Manny Ramirez Should Be In The Hall of Fame

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

About Brien Jackson

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

35 thoughts on “Manny Ramirez Should Be In The Hall of Fame

  1. agreed. there are alcoholics (mickey mantle), racists (ty cobb and countless others), probably woman beaters, and all sorts of crazy ass off the field people in the HOF. The writers just will do anything to try and make up for the fact that THEY AS THE MEDIA missed the 800 pound gorilla in the room during the peak of the steroid era because THEY were getting paid off it, indirectly, as well. SMFH.

  2. a lot of mistakes have been made during the PED years—allowing Manny Ramirez into the Hall shouldn't be one of them. Sorry Manny, 550 isn't gonna cut it anymore.

  3. I disagree with Brien. To me cheating by scuffing a ball and using PEDs is vastly different. One only benefits occasionally while the other benefits all the time. Not only did Manny cheat for extended periods of time, when he got his first suspension, but he knowingly did it again.
    The greatest anecdotal evidence for the benefit of PEDs came from the quotes given by Red Sox players when they talked about Manny's increase in bat speed and how strong he looked. To me this tells me all I know about the benefits of PEDs.

  4. The hall of fame lost all its meaning and credibility to me when they didn't let Jeff Bagwell a few months ago. And I'm sorry, but people debating the value of the Hall now…where the hell were you for one of the all-time best first basemen? There was never even suspicion around Bagwell (at least not beyond the witch hunters saying "he's strong and hits home runs, he must be on something"). That should have been a huge issue. People should have been blasting the voters then, not now.

  5. "The numbers are what gets someone into the HOF. With PED's we can't trust the numbers anymore. Manny won't get into the Hall and he shouldn't."

    Manny made 18M last season. I think we should be talking about how players benefit financially from PED's. We're not talking about a 'suspected' PED user, Manny was caught twice. Cheaters don't deserve the HOF period.

  6. If they let Gaylord Perry into the Hall, I don't see how the voters have a lot of room to not let people who cheated in different manners into the Hall.

    I, however, will view players who have been caught cheating to get ahead in their career in a different light. Manny is in that category having found a way to be caught twice. That different viewing doesn't change their credentials for the HOF which are still all about numbers and not how they got them.

  7. Ugh! Sorry, but I couldn't stand this article. Does not blend well with the blog here. I was proud reading the post and subsequent comments from biscuit pants (great name btw!), but I can't believe any support here for Manny entering the HOR. 3 failed tests! Are you kidding me! It's a slap in the face to the game, like no other. Worse to me than Bonds, McGwire, etc., b/c he got busted and kept using. Buster Olney said it best, it's pure arrogance. He felt he was above the game. And he made $250M+ total for doing it, so good for him, but bad for baseball and bad for baseball fans. All PED-usage was not created equal. All wrong, but just like crimes, there are different degrees, and Manny is an A$$^&@% in the 1st degree!

  8. When my Dad took me to the HOF he told me stories about the players there who he'd seen play. When I take my (here's assuming) kids, I'm not going to have anyone to talk about. The voters may not realize it yet, but every legend who is denied entry based on proven or suspected PEDs use is another nail in the Hall's coffin.

  9. The most interesting thing are the two cases on the periphery: Palmiero and Clemens.

    Palmiero was also a HOF lock, but failed a test. His story (accidental) may or may not ring true, but a) he'll almost certainly never, ever get the benefit of the doubt and b) he threw another player under the bus, which means he'll never, ever get support from anyone ever again. With Clemens, the lawsuit is amazing. Whether out of sheer arrogance or not, he made the same denials others made under Congressional oath — VOLUNTARILY, not under supoena — and a) turned down a plea deal and b) is now suing his primary witness for defamation. That's ASTOUNDING. With all of the "race baiting" comments about the Bonds trial ("ZOMG HE'S BLACK, RAILROADED!") people forget that Clemens is indicted by Congress as well. Can you IMAGINE what is going to happen to the sanctimony of the HOF voters acting as judge, jury and executioner to HOF changes in the Steroid Era if Clemens *wins* his trial?

  10. Addressing point 3 – maybe just another case of "Manny being Manny?" or – probably more likely – I would guess he was using something new – a new synthetic analog that was "guaranteed" impossible to detect. Really, that's the only logical explanation. And it must have worked well enough that he didn't even want to cycle off long enough to drop clean.

    Or, again, he just didn't care.

  11. Would players use PED's if it only gave them a small edge? I don't think so. As others have said, most of the people who have been implicated with steroids were already HOF locks. (ARod, Bond, Clemens, Manny, etc.)

    The natural ability was definitely there and so was the greed..

  12. Nearly everybody of noteworthy achievement who was caught taking PEDs or were suspected of taking PEDs are already in the Hall of Fame, in the form of some photo, memorabilia, or literature from their achievements. Manny's already in the Hall, in recognition of hitting 500 home runs. So are Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Clemons, Palmeiro, etc. Even Brady Anderson is in the Hall for hitting 50 dingers in a year. It's not like the Hall of Fame as a museum won't preserve these achievements for the historical record.

    The question of whether players tainted with the spectre of PEDs should be VOTED into the Hall of Fame is another matter altogether. Their legacies live on in some respect, but whether they should be immortalized for their career achievement, on the shoulders of giants, so to speak, is troublesome, and I'm not sure that we can answer this in this generation.

    Here are two possible alterations to the voting process for entry into the Hall of Fame: 1) Any player who was caught taking PEDs must wait 15 years after their official retirement to be eligible for the HOF voting process; 2) The Hall eliminates the 5% threshold for this generation for 20 years. The idea is that we shouldn't make any haste decision on the PED era now, that we shouldn't outright disqualify candidates without a better survey of this era's legacy, and that only with distance can we better evaluate the historic value of these inflated numbers.

