See "The Hawk" and The Hawks in Peoria

Just saw this item from the East Peoria Times Courier, announcing that Andre Dawson will be appearing at a Peoria Chiefs game this summer.  As luck would have it, he'll be there when the Silver Hawks are in town, so you have a chance to see both the Hawk, and the Hawks at the same time.

Lunchtime Links

I'm so hungry I'm about to gnaw my arm off, but before I go to lunch, I will post some baseball-related links for you (because your happiness is more important than my hungry stomach).

-First, I'm not a real big fan of Gene Wojciechowski (mainly b/c I had to refer back to the article page 4 times to spell his name right), nor am I a real big fan of Pete Rose anymore (should be in the Hall based on his playing career, but the guy is a first rate...well, pick whatever word you want to fill in). However, Gene makes an interesting case about Mark McGwire versus Pete Rose. It's worth the read whether you like them both, hate them both, or just like baseball.

-Andre Dawson wanted to go into the Hall of Fame as a Cub. They said "nope, you're an Expo."

-Speaking of the Cubs, they signed former Silver Hawk Chad Tracy to a Minor League deal yesterday.

Cooperstown is Calling (2010 Edition)

The call has been made. That's right. Call. Singular. Only one. And it goes to Andre "The Hawk" Dawson.

If you remember back to the last month, I filled out my ballot and voted for 10 people. I'm rather generous with my vote (and again, this is fictional because the Hall of Fame is not stupid enough to give me an actual vote).

I had voted for Dawson, and I don't think anyone is surprised that he made it in this year. You can argue some of his numbers aren't worthy, but as a child who grew up in the 80's, Andre Dawson was larger than life. He passes what I call "The Think Test". When you think about Andre Dawson, I think greatness and dominance. That's why I voted for him.

Bert Blyleven also had my fictional vote, but needed 5 more real votes to actually get inducted. He still has two more years on the ballot, and most think he'll drum up enough support next year, despite the fact that he won't pitch another inning, or strike anyone out between now and then.

Roberto Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote, but needed 75. He'll get in next year, because there are a slew of voters who will never vote for someone on the first ballot (and if you're one of them, you should have your vote taken away).

Jack Morris had a big increase from last year, and Barry Larkin fared well for a first-time candidate, leaving both with hopes of increases in the next few years to get them in.

No one else got over 50% of the vote, meaning only time will tell if they can drum up enough support in their remaining years on the ballot. A handful of players received less than 5% and dropped off the ballot, but none of which are worthy of talking about.

Again, I think the best and worst part of the Hall of Fame vote is that you are not held to any standard. It's entirely your ballot. If you have some personal bias against Willie Mays, you don't have to vote for him. If you think David Segui deserves a vote (and someone did this year), then put him on your ballot.

I personally feel there should be a bit more accountability for the vote. If you are stupid enough not to vote for a guy like Ruth, Mays, or Gehrig, then maybe it's time to have your vote taken away. Also, if you vote for David Segui, but don't vote for Andre Dawson, then I think you need your head examined.

But then again, that's the beauty of the system as well. Was Dawson truly better than Blyleven? There's no real way to know, and only a vote of this nature can determine it.

Either way, I maintain that debating the Baseball Hall of Fame candidacy of certain players remains the greatest sports debate in the history of the world. Dawson gets in this time...but we'll be back in December to argue over this yet again!