Ken Griffey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gRYFYN1

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

This an article from a week or so ago about the lack of fanfare regarding Jr's impending 600th homerun.

The article touches on all the basic no thought excuses like PED etc, But i think he misses what may be the biggest reason.

It will be a sad reminder of what might have been. Griffey was the kid with the sweet stroke, He pounded balls out in the cavernous Kingdome, And after 12 years at just ago 30 he was sitting just shy of 450 HRs.
Seemingly a bright future for a guy in the age of long careers the math was bring calculated just 30 HR a year for 10 years and he be right next to Hank, If he kept up his pace of 37 per year he be there by 2008, if he kept up his pace of 50HRs like he had the previous 5 years he be there in 6 short years.

And all this as he returned home to Cincinnati.

But then the injuries hit, it would be 4 more year before he even made it to 500, and now another four years hes waiting for 600, not 700 not 756.

600 for Griffey and those that watched his boyish grin and that smooth stoke that cleared 56 HRs in back-to-back years, will be a "what coulda been" reminder for a guy everyone loved and everyone wanted to be the new HR king.

---

Wouldn't that be "And, after 12 years into his career at age 30, he was sitting just shy of 450 HR"?

EDIT---

nevermind. You just misspelled "age" as "ago". The rest of the sentence works fine. Sorry...

To be totally fair, no one should be said to have used steroids unless there is physical eveidence that it happened. So to say that we should criticize Griffey because of all those circumstantial things is a little bit over zealous I think.

To be fair, I'm not saying that he did or did not use them, and I'm not saying this just because it was Griffey. I don't think any player should be lumped in to the "roid user" category unless there is physical, tangible evidence that they guy did it.

I still haven't seen that on Bonds to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcbarr

To be totally fair, no one should be said to have used steroids unless there is physical eveidence that it happened. So to say that we should criticize Griffey because of all those circumstantial things is a little bit over zealous I think.

To be fair, I'm not saying that he did or did not use them, and I'm not saying this just because it was Griffey. I don't think any player should be lumped in to the "roid user" category unless there is physical, tangible evidence that they guy did it.

I still haven't seen that on Bonds to be honest.

---

I understand what you are saying, but regardless of what you think you can't deny that a large group of players have been lumped together and criticized with LESS circumstantial evidence that Griffey has.

I am an avid sox fan, and I hear all the time people who think Manny and/or Ortiz may have juiced. I firmly believe that more than half the MLB players during the late 90's and early this decade did juice so I won't argue with those saying Manny and Ortiz juiced. I have no idea if they did or didn't. But neither has had significant declines prior to last season with Manny. Neither had injury issues prior to Papi's knee last year. Neither have had any associations at least public with roid users. And at least in my eyes, neither got much bigger. There is less circumstantial evidence out there than there is on Griffey.

If players like Manny & Ortiz can be questioned, than Griffey has to be lumped in too. There is just as much evidence against Sosa as there is Griffey as someone pointed out. Do I think he roided? Honestly I'm 50/50 because I think most players did. Regardless, I think every player in this error should be treated the same regarding this issue, and Griffey is no different.

Quote:

---

I still haven't seen that on Bonds to be honest.

---

I assume by this you mean you haven't seen allegations of a connection between Griffey & Bonds. Here's one of many links you can find;

http://sfisonline.com/cgi-bin/articl...PGP6HOD3J1.DTL

That's my whole point they don't HAVE to be lumped. No players have to be. I mean it goes all the way back to what my mother use to say, if your friend jumped off the bridge would you jump off it too?

That is the problem, everyone seems to think this way. You don't HAVE to accuse anyone of taking roids. There is no requirement to do so.

I'm in the same boat with you though. After everything that I have heard I believe that the majority of guys were probably taking something in the 90's but where are you going to find proof? I mean you could probably link just about anyone to a roid dealer or user if you wanted to bad enough.

Also who cares if he knew Bonds or was friends with Bonds. Did you ever know a kid that smoked weed? If so then you must have smoked weed right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jcbarr

That's my whole point they don't HAVE to be lumped. No players have to be. I mean it goes all the way back to what my mother use to say, if your friend jumped off the bridge would you jump off it too?

