Talk:Jim Rice

As a friend of mine put it concerning the 2006 Hall of Fame Vote: "Sutter's career spanned from 1976 to 1988 - nearly the same length as Jim Rice - was there ever - EVER - a time during that span when anyone would have foolish enough to give up Jim Rice for Bruce Sutter straight up? The main knock on Rice has been that his "era of greatness" - 1975-1986 - was too short. And then Sutter gets in with a span of 1976-1984 and essentially only 8 very good seasons and junk thereafter. It's incredibly unfair."

Retrieved from "http://www.baseballreference.com/bullpen/Talk:Bruce_Sutter"

--- It looks like someone's removing anything critical of Rice and trying to push for his HoF inclusion instead of leaving a balanced portrait. Does someone want to go through and re-balance this out? - --Mischa 16:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

In response to the comment about Bruce Sutter, in 1985 when both Sutter and Rice were established stars, Sutter earned nearly twice as much as Rice did. That's one indication of the relative value placed on the two stars. - Randy 19:11 17 December 2006 (EST)

This page has turned into a petition to get Rice into the Hall of Fame. --Just me 12:03, 29 December 2006 (EST)

I tried to put some of it into context, but if someone wants to police it more closely, please do so - the Rice advocate does lots of edits. - --Mischa 12:45, 29 December 2006 (EST)

Good lord, more Rice propaganda. - --Mischa 17:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Is there a source for the quotes? --Jeff 17:49, 6 January 2009 (EST)

We should at least mark it with the notation. Also, I recommend balancing "belongs in the HoF" quotes with quotes indicating why Rice doesn't belong. - --Mischa 09:05, 7 January 2009 (EST)