Lou Brock poses for a portrait in the Polo Grounds in New York. (Transcendental Graphics/Getty Images Sport)
I'm doing something a little different today.
With all the deals the Cubs have made this week, I thought it would be interesting, instead of a random game recap, to do a retrospective post about the Lou Brock deal in 1964, as if BCB had existed on that date.
A lot of people at the time thought the Cubs had fleeced the Cardinals. Obviously, it turned out to be the other way around.
How excited would we have been on June 15, 1964 to get an experienced and relatively young starting pitcher? Follow me past the jump.
It's been 19 years since the Cubs have won the NL pennant and that feels like a long time.
But I think today's big trade with the Cardinals, on an off day before the Phillies come to town tomorrow, has given our favorite team a real shot at the '64 pennant.
The Cubs traded outfielder Lou Brock and relievers Jack Spring and Paul Toth to the Cardinals for righthanded starter Ernie Broglio, reliever Bobby Shantz and outfielder Doug Clemens.
According to Richard Dozer in the Tribune, this deal has been in the works since May 26; Dozer says Broglio was reportedly unhappy in St. Louis and Cards GM Bing Devine gave him his wish by trading him.
The Cubs' 82-80 season last year, their first winning season in 17 years, was something they could build on after the horrid year in '62. It was the outstanding pitching of Dick Ellsworth that helped get the Cubs that far, but apart from Larry Jackson -- who had a losing record of 14-18 in spite of a good 2.55 ERA -- the rest of the staff wasn't that great. No other starter had an ERA lower than 3.38 (Bob Buhl, and that just isn't good enough; he ranked 26th in the NL). The team has needed a solid No. 3 starter and Broglio fits the bill. He won 18 games last year with a 2.99 ERA (16th in the league) and he led the NL in wins just four years ago with 21. At 27 he should be a mainstay of the Cubs' rotation well into the 1970s.
Brock? Well, he just never could develop the power that head coach Bob Kennedy wanted him to, although he did hit a home run off the Pirates' Steve Blass in what turned out to be his final at-bat as a Cub in the Cubs' 5-2 win on Sunday. That was only his second homer of the year in 251 at-bats and that just isn't good enough. The team needed him to be another Billy Williams; Brock can play a good center field, but this Cubs team isn't going to win without power.
Or pitching. Kennedy was quoted in the Trib as saying, "This gives us as good a pitching staff as there is in the league", and I agree with him. Getting Shantz is a bonus -- even at age 38, he can still fool hitters, and he had 11 of those newfangled things they call "saves" last year for the Cardinals. I dunno about that "save" thing -- I can't imagine that Jerome Holtzman's creation is ever going to catch on permanently.
Clemens seems like a good outfield prospect, too; he hit .278 with 13 homers for Atlanta of the International League last year and just turned 25 last week; Kennedy will probably install him in center field.
The Cubs got off to a rough start this year but are 13-6 since May 27 and, getting back to .500, are just 5½ games out of first place. I think this deal will keep them in contention all year, and maybe bring that elusive pennant. Nice work, John Holland.
And as for the Cardinals: good luck with Brock. With little power, he'll probably be out of baseball in a couple of years.
1 recs | 72 comments
Hindsight
is always 20/20. Let’s just hope TheoJed avoid anything like that. I’ll personally be very disappointed if Rizzo doesn’t pan out. He just seems like the kinda dude that people would really like watching play.
gocubbies - January 7, 2012
Okay--we know it was a bad trade.
But I don’t know if Brock and Billy Williams could have co-existed in the same outfield, since they were both pretty much limited to left field, despite Brock’s speed. Also, teams hated strikeouts in those days, and Brock struck out a lot for a guy who hadn’t shown much power yet. I can understand the logic behind trading Brock—they just didn’t get enough for him.
BVictor - January 7, 2012
Brock could have played left...
… Billy was a pretty good RF for a few years. Passable enough that you could have lived with it for the SB, if Cubs management could have ever realized what a weapon Brock was.
Al Yellon - January 7, 2012
Patience
“…their first winning season in 17 years…”, LOL.
AboutTheCubs - January 7, 2012
Fair trade
If Brock were alive today, he may have been kicked all over the league. Stop and look at his success rate. 307 CS!!! He got nailed 1/3 of the time! That’s a lot of killed rallies, and he never quite walked enough, with OBPs rarely cracking .360, and a lifetime OPS of .753.
