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

[novakjr]

I know this is the pre-war forum, but I think the topic is somewhat relevant since most HOF collection threads fall into this forum. Anyways, here goes. There's a good number of us with HOF player/manager/whatever collections, and I'm sure that I'm not the only one that tries to beat the hall to the punch by also collecting players that I think WILL(or at least should) get in eventually. I'm pretty comfortable with my assessment of the players, but I was wondering what managers/executives/umpires(past or present) people think will eventually get in as well?

Manager-wise, I think Joe Torre and Bobby Cox are probably safe bets. I also think that Jim Leyland, Lou Piniella and Terry Francona have a decent chance.

As far as executives go, commissioners almost always get in, but owners and such I'm really not so sure about....Steinbrenner, maybe?

And when it comes to umpires, I wouldn't even know where to begin guessing.

Any thoughts and additions would be appreciated?

[rhettyeakley]

add Tony LaRussa to the list (love 'em or hate 'em he has managed over 5,000 games and has won 2 World Series.)

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

add Tony LaRussa to the list (love 'em or hate 'em he has managed over 5,000 games and has won 2 World Series.)

Ahh Yes! I knew I was forgetting an obvious one...

[bcbgcbrcb]

Steinbrenner will likely get in during the next go-around for executives.

[carrigansghost]

how many managers have won two world series and are not in the HOF?

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by carrigansghost

how many managers have won two world series and are not in the HOF?

Well, the first one off the top of my head would be Carrigan.

Danny Murtaugh, Ralph Houk, Cito Gaston, Tom Kelly, Torre and Larussa. Although, I'm pretty sure a few of these guys will drop off of this list.

[novakjr]

Now that I think about it, Frank Chance wasn't elected as a manager...Any chance this could happen, or would they just not even bother because he's already in as a player?

The inverse of that goes for Torre. If he were to get in as a manager, would they still pursue getting him in as a player?

[mcadams]

Of current and recent managers, here are my thoughts:
Joe Torre and Bobby Cox should both get in on their 1st shot on the ballott. Both are legends of the modern era and are considered irreplaceble by their respective ballclubs. No brainers. After those two, I think LaRussa should get in as well and I'd even throw Lou Piniella in the mix. Lastly, I think Mike Scioscia will win at least more championship before he's done and will be in consideration one day.

[Fred]

To me Torre gets in based on the number of WS rings but come on now, you could have probably put just about any manager in that place and won those WS titles. Take away Torre's Yankee tenure and you have an average manager. Torre, without a doubt, will be remembered as an old school class act. I suppose you could put him in the HOF for making it through 12 years in the Yankee organization with George Steinbrenner. Torre certainly gets my vote into Cooperstown based on his lifetime acheivements in the game - lets not forget that as a player he was a 9x All Star with an MVP to his accomplishments.

[prewarsports]

I think Nicholas Young, John Brush and Frank Navin should be in from the earlier era of executives/owners. They will probably never make it and that is not a big deal. I HATE Steinbrenner and will shield my eyes when visiting Cooperstown so as not to look directly into the face of evil when he makes it in eventually!

I think Cy Rigler should absolutely be in as an umpire

Managers, I am ok with Torre and LaRussa and Bobby Cox. I always liked Lou Pinella but he is probably a longshot.

Rhys

[Brian Van Horn]

Danny Murtaugh stacks up favorably with a number of Hall of Fame managers:

[aljurgela]

Buck O'neil should get in as "overall contribution to the game" as he was a good (not great) player and a coach and then worked for years on behalf of the NL HOF and HOF... a real class act that everybody loved and that baseball is "better for" having had in the game...

[A2000]

Marvin Miller should be in the Hall of Fame.

Larussa, Cox and Torre (3rd, 4th and 5th all time in wins respectively) will all get into the Hall because every manager in the top 11 are already enshrined.

I don't see Terry Francona getting serious consideration for the Hall of Fame in the near future as he's ranked 60th right now.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by A2000

Marvin Miller should be in the Hall of Fame.

Larussa, Cox and Torre (3rd, 4th and 5th all time in wins respectively) will all get into the Hall because every manager in the top 11 are already enshrined.

I don't see Terry Francona getting serious consideration for the Hall of Fame in the near future as he's ranked 60th right now.

I mentioned Francona more on potential...He's already got a great foundation with five 95+ win seasons and the two World Series wins. I think the fact that they were for the Red Sox, kinda makes the first one a little more than just a championship... He'll be legendary in Boston forever for being the manager of the '04 team that reversed the curse.. And a bit of that legendary status should bleed out a little into the rest of the baseball loving population due to the historic nature of the supposed curse...***Keep in mind, I'm NOT a Sox fan at all just giving an honest observation***The first manager to break the Cubs curse, or any manager/coach who wins in any major sport for Cleveland will also get this somewhat legendary treatment in my mind...

5-7 more solid years, and I say he's in.. Another pennant or two wouldn't hurt either. BUT 1 more WS win would almost guarantee him enshrinement...If he were to stop managing today, I'd say no though. He just needs to compile at this point.

[packs]

I know he's a pitching coach, but when he's done I think Dave Duncan belongs in the Hall. He's made huge impacts on too many careers to name. It's a unique case.

