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

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Murray Chass:  REMEMBERING WHEN IT RAINED COCAINE

Chass forgets the Hall of Fame Molitor

With Raines’ vote total rising, the voting members of the Baseball Writers Association are either forgetting or ignoring that Raines admitted in 1982 and in subsequent years that he used cocaine.

At one of the drug trials in Pittsburgh in 1985, Raines testified that he kept cocaine in the back pocket of his uniform pants during games and that when he had to slide, he slid headfirst to make sure he didn’t break the glass vial in which he kept the illegal drug.That was Raines himself saying that – on the witness stand under oath in a federal court room. ...

But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine. 

“Voting,” reads rule No. 5, “shall be based upon the player’s record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

”Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines. ...

My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit from the absence of surefire first-timers on the ballot. With four fewer ballots cast, the pitcher gained three votes and only 1 percent to 67.7. Next year he could suffer with the addition of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine to the ballot, or he could benefit if the voters say let’s put all the good pitchers in.

Most likely, he will join Gil Hodges as the only players who gained more than 60 percent of the vote three times and were not elected.

bobm Posted: January 12, 2013 at 08:49 PM | 55 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cocaine, hall of fame, pinata, tim raines

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. Xander Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4345823)
Recreational use of cocaine does not indicate a failing of character. It means Raines knew how to have a good time.
   2. TJ Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4345825)
Who cares what some blogger thinks, anyway?
   3. Obo Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4345826)
No mention of Paul Molitor.
   4. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4345831)
That's going to do odd things to the water supply.
   5. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:24 PM (#4345838)
If it rained cocaine, I def would have stayed home from work that day.

Look, whatever you think about the level of proof as to any given supposed "juicer," the fact is that the game turned for a period of years into a public celebration of drug abuse. The voters' instincts to hold some responsible for that are understandable. That's leagues apart from Tim Raines's personal failings. I'd have to have to answer questions about the idiotic things I've done.
   6. Bhaakon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:25 PM (#4345840)
I'll stop stumping for Raines when Ron Washington forfeits all the Rangers' wins.
   7. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:27 PM (#4345844)
Voters might not think about it consciously, but when they decide not to vote for a steroids user, they are invoking the “integrity, sportsmanship, character” clause. The same clause applies to Raines. ...


I don't really get this. Is there any question that when a voter decides not to vote for a user, that they are doing it under the character clause? How you could you not?
   8. Voros McCracken of Pinkus Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4345855)
The 90s were an extremely complicated decade of baseball, there's a good chance they could wind up being the most complicated decade of baseball in my lifetime. It was the heyday of the troll sports columnist. Had massive labor strife, the types of stadiums the games were being played in changed dramatically. Four expansion teams were added, playoffs were expanded such that a 2nd place team could make it for the first time. There's some speculation the ball was tinkered with around 1993 (either deliberately or accidentally). Steroids or not, the physical conditioning of players was for the first time prioritized throughout the league. And then finally, dead in the middle was the dot com boom which would obviously change the way the sport was followed forever.

I resent it being called the "steroids era" because there was simply so much more to it than that (and even limited to the explosion of offense and home runs it's pretty clear there was more to it than that). The players who thrived in the era should be dealt with on that era's own terms. Guys like Bagwell and Piazza don't deserve this under any circumstances, and probably neither do Bonds and Clemens.
   9. OCF Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:51 PM (#4345870)
I see that Paul Molitor has been mentioned on this thread already. Did Chass vote for Molitor for the HoF?

My take on the association of Raines and cocaine: it's something he did when he was still quite young. Then he got clean, and stayed clean, and had his best years after he had reformed himself. All of which makes what Chass wrote a grotesque and undeserved insult.
   10. The District Attorney Posted: January 12, 2013 at 09:55 PM (#4345875)
#######, this guy.
   11. bobm Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:06 PM (#4345879)
Did Chass vote for Molitor for the HoF?

