Trade Deadline Day!

I originally planned on writing an Historic Hot Stove piece today about the big four-team trade in 2004 that sent Nomar Garciaparra to the Cubs for Doug Mientkiewicz and Orlando Cabrera. It was supposed to focus on just how big the trade was to the Red Sox and to their mentality and then mention how they went on win the World Series that year. But that was before the big news came out yesterday about Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz. Now, all of sudden, talking about the 2003-2004 Red Sox just doesn't sound all that interesting.

Instead, I figured I'd just put up a quick post here looking at the actual Trade Deadline Day from recent years. After all, every year we spend all of July talking about trades and watching the wire hoping to see a big trade go down, preferably for our favorite team. And never more so than on July 31st, when we spend all day hoping that the big trades we expected to go down all month actually find themselves going through in those last few hours.

But how exciting does July 31st end up actually being? It seems that it always disappoints, but is that true? Using a transactions database I found online, I counted all the trades that went down on July 31 since 1996 (I'd include earlier years, but I'm not sure how accurate the database is going back that far). The numbers are below, but the busiest years were, by far, between 1998 and 2000, when 35 trades were finalized on those three Deadline Days. Since then, Trade Deadline Day has been kind of slow, with the exception 0f 2006 (when 12 transactions were made). Last year, for example, saw only 4 deals get made - though the three-team Manny Ramirez to Los Angeles trade was huge.

Here are the Deadline Day stats for every year since 1996:

Transactions Made on 7/31, Since 1996

Year	Number of Transactions	No. of Players Traded	Notable Trades
1998	13	45	Randy Johnson (SEA) for minor leaguers (HOU) Ellis Burks (COL) for Felix Heredia (SF) Mark Grudzielanek + 2 (MON) for Wilton Guerrero, Ted Lilly + 2 (LAD)
2000	12	33	Todd Hollandsworth (LAD) for Tom Goodwin (COL) Steve Trachsel, Mark Guthrie (TB) for Brent Abernathy (TOR)
2006	12	28	Greg Maddux (CHC) for Cesar Izturis (LAD) Xavier Nady (NYM) for Oliver Perez (PIT)
1999	10	28	Kevin Appier (KC) for minor leaguers (OAK) Shawon Dunston (StL) for Craig Paquette (NYM)
2007	9	26	Mark Teixeira (TEX) for Jarrod Saltalamacchia + others (ATL) Eric Gagne (TEX) for David Murphy + 1 (BOS)
2001	8	20	Milton Bradley (MON) for Zach Day (CLE) Tomo Ohka (BOS) for Ugueth Urbina (MON) Pedro Astacio (COL) for Scott Elarton (HOU)
2004	8	24	Nomar Garciaparra (BOS) for Doug Mientkiewicz, Orlando Cabrera (3 other teams) Esteban Loaiza (CHW) for Jose Contreras (NYY)
1996	7	19	Greg Vaughn (MIL) for Ron Villone + 2 (SD) Ruben Sierra (NYY) for Cecil Fielder (DET)
1997	7	28	Wilson Alvarez, Roberto Hernandez, Danny Darwin (CHW) for Keith Foulke + 5 (SF) Mark McGwire (OAK) for minor leaguers (StL) Jason Varitek, Derek Lowe (SEA) for Heathcliff Slocumb (BOS)
2002	6	22	Todd Hollandsworth (COL) for Gabe Kapler (TEX)
2005	5	13	Kyle Farnsworth (DET) for Roman Colon (ATL) Jody Gerut (CHC) for Matt Lawton (PIT)
2003	4	15	Sidney Ponson (BAL) for minor leaguers (SF) Robin Ventura (NYY) for Bubba Crosby + 1 (LAD) Jeff Suppan + 2 (PIT) for Freddy Sanchez + 2 (PIT) Aaron Boone (CIN) for minor leaguers (NYY)
2008	4	13	Manny Ramirez (BOS) for Jason Bay (2 teams) Ken Griffey Jr. (CIN) for minor leaguers (CHW)

There you have it. For all the hoopla that we surround the July 31 trade deadline with, it rarely delivers. Certainly there are the occassional Randy Johnson deals or Manny Ramirez deals, but, for the most part, you're actually stuck with the Sidney Ponson deals or the Xavier Nady deals. In less than 24 hours, we'll know how today's deadline turned out. Maybe we'll see the last second Roy Halladay-to-Atlanta-via-Kansas-City-for-Zack-Grienke deal, and maybe we won't. But the hours until we find out will definitely be filled with tension and excitement. And I think that's why we really care about Trade Deadline Day...

