What mgrs/exec's/umps would you consider future HOFers?

[Chris-Counts]

As far as I'm concerned, there are already too many suits in the Hall of Fame. As for Steinbrenner, it would warm my heart if he never got in. As for players deserving of induction, I say open the floodgates and start with Minnie Minoso ...

http://minnieminoso.blogspot.com/

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

As far as I'm concerned, there are already too many suits in the Hall of Fame. As for Steinbrenner, it would warm my heart if he never got in. As for players deserving of induction, I say open the floodgates and start with Minnie Minoso ...

http://minnieminoso.blogspot.com/

I'd say Minoso, Hodges and Santo...

[novakjr]

Any thoughts on William Eckert, Peter Ueberroth, Bart Giamatti or Faye Vincent?

Now this one might seem a little odd. Curt Flood was a pretty good ballplayer, not quite HOF good, BUT given the way everything went down with him, is there any chance he gets in as a pioneer?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So should Joe Torre be penalized because Clemens probably used and Giambi admitted to it?

[Kenny Cole]

As a manager? Absolutely, assuming that you are going to penalize the players he managed too. Is that enough to derail him? I don't know. He managed a long time, successfully, before steroids were much of an issue. We've had variants of this discussion before, and rules are rules, even if they're unwritten, correct?

[ctownboy]

If people are having problems with Tony LaRussa because of his players using PED's then Dusty "toothpick" Baker is a joke.

If it is true that Barry Bonds started using steroids after the 1998 season (because he thought McGwire and Sosa were lesser players than him and he hated the publicity and adulation their Home Run chase brought them) and I think it is true then you HAVE to break toothpick's Managerial career down into three phases

1) Bonds pre-steroids (1993 - 1998)

2) Bonds on steroids but before testing began (1999 - 2004)

3) MLB after the PED rules came into being and harsher penalties were put into place for the players who failed the drug tests. (2005 - 2010).

1) Pre-steroid Bonds.

If you look at Baker's record from 1993 to 1998, you see he had three winning seasons and three losing seasons as Manager. This, even though, he had a young-ish Bonds AND the Giants had one of the highest payrolls in the NL each and every year. Included in this period was 1996 where Baker managed the Giants to not only last place in the NL West but also the second WORST record in the entire NL.

During those six seasons, his record was 472 and 436, a .520 Winning Percentage. His record, however, was GREATLY helped out by the 1993 season where the team went 103 - 59, a .636 WP and Bonds won the MVP Award. The Giants went to the Post Season one time during those six seasons, (1997) where they lost to the Marlins in the first round.

2) Bonds on steroids

If you look at Baker's record from 1999 - 2002, the Giants were 368 - 279, a .569 Winning Percentage. During this time they went to the Post Season in 2000, where they lost to the Mets in the first round and 2002 when they lost to the Angels in the World Series.

After that year, for some reason, he was NOT brought back as Manager. That was the first time, as far as I can remember, that a Manager took a team to the World Series one year and was NOT back as their Manager the next year. The last time that happened was in the 1920's when, I think, Rogers Hornsby was a player - Manager and took his team to the World Series and then was traded to another team before the next season started. Of course, I could be forgetting about George Steinbrenner firing somebody back in the late 1970's or early 1980's after they took the Yankees to the World Series.

Anyway, Baker went to the Cubs in 2003 where they finished with a 88 - 74 record and lost to the Marlins in the NL Championship. In 2004, the Cubs went 89 - 73.

So, overall, Baker's teams went a combined 545 - 426 (a .561 WP) from the first year Bonds started using steroids to when MLB instituted the drug testing policy and the harsher penalties for players failing the tests. During those six seasons, his teams never had a losing record and went to the Post Season three times.

3) Post PED testing.

From 2005 - 2010, Baker's record with the Cubs and Reds was 388 - 422 (a .479 WP). His teams only had one winning season and that was 2010 when the Reds went to the Post Season and lost to the Phillies in the first round.

The Cubs in 2005 and 2006 had some of the highest team payrolls in the NL each year but, once again, Baker led the 2006 team to not only a last place finish but also the worst record in all of the NL.

So, to rehash, pre-Bonds steroids; three winning seasons, three losing seasons and one Post Season appearance. Bonds on steroids and before the PED testing, six winning seasons, no losing seasons and three trips to the Post Season.

After PED testing, one winning season, five losing seasons and one Post Season appearance.

For those that don't like Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa or Bobby Cox and think their success is mostly due to high team payrolls and players using steroids, those three have NOTHING on Baker.

Even WITH teams that had high payrolls and players on steroids, Baker's teams weren't going to the Post Season every year (as Torres' Yankees and Coxs' Braves were) and he certainly didn't win a World Series (as Torre, Cox and LaRussa did).

Furthermore, Torre, Cox and LaRussa had success AFTER PED testing began whereas Baker has NOT.

So ANY talk of Baker going into the Hall of Fame as a Manager is a complete and utter joke.