IIRC Chass was still at the Times and not permitted to vote. He should remember Molitor because Chass received his Spink award on Molitor's HoF induction weekend.
   12. Rough Carrigan Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:16 PM (#4345884)
Chass wasn't permitted to vote? What, is he a felon or something? Please say 'yes'!
   13. bobm Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:28 PM (#4345890)
The New York Times does not permit its reporters to vote for awards.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/sports/baseball/baseball-hall-of-fame-voting-process-must-change.html



   14. Gamingboy Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:33 PM (#4345894)
Chass, satisfied with his efforts against Piazza, moves on to a new target....


(MISTER PRESIDENT)
   15. AndrewJ Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:35 PM (#4345896)
I'd vote for Raines not because he did drugs, but because (like Molitor) he played better when he got clean.
   16. Walt Davis Posted: January 12, 2013 at 10:43 PM (#4345901)
I assume he also makes no mention of Jenkins who was actually arrested for possession, although I think it was all expunged under a "you do so much for the community already, we'll let this one slide" moment.

the fact is that the game turned for a period of years into a public celebration of drug abuse.

Putting aside whether use of roids for performance constitutes "abuse", the 70s and 80s were a public celebration of drug abuse in baseball (and most other sports). Jenkins, Molitor, Raines, Parker, Hernandez, Howe and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. HoFer Orlando Cepeda served 10 months in prison for marijuana possession (as in pounds) in the late 70s. And of course all the amps swept under the rug. The Pittsburgh trial was possibly baseball's biggest black eye since the Black Sox (well, except for the continuing ban of black players until Robinson).

I couldn't care less about recreational drug use by strangers but I'm more worried about folks abusing coke than I am about them abusing steroids.

All of which makes what Chass wrote a grotesque and undeserved insult.

Yep.

Is there any question that when a voter decides not to vote for a user, that they are doing it under the character clause?

Chances are all Chass is upset about is that voters aren't understanding that "obviously" the character clause applies to all moral failings. There's some chance he's implying that voters aren't really invoking the character clause as much as taking revenge on B/C, etc while being happy to ignore other moral failings.

But, yeah, anybody who voted Raines but not B/C will simply say the character clause only refers to moral failings withing baseball. Idelson said pretty much the same thing just the other day.

And I certainly hope Morris never used greenies.

IIRC Chass was still at the Times and not permitted to vote

I thought this was a reasonably recent stance of the Times. But, if so, he doesn't seem to have written about it, so I'm guessing you're right.



True dat.
   17. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4345924)
Putting aside whether use of roids for performance constitutes "abuse",


Let's not. Using steroids to treat breast cancer is ok. Using them to hit a baseball further is abuse.


the 70s and 80s were a public celebration of drug abuse in baseball (and most other sports). Jenkins, Molitor, Raines, Parker, Hernandez, Howe and I'm sure I'm forgetting others. HoFer Orlando Cepeda served 10 months in prison for marijuana possession (as in pounds) in the late 70s. And of course all the amps swept under the rug. The Pittsburgh trial was possibly baseball's biggest black eye since the Black Sox (well, except for the continuing ban of black players until Robinson).


I'm not sure how this constitutes a "public celebration of drug abuse in baseball," and I suspect you understand the difference.
   18. Bhaakon Posted: January 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM (#4345947)
Let's not. Using steroids to treat breast cancer is ok. Using them to hit a baseball further is abuse.


What about opioids, then? Legitimate medical applications and abuse are not mutually exclusive.
   19. zenbitz Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:04 AM (#4345962)
THE RAIN OF COCAINE FALLS MAINLY ON THE RAINES, MR. PRESIDENT
   20. Downtown Bookie Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:21 AM (#4345975)
Alcohol was just as illegal in the 1920's as cocaine was in the 1980's, and for many of the same reasons. Indeed, one can argue more so, as alcohol was illegal via a Constitutional Amendment.

But if a voter follows the BBWAA rules in regard to steroids, he should realize they also pertain to drugs such as cocaine.


And, by this logic, to alcohol use during Prohibition.

So, by this blogger's logic, Babe Ruth is unworthy of the Baseball Hall of Fame, as is every other baseball player who had a drink during the time that doing so was illegal in the USA.

DB
   21. Walt Davis Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:27 AM (#4345977)
Using steroids to treat breast cancer is ok. Using them to hit a baseball further is abuse.

No it's not necessarily abuse. It's outside of medical protocol, even illegal. But the health effects for the user are murky and generally pretty trivial and there are no follow-on effects to friends or family members.