Here's hoping for something to spend all weekend talking about. But, even if that doesn't happen, at least we'll have a fun day considering the possibilities.

Historic Hot Stove: Curt Schilling

Cliff Lee was traded from Cleveland to Philadelphia yesterday afternoon for an array of pitching prospects. The Phillies, who already enjoy a comfortable lead in the NL East, acquired Lee as an added bit of security for the division race as they attempt to defend their World Series crown. And though the Phillies have been involved with some significant deadline deals in the last few years (Bobby Abreu, Scott Rolen), the Lee acquisition is easily the biggest pitching name they've been linked to since Curt Schilling was traded to the Diamondbacks in the summer of 2000.

At the time, Schilling was in his ninth year as a Phillie. After being traded to Philadelphia from Houston in 1992, when he was still a reliever, Schilling played a key role in the Phillies 1993 World Series run. The next couple of years saw him dealing with injuries, and barely eking by with 15 or 20 starts. Finally healthy in 1997, Schilling put up his first 300 strikeout season, and even duplicated the feat the next year. By this time, though, Schilling's prickly personality started taking over, and the annual trade-deadline Schilling-shopping rumors started showing up. Nothing came of it, though, until 2000.

It was then that his demands for a trade became serious, giving Philly GM Ed Wade no choice but to trade the ace.

Schilling had let it be known he wanted to be traded, and if the Phillies hadn't done it by Monday's deadline he'd have made them live with him - and he would have made it an uncomfortable experience - through the end of next season, when he will be eligible for free agency.

And that's not all.

...

When he demanded a deal, Schilling initially gave the Phillies a list of six teams he would approve - the New York Yankees and Mets, Atlanta, St. Louis, Cleveland and Arizona.

The six teams slowly dwindled to two as each either made other moves or decided that they couldn't or wouldn't meet the Phillies' price. In Cleveland's case, Schilling actually removed them from his list when word came that they were nearing a deal.

That left Arizona and the Mets as the principle players in the Schilling Sweepstakes.

The Mets offer featured phenom outfielder Alex Escobar, pitcher Grant Roberts and two more 21-year-old Class AA pitchers. Wade felt he needed players ready to make an impact on the major-league level rather than prospects to dream on for a few years.

All along, Wade said he wouldn't deal Schilling unless 'overwhelmed.'

Arizona's package met both criteria.

On July 26, 2000, the Phillies agreed to trade Curt Schilling to the Diamondbacks for Travis Lee, Omar Daal, Nelson Figueroa, and Vicente Padilla. The combination of major league-level batting talent in Lee and major league-level pitching talent in Daal was enough for Wade, and the destination more than suited Schilling.

"I made up 12, 13 games in the standings in one day," Schilling said.

And...

"I'm in a pennant race, it's time for me to pony up," said Schilling (6-6, 3.91 ERA in 16 starts -- 5-2, 2.00 in the last eight outings). "This is what I wanted. I did not have a need to leave. I had a desire to contend right now. This is a win-win situation for both parties."

Of course, the main reason that this trade energized so many people was because it paired two of the best pitchers in baseball on the same staff - Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The comparisons to all-time greats came almost immediately ("'Koufax and Drysdale come to mind,' Arizona General Manager Joe Garagiola Jr. said. 'I'll take these two guys.'" or "Big Unit and Schilling and three days of chillin."). The magnitude of that one-two punch wasn't lost on Schilling either. From Sports Illustrated:

"For years people would say, or managers would tell me, 'Can't wait till you get out there and throw, because we need a win,' " [Schilling] says. "I realized that when I get the ball, [my team] is expected to win. Now when Randy took the mound and we lost, I was crushed. I haven't been able to watch somebody and feel that way in a long time."

The trade did not pay immediate dividends for the Diamondbacks. On the day of the trade, they were sitting alone in first place, one game ahead of the Giants. From that point on, though, they played sub-.500 baseball, and had actually dropped into third place by the end of the season. Schilling's contribution was solid, but not spectacular. He posted a 5-6 record with a 3.69 ERA in 13 starts for Arizona that year.

The next year would be better, though. In his first full season with the club, Schilling went 22-6 with a 2.98 ERA (157 ERA+) while striking out 293 batters in 256 innings pitched (he finished second in the Cy Young voting). Combined with Johnson's third consecutive Cy Young year, in which he posted a line of 21-6, 2.49 ERA, 188 ERA+, and 372 strikeouts, the D-Backs won the West with a 92-70 record and then went on to win the World Series over the New York Yankees. Johnson and Schilling again carried them through the postseason, combining to earn the win in all four World Series victories and sharing the World Series MVP honors. It's pretty fair to assume that, without this trade, that would never have happened.