That is the problem, everyone seems to think this way. You don't HAVE to accuse anyone of taking roids. There is no requirement to do so.

I'm in the same boat with you though. After everything that I have heard I believe that the majority of guys were probably taking something in the 90's but where are you going to find proof? I mean you could probably link just about anyone to a roid dealer or user if you wanted to bad enough.

Also who cares if he knew Bonds or was friends with Bonds. Did you ever know a kid that smoked weed? If so then you must have smoked weed right?

---

You are in the minority then. It doesn't quite work that way. A ton of players ALREADY have been unfairly labelled. All i'm saying is the cat is already out of the bag, across the street, through the woods, and two towns over. It's gone.

Everyone has to have that question mark over their head, Griffey included. And by sayign you think most did it, you seem to agree with that. Now to you it may make no difference in the players legacy......to many it does however.

:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You are in the minority then. It doesn't quite work that way. A ton of players ALREADY have been unfairly labelled. All i'm saying is the cat is already out of the bag, across the street, through the woods, and two towns over. It's gone.

Everyone has to have that question mark over their head, Griffey included. And by sayign you think most did it, you seem to agree with that. Now to you it may make no difference in the players legacy......to many it does however.

---

The problem is perception & understanding of steroids use in MLB.A lot of fans are now hostile towards to it whereas when the actual usage was at its peak (late 90's/early 2000's) most fans were simply ambivalent - because they unknowingly believed it was allowable (like vitamins).Even players & team personnel failed to understand the distinction that it was both cheating & ILLEGAL.

Did Griffey juice - possibly (& even probably)....will it affect his HOF candidacy ? Unlikely,as he didn't break an all time record nor "get caught".

The problem of perception is quite simple in that Steroid use was akin to "murdering someone & not being suspected/caught" - in that when done it was a crime but lack of evidence allowed reasonable doubt ---- the WHOLE of baseball of the "steroids" era have this above their heads & the MLB just made it worse this spring when it signed the new drug testing policy & PARDONNED Guillen & Gibbons *rolleyes* just goes to show how willing they are to "clean up" the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRENCHREDSOX

The problem is perception & understanding of steroids use in MLB.A lot of fans are now hostile towards to it whereas when the actual usage was at its peak (late 90's/early 2000's) most fans were simply ambivalent - because they unknowingly believed it was allowable (like vitamins).Even players & team personnel failed to understand the distinction that it was both cheating & ILLEGAL.

Did Griffey juice - possibly (& even probably)....will it affect his HOF candidacy ? Unlikely,as he didn't break an all time record nor "get caught".

The problem of perception is quite simple in that Steroid use was akin to "murdering someone & not being suspected/caught" - in that when done it was a crime but lack of evidence allowed reasonable doubt ---- the WHOLE of baseball of the "steroids" era have this above their heads & the MLB just made it worse this spring when it signed the new drug testing policy & PARDONNED Guillen & Gibbons *rolleyes* just goes to show how willing they are to "clean up" the game.

---

well said. although sadly griffey will get a pass not because he didn't break records but because he's beloved by the fans. I don't mind him getting a pass, but there is a double standard which is disappointing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

well said. although sadly griffey will get a pass not because he didn't break records but because he's beloved by the fans. I don't mind him getting a pass, but there is a double standard which is disappointing.

---

Oh,the double standard HAS helped the industry become a 6 Billion sport... that is why it happened.:mad:

Simply look at Selig's actions (& pay LOL) to understand that steriods = "good for the game" in the 90s/00s - & now bad for the game - if allowing "cockfighting"* would add +10% revenue it would be added as an "inter innings" show with the MLB's blessing .....;)



* you could replace it by "taser shooting" or "female mud wrestling"

I may be in the minority, I am fully aware of that. My argument isn't over what has happened because everything that you had said is the truth. I'm just basically stating the fact that I am against the fact that these guys have been labeled on basically he said she said.

We all know it happened and this era will go down in baseball much the same as the deadball era, the era when they modified the mound, things like that.