The term "abuse" was of course cooked up precisely to put illegal drugs in the worst possible light. It's not exactly hard to build the argument that the use of steroids to make millions of dollars at little risk to your own health and none to others is perfectly rational ... especially at a time when it wasn't against the rules.

The linking of recreational drug use to "abuse" is sketchy enough, there's even less a connection for steroids.

I'm not sure how this constitutes a "public celebration of drug abuse in baseball," and I suspect you understand the difference.

No, I don't. Supposedly one of the big problems with roids in baseball is that successful players used roids, setting a bad example for kids (and other players). Famous players using cocaine and not being punished for it* sends the same message.

*Kuhn tried to punish Howe. Once the trial hit there were some short suspensions if memory serves. The Pittsburgh trial was the BALCO moment, not the beginning of coke in baseball.

Oh yeah, I forgot about all the Royals.

And there was no public celebration of roids. Baseball's approach to amps was to completely ignore it and hope the media did the same. Baseball's approach to coke was to completely ignore it and hope the media did the same until players started gettting arrested. Baseball's approach to steroids was to completely ignore it and hope the media did the same which is pretty much what was going on until BALCO and Congress. All the while, the achievements of its most famous players were celebrated. There was no difference except in the reactions of Congress, eventually the media and the public.
   22. Bob Tufts Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:28 AM (#4345978)
In some ways, I consider cocaine usage worse than steroids.

I have yet to find a study that says someone would play better while using cocaine (well, maybe using to calm an addictive episode would help. In using steroids you were actually trying to improve your play, your team's results and add to the enjoyment of the fans.

So, by this blogger's logic, Babe Ruth is unworthy of the Baseball Hall of Fame, as is every other baseball player who had a drink during the time that doing so was illegal in the USA
.

Absolutely. By repeatedly violating the Volstead Act, Babe Ruth wasn't thinking of the children!

   23. DL from MN Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:36 AM (#4345984)
Shouldn't Jenkins and Eck be on that list too?
   24. The elusive Robert Denby Posted: January 13, 2013 at 01:09 AM (#4345995)
Dear Murray,

Go #### yourself.

Love,
Robert Denby
   25. Bhaakon Posted: January 13, 2013 at 03:13 AM (#4346022)
In some ways, I consider cocaine usage worse than steroids.


It's certainly more dangerous and destructive on a personal level.

OTOH, there aren't bench players and minor leaguers looking at Raines and thinking that they had to start snorting cocaine to get and/or keep a major league job.
   26. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: January 13, 2013 at 05:31 AM (#4346038)
Murray Chass writes as if he believes that his audience consists almost entirely of people who he hates.
   27. shock Posted: January 13, 2013 at 07:55 AM (#4346045)
My favorite, Jack Morris, did not benefit...


This, subtly, is really more telling than he realizes.

Your favorite -- what, Murray. Your favorite candidate? Your favorite player? Here Murray is openly admitting that objectivity is gone, and that Jack Morris is essentially his pet vote. At this point, he is voting for Jack not out of belief that he is qualified, but because Jack is his "favorite," a pet of his whom he votes for out of spite for those of us who think him unqualified for the HOF. That is really not something one should endorse. Murray Chass is a bitter, petty, and more than anything, a childish man. I find this behavior to be puerile and unbecoming of a HOF voter. A HOF voter should not have "favorites" whom he votes for out of boyish idolatry, but should be able to assess the candidates reasonably and rationally.

How long, I wonder, has Chass's infatuation with Morris existed? Has he championed Morris since the 80's, or has the rejection of Morris to the HOF simply caused him to dig in his heels to these absurd and rabid levels?

   28. SOLockwood Posted: January 13, 2013 at 09:22 AM (#4346053)
Murray Chass writes as if he believes that his audience consists almost entirely of people who he hates.


Given the degree of attention he's paid at BTF vs elsewhere, that's probably the case.
   29. Arbitol Dijaler Posted: January 13, 2013 at 09:49 AM (#4346061)
Walt, I have no doubt that you would continue to protest no matter what I said on the subject. Enjoy!
   30. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 13, 2013 at 09:52 AM (#4346062)
Murray Chass writes as if he believes that his audience consists almost entirely of people who he hates.


