The World of Gene Autry : GENE AUTRY : Chance at World Series Has Kept Angels Owner Going for 29 Years

Gene Autry owns four radio stations, a hotel, a handful of music publishing firms, a ranch, a western heritage museum, awards galore, the first platinum record (“Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer) and a lot of bolo ties.

He also owns the Angels, which makes the whole thing a draw.

For 28 seasons, the length of his ownership, Autry has seen his team flounder and tease, flourish and fail. And for 28 seasons, Autry has cheerfully gone on. His optimism and wishfulness has become a rite of spring.

This season is no different. Autry, 81, is back again in the owner’s box at Anaheim Stadium hoping for the unlikely: his first official visit to the World Series.

In an interview last week, Autry talked about the many changes his team underwent during the off-season . . . and what it might mean in 1989.

The conversation:

Question: You’ve had a chance to see your team in spring training. What’s your assessment?

Answer: Well, I think that we’ve got a good infield and I think we’ve got a good outfield. Now, of course, a lot depends on how our pitching comes around. But I think we’ve got a pretty good ballclub. I certainly don’t expect us to finish tied for last like we did last year.

Q: Why do you say that, because of that infield and outfield?

A: I think the only question is like every team: it depends on your pitching staff. That’s why I think we have a good chance to be up there in contention--without injuries. Injuries, well, you know what that does.

Q: This was also a team of streaks. What was it like watching the 1988 Angels?

A: After we had that run, after that first month, we looked terrible. Then we had that hot six weeks. Then that last month, well, we just couldn’t beat anybody. But I think that this team is going to be a lot better. I think their attitude is going good. Last year, with (former Manager Gene) Mauch being sick, a brand new manager (Cookie Rojas) at the opening of the season, it was just one of those things where everything goes wrong. You can’t put the blame on any one person.

Q: Looking back, what was it that convinced you to change managers?

A: We really don’t like to change managers, especially that way, at the end. I don’t know what it was and I can’t tell you what it was, but I just think it seemed like they weren’t playing as good as they could play. Whether it was Cookie’s fault or some of the players’ fault--I don’t know whose fault it was--we just felt that maybe if we changed at that time, that maybe these kids would come out there and at least maybe try to win the last 12 games. But it didn’t work out that way.

Q: Was there ever a point when you regretted replacing Rojas the way you did: not letting him finish the final 12 games of the season? In other words, if you could do it over again, would you have let him complete the season?

A: I didn’t have anything to do with that personally. That was strictly up to the general manager. I don’t like to tell him who to hire to run the team and who not to hire. If I would say, “I want this man to run the club,” he could say, “Why don’t you let me alone?” When it comes to the final choice, I might have differences of opinion sometimes, but after all, Mike Port is the general manager and it’s up to him.

Q: Did you agree with the decision?

A: On making a change?

Q: Yes.

A: At that time . . . yes, I agreed with it.

Q: You obviously were involved in the interview process during your search for a new manager. What was it about Doug Rader that appealed to you?

A: We interviewed several people and took a lot of things into consideration. Mike (Port) knew Rader a lot better than I did and he said that (Rader) was a much better manager and knows the game better than anyone we’ve talked to. He said that he’s the man that can do a better job for us than the ones we interviewed.

I’ve come to the conclusion that just to take a man right off the field and put him as manager without some experience . . . is a mistake. I went very strong for Jim Fregosi the first time we went for him. I told Buzzie Bavasi that. I said, “Buzzie, I know this guy. I’ve seen him from the time he came up as a kid shortstop to the present. I think that he can lead the ballclub.”

Well, we hired Jimmy and it didn’t work out that time. I think that in the future that any time we have to change managers, I would never take someone right off of the field.

Q: This recent off-season was a trying one, it seemed, for the Angels. How would you describe it?

A: It was a very confusing situation, I know that.

Q: In retrospect, have you been able to figure out how you came away from the winter meetings without Bruce Hurst or Nolan Ryan?

A: When I talked to Nolan Ryan, he said at the time he wanted to come here. On the other hand, he’s got a ranch down there. At that time, I didn’t even know that Texas wanted him, that they were after him. Before the meetings, I asked him if he was going to change teams. And he said he probably would because he didn’t think they were going to pick up his option. I told him that I’d love to see him come back to California, that he had four no-hitters here and he could come back and get a fifth one.

I told Mike that what we ought to do is make (Ryan) a good offer. He was getting a million and I said that we ought to go over the million (dollar) mark. The next thing we knew Texas had come up and put in a bid for him. And so did San Francisco. Then Houston put in a big bid. Finally, when Nolan and I talked, he said, “Gene, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with California or with the Angels. I could play very comfortably there. But I’ve got two or three things I’ve got to think about.” Well, he’s got three children in high school and he didn’t want to take them out of one school and out to California. He said that Texas had offered him a deal where he could pitch one day and then go back home and spend a couple of days and then come back and join the team again.

So that’s what happened there.

Q: Did you consider upping the offer?

A: Not after we had talked to him. I don’t think that even the money had that much to do with it at the time. We had offered him $1.5 million at the time. I think he wanted to stay down there with his kids and his family.

Q: Didn’t you think you’d at least get one of the pitchers?

A: We hoped so, that’s why we bid on them. No. 1, I think that with Bruce Hurst, he had a lot of friends in San Diego and they were all pulling for him to come to San Diego. He went down there and I guess that they wined and dined him and his family. I think that had a lot to do with it. I didn’t talk to him enough to know. But when they offered him something like $1.7 or $1.8 million, or something like that, then it was getting foolish.

Q: It seems as if your loss might have been Jim Abbott’s gain. What do you think of Mr. Abbott?

A: I like what I see about him. I’ve seen all of his outings, every one of them. To take a young fellow like that and put him in a major league uniform, that’s going to be asking a lot of him. But with his background and his poise, why I thought it would be a mistake to send him to the minor leagues. He would probably go down there and not learn as much as he would here starting.

I talked to Mike Port and I talked to several people about him. We’ve got a lot of confidence in him.

Q: This is your 29th season as Angel owner, 29 years of waiting for that one moment that makes it all worthwhile--a place in the World Series. Do you ever get impatient?

A: Nah. After you look back at some of the other clubs, hell, look at Boston. I don’t know if they’ve ever won a World Series, I don’t think, and they were one of the first pro baseball clubs. That’s the least of my worries. Hell, if you didn’t have a lot of faith and confidence, why you wouldn’t be in the game.

I think there was a couple of times we should have been in the Series, but it didn’t fall that way. You just got to keep on plugging along and maybe the winds will change in your favor.

Q: And your forecast for the AL West?

A: I think that the team you have to beat is Oakland, and then Kansas City. If Oakland stays healthy, they would definitely be the team that everybody would have to beat.