Broglio had a couple of flaws. Low K’s and high BBs. But he had just come off two consecutive seasons of 11 CG’s, and his previous season he only gave up 200 hits in 250 innings.
Only two things to fault with this trade. Either the Cubs didn’t properly investigate his health, or the Cards were bigtime liars.
I wonder how long Cashner’s shoulder will last, by the way.
KO Stradivarius - January 7, 2012 via mobile
If Brock were alive today?
He isn’t?!?!?
pb5689 - January 7, 2012
Last I looked
he was still alive. And I think the Cards were big time liars!
DebT - January 7, 2012
LOU BROCK IS A TWO-TOOL BUM
He’s a .257 hitter and he doesn’t walk!
… Also, in the future, he does get kicked around the league.
Steven Schweickert - January 7, 2012
Broglio had a bum shoulder,
which allegedly was not disclosed by the Cards. But he had been a good pitcher and would have been a good acquisition had he not been hurt. Brock was fast but very raw, and a terrible outfielder. Terrible. Often broke the wrong way on flyballs. Brock was overrated, IMO, and the trade would have been alright if Broglio had been healthy. The real problem with that trade was the alledged concealment of Broglio’s injury.
Bad Dogs - January 7, 2012 via mobile
Ironically, I was just reading about this trade
in a book about Randy Hundley’s 10th anniversary fantasy camp last night (Sometimes a Fantasy by Jeff Guinn). He seemed to think he might have been the piece that would have made the difference in 1969. You might find this part interesting.
katie casey - January 7, 2012
interesting,
I’m a true believer that a team has to seriously instill a “winning way” into the minds of their players….
It makes me soooo happy to know we have that now, we really have that.
cooliogirl47 - January 7, 2012
From previous experiences regarding even my playing days,
team chemistry is a very important thing to have. That speaks to the culture of the team and the creation of a “winning way”. I believe this is something TheoJed have been working on, and at least from my point of view, I’m extremely excited to watch these kids play this year and hoping to see some team chemistry develop. If that happens, they will at the very least be entertaining to watch, and quite honestly the sky is the limit from here on out. The good thing about this years team is that nobody expects them to do anything. Beware of the underdogs, especially if they catch fire. Either way, I’m ecstatic to know that I should never have to watch another season like last year ever again.
KJ24 - January 7, 2012
thanks for your words...best comment I've read all week.
you’ve made my day a little brighter.
cooliogirl47 - January 7, 2012
Thank You.
I’m glad I could help!
KJ24 - January 7, 2012
The Cubs were coming off a terrible 20 years
The 1945 pennant notwithstanding. There was nothing historic about Wrigley Field back then. It was a poorly-run franchise with an out-of-touch and rather eccentric owner.
In the NL, he was right. The two New York teams (and later California) and the Cardinals were the glamorous teams. I suppose the Braves had a bit of cachet to them with Aaron, Mathews and Spahn. The other teams were punching bags.
In the AL, it was pretty much the Yankees and everyone else.
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
Brock's sudden emergence in St. Louis laid bare the impracticality and ineptitude of the whole Wrigley baseball operation...
There certainly had been other established players who blossomed immediately after leaving the Friendly Confines – Don Hoak, Sam Jones, and Smoky Burgess are three examples – but none compare with Brock’s transformation in terms of speed, degree, endurance, and effect.
Once Brock was with the Cards, his lines in the box scores instantly became a series of 2 for 4’s and 3 for 5’s. His great hitting became so routine that I’m amazed he hit “only” .348 with the Cards in ‘64, with no less than a .527 slugging percentage – that right field pavilion at Sportsman’s Park was perfect for Lou whenever the situation called for him to drive the ball.
Of course, in the process of his transformation, he became an instant legend as the catalyst for the Cards’ miracle championship in ‘64. Then, he kept rubbing it in to Chicago fans for the next 15 years, right through that game in late ’79 when he lined an infield single off Dennis Lamp’s leg for his 3,000th hit.
There aren’t many other examples of a mediocre-but-established player becoming an instant star immediately after a mid-season trade, then sustaining that high level of performance for over a decade. Brock exposed the Wrigley “system” for the joke that it was.
ernaga - January 8, 2012
I'm old enough to remember
Brock seemed so thoroughly lost at the plate and for a non power hitter, his strikeout totals were huge. He made Felix Pie look patient and in control. This so clearly looked like a slam dunk win for the Cubs at the time, but someone in the Cardinal org certainly had to be sure that they knew a way to help him.
In 1964 his OBP in 231 PA for the Cubs was .300—which is exactly what it was for all of 1963. But in his 464 PA in St Louis after the trade in 1964 his OBP immediately took off and climbed to .387 with an OPS of .915.
Had they used sabermetrics in that day, I don’t know that they’d have placed a whole bunch of value on Brock—i think perhaps today’s metrics would have missed his potential. It had to have been that he was uncomfortable in Chicago or that a scout/coach had seen something that they knew was correctable. The guy finished 10th in the MVP voting that very first year.
A bad trade for us? Duh! But looking at the information available—it seemed like a steal.
Nice topic Al!
cubfever7 - January 7, 2012
For any hitter Brock's Ks were huge. I think when he retired he had the most career strikeouts in MLB history.
Long career but that’s a lot of strikeouts.
the nth - January 7, 2012
...."it felt wrong not to swing"
reminds me of my favorite scene in the movie Signs.
cooliogirl47 - January 7, 2012
My favorite scene was when the director literally appears on screen and tells the audience the aliens only weakness.
After “The Sixth Sense”, we all had such high hopes.
“Signs” was the first real indication that there might not be any there there.
D98 - January 8, 2012
I just love that movie...
now the ones after that not so much, altho The Last Airbender wasn’t too bad. I liked the animated series better tho of course.
cooliogirl47 - January 8, 2012
That movie makes no sense whatsoever.
The aliens have mastered interstellar travel, but neglect to wear spacesuits, despite landing on a planet comprised almost entirely of water, a substance which will kill them instantly?
Also, they can’t open a locked wooden door? Despite the fact that they’re super strong AND smart enough to develop faster-than-light travel?
The director ends the movie with a televised news break where they say “the aliens are leaving and they hate water and also something about religion scared them.” It’s just sooooo pandering and awful. But that’s just my opinion, no worries.
D98 - January 8, 2012
well, now that you mention it...
but I’ve never really thought about the aliens as the major focus of the movie. To me it was more about the “signs” we experience as humans, everyday. How everything in our lives can interconnect. I’m not very good at putting my thoughts into words, but I just loved how that film was made. I think you’d tend to be disappointed if you watched it as a typical alien invasion film, it’s more of a parapsychology thing IMHO
…plus I loved it had a baseball reference in it. I still have hopes for M. Night Shyamalan :)
cooliogirl47 - January 8, 2012
This was a cool read Al, hope you do it again
cooliogirl47 - January 7, 2012
I'd be interested in one about the Sutcliffe trade
Living in Cleveland at the time, that was the deal that started to open my eyes a bit more to the Cubs. Sut was one of my favorite players on the Indians and I was quite pissed when he was dealt.
ballhawk - January 7, 2012
I've never paid much attention into the real depths of trades before I started reading BCB,
this was a cool idea….I like that Al quoted newspapers at the time of.
cooliogirl47 - January 7, 2012
I'll consider the Sutcliffe deal.
That one was quite important, obviously.
There will be another retrospective trade post Sunday — not Sutcliffe, though that might come later.
Al Yellon - January 7, 2012
what could possibly go wrong?
jesus christos - January 7, 2012
Making regular trips between Chicago and St. Louis in those days,
I had a chance to follow both teams on WGN and KMOX, as well as the Daily News and Trib, and the Post and Globe, so I had a rare opportunity to watch the whole sorry spectacle play out in stereo.
In St. Louis, it was common knowledge among fans that Broglio probably was injured, and along with most everything else concerning the Cards, Harry prepared his listeners for likely developments. This May 24, 1964 quote from Caray that I use in my signature line was typical of his comments on the Broglio situation before the trade: “And you have to wonder – What’s the matter with Broglio?” he said during a blowout against the Giants.
In Chicago, I’m sure the relative handful of fans who followed the Cubs and their minor league system from ‘61 until Brock was traded valued Lou’s potential enough to oppose the deal even if Broglio had been 100%. But to a casual fan or sportswriter, it looked good on paper the morning of the trade.
I was on a job interview that day when some guy knocked on the door and leaned in to tell my interviewer the good news: Hey-Hey! Brock for Broglio! As my prospective boss glanced at me for confirmation, I had to add the qualifier: “It’s a good deal if Broglio’s OK.” Of course, this took the edge off what had up to that point been a positive interview, so not only did Wrigley and Holland cheat the Cubs out of some pennants with this deal – they also may have cost me a job offer!
Anyway, on the Friday broadcast of Lou’s last series as a Cub, I remember Brickhouse making some pregame comments, speaking of Lou as the fastest man in baseball, with great base-stealing potential. He mentioned that a high school coach from Des Plaines had his players at Wrigley on that rainy Friday afternoon to get baserunning tips from Lou.
At that point, Cubs management either understood the best way to use Brock, or more likely was touting him for a deal with either the Pirates, Phillies, or Cards. It’s worth noting that although Lou’s OBP before the trade was hovering around .300, he had stopped swinging for home runs and started to steal more bases.
I was lucky enough to see both Lou and Ken Hubbs play in their 9/10/61 debut at Wrigley, and as it happened, I also got to see Lou in his last game, the opener of a Sunday doubleheader against the Pirates won by the Cubs behind Dick Ellsworth. Rain was in the forecast, the sky was gray the whole game, and when Lou came up in the seventh to face Steve Blass, the last thing anyone expected of the New Lou was a home run.
Yet, not only did he line an opposite-field shot into the first row in left-center in his last official at bat as a Cub – he also drilled one to right to put the Cubs on the board early in game two, before the skies opened and the last game was rained-out. It was a bittersweet sendoff for Brock, and the following night I tried to pick-up the Cards-Houston game on KMOX while driving down Waukegan Road.
Reception was poor, and I had no idea if Lou was even with the Cards in Houston. He wasn’t in the lineup, but at some point I thought I heard Harry mention his name and I pulled over to listen to Lou’s first at-bat for St. Louis: A moment later, there seemed to be an extra note of disgust in Harry’s voice when, after only three pitches, we heard the famous call: “He stuck ’im out!” Knowing Broglio was damaged goods, Harry at that moment might have been ready to call the deal a wash.
ernaga - January 7, 2012
Thanks for that ernaga
We have a few folks who can tell stories like that as well and appreciate the 1st person perspective they share with the rest of us who can only read others historical analysis, statistics, and watch the limited video footage. Stories like that bring the history to life.
I-Musial-ly-Am - January 7, 2012
Thank you.
Regarding this legendary trade, I’m sure Wrigley and Holland were aware of Broglio’s arm problems. At the very least, Cubs broadcasters Brickhouse, Quinlan and Boudreau would have delivered this news to them. Also, Wrigley and Busch were by all accounts friends. Wrigley and Holland simply decided to pull the trigger, thinking that Broglio might recover quickly and anyway, what’s the worst that could happen? Almost 50 years later and we’re still talking about it.
My guess is that the 19-1 loss the Cubs suffered against the Mets earlier that season gave Wrigley the final impetus to deal Brock. After all, that loss put the Cubs on the map as a national laughingstock, and I imagine Lou had his usual two or three strikeouts in that game. Attendance in Chicago may have been down early in ’64, despite the Cubs promising ’63 season, and the pressure must have been on to do something – anything.
ernaga - January 7, 2012
I knew you'd have some good firsthand stories about Lou Brock and that era.
Thanks for posting them.
About that 19-1 loss to the Mets the Cubs suffered, there’s a story about that, too. Someone walked into the newsroom that day at the now-defunct New York Herald Tribune and announced, “Hey, the Mets scored 19 runs today!”
Jimmy Breslin, still a NY columnist, without missing a beat, looked up and said, “Did they win?”
It was a reasonable question. Before that date, the most runs the Mets had scored in a game was 14; they had allowed 15 or more seven times.
Al Yellon - January 7, 2012
Note how the names of Cubs pitchers in that game describe Phil Wrigley's operating philosophy...
…as well as its predictable results: Spring Hobbie leading to Schurr Slaughter, followed by a whole load of Buhl.
ernaga - January 8, 2012
Brock had no strikouts that day
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN196405260.shtml
VegasCubFan - January 7, 2012
Wow
Great stuff
Mapmaker - January 7, 2012 via mobile
Awesome!
I really enjoyed reading that! Thanks for sharing this! This is what makes BCB, well, BCB!
calicubfan - January 8, 2012
Nice topic
Can’t really relate to situation at the time ( I was 5 years old), but I have always felt, given what was known at the time, that the Lee Smith trade was the worst in Cub history. With Brock, he was as you descibed, a failed power hitter that could run. In Smith, the Cubs had the best (or one of the best) closers in the game, and Frey GAVE him away for Al %#%# Nipper and Calvin %&# Schiraldi. I don’t think I have receovered from that one yet.
tommy veryzer - January 7, 2012
That was a terrible trade.
