FT debates A-Rod v. Bud Selig Hall of Fame hypocrisy comments

00:00:05
Speaker 1: Is the holiday season when we get extra beef, or at least some of us do with the sports that we cover. And that's a Rod versus Bud Selig in this particular sport of baseball off season talk and hall of Fame talk. So, guys, I'll read the quote from a Rod. He was talking to stephen A. Smith on his show. And remember this has to do with a Rod talking hall of fame. They had been mentioning guys like Maguire and Bonds and Clemens. A Rod is on his fifth chance on the ballot here coming up. He hasn't gotten to forty percent you need seventy five percent. His numbers are not trending in a direction that's going to get him in with the writers. Okay, he told stephen A all of this stuff you're talking about was under bud Selig's watch. And the fact that those two guys are not in talking about Bonds and Clemens, but somehow Bud Selig is in the Hall of Fame. That to me feels like there's a little bit somepocrisy around that. You can see here we're showing you. Matt Snyder, writing the column for CBS Sports, covering the quote He also mentioned how bud Selig was inducted into the Hall of Fame after getting enough votes from that Today's Game Era committee, So that wasn't a vote in from the writers. That's a sixteen person committee. We see a lot of those committees pop up for players, and then they also can pop up for a commissioner like Seelig. He also pointed out how yes Selig was the main man in charge of the sport for a good chunk of the steroid era, and he also was involved in owner collusion, a scandal back in the nineteen eighties. And for Snyder, he's like, that's why I alone would not have voted him into the Hall of Fame, but that was not up to the writers. So Kratz, what do you think of a Rod's claim here against bud Selig?

00:01:51
Speaker 2: When Airod says a lot of things, I rarely disagree with what he says. I feel like this is something that has been very well swept under the rug by Major League Baseball because they were very complicit in the steroid era. They were making a lot of money. What brought baseball back. Sosa and Maguire brought it back after the strike, which was caused by the owners, which was caused. Like there, you can argue on both sides of this, but if you were going to penalize guys who did the steroids, to me, there has to be some type of penalty unless you're just saying, well, major League Baseball knew nothing about this, and they knew a lot about it. They didn't want to disrupt what they had going on, so they said, you guys, keep hitting your dangers. And then when the courts and the Supreme Court got involved, they said, oh, yeah, well these players, they're bad. All these guys are bad. And you know what happens, KP. When you point your finger at somebody three fingers pointing right back at you. And I think it's something that that needs to be questioned. I kind of agree with ay Rod in this sense. And it's really rare that I agree with what a Rod says, but in this case I kind of do.

00:03:13
Speaker 1: And I will say real quick, KP. Congress got involved. I don't think Supreme Court, Congress got involved with the pena and that famous well ye back and forth with some players. Yeah, exactly good challenge. But KP. Your thoughts on this one is Bud Seeley getting away Scott free while other players are being punished just when it comes to Hall of Fame talk here.

00:03:35
Speaker 3: Yeah, more than likely. But I like to see the Baseball Hall of Fame is supposed to be a museum of the greatest players that ever played this game. There are many different eras of baseball since the inception of baseball. To not have Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Maguire Sosa, Roger Clemens, players like that in the Hall of Fame, I think it's doing a disservice for the game, doing a disservice for the Hall of Fame. Was it a dark time in baseball? Yes, but in the Hall of Fame there can be a separate hallway of this dark era in baseball. But these guys should be memorialized in there because they are some of the greatest players to ever play the game. And yes, they're gonna people that disagree with me and say, hey, these guys cheated, they took pds, but there was probably a lot of other players that were doing the same things they were doing. These guys were just better than them.

00:04:28
Speaker 2: I also think you're hang sorry, Scotty, you mentioned the one thing they didn't test positive. Not all those guys tested positive now now like because we're getting down to more of the granular part of it. Yes, they're all lumped in. They're all lumped in. And you know Andy Pettitt was lumped in on that and he's come out and spoken about it. Manny Ramirez is lumped in. Manny Ramirez a rod. They're a little different, like they tested positive and then they positive again. Like to me, there's not a direct correlation. While they are associated with steroids and they are, There's been many claims and people have come out and said, yes, you know this guy definitely took steroids. You can see how he improved and how he got better when he was for all that stuff. I'm not disagreeing with that, but we have to separate it. When the testing came out and guys got tested and tested positive, you're wiped out. You you knew the rules, You weren't skirting by the rules, you knew them. You intentionally broke them by doing that.

