Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Would it have changed history? Senators refused deal for Bob Gibson in 1960...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DTF955 View Post
    Must have been shocking to see.

    I wonder how many old-timers had flashbacks to Dizzy Dean and that line drive by Earl Averill in the All-Star Game in 1937. I don't know if you remember about that, but I'm sure some were extra-cautious about him not coming back too soon.

    The Red Sox might easily have broken the Curse before it became known as that if they win the pennant that year. (Which they do if Gibson's not with the other top teams, although if he's with the Twins in a trade they might not make the move for Dean Chance so it might be a wash that year.)
    I actually didn't see the play , because I went to the restroom. I heard Harry Carey describe it over the speaker, in the restroom. I did see Gibson try to pitch with a broken leg, and fall on his face, before he was taken out of the game. I remember Maris hitting a triple in the first inning and Cepeda later homering, but the Pirates won.
    This week's Giant

    #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
      Wait, isn't this Washington Senators franchise now the Minnesota Twins? The Minnesota Twins of the mid to late to 1960's led by Rod Carew and Harmon Killebrew were a dominant team. You add Bob Gibson and what happens? The 1965 Twins won 102 games and pushed the LA Dodgers to 7 games in the World Series. The 1966 Twins finished in second place but nine games back. The 1967 Twins finished in second place just one game back of the Boston Red Sox. The 1969-70 Twins won the AL West title but lost to the Baltimore Orioles in both ALCS's. You add a prime Bob Gibson to the 1965, 1967, 1969 and 1970 Twins their postseason fortunes may have been very different.

      EDIT: Never mind I reread the news article referring to the "new" Washington Senators.
      I went and carefully checked the article before I posted, also. Wanted to make sure of what you suggested, that we were/are talking about the "new" Senators and not the team with all the big bats that had a nice run of seasons as the Minnesota Twins. Had the Twins gotten Gibson, they might have won a few World Series in the next 10 years. They had some pretty nice teams, on the mound, in the field and especially at the plate. I think the Twins definitely underachieved relative to the talent they could put on the field in that 10 year or so span of time.

      Comment


      • #18
        If the Redbirds don't have Gibson, they may only end up with one pennant in the 60's, at best. However, by 1972, do they trade a guy by the name of Steve Carlton? Maybe not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JBSptfn View Post
          If the Redbirds don't have Gibson, they may only end up with one pennant in the 60's, at best. However, by 1972, do they trade a guy by the name of Steve Carlton? Maybe not.
          They might not even trade Broglio in '64, if they need pitching. Brock remaining with the Cubs would be really interesting. Enough to give them the division perhaps in '70 if not '69, and maybe again in '73. So we could have the Cbus lose to the Reds in '70 (quite likely) but then beat the overconfident Reds in '73. Which would then perhaps delay the trade of Jenkins, Santo (which keeps Dick Allen from being in a tiff with him), etc. They'd still have Holtzman, perhaps, becasue they might not trade for Rick Monday from Oakland with a crowded outfield of Williams, Brock (or flip the two) and Cardenal. (Unless maybe he'd play center.)

          Or, here's a really weird thought. The Cardinals actually had a really good offense the first part of '63, but were hurting for pitching. They seemed close enough to the top, could they reacquire Gibson? It wouldn't e the first time a player was traded and then reacrquired, though it is very rare.
          Last edited by DTF955; 04-20-2017, 10:57 AM.
          If Baseball Integrated Early - baseball integrated from the beginning - and "Brotherhood and baseball," the U.S. history companion, at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Baseballifsandmore - IBIE updated for 2011.

          "Full House Chronology" at yahoo group fullhousefreaks & fullhouse4life with help of many fans, thanks for the input

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JBSptfn View Post
            If the Redbirds don't have Gibson, they may only end up with one pennant in the 60's, at best. However, by 1972, do they trade a guy by the name of Steve Carlton? Maybe not.
            I thought Carlton got traded because he got involved in a holdout that p*ssed Gussie Busch off and so he traded him as an ego thing, rather than pay him what he wanted. I could be wrong about that, but if I am not, it would seem that that would have happened no matter what, assuming the holdout still takes place.

