Curt Schilling won't get in, either. Heck, Mike Mussina might not even get in.

What about Rick Reuschel?

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... schel.html

Curt Schilling shouldnt get it, I was just saying that if you think Schilling is on the bubble that Morris is a better version of Schilling and belongs.

I think an argument can be made for Cone.

Craig Biggio is a nice player, but he's not a hall of famer...good god, the guy played 20 seasons, had 200 hits once, hit for 300 four times in twenty seasons, and the only reason he made it to 3,000 hits (barely) is because he hung around forever until he got there

edit: if you vote for Craig Biggio but leave Tim Raines off, GTFO of this thread

Assuming the only reason Morris would get in is because of his postseason heroics, Schilling has to be given at least the same 14 years of consideration Morris has gotten

Clemens, Bonds, Raines

Id take schilling over Morris 11 times out of 10. Outside of one outstanding game Morris was merely above average.

Also, Kevin Brown was criminally overlooked when he was on the ballot.

I agree with this entirely. He's the Lou Whitaker of the SP position.

By the way, I don't agree with the Jim Rice selection, but let's not pretend like the bar has been going down. The bar was never actually that high to begin with. The biggest problem is that it's inconsistent.

This. And I'm a big Twins fan.

Yep. Morris isn't a "rich man's Curt Schilling"... it's the other way around.

Morris was definitely among the best pitchers of his era, but Dave Stieb was better throughout the 80s and he got seven votes the only year he was on the ballot.

Interesting. Verducci thinks Morris, Biggio, and Schilling will all get in:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... t=hp_wr_a4

anyone else find it somewhat hypocritical if Bonds (and Clemens even) doest get in?
so, you voted for him for all those MVP awards, when it was obvious he was juicing, everyone suspected he was juicing, he was destroying the single season HR record, that was set by, juicers, but now? now were not going to vote for him and teach him a lesson???



If I were baseball, instead of putting the asterisk next to the suspected Steroid users...
id put something next to say, Aaron, that says he did this, in an era without performance enhancers, without video scouting, and in big big ball parks... it took modern technology, medicine, and one of the best players of the steroid generation to touch the greatest hitter of all time...

I think baseball writers are slowly converting to the "everyone was on it, so who were the best players?" question

Yeah, except he used greenies when he was playing and handed them out when he was a coach.

i love this



credit to http://forum.okbluejays.com forum member "the master"

I thought he admitted to trying them once but felt sick (ive read his autobiography but that was years ago)

and Greenies is a far different drug then the roids of todays athletes... dont forget the drug of choice for 80's players was cocaine lol

Probably due to the fact that sportswriters get to vote and the majority of the ones that can actually make a career of it, live in big cities.

Also, I don't think Craig Biggio is a hall of famer. Astros HOF no doubt, but not MLB. I'm not even that sure about Bagwell.

Bonds definately is, roids or no roids. I don't even care about numbers, he was the best player of his generation, the fact that he is a turd probably kept him from winning more.

Because journalists, baseball writers, announcers, etc., failed to report the ongoing PED abuse in baseball during the 90s, 2000s, I hope that none of them get into the HOF based on their collective failure to "break" this news.

Either way. All that says to me is he tried to cheat and didn't b/c it didn't work out. Different drugs, sure, but the motive is the exact same. Makes it worse that he's one of the more outspoken of the older guys.