LaRussa: Big Mac a PH at age 46?
This seems like a waste of a roster spot and a publicity stunt. He was hassled by injuries TEN years ago.
over 2 years ago
hotspur
53 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I vote publicity spot
But, hey, to put him on the expanded roster if he can still swing the bat a little bit and they have a few spots open? Why not? It’s a good gimmick if nothing else.
That said, I can’t imagine it will ever happen.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 7, 2010 5:14 PM EST reply actions
They might just be out of money...
"We're just as bad as the old Mets, but this time nobody's laughing"
-Dallas Green
by Stephen Schmidt on Jan 7, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
A gimmick?
But why would they need gimmicks? Love of the St. Louis Cardinals is hardwired into every true son and daughter of Missouri, home of the best baseball— hell, best SPORTS— fans in the wor-rold!
by LeiterMilnerFasterStronger on Jan 8, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions
Will he be peeing into a bottle after every swing?
Asking a General Manager to slim down his budget is like asking an alcoholic to blow up a distillery.
by scott from peekskill on Jan 7, 2010 5:20 PM EST reply actions
This forces the BBWAA's collective hand. Go for it, Mac.
That’s all it is, and, as a fence-sitter who wants to root for Mac, but … can’t, I hope he does it.
The biggest problem Mac has, in re HOF voting, is that beyond his homers, slugging and I guess, walks, there’s nothing. Never won an MVP, top five only three times. Two of those MVP votes were post-strike, and this is a guy who (unlike others) was probably juicing pre-strike. He’s 66th all-time in RBI, behind guys like Joe Carter, Rusty Staub, and Andres Galaraga. He’s a career .263 hitter with 1626 hits in 16 seasons, barely cracking the top 500. He wasn’t great defensively, to say the least, and he struck out almost as often as he walked — 1596 times.
So it’s easy for the BBWAA to nix him, because let’s face it, he’s borderline if you deduct 100 homers. Which is to say, “What do we do about roiders in the Hall?” doesn’t have to be discussed with McGwire.
But it does with Clemens and Bonds, who don’t enter the ballot until 2013, I believe. And it may take five to ten years to figure that out. If it does, Mac’s eligibility is gone.
So, I say, go for it.
Yeah I'm pretty much indifferent to Mcgwire getting in
but im super interested in whats going to happen once Clemens and Bonds become eligible.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Mac might set a precendent though. let him in and all the roiders will be let in.
I want to know if they will let A-Roid… err …A-Rod in.
Asking a General Manager to slim down his budget is like asking an alcoholic to blow up a distillery.
by scott from peekskill on Jan 7, 2010 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah but there's a big difference between guys like Sosa and Mcgwire
and the Rocket, Bonds and A-rod.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Mac is a different case
When he was using these PEDs they weren’t restricted by either the US or MLB, so he technically didn’t break any rules, but he helped (inadvertently) bring about the eventual rule changes that would prohibit the PEDs he was taking. Since he didn’t break any rules its tough to say he shouldn’t get in based on that alone. I think Big Mac misses the hall on lack of credentials alone though so its strictly an academic argument anyway.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
I thought PEDs weren't officially banned until 2005?
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Er 2002 not 2005
regardless wouldn’t Bonds and Clemens “alleged” use both fall before that?
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
The distinction here is Big Mac used Andro
Which was not illegal in the US or MLB until 2004, well after he had finshed his playing career. So neither MLB nor the united states law had any restrictions on its use at the time he played. Anabolic steriods as allegedly used by Clemens and Bonds were illegal to distribute or use without a prescription after 1988 and 1990 respectively. Bonds allegedly started using steroids in 1990, which would put him on the shadier end of this. McNamee also claims Clemens used in 2000 and 2001 which are long after the US ban on these substances without a prescription. Assuming neither one continued to use them past the 2002 MLB cutoff (an unlikely scenario in my opinion) they still obtained their steroids by questionable means as I doubt either one had a valid reason to have a prescription for these drugs. So the legality of Bonds and Clemens activity from an MLB perspective AND a legal perspective are questionable, whereas Big Mac never violated US law or MLB rules. I think this allows one to draw a line between the two groups.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Is the legality really the issue?
If I train overseas in the offseason, is my HOF suitability judged by their laws?
What if a shady doctor prescribes you HGH and Adderall to help treat your dandruff and your resulting bulging muscles and cobra-like intensity are just pleasant side effects?
I define cheating as trying to gain an unfair advantage. If you’re playing poker, then peaking at other players cards is cheating. Unless you’re playing Blind-Man’s-Bluff. If everyone else is doing it, it’s not cheating.