And in this, he's probably not wrong.
   31. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 13, 2013 at 10:11 AM (#4346069)
"The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes. The average Howard Stern fan listens for -- are you ready for this? -- an hour and twenty minutes."

"How can that be?"

"Answer most commonly given? 'I want to see what he'll say next'."

"Okay, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?"

"Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day. "

"But... if they hate him, why do they listen?"

"Most common answer? 'I want to see what he'll say next'."
   32. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: January 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4346078)
I actually feel sorry for Chass. He is just a hateful, bitter old man.
   33. DL from MN Posted: January 13, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4346079)
So, let me get this straight

Have plaques hanging in the Hall of Fame: Murray Chass, Tim McCarver
Don't have plaques hanging in the Hall of Fame: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens

Is that right?

Good luck Cooperstown. I'm sure there will be a flood of fans wanting to see that Murray Chass plaque.
   34. McCoy Posted: January 13, 2013 at 10:50 AM (#4346081)
Journalists have no plaques and are not inducted in the HoF.
   35. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: January 13, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4346083)
Journalists have no plaques and are not inducted in the HoF.

That's cause none of them have any integrity or... well they have character, but not in a good way.
   36. TJ Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM (#4346126)
Best part of the article is that it starts off with Tim Raines as the central piece, but by about the halfway point there is no more mention of Tim Raines, and by the end we've forgotten that Tim Raines was ever a part of the story...classic Murray Chass.
   37. DL from MN Posted: January 13, 2013 at 12:45 PM (#4346139)
Each award recipient (not to be confused with an inductee) is presented with a calligraphy of the award and is recognized in the "Scribes & Mikemen" exhibit in the Library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame.


Guess they're stuck in the library.
   38. Wahoo Sam Posted: January 13, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4346147)
I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams. It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.
   39. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: January 13, 2013 at 01:37 PM (#4346160)
And, by this logic, to alcohol use during Prohibition.

So, by this blogger's logic, Babe Ruth is unworthy of the Baseball Hall of Fame, as is every other baseball player who had a drink during the time that doing so was illegal in the USA.


Ruth also got thrown out stealing a base to end the world series, and did so in such a way as not to break the glass pint of whisky he was carrying in his hip pocket.
   40. McCoy Posted: January 13, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4346167)
It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.

Yes, because clearly post #35 was said before a subcommittee of Congress and wasn't simply internet snark. We're all jealous that Chass, a blogger, writes in his basement while we all to suffer the embarrassments of writing from our mother's basement.
   41. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 13, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4346179)
I have yet to find a study that says someone would play better while using cocaine (well, maybe using to calm an addictive episode would help. In using steroids you were actually trying to improve your play, your team's results and add to the enjoyment of the fans.


And that's why people are likely drawing the distinction and treating steroids as an absolute disqualifier. Those who used steroids were using it to gain an unsportsmanlike competitive advantage on the field; those who were using cocaine, in all probability, weren't.

Using an illegal drug isn't by itself a sportsmanship issue; it's when that illegal drug is being used with the intent of improving on-field performance that it becomes one.

-- MWE
   42. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 13, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4346181)
I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams.

Interesting. And how many of the no votes for Bonds and Clemens are due to simple jealousy? Is it "SOME"?

I'm critical of people doing their jobs poorly. Not that people doing their jobs poorly is a rare phenomenon in our society. But seeing so many of the writers perform poorly, then bristle at the suggestion that they've performed poorly, and then attempt to sell the narrative that they're actually performing so excellently as to counteract past errors by others... this is a special era for the BBWAA.