David

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

As a manager? Absolutely, assuming that you are going to penalize the players he managed too. Is that enough to derail him? I don't know. He managed a long time, successfully, before steroids were much of an issue. We've had variants of this discussion before, and rules are rules, even if they're unwritten, correct?

So what should Torre have done? Refused to pitch Clemens; refused to play Giambi? Gone to management or the Commissioner? had a heart to heart with Rog? Resigned? These do not seem realistic options to me. I would not punish managers for their players' offenses.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

You're right. Doing nothing is the answer. Profiting from your players' crimes
is OK. Blame them and them only because, somehow, there's a difference
between doing steroids and knowing about it and doing nothing. Guilty
knowledge doesn't matter at all. Just ask Buck Weaver.

[mcadams]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So what should Torre have done? Refused to pitch Clemens; refused to play Giambi? Gone to management or the Commissioner? had a heart to heart with Rog? Resigned? These do not seem realistic options to me. I would not punish managers for their players' offenses.

Yes, he should have done all of the things you mentioned. Of all the great attributes Torre possesses, he obviously didn't have the Courage to get in the middle of this issue. If he had, perhaps the problem would have been solved much earlier. He had the bully pulpit to force MLBs hand on this issue, but he chose not to. But hey, no one else did either....other than Jose Canseco who history may vindicate.

[bcbgcbrcb]

I do not believe that a ballplayer on a team who used steroids should have any impact at all on the view of an executive's career with that team. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that many of that player's teammates knew about the steroids also, why not hold that against them? Where does it end then?

[ctownboy]

What most of you seem to be forgetting is that the Commissioner's Office put PED's on the banned list of substances back in 1993. It was the Player's Association who would NOT go along with banning these substances in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Because of this, the Owners didn't want to start a fight and possibly cause a strike.

It was ONLY when Congress got involved and started talking about the anti-trust issues did the Player's Association agree to do something about PED's. At first, it was only weak penalties for players failing a drug test but then the penalties were increased after Congress was lied to.

As far as Baker goes, my main point about him is that he had advantages most other Manager's didn't have and STILL wasn't a consistant winner and never won a World Series.

As far as I can remember, from 1993 to 2006, both the Giants and the Cubs had team payrolls which were in the upper third of the NL each and every year. So, unlike Managers for the Pirates or Royals, Baker did NOT have the excuse of ownership NOT spending money on the teams he managed.

Also, Baker had a young-ish Barry Bonds. A guy who was one of the best players in all of baseball, who had won MVP Awards while in Pittsburgh and who won an MVP Award his first year in San Francisco (1993). So Baker also can not say his teams didn't have talent.

Yet, even with these advantages his teams were NOT consistant winners and did not make the Play-Offs. As I pointed out, his 1996 team had these advantages and finished with the second worst record in all of the NL while his 2006 team had a high team payroll and finished with hte WORST record in all fo the NL.

Joe Torre, Tony LaRussa and Bobby Cox had the advantages of teams with high payrolls and PED users but at least they won on a consistant basis, went to the Play-Offs fairly regularly and won some World Series with those advantages while also NOT finishing in last place. Baker can not say this.

In short, Torre, LaRussa and Cox might have underachieved with the advantages they were given but they did not fail with those advantages like Baker did.

So, if you want to keep those three out of the Hall of Fame for underachieving then go right ahead. But no one should EVER say Baker is a Hall of Fame Manager considering he had the SAME advantages as the other three but yet achieved considerably less. This is especially true when looking at his record AFTER PED use was banned.

David

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

I do not believe that a ballplayer on a team who used steroids should have any impact at all on the view of an executive's career with that team. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that many of that player's teammates knew about the steroids also, why not hold that against them? Where does it end then?

I agree completely. It's real easy to sit back and moralize, as if Joe Torre and Tony LaRussa were somehow harboring criminals and therefore guilty too. At most, they had suspicions, not proof, I am sure.

[Brendan]

This talk of managers being penalized for players using steroids is total rubbish. Let's say you're Dusty Baker. You know Bonds is using steroids. You make the right decision and say nothing.

If Baker tells Bonds he has to stop, Bonds either doesn't (and gets benched which gets the GM and Owner upset) listen or Baker may get fired. Pretty simple.

Sure, a guy may be in charge but nowadays a veteran star player has superiority over just about anybody. Do you think the owners didn't want steroids? Do you think they would want to sacrifice all that money just so the game can be played fairly, while it never actually has? I mean, guys back in the 70's took stimulants so they could perform better. Nobody said they couldn't, but hey, they still did. If you look at how popular baseball was in the steroid era, you have to wonder if this was ever a problem. In what way is a player's post career health our business?

[tjb1952tjb]

Buck O'Neil........for his life-long contributions to baseball. The man was baseball personified........the most articulate, enthusiastic, and positive exemplar of the game. One couldn't help but feel his love for baseball every time he spoke, and he put a smile on everyone's face.