Dtwncbad

That is a fantastic article.
The only big point that I think would have fit into it well is the fact that masking science has proven to be ahead of the testing.  How can anybody ignore Lance Armstrong?
How can anybody believe that players willing to take steroids would not also be willing to utilize the advancement in masking techniques to never get caught?
The point being we are all permanently trapped in a reality of never ever being able to really know if 5% of players were using PEDs or if it was 93%.
Common sense would tell me it would have been very prevalent among the bottom third of players fighting to have one good year before their one free agent contract, where the difference was either a one year deal for $750k or a three year deal that secures $2.2m.
No matter how much we want it to not be true, the PED ingredient has already been fully mixed into the dough and it can’t be taken out.
So we have little choice other than just accept that reality.

Does getting shot for porking a drug lord's wife count as character?

I have read the character language many times.  I personally believe it is there to ALLOW some consideration for positive influences as a teammate or clubhouse presence if that is truly part of a players value.
I think it is fair to say a guy with 2800 hits instead of 3000 can be as legitimate a HOFer as the 3000 hit guy if they were clearly a positive emotional leader on the field.  It sure seems to me that baseball wanted to have some language I there to allow that kind of consideration.
I do not think the subject of “character” was ever intended to disqualify a player that statistically is a no-brainer.

Do you “not care” about PEDs or would it be more accurate to say you accept that the use of PEDs was widespread and we have no mechanism to know who did and who didn’t use them. . . and believe that it is probably pretty reasonable to believe that when guys like Bonds were juiced in the batters box, the no-name middle reliever he was facing very well could have been also “juiced”?
I just can’t give in to believing that the problem was like 90% contained to high-profile famous sluggers, as most discussions on this subject seems to go.
I am “forgiving” of some of the big name guys labeled as cheaters (in the context of being HOF worthy) mostly because I absolutely don’t believe that the use of PEDs wasn’t far more widespread among starting pitchers and relievers across the league.  So did Bonds really have an “unfair” advantage when he was certainly facing juiced pitchers on a regular basis?
It just can’t be resolved in any fair way, so I kind of chalk it up to it simply being an embarrassing characteristic of an era in the game.
Do I like Barry Bonds?  No.  Outside of this subject, the guy was a complete dick.
But I also don’t want to measure his greatness by that either.
Anyway, I am curious if you somewhat just accept the PEDs as a widespread issue of an era in the game that can’t really be properly addressed or resolved by just conveniently persecuting a handful of the KNOWN “guilty” players.

With a full size wooden spoon, not the tiny lame one they replaced it with.

Olivia?

Ortiz was more of a complete player. He played for the Red Sox, people liked him, he had a nickname and his defense from the dugout was truly hall of fame.

So no Roger Clemens and no Barry Bonds but steroid user David Ortiz gets in on first ballot.
 
The Hall of Fame is a joke.

I refuse to give a crap about the HOF.  

Big Palmy

Sorry for not being super pumped up but sadly getting inducted means you are included in the “Hall of Players at Least Arguably Equivalent to Harold Baines.”
They have really messed this thing up over the last 25 years.
 
 

No issue with what you are saying.
My post was about my personal emotional recollection of how I felt with Carew up in critical situations and my (probably vague) recollection of how that normally worked out.
If Carew singled to extend the inning I was probably happy, of course.
All I am saying is the “clutch” moments we probably most remember over the years (building our opinions on how players are either clutch or not) are are less likely to be a guy slapping a single the other way to extend an inning versus a game winning double or home run.
That’s all.  Just saying Carew specific skill set would not make it easy on fans to view him as clutch compared to a Don Baylor or Bobby Grich or Brian Downing or Fred Lynn. . . .
My guess is most Angel fans have a lot more clutch moments stuck in their brains attached to players that have skill sets different than what Carew had.

Except you didn’t mention that today both sides agreed to have your ban expire at the All-Star break.

Funny I once met McBride and Abbott at the same time and we discussed this very subject.  In the end, we took a vote.  “Raise your right hand if you think the other guy was worse.”
The results were clear.

Carew, for me, will always be a Twin who played for the Angels.  With no logic, Nolan Ryan will always be an Angel who left because of a bad GM.

I heard Carew interviewed for janitor, but kept dropping the mop because of the way he insisted on hold it.
 

They have also completed and approved the final version of the Angel Hernandez model:

I don’t think it's weird. He's a part of the team's history and he's been appropriately honored and recognized.  That doesn't mean he should also have a role with the team.  There are only so many openings.  

They will also introduce a robot “manager”exclusively to handle any remaining disagreements with the robot umpires.

They will also introduce a robot “manager”exclusively to handle any remaining disagreements with the robot umpires.

They will also introduce a robot “manager”exclusively to handle any remaining disagreements with the robot umpires.

Technology paparazzi have also secured this photo of the almost released Eric Gregg model:
 

They have also completed and approved the final version of the Angel Hernandez model:

Need bigger!

They have also completed and approved the final version of the Angel Hernandez model: