Rumor trade: Pokie Reese for Kerry Wood
Muskie
3finger
furt...@hotmail.com (Muskie) wrote:
> It looks like Baylor is about to make this move
I seriously doubt this, but if it's true, it would be the modern
equivalent of Brock for Broglio.
--
3finger
Chicago Cubs: World Series Champions 1907, 1908
Matt G
>equivalent of Brock for Broglio.
When it comes to lopsided trades, Brock for Broglio isn't even in the
same LEAGUE as Sosa for Bell. 50 years from now, people will still
talk about that trade.....
mg
3finger
mattg...@hotmail.co (Matt G) wrote:
> When it comes to lopsided trades, Brock for Broglio isn't even in the
> same LEAGUE as Sosa for Bell. 50 years from now, people will still
> talk about that trade.....
Yeah, but that one actually helped the Cubs, so it's not nearly as sexy
as those trades that screwed us, a la Brock. (Or Wood, if that ghastly
rumor comes to pass.)
freejju
<cubfan2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <3bde3731...@news.afour1.il.home.com>,
>mattg...@hotmail.co (Matt G) wrote:
>
>> When it comes to lopsided trades, Brock for Broglio isn't even in the
>> same LEAGUE as Sosa for Bell. 50 years from now, people will still
>> talk about that trade.....
>
>Yeah, but that one actually helped the Cubs, so it's not nearly as sexy
>as those trades that screwed us, a la Brock. (Or Wood, if that ghastly
>rumor comes to pass.)
>
What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
And there was Lee Smith for Al Nipper and Calvin Schiraldi. Maybe not
on the same scale as some of the bad trades in Cubdom, but it left a
void in relief which precipitated the Mitch Williams deal. Anybody
remember the Goose Gossage experiment? It didn't work out any better
than the Dave Smith experiment, or the Doug Jones experiment, or the
Mel Rojas experiment, or the Tom Gordon experiment--wait, scratch that
last one.
But the biggest blunder, in my mind, was the failure to re-sign Greg
Maddux when they had the chance. It still makes me feel bitter.
Oh well, I guess we can all be happy with our Sosas and our Sandbergs.
R. Bharat Rao
news:3bdf23fd.20709438@news...
> What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
> guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
> worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
Can count Jamie as a real loss there. Any one of a dozen teams could
have picked him up for a song in the intervening dozen or so years, when
he was "average" to be charitable. Its like saying that the Cubs let
Gonzalez go, instead of signing him to a long-term deal...
Palmeiro, however, is a loss. Not so much that we gave him up to
get Williams (which was critical in our getting the Division in 89),
but that we could have given them Grace instead for Williams.
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao
E-mail: rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com (remove "-nospam-this")
"The lunatic is in the hall
The lunatics are in my hall
The paper holds their folded faces to the floor
And every day the paper boy brings more."
Pink Floyd, "Brain Damage"
User Name
> >> When it comes to lopsided trades, Brock for Broglio isn't even in the
> >> same LEAGUE as Sosa for Bell. 50 years from now, people will still
> >> talk about that trade.....
Actually, it was Bell for Sosa and Ken Patterson. Patterson was a decent
reliever for one year for the Cubs. Maybe a good trade even were Sosa
not included.
> What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
> guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
> worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
Well, that doesn't quite describe the trade. At the time, I thought it
was really two trades - the main 5 for 2 trade combined with a swap of
young LH starters. From the discussions at the time, I got the distinct
impression that both GMs thought they were getting the better starter -
with the Cubs very high on Paul Kilgus and the Rangers preferring Moyer.
I thought Frey was wrong, but I don't know if that was wisdom or simply
my own loyalty to a Cub. As it happens, both players performed badly
and it was a lose-lose situation. The Rangers released Moyer while the
Cubs traded Kilgus for a minor leaguer of no account.
As for the rest of the trade, both Steve Wilson and Curtis Wilkerson
were useful players for the 89 Cubs.
>
> And there was Lee Smith for Al Nipper and Calvin Schiraldi. Maybe not
> on the same scale as some of the bad trades in Cubdom, but it left a
> void in relief which precipitated the Mitch Williams deal.
Actually, IIRC, the Cubs were going to lose Lee Smith to free agency
at some point in the near future and there wasn't any question about
the upcoming void in relief. True, Frey didn't enough for Smith, but
I believe he did have to trade him.
ray heitmann
freejju
<rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote:
>"freejju" <fre...@yahoo.huh.com> wrote in message
>news:3bdf23fd.20709438@news...
>> What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
>> guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
>> worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
>
>
>Can count Jamie as a real loss there. Any one of a dozen teams could
>have picked him up for a song in the intervening dozen or so years, when
>he was "average" to be charitable. Its like saying that the Cubs let
>Gonzalez go, instead of signing him to a long-term deal...
True. But I'm looking at the deal in retrospect, in terms of who got
who and how they performed in the big leagues. Moyer, surprisingly
enough, has a career 151-117 record. But you are right, had they not
traded him, he most certainly would have been let go and still gone
through his "journeyman" phase.
>
>Palmeiro, however, is a loss. Not so much that we gave him up to
>get Williams (which was critical in our getting the Division in 89),
>but that we could have given them Grace instead for Williams.
How about keeping both Palmeiro and Grace? Grace at first and Palmeiro
in left (where he had played with the Cubs)? His offense would have
been worth any defensive hit, until eventually they'd have to make the
decision whether to move him to first or trade him away (ignoring the
possibility of free agency).
Oh well.
freejju
Name) wrote:
>In article <3bdf23fd.20709438@news>, fre...@yahoo.huh.com (freejju) wrote:
>
>> >> When it comes to lopsided trades, Brock for Broglio isn't even in the
>> >> same LEAGUE as Sosa for Bell. 50 years from now, people will still
>> >> talk about that trade.....
>
>Actually, it was Bell for Sosa and Ken Patterson. Patterson was a decent
>reliever for one year for the Cubs. Maybe a good trade even were Sosa
>not included.
>
>> What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
>> guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
>> worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
>
>Well, that doesn't quite describe the trade. At the time, I thought it
>was really two trades - the main 5 for 2 trade combined with a swap of
>young LH starters. From the discussions at the time, I got the distinct
>impression that both GMs thought they were getting the better starter -
>with the Cubs very high on Paul Kilgus and the Rangers preferring Moyer.
>I thought Frey was wrong, but I don't know if that was wisdom or simply
>my own loyalty to a Cub. As it happens, both players performed badly
>and it was a lose-lose situation. The Rangers released Moyer while the
>Cubs traded Kilgus for a minor leaguer of no account.
Moyer was a young left-hander coming off of a 3.48 ERA in 200 IP.
That was why I remember being upset at the time when they traded him.
Although Kilgus actually had better numbers with Texas than I remember
(a 4.16 ERA in 200 IP at the age of 26), I think it was his minor
league numbers that had left me non-plussed.
>
>As for the rest of the trade, both Steve Wilson and Curtis Wilkerson
>were useful players for the 89 Cubs.
Wilson was about an average middle reliever, so there was value in
that. But Curtis Wilkerson and his slappy .244 BA wouldn't have been
missed all that much (although everyone on that team seemingly made
key contributions at key moments that year).
>>
>> And there was Lee Smith for Al Nipper and Calvin Schiraldi. Maybe not
>> on the same scale as some of the bad trades in Cubdom, but it left a
>> void in relief which precipitated the Mitch Williams deal.
>
>Actually, IIRC, the Cubs were going to lose Lee Smith to free agency
>at some point in the near future and there wasn't any question about
>the upcoming void in relief. True, Frey didn't enough for Smith, but
>I believe he did have to trade him.
If they were going to lose him to free agency, it wasn't going to be
in the up-coming year (I'm quite certain of that). If I remember
correctly, the rationale for the trade was that they could finish
below .500 without a closer.
Al Yellon
news:sKVD7.10649$ym4.4...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> "freejju" <fre...@yahoo.huh.com> wrote in message
> news:3bdf23fd.20709438@news...
> > What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
> > guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
> > worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
>
>
> Can count Jamie as a real loss there. Any one of a dozen teams could
> have picked him up for a song in the intervening dozen or so years, when
> he was "average" to be charitable.
In fact, the Cubs actually had him back in spring training in about 1992,
then released him a *second* time. (Moyer, that is)
Michael Lanasa
"User Name" <User...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:UserName-311...@pm4.ma.utexas.edu...
> > Maybe not on the same scale as some of the bad trades in
> > Cubdom, but it left a void in relief which precipitated
> > the Mitch Williams deal.
>
> Actually, IIRC, the Cubs were going to lose Lee Smith to
> free agency at some point in the near future and there
> wasn't any question about the upcoming void in relief.
> True, Frey didn't enough for Smith, but I believe he did
> have to trade him.
>
Also, don't forget, that Schiraldi was a young, up-and-coming reliever
who was only 26 at the time the Cubs got him. Lee Smith was having
trouble with his knees at the time, so it seemed like a trade-in for a
newer model.
If you recall, Shiraldi was part of that famous 1983 University of
Texas baseball team that also had Roger Clemens and Greg Swindell. And
Schiraldi was considered the best pitcher of the 3 coming out of
college (note: both Clemens and Schiraldi were drafted in the 1st
round, but Clemens was drafted before Schiraldi).
