Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

I do. Santo's a turd.

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

Quote:

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

hootmon wrote:

Quote:

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

Obviously none if that team was in the 80's NHL. For the 60's MLB this is an unfair argument when the only playoffs they had was a Final Four. To make things fair, kickout or re-evaluate any hall of famer whose team(s) never made it to a Final Four.

TheIntangibles wrote:

hootmon wrote:

Quote:

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

They only had a final four only one year in the 60s, thats 1969. 1960-1968 was if you had the best record in your leauge, you made the WS.

But still, that's not excuse because didn't the rest of the teams in MLB that decade play by the same rules?

HawaiiYou wrote:

TheIntangibles wrote:

hootmon wrote:

Quote:

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

******************************************************
My problem is more modern era players who got in after 1969 might be voting against someone like Santo with that playoff argument, which would be hypocritical. Then they would be favoring one era, their own, over another, the oldies, so why not just vote for ourselves. I smell 72 Dolphin stench coming out of the Vets bunch.

Good point on the 69 final four.
To make that playoff argument fair across all generations, then only stars from Final Two teams are considered. Screw everybody, not just the oldies.

Objectively, Id rather say consider each player based on his own numbers and merit. A team can have as many Sayers' and Butkuses (Banks', Williams', Jenkins' etc) and still flounder due to any number of reasons of incompetence.
And then there's the Phil Rizzuto standards. Oh well.

Everybody is making a big deal - including Murph - about this veterans committe not electing anyone to the Hall of Fame in their 6 year existense.

Well. There is a reason for that. They are boarder line players if they get to the veterans commitee. The "no brainer" guys are voted in by the writers long before it gets to the Vets.

Maybe these players just agree with the writers. Although I'm sure there is a factor of being an exclusive club.

If Santo didn't campaighn for 20 years I would be happy for him. Because he whines and lobbies for it every year I'm glad he doesn't get rewarded for that.

He's boarder line. Which means it depends on each individual voter. But hey alot of these guys played with him so they saw him alot.

FUCK RON SANTO!! - A7X

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

...stumping for his induction

HawaiiYou wrote:

TheIntangibles wrote:

hootmon wrote:

Quote:

I smell 72 Dolphin stench coming out of the Vets bunch.

.

chus wrote:

How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

That should have nothing to do with someone makin the Hall. Making the Hall is an individual acheivement, not team, so it shouldnt matter if the Cubs ever won. Santo is definitely right on the fence as far as making it into the Hall. For me the thing that says he should be there is the fact that Brooks Robinson is in. The numbers are right there so if Brooks is in then Ronnie should be in also.

I would think he did a sufficient job in pissing them off by being a complete ass hat.

Author:	schmitty1121 [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Santo
You knew it was coming, and now Murph is on his rant about Santo. People don't like him because all he does is bitch and moan about the Hall of Fame, and he sucks at his job on the radio. If they were smart they would just let him sit in the radio booth, but don't give him a mic, or give it to him, but don't plug it in or turn it on. 95% of the time, if not more, he doesn't know who is batting or pitching, or how many outs or the count. Its time to get a real broadcast on the radio.

Author:	FredsMissingNuts [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm a Cub fan, but I dont want to hear this Santo crap. I give the guy credit for overcoming his hurdles with his health, but at this point, I could cre less if he gets in and he shouldnt care either, he a few good years left, enjoy what you can control.

Author:	Chus [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:
How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ?

Author:	Beardown [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Murph sounds like a child. Murph - Sox fans. You don't like Ronnie because you hate the Cubs. Nah. Nah. Grow up Murph you idiot. Most Sox fans don't care you ass wipe. You make it so black and white. Santo's not the Saint you portray him as either. Somebody needs to develope a time machine and permanently put Murph back in 1969. Put him in the bleachers with hig bugle and a beer. He can be young again too. And yell "Go Ronnie Go. Yeah Cubbies. Weeee." Let it be one day and just run it on a loop for Murph. Like the movie Ground Hog day. Only unlike Bill Murray and his frustration that he's living the same day over and over again. Murph will be perfectly happy to run this same day of him in the bleachers over and over. He'd never get sick of it.

Author:	Curious Hair [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:
"Have fun laughing at the legless SOB." Tell 'em, Murph. This sucks for Santo. I don't hold anything against him, don't really mind his bad broadcasting, and I'm upset with this decision. But yeah, I gotta step out of the Boers/Bernstein lockstep on this one. I don't feel like laughing at "that legless SOB" like they do.

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Santo https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=156&t=10145	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Sleuth [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:
I do. Santo's a turd.

Author:	Beardown [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Cmon Murph. People were laughing at Santo long before he lossed his legs.

Author:	Curious Hair [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I do. Santo's a turd. Big shock here.

