Net54baseball.com Forums - What mgrs/exec's/umps would you consider future HOFers?

Quote:

Originally Posted by perezfan (Post 904237)

I know I'm in the minority here... But if ever there was a Manager who should be scrutinized for the use of steroids, it's LaRussa. Were any other teams in history more rampantly "using" than the 1990s Athletics or 2000s Cardinals?

At worst, he encouraged its usage, and at best he "turned a blind eye". Few could argue (with a straight face) that LaRussa was unaware of what was going on. If players like McGwire, Palmeiro and even Bagwell (who was never actually incriminated) are receiving incredibly low vote totals, shouldn't it stand to reason that LaRussa would as well?

I know he's been a very successful Manager over the years, but seems to me that the same rules should apply. You can say he's managed over 5,000 games, but McGwire's hit a whole bunch of Home Runs (playing for both of LaRussa's teams) and he's not getting in anytime soon.

I'm anticipating lots of dissenting opinions on this, but that's my 2 cents on LaRussa.

Agree with your point philosophically. Add Dusty Baker to that list IMO also--with Bonds' head getting bigger almost by the day (as well as the rest of that juiced bod) and Bonds seemingly defying the laws of nature in getting incredibility better just at the time he oridinarily would have been entering baseball old age, the situation should have presented quite an ethical dilemma to the former Giants skipper, but obviously did not. Imagine the fallout if Baker had told Bonds that he could not in good conscience write his name into the lineup (an absolutely delicious thought to those of us who are not exactly Barry Bonds fans)! In actual practice, however, both Baker and LaRussa probably found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place, and naturally believed they had little alternative than to keep writing their most productive players' names into the lineup. I have the same problem putting either of them into the HOF that I do with a number of players from that era--according to Kirk Radomski (former Mets clubhouse attendant, and central figure in the Mitchell report)'s book, "Bases Loaded," heavy steroid use was simply the culture during that time. While Bonds and McGwire were among those who embraced it, they also were probably two of the very hardest working players of the time (a lot of people think all they had to do was inject their butts, but the kind of results they got, both in terms of muscle mass and enhanced hitting performance, were also directly related to hard workouts, watching video and studying pitchers, and, at least in McGwire's case, the evolution of his swing into one incredibly short, compact and lightning quick stroke!). And I could not and still cannot stand Bonds, but there is no denying how incredibly well he played the hitter/pitcher game. He could read pitches and pitchers' thinking as well as anyone, and when he did get a pitch to hit, he almost never missed it! I'm certainly not saying these two should be HOF'ers, because there is no question their achievements cannot be directly compared to their predecessors whose performance was not artificially enhanced. I honestly don't know what to do with them or their peers, who were the best of that era, unless Cooperstown opens a Cheaters' Wing! But do we move Gaylord Perry's plaque to that wing, if it is opened??? It's true that there's always been cheating in baseball, from stealing and relaying signs by a confederate stationed in the bleachers to amphetamines to corked bats (I've got an excellent game-used example of the latter, originating from one of the leading sluggers of the '60's). Are some forms of cheating OK, and others not? Or are we into a really gray area, which is why I say I really do not know what to do with these guys?

With regard to Jim Leyland, he knows how to treat men with respect and players like to play for him, but please, PLEASE let us not include him for HOF consideration. Here in Detroit, we don't believe he ever really learned to make out a lineup. He doesn't seem to understand that putting your least productive hitters near the top of the lineup is absolutely counter-productive, because they get more at bats than those penned in lower in the order, and falls in love with certain players who have rarely been productive, playing them 3-4 times as often as he should, simply because they are equally bad at any number of postions in the field--can anyone say "Ryan Rugburn (oops--Rayburn)?" He also has a knack for resting young players just when they're really starting to hit their stride, then seems to be mystified when they've lost that groove after several needless games on the bench. He came up with what I call a "SALL," meaning a silly-ass Leyland lineup, just the other day, and when my wife asked why I wasn't watching the game, I told her that he had presented the lineup to the umpires at the start of the game, and they started laughing so hard they couldn't stop, and had to call the game!

Great thread, though.

Larry

PS: I would put Torre and Bobby Cox in the HOF in a heartbeat!