If no one else is juicing and you legally juice to gain an unfair advantage, you’re cheating.
If everyone else is juicing and you illegally juice to keep up with the Joneses, you’re not cheating. (You’re just breaking the law.)
"If no one else is juicing and you legally juice to gain an unfair advantage, you’re cheating."
By “legally” do you mean legal under both Federal law and MLB rules, or legally under Federal law but banned form baseball? Because if it’s the latter, I couldn’t consider some to be a cheater if they were using legal supplements that were not banned by MLB simply because no one else was doing so.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 1:08 PM EST up reply actions
It isn't cheating if there is no rule against it
I’ll admit I dont like his methods, but nothing he did violated the rules of the game as they were stated when he played, so he wasn’t cheating. I don’t like that he used PEDs, but you can’t call him a cheater if he never violated the rules of the game.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
No, I totally agree with you.
I’m just trying to clarify the statement from hotspur’s comment.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
designer drugs
Say you go to BALCO and ask them to whip you up a supplement that’s legal. They take steroid X and add a benzene ring or something to make it sufficiently different that it’s not covered under the drug analog laws. You’re gaining an unfair advantage because no one else has access to the new chemical, but you haven’t broken any laws.
I admit this gets hairy because it’s hard to define what counts as an unfair advantage. My gut says injecting yourself with strange goo is not fair. The Fosbury flop or strength training is okay.
If THG hadn’t been covered under the “analog” laws, Marion Jones would have kept her medals.
Being in the biotech field believe me
Its not easy to change a small molecule and keep functionality. And if i’m not mistaken the MLB agreement covers specific families of molecules and not just specific molecules anyway, so changing a few bonds doesn’t change the classification of the drug if it maintains the same function. Is it still possible to come up with some totally new family of perfomance enhancing drugs that arent covered under the current agreement? … sure. Is it at all easy to do this… absolutely not. Thats not to say some won’t try but mlb bans anabolic steriods, not specific steroid molecules, mlb bans stimulants, not just methamphetamine… the list goes on. They cover their ass enough so that minor changes in a drug won’t let it become legal again.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 3:06 PM EST up reply actions
I believe Bonds' use started in 1998 from what I've heard.
Regardless, I don’t think any of the HOF voters are realy considering steroids from the persepective of “were they legal or not?” Sure McGwire didn’t break a specific rule, but his and others’ use was a violation of the sport’s integrity to many voters. The real problem with steroids and the HOF is that it’s tought to determine where to draw the line. It seems like it would be pretty hard to keep all users out since some of the greatest players of all time have been caught, and it’s hard to determine just how much steroids benefitted certain players. My personal opinion on McGwire is that steroids were integral to his career and he would not be a hall-worthy player in their absence unlike Bonds or Clemens. But how do I know that and who am I to try and determine that?
well as character counts for HOF
A guy who violoated the rules of both MLB and US law should be viewed more negatively than a guy who violated neither but used less than ideal methods to get where he did. I don’t think you can punish McGwire after the fact for using something that was totally legal while he was playing. Bonds and Clemens both used substances that weren’t legal from a MLB or US perspective when they used them, so i think they should be more harshly judged.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
What's
this fascination with Hall of Famers having to have an MVP? Ryan Howard has one he doesn’t deserve, Rollins has one in a year where Wright was much better, I just looked over Dawson’s MVP year, and there were at least 10 guys in the NL who were considerably better than him. The MVP goes to the wrong guy more often than not, so as a fan, why put so much emphasis on it?
The Mets lobby Omar for a plan, and his plan, he likes his plan. The problem is that he didn't write his plan down 'cause that makes it paperwork, and that’s false hustle... Know what I’m sayin’?
Just makes things more justifiable, I guess.
Even though it’s far from perfect- as we all know, in just 2007 alone- it’s supposed to be, you know, the MVP is the best player out there. The more often the player is the best guy out there…
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 7, 2010 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
Beyond homers, slugging and walking...
Those are major parts of hitting. He had a low batting average, but a career .394 OBP. He has the 88th most WAR for position players of all-time according to baseballprojection.com.
This might make Bill Madden's head explode
So I am in favor of it
Oh please let this happen
I just love freak shows.
"Never throw a slider to The Glider."
