say? Keep Saying It.
(260 - 10:13pm, Apr 24)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogColiseum Authority accuses Athletics of not paying rent
(28 - 10:08pm, Apr 24)
Last: bobm

NewsblogIndians Usher Says He Was Fired for Refusing to Wear Pro-Sin Tax Sticker
(25 - 10:05pm, Apr 24)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(2653 - 9:55pm, Apr 24)
Last: CrosbyBird

NewsblogNY Times: The Upshot: Up Close on Baseball’s Borders
(58 - 9:22pm, Apr 24)
Last: Esoteric

NewsblogMatt Williams: No problem with Harper's two-strike bunting
(29 - 9:19pm, Apr 24)
Last: boteman digs the circuit clout

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(234 - 8:44pm, Apr 24)
Last: zack

NewsblogCalcaterra: Blogger Murray Chass attacks me for bad reporting, ignores quotes, evidence in doing so
(38 - 8:41pm, Apr 24)
Last: Hysterical & Useless

NewsblogThe Five “Acts” of Ike Davis’s Career, and Why Trading Ike Was a Mistake
(68 - 8:24pm, Apr 24)
Last: Walt Davis

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.4482 seconds
53 querie(s) executed