You don’t know how many happy, smiling faces with what you uncovered. It’s not a put down of Sandy Alderson as it is a recognition of what the man’s role really was and where his expertise was.

Bill Rigney I am sure is even smiling down on us right now.

Now, many have asked (as you know) why is what happened in Oakland a quarter of a century ago important or even relevant to what’s going on with the Mets today. The answer is simple – if one believes Sandy has the expertise to find direction and answers to improving the Mets then one must look into his background to see if he really is the individual they think he is. It also serves a dual purpose – Sandy, being heralded as the grandfather of sabermetrics, also needs to be seen as the one responsible for being the architect of those great Oakland teams based on his embracing of non-traditional ideas. Take away the creditability of Sandy’s role in Oakland and then one takes away a major argument of credibility of sabermetrics. It opens up a tremendous amount of questioning regarding how much is true and how much is myth.

Sandy is a business person, respected by his peers and deserves recognition for his expertise in the field of law and corporate business. He does have his own ideas of how a team should be built and run. But it is apparent he did not have the authority to instill that in Oakland – at least during his first decade there. If he did take more personal involvement in baseball matters toward the end, he also can’t be faulted for the hard times in the mid nineties when the club had already reached it’s peak and was aging.

But then, he does have the authority to put his mark on the Mets as far as the direction he wants them to take. Without the myth of being the architect at Oakland, judgement on his moves are then seen in a totally different light. And even more so when taking into account the perfect storm of financial catastrophes that necessitated one with the executive experience he had to come in at keep the franchise fiscally afloat.

Know this is only repeating myself but the additional information you provided is only further evidence about Sandy’s role being corporate and breaks the grand illusion of what his contributions were to the game as it is played.

His moves are of financial priority on behalf of the owners and his own belief that he can develop a good team starting over based on what he perceives is a baseball know-how and has surrounded himself with people who are in agreement with him to implement it.

Thanks again for those additional pieces of information to further validate this point. It is not an insult by any of us to say he is a financial person who has been given the opportunity to run the organization as he see fit. That he decided to take it upon himself to influence matters pertaining to the game itself is only revealing his shortcomings in that aspect. But that has been his choice.

RIGNEY’S REASONING

Certainly, said Bill Rigney, the A’s senior adviser, finances played a part in it, releasing some of the Canseco money for what he called the priority attempt to sign McGwire and possibly some of the A’s other free agents, including Sierra, who makes more than Canseco–$5 million to $3.6 million–and who will seek an even larger long-term deal than Canseco’s five-year, $23.5-million contract.

Thus, Rigney said, the saving on Canseco will only stretch so far, so the primary consideration was adding Witt, with all of his blazing potential and frustrating control problems–he seemed to be regressing during a 0-5 August–to a suspect rotation and Russell to the bullpen.

“We’re at a pivotal point age-wise,” Rigney said. “We don’t know how many chances we’ll have to win in the near future and we felt this was our best chance to win again this year. I mean, we simply felt we didn’t have enough pitching.

“With (Bob) Welch hurt and there being a question if he’ll pitch again this year, our rotation came down to (Dave) Stewart, (Ron) Darling and (Mike) Moore. We’re at a point in the season where we need outs, and now we have a Witt to help get us to the sixth inning and a Russell to help get us to (Dennis Eckersley).”

so much for Rigney just being a TV guy

http://books.google.com/books?id=7pHtxbfONEgC&pg=PA204&lpg=PA204&dq=Bill+Rigney+Oakland+Sandy+Alderson&source=bl&ots=DzQYRDPulR&sig=_sT_clleGMPWSoI8iZbENgscPKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cvFMUYSDAYzM9ASV44C4Aw&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q=Bill%20Rigney%20Oakland%20Sandy%20Alderson&f=false

It turns out Rigney is the one who got Marichel the job there…which opened the door to their IFA scouting in DR..

Baseball’s old boys scoffed in 1983 when Haas put him in charge of personnel. What, they wondered, did this former Marine officer know about scouting teenage prospects? And what could he have learned at Dartmouth University and Harvard Law School that would in any way help him swing a trade?

But Alderson was smart enough to know his limitations. He surrounded

himself with a coterie of well-paid talent evaluators – including La Russa, Bill Rigney and Ron Schueler – and he valued their opinions. The brain trust prompted the A’s to draft young stars Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, Walt Weiss and Terry Steinbach. It also helped Alderson arrange trades for Rickey Henderson, Bob Welch, Dennis Eckersley and, this season alone, Willie Randolph, Harold Baines and Willie McGee.

