La Russa: Proof of Mark McGwire’s “certain integrity” makes him a Hall of Famer
LAS VEGAS — Given the chance to celebrate and comment on Rickey Henderson’s appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot for the first time, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa also seized the opportunity to stump for another dynamo member of his Oakland Athletics teams who will be on the ballot.
On his third try, Mark McGwire belongs in the Hall of Fame, La Russa believes.
It’s a matter a of “integrity.”
“This steroid issue, that’s a matter of integrity, right?” La Russa said. “That’s one way to describe it, right? Well, it occurred to me, I know that I’ve never spoken much about it at all, but this guy did something that screams integrity. … How many guys do we know that had a contract like he had? He had a contract in his hand for $15 million over two years, and he walked away from it because he didn’t feel like he could play to that level. That, to me, there’s a certain integrity for the sport, for self-respect and everything.”
La Russa is referencing a story that is well-known in St. Louis. After the 2001 season, a disappointing one for the slugger, McGwire retired and, as Bernie Miklasz put in a column around that time, “handed a guaranteed $30 million contract back to the Cardinals.” From Rick Hummel’s coverage of the extension McGwire signed during spring training of that same season, quoting Walt Jocketty to start:
“… He wanted to have a clause that if he was unable to play, he’d only take half his money. He said, ‘Look, I don’t want to be paid if I’m not playing. I don’t want my full salary if I’m not going to play. I don’t think it’s right.’ “But we weren’t able to put that kind of language in the contract. Still, I think it’s remarkable that he would do that.”
Jocketty said the Cardinals called the commissioner’s office about the matter and the reply was that the Cardinals could indeed put the clause in the contract, “but they didn’t think it would be approved (by the players’ association).”
La Russa contends that while the hearings before Congress and the subsequent lack of comment from McGwire — who did speak with Hummel on the 10th anniversary of his 70 home runs in 1998 — has cast a shadow over McGwire’s career, this act of giving back a guaranteed contract sheds the real light on McGwire’s character. And, La Russa continues, yes, character should be considered when Hall of Fame voters consider McGwire for a third time.
The manager believes that this act of “integrity” should not necessarily change how people view what has happened since McGwire retired but it should be entered into evidence with equal fervor.
McGwire retired after the 2001 season with 583 home runs and as the single-season home run king, a record since broken. He was also a 12-time All-Star and by many standards an obvious Hall of Famer. He has received roughly the same percentage of votes each year, right around a fourth of the votes.
La Russa’s comments created this exchange with reporters on Wednesday when he asked if how McGwire handled the contract situation and retirement tells more about him than how he performed in front of Congress or how he’s not fielded questions about the usage of performance-enhancing drugs:
La Russa: Now, our guess, and people that I’ve talked to, our guess is that a whole lot of guys, just being normal, would be figured some way to either talk to the organization, like let’s get a buyout, give me $5 million instead of $30 million, whatever it is, or go ahead and play less than their best and collect a check for two years. He walked away from two years of $30 million, and I thought to myself when I told this one writer, ‘Man, I think that speaks to the public or the voters about his integrity.’
You’ve got to be a pretty solid character guy … Am I reading that wrong? Do you think that’s a good sign of character, that you would walk away from $30 million if you didn’t think you could play to that level? How would you take that decision and not make sense of it.
Reporter. I’m not sure that you’re comparing apples to apples.
La Russa: So how would you describe a guy that walks away from $30 million?
Reporter. I’m agreeing with you that that’s a sign of character, not to have a debate that’s going to be transcribed here. This isn’t the place. I would agree that that’s a sign of integrity. But I think we all do things that show integrity in one side of our life and make questionable moves on another parallel track.
La Russa: I’m just saying that the fact that he walked away from that money has been an under-discussed, under-publicized — I know I have not discussed it, and I think that is a hellacious sign of the type of person he is, and that should translate into knowing that he’s a special guy. I just never talked about it. I thought I had the chance so I’d mention it.
Reporter. So you’d consider it as an intangible for his Hall of Fame?
La Russa: Yeah, he’s got this cloud over him.
Reporter. Character is an issue (on the ballot).
La Russa: So I think that showed great character because there’s not many guys that I know that wouldn’t have said, ‘I’ll just stumble along and take those checks.’
La Russa said he recently had dinner with McGwire, while the general managers gathered in Dana Point, Calif. for their annual meetings. He did reiterate an invitation to come to spring training and be a hitting instructor. La Russa lauds McGwire’s ability to teach hitting, his thoughts on hitting and how he could help several of the young hitters. The slugger has helped Chris Duncan before, and Skip Schumaker credits McGwire with helping him improve as a hitter.
McGwire was close to joining the team in spring training this past season, enough that the team was beginning to plan the inevitable crush of coverage. There was even that typo on Day 1 of camp that had McGwire listed as a coach on La Russa’s workout-organization sheet.
“Well, there’s no doubt because he was on his way last spring, and then he had an issue,” La Russa said. “He was within a week of coming to camp. But it’s still the same. His two boys are demanding a lot of his time, and he’s having a great time being around them.”
-30-
Derrick Goold said he was going to Mizzou for capital-J journalism, but after growing up in the Time Zone Baseball Forgot he was really drawn to MU sitting between two major-league cities. Goold joined the Post-Dispatch in 2001 after working for The Times-Picayune and Rocky Mountain News, covering sports from LSU to NHL and every level of baseball in between. 
