Inside the Brock for Broglio trade

[erik316wttn]

I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in General Baseball Discussions so if a mod wants to move it that's fine.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/columns/story?id=6053505

 

Nice article on one of the most (in)famous trades in baseball history.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Cubs always get [expletive] for that trade despite the fact that about 15 years later they aquired the best 2B of the generation as a throw in in a trade for a guy with a career OPS in the mis .600s.

[Banedon]

The Cubs always get [expletive] for that trade despite the fact that about 15 years later they aquired the best 2B of the generation as a throw in in a trade for a guy with a career OPS in the mis .600s.

 

Well, that's cool and all. But one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

[Little Slide Rooter]

The Cubs always get [expletive] for that trade despite the fact that about 15 years later they aquired the best 2B of the generation as a throw in in a trade for a guy with a career OPS in the mis .600s.

 

Well, that's cool and all. But one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

 

Kind of. People dont give the Phillies [expletive] over that trade. I know the Phils have been much better than the Cubs since, but still. Im sure tther teams have also traded away prospects or young players who have turned out to be stars for guys who did little to nothing for them. I guess I don't get why this trade still gets constantly blasted several decades later, almost as if the critics are saying that Lou Brock was the one guy who could have taken us to a World Series.

[SouthSideRyan]

We got Jenkins from the Phillies too.

[erik316wttn]

We got Jenkins from the Phillies too.

 

And then traded him to Texas when we didn't want to give him a well-deserved raise.

[erik316wttn]

The Cubs always get [expletive] for that trade despite the fact that about 15 years later they aquired the best 2B of the generation as a throw in in a trade for a guy with a career OPS in the mis .600s.

 

Well, that's cool and all. But one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

 

Kind of. People dont give the Phillies [expletive] over that trade. I know the Phils have been much better than the Cubs since, but still. Im sure tther teams have also traded away prospects or young players who have turned out to be stars for guys who did little to nothing for them. I guess I don't get why this trade still gets constantly blasted several decades later, almost as if the critics are saying that Lou Brock was the one guy who could have taken us to a World Series.

 

Well, I'm not saying Lou Brock alone would have taken us to a WS, but he wouldn't have been too bad on the '69 team.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Cubs always get [expletive] for that trade despite the fact that about 15 years later they aquired the best 2B of the generation as a throw in in a trade for a guy with a career OPS in the mis .600s.

 

Well, that's cool and all. But one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

 

Kind of. People dont give the Phillies [expletive] over that trade. I know the Phils have been much better than the Cubs since, but still. Im sure tther teams have also traded away prospects or young players who have turned out to be stars for guys who did little to nothing for them. I guess I don't get why this trade still gets constantly blasted several decades later, almost as if the critics are saying that Lou Brock was the one guy who could have taken us to a World Series.

 

Well, I'm not saying Lou Brock alone would have taken us to a WS, but he wouldn't have been too bad on the '69 team.

 

How about on one of the teams that finished closer than a bajillion games out of first.

[Keener98]

The Cubs always get [expletive] for that trade despite the fact that about 15 years later they aquired the best 2B of the generation as a throw in in a trade for a guy with a career OPS in the mis .600s.

 

Well, that's cool and all. But one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

 

Kind of. People dont give the Phillies [expletive] over that trade. I know the Phils have been much better than the Cubs since, but still. Im sure tther teams have also traded away prospects or young players who have turned out to be stars for guys who did little to nothing for them. I guess I don't get why this trade still gets constantly blasted several decades later, almost as if the critics are saying that Lou Brock was the one guy who could have taken us to a World Series.

 

I think part of it is the fact that it was a trade between the Cubs/Cards? I dont know Im just grasping

[NCCubFan]

We got Jenkins from the Phillies too.

 

And then traded him to Texas when we didn't want to give him a well-deserved raise.

And we got Bill Madlock in return, who seemingly had filled the black hole at 3B. And then we traded him because we didn't want to give him a well-deserved raise.

[Little Slide Rooter]

On the other side of that coin is Joe Carter, another young player we traded early for a veteran pitcher, the difference being that we got some great years out of Rick Sutcliff. Had Sutcliff not have been as good as he was for us,that's a trade that we could still be hearing about to this day, but as is, nobody even bothers mentioning Carter as a guy that got away.

[erik316wttn]

On the other side of that coin is Joe Carter, another young player we traded early for a veteran pitcher, the difference being that we got some great years out of Rick Sutcliff. Had Sutcliff not have been as good as he was for us,that's a trade that we could still be hearing about to this day, but as is, nobody even bothers mentioning Carter as a guy that got away.