“One of the things that separates the A’s from some traditional organizations is that their people are given authority, and they are listened to,” said California Angels general manager Mike Port. “It is not an organization of yes men.”

It is also not an organization afraid to take risks. The A’s have taken other teams’ problem players – Dave Stewart and Dave Parker, for instance – and made them part of a positive group dynamic.

And just last spring, when the nation’s No. 1 pitching prospect, Texas righthander Todd Van Poppel, announced plans to go to college before starting his professional baseball career, the first 13 teams in the draft passed on him and his 97-m.p.h. fastball.

The A’s, picking 14th, were in a gambling mood. Alderson chose Van Poppel, and – despite Van Poppel’s initial protests that the A’s had wasted their pick – eventually signed him. The top team in baseball had successfully landed the top prospect.

“It wasn’t just the money,” Van Poppel said. “I don’t think I would have signed with any other organization. But they were very classy. They were the kind of people I always wanted to work for.”

Perhaps it wasn’t the money. But Van Poppel’s contract – three years for $1.2 million, plus a $600,000 signing bonus – is the highest ever for a high school draft pick. It is another example of the Athletics not being afraid to spend money for top-shelf talent.

The A’s $20 million player payroll is the second-highest in baseball this season. The only team spending more, the Kansas City Royals, finished below .500, demonstrating that big spending works only if you do it judiciously.

Other teams gripe about the costs of free agency and salary arbitration, but the A’s use those systems to their advantage. Oakland’s philosophy is to spend big to get and keep the stars who win games and attract fans. That means letting lesser players walk when they become free agents.

Two years later, he was the A’s general manager, working for a friend, owner and fellow attorney Roy Eisenhart, with baseball veterans Bill Rigney and Karl Kuehl at his side. “I really wasn’t doing any player evaluation at the time, nor did I have any handle on how to do it,” says Alderson. He kept his mouth shut, dressed down so as not to look like a lawyer, and fantasized that he might be the first of a new breed.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/It-Musta-Been-Rigged-Bill-Rigney-dead-at-83-2949823.php#ixzz2OJetZbtF

I do find it a bit hard to debate a guy who says that what his article states (Healy) contain facts yet my article (Klapisch) is baseless. But ok.

I’m sure we’ll eventually find something to agree on.

Take care.

Obviously not at the time he accepted it – the time he spent contemplating whether to accept the offer – let it be when formally proposed to him or in anticipation of him being chosen for the job. I’ll look for the links that shows it another day – right now I’m “linked out”.

As far as Citi Field, forgot that you found the link, however, what I remembered from when Just had posted it was your reply thinking the words were transcribed wrong:

“Sorry Joey, but I think someone got that wrong. Maybe someone transcribed the answer incorrectly. That doesn’t jive with all that Sandy said about Citi and the dimensions since he became GM. I just don’t believe it.”.

Then it was followed up by:

“He always said he wasn’t going to do anything right away. That he wanted to assess things first. But he always acknowledged from the get go that changes were not out of the question and that the dimensions of Citi could be problematic to offense.”

Again, after first believing it was transcribed wrong, then it is not basing those statements at face value. While I agree that Sandy HAD TO BE THINKING in those terms, he was not publicly stating he was going to access the situation.

Now, if he did mention it a month or so later, there is nothing on the web that I have found so far that even mentions such thinking via an un-named source or anyone associated with the Mets until August. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t say it and you are wrong – it could also be that he did indeed say it at the time your remember and there is just no record of it – just like with me and the learn how to hit home runs remark I know I heard him say as well but can’t find verification on the web. I’m still looking for it, however, the comment – if accurate as I claim it is – does fall in line with public reasons as why not to change the dimensions as Sandy (so far as documented evidence to date shows) was saying he wasn’t doing.

One possibility with what we both remembering hearing is that after saying them, Sandy felt it better not to do so again and stopped raising either point.

lol … anyone who witnessed how Selig handled the McCourt situation would know better than to go against a Selig “recommendation” …

Initially, when contacted by Selig’s office, Sandy said he had no interest. But it Is incorrect to say that Sandy had no interest in the job once he considered it and interviewed for it:

“Getting back to being a GM is something that I really wanted to do — but under the right circumstances,” Alderson said. “It’s the environment, it’s the city, it’s the resources, it’s the potential that this franchise has. All of the things that would attract someone are here.”