The Cubs had a bullpen in ‘88 that put the “bull” in bullpen. It’s pretty bad when Frank DiPino is closing games for you.
jeffmills1972 - January 7, 2012
Jim Frey wasn't a smart manager. As a GM......
ClarkFan - January 7, 2012
The Lee Smith trade was made in the earliest days of WFAN – the world's first all-sports talk radio station.
The first few weeks of “The ’FAN” were a mess, with Jim Lampley serving a three-month tour as the station’s reluctant star. Fortunately, Lampley lasted just long enough to let his audience know exactly what he thought of Jim Frey’s Smith for Schiraldi trade.
On the day the trade was announced, Lampley spliced a tape that had Bob Murphy announcing the start of a Schiraldi relief appearance, followed by the sound of various announcers making home run calls at Wrigley Field in favor of Cubs’ opponents. I think he even had the one of John Harrington calling DiMaggio’s home run in the ’38 Series.
The humor here may have been lost on Lampley’s New York audience, and it certainly may not seem like much in the retelling, but to a Cubs fan in the fall of ’87 his production was comedy gold. The Smith deal had to be one of the worst-ever, anywhere.
ernaga - January 9, 2012
Ernie Broglio
Ernie Broglio retired to the San Francisco bay area. There was an article in the San Jose Mercury News about him a few years back. He seemed like a really nice guy from the article, volunteering with youth baseball, etc. He talked some about the trade and its aftermath.
At first I felt sorry for him, as he described how the Chicago fans called him a bum and abused him. Then, he admitted that his heart was not so much in the game during those Chicago years, and I thought “maybe he was a bum”. After all, when fans use that term, don’t they mean that this guy is not giving them his best effort?
vonde6 - January 7, 2012
Brock earned a lot of his reputation as a great player by playing great in his three World Series
appearances. In 1967 he carried the Cardinals over the Red Sox and he had to. Brock, Maris and Javier were the only Cardinals hitters who didn’t completely crap the bed in that series. If you wanted to see the difference between the American and National League in the 1960s, that Series was a good example. The Red Sox could simply not cope with Brock at bat and on the bases. And then in the ’68 Series he hit even better. In the those two WS he stole 14 bases in 14 games and was only caught stealing twice.
The Cardinals saw how Maury Wills had changed the game with his base stealing, went out and got the fastest guy in baseball and told him to steal bases. Presented with the same guy at the same time, the Cubs tried to turn him into a power hitter.
the nth - January 7, 2012
All good points...
Of course, Brock may have cost the Cards the ’68 Series in Game 5 by getting tagged-out at home after failing to slide for an easy run: http://blog.detroitathletic.com/2011/06/12/1968-world-series-moment-lou-brock-didnt-slide-3/ After this play, momentum was all on the side of the Tigers.
ernaga - January 7, 2012
True. And the Brock play in game five is often overlooked.
Still, momentum or not the Cards knew they had Bob Gibson going in game 7 and of course with two outs in the 7th Curt Flood famously misplayed what should have been Jim Northrop’s inning ending fly out into a two run triple. Northrop then scored giving the Tigers 3 runs they should have never had.
the nth - January 7, 2012
Obviously it was a bad trade
But today Lou Brock would not have been considered as great a player as he was back in the 1960s. He was a poor defensive outfielder,which was a big reason the Cubs traded him—he couldn’t play center field. He couldn’t really play left field either but he had to go somewhere. That made him a left fielder without power. He hit for a high average but he didn’t walk much except during his 1969-1974 peak. He stole a lot of bases, but he got thrown out a lot too and his net plus on the bases was pretty negligible. His career OPS+ was only 109, which is the same career OPS+ as Lou Piniella, Chris Chambliss or Torii Hunter.
Still, he did get 3000 hits and had three really great World Series, two of which the Cardinals won. At his peak in the late 60s, early 70s, he was one of the top 20 players in the National League. Maybe top ten. So the it’s not like they didn’t fleece us. I question whether he really should be in the Hall of Fame, but he certainly was an All-Star and a great player.
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
It was a different game back then, too.