So will the Phillies be on the right end of a similar story in three months when talking about their acquisition of Cliff Lee? It's impossible to know for sure, though you can bet that this Schilling trade was running through everyone's minds as they made their pursuit. I have to say, though, that with Cole Hamels in the rotation alongside Lee and their offensive cast, it's looking pretty good for Philadelphia fans. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Historic Hot Stove: Randy Johnson

Last year, the baseball world shook when the Brewers traded one of their top prospects (and change) to the Indians for free-agent-to-be CC Sabathia. CC took the city by storm, carrying the Brewers into the playoffs almost by himself before they finally bowed out in the first round. It was almost the perfect midseason acquisition.

Clubs are hoping to make a similar move this year, by trading for a marquee pitcher like Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee. Both pitchers are apparently on the market but, at this late date, have not yet been picked up. The asking prices are just too steep and don't seem to be dropping. I guess we might have to wait until the trade deadline before we see if either of them get traded.

Whatever moves that do happen, though, are unlikely to match the impact of the CC Sabathia trade of last year. No matter how good of a pitcher you get, it's just asking too much to expect them to dominate the league like he did. After all, it's a rare pitcher who can meet that challenge. The best example of this in recent years happened in 1998, when the Mariners traded Randy Johnson to the Astros at the literal last minute for three minor league pitchers.

The saga began a year before that, when Johnson and his agent asked the club not to pick up his option for the 1998 season. The Mariners went ahead and picked up the option anyway, irking Johnson to no end.

[In 1997], the Mariners talked to Johnson and his agent about the team's 1998 option for the pitcher - and the Mariners insist Johnson made it clear he didn't want them to exercise it.

The Mariners did, however, and the relationship quickly soured. In November, Armstrong announced Johnson would not be offered a contract extension beyond 1998, and the "Big Unit" began sniping and stopped only when he ceased speaking to the press in June.

"They haven't treated me as well as they should have considering what I've done for the team," he said in one spring training interview. "The only option is for them to trade me."

Five frustrating months later, the Mariners did.

As July wore on, it seemed increasingly clear that the Mariners had to trade Johnson. He wasn't talking to the media and his starts never seemed to match the vintage Johnson that everyone knew was there. Teams lined up to take their crack at winning the lefty, but Seattle's GM kept them all at bay. At different times, "marquee teams" like the Dodgers, Padres, Indians, and Yankees were all supposedly front-runners in the sweepstakes.

Nothing ever materialized, though, and as midnight approached on July 31st, Astros GM Gerry Hunsicker started talking to Woody Woodward, Seattle's GM. From this great piece in the August 10, 1998, issue of Sports Illustrated:

At 11:10 p.m. Hunsicker called Woodward "just to satisfy my curiosity and make a last-ditch effort." Woodward said he would call back. The Mariners had spent eight months putting Johnson on and off the trading block. They had turned down deals that would have brought them Mariano Rivera from the Yankees, Chad Ogea from the Indians and Ismael Valdes from the Dodgers. But at 11:20 p.m. last Friday—40 minutes before the trading deadline—it had come to this: Woodward telephoned Hunsicker and indicated he was willing to talk about the Astros' second-tier prospects. Hunsicker offered him three minor leaguers, none of whom satisfied Seattle's demand for a big league pitcher.

Woodward again said he would call back. "I got nervous," Hunsicker says, "because at 11:45, I was still waiting around for him to call." Between calls to Hunsicker, Woodward was making one last fishing trip to the Yankees' talent pool. But New York refused to give up righthander Hideki Irabu and third base prospect Mike Lowell.

At 11:50 p.m. the phone rang in Hunsicker's house. "We have a deal," Woodward said. The Mariners agreed to take Carlos Guillen, a switch-hitting infielder with power; Freddy Garcia, a righthanded power pitcher; and a minor leaguer to be announced later.

The player to be named later turned out to be southpaw John Halama. It wasn't a bad haul, considering the lack of leverage Woodward had with his disgruntled pitcher, and, when compared to the Hideki Irabu-Ricky Ledee-Homer Bush-Mike Lowell package that was the Yankees final offer, it seems the wise choice. Still, the David Wells & Mariano Rivera offer that the M's turned down earlier in the year (as mentioned in this Seattle PI article) does seem to hang over all of this.

On Houston's end, though, it was all roses. Johnson, who had spent a year feuding with Seattle management (and who, up until the last minute, was told that he would be staying with the club), was more than happy to show his best to his new squad. He may have had an ulterior motive for that, though:

Nine months after telling the Seattle Mariners he wanted to be traded, Randy Johnson got his wish last night, but not to an American League powerhouse.