At least when a pro wrestler combines anger, arrogance, self-delusion and comic revisionism, there's a chance he's going to be hit with a folding ladder.
   43. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 13, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4346187)
Using an illegal drug isn't by itself a sportsmanship issue


Right. But it is a character issue. Which is why one reasonable thing that Chass does here is to speak about "invoking the 'integrity, sportsmanship, character' clause." There is no "character clause" -- character is just one word in the clause. Of course, one could argue that these are three independent criteria, but it is perfectly logical to view integrity, sportsmanship, and character collectively.
   44. phredbird Posted: January 13, 2013 at 02:58 PM (#4346211)
I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams. It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.


you might be correct about some of what you perceive as group think here at BTF, but i just want to say that my general dislike of sportswriters also stems from knowing some after having worked at a couple of metro dailies. most of them are for the most part good journalists and know how to get a story and line up their sources and get a good quote. that's what reporters are supposed to do. but almost all of them had questionable critical thinking skills when it came to analyzing the game. they really are averse to sabermetrics; they want to keep things simple, so they avoid nuance. once they start writing a column, its depressing to see the head in the sand mentality take over ... i had more than one frustrating conversation with various writers for the sports departments about such things as advanced metrics, steroids, pitcher usage, etc. ... and i'm no wonk. one of the veteran writers once actually told me that sabermetrics 'takes out the human factor' of the game; it was obvious he bought in to the mom's basement stereotype. after a while, i could see there was no use trying to engage.

sports journalism is a funny thing. there are journalistic standards applied to actual news events in the sports world, but otherwise its about selling newspapers or making ratings, so the rest of the writing/reporting that goes on is some sort of pander to the lowest common denominator.

some pretty sharp people read and post here, so its not surprising that a lot of sportswriters come in for grief on this site. its too bad those writers don't read some of the threads, because i think they might come away from the discussions with some helpful insights. of course, they might read some comments and feel justified in hand waving BTF. its their loss.
   45. Mike Webber Posted: January 13, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4346235)
I would submit that SOME of the vitriol toward sportswriters from this website (not necessarily that directed at Chass) stems from jealousy. It seems there are a lot of rabid baseball fans who resent that sportswriters get to attend games, have access to players and teams. It comes out quite clearly on BBTF. #35 illustrated this blanket bias quite well. Just saying.


And I would submit that SOME of the vitriol from sportswriters to steroid user is because they feel guilty for flat out failing to mention anything about steroids when they were rampant in the game. And by SOME, I mean a #### load.
   46. Tripon Posted: January 13, 2013 at 03:37 PM (#4346236)
If you're going to judge others for drug use, it should be okay for others to check into your own personal drug use. I suspect at least of a couple of famous sports writers dabbled in the nose candy.
   47. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: January 13, 2013 at 03:43 PM (#4346241)
It took 19 posts to get around to a "My Fair Lady" reference?
Gentlemen, I am disappoint.
   48. Howie Menckel Posted: January 13, 2013 at 03:45 PM (#4346242)

"i just want to say that my general dislike of sportswriters also stems from knowing some after having worked at a couple of metro dailies. most of them are for the most part good journalists and know how to get a story and line up their sources and get a good quote. that's what reporters are supposed to do. but almost all of them had questionable critical thinking skills when it came to analyzing the game. they really are averse to sabermetrics;"

WAY too nuanced. needs something like "all journalists only work in that field because they weren't good enough to do anything else."

lose the "almost all" - don't hedge!

real life examples - even in a small sample size - also frowned upon.

someone here didn't get a broad enough brush under the tree at Christmas....

   49. Mike Emeigh Posted: January 13, 2013 at 03:51 PM (#4346244)
Which is why one reasonable thing that Chass does here is to speak about "invoking the 'integrity, sportsmanship, character' clause." There is no "character clause" -- character is just one word in the clause. Of course, one could argue that these are three independent criteria, but it is perfectly logical to view integrity, sportsmanship, and character collectively.


Well, the point I was making is that even if you do give weight to integrity/sportsmanship/character as a unit, you still can vote for Raines and not for Bonds or Clemens.

Clemens/Bonds
1. used illegal drugs (bad character)
2. to gain a performance advantage (bad sportsmanship), and
3. have denied knowingly using them (low integrity, additional bad character)

Raines
1. used illegal drugs (bad character), BUT
2. not to gain a performance advantage (so not bad sportsmanship), AND
3. admitted to it and cleaned up his act (showing integrity and less-bad character)

I doubt that any Raines yes, Bonds/Clemens no voter is taking that nuanced a stance, obviously - but it's not necessarily the case that the voter isn't applying the same rules to all three players.

