plowjockey

Yep. For 5 or 6 years in the early '80's he was as dominant a player as there was in the game. In addition he has solid career numbers, even though he stayed around way too long past his prime. Good research. It's probably best to forget the drugs comments, unless you want to also dig up a certain trial transcript (also in the '80's) of a convicted Milwaukee cocaine dealer and his very open dealings with a certain Hall of Fame (to be) Milwaukee Brewer.

Thanks Danzig. It's a point I've tried to make in other posts, but I did not say it as well. When they let in Tony Perez and Ralph Kiner, it opened the door for dozens of other guys that are "close." Where does it stop? I loved watching both Rice and Dawson, and despite the seemingly better offensive numbers by Rice, I think the awards, the speed and defense makes Dawson the better candidate of the two. However, I voted no on Rice, and must also (regretfully) do so on Dawson. It's the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of Really Good Players. I hope the voters keep it exclusive and tough to get into, thus maintaining it as "baseball's shrine."

Braun has a tender elbow, according to the Brewers' website. He's in Milwaukee getting examined, and may be shut down for the year as a precaution.

Strong outing by Hammond has vanishes as fast as you can say Ben Diggins.

Sorry, RoCoBrewfan, it was not my intention to misquote your intended message, rather I wanted to bring to the front that this is really the basis for all of these discussions. When we talk about these guys on the verge of this special award, where is the line drawn? You can always compare awards career achievements etc. and find 2 players with the similar stats and one makes it and another doesn't. It's great discussion, and I hope we talk about a lot more players.

That's why it's called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good Players. I loved Jim Rice, one of my favorite players to watch. I saw him play every time Boston came to town. He could take over a stretch of games and carry a team like no one else of his time. But Hall of Fame Career? No, he falls a bit short. I don't like it a bit, nor think it's fair. But that's too bad for me. The standards for HOF were set very high and for good reason. You start expanding the list and where do you stop? Cases of comparable players who fall just a bit short will always be there, no matter where the line is drawn. Keep the standards high and leave them there.

I wanted to get a feel for what was being discussed here, so I went to HOF website to get some comparison #s. The site is awsome. I must admit, when I saw the list, I was stunned at how exclusive this club is. I therefore am changing my vote on Sutter to no. For those interested they have a page of videos to watch of about 100 players. When I saw the Walter Johnson video I got scared. He's been dead for 60 years and I haven't stepped in a batters box of any consequence for 17 years, and I still got scared. www.baseballhalloffame.or.../index.htm

Sutter, yes. Gossage, yes. Dominant players that changed the game as it's played today. Starting pitchers no longer consider complete games as a viable stat. Heck, it's an invisble stat now, because Sutter and Gossage changed they way managers approach their strategy. Now we have "quality start", "hold", "closer" and "save". Words that were not even part of the baseball vocabulary before these 2 came along(although Hoyt Wilhelm was considered a good "relief pitcher" just before Sutter's and Gossage's time, he wasn't considered a dominant player or a "closer"). Because you are such a big fan, Brettac1, it would be nice to see Santo get in. But many just can't see him in the same building as Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, Spahn, Koufax, Gibson, Musial, F.Robinson, et al. He just doesn't stack up with the dominant players of his age. It appears that he just played in the wrong era, where there were so many extraordinary players all playing at the same time. The "second tier" of superstars at that time are Mathews, Berra, Snyder, Ford, Drysdale, McCovey, Cepeda and Marichal. All of them, dominant players from teams that played in or won the World Series. One could argue that Santo was only the 2nd 3rd or 4th best player (Banks, Williams and later, Jenkins) on a team that never even won a pennant, he was never an MVP, and (please correct me if I am wrong), he never led his league in avg., rbi, homers or steals. He doesn't posess one of the magic numbers like 500 hrs, or 3,000 hits. If Ted Simmons' career #'s as a catcher, or Dick Allen's # as a 1b, can't even get them a sniff at the Hall, then Santo's comparable 3b career #'s have to lose steam when presented as an argument. Heck Bert Blyleven's #s as a pitcher are better than most current HOF pitchers, and he's not in yet. Was Santo a very, very good player? You bet. Dominant player? Nope, unfortunately not in his era. I know there are guys who did not have a truly dominant career like Red Shoendienst, Bill Mazeroski and Ralph Kiner in the HOF, but for every one of those, there are 20 truly dominant names listed with whom you wouldn't dare put Santo's name in the same sentence. Maybe the veterans committee will get him in based on his career stats(Simmons and Allen too), the writers seem to have turned their attention elsewhere.

Excellent point. The stat type guys can help me here, but very few guys in any year come out of high A ball and then eventually advance past AA ball. It wasn't even a minor gamble, it was a smart move. Prospects come from all over, not just draft picks. How about Mike Adams? Signed as a free agent after the Brewers drafted 50 guys in 2001, he was the first from that class to see the show. I guess we should should still be spending our time developing the quality draft picks from 2001, like 3rd rounder Jon Steitz, 5th rounder Judd Richardson, 6th rounder Calvin Carpenter and 7th rounder Taylor McCormack.

Mass The Brewers press release says they will assign Inman to Helena, but as they list the players at the bottom of the release is says he's assigned to AZ. Which is it? Aren't high school kids typically sent to AZ, at least to start out?

It may help our perspective in this to note that highly touted Roque Mercedes is #18 and hasn't thrown a pitch yet. Any new player starting in the top 10, before they've even seen a professional pitch is just unreasonable(reference the distinguished careers of Chad Green and Atone Williamson for background.) I agree with the early to mid teens sentiment.

Garrison (# 10) signed 2 days ago. That makes 4.

Can any Canadians sign this year, or are all of the visas used up for 2005? There was some legislation to expand the work visas proposed, what was that outcome?

1st Canadian drafted. Are there any visas left this year, or do we wait til 06?

You guys covered this in another thread, but maybe it should be added to this one for clarification: Players whose college season extends past the signing date can still be signed as DFE's. Teams have 48hrs after a player's season ends to sign them. So Timm can still be signed after Nebraska finishes their season.

Either Miller or Branyon is going down