“One of the reasons he took the job is because he knew his dad would absolutely love it,” said Alderson’s son, Bryn. “Of course he loves the challenge and loves getting back in the game and getting back that competitive feeling, but he really loves sharing the game with his family.”

If you want the links, let me know. It’s just patently false to say that Sandy didn’t want the job at the point he accepted it. There is no evidence for that.

Also, again, zero evidence that Selig forced the Mets to hire Alderson. He said he didn’t. The Mets say he didn’t. Only some Mets fans say Selig did, lol.

And the speculation is only further fueled by the steps that Selig had already been doing to help his friends that he had not done for others in the same financial situation – he even stated that he did things differently because the Wilpons were “victims”

Well the others were NOT in the same financial situation. McCourt was corrupt. And Hicks neglected his franchise. Moreover, both Hicks and McCourt had to file for bankruptcy. The Wilpons never had to.

Then, again I say those who credit Sandy should make it clear they are not crediting him as an individual but him as the head of the organization with no judgment on whom did what.

Should I say that about Omar then every time I mention Ike or Niese? Because I am sure Omar relied on others to draft those 2 as well as most of the prospects drafted under his regime.

it does imply that he had a major hand in the vetting and evaluation of those moves – not just the final approval of them based upon the recommendations from those under him doing the strategic vetting.

And we don’t know that Sandy didn’t play a major hand in the vetting and evaluation of most of those moves. It’s something people on the outside of every MLB team never know. So, again, should we preface every statement about the drafts of Cashman, Daniels, and Omar with such caveats?

As for the minority shares, yes they were sold without any access to SNY.

As for peace at MMO, forget it. You will find true peace in the Middle East before the 2 camps at MMO can get along for more than a few minutes.

You and I are just an exception to the rule. It’s just one of those things. Carville and Matalin? Holy cow! Their pairing is truly the 8th wonder of the world! They make me laugh.

Found a link about Sandy saying no changes to Citi Field back in 2010. It’s the exact words Just quoted and come from the press

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/505128-sandy-alderson-arrives-as-new-york-mets-general-manager-quotes-from-the-new-gm#/articles/505128-sandy-alderson-arrives-as-new-york-mets-general-manager-quotes-from-the-new-gm/page/13 conference introducing him to the media:

“You say you “base things solely on statements without adding interpretations” but that is not true. In this thread alone, you have conferred a bigger role for Rigney than he actually had”

I wrote : After taking in all the evidence, then speculation is indeed added based on what I can consider as solid circumstantial evidence.” After looking at what he did at Oakland before Sandy became GM, Sandy’s statements about him, the owner’s stated reason for hiring Sandy, etc. is how I came to my conclusion. I took everything presented at face value and then interjected my own opinion.

“There is ZER0 evidence for that, with Selig having been emphatic that Sandy was simply his recommended choice to the Wilpons — not some edict. Yet you and others — including Matt Balasis — insist on your own unsubstantiated interpretation that he was appointed by Selig and forced upon the Wilpons. ”

“Edict” is one word but does not mean that without it’s usage one a course of action cannot be established. Sandy has stated he was happy and wanted to stay in his current capacity. He said he had no intrest in the position. He said he was urged to apply for the job. He said he was then still urged by Selig to accept the job after it was offered. Selig admits he interjected himself with the Mets search for a new GM by urging the Wilpons to hire Sandy as well. Somebody takes a job he didn’t want, leaves one that he loved and is hired by employer’s who know he applied for the job that he wasn’t interested in to begin with not on his own but at the urging of someone else – too much overwhelming evidence not to read between the lines. And the speculation is only further fueled by the steps that Selig had already been doing to help his friends that he had not done for others in the same financial situation – he even stated that he did things differently because the Wilpons were “victims” and did not bring these circumstances upon themselves.

“As for draft picks, again, as I said in a previous comment, the GM should always get the credit regardless.”

Then, again I say those who credit Sandy should make it clear they are not crediting him as an individual but him as the head of the organization with no judgement on whom did what. That is a major distinction and probably what has led to more dispute than others. Yes, with him as the GM, Oakland became a dominent club in the American League but the way it is worded by so many in the media and fans, it does imply that he had a major hand in the vetting and evaluation of those moves – not just the final approval of them based upon the recommendations from those under him doing the strategic vetting.

