Bonds trial to begin March 21st

[Slyder]

Rose was a bit different, and there is a solution for his mess. Rose the player w/o question belongs in the HOF, but Rose the Manager belongs banned from the game for life for his actions. They were two separate careers that should be treated as such. There is no way that he belongs around the game anymore, but that was due to something that occurred after his playing days were over.

What I always tell people is this. If Rose had waited to manage until 6 years after he was out of baseball, and had already been inducted into the HOF for his on field accomplishments, then did what he did as a manager, would they rip him out of the HOF ? Of course the answer is no...... So there is no reason why he shouldn't be in the HOF, then banned for life from the game.

Bonds flat out cheated for years, and tainted baseball record books. Then the dumbass lied to a grand jury like a doucheballoon .......time for him to pay the piper

I know we could start a individual thread for Rose and with all the Reds fans on this board it probably dwarf most but I am just going to address both here. Its a little disputed fact that the reason Rose wanted to manage was so that he could catch Ty Cobb and player-manager in Cincy was pretty much the equivilant to dh, it gave him extra time. You cannot seperate one from the other. He wasn't a horrible manager I think he had like 4 second place finishes in Cincinnati and then the year after he left Lou took them to the world series. Plus baseball it is clear it might as well be the 11th commandment "Though shall not bet on baseball", Rose knew that. No commish is going to touch that.

What I see happening with Rose is the year after he passes from this earth he and Joe Jackson are inducted so Pete cannot cash in directly on his enshrinement which is largely what he wants to do (IMO).

And I love how my post is ignored about Bonds let me post the numbers again....

Babe's 4 best years:
1927 at 32 with 60 homers, 9.0 abs per homer
1921 at 26 with 59 homers, 9.2 abs per homer
1920 at 25 with 54 homers, 8.5 abs per homer
1928 at 33 with 54 homers, 9.9 abs per homer

Barry's 6 best years:
2001 at 37 with 73 homers, 6.5 abs per homer
2000 at 36 with 49 homers, 9.8 abs per homer
2002 at 38 with 46 homers, 8.8 abs per homer
1993 at 29 with 46 homers (first time he topped 40), 11.7 abs per homer
2003 and 2004 at 39 and 40 with 45 homers, 8.7 and 8.3 abs per homer

Which of these things is not like the others, which one of these things just doesn't belong. You don't get that much stronger going into your 30s without help. To compare Babe and Barry is an insult to the Babe.

[padrefanforever]

Just think of the kind of shape Babe could have been in if he had the benefit of BALCO Ind. and a full time Str & Con trainer at his beckon call......

Or just think of Barry loading up on hotdogs, booze and burning the candle at both ends.......I'm sure the results would have been the same right

[Saber]

Barry Bonds couldn't have played back then, unless he wanted to barnstorm for the Kansas City Monarchs.

[padrefanforever]

Barry Bonds couldn't have played back then, unless he wanted to barnstorm for the Kansas City Monarchs.

And Ruth couldn't have played now unless he was the walking dead... And Barry wouldn't have been dick squat back then even in the negro leagues...there were better players back then who could actually throw the ball too

[love_that_reefer]

I'm sorry but thinking pitching back in Ruth's day is better than today's pitching is utterly ridiculous.

[GiantsFanatic]

So, you don't see the difference between jumping from 20-30 HRs/year to 57 HRs and hitting 40-50 per year and having a career best of 60...a full one home run over his previous career best at age 26?

Are you purposely being obtuse?

I see the difference, but I don't understand some people's stance on this issue, one end someone is saying Gonzalez used steriods because he hit 57 hrs, and same for Bonds, but using body frames as an argument, last time I checked Gonzalez wasn't really that big of a person, 6'2' 180 lbs and linking him with roids, but on the other end your claiming Bonds's achievements were based on roids because "got big" so I'm failing to comprehend how does someone's body size has anything to do with hitting homeruns? Maybe you guys might have played MLB baseball and took some quantum physics.

[HollywoodLeo]

People aren't saying they're on steroids because of their body frames. They're saying they're on steroids because their home run strength suddenly exploded in their 30s when most players start declining.

Ruth's home run power did not suddenly explode. He played at the same level.

[GiantsFanatic]

Again I say this, players are not suppose to get better over time? And isn't 30's suppose to be their "prime"?

[General]

37 is not prime. 37 is retirement age for a lot of players.

[Slyder]

37 is not prime. 37 is retirement age for a lot of players.

Most players have been retired or relegated to bench guys for at least 2-3 seasons by 37.

[love_that_reefer]

28-32 is considered to be the prime years for a male athlete.

[Slyder]

That is the most ignorant/stupid thing I have ever read on this forum, ever. And I've been here since day 1.

Hmmmm this or Win Method (Joek Reference!!!)

[Slyder]

people aren't saying they're on steroids because of their body frames. They're saying they're on steroids because their home run strength suddenly exploded in their 30s when most players start declining.

Ruth's home run power did not suddenly explode. He played at the same level.

thank you!

[GiantsFanatic]

37 is not prime. 37 is retirement age for a lot of players.

Right, show where it states 37 is a retirement age? Dumb fuck.

[General]

Do me a favor, continue the ad hominem attacks while asking me to prove obvious baseball truths. Please.