Michael Lanasa
Al Yellon
news:4K0E7.110388$My2.61...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> If you recall, Shiraldi was part of that famous 1983 University of
> Texas baseball team that also had Roger Clemens and Greg Swindell. And
> Schiraldi was considered the best pitcher of the 3 coming out of
> college (note: both Clemens and Schiraldi were drafted in the 1st
> round, but Clemens was drafted before Schiraldi).
Looking at Schiraldi's physical stature, it's hard to believe he was a
professional athlete, much less a power pitcher. He was flabby and out of
shape. That, plus the mental burden of having been one of the guys to blow
that famous WS game for the Red Sox, did his career in.
Michael Lanasa
"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote in message
news:tu1bh2...@corp.supernews.com...
I think too much was made of the World Series failure. Schiraldi
probably didn't work out because he didn't have anything besides his
fastball, and his fastball was good, but not great. He was able to
throw around 95, but it always came straight in, and eventually,
people caught up to it.
Al, I think you have a flab bias. You don't like Quevedo or Zambrano,
and now Schiraldi?
Michael Lanasa
Claude1
575 pounds and occupies one whole row of the bleachers himself. When he
wears a white shirt, Sammy uses him as a target for his right field
homeruns. In his many years of sitting in the bleachers, Al has been hit by
homerun balls seven times. At the time of this writing, three of those
balls, lost in rolls of flab, still have not been recovered. Rumor has it
that a number of years ago, during a sudden rainstorm, the tarpaulin could
not be unrolled, and the head grounds keeper asked Al if he would lie down
on the infield to keep it covered. Flab bias indeed!
User Name
Lanasa" <mlanasaN...@home.com> wrote:
> If you recall, Shiraldi was part of that famous 1983 University of
> Texas baseball team that also had Roger Clemens and Greg Swindell. And
> Schiraldi was considered the best pitcher of the 3 coming out of
> college (note: both Clemens and Schiraldi were drafted in the 1st
> round, but Clemens was drafted before Schiraldi).
I don't remember if Swindell was on that team or not. He certainly didn't
do any significant pitching for them. The third starter was Mike Capel,
a 17th round draft choice of the Cubs. Swindell emerged the following year I
believe.
As for comparisons between Clemens and Schiraldi, here is what I remember.
As the 83 season began, Clemens was supposed to be the ace, the guy who could
do it all. But he turned out to be something of a disappointment.
Meanwhile, Schiraldi had a fabulous year. When the CWS rolled around,
Schiraldi was the go-to guy, I think starting two games and also making a
relief appearance (though my memory is vague). Clemens just got to pitch once,
IIRC an excellent complete game win.
As you note, the Red Sox at least thought Clemens the better prospect.
This is typical IMO. Scouts generally will opt for the guy who appears
to have more talent over the guy who had the better last year. In this case,
they were right.
Commenting on another post in this thread, Schiraldi was a pure pitcher -
the antithesis of Greg Maddux. He was not an athlete. It wasn't a
matter of looking at him standing there. It was Schiraldi in motion.
Rick Reuschel was an athlete who didn't look like one. But with Schiraldi,
it seemed like a miracle if he could get to the bag on a grounder to first
without falling down.
ray heitmann
Al Yellon
> I think too much was made of the World Series failure. Schiraldi
> probably didn't work out because he didn't have anything besides his
> fastball, and his fastball was good, but not great. He was able to
> throw around 95, but it always came straight in, and eventually,
> people caught up to it.
>
> Al, I think you have a flab bias. You don't like Quevedo or Zambrano,
> and now Schiraldi?
LOL!
Waidaminit, I *do* like Zambrano. I just don't think his ML future is as a
starter, I think he could work well as a setup man.
Plus Rick Reuschel was one of my favorites.
Al Yellon
news:Go3E7.2523$PN2.8...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> I have met Al. After eating countless thousands of frosty malts, he
weighs
> 575 pounds and occupies one whole row of the bleachers himself. When he
> wears a white shirt, Sammy uses him as a target for his right field
> homeruns. In his many years of sitting in the bleachers, Al has been hit
by
> homerun balls seven times. At the time of this writing, three of those
> balls, lost in rolls of flab, still have not been recovered. Rumor has it
> that a number of years ago, during a sudden rainstorm, the tarpaulin could
> not be unrolled, and the head grounds keeper asked Al if he would lie
down
> on the infield to keep it covered. Flab bias indeed!
HEY!
I never wear white shirts.
Michael Lanasa
> In article <4K0E7.110388$My2.61...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>,
"Michael
> Lanasa" <mlanasaN...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > If you recall, Shiraldi was part of that famous 1983
> > University of Texas baseball team that also had Roger
> > Clemens and Greg Swindell.