Also, as you know, I am in 100 percent agreement with you about how SNY (and for that matter, any RSN owned by the same ones who own the club) and the Mets have to be looked at in terms of a singular unit. The reason why Fred refused to give up one penny of his own shares from SNY in the Mets deal is because that is where the big money comes in. And that is why if he was forced to sell the Mets, it would have to include a portion of SNY – no investor is going to purchase the Mets (or any club) if it’s RSN is not part of the deal.

Actually, correct me on that. Bill Maher and others purchased a minority share because it included being able to have access of Mr. Met and a luxury suite which, for some, might even be a bigger enticement!

Won’t deny that when I first began to participate in MMO, I was shocked at the insults coming from both sides of the fence. So, like SNY and the Mets, I am not going to separate them into two camps. As far as YKW, I still think you are both good guys and just very passionate about the Mets – as I am. I’ve always suggested to everyone on both sides of the fence to bury the hatchet and start over from scratch.

…. and then, there might be some sort of enjoyment going on between people who have the skin to take the insults and are simply trying to top the other one in how far they can go.

Still think you and I should be a shining example to everyone else. We’re the Matilen and Carvell of Met’s land (gender not included).

Look, one can write whatever they want in this age of blogs. But Just writing it doesn’t make it true. And somehow, some people read blogs and believe everything they read. You need facts to back up your contention:

1) Jeff Wilpon did not head up personnel in 2004. And you won’t find anywhere a substantiated statement that says he did. Duquette was the GM and even though an interim one, he headed up personnel. Was there meddling? Yes, because he wasn’t trusted. There was likely meddling all year long from everyone – Fred, Jeff and Goldis and Livesey. But in the specific Kazmir case, it was Goldis and Livesey who engineered that deal, and Healey documents that with facts.

2) Carrying a lot of weight doesn’t make one responsible for a decision. Anyone who blames Peterson for Kazmir is way off base. It’s ludicrous to blame the pitching coach for a trade like that.

3) Did Klapisch back up his allegation with a fact? Like HOW Leiter influenced the Kazmir trade? Did Leiter go to the owners and tell them to trade the kid? Did he call up Chuck Lamar himself? Did he drive Kazmir to the airport? LOL. If there are no supporting fact, it’s baseless. We all know there was an incident between Leiter-Franco and Kazmir over clubhouse music. But to stretch that into them getting Kazmir traded is ridiculous.

4) Of course Peterson and Jeff had reason to distance themselves from the trade. Because it was the truth. Truth is reason enough. Someone having a good reason to say something doesn’t make them unbelievable. If someone accused you of being a serial killer, you’d have a good reason to let the truth out too and deny it, right? So that makes you unbelievable?

So do you watch the games down under? Most games must come in the middle of the night or very early morning, so how do you cope? I guess because everything is upside down there, all the losses look like wins, eh? Must make being a Mets fan far easier in Australia!

If I ever get to Australia, I’ll ring you up for a beer!

The assumptions I am making about Sandy, his current role, his background and knowledge are logical ones, based on factual knowledge that is out there – ie, his title and role in the Mets organization and his past experiences in Oakland and other places. You and others who hold your view have to step out of the box and stretch much further to come up with a different interpretation favorable to your point of view. That’s how I see it. You of course have the right to do that stretching, but don’t expect others to come along with that long ride from point A to point E — without stopping at points C and D.

You say you “base things solely on statements without adding interpretations” but that is not true. In this thread alone, you have conferred a bigger role for Rigney than he actually had. For example in your last post which mentioned Lansford, nowhere in those links does it say that Rigney was head of personnel and responsible for decision making regarding players. But then you went on to say those things.

Another area I feel people are reading into things something that is not there is this idea that Sandy was appointed to the job not by the Wilpons but by Selig. There is ZER0 evidence for that, with Selig having been emphatic that Sandy was simply his recommended choice to the Wilpons — not some edict. Yet you and others — including Matt Balasis — insist on your own unsubstantiated interpretation that he was appointed by Selig and forced upon the Wilpons.

The worst is to try to confer a specific thought process to Sandy as if you could read minds, saying that he believes he is smarter than he is when it comes to the pure baseball side of things. There is no proof for that and it is an insult to the man, implying that he is arrogant and doesn’t know his own limits.