Brock hit his peak around the time that the National League had new “cookie cutter” stadiums with artificial turf. The Astros already had the Astrodome in 1965, but the Reds, Phillies and Pirates had new stadiums in the early 1970s and the Cardinals put artificial turf on the field at Busch Stadium. And old Busch Stadium used to be a pitcher’s park where speed was an asset. Teams in the artificial turf stadiums in the 1970s primarily built those teams on speed, not just offensively but defensively as well. Brock had a lot of speed which helped him get on base and steal a lot of bases. And while he wasn’t a great defensive outfielder he still had speed which probably helped him get to a lot of balls quicker than if he was a beer truck like Greg Luzinski out there.
jeffmills1972 - January 7, 2012
He was a bit like Lonnie Smith
in that he got all turned around but got to the misplayed ball fast enough to keep it to a single or a double. But one year he made 19 errors in left field? Ouch. He was in double digits pretty much every year. And his range was just a little above average. He had a lot of assists, but that’s because teams tried to go from first to third on him a lot because of his arm.
Yes, it was a different game with low batting averages, but in reality, not making outs was still the best way to win and Brock regularly in the top five in outs made. A team like the Swingin’ A’s of the early 70s won because they had guys like Gene Tenace, Sal Bando and “Superjew” Mike Epstein (Man, they just don’t make nicknames like they used to) who didn’t make outs. Those guys didn’t get the credit at the time. Most of the credit went to the pitching staff of Blue, Hunter, Holtzman, Odom and Fingers, who were good but in reality, Oakland led the league in OPS+ in 1972 and 1973 and were second in 1974.
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
Like the Wrigleys' other great gift to the Cards, Bruce Sutter,
Brock may not have been the best at what he did for more than a few seasons, but both men changed the way the game was played. If it’s any satisfaction to Cubs fans to say it, the truth is that even in his prime Lou was no Billy Williams.
ernaga - January 7, 2012
We got Leon Durham for Sutter
And we had Lee Smith ready to take over the closer job. I don’t think that was a terrible trade.
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
It did work out in '84, three years after the deal was made...
But those early seasons after the trade were painful, and I can’t say I was happy to see Bruce close-out Milwaukee for the ’82 championship.
Since were on the subject of Sutter, I imagine I’m not the only one here to take offense at that cap he’s wearing on his HoF plaque. After all, he had bigger numbers with the Cubs, won his Cy Young here, and helped revolutionize the game from the Chicago bullpen with his incredible performance in ’77.
More than that, without the Cubs surprising patience and the guidance of Freddie Martin, the arm injury Bruce sustained in the low minors would have meant the end of his pro career. Some gratitude!
ernaga - January 7, 2012
It wasn't Sutter's choice.
It was the Hall of Fame’s.
I presume they chose it because he won a World Series in St. Louis.
Al Yellon - January 8, 2012
Kind of true-
I wrote to the HOF about it- they said it was so close from a time of service/stat perspective that they took Sutter’s POV a little more seriously, and he preferred the Cardinal hat because of the WS win.
Therefore, of course, he is dead to me, and I’m glad the Cubs never had a “day” for him!
tommy veryzer - January 8, 2012
Sut must have been one of the last to have input,
and I imagine his choice was based in part on marketing potential: the ‘82 Cards are a brand that likely produces steady income for that club’s retirees. Somehow, I don’t think the ’77 Cubs have the same cachet. Still, I agree with your ’dead to me" comment. With his cap call, Bruce almost instantly became a non-person in Cubdom.
ernaga - January 9, 2012
How about both Ferguson Jenkins trades next?
The one where we got him for nothing and the one where we got Bill Madlock for him.
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
Madlock was a great hitter, but there was a reason why he was "well-traveled".
He reportedly had a reputation for being selfish and primarily obsessed with individual goals like winning a batting title rather than helping his team win games. This is why he supposedly became “injured” late in the season when his team was out of the race so he could preserve his batting average to win a title. Whenever you see guys who are referred to as “well-traveled”, there’s a reason why most of them are.
jeffmills1972 - January 7, 2012
madlock lives here in vegas
he does softball/ baseball hitting coach work. A friend of mine, knowing what a Cub fan I am introduced me to him. He came across pretty nice to me. Of course, he’s had a lot of time to mellow. We talked about Santo (this was in ’10) before Ron passed away, he seemed to really respect Santo.
