Hall Call: Voters Weigh In on Manny

FanHouse is home to seven Hall of Fame voters, so rather than debate Manny Ramirez's legacy endlessly, we went straight to the source -- the people who will have a say, at least partly, in how he will go down in baseball history.

Join us after the jump as our voters discuss their feelings on the revelation that Ramirez violated Major League Baseball's drug policy and how it will impact his case for Cooperstown.

Ed Price: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

To me, if a player cheated, or if I have reason to believe he did, then he doesn't have the "integrity, sportsmanship [or] character" to be in the Hall of Fame. It doesn't matter when in his career he cheated; cheating speaks to integrity and nulls everything done on the field.

A player has no right to due process here. And I prefer to err on the side of keeping people out rather than letting cheaters win.

I am judging him as a player. He cheated. That's not off-the-field character issues, that's sports integrity.

Jay Mariotti: As a gold-card-carrying member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, I cannot in good conscience give Ramirez a Hall of Fame pass any more than I can Clemens, Bonds, Rafael Palmeiro or Mark McGwire, whom I've rejected -- like the vast majority of voting writers -- on three straight ballots. Ramirez has blown a wonderful opportunity for direct entry into Cooperstown, despite his questionable past.

Dan Graziano: For me, it's strictly case-by-case. I know it sounds almost like a cop-out, but my plan is really to evaluate each guy, based on what I know and what I believe, as to whether he deserves to be in or not. But I'm also a hard-liner. McGwire hasn't passed that test for me yet, and I don't believe that Clemens, Bonds, A-Rod or Manny would pass it if I had to decide on them this very afternoon. For me, guys who cheated in an effort to become Hall of Famers aren't worthy of induction.

I guess the most fortunate thing about all of this is that I don't have to decide this very afternoon -- that we have years and years (in A-Rod's case, if he plays out his current contract, he's eligible no sooner than the year 2022 and potentially could remain on the ballot through the year 2036) before we have to make this decision. But voting is becoming a lot less fun. Mike Piazza, for example. Not connected to BALCO. Not connected to the Mitchell Report. Never tested positive that we know of. But come on. EVERYBODY was sure, while he was playing, that he was on steroids. That "everybody" includes me. How do I ignore that when it comes time to vote?

Jeff Fletcher: Right now I'd lean toward voting for Manny and all of the Steroid Era guys. Piazza is the poster boy for my position. I don't believe I'm smart enough to know who was clean and who was cheating. If we don't believe Manny that it was a simple, one-time mistake, or that Barry Bonds thought it was flaxseed oil, then why should we believe Piazza, Pudge, Pujols, etc?

History will record this as a tainted era. I'm not smart enough to surgically go through and pick out the clean from the dirty.

Lisa Olson: I have a Hall of Fame vote, but I have never cast it for a number of reasons. However, if one day I decide to participate, I will abide by the very clear good-of-the-game clause in the Hall voting. It states that voting should be based upon record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and other contributions. Manny Ramirez is a great hitter, one of the best ever. But if he not only cheated, but cheated when the rules about performance-enhancing drugs were impossible to ignore, he willingly violated that clause, and should no more be voted into the Hall of Fame than Roger Clemens.

Terence Moore: Manny being Manny ... oh, excuse me. Manny being a fraud just cost the guy my Hall of Fame vote. I'm a hard-liner in this area, because the most important words on my Hall of Fame ballot don't lie. Those words say that you must consider "integrity" and "character," and taking performance-drugs is a direct violation of those words.

Susan Slusser: My stance when it comes to Hall of Fame voting is that I will not vote for any players I have good reason to believe used performance-enhancing substances, because I do not think players who cheat the game through chemistry should earn their sports' highest honor. They are cheats. Yes, there are other cheats in the Hall, but that doesn't excuse taking illegal substances to try to get an edge on peers. It's wrong.

I'd hate to exclude much of entire decade or two. Let's face it, there are probably some players from the previous era who used precursor of these drugs and who are in the Hall already. I just don't want to vote for cheaters, though. If there's strong enough evidence, and this is a case-by-case basis, the names will go unchecked on my ballot. I'm happy to reconsider if other information comes to light, but right now, it's no on Bonds, no on Clemens, and from what we're hearing, no on Ramirez.

I realize that plenty of players have used performance-echancers that we will never know about. That makes a stance like this unfair. It's all unfair, either way. Vote for guys regardless of their steroid taint, and it's unfair to those who never used steroids. Sorting everyone out is impossible, but I disagree with those who say, "Well, just vote for everyone. Take the performance-enhancers out of the equation." Wrong is wrong. Guys know the risks when they cheat, and one of the risks is that many Hall of Fame voters won't be able to stomach endorsing cheaters.

It stinks for fans, it stinks for the clean players, it stinks for teams who lose their top players because of reckless behavior and it stinks for voters. I'd love to vote yes for these guys. I admire their accomplishments. I'd like to think they'd have reached similar heights without help -- but we will never know. It's a shame, in both senses of the word.