(the Glenn Davis to Baltimore trade)
Yeah, but my point is that there was really no reason to expect Davis to be that bad. He should have been good for 30-40 home runs a year and a decent OBP for at least 4-5 years. Although even if he had done that, it would have been a bad trade.
While the Cubs thought it was a steal, I’ll bet the Cardinals were more than happy with the deal at the time too. The Cardinals were probably thinking, “Broglio’s got a bad arm but only we know about it. Let’s dump him now and take what we can get. Brock? Is he breathing? OK, we’ll take him.”
Off the top of my head, I can think of Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson.
No justification found at the top of my head.
In 1989 the Detroit Tigers were looking around for starting pitching to help them make a playoff push. They traded a young minor league pitcher to the Atlanta Braves for veteran Doyle Alexander. Alexander went 9-1 down the stretch and helped the Tigers to the AL East pennant. So not a bad trade at the time - a young minor leaguer for the key piece to a division win.
The minor leaguer? John Smoltz - who only won 200 games and saved another 150 for the Braves from 1990-2008.
Honestly, I don’t think that one’s a bad trade. Hell, it’s not like the Tigers of the 90s would have gone anywhere with John Smoltz, anyway.
Does anyone know what the Phillies were thinking when they traded Ryne Sandberg and Larry Bowa for Ivan DeJesus? In terms of future productivity Bowa and DeJesus were about a wash, so the Cubs got future Hall of Famer Sandberg for free. (And it’s not as if Sandberg was a sleeper–he was a very highly regarded prospect at the time, who had been successful at every minor league level and had just hit .293 as a 20-year-old in AAA.
Freddy the Pig:
Maybe thinking that Sandberg was expendable since Mike Schmidt was playing what was then his natural position, so better to use him to sweeten the pot to pry DeJesus from the Cubs?
Anyone want to justify the Saints trading all of their 1999 picks, plus their 1st and 3rd in 2000 to move up and take Ricky Williams?
Just a nitpick, the trade was in 1987.
Williams was a workhorse for his first 5 years before going off the deep end. What did the Redskins get from the deal? LaVar Arrington, a bunch of washouts, and having to pay out all those signing bonuses?
On the contrary, about the only person in the Cardinal organization who thought it was a good deal was the manager, Johnny Keane, who disliked Broglio and wanted Brock for his speed.
In David Halberstam’s book 1964 he summarized the Cardinal team’s reaction to the trade:
Broglio did indeed have a sore arm, but he still managed to pitch 100 innings for the Cubs after the trade (4th highest total on the team) and his 4.04 ERA was still better than starter Lew Burdette. His stats for the remainder of 1964 put Broglio pretty much in the middle of the pack on the Cubs’ staff.
When it comes to sports books Halberstam’s never let facts stand in his way. His premise in that book was that the Yankees dynasty fell because they didn’t have enough black players. This assertion was made in the direct face of the fact that the Yankees had, though 1964, won 15 AL pennants in the 18 seasons since Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. Yeah, the fact that they didn’t have any black players was killing them.
As for the Cardinals, Brock & Broglio, unless Keane was running the Cardinals’ front office and in charge of making trades, then there had to be at least two people in the Cardinals organization who were in favor of the trade.