I'm surprised this article from Heyman hasn't been posted yet: http://www.fanragsports.com/mlb/heymans-hall-fame-thoughts-bonds-bagwell-ballot/ Bagwell relevant portion:
To his credit, @jonheyman is interacting. Not always nicely, LOL... Actually, he's being rather patient and cool - while defending a terrible opinion.
Truly begs the question as to whether Jon even watched Bagwell play, or if he just glanced over the back of his baseball card. Even a cursory glance at his offensive numbers would show a career not driven by the long ball, let alone looking at his fielding and base running numbers.
That's not what he's arguing... (ahem - I hate defending him...) His point - and let me state, I could not disagree with it more strongly - is that Bagwell is a product of PEDs; Pudge is not. If there were no PEDs, Pudge, with his rifle-arm and defensive prowess, as well as bat that wasn't (necessarily) powerful, would be a HoF. Bagwell, essentially, was just a power hitter and, thus, his career was made by PEDs. Again, I vehemently disagree - but that's his opinion.
So this idiot is going to compare how often he hit a HR in the minors compared to what he did once he made the big leagues? When he was in the minors he was a young guy who had never really lifted a weight in his life. His body made a transformation after he started lifting. I am great friends with his old trainer, and all I know is Baggy was in One to One every single morning at 5 am busting his ass (I know because I was in there as well). I also know that his trainer would never endorse (or recommend) steroids. Baggy's head never ballooned up nor did he have acne on his back. It's funny how when you lift weights you gain muscle. Also screw this guilt by association as well (Cammy). If that's the case there's NO way that Jeter is getting in as the list of Yankee steroid players is extremely long (that Jeter played with). In regards to Sosa. Didn't one of his bats break in two one time and the bat was corked (let alone being named in the Mitchell report)?
He pretty clearly thinks Pudge is clean and Bagwell is not. His last bit in there is that even if was.
Hey Now, thank you for rattling this POS and being "persistent". I owe you numerous beers for everything you've done on Baggy's behalf!!!'
Which is ridiculous given that when asked if he failed the 2003 "secret" PED test Pudge replied "only god knows" or something to that effect all but admitting that he was using.
Maybe my favorite logic of all time: Bagwell was teammates with Caminiti = he must be guilty Canseco said Pudge used steroids = well, we can't judge off of hearsay
The man is entitled to his opinion, however what I'd like to say to him is this. Mr Heyman you have a job to do on behalf of the HOF, the players, and the fans (which is a privilege), and you ARE F@&KING IT UP because you aren't basing your decision on evidence but rather on "WHISPERS"? There's "whispers" on the street that you beat your wife and are into child p*rnography. So what do you have to say to these "whispers"? I will be writing the HOF to let them know this, and hopefully they'll strip you of your vote moving forward.
Great point. If voters want to effectuate a hypothetical association game to keep players out, then that association game should deny all players from the era. Steroids were in every clubhouse. Everyone knew. Hell, BBWAA voted in the commissioner who turned his eye on the issue. Voters swoon over the public image of players like Jeter, Griffey, Thomas, etc., but stop kidding yourselves. No voter truly knows those players' personal or business relationships. To deny Baggy based on speculation arising from his friendship with Cam is laughable, but hey, what else do you expect from Heyman. Logic and rational bases are not his forte.
Well would you look who got mentioned in this piece by Heyman!! "Since this an honor, not a punishment, I am going to go by what I know or think I know, not what someone at a greater distance (or is a fan of the team or player, @Bags4HoF is the most persistent) tells me is fair. To me, Bagwell’s case is very similar to Sosa’s. The fact that no one has taken up Sosa’s cause doesn’t change my thinking" http://bit.ly/2hO9q3u
I do not. Is it on the article? He's fairly active on Twitter; took quite a bit of abuse yesterday (and, to his credit, was very patient and engaging.)
