infrared41

So it's fine if us civilians decide to stay somewhere for the lifestyle and weather even though we know things might be better and more lucrative elsewhere, but ballplayers hurt their legacies if they do the same thing?

Rafael Palmeiro has entered the chat.

On that we are in complete agreement. To make infrared41's Baseball Hall of Fame & Outlet Store, you have to be at the "holy , that guy was amazing" level. Anything less is just a memorabilia display filled with a bunch of Larry Walkers and Fred McGriffs.

When did "garnering attention" become a requirement for being a Major League Baseball player?

If we're going by today's standards, I agree. If we're going by my standards, the number of HOFers would drop from the current 346 to about 200 and that's being generous. Belle and Lofton, two of my all-time favorite Clevelands, have no business being in the HOF.

Using your own logic, that was his choice, right?

I respect your honesty. We can say that about A LOT of HOF players. Did Craig Biggio change the game or shape its history? How about Larry Walker? Jack Morris? Harold Baines? Todd Helton? Fred McGriff? Alan Trammel? (FWIW, I wouldn't have inducted any of the players I just mentioned.) I mean, we could do this all day. Off the top of my head, I'd have a harder time coming up with 20 HOF players who did do those things. I'm sure there are plenty, but they don't come to mind as easily as the players who didn't. All that aside, I'm fine with anyone who has almost ridiculouslyhigh standards for the Baseball HOF . It's nice knowing I'm not the only one.

And he chose the Angels. I don't have an issue with that.

The suit may need a little tweaking, but other than that, I like it.

Do journalists not like Mike Trout? When did marketability become part of the criteria for the HOF? I've seen plenty of videos of Mike Trout going out of his way to sign autographs for kids and fans. How much more engaging does he need to be? Now we're blaming MLB's lousy marketing on Mike Trout's personality? C'mon, dude, I've seen you make way better arguments than this one.

I added Vet to this post so you don't feel like you're being picked on. Now that we have have out of the way... You're both wrong. Mike Trout's relevance and his impact on the game have nothing to do with his ability as a ball player. His lack of "games that matter" can hardly be blamed on him. It takes a team to get to the playoffs. It's not his fault he plays for a organization. His numbers are his numbers. They are what they are. We can't cheer players on for taking all the money they can get and then hold it against them when the team they took the money from turns out to be terrible.

So are we rewarding Banks for being born too soon or are we punishing Trout for being born too late? Unless there's a rule change I don't know about, a home run hit in 1962 counts the same as a home run hit today. Pretty sure that applies to all the other stats too.

And that makes him a better player how, exactly?

Kinda like another irrelevant superstar who played his entire career with the Cubs and never experienced a "moment that truly mattered." His name was Ernie Banks. Maybe you've heard of him. Players get inducted into the HOF for individual achievement. Last I checked, there isn't relevancy requirement.

As opposed to his philanthropic endeavors?? He's also said to be a snappy dresser.

It's one game of 162. Let's see where they both are after 20-25 games.

They need to trade that poor bastard. Send him somewhere that he'll be of use to a team.

I can live with that.

Preach, brother.

That's what I thought. It's also why I said "take this with a grain of salt." Maybe I should have used a bigger font and put it in bold.

White facemasks are already back.

He's also a co-host on a pretty popular podcast in Cleveland. I'm not saying he's right, thus my "take it with a grain of salt" disclaimer, but he's not a guy who just makes things up for engagement. His Browns news is pretty legit.

Best I can tell, the orange masks are only going to be an alternate. For now, anyway. That said, the Browns are always gonna Browns. 'Twas ever thus.

Take this with a grain of salt...

Let's make it interesting and allow the road teams to bring their animal too. Tell me Panthers - Lions wouldn't be a straight up banger. Then again, Rams - Jaguars could get pretty ugly. Bears - Bengals would be an epic battle. I guess we'd need a tank for the Dolphins. Turning an eagle and a falcon loose in a domed stadium could be fun. Teams without animal names can opt for using the gorilla. Only if they have no idea where the cannon balls are going to go. Aiming takes all the fun out if it. Let's keep it equal and random. I don't see the problem with this.