Not even to an American League team.

...

Johnson reluctantly will join the National League Central Division-leading Astros, who play in Pittsburgh this weekend.

But he won't be an Astro for long.

"We consider this a 60-day job," said Alan Nero, one of Johnson's agents. "We don't want to be in the National League. We would have rather (the trade) been with an American League team, preferably the Yankees."

Nero said Johnson definitely will file for free agency after the season, and wasn't happy with how the trade was handled.

Whatever his motivation was, Johnson really pulled things together in Houston. In eleven starts as an Astro, Johnson was 10-1 with a 1.28 ERA and 116 strikeouts in only 84 innings. He also had four complete game shutouts in that span. On the day of the trade, the Astros were in first place in the Central by 3.5 games. From that day forward, they had the best record in the majors and finished the season 12.5 games ahead of the second-place Cubs. Johnson more than earned the $2 million that the Astros paid him that year.

In the postseason, the Astros hosted the Padres in the Division Series. In his two starts, Johnson pitched 14 innings, striking out 17 batters and giving up a total of three earned runs. His offense failed him in each game, though, supporting him with a total of one run in the innings he pitched. The Astros lost both games he pitched in, and went on to lose the series 3-1.

Once the winter came, Johnson became a free agent and went on to sign with the Arizona Diamondbacks in the offseason, agreeing to a 5-year, $65 million contract. And, despite signing with a one-year old franchise, he would only have to wait three years before he got his World Series ring. His two months with the Houston Astros, though, as they marched towards the playoffs, is certainly a stretch to remember.

Will Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee provide that same kind of heart-stopping performance to whatever club they might get traded to? I have no idea. I do know, though, that every GM who is considering giving up his top-tier prospects for these guys, is hoping for a Randy Johnson-level performance from them in return. It probably won't happen, but there's no doubt that the dream is there (and if they can Halladay or Lee for the 2009 equivalent of Freddy Garcia and Carlos Guillen, all the better!). It should be a fun last couple of days.

Historic Hot Stove: Mark McGwire

It's been pretty clear over the last few weeks that this year's hot stove is going to be remembered for its focus on pitching. From the Roy Halladay auction up there in Toronto to Cliff Lee in Cleveland to all the other pitchers supposedly up for grabs - Jarrod Washburn, Eric Bedard, Justin Duchsherer, George Sherrill, Scott Kazmir, among others - teams are definitely looking for pitching above all else. There are some bats on the market, yes, but nothing really that inspires much excitement.

Well, maybe that's premature: Oakland did send slugger Matt Holliday to St. Louis in exchange for a couple of prospects, but that doesn't exactly match the magnitude of the last deadline-deal that the A's and Cardinals paired up on, when Mark McGwire was sent to the Cardinals for three less-than-stellar relief pitchers (of whom T.J. Mathews was the most successful).

Heading into that July in the summer of '97, the A's were sitting dead last in the AL West, 14 games behind the Mariners. As the month continued, they played worse and worse baseball, going 7-19 on the month, and McGwire's impending free agency suddenly became that much more important to Oakalnd's front office. The speculation that it brought on was hardly covert. From the late-July 1997 Sports Illustrated:

Mark McGwire. Only in the 1990s could a player be chasing Roger Maris's home run record and still be on the trading block. But McGwire is scheduled to be a free agent next season, and Oakland can't afford to re-sign him. But trading him won't be easy, despite his major-league-leading 34 home runs at the end of last week. As a veteran with at least 10 years of experience and at least five seasons with one team, McGwire can veto any trade, which could limit Oakland's options. The Cardinals and the Marlins, to cite two examples, have both expressed interest in McGwire, but he is reluctant to switch leagues in midseason. He also wishes to finish his career in Southern California, so that he can be close to his son, Matthew, who lives with his ex-wife in Orange County. That leaves the Angels as the best fit. Oakland rejected Anaheim's recent offer of centerfielder Jim Edmonds for McGwire, asking instead for outfielder Garret Anderson and a pitching prospect. According to A's general manager Sandy Alderson, the chance that McGwire will be dealt is 50-50.

It's almost funny how naive these trade preview pieces sound after the fact, though I guess that's what happens when you're trying to be a responsible journalist and all. Still, it's obvious that Mac was hot commodity.

By July 31st, the A's were down to only two suitors - the Angels and the Cards. Anaheim was fighting the Mariners for the division lead, sitting only a half game back, while St. Louis was struggling to stay in the race, 7.5 games behind the Astros. Logic would seem to say that Anaheim was the frontrunner at the time and, in fact, many thought the Cardinals had played themselves out of the race. Writers in St. Louis were even questioning the wisdom of making the trade.