            EDIT: From Wikipedia:

            "A contract dispute with the Cardinals (he had made $26,000 in 1969 and was holding out for $50,000, as opposed to the Cardinals' contract offer for just $31,000)made Carlton a no-show at spring training in 1970. He proceeded to go 10–19 with a 3.73 ERA, leading the NL in losses. In 1971, he became a 20-game winner for the first time, going 20–9 with a 3.56 ERA.

            Following a salary dispute (after the 1971 season - CE), Cardinals owner Gussie Busch ordered Carlton traded. Eventually, he was traded to the Philadelphia Phillies before the 1972 season for pitcher Rick Wise."

            Sounds like Busch just was fed up by Carlton's salary demands and wanted him gone. regardless of how well he was pitching for the Cardinals. (If Busch could have seen into the future at what was coming in 1976 (Free Agency) he might have locked him up at his price with a really long term contract, as was common in the earliest days of free agency.
            Last edited by Calif_Eagle; 04-20-2017, 11:52 AM. Reason: more content, verify earlier conjecture

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by DTF955 View Post
              They might not even trade Broglio in '64, if they need pitching. Brock remaining with the Cubs would be really interesting. Enough to give them the division perhaps in '70 if not '69, and maybe again in '73. So we could have the Cbus lose to the Reds in '70 (quite likely) but then beat the overconfident Reds in '73. Which would then perhaps delay the trade of Jenkins, Santo (which keeps Dick Allen from being in a tiff with him), etc. They'd still have Holtzman, perhaps, becasue they might not trade for Rick Monday from Oakland with a crowded outfield of Williams, Brock (or flip the two) and Cardenal. (Unless maybe he'd play center.)

              Or, here's a really weird thought. The Cardinals actually had a really good offense the first part of '63, but were hurting for pitching. They seemed close enough to the top, could they reacquire Gibson? It wouldn't be the first time a player was traded and then reacrquired, though it is very rare.
              Re: the bolded part of the post, the Senators were really bad in those years and were constantly trying to plug holes and fix weaknesses in their team. If Gibson proves out to them as being really valuable, I could easily see the Senators trading him to someone else, (whether it was the Cardinals or not) to get a big package of players that (they would at least perceive) would solve a lot of their problems at once. Sort of like the Denny McLain trade in reverse.

              Comment


              • #22
                I'm pretty strong on Cardinal history of this period, never heard about this trade rumor. Not doubting the authenticity, but just not sure how serious it was. I've got a feeling that in the days before free agency, trading restrictions, agents, etc. that all sorts of names were thrown about in discussions with GM's on a daily basis. In December 1960 Gibson was pretty much an unknown commodity, at least to an AL expansion team. The Cardinals knew he was a tremendous athlete and had a great arm, but was very wild. He had his breakthrough season in 61 after Solly Hemus was fired in July and Johnny Keane, who had managed Gibson a couple years in the minors, ended up putting him in the rotation as a regular starter.

                A couple of other Cardinal trades that didn't happen. Supposedly during the Frank Lane era, 56-58, after he pissed off everyone in town by trading away Red Schoendienst in June of 56, he was going to trade Musial for Robin Roberts. Gussie Busch had ordered Lane to check with him before trades after the Schoendienst deal and he squashed it. In 58 he wanted to trade Ken Boyer for Richie Ashburn but was fired before that happened and Bing Devine, the new GM, told the Phils the deal was off.
                It Might Be? It Could Be?? It Is!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Not sure what you mean by "serious", but I would be interested to see your citations for these trades that you have heard about and believe to be serious, so that we can see if they have more indicia of seriousness than the Gibson trade.
                  The data that one can get on a failed trade is perforce limited, inasmuch as it would be bad form for a GM to let the player know that he was offered in a trade.

                  In the Gibson trade "rumor", you have
                  1. a reliable source (Sporting News)
                  2. direct quotes from the GM that he made a "good offer" for Shantz, better in his opinion than what the Pirates offered
                  3. subsequent confirmation that Shantz was traded
                  4. Gibson's bad, minus-WAR year in 1960 lending plausibility
                  5. Cards having traded Vinegar Bend Mizell (for Julian Javier) and being without a credible lefthander in the bullpen, lending plausibility



                  I dont know if you get much more than that, when it comes to failed trades. Bing is gone. But while alive, the last thing Bing is going to admit to is almost trading Gibson in 1960.