VegasCubFan - January 7, 2012
Madlock got traded
because he wanted to get paid his fair market value at the dawn of the free agent era and he was vocal about it. He was also vocal about the fact that black players on the Cubs got treated differently than white players. He was right about both points. For being uppity enough to be right, the media savaged him as a clubhouse cancer when in reality, he just wasn’t willing to be a “n—— on PK Wrigley’s plantation,” to paraphrase Rod Carew’s quote about Calvin Griffith.
Madlock had some temper issues and argued with umpires a lot. But in that era when Billy Martin or Earl Weaver argued with umpires, they were “fiery.” When a black man argued with umpires, they were “troublemakers.”
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
what's more insulting is the Cubs turned around
and paid Bobby Murcer more money that Madlock wanted
VegasCubFan - January 7, 2012
Yep.
It wasn’t about money at all, in the end.
Al Yellon - January 7, 2012
FYI
This was the issue that caused then Cubs GM Bob Kennedy to say “Young Lady I think you are being hostile” when I asked about it at my first stockholder’s meeting ( I was still in HS at the time). On top of how bad the trade the Cubs added insult to injury but letting Madlock find out about it when he was called by the San Francisco Chronicle ( also part of my question to Mr. Kennedy.
Doggie Stalker - January 8, 2012
Awesome
Josh Timmers - January 9, 2012
Actually, that's a good idea.
I was thinking about doing the Bruce Sutter deal, too.
Al Yellon - January 7, 2012
how about the one for Sandberg too?
Or: March 30, 1992: The Chicago Cubs traded George Bell to the Chicago White Sox for Ken Patterson and Sammy Sosa.
or this October 23, 1974: The Chicago Cubs traded Billy Williams to the Oakland Athletics for Darold Knowles, Bob Locker and Manny Trillo.
good for laughs: December 5, 1988: The Texas Rangers traded Luis Benitez (minors), Pablo Delgado (minors), Paul Kilgus, Curt Wilkerson, Mitch Williams and Steve Wilson to the Chicago Cubs for Drew Hall, Jamie Moyer and Rafael Palmeiro.
VegasCubFan - January 7, 2012
As bad a trade as the last one was in the long run
… the Cubs don’t win the 1989 NL East without Williams.
Al Yellon - January 7, 2012
It’s also an example of how one bad move can lead to a series of things.
IF the Cubs hadn’t traded Lee Smith they wouldn’t have needed Williams.
One thing that also bothered me about that was it’s always talked about it had to be Grace or Palmeiro.
Palmeiro played left field for the Cubs. We could have had both.
puckishcubsfan - January 8, 2012
I still remember the Bell for Sosa trade.
Another part of the trade was no way could Bell play everyday in the outfield anymore that season. He could DH.
My mom was the first to tell me of the trade. Remember this was pre internet. Every time my mom has been the first to tell me Chicago sports news it has turned out good.
puckishcubsfan - January 8, 2012
Really Al?
I figured you would follow up this warm Cub memory by doing a detailed account of how the Cubs pushed Maddux away in 92. Not like we needed something with a little more cheer today.
Doggie Stalker - January 8, 2012
I remember reading an article on the 1984 Cubs a number of years ago.
And when Dallas Green made the trade for Rick Sutcliffe, the fans were worrying it was another Brock-for-Broglio.
Vermont Cubs Fan - January 7, 2012
I wasn't thinking Brock for Broglio
But I was worried because Sutcliffe had a terrible record in day time pitching. Turns out it was just a fluke.
The Cubs did give up Joe Carter and Mel Hall, so it’s not like the Indians didn’t get a good return.
Josh Timmers - January 7, 2012
Shoot
I remember when the ’84 Cubs lost 6 in a row before the St.L. DH sweep, the fear was the greatest collapse was at hand. I really like reading enarga & others of my “era” who remember the real Brock. A player who made most of his fame in the World Series. I too, felt lucky to see guys like Kenny Hubbs, Santo & Billy at their peak, and guys who flamed out after promising starts like Drott, Ellsworth, Altman, etc.
KedzieKid - January 7, 2012
One of the great lines in the writings of Jim Langford is
“No matter what else can be said about you unless you’re John Holland you didn’t trade Brock for Broglio”
That was 4 years before I was even born, my parents were newlyweds at the time. My Dad used to talk about that trade and how people thought it was a great trade.
puckishcubsfan - January 8, 2012
One thing about the trade. While Brock would have been good here presumably, he might not have been as good as he was in St Louis a team built more for his type of talent speed than the Cubs were at the time.
puckishcubsfan - January 8, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.