One could make a case that the Cardinals will play unquestionably their most significant game of the season tonight.

For starters, it will be their last against the first-place Houston Astros, who are six games ahead of them in the National League Central after a 5-4 win at the Astrodome on Tuesday night.

If the Cardinals win tonight, they will cut the deficit to five games and feel good about making a last run at Oakland slugger Mark McGwire.

If they lose, they will be seven games behind with no games left against Houston. And there really would be little reason to go after McGwire. His potential two-month stay probably wouldn't be enough to lift the Cardinals past the Astros. It also might be risky business, considering the prospects and the money (some $2 million) the Cardinals would have to pay McGwire for the remainder of the season before he became a free agent.

General manager Walt Jocketty said the outcome of the game could affect what he did "a little bit. The performance of the team has some bearing, but not all the bearing," he said.

And it didn't. The Cardinals ended up losing their "most significant game of the season" that night but still managed to swing the deal with the A's. The desperation the Cards felt of being on the cusp of the playoff race must have been stronger than any desire the Angels had to improve their already competitive squad.

The trade made for an emotional moment in Oakland when it was announced:

"This is personally a very difficult day for me," Sandy Alderson, the A's president and general manager, said this evening at an Oakland Coliseum news conference. "When I came into baseball, Mark was the first college player I ever scouted. . . . {But} I think this was right for the organization, and I hope it's right for Mark."

McGwire, as a player with at least 10 years in the major leagues and at least five seasons with his current team, had the right to veto the deal but didn't. He seemed to fight back tears at times as he sat alongside Alderson and he said: "I grew up with this organization. It's not an easy decision to make. But you come to a crossroads in life where you think change will be good for you. . . . I think this deal is good for myself and good for the Oakland A's. . . . The last few seasons haven't been the greatest team-wise. How many years I have left, I don't know. I think I can still help a team to a championship."

With the Cardinals, he'll be reunited with former A's manager Tony La Russa. McGwire, 33, had spent all 11 of his major league seasons in Oakland. He led the majors with 52 home runs last year and has 34 homers this season. He called the prospect of a midseason switch to the National League challenging, but said he was happy to have all the trade speculation behind him.

The St. Louis writers were able to be a little more objective about the deal:

IN NEED OF MORE firepower and just more fire, the Cardinals took the risk of giving up part of their future for one of the game's top sluggers when they acquired first baseman Mark McGwire from the Oakland Athletics Thursday night.

In a deal that took the last four days to complete, the Cardinals, who have lapsed to the outer fringes of contention in the National League Central Division, dealt righthanded pitcher T.J. Mathews and minor-league righthanders Eric Ludwck and Blake Stein for the 33-year-old McGwire. McGwire has 34 homers and 81 runs batted in this season for Oakland but can be a free agent at the end of the season, thus involving another risk for the Cardinals.

The deal was completed just a few hours before the midnight trading deadline without waivers. McGwire, as a 10-year veteran - five with the same team - had to approve the trade.

Mac did not help the Cardinals reach the postseason that year, though it's hard to blame the guy: in his first two months in St. Louis, he hit 24 home runs with 42 RBIs while walking 58 times for an OPS+ of 182. In fact, the Cardinals were only 22-33 after McGwire joined the team. That didn't stop him from signing a contract extension in mid-September, though, making him a Cardinal through 2001. Which was, of course, a brilliant signing by St. Louis. Over the next 4 years, McGwire would hit 196 home runs, including the magical 70 he hit in 1998, and walk 427 times for an OPS+ of 182, all in Cardinal red. He was even able to help the team reach the postseason in each of his last two years in the bigs. It was a remarkable stretch, and one that made him one of the most enjoyable stars of the decade. (Of course, the steroids issue has since clouded our perception of this time - as well it should - but it was hard to argue with the results as they were happening.)

In Oakland, on the other hand, none of the three pitchers ever worked out. There were no Rookie of the Year winners or even All-Stars in the bunch. But, with the utter lack of leverage that Sandy Aldersen was working with, you can't really blame him. Plus, that's the risk that you run when dealing with prospects. McGwire would have left the team anyway, so the A's had to get something in return. It's only bad luck that that "something" never panned out.

With hindsight, it's easy to say that Oakland should have figured out some other way to move McGwire before the deadline, but I don't think that was at all possible. The Angels were competing well enough in the division that they didn't feel like they had to make any additional moves and the only other team that wanted to deal for McGwire refused to offer their best prospects. When you're in a position like Alderson was that July - being pressured to get something, anything for your star player before he leaves (and when he's at his peak) - trades like this happen. Sometimes they work out, and sometimes they don't. The McGwire trade may be not have worked, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened. It'll be interesting to see if any GMs back themselves into the same corner this year *cough*Toronto*cough*.