                  As far as "In December 1960 Gibson was pretty much an unknown commodity, at least to an AL expansion team". I am not sure how you would know that. Was Bennie Daniels, off of the Pirates minor league roster, a known commodity to an AL expansion team? The way the trade is outlined, Gibson was the only firm part of the package, Stone and Kline were options. So either the Senators asked for him by name, or Bing was trying to unload, yes, future Hall of Famer Bob Gibson.

                  Originally posted by 64Cards View Post
                  I'm pretty strong on Cardinal history of this period, never heard about this trade rumor. Not doubting the authenticity, but just not sure how serious it was. I've got a feeling that in the days before free agency, trading restrictions, agents, etc. that all sorts of names were thrown about in discussions with GM's on a daily basis. In December 1960 Gibson was pretty much an unknown commodity, at least to an AL expansion team. The Cardinals knew he was a tremendous athlete and had a great arm, but was very wild. He had his breakthrough season in 61 after Solly Hemus was fired in July and Johnny Keane, who had managed Gibson a couple years in the minors, ended up putting him in the rotation as a regular starter.

                  A couple of other Cardinal trades that didn't happen. Supposedly during the Frank Lane era, 56-58, after he pissed off everyone in town by trading away Red Schoendienst in June of 56, he was going to trade Musial for Robin Roberts. Gussie Busch had ordered Lane to check with him before trades after the Schoendienst deal and he squashed it. In 58 he wanted to trade Ken Boyer for Richie Ashburn but was fired before that happened and Bing Devine, the new GM, told the Phils the deal was off.
                  Last edited by Brownieand45sfan; 04-21-2017, 07:05 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 64Cards View Post
                    I'm pretty strong on Cardinal history of this period, never heard about this trade rumor. Not doubting the authenticity, but just not sure how serious it was. I've got a feeling that in the days before free agency, trading restrictions, agents, etc. that all sorts of names were thrown about in discussions with GM's on a daily basis. In December 1960 Gibson was pretty much an unknown commodity, at least to an AL expansion team. The Cardinals knew he was a tremendous athlete and had a great arm, but was very wild. He had his breakthrough season in 61 after Solly Hemus was fired in July and Johnny Keane, who had managed Gibson a couple years in the minors, ended up putting him in the rotation as a regular starter.

                    A couple of other Cardinal trades that didn't happen. Supposedly during the Frank Lane era, 56-58, after he pissed off everyone in town by trading away Red Schoendienst in June of 56, he was going to trade Musial for Robin Roberts. Gussie Busch had ordered Lane to check with him before trades after the Schoendienst deal and he squashed it. In 58 he wanted to trade Ken Boyer for Richie Ashburn but was fired before that happened and Bing Devine, the new GM, told the Phils the deal was off.
                    I never heard that rumor either, but knowing Solly Hemus's lack of enlightenment on racial issues, I don't imagine he and Gibson saw eye-to-eye on much. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to get rid of him.
                    Shalom, y'all!
                    What's the rumpus?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                      I never heard that rumor either, but knowing Solly Hemus's lack of enlightenment on racial issues, I don't imagine he and Gibson saw eye-to-eye on much. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to get rid of him.
                      Doubtful that the GM who traded for Bill White, Curt Flood, and Julián Javier, and was soon to trade the ace of his staff for Brock, would have done the bidding of a one-foot-out-the-door manager. Bing was not weak-willed. I think by Occam's Razor, it was simply that they needed a lefthander in the bullpen badly and Gibson had regressed in 1960 in every category, including ERA (5.61) and rWAR (-0.5). These things sometimes happen: they give up on a player too soon.

                      (ps I follow whos alive and whos dead rigorously ... Hemus has been the only living manager from the 50s for about three years now.)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                        I never heard that rumor either, but knowing Solly Hemus's lack of enlightenment on racial issues, I don't imagine he and Gibson saw eye-to-eye on much. It wouldn't surprise me if he wanted to get rid of him.
                        Solly's still alive and kicking, you know, at 94. He made a zillion dollars in the oil business after getting out of baseball. And he apparently reached out to both Gibson and (before he died) Flood to admit that he was wrong for how he treated them and to apologize, but they refused to accept. Sad in a way ... I've posted here before about Dixie Walker's mea culpa to Roger Kahn before he died, where he said the way he acted when Robinson came up was "the stupidest thing I ever did in my life" ... but in another way how can you blame them? My understanding is that how Hemus treated them went beyond trying to bully them into excelling, it was designed to wound.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Brownieand45sfan View Post
                          Not sure what you mean by "serious", but I would be interested to see your citations for these trades that you have heard about and believe to be serious, so that we can see if they have more indicia of seriousness than the Gibson trade.
                          The data that one can get on a failed trade is perforce limited, inasmuch as it would be bad form for a GM to let the player know that he was offered in a trade.