00:05:39
Speaker 1: Yes, krats were on the same page. I was basically going to say the same thing. What I'll add is that I see the argument for both sides when it comes to players like Bonds and clements. I do not see the argument for both sides when it comes to someone like Alex Rodriguez. Specific rules were in place, right it was wild West, and then it wasn't. Testing was put in place, suspensions were put in place, the game got more serious about it. And for me, that's where the difference is. So we can have debates all day, and we've had tons of them. I think when it comes to a player like a Rod, and yes, when it comes to a player like Manny, they violated rules. Everybody was well aware of them. You guys have to pee all the time to get tested for royds and peds, and a Rod broke those rules. And to me, I do think an offense like that can be punishable with no Hall of fame because we don't know how deep it gets.

00:06:31
Speaker 3: It.

00:06:31
Speaker 1: Actually, this is the part where I agree with Kratz and I agree with a Rod. There is hypocrisy when it comes to Bud Selig. But soon before that quote, A Rod spoke to Sports Illustrated and said, if you look at the body of work of my twenty three year career, say I averaged somewhere around forty two home runs through those years in the time that I got suspended for I think I hit five home runs. Talk about a head fake and later spoke about it again. The fact is I hit over forty home runs many many, many many years, and then to make it a double whammie what I got suspended for. I think I hit like five to seven home runs. Sorry, not buying.

00:07:07
Speaker 2: That tragic delusion, delusional think. I think we're all as athletes or former athletes were delusional. I know when I stand over a golf shot, I'm delusional. I'm like, this one's going in, and the course of my career of golf, it's never gone in. I'm delusional that I should have been playing in the big leagues. In every pitch I was going to see who I was going to hit a homer. But eight Rodd's taking the delusion to another level, Like if that's what he's truly telling himself, that's what he truly believes that. I think he's lost touch with reality of what he did, and he's trying to, I think, in his own mind, make himself not look as guilty. I'm not sure, but five to seven home run like he's cherry picking one year. Like anyway, I just I have a hard time with this comment.

00:08:02
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean when you when you get caught too, is really the only time you come out and make these type of statements that well, it really didn't help that much, you know. But also you don't also really tell the entirety of the truth how long were you taking it? You only kind of segment it to, hey, I got caught this year, so look at my numbers. There was only five to seven more. But who really knows how much longer someone was doing something before that?

00:08:29
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would and I would say, people are gonna be like, well, a Ron never got a Roon never got caught other years. Aeron never got caught in other years, and you just said he never got caught those other years. Okay. You know what, when you get caught doing something illegally rarely is that the first time? Rarely? Did you? Like, it might have been the third or fourth time, and then you finally got caught doing it in that time. And in this case, there's a lot of things that that point to the fact that it was not the first time and he did it.

00:09:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, there was a lot of fibbing over the course of his career, and then correcting the fibbing and readmitting things. And that went as deep as suing everybody that had a pulse and then pulling back when everybody was like, bring it on because we have a lot on you. And then he pulled back and admitted things. So, yes, there's a good and a bad to this conversation. It started off on a good track where I do agree with him. It's not necessarily fair because who was overseeing the sport. Yes it was Bud Selig, but it is what it is. He gets in and there was a different standard for someone like him compared to players. And again, it's always been illegal to use peds right, not even just in baseball but in the country. Right, there's a list of substances that you cannot use to help your performance. The difference was there was, you know, a time period where all of a sudden, the league really clamped down. I've always been a guy that doesn't want you know, the guys in regardless, but it gets dicey. You don't know everybody that did or didn't use especially if we go you know, back to the eighties, nineties and early two thousands. We have guesses, we have stories, and we know for a fact that there are multiple if not many, many players that are in the Hall of Fame who used peds. So some people say it already broke, let's just do it, and my line is going to be the positive test.

