Clemens Says He "May" Boycott HOF Ceremony

Maybe because baseball players are the most superstitious players in all of sport?

(Love the "Clemens lovers" label by the way, very dramatic)

 

So let's say that Clemens was going to pitch against Boston in his 2nd attempt for 300. Do you think he'd only wear the #300 glove for the Boston game? He would have worn that glove no matter who he faced. You're just being a crybaby Red Sox fan in thinking that everything he does is meant to spite your team.

 

I guess I don't understand where the problem lies. Clemens, the first time he went for #300, tried to wear a glove that had a patch commemorating the achievement. Grady Little complained and he had to switch gloves. So what? Do you think he only wore that glove because it was against the Red Sox or what? There is absolutely no reason for him to try to wear the glove again knowing what the reaction to it was the first time.

I don't understand how that could be considered "shrewd". It had nothing to do with who they were playing, only with what the start could've ended up in...his 300th win.

Jeez, talk about making something out of nothing.

 

Interesting articles on ESPN today. Here is a question. Can a historical museum (such as the Hall claims iteself as) be sued for defaming a person's character.

For example, let's say Richard Jewel's photo was placed in the Smithsonian as remembering the olympic bombing. Could they be sued? clearly he was a part of history, but clearly the wrong message is being sent doing him harm.

The Clemens scenario would be interesting. In essence I'm wondering if Clemens could sue. He has no desire to be associated with the Red Sox and by putting him in a Red Sox hat they would essentially be destroying his image and profiting from it. At the same time harming him because every single person passing through is going to make some comment about that hat.

Just curious if he's protected consitutionally or by some law.

And can you deny wanting to be part of the museum? Just out of curiosity.

 

They COULD be sued, but it would have to be extreme circumstances.

The Richard Jewel example is probably a bad once because if he were in the Smithsonian as part of an Olympic Park exhibit, he'd be referred to as a "suspect later acquitted", which would be accurate. Now if they said "Richard Jewel, Terrorist" that's another story.

Putting him in as a Red Sox while he does not love that idea isn't defaming his character, it's historically proven he was a Red Sox. Now if he said that he found the St. Louis Cardinals offensive, and the Hall put him in as a Cardinal, he could sue, since he was never a Cardinal.

 

THeres a cause of action in many states for "false light publicity", I can't remember the details of it, but that might qualify in the Jewel example you cited.

Clemens however, could not make such a claim because he really couldn't show any damages from it that I am aware of.

 

I don't particularly care for Jayson Stark, but he's right on the money this time. Pay special attention to the quotes by the HOF official:


http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1569261.html
So Roger Clemens says he wants a Yankees cap on his Hall of Fame plaque, huh?

Well, at least he didn't say he wanted a Nike cap, a Katy (Texas) Golf & Country Club cap or a "This Space Available" cap.

We know the people at the Hall of Fame really appreciate Roger's input on this. And we know his favorite employer, George Steinbrenner, appreciates it even more. But if Clemens thinks he's going to get his way on this one, we sure do wish him luck.

"We're a history museum," Jeff Idelson, vice president of communications and education for the Hall of Fame, said last month. "So the logo on a player's cap is important to us from a historical-representation standpoint. We want the logo to be emblematic of where this player made his most indelible mark."

So where did Roger Clemens make his most indelible mark? Sorry, friends. Toronto, Ontario, and Austin, Texas, are not on the ballot. We all know the answer to that question, don't we? Even Clemens undoubtedly knows the answer.

It just isn't the answer he prefers -- because it happens to be a town in New England where he didn't exactly ride off on a parade float.

Oh, we'll grant that Clemens made a visible mark for himself as a Yankee. He has won two World Series and one Cy Young Award as a Yankee. He was wearing a Yankees cap when he joined the 300-Win Club and 4,000-Strikeout Club last week.

But did he make his most indelible mark as a Yankee? Be serious, will ya?

In Boston, Clemens is the all-time franchise leader in wins (tied with Cy Young), innings, strikeouts, shutouts, starts and double-figure strikeout games. He led the Red Sox in wins in more seasons (eight) than Ted Williams led the Red Sox in RBI (six).

On the other hand, he has led the Yankees in wins once -- or fewer times than Fritz Peterson. He's 33rd on the Yankees' all-time wins list, with 67 -- or fewer than Jack Warhop, Tiny Bonham and George Pipgras.

True, Clemens is just the second pitcher to win his 300th game as a Yankee. But the other was Phil Niekro -- and we're obliged to report that he didn't go into the Hall of Fame with an "NY" on his plaque. So if the magic words are "indelible mark," it's hard to think there could be any letter on Clemens' Hall of Fame cap besides a "B."