> I don't remember if Swindell was on that team or not. He
> certainly didn't do any significant pitching for them. The
> third starter was Mike Capel, a 17th round draft choice
> of the Cubs. Swindell emerged the following year I
> believe.
>
You're right. I looked it up, and Swindell was a freshman on the '84
team. It's one of those things that I always assumed to be true but
never bothered checking the facts.
Michael Lanasa
Michael Lanasa
"Al Yellon" <aye...@REMOVETHIScolgatealumni.org> wrote in message
> "Michael Lanasa" <mlanasaN...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:n63E7.110849$My2.61...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
> >
> > Quevedo or Zambrano, and now Schiraldi?
>
> LOL!
>
> Waidaminit, I *do* like Zambrano. I just don't think
> his ML future is as a starter, I think he could work
> well as a setup man.
>
> Plus Rick Reuschel was one of my favorites.
Mine too.
We'll just have to file the 'flab bias' folder under 'Possible
Conspiracies' for now. I'll plop that right next to the 'Who shot JFK'
and 'Who Shot JR' folders, but I'll be watching.
Michael Lanasa (hoping someday there's a 'who shot Muskie' folder)
RJ
}On Tue, 30 Oct 2001 11:51:20 -0800, 3finger
}<cubfan2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
}
}>In article <3bde3731...@news.afour1.il.home.com>,
}>mattg...@hotmail.co (Matt G) wrote:
}>
}>> When it comes to lopsided trades, Brock for Broglio isn't even in the
}>> same LEAGUE as Sosa for Bell. 50 years from now, people will still
}>> talk about that trade.....
}>
}>Yeah, but that one actually helped the Cubs, so it's not nearly as sexy
}>as those trades that screwed us, a la Brock. (Or Wood, if that ghastly
}>rumor comes to pass.)
}>
}
}What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
}guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
}worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
Not that bad because [a] it got us into the 1989 playoffs and [b]
Moyer had given no indication that he would turn out to be
worthwhile (even at Texas). Your claim that he is a likely
hall-of-famer is specious.
}And there was Lee Smith for Al Nipper and Calvin Schiraldi. Maybe not
}on the same scale as some of the bad trades in Cubdom, but it left a
}void in relief which precipitated the Mitch Williams deal. Anybody
}remember the Goose Gossage experiment? It didn't work out any better
}than the Dave Smith experiment, or the Doug Jones experiment, or the
}Mel Rojas experiment, or the Tom Gordon experiment--wait, scratch that
}last one.
The problem with the Lee Smith trade wasn't making it but not
scouting what we were getting in return.
}But the biggest blunder, in my mind, was the failure to re-sign Greg
}Maddux when they had the chance. It still makes me feel bitter.
That one I can't disagree with.
RJ
--
"No wonder I like your brain. You are obviously situated at that
articulate-insightful-smart-quirky edge of the universe occupied by
librarians, lawyers and former telemarketers." --Teramis
+++ RJ Johnson ++ http://www.rahul.net/arjay ++ r...@xocolatl.com +++
RJ
}"freejju" <fre...@yahoo.huh.com> wrote in message
}news:3bdf23fd.20709438@news...
}> What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
}> guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
}> worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
}
}Can count Jamie as a real loss there. Any one of a dozen teams could
}have picked him up for a song in the intervening dozen or so years, when
}he was "average" to be charitable. Its like saying that the Cubs let
}Gonzalez go, instead of signing him to a long-term deal...
I dare anyone to say that they predicted Luis Gonzalez was going to
turn into a 50+ HR guy.
}Palmeiro, however, is a loss. Not so much that we gave him up to
}get Williams (which was critical in our getting the Division in 89),
}but that we could have given them Grace instead for Williams.
I had never thought about it that way until you mentioned it.
Ouch.
Frank Sereno
RJ wrote:
> }
> }What about trading Palmeiro and Moyer (a likely hall-of-famer and a
> }guy pitching extremely well in his late 30's) for Mitch Williams and 5
> }worthless players? That one didn't even look very good at the time.
>
> Not that bad because [a] it got us into the 1989 playoffs and [b]
> Moyer had given no indication that he would turn out to be
> worthwhile (even at Texas). Your claim that he is a likely
> hall-of-famer is specious.
Read the paragraph again. The author is asserting that Palmeiro is a likely
hall-of-famer and that Moyer is a guy pitching extremely well in his late
30's, not that Moyer will be a hall-of-famer. I didn't write it and I know
the sentence construction could be better, but you misread what he wrote.
Frank
Claude1
Don't forget the "Who tried to shoot FMR" folder. That's a thick one.
FMR RANGER
tried.
FMR>And tks has seen the scars. But only in a Platonic way.