00:10:17
Speaker 3: No, I think it's a fair line. Like you said, I mean, there's probably multiple guys in there that will never ever admit to it. Maybe they didn't look the part, but there was definitely some performance enhancing and you could go as far as saying that there was. It was very well known in the game that people were taking ephetamines, they were taking greenies, you know, just because they weren't physically stronger and their muscles weren't bulging like some of these players you you know see who take peds their body changes. You know. I wasn't able to take you know, adderall or greenies or things like that would allow my focus or my energy to b level. So there is kind of a blurred line in there. I do agree with you, Scott. Guys that were tested and caught and tested positive, they have no uh, they have no pathway to being in the Hall of Fame for me. But I think there's a lot of guys out there that are being kind of lumped in this assumption without you know, being proven guilty. I think there's some guys that are really uh deserving of being in the Hall of Fame.

00:11:18
Speaker 2: You said big muscles people about Look at Scott.

00:11:25
Speaker 3: You guys, our territory doesn't test.

00:11:28
Speaker 2: Thank goodness, they don't test for greatness, because I would test positive every day.

00:11:34
Speaker 1: Kratz is just pure genetic greatness. Right. Let me look at person.

00:11:42
Speaker 3: I gotta ask you a question about this blurred line, Pete Rose. He obviously, you know, broke a rule. He's gonna get in. They waited too long. Obviously he's not around anymore. Like is there is there is there things where you feel like, yes, they broke the rule. But maybe there's guys that are it's still worth being in the Hall of Fame. Maybe there's kind of a different sort of threshold. Maybe you're not allowed to visit the hall, maybe you're not allowed to be there when it's inducted. But there's it is the history of our game, and it's supposed to have some of the greatest players in there, and unfortunately some of our greatest players did potentially break some rules.

00:12:19
Speaker 1: I don't think he's getting in, first of all, just because he's eligible doesn't mean he gets in. Is he going to get voted in by the writers? I don't think so. He's going to get voted in by former players. I don't think so. He broke a cardinal, cardinal rule, and I don't think he's getting in. I really don't. I don't see it for him. The eligibility thing was yes, the commissioner, but we've spoken about that topic. That had more to do with him appeasing an ask from a president and then probably making some favor exchanges behind the scenes, and also an easy thing to do for MLB, right, they just throw it back on other people to vote for, which I think is the right thing to do. But I don't think he's going to get in. I agree, Okay, KP. You do you think people? You think he'll get seventy five percent from the writers? I don't think so.

00:13:08
Speaker 3: I could see it happening. I could see it happening. I know it was as a cardinal rule that was broken. It was a long time ago. And you know, I've been doing a little bit more research on Pete Rose flying a lot during the postseason. I was able to watch some more documentaries on the guy, and you know, there's I hate that we take in the the the way that Pete Rose may have treated other people or the writers or people that were around him doesn't necessarily nestlee take away from what he was able to accomplish on the field. You know, I think a lot changes when someone passes. I think you have a little bit more time to kind of reflect. I think you have a lot you know now that he's not kind of running his mouth. He's no longer with us anymore. You know, Is it going to happen in year one? Probably not? Year two? Probably not. But I could see a path for because I think what he was able to do as a player in the game is something worth being remembered and worthy of being in the hall. I don't know that. Maybe that's just my opinion, maybe it's not a popular take, but I hate that he broke the rule. I hate that there's people that broke the rule. I hate knowing that I played against players that were probably breaking the rules and that we're probably punching me out. And I know that thereas guys that were caught and tested positive and I don't get those statistics back. So I mean, yes, I'm on the fence with a lot of stuff. I just think that the Hall of Fame could potentially have maybe a different section of these guys that kind of fall into this category, because I think they're worthy of being there, even though that maybe they broke some rules.

00:14:44
Speaker 1: They have a lot for those guys. If you go up to Cooperstown, they just don't have plaques like you can still learn all about them. It's a museum. So that's the counterpoint. Let's finish with this, KP. If you're playing for a manager who bets on your team to win games but not all of those games, felt like it altered the way that your season played out, and it really altered the ethics of the sport, do you think that person would be worthy of making it to the Hall.