[One other note... I came across this quote from one of the newspapers of the day. I couldn't really fit it into the piece above, but I thought it was too good to leave out:

McGwire, clearly, no longer is threatening Roger Maris' home run record. (It is also clear, by the way, after his cranky performance in New York, that extensive media attention will make him one grumpy guy if he ever does make a run at it.)...

Yeah, McGwire was a real grump as he chased down Maris. Real grump. We all hated the guy...]

Historic Hot Stove: Sammy Sosa & Harold Baines

In his years in the White House, President George W. Bush would often joke that the biggest mistake of his adult life was signing off on the trade that sent Sammy Sosa from the Texas Rangers to the Chicago White Sox. It's a good laugh-line, especially for someone whose position affords such little room for humor, but it really makes you wonder: was trading a young and unproven Sammy Sosa really a big mistake?

I know that I'm not the first one to take a look at this question, but it still seems like a great way to kick off Hot Stove week. Plus, I don't think too many people have taken the time to go back and see what people were saying when the trade actually took place.

The trade took place on July 29, 1989, when the Chicago White Sox sent All-Star designated hitter Harold Baines and reserve middle-infielder Fred Manrique to the Texas Rangers for aging but expensive shortstop Scott Fletcher and two top-tier prospects - rightfielder Sammy Sosa and pitcher Wilson Alvarez. At the time, the Rangers were 55-47, sitting in 4th place, 8 games behind the California Angels. The White Sox were in the cellar of the AL West, with a 43-60 record, 20.5 games behind the Angels.

The Rangers were looking to add a power bat while also dropping the unweildy three-year, $3.9 million contract they had given to shortstop Scott Fletcher only the year before.

The Texas Rangers got the big bat they were seeking Saturday when they acquired designated hitter-outfielder Harold Baines from the Chicago White Sox for shortstop Scott Fletcher and two top prospects.

The Rangers also sent outfielder Sammy Sosa and pitcher Wilson Alvarez to the White Sox. Sosa was playing for Texas' Class AAA Oklahoma City farm club, while Alvarez was on the Rangers' Class AA Tulsa roster.

...

"For the past several years, we've been trying to acquire a designated hitter specialist,'' Rangers General Manager Tom Grieve said. "We feel we now have the best designated hitter in baseball.''

On the White Sox end, the trade wasn't so much about who they were getting as it was who they were giving up. Baines was a ten-year Chicago veteran, and was thought of by many as "Mr. White Sox". When the trade was announced, despite having been discussed in the weeks before (' "You keep hearing, `Baines is going to be traded, Baines is going to be traded,' " said Greg Walker, who will fill Baines' designated-hitter spot...'), it did not go over well.

Carlton Fisk, who always chooses his words carefully, chose these more carefully than ever.

"I don't have much good to say about that," said Fisk, still sweating after a pregame workout with hitting instructor Walt Hriniak. The subject was Saturday's Harold Baines trade. The mood was barely-restrained anger-and this was before the White Sox offense showed little in Saturday night's 2-1 loss to the California Angels.

...

"The No. 3 man right out of our lineup," Fisk said. "Take the No. 3 hitter out of any lineup throughout the major leagues and see what happens. From Alvin Davis to Don Mattingly . . . "

Fisk turned his head away and spit something into a sandbox near his cubicle. Even the spitting was angry.

"Harold and Freddy (Manrique) for one major-league player," said Fisk. "Two major-leaguers for one. And not just a major leaguer. Harold Baines. Harold Baines. You know what I mean? Harold Baines . . ."

No, spirits in the White Sox clubhouse were not soaring.

Despite Carlton Fisk's complaints, Sosa and Alvarez were definitely considered top notch prospects.

Sosa and Alvarez were two of the shining stars in the Rangers' minor-league system. Both saw brief service with the Rangers in recent weeks, Alvarez for one start and Sosa for five weeks. Both had been returned to the minor leagues.

Depth in their minor-league system allowed the Rangers to deal two of their top prospects for a proven hitter.

"We're not thrilled about dealing two of our best prospects,'' [Rangers manager] Grieve said. "But to get a player of Harold Baines' caliber, you have to trade quality.''

For the White Sox, mired in last place in the American League West, the trade was made with an eye toward the future.