    Some will say that the Veterans' Committee exists to correct anything or anyone that was overlooked in our era. The point is, the Hall of Fame is about more than players: it's also about the writers who are their peers, judge, and jury with respect to the Hall of Fame, and writers also need some time, distance, and more perspective to evaluate the players of this era.

    So, what's my verdict on Manny Ramirez's worthiness for the Hall of Fame? How can any of us claim to be comfortable in answering this question now? Let us wait and ponder these points, and hope that in time, we can achieve something closer to a consensus.

  13. It seems every time we discuss whether a player is worthy of the hall it essentially boils down to: What should a player that gets elected into the Hall of Fame represent? The best of his era? The best players of his position(s) across all of baseball? (If the latter, how do you compare numbers from different eras?)

    I have an answer that works for me, but I don't speak for anyone.

    For me, I weigh the player in the era that they played in. MLB willingly turned a blind eye to both greenies and PEDs for a long time. It does have meaning to me whether they cheated or not … but only if there is proof (and not speculation) as to that person really doing the deed.

    Manny put up awesome offensive numbers in the pre-testing era. His defense was not something anyone is going to rave about. Is it Hall worthy compared to his peers in the outfield during the same era? That is the only question for me at this point.

    For whatever reason, he got caught violating the drug policy multiple times … twice in pre-season when he knew the tests were coming. He quite possibly used PEDs to help his numbers, but how much so, we will never know. He made a ton of money doing that. But that is neither here nor there as far as his numbers pre-testing are concerned.

  14. Putting Manny to one side, here's a list of the major league players who have received sanctions for testing positive for PEDs under MLB's drug policy:

    2010: Edison Volquez and Ronny Paulino
    2009: Kelvin Pichardo
    2008: Eliezer Alfonzo, Humberto Cota, Sergio Mitre and J.C. Romero
    2007: Juan Salas, Ryan Jorgensen, Dan Serafini, Jay Gibbons and Jose Guillen
    2006: Yusaku Iriki, Jason Grimsley and Guillermo Mota
    2005: Alex Sanchez, Jorge Piedra, Agustin Montero, Jamal Strong, Juan Rincon, Rafael Betancourt, Rafael Palmiero, Ryan Franklin, Mike Morse, Carlos Almanzar, Felix Heredia and Matt Lawton

    Mostly replacement and below-replacement level players, hoping for substantial increases in talent … doesn't look like they all got it!

  15. The problem we are facing with judging this era is how to you reconcile the fact that there are players that did NOT take steroids that have had great careers that have potentially been overshadowed by the huge power numbers of the steroid era. Despite what some people on here believe, Steroids must of had some kind of positive effect on power.

  16. I'll admit I'm still not certain where I stand on the whole steroid issue. They cheated, no real way around that. But in context of the sport, baseballs always had cheats, as many of pointed out. But, in my opinion, there is a difference between doing coke and taking steroids. I understand the argument that if everyone was cheating and there were still great players, obviously they wouldve been great without them bc they were beating up on other roided up players. This is where I can't make my mind up. See the argument makes sense, but then there is a huge disadvantage for those who didn't use and still had HOF numbers (see Bagwell) that get left out or accused of taking roids because everyone else was. The most logical solution that I keep coming to in my mind, but the league and HOF would have to adopt it as policy, would be that players in the pre-testing era would be let off the hook in a sense. They would be judged based on how well they did compared to their talents and it's unfair to punish them because baseball was unwilling to acknowledge a huge problem and let the players do whatever they wanted. However, for the testing era, any player who failed a drug test is ineligible for the hall of fame. Simple as that. Baseball officially made steroids illegal and you have to play by the rules. By this criteria, Bonds, Clemens, A-rod, ( I don't think Mcgwire is HOF worthy even without the PEDS, but thats another argument) would be elligible for HOF, but Palmeiro, Ramirez would not because they failed a drug test while testing was in place. (Side note: how the hell does manny fail 2 tests and is supossedly on teh 2003 "annomyous" list? he shouldnt get in on stupidity alone). We'll never be able to know the full effects of roids on performance, but I think acknowledging that it existed, and that it was legal for a certain period of time, and at the same time say, this doesnt happen anymore, would go a long way to easing peoples minds. But seligs got to be the one to do it, and I doubt he ever will.

  17. Manny should not be in the hall of fame. Call it "Manny being Manny" but he quit on two teams–Red Sox and Rays. Manny did not retire he quit. He may be able to hit a ball but really is he one of the best. Oh and its not just because he took steroids it is because he got caught TWICE after they started testing for it. Manny is a sad, sad man. Not a role model I want to take my kids to go see in Cooperstown.

  18. Your points are well taken and this: "you cannot argue from a general trend to particular cases." is the stongest argument and unfortunatley the point that most people don't get. However, to the issue of Manny, what do you do with someone who continually flaunts the leagues policy? Ignore it because we can't catch everyone who cheated?

  19. The issue isn't whether PED's helps a player perform better – it's that a player, knowing it's not permitted, took it anyway thinking it would help them perform better. It's a stain on the game which can't be removed, mostly because it was so pervasive – used by the best, the most average and probably the worst players. And that's the beauty of the HOF; it's an opportunity to make social comment. Here, the social comment is that widespread cheating is wrong. And for that reason, I applaud all of the voters who won't vote for McGuire, Palmeiro or the rest of the cheaters to come. And I have no problem guessing who was a cheater, even without proof.