If I had a vote these two would both go in first ballot. All the issues notwithstanding, they never made a travesty of the sport by betting on games they were playing in. Lord knows how many times I’ve needed some uncut Colombian on a Monday morning after blogging for an entire weekend with no sleep.
The only difference between they and I is that the major leaguers can afford the drugs they take. If anybody would like to contribute to my drug habit blogging you can always PayPal me – bluecheese28@hotmail.com.
That was when I got into baseball cards and I had collected the 87 topps set in doubles. Fucking fantastic set. Check that classy wood grain background.
’87 Barry and ’87 Mark say: our body mass escalates like black death rates.
Barry would go on my first ballot. Not Mark. I think Mike Schmidt was on ‘roids too.
Nice post.
I think that you are forgetting one. You’ve gotta show Chi-town some love!
http://www.sammysosa.info/images/sosa_score.jpg
true on all counts.
but…fellow bloggers be poor.
all i got to spare are opinions and free webspace courtesy of blogspot.
LM,
I really doubt Schmidt was on steroids. Yes, he’s gone on record defending Bonds and has said that he would probably have used them if he was playing in this era… but he wasn’t in this era.
He was bashing a ton of homers from when he was 24 years old in the mid 70s. I don’t think dude’s G was that futuristic that he would have been on steroids 20 years before the rest of baseball. Plus I don’t remember seeing him undergo the bizarre physical transformations of Bonds and McGwire. His head never became the size of a disco ball.
Schmidt was mos def amp’ed up or coked up.
My point is that these dudes didn’t ruin the sancticty or legitimacy of the game by their actions. A dude betting on his team not to cover the spread is a problem. especially when he’s the manager
amphetamines and/or coke .. now that sounds like a mike schmidt accusation i can get down with.