As for draft picks, again, as I said in a previous comment, the GM should always get the credit regardless. Do you think Omar didn’t get recommendations for practically ALL his picks? You think he picked Ike Davis or Jon Niese all by himself? What about Sabean? As I mentioned, on the heels of the Wheeler deal, he gave great credit to others in the Giants organization with being able to identify pitchers for the team. They all rely on others for draft picks. Why should Sandy be different? So, again, it would be an endless, pointless task trying to divvy up credit in any organization for draft picks and player moves in any way. No one could do it unless you were an insider. Even a beat reporter like Rubin couldn’t do it thoroughly. So just give the current GM credit for everything. Unless of course, like in Cashman’s case, he doesn’t want credit in cases where the ownership meddled – such as A-Rod – and the deal has blown up and reflects badly on the team. But apart from instances such as this, the GM should get full credit as a matter of course.

As for your Fenway comment, I never saw it (it is not in this thread).

Regarding SNY and the Mets, essentially it’s all part of the same big pie and a shell game. As part owners of SNY, the Wilpons can and do shovel some of SNY’s profits back into the Mets when they want to. And fat chance of détente with YKW. He’s too immature to behave and control his own emotions and is always the first to descend into personal insults. Of course, you don’t see it because you are on the same page with him. If you weren’t, I have no doubt he would have insulted you many times over by now. He can’t grow up and has a screw loose. And I am not the only one who feels this way either.

If you haven’t noticed, Joey, people on your side of this debate are significantly more prone to fighting, childish behavior, and personally insulting others. What does it say about the company you keep? You should consider coming over to the side of the “adults”

I’ve really enjoyed this debate.

As I’ve said – we will just have to agree to disagree.

At the end of the day, both of us could be partially right and wrong. But is one of us ‘laughable’? No.

I believe what I do because of what I read at the time. You are doing the same.

Was Duquette GM at the time? Yes. Was he able to act as GM with complete control over player personnel – well that is a grey area. Did Jeff Wilpon really oversee player personnel as has been written numerous times? Well, it depends on whether you believe what was written.

Was Rick Peterson anointed a pitching genius by Wilpon – Yes. Did his endorsement carry a lot of weight in the Kazmir trade? One would think so.

Did your guy Healy say that Klapisch was excellent in his coverage? Yes he did. Did Klapisch say that Leiter wouldn’t talk to him anymore because he – Klapisch =- said Al was partially involved in the Kazmir trade? Yes he did.

Did Jeff and Rick distance themselves from the trade after all the public backlash and did they have a motive to do so? Well, again, one would think so – not you obviously.

Anyway, I’m done with this topic – I’m not going to convince you with facts as I see it and you’re not going to convince me with facts as you see it.

thanks for the conversation mate – would love to buy you a beer if you ever make it to Australia.

Just a note of thank you from me. Your words were very much appreciated and I believe one would not be honest with his or her self to say those type remarks do not hurt.

On another more lighter note, it just occurred to me that there are so many holes and injuries on both the Mets and Yankees that combined they couldn’t field a starting nine of first string players. It’s going to be a long hot summer here in New York and I honestly see with Toronto improved, if Baltimore proves it wasn’t just a one year wonder and with Tampa Bay always fielding a competitive team that it won’t be just the Mets finishing below .500 this year.

This is going to be more philosophical than pragmatic, so if you’re too tired or not interested -then skip it altogether – I won’t be offended! LOL.

Actually, I understand your last point about the GM getting the credit for moves made during his reign despite who was actually responsible and see where you are coming from on this. However, the debate is over Sandy’s role and that role might be unfairly placed upon him by those who are crediting him for having revolutionized the game and bringing a well thought out vision to the Mets. Take away that issue and suddenly it’s not Sandy but the Met organization of which he is the general manager.

And thus my vetting into how much Sandy does understand the game professionally because of two things – the accolades he receives personally for what was done in Oakland and the insistence that he himself is setting the direction for the organization to follow, not the other way around/ If he is defending his people more than making a judgement himself then that is what comes from making the general manager responsible for things that he might not even have the responsibility of handling – as you are doing.

I am aware that I come from a pre-conceived notion and I’m sure like you has to try and separate one’s emotion away from his or her vetting in order to make a valid point. One indeed has to be careful about mistaking that personal bias to create an illusion of fact over zero evidence as you point out and also be careful about what I said regarding correlation not necessarily implying cause. Remember what we learned in political science about there being no absolute truth? Only then can one intellectually and with as little bias as possible connect those dots – and then become emotionally convicted to them.

