Yahoo Sports guy Larry Biel and he said that he feels that Bonds should still make the Hall of Fame, even after this last round of breaking news. I don't agree with Passan at all on this, but I do think Jeff is a good writer for such a young kid, I think he's only 27. What do you think about this? Is Passan wrong about Bonds? I think he is.
2007-11-20 09:26:04 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Yes, you have to ban them all to establish a precendent. Bonds out, Sosa out, McGwire out, Bagwell out, Pameiro out, etc.
2007-11-20 09:35:58 · update #1
If nothing else, view on Bonds' eventual Hall candidacy are not best canvassed at a time like this, immediately following an indictment (NOT a conviction). This is an extreme example, but is part of the reasoning why the Hall mandates a five-year wait before retired players receive consideration -- a long enough stretch of time to let impassioned views settle and provide a clearer view of a player's place in and perspective of history.
2007-11-20 09:48:50 · answer #1 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its going to be a hotly debated topic when Bonds is eligable for the HOF. I saw the article and understands what he meant by Bonds having a HOF career before the steroids and a lot of writers are going to consider this. But unfortunately for Bonds it is the entire career that has to be considered, not just the pre steroid yrs, and the subsequent damage he did to the game by being the poster boy for steroids, and the suspicion of the records he set because of them. I do beleive that Bonds will make the HOF eventually, but not first , second or even third ballot..it will take a lot of time for this to die down and when he does, I think it will be for what he did pre1998, and not for the homer record. When and if Arod breaks the record that will take a lot of heat off of this issue, and a lot will depend on if Barry decides not to be a smug, rude jerk and if he owns up to the fact he did them. The only hope in the future for Barry to get in depends on if he will come clean and be truly remoseful abotu what he did. Passan is a good writer and he is entitled to his opinon, and while I understand his logic, I disagree with it. Its an isssue that will dog every HOF election from here on out about the steroid users...Its just going to be more contriversy over an already contriversial election and selection process
2007-11-20 09:42:25 · answer #2 · answered by allenmontana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remove Bagwell from this question. You're the only person to ever put him in the group with Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and Palmiero.
Bonds was a Hall of Famer before steroids, so he deserves to be in regardless.
.
2007-11-20 11:07:57 · answer #3 · answered by Kris 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thats a tough question, without the steriods, bonds still winds up with around 600 homeruns, most likely he would finish 4th on the all time list, so for this, he belongs in the hall, but before that could happen, baseball needs to banish all of his homeruns from 2000 till 2007, and bonds must admit that he did cheat and use drugs, until both of these things happen, he should not be in the hall of fame in my opinion.
2007-11-20 09:52:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think he still should make the hof
#1 you cant argue, he was a slam dunk hall of famer based on his performance prior to steroids (his size increase)
#2 he is the posterboy for steroids, but there are so many players who have used steroids . . . are you going to bar everyone from this era?
how is this new news different from anything before? everyone knows he lied, so saying this new round of news puts him out . . . doesnt make sense
2007-11-20 09:33:16 · answer #5 · answered by bourgoise_10o 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think Bonds should be in the Hall of Fame. Not because he used steroids, but because he perjured himself in court.
My personal opinion is: steroids should be mandatory for all sports.
2007-11-20 09:31:18 · answer #6 · answered by barchanon 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