GO
Around Baseball
Edited Nov 9, 2009 7:42 pm
(1113 previous messages)Jes Beard
- Mar 10, 2010 4:04 pm (#1114 of 1127)
Also, weren't the Cubs the first team to hire a black coach, in Buck O'Neil?
I think so... and O'Neil then went on to claim that the reason the Cubs traded Lou Brock in 1964 was because of racism, that the Cubs did not want so many black players in the OF, so they moved Brock.
The trade left the Cubs with one black OFer, Williams. The year before? They had an all black OF, with Williams, Brock and Ellis Burton, and also the year before that, with Williams and Brock and George Altman.
But apparently, with no change in GM or in ownership, and with no change in managers from the all-black OF in 1963 to the 1964 season when they had to "get more white" than two blacks in the OF, they decided to trade Brock because they were racists.
Buck O'Neil made some important contributions to the game, but unfortunately, perhaps by virtue of of himself having suffered for race discrimination as a player, he appears to have seen everything thru a racial prism, seeing racism involved even when none was present.
harrylives - Mar 10, 2010 5:07 pm (#1115 of 1127)
As I've pointed out before, they refused to let O'Neil coach in the third-base box and they didn't let him take a turn in the College of coaches...it was token inclusion by the Cubs.
Yes, it was groundbreaking for the times. Yes, the Cubs should be applauded. But, it was unfair what they did to Buck. Blacks of that era were used to that, but it doesn't mean it was right.
Jes Beard
- Mar 10, 2010 5:44 pm (#1116 of 1127)
harry, I don't know if what you say is true or not. I do know that I would be VERY reluctant to give much weight to O'Neil on such issues because his claims about racism being involved in the Brock trade are such patent nonsense.
I am not saying that he lied, but merely that sometimes he saw racism which was not there, whether it was because he experienced so much genuine racism or not I do not know, but I DO know that not every coach on a tem gets to be third base coach, that MOST coaches on a team do not get to decide their role (even if they are white), and that even which the Cubs were using the College of Coaches, they did NOT use as the rotating manager third base or first base coaches.
The idea what to rotate thru the entire system, from the low minors thru Wrigley field, all of the managers in the system, so everyone would be getting consistent instruction. Now, the idea was lunacy, and did not work, but the idea was NEVER to have every coach in the system serve as a manager for the Cubs in Wrigley at some point during the season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Coaches
harrylives - Mar 10, 2010 6:29 pm (#1117 of 1127)
Research done by the SABR people say that O'Neil was going to be given his turn as head coach. Players wanted him to do it and he wanted to do it and Chaarlie Grimm agreed, with prodding. Then, Phil Wrigley scuttled the plan.
Jes Beard
- Mar 11, 2010 4:06 am (#1118 of 1127)
Research done by the SABR people say that O'Neil was going to be given his turn as head coach. Players wanted him to do it and he wanted to do it and Chaarlie Grimm agreed, with prodding. Then, Phil Wrigley scuttled the plan.
The SABR people, statheads, may be great at finding old box-scores and analyzing data, but "research" in an area like this is another matter.... and research doesn't "say" anything. Folks who review it make conclusions, sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but the RESEARCH doesn't "say" anything.
You say Wrigley "scuttled the plan." Well the whole thing was Wrigley's plan. Holland, the GM, did not come up with it, and saw his role significantly reduced for a couple of years because of it.
The guy Wrigley brought in to oversee the idea was not even a baseball guy, but retired military.
So who was it that "decided" Buck was going to be given "his turn" (as if he HAD a "turn") as head coach? Buck?
Harry, I really don't want to ridicule you, but this is crazy cacca.
You have to look at such things skeptically and try to determine whether they make sense, whether they pass the smell test.
O'Neil's story here does not.
Wrigley was the driving force behind the idea, was the one conceptualized it, set it up and decided who was going to have what role in it.
Even IF Wrigley at some point thought about having O'Neil take a turn, if Wrigley at a later point changed his mind, it is not quite the same as you seem to be portraying it.
One of the things to remember is that the original idea was never really fully implemented, and there were others who had clearly and unquestionably tabbed for "their turn" as managers at Wrigley who did not get that "turn" because the idea was not really workable from the start.
Remember that the idea was to have EVERY manager in the Cub system rotating thru the entire system and with EVERY manager taking the help in Wrigley during part of the season.
But it started in 1961, and the Cubs only had FOUR people in the actual role as manager that year. http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1961.shtml And you know the Cubs had more than three minor league teams at that time. The next year, 1962, there were only three different people actually at the helm as manager.
So even if Wrigley at some point actually sat down with O'Neil before the 1961 season started and told him that he was going to give O'Neil "his turn" as manager, changing his mind would not mean there was any racism involved... unless, like Buck O'Neil and Milton Bradley and Jesse Jackson, want to view everything thru a racial prism.
brjones - Mar 11, 2010 7:25 am (#1119 of 1127)
Both Pujols and Holliday are hurting (not serious injuries, but both could turn out to be nagging things that last for a long time):
Ronny Cedeno wants to be less of a headcase:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/pirates/s_670882.html
A decade ago, Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejada and Nomar Garciaparra showed that shortstops also can be sluggers. Though he was never projected to club 20, 30 or more home runs a year, there were hopes that Cedeno could steadily produce in double digits.
What editor allowed the names of Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, Miguel Tejada, and Nomar Garciaparra to appear in a paragraph regarding the potential of Ronny Cedeno?
- Mar 11, 2010 7:33 am (#1121 of 1127)
heh...
Dihard
- Mar 11, 2010 9:40 am (#1122 of 1127)
Rockies extended Helton through 2013. He'll be 39 by then, and he's already slower than slow.
brjones - Mar 11, 2010 2:55 pm (#1123 of 1127)
Brian Giles has retired. Not a Hall of Famer, but could've been if he'd become a full time player at age 24 instead of age 28, and if he'd played his last few years somewhere other than Petco.
DG - Mar 11, 2010 3:53 pm (#1124 of 1127)
He'll certainly be in the steroids hall of fame.
brjones - Mar 12, 2010 7:57 pm (#1125 of 1127)
MLB Network is counting down the top 9 moments in Marlins history. The #3 moment is Bartman, only behind the two World Series winning games. And to add insult to injury, #4 was game 7 of the 2003 NLCS.
Mitch Williams takes a shot at Eric Gregg's ridiculousness in Game 5 of the 1997 NLCS, though. At least that's a positive.
DelMarFan
- Mar 13, 2010 12:36 am (#1126 of 1127)
How could you even watch?
- Mar 13, 2010 2:25 am (#1127 of 1127)
They actually produced a show about the top 10 moments in the history of a team that hasn't even been around for 20 years and has a pathetically small fan base? What kind of ratings were they hoping to get? DId they even charge the advertisers who ran commercials?
Around Baseball