In the end, the trade didn't really work out for anyone. Baines lasted only one year on the Rangers before getting traded to the A's at the end of August. Fletcher played out the rest of his contract with the White Sox, but not very well, barely squeezing out a .240 batting average over that time. Alvarez had a solid seven-year career with the White Sox before being traded to the Giants at the 1997 trade deadline, winning 67 games with a 118 ERA+ over that time. He also pitched a no-hitter in his first start as a member of the White Sox.

Sosa played only two full seasons for the White Sox before they traded him to the Cubs in 1992 for George Bell. In that time, Sosa was only a .227 hitter with 28 home runs and an 84 OPS+. He started putting his act together in '93, when he belted 33 home runs, but it wasn't until '94 that he was able to post an OPS+ better than 120. And then of course there was the completely unpredicatable 1998 season...

The point, though, is that, at the time of the trade, moving Sammy Sosa to the White Sox for Harold Baines was not a ridiculous move. Yes, he was a key prospect for the Rangers, but they were dealing from a position of strength in that regard. They were fighting for a spot in the postseason (8 games out is about when clubs are at their most desperate) and needed a good bat at the DH-spot, and there was no bat better than Baines'. Even on Chicago's side, they didn't see the inclusion of Sosa as a coup. They made certain to acquire a couple of top prospects, but no one saw Sosa as a Rookie of the Year candidate. Sosa certainly ended up blossoming in Chicago, but it wasn't in a White Sox uniform and it wasn't for another five years or so. It's hard to say, then, that trading Sammy Sosa in the summer of 1989 was all that big of a mistake for our former president.

Hot Stove Week

Today marks the beginning of what some call the most exciting season in baseball: Hot Stove Week. With Friday being the 31st of July - and, thus, the last day of the season that a trade can be made without having to deal with waivers - we can expect an inordinate amount of updates and speculation about who will be traded to whom and all of that fun stuff that makes MLB Trade Rumors go crazy.

As a tribute to the week - and in keeping with the tradition here at wezen-ball of looking at contemporary accounts whenever we can - I thought it might be fun to spend the next few days looking back at some of the most interesting and exciting trades of the past 20 years to see how well they worked out and how they were viewed at the time. Was the Harold Baines-for-Sammy Sosa-and-others trade really the terrible trade that President Bush made it out to be? Can we learn any lessons from the Randy Johnson-to-the-Astros trade of 1998? What about the Mark McGwire trade of 1997 or the Curt Schilling trade of 2000? With all the attention paid to the Roy Halladays of the world this year, or the Mark Teixeiras of the world from last year, the lookbacks should offer some helpful insight.

It should make for an interesting week. I'll be back later this morning with the first one.

Hall of Fame Day: Looking Back at the Careers of Rickey and Rice

Later on this afternoon, the Hall of Fame will induct Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice (and Veteran's Committee pick Joe Gordon) into its hallowed walls.

Rickey, of course, was elected in on his first attempt. His election actually generated some consternation around the internet when he wasn't a unanimous selection (or, in fact, even that close - he was named on 94.8% of the ballots). Rice, on the other hand, was elected in on his 15th and final year on the ballot, and barely squeaked in with a 76.4% of the vote. In contrast to Rickey, the controversy around Rice was that he was even elected at all. The so-called "old guard" is convinced that his power, average, and RBIs make him more than Hall-worthy, while the more stats-heavy "new generation" see glaring weaknesses in his candidacy.

The arguments are all moot now, as both Rickey and Rice will soon have their plaques unveiled. Back in December, when the Hall of Fame voting was still in doubt, I did a Through the Years piece on both Rickey and Rice. It seems like today is a perfect day, then, to revisit those.

In Through the Years: Rickey Henderson, we see that it didn't take Rickey very long to prove just how great he was. What I found most interesting about him, though (besides all the interesting stuff that we already know about Rickey), was how every improvement in his game, from more stolen bases to his increase in power, was due to a conscious effort on his part. I think that's pretty spectacular.

With Through the Years: Jim Rice, I thought it was worth trying to see if there was any evidence from his playing days that Rice was indeed the "most feared hitter of his time." I did find an example or two that some people may have thought that, but it was hardly overwhelming (and, in fact, it seems that Reggie Jackson was the one more likely to have been given that title, if at all). There's no doubt, though, that, when Rice was at his best (like in his MVP season of 1978), he was really, really good. We can continue the discussion of whether it was enough to deserve enshrinement in the Hall of Fame, but, with his induction today, it doesn't much matter anymore.

(For those of you who don't know what a Through the Years piece is - and how can I blame you since I've done a terrible job of continuing the series? - it's a look back at a player's career through the eyes of the annual preview magazines that come out at the start of every season. I think it's both fun and informative to see how great players were viewed as they were working their way towards stardom. I really need to get back to doing these - I do find them pretty fascinating.)