 

It's because we got actual value out of that trade.

[davearm2]

That, plus Joe Carter is overrated.

 

Even in his prime, he was a low-OBP, .800ish OPS guy that didn't play much defense. Quite similar to the 2009-2011 version of Soriano, actually.

[Little Slide Rooter]

On the other side of that coin is Joe Carter, another young player we traded early for a veteran pitcher, the difference being that we got some great years out of Rick Sutcliff. Had Sutcliff not have been as good as he was for us,that's a trade that we could still be hearing about to this day, but as is, nobody even bothers mentioning Carter as a guy that got away.

 

It's because we got actual value out of that trade.

 

That's my point. Much like Sutcliff, up until the trade, Broglio was a very solid pitcher. It wasn't until after he was traded to The Cubs that he fell off. Had he been a quality player, like Sutcliff was, this trade would not be so infamous. It's not like they traded Brock for a complete piece of garbage. Judging by Broglios stats as a Cardinal, much like Sutcliff, he looked like a front of the rotation type pitcher. Now had Sutcliff started getting hurt and bad as soon as he became a Cubs, would there by a lot more flack over trading Joe Carter?

[NCCubFan]

Sutcliffe, not Sutcliff.

[erik316wttn]

That, plus Joe Carter is overrated.

 

Even in his prime, he was a low-OBP, .800ish OPS guy that didn't play much defense. Quite similar to the 2009-2011 version of Soriano, actually.

 

And also, I believe the last AB of Joe Carter's career was fouling out to Mark Grace in the one-game playoff in '98.

[NewUserName]

I like to mention to older Card fans that Brock was basically Juan Pierre. It usually gets them excited.

[TruffleShuffle]

I like to mention to older Card fans that Brock was basically Juan Pierre. It usually gets them excited.

 

look he was pretty wildly overrated, but he was a better player than juan pierre. he had way more power (than nothing, which is the amount of power juan pierre has) and played in an era when offense was much harder to come by.

 

but if you're saying that just to troll, then that's fine.

[NewUserName]

I like to mention to older Card fans that Brock was basically Juan Pierre. It usually gets them excited.

 

look he was pretty wildly overrated, but he was a better player than juan pierre. he had way more power (than nothing, which is the amount of power juan pierre has) and played in an era when offense was much harder to come by.

 

but if you're saying that just to troll, then that's fine.

 

Hey I wasn't looking for facts to support my Card fan cage rattling!! If you lived in Central Illinois you would understand

[North Iowa Cub]

In the book "October 1964" Author David Halberstam asserts that Brock never would have been "Lou Brock" had he stayed with the Cubs. Mainly due to the Cubs coaching style. Sorry, been a while since I read it so I don't recall many details other than that. Just sayin'.

[SouthSideRyan]

In general, mainstream sports authors are terrible. Sight unseen, I'm guessing Halberstam is talking out of his ass.

[rrudd2]

I don't pretend to know much of anything about sabermetrics, but I took a look at Brock's defensive stats on baseballreference.com anyway.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/brocklo01-field.shtml

 

Seems to me there are a lot of negative numbers there. If I'm reading it right, he was a below average defensive outfielder. He was almost exclusively a left fielder when he got to St. Louis. My understanding is that in professional baseball, you "hide" your worst defensive outfielder in Left.

 

So, given that he had to play left field, just exactly where was he going to play for the Cubs? He certainly wasn't going to take Billy Williams' place.

[Guest]

Lou Brock's career bWAR and fWAR are less than 2 wins better than Moises Alou's.

[RynoRules]

Sutcliffe, not Sutcliff.

 

Thank you, NC. Its blasphemy to butcher the Red Baron's name.

[Benchwarmer]

Lou Brock was a much better player than Juan Pierre. At times he exhibited extraordinary HR power. He hit a ball in the old Polo Grounds into the right centerfield bleachers. Deep center was 483 feet and had the clubhouse on the second level. If you have seen the famous Willie Mays World Series catch of 1954, that was the Polo Grounds. No one ever hit one out in deep center but Joe Adcock of the Braves hit one into the the left centerfield bleachers. Brock was an average OF who would make a great play and then make a bone-headed play the next.

 

I always wonder why people say you stick your worst OF in left, when they get more chances than RF. I know you stick your best arm in RF, but having your worst fielder in left? Maybe I'm thinking to the days of little league where playing RF was death valley and some games you could take a nap.