-- MWE
   50. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 13, 2013 at 05:20 PM (#4346313)
Well, the point I was making is that even if you do give weight to integrity/sportsmanship/character as a unit, you still can vote for Raines and not for Bonds or Clemens.


I wasn't disagreeing with that. The point I was making is that you almost have to view character as an independent (dis)qualification for it to be the basis for excluding Raines (or Cepeda or Jenkins or Molitor etc etc). As you note, it's much harder to carry that argument if integrity/character/sportsmanship is viewed as a unit.

I doubt that any Raines yes, Bonds/Clemens no voter is taking that nuanced a stance, obviously - but it's not necessarily the case that the voter isn't applying the same rules to all three players.


Actually, I think it's at least possible that there is a Raines yes, Bonds/Clemens no voter or three who is taking exactly that stance, but I also don't doubt that there are many voters who are applying the rules inconsistently.
   51. phredbird Posted: January 13, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4346350)
WAY too nuanced. needs something like "all journalists only work in that field because they weren't good enough to do anything else."

lose the "almost all" - don't hedge!

real life examples - even in a small sample size - also frowned upon.

someone here didn't get a broad enough brush under the tree at Christmas....


heh.

hey now. if you've ever seen any of my artwork that's been posted here, you'll know that i use brushes of all sizes!

funny thing about journalists and newsrooms. it took me a while to realize this, but a newsroom, especially at a large newspaper, is filled wall to wall with the smartest geeks in their high school or college j-school class, especially on the news desks and the copy editors section. not necessarily the most worldly successful students, mind you. just a lot of people with a lot of smarts.
   52. McCoy Posted: January 13, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4346355)
Gentlemen, I am disappoint.

That's what your mother always said about you.
   53. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: January 13, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4346383)
That's what your mother always said about you.

More likely, she'd set the bottle down, kind of squint at me, and say "Who the hell are you, again?"
   54. Ron J2 Posted: January 14, 2013 at 04:03 PM (#4346887)
As I've said before, anybody who voted for Juan Marichal and against Tim Raines on character grounds has some mighty screwed up priorities.
   55. Ron J2 Posted: January 14, 2013 at 04:08 PM (#4346890)
*Kuhn tried to punish Howe.


Vincent's the guy who tried to have Buck Showalter lie to an arbitrator about Howe.

Howe was suspended on multiple occasions. The dispute was never about the commissioner's ability to discipline a player but rather the severity of the discipline.

EDIT: He wasn't suspended in 1984. He spent a full year in treatment.

This was win #1 for Howe against MLB

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCardinals Acquire John Lackey
(92 - 1:45am, Aug 01)
Last: Jim Kaat on a hot Gene Roof

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3992 - 1:28am, Aug 01)
Last: Joe Kehoskie

NewsblogMinnesota Twins sign Kurt Suzuki to two-year contract extension
(7 - 1:19am, Aug 01)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(362 - 1:08am, Aug 01)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogYankees land infielders Stephen Drew, Martin Prado at Deadline
(20 - 1:07am, Aug 01)
Last: shoewizard

NewsblogMariners acquire outfielder Chris Denorfia from Padres
(4 - 1:04am, Aug 01)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1074 - 1:02am, Aug 01)
Last: Squash

NewsblogCliff Lee Re-Injures Elbow
(18 - 12:55am, Aug 01)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogTigers To Acquire David Price
(70 - 12:54am, Aug 01)
Last: Select Storage Device

NewsblogCubs deal Emilio Bonifacio, James Russell to Braves
(10 - 12:38am, Aug 01)
Last: Jacob

NewsblogMarlins acquire Jarred Cosart from Astros in six-player deal
(6 - 12:37am, Aug 01)
Last: SteveM.

NewsblogBrewers acquire outfielder Gerardo Parra from D-backs
(5 - 12:27am, Aug 01)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-31-2014
(20 - 12:20am, Aug 01)
Last: jwb

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(24 - 12:06am, Aug 01)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogOrioles acquire left-handed reliever Andrew Miller from Red Sox
(1 - 11:59pm, Jul 31)
Last: donlock

Page rendered in 0.3299 seconds
52 querie(s) executed