Joe Morgan, who has had no problem championing and being on stage with Pete Rose — violator of the ultimate sin in baseball — authored an email to Hall of Fame voters lobbying them to not induct candidates tied to steroids.
Morgan’s email sent Tuesday morning was signed with the title “Vice Chairman,” which he has been to the Hall’s board of directors since 2000 and a member of its board of directors since 1994.
It is no secret in the game that the institution of the Hall is unnerved by having the plaque gallery of its museum include those with obvious steroid ties and blowing up the illusion of it as a bucolic wonderland for the game — and potentially keeping patrons away. And, really, this is about Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, two huge personalities inching ever closer to induction and potentially destroying the business model of the Hall.
If you need translations, here are two:
No. 1: Cha-ching.
No. 2: Morgan can now also enter the Hall of Hypocrisy — his speech can be all about conflict of loyalties (to former Reds teammates) and interests (as an officer of the Hall).
The baseball Hall of Fame, more than every other Hall combined, is the most meaningful and cherished by its fans. The debate and furor surrounding who gets in and who doesn’t is more intense than most major political elections in this country. It means people care.
It also means that, like everything else in this nation’s life now, it is polarizing. There are no easy answers for how to cast a vote. The passion of those who line up on the side of “just vote for the best players regardless of confessions or innuendo” is as powerful as those opposed.
If you are a voter — and I am — you are going to be called an idiot and/or soulless by lots and lots of people. This is part of the deal now. If you can’t take it, don’t vote. I would rather have the fervor that shows how important this is to people than have indifference.
Just know it is not easy to decide what to do even if you have turned into a Hall of Fame Eliot Ness like Joe Morgan. After all, he wrote in his email missive: “Players who failed drug tests, admitted using steroids, or were identified as users in Major League Baseball’s investigation into steroid abuse, known as the Mitchell Report, should not get in. Those are the three criteria that many of the players and I think are right.”
By that standard, Sammy Sosa is fine to be voted upon.
When I requested to speak to Morgan about his letter, a Hall spokesperson said he is unavailable because it speaks for itself. It does? The spokesman said the Hall of Famers are leading this charge and that the Hall only provided “administrative support.” Whatever that is, because “administrative support” reads much like institutional desire.
And what an interesting messenger to offer up these sentiments.
Morgan, Johnny Bench and Mike Schmidt — after seeing in 1999 how Rose was cheered as part of the All-Century team — met with Bud Selig to reconsider Rose’s ban for gambling on baseball. I would dare say if Morgan goes to a ceremony in San Francisco, he would see Barry Bonds cheered wildly, same for Mark McGwire in St. Louis. Everyone loves their guy despite the evidence (again, a lot like politics).
Morgan was too sick to personally attend Rose’s induction into the Reds Hall of Fame in 2016, but sent along a video congratulations. He was part of the ceremony in 2017 to unveil Rose’s statue at Great American Ballpark.
So if this is actually Morgan’s letter/sentiments, should we assume those who gamble on baseball should be OK for us to vote upon, but not someone in the incredibly flawed Mitchell Report? This would be something I would ask Morgan if he had not made himself unavailable.
Here are some other things I would ask:
1. You mention that Hall of Famers might not attend induction ceremonies if “steroid users get in.” Is this blackmail? By the way, I didn’t notice Hall of Famers stay away from the inductions of Mike Piazza and Jeff Bagwell, and there has been a lot of suspicion on those guys. Unless you would like to get on the phone and tell me otherwise, Joe, I will put you down similar to fans who say they are never going to watch another game after a labor dispute, but come back, same as ever.
2. You admit this is a “tricky issue,” but that you trust the voters to navigate it. Don’t you think we are? You act in your email as if this is a new issue (“a day we all knew was coming has now arrived”). Interestingly, this letter was not penned five years ago, when Bonds and Clemens were receiving one-third of the vote, but on the brink of another election after both exceeded 50 percent last year.
For what it is worth, voters have been struggling for years to decide who might have cheated, what it means to cheat, what it means to have played clean, what it might mean if a guy cheated for a small window, what it means if players who cheated, say, hit off of guys who also did. Yep, that is just a few. It is a tricky issue.
3. In your email, you break out the voting guidelines that include “integrity, sportsmanship, character” to be considered. How do you feel about that with Rose? How about guys who took amphetamines during your playing days? How about racists? Misogynists? How about players who built up stats never having to face players of color?
Yep, it is a tricky issue, Joe, one, by the way, you didn’t make any less tricky with this dumb email.