Team Loyalty: Where's the Line?

[Bill Burgess]

Team Loyalty is a tricky subject.

Leo Durocher's first managerial job was with the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1939 - 1948. He had been suspended for the 1947 season by the Commissioner Happy Chandler for 'associating with gamblers'.

In 1948, he stunned the baseball world by joining to the New York Giants! He, who had been responsible for Dodgers' strategies, tactics, morale, etc., was suddenly 'stolen' by cross-town arch rivals, the Giants.

How much loyalty did Leo owe his team? Was he a traitor? An ingrate? Was was the story that motivated such a drastically extreme decision to turn on those who gave him his first shot? Was it outrageous to bite the hand that fed you?

What does a man owe his team? And what does a team owe employees?

The back-story was that Dodger GM, Branch Rickey was behind the change.

Supposedly, when Giants' owner, Horace Stoneham asked Rickey's permission to talk to Dodger coach, Burt Shotten about succeeding Giants' manager, Mel Ott, Rickey supposedly offered him Leo Durocher instead.

Both Dodger and Giants fans were initially aghast. Leo was a hero in Brooklyn and a villain to Giants' fans. So, where's the line?

Was Branch Rickey a traitor to his Dodgers' fans by peddling their excellent manager to the opposition? What did Rickey owe his fans? Why did he mastermind such an outrageously terrible decision?

[Honus Wagner Rules]

There is no such thing as "team loyalty" IMO. Leo was employed by the Dodgers. I assume he was offered a better salary to go to the Giants? What is wrong with that? Employment is voluntary. This goes both ways. A team can let go a manager any time they want and the manager can leave any time he wants as well. It's no different than in the "real world", no?

[EdTarbusz]

I think the reason is simple: Rickey helped engineer the change so that he could avoid firing Durocher outright. Durocher was on borrowed time after the suspension, and his not getting along with Jackie Robinson and the Dodgers slow start in 1948 merely speeded up his departure from Brooklyn.

[EdTarbusz]

In all I've read about Leo Durocher I think loyalty was a concept that he didn't comprehend. I doubt if he any loyalty to the Dodgers (or to anyone but himself). He stepped into his job with the Giants with extreme ease.

[Bill Burgess]

From what I've read, Durocher was wanting blacks to come into baseball. He was on record as saying he knew dozens of good ballplayers and would hire them if the owners hadn't banned them.
Right after he said that, Commissioner Landis went out of his way to issue a statement from his Chicago office asserting that no law banned blacks and that owners could hire as many of them as they liked.

Landis passed the buck to the owners. I suspect both were complicit and trying not to look bad when the spotlight was on them.

But Durocher was supposedly on board to welcome Jackie Robinson and supported baseball integration.

[Bill Burgess]

There is no such thing as "team loyalty" IMO. Leo was employed by the Dodgers. I assume he was offered a better salary to go to the Giants? What is wrong with that? Employment is voluntary. This goes both ways. A team can let go a manager any time they want and the manager can leave any time he wants as well. It's no different than in the "real world", no?

Understood. But shouldn't there be? After all, there were a rare few, like Stan Musial, who never considered abandoning their teams. Just because human nature is based on self-interest first, service to others second, why can't we bring back some of the old-fashioned values. Why can't we bring back 'Team Loyalty', and have it go both ways? Players to teams, teams to players.

[EdTarbusz]

Durocher not getting along with Robinson had nothing to do with the color of Robinson's skin. Durocher wanted Robinson on the Dodgers and wanted him to suceed. Durocher was angered that Robinson reported to spring training out of shape in 1948. Durocher took it personally and went out of his way to antagonize Robinson about it. They never got along on the field during Robinson's career.

[EdTarbusz]

Understood. But shouldn't there be? After all, there were a rare few, like Stan Musial, who never considered abandoning their teams. Just because human nature is based on self-interest first, service to others second, why can't we bring back some of the old-fashioned values. Why can't we bring back 'Team Loyalty', and have it go both ways? Players to teams, teams to players.

Stan Musial gave thought to leaving the Cardinals for the Mexican League but didn't do it because he was already under contract for the 1946 season when Mexican League officials contacted him.

[Bill Burgess]

If that was the case, wouldn't it have been Branch Rickey's job to step in and smooth it over. A star player and a top manager should not require getting rid of either one, should it?

[EdTarbusz]

If that was the case, wouldn't it have been Branch Rickey's job to step in and smooth it over. A star player and a top manager should not require getting rid of either one, should it?

Rickey wanted Durocher out after he was suspended. Durocher was bringing the team too much bad publicity. I also believe that Rickey was unhappy with Robinson's weight gain and how it adversely affected him in the early months of the 1948 season.

[Bill Burgess]

The Case of Babe Ruth:

And then there was the case of Babe Ruth. From 1920-1934, Babe's fans crammed Yankee Stadium like no other fans ever did. His fans paid off Yankee Stadium's mortgage, but as soon as his offensive productivity in the batter's box waned, they shipped him off as fast as humanly possible.

Yankee GM, Ed Barrow mailed Babe a 1935 contract calling for exactly $1. Babe returned the contract unsigned. Big Ed breathed a sigh of relief. "If he had not refused his contract, we don't know what we would have done," is how Barrow put it in his biography.