                          In the Gibson trade "rumor", you have
                          1. a reliable source (Sporting News)
                          2. direct quotes from the GM that he made a "good offer" for Shantz, better in his opinion than what the Pirates offered
                          3. subsequent confirmation that Shantz was traded
                          4. Gibson's bad, minus-WAR year in 1960 lending plausibility
                          5. Cards having traded Vinegar Bend Mizell (for Julian Javier) and being without a credible lefthander in the bullpen, lending plausibility



                          I dont know if you get much more than that, when it comes to failed trades. Bing is gone. But while alive, the last thing Bing is going to admit to is almost trading Gibson in 1960.

                          As far as "In December 1960 Gibson was pretty much an unknown commodity, at least to an AL expansion team". I am not sure how you would know that. Was Bennie Daniels, off of the Pirates minor league roster, a known commodity to an AL expansion team? The way the trade is outlined, Gibson was the only firm part of the package, Stone and Kline were options. So either the Senators asked for him by name, or Bing was trying to unload, yes, future Hall of Famer Bob Gibson.
                          As far as the other trades, I saw an interview with Devine on an old Cardinal history VHS tape that he mentioned turning down the Boyer trade was his first business as GM. The Musial-Roberts rumor was a quote from Bob Broeg, who was a Cards beat writer and later would be Musial's ghostwriter. Rereading the newspaper quote it had Devine quoted as saying the Nats expressed an interest in Gibson and later said Devine declined to name whom they offered in deal and mentioned another source as mentioning the Gibson and other players package for Shantz. So like I said, back then trade rumors and names were tossed about constantly. In 1960 Devine may have been very willing to trade an unproven Gibson for Shantz even up, who by then was strictly a relief pitcher, but was 35 years old. If he had to throw in a couple more players, it was a deal breaker.
                          It Might Be? It Could Be?? It Is!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Brownieand45sfan View Post
                            Doubtful that the GM who traded for Bill White, Curt Flood, and Julián Javier, and was soon to trade the ace of his staff for Brock, would have done the bidding of a one-foot-out-the-door manager.)
                            Of course not, I wasn't implying that he would, and he obviously didn't. I was implying that Hemus may have been the source or reason for the rumor.
                            Shalom, y'all!
                            What's the rumpus?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by PRW View Post
                              Solly's still alive and kicking, you know, at 94. He made a zillion dollars in the oil business after getting out of baseball. And he apparently reached out to both Gibson and (before he died) Flood to admit that he was wrong for how he treated them and to apologize, but they refused to accept. Sad in a way ... I've posted here before about Dixie Walker's mea culpa to Roger Kahn before he died, where he said the way he acted when Robinson came up was "the stupidest thing I ever did in my life" ... but in another way how can you blame them? My understanding is that how Hemus treated them went beyond trying to bully them into excelling, it was designed to wound.
                              I read in one of Roger Kahn's books (I forget which one) that he was standing around the batting cage with Red Sox manager Mike Higgins one day in the mid-50s, watching Minnie Minoso hit. Kahn turned to Higgins and said "Minnie's probably the best player in the league right now". Higgins gave Kahn a look of disgust, and said "Why you're nothing but a n***** lover". This was years after the league was integrated. That mindset persisted for a long time.
                              Shalom, y'all!
                              What's the rumpus?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Since you brought up two Kahn stories, and youre obviously a fan, allow me to recommend the book:
                                Ruttman, Larry (2013). "Roger Kahn: Author of the Classic Baseball Book The Boys of Summer". American Jews and America's Game: Voices of a Growing Legacy in Baseball. Lincoln, Nebraska and London, England: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 113–123. ISBN 978-0-8032-6475-5. This chapter in Ruttman's history, based on September 30, 2007 and January 31, 2008 interviews with Kahn conducted for the book, discusses Kahn's American, Jewish, baseball, and life experiences from youth to the present.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X