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

[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.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by mcadams

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.

History will never vindicate Jose Canseco.

He's like the guy who organized the bank robbery, recruited the gang, led the guns into the bank, was first to enter the safe and drove the getaway car.

When he notices he's not quite getting as much credit as the rest of his crew, he goes to the police........tells them they were only good because he taught them all the best secrets of how to rob a bank. He then, writes a tell all book about it, naming names and explaining how he introduced each one of the characters in his life, into this life of crime.

Jose is no hero.

[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

[FrankWakefield]

First, there are too many folks already in the Hall who shouldn't have gotten in, so it is a diluted honor from what it was when I became interested in the game...

With that said, Joe Torre deserves to be enshrined. Now. To not enshrine a manager because he is managing or might return to managing is nonsense, to wait only creates a possibility of posthumous enshrinement. Don't wait.

Mr. Larussa is deserving. Other HOFers who were lawyers include Branch Rickey, Hughie Jennings, Happy Chandler, and John M. Ward.

I can live with Bobby Cox going in. Not excited about that, but it's tolerable.

Steinbrenner, a former convicted felon, has no business in the Hall. It is about all that he did. Shoeless Joe deserves to be right where he is, OUT. And I think Pete deserves to be in there any day he buys a ticket, as a licensee for the day, but not as an enshrined member. George should not be in. I think he'll be in one day because of New York pressure and bias. Lots of stuff that shouldn't happen happens, and Steinbrenner's induction will be one more of such.

Frank Navin would be a good addition. I doubt that he makes it in. Besides, they've dallied and now he's dead... In a well ordered world he'd have been inducted during his lifetime.

*And I edit to agree that Marvin Miller should be in the Hall. There are times that I think that what he set in motion has empowered players to the detriment of the game, but I recognize that he's made a significant impact upon the game, he may well have changed it to a greater extent than anyone other than Mr. Rickey and Jackie Robinson, and maybe half a dozen players.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Even if Torre knew, then no, it would not affect his stature in my eyes. I don't see snitching on his players as his role or responsibility. I blame the players and their union. Selig? I don't see how he is HOF worthy even apart from all the steroid stuff.

[Kenny Cole]

Fair enough. We just disagree.

[Wite3]

Someone who never gets mentioned it seems is Bill James...if you are talking contributions to baseball, James needs to be mentioned. Whether you think him a genius or ruining the game, he has had a massive influence over the years...put him and Marvin Miller in now.

Joshua

[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.

[dstudeba]

The Hall is pathetic without Marvin Miller, debating other cadidates without his inclusion is pointless.

Billy Beane should go in someday.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

I'm not moralizing particularly, because as I stated earlier, I am not as offended by the whole steroid usage issue as are some others. The users cheated, but cheating has been going on in some form or fashion since the inception of the game. If you want to argue that this type of cheating is worse in type or degree than putting substances on the ball, taking greenies, or performing some other type of activity that is against the rules, so be it. I tend not to, but others may differ. I understand that.

However, if you are going to shoot at the players who took the banned substances, presumably to help them get ahead, keep their job and stay in the lineup, it is the height of hyprocrisy to at the same time give the higher ups a pass. They knew, and they did nothing until their hand was forced. Having profited immensley from the very activity that they now feign indignation about, they're teflon? I don't see it that way and see no justification for treating owners, managers or the commissioner differently from the players.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What's your evidence, for example, that Joe Torre "knew" Clemens was using?

[chris6net]

I think it is sad that people would even consider George Steinbrenner for the HOF. I personally know of several families who Steinbrenner affected by his pettiness. Ask many of the long term workers who had their lives changed when Steinbrenner took over in 1973. He was petty and mean to the common worker for the Yankees. Also the 2 great Yankee runs during his time as an owner started while he was suspended and he had competent baseball people running the team. Any owner suspended 2 different times for an extended period of time should never be thought of as a HOF candidate.CN

[Kenny Cole]

It was a generic "they" knew steroid usage was going on, not a specific Joe Torre knew Clemens was using. This isn't a court of law however, and lots of players who have consistently denied having knowingly used steroids have already been convicted in the court of public opinion. The "proof" upon which they have been convicted is based on things like changed physical attributes, rhoid-rage episodes, etc. Were the Yankees who used immune to those changes?

If the accounts that are now being related are correct and usage was as widespread as the reports seem to indicate, Torre would have had to be either real naive, stupid or willfully ignorant to be completely unaware that it was going on in the clubhouse right outside his office. I don't believe he is any of those things. Thus, I conclude that, at the very least, he had a reasonable suspicion that it was going on. BTW, how many of the players he managed were named in the Mitchell report? My recollection is that it was around 20. Was Torre simply blind to all that was going on?

If Torre knew and didn't do anything, does it matter to you insofar as the HOF is concerned? Based on my reading of your prior posts, my impression was that it didn't. How about Selig? I cannot ever be convinced that he didn't know that: 1) it was going on; and 2) it was widespread. Does that knowledge affect his candidacy?