00:15:08
Speaker 3: Of Fame betting on my team to win selectively?

00:15:14
Speaker 1: Selectively, because if you really think your team's gonna win, they're gonna bet every time. When you bet selectively, that means they're going to alter the way that you manage the game. You know what I'm saying.

00:15:23
Speaker 3: I could see, but you also, I mean, I don't bet. I don't sports bet that much too, but I'm not just kind of betting on the same team to win every game I'm taking in you know who they're playing, who's starting, you know, obviously knowing my roster, who's injured and stuff like that. Yeah, I mean I could see where I could see where it can get a little bit messy. But I don't think any manager, even without the betting scandal of it, is going to say, hey, I truly believe my team's gonna win every night. I would put my own money on the line because you have the pulse of your clubhouse. Do you know who's you know, you have a core secret, maybe his hamm, he's not doing right where you know, my starting pitcher is kind of a little bit banged up, Like you're not truly going to put your money where your mouth is every night. You have to put on this front you believe your team's gonna win every night. But if you were allowed to bet on your team, I don't think a manager would bet on their team to win every single day. They take a pulse of the room, they have a good feel for who the matchup, who they're they're facing, who's starting on the other side. So yeah, I mean, I don't love that he did it, I really don't, But I think it's better than him betting on his team to lose. I think that would really change the integrity of how he would manage his team.

00:16:33
Speaker 1: To me, just to me, and I'm a betting man. When you're betting, let's say, out of one hundred and sixty too, you're betting one hundred times for your team to win those sixty two games are not going to be looked at the same from the better if the guy is betting like that, right, I'm not going to use my big boy out of the bullpen tonight. I didn't bet on this one. I got tomorrow's game. It's it's bad, it's bad ethics for the sport. That's just my take.

00:16:56
Speaker 3: No, I agree with you. I mean, obviously, this happened a long time ago, but I think if that was happening in today's game, which I mean sadly it kind of still is from a player's perspective, that's another conversation. But I feel like it would be a lot harder to get away with those things because we have so much information on players right now, and players are so much more outspoken. If a situation in a game came up where it was very obvious to go to certain guys in the bullpen, and they were healthy and available. You have to answer questions about it, and those players are going to answer questions about it, and then it starts to become very obvious. Oh maybe this is a game you can look back and be like, oh, it makes total sense. He didn't bet on his team that game, so he didn't use X, Y, and Z. So I do think it is slightly different now. It would be interesting if someone kind of went down that rabbit hole of Okay, these are the games that he betted on. This is how he used his bullpen or his bench to see if he was kind of altering the way that he was managing games depending on the games that he was betting on.

00:18:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a hot topic.

00:18:02
Speaker 3: I mean, that's an interesting topic. I mean, I don't want to come out and get a cheat on the game. And if you're really good, you deserve to get in there. I'm just a big believer in the Hall of Fame. I think the I think the Hall of Fame. I don't know. There's a been interesting take to Baseball is clearly the hardest Hall of Fame to get in of any of the major sports that the bar is set so incredibly high that when there are these certain generational type of players. You know, obviously Pete Rose being the guy who has the most hits in baseball, a Rod being this kind of unicorn talent, Obviously he's in a different category because he did was did receive a suspension and was you know, caught. But there's a lot of these other guys where you have these five hundred homer guys that aren't in, and there's some other guys. It just feels like sometimes it's a lot of picking and choosing did we like the guy's personality? Do we like this?

00:18:54
Speaker 1: Like?

00:18:55
Speaker 3: I think there should the bar should come down a little bit because I think the greatest players that ever played this game, and if you ask their peers, was this guy a Hall of Famer? And they go, no doubt, But the guy's not in the Hall of Fame. That's where I get a little bit muddy in the water with the Hall of Fame.

00:19:12
Speaker 1: Yeah, I got it separating punishment from the performance of the player, but it does blur lines. Let's do this. If you're watching right now, let us know your thoughts in the comments section and subscribe to foul Territory baseball the way it should be covered. We hit these topics all the time.