- Ed Charles, No. 5
Bill Veeck would be proud
Eddie Gaedel was in St. Louis, too. So, there’s a proud, proud tradition…
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 7, 2010 6:57 PM EST reply actions
careful what you wish for
the Mets will see this and the Phils with Matt Stairs and decide they need a “DH” as well.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 10:32 AM EST up reply actions
Fine
The Cards can have McGwire, the Phillies can have Stairs, the Mets can go sign Barry Bonds. I think Bonds would make a fine designated PH.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 10:34 AM EST up reply actions
vomit
I don’t want to see Bonds anywhere near a Mets uniform.
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 8, 2010 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
I hated him before everyone else started hating him
which was after I liked him while everyone hated him (in other words, I really liked him during the early/mid-90’s, but I started hating him in 2000 and that carried over to 2001, when everyone else started falling in love with him – and I was calling him a ’roider long before it came in vogue, not that I have any proof of that)
That said, I wouldn’t complain if Barry Bonds were a Met. Dude was awesome at baseball
2009 Did Not Happen
I'd like that as a trend in baseball
Signing power hitters who retired years ago for some LOL-worthy September pinch-hitting opportunities.
by James Kannengieser on Jan 8, 2010 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
Didn't we do that with Gary Sheffield?
That went better-than-expected, admittedly.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 8, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
Sort of
We actually expected Sheff to field.
"He's definitely mixing it into his repertoire. That's French for 'repertoire' " - Keith Hernandez
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Jan 8, 2010 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
Hey, he did better than I think anyone expected, given the circumstances of him getting all the playing time he did.
"Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!"
Gil Hodges IS a Hall of Famer.
by Brooklyn Dodgers Mets Fan on Jan 9, 2010 1:49 AM EST up reply actions
Jonah Keri had a nice piece about this and its HOF implications
by James Kannengieser on Jan 8, 2010 11:54 AM EST reply actions
That was the first thing I thought of
in fact, I’d wager that’s about 99.9% of the reason LaRussa would consider doing this. The other .1% being that in the ridiculously small chance that it succeeds, LaRussa would be considered a genius.
2009 Did Not Happen
one complaint I have
A lot of “PED’s really aren’t that bad” people use the “your grandpa’s players were doing greenies, so they’re just as bad” line of reasoning, but that strikes me as patently ridiculous. As Keri himself states: "Players of Willie Mays’ era dipped into giant bowls of greenies, proudly displayed in every clubhouse. " (Emphasis added)
If they’re proudly displayed, that means everyone had access to them. The problem with steroids, IMO, is that you don’t know who did and who didn’t use, and while they may have technically been available for anyone, they were illegal and a lot of players probably didn’t want to put themselves in jeopardy to use them. I don’t really care if players go all BioShock on their bodies, I just want to know that every player has the option to do so. In other words, it’s the “cheating” aspect, not the “biologically enhanced” aspect that many people have a problem with. I’m sure there are some crotchety old folks who have a problem with biologically enhanced players, but they’re the same morally superior assholes who have no problem locking kids up for smoking a little pot, and luckily for all of us they’re gonna be dead soon.
2009 Did Not Happen
Well the thing is
it’s likely everyone had equal access to steroids/hgh. There’s no real reason to think players had any less access to PEDS in the 90s/00s than they did in the 60s/70s. I mean how many players got caught with stuff in their lockers.
"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'
it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.
Andro (pre-2003 or '04, whenever it was made illegal) - I don't have a problem with
but anabolic steroids, which have been illegal since at least 1990, that I have a problem with. Not enough of one to keep guys out of the Hall of Fame, but enough to understand why people would want to keep them out.
I mean, yea, maybe technically everyone had access to them, in the same way that you or I have access to crack cocaine. But there are some people who just aren’t going to do illegal things, no matter what advantage it might give them on the field. That’s vastly different from greenies, which were never illegal so there were no moral considerations to it. Some players might not have taken them b/c they didn’t want to put stuff into their bodies, but that’s way different from taking/not taking something b/c it’s illegal.
2009 Did Not Happen
ok ya know, i spend half this thread defending Big Mac because there was no proof he had ever violated the rules of baseball
so what does he do? He goes and admits he’s a cheater a few days later. I take back all previous posts in this thread, he goes in the asshole parade with Clemens and Bonds and A-fraud now
by KeithsMoustache on Jan 11, 2010 3:36 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Heather Nabozny of Tigers, Nicole Sherry of Orioles: Women groundskeepers in MLB
- 10 notable team reps for MLB’s upcoming draft
- Rays’ gladiator helmets: Fernando Rodney, Joel Peralta do as Romans do (VIDEO)
- Rickie Weeks forgets number of outs, passes up chance for inning-ending double play (VIDEO)
- David Ortiz is angry that more people don’t see him as a leader of the Red Sox