Author:	Brian's Mojito [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
I thought Santo said at his number retirement ceremony that this honor was more important than the Hall of Fame. Then a few weeks ago, he resumes his love for wanting to be in the Hall. Sorry, but I'm growing tired of this -- and Murph's whining also. I was born on the 10th, and as a child, adored Ron Santo. I switched my loyalties to the South Side when Ron was traded to the White Sox. I remain a White Sox, but I'm not upset with Santo going back to the North Side and drinking the Cubbie Kool-Aid. It just makes me uneasy when I hear him stumping for his induction -- a little too selfish for my taste. No, I'm not cheering up and down with this news. I don't hate Ron Santo -- like half of the city (according to Murph). I also am not bitter with the Veterans Committee. Murph's reasoning about voters want to keep more of the money from autograph signings is laughable. Isn't it ironic that the signature shot of "This Old Cub" is probably the main reason for this snub. I still believe Santo is perceived as a jerk to many former players. Also, didn't he rip one of his teammates -- outfielder Don Young -- for a dropped flyball?

Author:	Beardown [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Everybody is making a big deal - including Murph - about this veterans committe not electing anyone to the Hall of Fame in their 6 year existense. Well. There is a reason for that. They are boarder line players if they get to the veterans commitee. The "no brainer" guys are voted in by the writers long before it gets to the Vets. Maybe these players just agree with the writers. Although I'm sure there is a factor of being an exclusive club. If Santo didn't campaighn for 20 years I would be happy for him. Because he whines and lobbies for it every year I'm glad he doesn't get rewarded for that. He's boarder line. Which means it depends on each individual voter. But hey alot of these guys played with him so they saw him alot.

Author:	hootmon [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? I think that's a big part of the problem here. Banks, Williams and Fergie are in. I think voters probably don't want to start the rush for too many others of these Cubs

Author:	HawaiiYou [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:06 pm ]
Post subject:
wowow! Finally a board where if you critisize santo, you don't get tarred and feathered. I am a cubs fan and santo was before my time, but I am too sick of this santo b.s. and the whole damn 69 team. The self promotion is the biggest thing that turns me off about Santo. Ever since I was a kid, they've praised santo and that 69 team like they won 5 world championships. I never understood it. That team FREAKING LOST. And yes......... I think it does hurt that that team never got to a WS or even a damn Playoff Series. Maybe if Santo gets into the HOF, in some werido subconcious way, the 69 generation will take it as a subsitution of the World Series they never got to that year.

Author:	Hawkeye Vince [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:
As my buddy told me today in jest He had a leg up on the competition.... He almost had a foot in the door.... Two drink minimum, try the veal.

Author:	TheIntangibles [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:
hootmon wrote: Quote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? Obviously none if that team was in the 80's NHL. For the 60's MLB this is an unfair argument when the only playoffs they had was a Final Four. To make things fair, kickout or re-evaluate any hall of famer whose team(s) never made it to a Final Four.

Author:	cooler [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:53 am ]
Post subject:
bigguscattus wrote: ...stumping for his induction a truly fine fine turn of a phrase (whether the pun was intentional or not)

Author:	Keyser Soze [ Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:
Phil Rogers wrote that Santo will have a good shot in '09?? How many chances is this piece of shit going to get?? 0-16 isn't enough?? GO THE PHUCK AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	HawaiiYou [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:50 pm ]
Post subject:
TheIntangibles wrote: hootmon wrote: Quote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? Obviously none if that team was in the 80's NHL. For the 60's MLB this is an unfair argument when the only playoffs they had was a Final Four. To make things fair, kickout or re-evaluate any hall of famer whose team(s) never made it to a Final Four. They only had a final four only one year in the 60s, thats 1969. 1960-1968 was if you had the best record in your leauge, you made the WS. But still, that's not excuse because didn't the rest of the teams in MLB that decade play by the same rules?

Author:	TheIntangibles [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:
HawaiiYou wrote: TheIntangibles wrote: hootmon wrote: Quote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? They only had a final four only one year in the 60s, thats 1969. 1960-1968 was if you had the best record in your leauge, you made the WS. But still, that's not excuse because didn't the rest of the teams in MLB that decade play by the same rules? ****************************************************** My problem is more modern era players who got in after 1969 might be voting against someone like Santo with that playoff argument, which would be hypocritical. Then they would be favoring one era, their own, over another, the oldies, so why not just vote for ourselves. I smell 72 Dolphin stench coming out of the Vets bunch. Good point on the 69 final four. To make that playoff argument fair across all generations, then only stars from Final Two teams are considered. Screw everybody, not just the oldies. Objectively, Id rather say consider each player based on his own numbers and merit. A team can have as many Sayers' and Butkuses (Banks', Williams', Jenkins' etc) and still flounder due to any number of reasons of incompetence. And then there's the Phil Rizzuto standards. Oh well.