Mr. Gould - And your acquaintances clearly do not know Mr. McGwire. So they “think” Mac used illegal “controlled substances” and therefore they vote against him? Now THERE’s an ethical position! Where, in your universe, is THEIR obligation to have evidence before making accusations? Fact is, sportswriters are no more competent to choose members of the hof than the steady fan. And your demands are total bs.
Have your acquaintances testified under oath that THEY have not used “controlled substances”? Should they not be at least required to state that upfront to each person on the hof ballot before being allowed to vote? If they have evidence that Mac used illegal controlled substances, have they done their civic duty and reported their evidence or the basis of their beliefs to the appropriate legal authorities?
Sportswriters are no more ethical than the people they presume to judge. And your supersensitivity underscores it.
Mr. Eff,
Now, isn’t that better? Instead of slinging accusations, you stated your opinion, backed it up quite well, stated it clearly, probably swayed some readers … But missed a key point of the entry above. See No. 2 of the three reasons writers give for their votes.
Many voters aren’t making their decisions on assumptions or guesses or presumptions of guilt. They are merely saying they want to hear more from McGwire — more facts, more evidence, pro, con. They would like him to answer questions about it. And, right now, they have the luxury of waiting. We have more information today than we did two years. We have more facts today than we did three years ago. New evidence, reporting, facts, comments, witnesses, information … all of it has come to light each and every passing season.
You are correct that all of the story isn’t told. McGwire told Congress he would speak out about steroid-use and talk to school-age athletes about the use of performance-enhancing drugs. He hasn’t. But one organization dedicated to educating school-age athletes about performance-enhancing did receive a substantial check one day, shortly after the hearing.
It came from Mark McGwire and his foundation.
Many writers are actually doing the opposite of what you’re condemning them for: They are waiting for more information so they don’t have to guess — whether he did or he didn’t. So they know, or know up to a point they are comfortable. Most writers are doing exactly what they should: Waiting for as many facts as possible before making a decision.
And Mr. Gould is either the actor or the brilliant essayist (seriously, check out “Triumph and Tragedy in Mudville”). Mr. Goold is my father.
dg
P.S. As for your last sentence. There is a lot of truth there. You just paint with too broad a brush. It’s like me saying people who comment on messages are too skittish to link their opinions to their real names. That clearly isn’t true in all cases. It probably isn’t true in a majority of the cases. So, why condemn the masses for sins of a minority?
It’s a tad silly.
-30-
Mr. Goold - I’m not interested in swaying readers’ opinions. I wrote to express my own, and to present facts which largely escape discussion of McGwire’s career and life. Unfortunately [perhaps] readers only vote on their own personal hof, as I do, and the people who vote on the MLB hof are highly unlikely to read this blog.
Nonetheless, you have made an unfair [to McGwire] choice in presenting your acquaintances’ preferences [ie-wanting to hear more from McGwire]as reasonable, when in fact it would be far more reasonable, given the long list of ethical acts and restraints by McGwire that I listed in my first comment [and only one of which Tony, somewhat garbily, tried to present], and more, for them to give Mac the benefit of the doubt. Fairness argues that they demand proof from those who say that he DID use illegal controlled substances [and, by the way, that they did "enhance" his performance!], rather than requiring him to prove a negative pregnant, or, simply, his innocence. For a sport which insists on playing the national anthem before every game and god bless america somewhere in the middle, assuming guilt seems—how shall I say it—un-American. Given what he did both for the fans, the writers who hounded him mercilessly, and MLB, he deserves to be thought innocent unless shown convincingly to have been guilty, something beyond his mere musculature [I think Frank Thomas would agree with that].
It’s funny how people just assume someone has taken steroids when there has been no actual proof of it. Come on people, that’d be like society saying you committed the crime without any substantial evidence. I’m pretty sure our constitution allows citizens of the US to plea the 5th amendment.
And, considering all that McGwire did for this franchise [and especially the post-Busch ownership group], and for MLB, it’s obscene that the Cardinals haven’t retired his number.
I agree 100%. It is absolutely silly that we just assume that McGwire took an illegal substance.
To factor that into HOF voting is just silly. He has done so much for the game of baseball. As mentioned earlier he brought fans back to MLB during the epic homerun chase in 98 , and gave so much to the franchise. To not give him the benefit of the doubt is simply ridiculous.
Some very intersting points, DG. Thanks for posting on actual HOF voters reasoning on why they can’t vote McGwire in. I enjoyed reading both sides of this argument, and it is clearly unfair to Mark to make a judgment of whether or not he is a HOF’er when the complete story is not known. All I know is that it is probably fair to say that without McGwire the Cardinals and MLB would not be where they are today…again, interesting discussion…
One more thing…
DG, you write that the third reason for HOF voters and their reasoning regarding McGwire and the HOF is “They don’t think his statistics merit Cooperstown”. I have a hard time looking at the numbers of McGwire and saying the stats he put up don’t merit Cooperstown. Your thoughts? How can a writer make an argument against his stats? Just curious about that statement…
Check out even a few hofers who were primarily sluggers and it’s clear that Mac’s most relevant stats are equal to and often superior to most of them. Look for example, at McCovey, Reggie, Tony Perez.
Let’s not forget that MLB was saved by the 1998 season. It brought fans back to the game after the strike of 1994. MLB closed its eyes and pretended not to hear or see–it HAD to do it to save the game.
Now it wants to shun the very players that brought baseball back to life. McGwire deserves to be in the hall of fame–it was never proven he cheated–what he did use was ok by MLB back then and he and Sosa brought MLB back from the dead.
I wholeheartedly agree. He broke the rules, and if he’s let in, then let’s put in Shoeless Joe, Ed Ciocotte, and Hal Chase.