I truly believe my connecting the dots shows a definite pattern regarding Sandy because I base things solely on statements without adding interpretation at that stage of the investigation along with documented information available (i.e., the financial mess) that is also not up for debate. Regarding the finances, that includes MLB and bridge loans needed to twice (that we know of) avoid default on their financial obligations when they could not longer get credit from financial institutions, Bud Selig’s own statements, etc. Again, I honestly try not to infer opinion as to what they say as to take it on the merits of those words only. Though I’m sure I am guilty of this myself, I do try to question myself that I am indeed abiding by that discipline in order to formulate my conclusions – taking what is said at face value and not adding anything speculative – at that moment – to what has been said or known so to imply a different meaning to what was stated. That is why I pointed out that Sandy said no changes to Citi Field in the forseeable future – to be objective does not allow one to then interject anything hypothetical.

After taking in all the evidence, then speculation is indeed added based on what I can consider as solid circumstantial evidence. Sandy’s background in law, his executive experience, the corporate change of the business of baseball, opinions offered by others based on their own understanding and presentations and it is then that I feel I can add my own personal take on the matter, including my sense of what the thought process is of the individual I am critiquing. If after all this it is simply a case of refusing to acknowledge there is so much valid and circumstantial evidence that I simply try to ignore, then I am indeed guilty of being just stubborn, billigerant and hypocritical.

This does not reflect any moral judgement of the individual and indeed, I have no hatred of him whatsoever. That would be ridiculous and infantile on my part – though I will not deny I have been rubbed the wrong way with the manner in which he has been dishonest and deceptive with the fan base. But there is a difference – being rubbed the wrong way and not having respect for one’s credibility and integrity when it comes to business and not personal matters is not as extreme as actual hatred. I also know that spin is part of the business and under the same set of circumstances I would probably be acting in the same way – and thus there would be a need for others to call me out on it!

But the reason I comment so much on the draft picks is that again, Sandy gets the credit for selecting those players – not approving the strong consensus of recommendations from those assigned to do that work. Again, it’s a matter of crediting the GM in both success and failure that we read so often. Perhaps that is simply being unfair. Or, it’s a matter of not recognizing the difference between having the authority to approve moves and the creativity that led to those moves.

And as I’ve mentioned previously, the debate over Sandy is part of a bigger debate over the question of statistical analysis in baseball allowing one with even no background in the game to better understand and appreciate the sport in terms of professionally being qualified to deal with baseball matters more than those who play, manage and coach. For the fans, it’s another thing and Bill James has done a great service by allowing fans who did not appreciate the finer points of the game to get to know them better (hence, my comments about my understanding of Fenway when just a teenager and not needing empirical studies to explain it it me).

Now, that’s enough philosophy.

BTW – though “YKW” did in fact open my eyes to many things about the business of the sport, as you no doubt know I also disagree with “YKW” on other issues like the direct connection between SNY and the Mets when it comes to Sterling Equities instead of treating them like separate entities, etc.

I do wish you and “YKW” would patch things up and agree to disagree as friendly adversaries like you and I – for I like both you guys. Besides, it might get to the point that both of you becomes numbers ten and eleven on the banned list and that would be a real shame.

Ciao for now.

Bill Christine, Rob Maaddi, Steve Wilstein, John Perrotto, Jeff Fletcher, Mike Dyer, Dave Cunningham, Peter Botte, Mike Imrem, Ken Rosenthal, Marcos Breton, Tony Massaroti, Art Davidson, Bill Griffith, Bill Ballou, Joe Christensen, Steve Simmons, Mike Fine, Marc Lancaster, Jeffrey Flanagan, Kevin Modesti, Bruce Jenkins

All of the above writers voted for either Bagwell, Clemens, or Bonds, but not Biggio. So PEDS was not a factor when they left him off from their ballots. And this comes only from a partial list. The vast majority of 2013 HOF voters did not disclose their ballots. No doubt many of those would fall into this category as well. Moreover, I didn’t list any non-Biggio voter who also didn’t vote for at least one of Bagwell, Clemens or Bonds. No doubt some of these thought Biggio was a bubble candidate too. Bottom line: there are many who feel Biggio is a bubble player.