Author:	HawaiiYou [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:
TheIntangibles wrote: HawaiiYou wrote: TheIntangibles wrote: hootmon wrote: Quote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? They only had a final four only one year in the 60s, thats 1969. 1960-1968 was if you had the best record in your leauge, you made the WS. But still, that's not excuse because didn't the rest of the teams in MLB that decade play by the same rules? ****************************************************** My problem is more modern era players who got in after 1969 might be voting against someone like Santo with that playoff argument, which would be hypocritical. Then they would be favoring one era, their own, over another, the oldies, so why not just vote for ourselves. I smell 72 Dolphin stench coming out of the Vets bunch. Good point on the 69 final four. To make that playoff argument fair across all generations, then only stars from Final Two teams are considered. Screw everybody, not just the oldies. Objectively, Id rather say consider each player based on his own numbers and merit. A team can have as many Sayers' and Butkuses (Banks', Williams', Jenkins' etc) and still flounder due to any number of reasons of incompetence. And then there's the Phil Rizzuto standards. Oh well. It's a joke Rizzuto is in the hall. The only reason was bec. he played in NY. If Santo had played in NY intead of the cubs, he would have been in the HOF years ago.

Author:	A7X [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Beardown wrote: Everybody is making a big deal - including Murph - about this veterans committe not electing anyone to the Hall of Fame in their 6 year existense. Well. There is a reason for that. They are boarder line players if they get to the veterans commitee. The "no brainer" guys are voted in by the writers long before it gets to the Vets. Maybe these players just agree with the writers. Although I'm sure there is a factor of being an exclusive club. If Santo didn't campaighn for 20 years I would be happy for him. Because he whines and lobbies for it every year I'm glad he doesn't get rewarded for that. He's boarder line. Which means it depends on each individual voter. But hey alot of these guys played with him so they saw him alot. Great post Beardown. You should send it to that dickhead Levine. My sig sums up how I feel.

Author:	TheIntangibles [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:
A7X wrote: FUCK RON SANTO!! - A7X Always wondered, do legless diabetics make a good lay? --Heather Mills

Author:	Bud Dude [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:
chus wrote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? That should have nothing to do with someone makin the Hall. Making the Hall is an individual acheivement, not team, so it shouldnt matter if the Cubs ever won. Santo is definitely right on the fence as far as making it into the Hall. For me the thing that says he should be there is the fact that Brooks Robinson is in. The numbers are right there so if Brooks is in then Ronnie should be in also.

Author:	KDdidit [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't remember all this this hate the last time he didn't get in. First of all I am a Cub fan and I do think he should be in the HOF so I'll get that out there, but if Cooperstown burns to the ground tomorrow it wouldn't bother me at all. You have the players committee that doesn't care for any one that already isn't in there. You have the writers that can't even find anyone worth unanimously voting in. There's also the writers that think it's important that they make the distinction of who is a "first-ballot" hall of famer and who isn't. Then you have the people who use their ballot to make a point, like who ever the guy was that didn't vote for anyone last time because of the "steroid era." Dope all of them and their self-serving over-inflated egos.

Author:	Bud Dude [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:10 am ]
Post subject:
Dont usually think much of Telander but great article in today's paper. All the numbers right there for you. If those facts dont say Hall of Fame then I dont know what does.

Author:	good dolphin [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:22 am ]
Post subject:
TheIntangibles wrote: HawaiiYou wrote: TheIntangibles wrote: hootmon wrote: Quote: I smell 72 Dolphin stench coming out of the Vets bunch. . I imagine back in that year that I was able to lay down a pretty good stench.

Author:	Chus [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:58 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: chus wrote: How many Hall of Famers should there be from a team that couldn't make the playoffs one time ? That should have nothing to do with someone makin the Hall. Making the Hall is an individual acheivement, not team, so it shouldnt matter if the Cubs ever won. Santo is definitely right on the fence as far as making it into the Hall. For me the thing that says he should be there is the fact that Brooks Robinson is in. The numbers are right there so if Brooks is in then Ronnie should be in also. Whether or not you think it should matter, it does. How many Yankees are in simply because of their postseason success. How many Reds from the Big Red Machine? Postseason accomplishments are part of the equation.

Author:	HawaiiYou [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:
HOF should include ONLY Legendary players. I dont think Santo was a Legendary player. But on the other hand, the HOF has a lot of players n there that ARE NOT Legends. I dont know what Santo did when he was a player to piss off so many of these fellow players. Any have any ideas? Did they all get pissed at him for clicking his heels or cursing out Don Young?

Author:	Sleuth [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:
I would think he did a sufficient job in pissing them off by being a complete ass hat.

Author:	HawaiiYou [ Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:
Sleuth wrote: I would think he did a sufficient job in pissing them off by being a complete ass hat. I never seen him play. Was he like the AJ Persinski of his time?