Is the Hall of Fame a victim of silly idealism?

22 Comments

Tom Boswell of the Washington Post was asked about the Hall of Fame cases for baseball’s black sheep in a Q&A today: Joe Jackson, Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Manny Ramirez.  His answer says an awful lot about why the Hall of Fame discussion has gotten so rancorous and complicated in recent years:

I haven’t voted for the Hall in about 10 years. A wise Post decision not to allow us to do it. I’d never vote for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire or now Manny.

But I think it’s obvious that the baseball Hall of Fame will never be what it once was — a kind of perfect otherworldy place that you visited with no complex feelings, just childlike pleasure. That’s gone. I thanks the players union for that, with Selig and the owners a fairly close second.

A “perfect otherworldy place that you visited with no complex feelings, just childlike pleasure?”  Really? When?

While not a voter himself, my guess is that Boswell is not alone in holding the Hall of Fame and, by extension, candidates who become eligible for induction, to so impossibly high a standard. It’s exactly that impossibly high standard that has caused Hall of Fame voters to tie themselves into knots in recent years.

How about this: the Hall of Fame is an outstanding museum that has a room in which guys who excelled at the game get honored. I won’t say that it’s nothing more than that — there is some emotional/historical weight to it beyond any other part of the museum — but it’s not something upon which your youthful idealism should be pegged.

In no event, however, is it fair to the candidates, nor does it reflect particularly well on the voters, for the voters to lay their childhood baggage on the institution.

Report: Mets have discussed a Matt Harvey trade with at least two teams

Al Bello/Getty Images
2 Comments

Kristie Ackert of the New York Daily News reports that the Mets have discussed a trade involving starter Matt Harvey with at least two teams. Apparently, the Mets were even willing to move Harvey for a reliever.

The Mets tendered Harvey a contract on December 1. He’s entering his third and final year of arbitration eligibility and will likely see a slight bump from last season’s salary of $5.125 million. As a result, there was some thought going into late November that the Mets would non-tender Harvey.

Harvey, 28, made 18 starts and one relief appearance last year and had horrendous results. He put up a 6.70 ERA with a 67/47 K/BB ratio in 92 2/3 innings. Between his performance, his impending free agency, and his injury history, the Mets aren’t likely to get much back in return for Harvey. Even expecting a reliever in return may be too lofty.

Along with bullpen help, the Mets also need help at second base, first base, and the outfield. They don’t have many resources with which to address those needs. Ackert described the Mets’ resources as “a very limited stash of prospects” and “limited payroll space.”