RealGM

Easily the right call as far as I'm concerned - so long as you don't pay attention to American media. Aside from the fact that his stats are better in Montreal, you can just subjectively remember how good he was there before his body started to break down. So congrats to La Belle Provence! Vive le Canada! Vive le Dawson!

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4861968

Only problem is...he wanted to go in as a Cub.

Really I think you should go in with the team you prefer but either way...

Yeah I really dont like that he said today that he was "disappointed" in the Hall's choice.

now he might wear a cub hat at the induction,,,,,starting to border on no or little calss,,,,,,com'on Hawk make us Canucks proud!

I disagree...I think he should go in with whatever hat he wants to wear. I mean he has said how his entire career changed when he became a Cub...in fact he even stated that he considered retiring in Montreal because his knees were so bad. If he did, he never would have made the hall...so I totally understand why he would want to enter as a Cub.

It's not like Montreal doesn't already have someone in the hall, Gary Carter, so why not let Dawson go in with the hat he wants?

Wade Boggs and Dave Winfield is why.

There is no way you should go in with the hat you want. You should go in wearing the hat of the team you had the biggest impact with. Players would ALWAYS choose the big market team if you gave them the option. Teams would also pay players to wear their cap.

I knew why they'd changed the rules, and I remember talk about selling what cap you'll wear, but I don't think I ever realized Boggs actually went into the HOF as a TB Devil Ray or if I did I'd wiped it from my memory 'til now. Winfield isn't nearly as bad 'cause he played like 7-8 years in SD to start his career and made All-star teams there, but Boggs as a Ray is really a sham and a shame.

Now I can understand why Dawson would greatly prefer wearing a Cubs hat to an Expos one and I do think they will need to update how this works a bit because in the modern game most HOFers aren't going to be contributors to only one team, although that's probably true for the last decade or two already. In legitimate cases I think they need to find a way to honour them equally so Dawson can be an Expo and a Cub, but Boggs would only ever be a Red Sock (don't care how long he played for the Yanks after, he's only a Red sock). Don't ask me how to turn one cap into 2 or 3 'cause I don't know, but find something that works.

To me Dawson shouldn't potentially lose out on lucrative after baseball opportunities simply because he contributed as more or more to another franchise which has now disappeared. In turn the old Expos faithful should still get to see one of their greats recognized as such.

They honor every team the player played for on the plaque right under the picture if I remember right.

OldNo7 wrote:They honor every team the player played for on the plaque right under the picture if I remember right.

I thought this is where the controversy came from. The plaque has only one team on it. Dawson has mentioned wearing a cubs cap even though the plaque will say Expos. Or maybe it's the cap that's shown in the hall?

To the earlier comment about Winfield, I'm pretty sure I read that this was after the rule change, and because there wasn't a clear choice in their minds the selecting committee asked for his input, and honoured his request due to his reasoning (that it was the team who gave him his major league shot).

distracted wrote:

OldNo7 wrote:They honor every team the player played for on the plaque right under the picture if I remember right.

I thought this is where the controversy came from. The plaque has only one team on it. Dawson has mentioned wearing a cubs cap even though the plaque will say Expos. Or maybe it's the cap that's shown in the hall?

To the earlier comment about Winfield, I'm pretty sure I read that this was after the rule change, and because there wasn't a clear choice in their minds the selecting committee asked for his input, and honoured his request due to his reasoning (that it was the team who gave him his major league shot).

The players plaques have them wearing caps, which has only one team's logo on it. But they I'm farily certain it mentions every team they played for on the plaque.

Winfield's induction and the rule change happened in the same year, and I can't find anything definitive one way or the other, but Wikipedia seems to imply they changed the rule after Winfield, which is what I recall hearing other places as well.

Modern_epic wrote:The players plaques have them wearing caps, which has only one team's logo on it. But they I'm farily certain it mentions every team they played for on the plaque.

Winfield's induction and the rule change happened in the same year, and I can't find anything definitive one way or the other, but Wikipedia seems to imply they changed the rule after Winfield, which is what I recall hearing other places as well.

This is the article I read on ESPN. It's an interview with the selection committee guy (though maybe he dresses it up now so it doesn't look so bad)

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/interview/090723

P2: Didn't Dave Winfield have more say in his cap logo?

JI: If a player's career is very evenly divided, we'll give more leeway to him. We felt Winfield showed equal ability and impact during his time in New York and San Diego -- he didn't dominate more in one than in the other. So I spoke with him and learned that the fact that he broke in with the Padres, the fact that Willie McCovey was his hero and was playing there at the time, that made him feel a strong allegiance to San Diego. That was fine with us.