Oh, and as an added Hall of Fame bonus - and since I'm already linking to "classic" content - here's one more: a look back at a poll from 1992, where Sporting News writers were asked what they thought the Hall of Fame chances were of contemporary players. Rickey and Rice (and a whole lot more) are included on the list. It's a pretty interesting read: Past Future Hall of Famers. Enjoy.

More on the Intentional Walk

It seems like the post I wrote last week about the intentional walk got a few people talking. Over at Baseball Think Factory, a very lively discussion broke out about the merits of the intentional walk and what, if any, other options could be deployed. The debate mostly split into two camps: those who saw no compelling reason to alter the rules and those who felt that the excitement that the intentional walk robbed from the game was worth retaining. The suggested rule change that seemed to have the most legs was the "double intentional walk" that Bill James introduced a while ago (basically, after a four-pitch walk, the batter has the option to decline the free base and reset his at-bat; if a second four-pitch walk was thrown, the batter would get two free bases).

Rob Neyer also commented on the post. In one of his own postings yesterday, Rob aired his own opinion. Let's just say, he didn't particularly agree with me:

Today we have a lot of intentional walks, which seem to be within "the nature of the sport." But it was not always so. When the game's rules were first codified in the 19th century, the pitcher's job was essentially to serve the ball to the batter, and the batter's job was to put the ball in play and then run like hell until somebody put him out. Later, when the pitchers were actually trying to get batters out, for a while it took a lot of balls to walk a batter. Eight or nine of them. Why? Because nobody believed that walks should be an integral part of the nature of the game.
...
Well, I must beg to differ. It seems to me that if you've got something that clearly contradicts the real nature of the game -- pitchers throwing baseballs and hitters trying to hit them -- and the fans actively despise it, then you should seriously consider doing something about it.

There's nothing wrong with these opinions. They are opinions, after all. But, every time I read them, I feel like I missed something. Of course, I don't fancy myself important enough to have any bearing on a major discussion, but I still feel like I have to comment.

First off, I think I need to say that I am not a fan of the intentional walk. I find it frustrating and boring when a team walks a batter like Albert Pujols, especially in lesser-leverage situations. I boo when an opposing team does it to one of my own guys like Prince Fielder. It's just not fun to watch. But, like I said in the original piece, I don't think that's enough.

The original pieces that I read, and that inspired me to comment on the topic to begin with, seemed to dance around this point. They would admit to disliking the intentional walk at the start of their argument but would then try to justify their stance with other reasons, like gameplay issues. Basically, they tried to house their true objections - their objections as a fan - with offensive and defensive excuses. It seemed disingenuous to me, and that's why I had to say something.

At least now the debate is a little more clear: are the drawbacks of the intentional walk - the way it can kill the excitement of a game by completely removing the bat from some of the best sluggers in baseball - enough to justify a new rule? (Though Tango would probably phrase that a little differently: is there a way to handle intentional walks that improves the game?)

After all, changes have been made to the game of baseball for decades. Rob points out the advent of the infield fly rule and the evolution of the base on balls. In the BBTF thread, Tango mentions the changes in strike-zone enforcement and the make-up of the ball and mitt. If these rules and essential pieces of equipment can evolve and change, then why can't the intentional walk rule?

It's a good point, and one that I'm happy to concede. But it's still not enough to convince me. As Rob points out, most of these changes (the rules changes, at least) were made long ago, when the game was still growing and learning. Of course changes would be made then: it's impossible to anticipate every weakness a game might have, so changing the rules to accomodate them as they were discovered is only sensible. By now, 140 years after the game was invented, these weaknesses have been ironed out. The strike zone and pitching-count rules have had decades to prove their worth (though the strike zone's exact boundaries have proven to be a little too susceptible to the whims of the umpires and the commissioner's office), as have all the other esoteric rules of the game. They are where they should be.

So, should a recent uptick in intentional walks be enough to make us rethink the rule? Is this a serious and irrevocable exploitation of a flawed rule, or just evidence of managers choosing to make strategic use of a risky tool at their disposal? Does our natural dislike for the move matter? That's a decision that everyone needs to make individually. The game is not perfect, but is this one of the problems that need addressing? I don't think it is, but that's obviously not a universal opinion. If someone can give me a better reason than "it's boring" and give me a better suggestion for how to handle it (I do kind of like the "pitched-ball balk" rule I suggested last week), I might reconsider. So far, though, that hasn't happened, no matter how much I respect Rob or Tango.