Yankee owner, Jake Ruppert said, "I could not have over-paid Babe if I had paid him $200,000/season. So, Ruppert paid Babe the high mark of $80K for only 2 seasons. Best investment the Yankees ever made.

Did the Yanks owe Babe Ruth anything for all his unbelievable contributions to their winning pennants, gaining branding fame over their rivals, the Giants, and making their spanking new stadium possible?

Could they even have offered him a coaching job? Granted, Babe was insubordinate and made Joe McCarthy's life miserable, but still, didn't his benefits far out-weigh his negatives?? I ask in all candor.

[Bill Burgess]

The Case of Lou Gehrig:

From 1927 - 1937, Lou Gehrig made a mighty contribution to the Yankees winning ways. He was a model of deportment and didn't hold out for raises. He was the perfect stereo-type of player that the Yankees wanted and took pride in. Like DiMaggio and McCarthy. Conservative, unobtrusive. Came to work and went home. Avoided personal attention.

He contracted his disease, his hitting became sporadic early in 1938 and by mid-season went into a slump he couldn't pull out of. Took himself out of the lineup in early 1939. Lou didn't have enough money to not work. He had to go to work for the New York Parole Board to pay his bills.

Question. Why couldn't the Yankees offer Lou a coaching job, which was basicly a pension, for his long-term service?

Did the Yankees owe Lou Gehrig a post, if recognition of his exemplary service? He died in 1942.

[Bill Burgess]

The Case of Casey Stengel:

From 1949 to 1960, Casey Stengel won almost all the AL pennants available to him. He won 10 pennants in 12 years!!! He also won 7 World Series! Only Al Lopez was able to beat him out, with the White Sox and Indians. When Casey turned 70, the Yankees called him in and told him, "Your services are no longer desired." They paid him off in full and sent him on his way. In light of his amazing record, why would any organization keep him on as long as he was producing for them??? Why not wait until he stopped producing before they let him go???

Did the Yankees owe Casey Stengel anything while he was winning for them?

[leewileyfan]

Interesting that the two players selected as exemplars for the "loyalty" thread should be Babe Ruth and Leo Durocher. The two were once-upon-a-time room mates on the Yankees [another oddity, being neither the "Jints" or "the Bums."]

How/why Babe wiped up the room with his roomie is allegedly revealed by Eldon Auker in his book "Sleeper Cars and Flannel Uniforms." IF Auker is credible, the Durocher relationship with loyalty in revealed through a long history of [alleged] theft, rigged floating crap games, questionable associations and enterprises [George Raft and a few mob figures], kiting checks, and [alleged] theft "alienation of affections" with the married wife of a good friend.

However exact Auker [and other writing observers] may have been about Durocher, there is little doubt that his allegiance, if any, was entirely to himself, often at some expense to others who were being fleeced. Suspension had everything to do with gambling and loaded dice in a swank hotel suite [fleecing ballplayers] ... with personal animosities being convenient straw men for others to debate.

Durocher's baseball loyalties extended only in the hermetically sealed borders of stadium walls and chalk lines and to the players and staff in the dugout and the clubhouse. Outside those limits, no loyalty need apply.

Babe Ruth caused more grief for Muller Huggins than he did Joe McCarthy. a man who established standards for players and brooked few violations. McCarthy instilled what is remembered as "Yankee Pride," evidenced for ready viewing by pre-WW II fans in the dress code: players showing up and leaving the park in dress suits, with neckties.

MLB is and always has been a business [before free agency, a monopolistic cartel] in which players were chattel, to be traded as commodities and having no say in the matter. Whatever loyalties may exist are mutually nourished by the player-franchise, in mutual respect and enlightened self-interest.

Babe did much for the Yankees, who reciprocated in pay, long-suffering patience with antics, and the mutually beneficial promotion of "The House That Ruth Built," also a bit lopsided - the left field areas far more spacious than the right - nice for a lefty slugger. Babe was well remunerated for his talents - and his antics.

Might the Yankees have extended the Babe a long-term contact as coach or good will ambassador at large? Sure. in Happy-Ending-ville. However, Babe departed as a player ... leaving with both a whimper and a 3HR game bang - which seems appropriate.

[Dude Paskert]

The Case of Lou Gehrig:

From 1927 - 1937, Lou Gehrig made a mighty contribution to the Yankees winning ways. He was a model of deportment and didn't hold out for raises. He was the perfect stereo-type of player that the Yankees wanted and took pride in. Like DiMaggio and McCarthy. Conservative, unobtrusive. Came to work and went home. Avoided personal attention.

He contracted his disease, his hitting became sporadic early in 1938 and by mid-season went into a slump he couldn't pull out of. Took himself out of the lineup in early 1939. Lou didn't have enough money to not work. He had to go to work for the New York Parole Board to pay his bills.

Question. Why couldn't the Yankees offer Lou a coaching job, which was basicly a pension, for his long-term service?

Did the Yankees owe Lou Gehrig a post, if recognition of his exemplary service? He died in 1942.

Ed Barrow was a hard guy, for sure. I can't imagine that Lou was in any kind of shape to be a coach, but they could have given him some kind of job in the front office.

DiMaggio was actually a lot more controversial than Gehrig. His early holdouts were widely publicized and Barrow would point to Lou as the model the young ballplayer should follow, taking what the team offered. When told that he was asking for more money than the veteran Gehrig, who had many fantastic seasons under his belt, Joe opined that Lou was horribly underpaid...true dat.