"What we don't want to end up with," Idelson said, "is a decision that doesn't make sense 50 years from now when someone walks into the Hall of Fame. Fifty years from now, the logo on the cap will have to represent where the player made his most indelible mark. If you make the wrong decision, it would be like walking into the Hall now and seeing Ty Cobb in a Philadelphia A's cap ... or Babe Ruth in a Brooklyn Dodgers cap."

So what constitutes the "right decision?" If history is any guide, Clemens won't want to read this history book.

We found 15 current franchises that have their all-time leading winner in the Hall of Fame. Only two aren't in there wearing that team's cap. One is Eddie Plank (Athletics), who went with the incognito no-logo look. The other, by a truly remarkable coincidence, is the pitcher tied with Clemens for most Red Sox wins -- Cy Young.

We're sure many people from Pawtucket to Orono are still bitter that Young headed into the hall wearing his Cleveland Naps cap instead of his Red Sox cap. But this is a different situation than Clemens' -- because Young actually won more games with the Naps (241) than he did for the Red Sox (191). So it ain't personal. It's pure mathematics.

At least the Hall is always willing to "take the player's views into account," Idelson said. So if Clemens knows any good speech writers, we suggest he hire one.

The Hall also carefully considers where a player won his awards, his contributions to each team he played for, and which teams he played for in the postseason. So obviously, Clemens' New York and Boston years will both be perused.

But whatever they decide, there's another factor to be considered here, too. Namely: WHO CARES?

It isn't as if the plaque will ignore the teams that aren't on Clemens' cap. Don Sutton pitched for five teams, and they're all in there. Eddie Murray's plaque will mention his glorious Mets years -- and even his not-so-glorious 160-at-bat Angels cameo.

In fact, Idelson said, "I'm willing to bet that if I gave you a list of 10 guys in the Hall, you probably couldn't even tell me what logo is on their cap."

Hey, try this game at home. Here are a few: Hoyt Wilhelm, Lefty Grove, Rod Carew, or even Nolan Ryan. Who knows? Who really cares?

Of course, maybe Clemens is different, because he's so tangled up in the great Red Sox-Yankees passions of his time. So this is clearly important to him, important to Steinbrenner, important to all those New Englanders with a lifelong Yankees inferiority complex. But does any New Yorker care that Gary Carter won't enter the Hall with a Mets cap on his plaque? We sure haven't met any.

"The bottom line," Idelson said, "is, we're a history museum. So we have to do what's historically correct."

And to determine what's historically correct here, they won't have to hire Doris Kearns Goodwin as a consultant. For no charge whatsoever, we'll be happy to inform Clemens he's going down in history as a Bostonian. Just like Yaz, the Kennedys and Commissioner Gammons. So we suggest he pop a cold Sam Adams and accept his fate.

 

And in this situation, the game's rules are just stupid. Who the hell is MLB to tell anyone what hat/jersey they should wear, as if they know a player's fondest memories of his career.

Clemens might be an ass, but I'm not gonna hate on him just cause every other baseball player was dumb enough to go along with this stupid tradition and be told how others should rememeber their career. If Clemens isn't happy about how MLB wants to remember him, then it is his right to complain about it and not show up. Last time I checked, this is a free country (as long as what you do dosen't hurt others). Does Clemens deciding to be rememebered as a Yankee affect your life at all??

 

This makes it sound that it's all about the player. Perhaps, maybe, it's also about the fans. Or about baseball. Great ESPN article, Buck.

Clemens situation is somewhat unique in that many in Boston don't like him, but...

I'd hate a situation where an owner and a player have a falling out. The player then pouts, stamps his feet, and asks to represent his 'new' team, and the fans who supported him during his HOF accomplishments are ignored.

As Manny pointed out, if he doesn't want to attend the ceremony, great -- whatever -- but he should have at least some respect and humility for the game when he is being honoured in this way.

Gary Carter made his preference known, but then accepted his induction as an Expo. That's the way it should be.

 

I heard someone make a good point this morning...sorry if it's already been made here....

the Hall of Fame is a museum...museums don't let their subjects determine how they will be showcased. wade boggs ruined all of this when he tried to enter the hall of fame as a devil ray. ridiculous. from that point forward, in order to maintain some modicum of integrity, there was no way you could keep giving the choice to the player. it's the curator's job, now. as it should be, in my opinion.

 

I don't agree with leaving the decision up to the Hall. They should allow the players to choose who they go in with as long as it is within reason. I look at it similarly to the way Justices are supposed to be approved for the high courts. You only deny the players choice when it is totally out of left field, otherwise, let the guy choose...

 

man, i wish you'd pass that on to the democrats in congress!