Says the man who lived off of three spike years during the live ball era.
But “Mr. Marlin” doesn’t think he’ll be the only former player on this year’s Hall of Fame ballot to be denied entrance to Cooperstown. The way Conine sees it, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa — names linked to baseball’s steroids era — probably won’t be getting in, either.
“I think the writers are going to make them pay for that,” Conine said of baseball writers, who vote for the Hall. “I don’t think they’re going to let ’em in.”
If that’s the case, and Bonds, Clemens, Sosa and others whose names were stained by allegations of steroid use during their playing careers don’t land in the Hall, they’ll receive no objection from Conine. He doesn’t believe they deserve to get in, either.
“I think all the guys of my era and my playing time would probably agree, that if you didn’t do anything, you don’t see why guys who did should get into the Hall of Fame,” Conine said.
Like Bonds, Clemens and Sosa, Conine is appearing on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time. Given that a player needs at least 5 percent of the vote to remain on the ballot in subsequent years, Conine is well aware that this might be the only time he’ll be up for consideration.
Conine was a steady, though not spectacular player, during his 17 major-league seasons, during which he hit .285 with 214 home runs and played for both of the Marlins’ two World Series teams.
Repoz
Posted: December 05, 2012 at 06:42 AM |
30 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
hof
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. Bitter Mouse is a genre addict Posted: December 05, 2012 at 09:22 AM (#4317415)But what about the greenies, Jeff? WHAT ABOUT THE GREENIES??!?!?!?!?
Grab a mop then.
I'm guessing Jeff Conine knew a whole ####### lot of what was going on during his 17 years in the majors, and the fact that he didn't say anything about it during that time suggests that this sanctimonious after-the-fact moralizing should have as much importance in the debate as the load I dropped in the toilet earlier this morning.
And if he'd "said something" when he played, he would have been accused of being a sanctimonious moralizer who broke the clubhouse code and accused his betters without evidence because of his unyielding jealousy.(*)
You guys are so predictable, and so clueless.
(*) And of course -- broken record -- insufficiently concerned with greenies.
Just like Frank Thomas was.
Jeff Conine's opinion has no effect on the chemical makeup of amphetamines or the fact that amphetamines are a performance-enhancing drug banned in international competition and most, if not all, sports that test for drugs.
Forgot about Frank Thomas, eh?
Who's clueless now?
Who's clueless now?
Frank Thomas hasn't named any names, so he hasn't really told us anything other than the fact that MLBers roided, which everyone other than the clueless or wilfully blind already knew.
No principles of logic or sense hold that you had to have said in the 90s that MLBers were roiding in order to credibly opine on the roiders' HOF worthiness in 2012. That's clueless.
After getting burned by Clemens who seemed like just a work out fanatic who opposed juicing, only ones would stake didn't juice were those that saved daily piss samples at independent labs (none) or volunteered for a Congressional tooth extraction (Schilling).
Isn't this basically what the White Sox did in 2003? Prior to that, plenty of players (ex. Rick Helling and Frank Thomas) did speak up. Moreover, Selig tried to include testing in the 94 CBA talks. Obviously, the Union's leadership was very anti-testing.
Sad fact about the steroid era: that was my first thought about Conine, too.
Conine didn't even bother to talk about roids during his time, did he? That's why his preaching about the HOF now with regards to other players using is so ridiculous. He wasn't "wilfully blind" or "clueless", right? So if he knew, and he knew his teammates were using them, and he became famous from his teammates using them (two World Series rings), then he's simply a hypocrite.
"I don't mind achieving glory from my teammates using roids, but I sure don't want THEM to achieve glory from using roids, and I'm going to come out now and complain about something that I was perfectly happy to allow when it benefited me."
He's not complaining, he's saying that users don't belong in the HOF. He had no power to "disallow" (*) he use of roids when he played. It's beyond bizarre that you would criticize a non-user who didn't rat out users more than the users themselves. Jeff Conine wasn't responsible for Barry Bonds roiding -- Barry Bonds was.
(*) And, therefore, he could not have been, as you suggest, "perfectly happy to allow."
It's beyond bizarre that you think that's what I'm doing. I'm criticizing the after-the-fact moralizing by Conine, not the use/non-use of steroids.
Imagine someone came out from one of the investment banking firms and said "I think my co-workers were terrible people! They broke the rules!" well after the 2008 banking crisis happened. If we found out that the complainer was someone who worked in the same department, didn't break the rules (but knew all about it), but got a nice chunk of the company profit-sharing because of their co-workers illegal actions, aren't we allowed to bad-mouth the complainer?
The analogy's off. The i-banking Conine equivalent would be a pre-crash Merrill or Bear manager saying, "I don't think Jimmy Cayne or Stan O'Neil should be inducted into the Finance Hall of Fame." I see nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing "hypocritical."
Also, the author, not Conine, is the one naming names here. Conine's statements in the excerpt are fairly benign.
Because they were better players than you?
Hope that helps.
Hope that helps.
I'm pretty sure he considered that possibility, and rejected it.
Well, the analogy was going to be rough because there is no banking HOF.
The basics are:
1) Know your co-workers are doing something "wrong".
2) Do nothing about it at the time.
3) Reap "profits" from their misdoings.
4) Complain well after the fact about OTHER company's workers who did something "wrong", without mentioning your own co-worker's misdoings.
#4 is especially interesting since I don't think Conine has admitted his own (World Series winning) teams had PED users, has he?
I'll bet he had bacne also.
Beware all newcomers! this is not the usual level of engagement.. above wordage represents mid-winter, dull winter meetings, caged up growling..
do visit again, perhaps late february..
thank you
Yes, I agree with this. However, I think there's a huge gap between failing the sniff test with no other evidence and, say, huge reams of evidence collected through exhaustive investigation (Bonds). Do you agree or disagree?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main