[steve B]

As much as I hate to admit it, Steinbrenner should be in. He pulled his team out of an eightyear slump as a new owner and built a team amazing for being consistently competetive. And doing that means building an excellent front office staff. How many teams have the funding, but not the smarts to get the right players? And his marketing of the team was also impressive, bringing in concepts like the team owning a primary media outlet. (Turner and others were earlier, but I see them as more media outlets owning a team to use as a product.)

I'd also have to include Charlie Finley. Annoying, with odd but creative ideas- designated runner?- But some stuck for better or worse. Loud uniforms, ball girls... He pushed the DH and other less sucessful ideas. Todays game wouldn't be quite what it is without him. (Plus he had a couple people on the payroll that went on to bigger things- MC Hammer, and the woman who started Mrs. Fields Cookies)


Steve B

[ChiefBenderForever]

Without question TK Tom Kelly

[tcdyess]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Steinbrenner will likely get in during the next go-around for executives.

The Boss!!!! He changed the game forever (good or bad), every player should pay homage to what he did for them.....

[novakjr]

Any thoughts on Ralph Houk, Billy Martin or Dusty Baker?

And I know this one will be a big stretch, but being a Cleveland fan I've gotta at least mention him. Mike Hargrove? From '94-'99 he was arguably "one of" the best managers in the league. I will say that I think his years in Baltimore and Seattle have hurt him a lot though...

Which also leads me to one executive, John Hart? Those 90's Indians teams he put together were incredible...Sure no World Series wins, but 2 appearances, and 870-681 under Hart. He was also the Sporting News Executive of the Year in '94 and '95.. Now add a 3rd WS appearance while the Senior Adviser of Baseball Operations for the Rangers... This guy had an undeniable knack for scouting, whether it be through the draft or in trades for prospects..

[Wite3]

I always found it interesting that RC of Hall of Fame Managers (or cards in general of HOF managers) seem to be cheaper than their contemporary counterparts (with the exception of possibly Connie Mack). Managing in the majors and winning consistently has to be very difficult. Especially since the 1950s when managers and owners started splitting the ownership roles (Mack stuck around a long time because he owned the team)...Imagine a team keeping a manager after 13 losing seasons (also had a run of 10 losing seasons as well)?

Joshua

[ksfarmboy]

Since nobody has mentioned any umpires here's a fellow Kansan that I'd like to see get in. He's already in the Basketball Hall of fame and umpired more than a few baseball games. Ernest Quigley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_C._Quigley

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by packs

I know he's a pitching coach, but when he's done I think Dave Duncan belongs in the Hall. He's made huge impacts on too many careers to name. It's a unique case.

How about Leo Mazzone?

Steve

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

add Tony LaRussa to the list (love 'em or hate 'em he has managed over 5,000 games and has won 2 World Series.)

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.

[Kenny Cole]

That's an interesting position on LaRussa. I'm probably in the minority in terms of steroid usage, as I don't get nearly as exorcised about it as some do (which is not meant to derail the thread and start the tired old debate about that issue), but I do agree that whatever the rules, they ought to apply across the board, to include managers, owners, executives and players. If players are to be penalized, so too should be those who facilitated usage and/or profited while knowing about it but turning a blind eye. That would obviously include every owner and manager, as well as the esteemed commissioner.

LOL, I gues the net result of that positon is almost no one associated with MLB in the 90's or 00's should be elected. I'm guessing that's not too likely to happen.

Kenny Cole

[AndyG09]

Marvin Miller should already be in the HOF. I hope he is alive when he finally gets his due.

Would have to imagine Bud Selig will get a plaque someday as well. Love him or hate him, he has quite a bit of longevity and that seems to carry a lot of weight.

Best,

Andy

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by perezfan

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.

I agree with you 110%

Chris

[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

[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.

[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 perezfan

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.

I completely agree with this line of thinking. Of the 3 modern managers we've mostly discussed here, Larussa AND Torre should both be questioned. Alongside your Big Mac and Palmeiro points, there were lots of Yankees on "the list" as well. Andy Pettitte, Jason Giambi, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Chuck Knoblauch, Jason Grimsley, Glenallen Hill, etc. etc. etc. In my opinion, the only HOF manager from this era who DIDNT have a steroid problem on his team was Bobby Cox.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[novakjr]

What's a manager, gm or owner to do? Are they supposed to get rid of, or pass on a guy who is going to help them win because of steroids, so he can go do it for someone else?

A manager's job is to find a way to win while working with the pieces he is given. A GM's job is to get the manager the pieces to win. And an Owner needs to find a balance between winning and profit. If there's nothing you can do to get a player removed from the league all-together, then the only thing you can do is accept him.. There was no moral high-road or low-road when it came to this as far as management goes. They were stuck with the situation. Get him and use him, or someone else will. Could you imagine the amount of collusion suits brought against the league if these guys were basically blackballed?

The true blame for the Steroid mess should go to the players and the union for not allowing anything to be done about it. Selig and the owners were a bit handcuffed, but honestly should've given the union the terms and said "it's this or nothing". However, Selig and the Owners are running a business. There was big money to be lost in a strike or lockout. So I can't completely blame them for trying to privately resolve the issue from within, if only to keep it from coming to a lockout..

On the other side of that is the fact that none of 'em really tried to privately resolve the issue from within. They just accepted it as unstoppable and used turning a blind eye as a tool to make more money...Managers and GM's were just stuck with the situation though. What are they supposed to do? Walk away from the game?

[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.