PDA

View Full Version : Could have owned the 60's


hose
02-09-2003, 07:28 PM
The great Hank Greenberg started working for Bill Veeck as the White Sox G.M. in 1959 and stayed with the club till1961. He pulled the trigger on three of the worst trades in White Sox history.

December 6, 1959 ....a day that will live in infamy

Bubba Phillips, Norm Cash, and Johnny Romano to Cleveland for Minnie Minoso, Dick Brown, Don Ferarrese and Jake Striker.

Johnny Callison to Philadelphia for Gene Freese.

April 5, 1959 Sox sent Earl Battey and Don Mincher to Washington for Roy Sievers.



If these trades weren't bad enough the White Sox placed Denny McLain on waivers April 8 1963. The Detroit Tigers picked up McLain and won a World Series behind his 31 game victory CY Young season in 1968. McLain wasn't a one season wonder either
1965 16-6 .
1966 20- 14 .
1967 17-16 .
1968 31- 6 .
1969 24 -9 .

Norm Cash and Johnny Callison, Earl Battey would have also provided more run scoring that the team so sorely lacked.

MarkEdward
02-09-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by hose

If these trades weren't bad enough the White Sox placed Denny McLain on waivers April 8 1963. The Detroit Tigers picked up McLain and won a World Series behind his 31 game victory CY Young season in 1968. McLain wasn't a one season wonder either.

I don't know about that. Aside from '65, '68, and '69, McLain wasn't a very good pitcher. His career ERA+ ended up at only 101. Take away his three good years, and it's only 85.

Norm Cash and Johnny Callison, Earl Battey would have also provided more run scoring that the team so sorely lacked.

The Yankees of the early 60's would have still been tough to beat, though.

upnorthsox
02-09-2003, 10:30 PM
Wasn't Cash traded to Detroit?

hose
02-09-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I don't know about that. Aside from '65, '68, and '69, McLain wasn't a very good pitcher. His career ERA+ ended up at only 101. Take away his three good years, and it's only 85.



The Yankees of the early 60's would have still been tough to beat, though.


The Sox could have had 1 -2 pennants with just Cash and Callison alone.

In 1964 they finished 1 game back of the Yankees and in 1967 with any type of offense they win that year also. The Sox stayed in the pennant race down to the end against Boston.

McLain would have been huge on the Southside. His presence along with these other players mentioned would have changed the whole complexion of the team.

Look at the effect one MVP season by Dick Allen had on the Sox and the fans. Could you imagine McLain winning 31 in Comiskey? whoa.....

hose
02-09-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by upnorthsox
Wasn't Cash traded to Detroit?


Yes by the Cleveland Indians after they got him from the Sox.

idseer
02-09-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by hose
The Sox could have had 1 -2 pennants with just Cash and Callison alone.

In 1964 they finished 1 game back of the Yankees and in 1967 with any type of offense they win that year also. The Sox stayed in the pennant race down to the end against Boston.

McLain would have been huge on the Southside. His presence along with these other players mentioned would have changed the whole complexion of the team.

Look at the effect one MVP season by Dick Allen had on the Sox and the fans. Could you imagine all the Mclain winning 31 in Comiskey? whoa.....

could have happened i guess, but, at the time it seemed the smart choice. of three pitchers they could only keep two and mclain looked the least promising. they kept dave debusscere (sp) who of course decided to play basketball, and honestly i cannot remember who the other guy was.

idseer
02-09-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by hose
Yes by the Cleveland Indians after they got him from the Sox.

you think the sox got screwed? at least they got minoso who played a few more years. cleveland turned around and gave cash to detroit for a guy named steve demeter who had a grand total of 5 more ml at bats!

PaleHoseGeorge
02-09-2003, 11:09 PM
Torn and I have debated this before. He agrees with the general sentiment of this thread (and Sox author Rich Lindberg, too), that Bill Veeck screwed up the Sox for most of the 1960's by gutting the franchise of its best prospects in 1959-62. This is a well-accepted theory amongst Sox Fans who know their history.

While I wouldn't give Veeck a pass for making lousy trades, I don't think it is fair to blame the demise of the franchise on him, either. The Allyns fielded some very competitive teams for years after Veeck was gone, including a 1964 team that won more games than any other team from the Go-Go era, including the league champions of 1959. That's a lot of history to blame on one guy who only owned the team for three years.

Clearly the Sox would have been better off without losing guys like Cash, Romano, and McLain. At some point however, I think the Allyns must be held accountable for their own inability to get the team over the hump. They owned the team for 13 years, and the 98-win Sox of 1964 were practically in their grave by 1969. Somebody besides Veeck ought to be getting the blame for that.

:tool
"Look, I wanted Art Allyn to sell me the Sox in the worst way. So what if the Allyns were dumb enough to let me screw up baseball on Chicago's South Side? I simply had Milwaukee and my own selfish interests at heart!"

hose
02-09-2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by idseer
you think the sox got screwed? at least they got minoso who played a few more years. cleveland turned around and gave cash to detroit for a guy named steve demeter who had a grand total of 5 more ml at bats!



:minnie

Chicago been very good to me.


:hawk

Mercy, if I was G.M. I would................ :o:

Lip Man 1
02-10-2003, 12:04 AM
The McClain story is an interesting one but it also has its roots in the rules of baseball at the time.

McClain, a Chicago native, was a "bonus baby" when he signed with the Sox in 1962. The Sox also had ANOTHER "bonus baby" in pitcher Bruce Howard. Both played for the Sox farm team in Clinton, (Iowa?)

UNDER THE EXISTING RULES the Sox were allowed to only protect one 'bonus baby." Waivers could NOT be recalled on first year bonus players. So the person whom the Sox let go was lost to the organization.

On April 8, 1963 McClain and Howard had a "pitch off" in an exhibition intersquad game. Howard won a 2-1 decision and was assigned to Lynchburg, (Virginia?) on Double A. McClain was waived.

I don't believe Dave DeBusschere was involved in this because he was already with the Sox in 1962 and appeared in some major league games for them.

I have no idea how the intersquad teams were divided so I can't tell you if one pitcher had a better team to work with nor can I tell you why the Sox gave "bonus baby" money to two players knowing what the rules were at the time.

Of such small items pennents are won and lost (at least with the Sox...)

Rich Lindberg said letting McClain go was "the worst decision ever made by Sox GM Ed Short." (and he made a LOT of them!)

Lip

MarkEdward
02-10-2003, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by hose
The Sox could have had 1 -2 pennants with just Cash and Callison alone.

I never argued that. The Sox would have been damn good if they kept Cash and Callison. My arguement is...

McLain would have been huge on the Southside. His presence along with these other players mentioned would have changed the whole complexion of the team.

So we were going to have a below-average, cocky pitcher. How would we be better if McLain stayed on our team?

Look at the effect one MVP season by Dick Allen had on the Sox and the fans. Could you imagine McLain winning 31 in Comiskey? whoa.....

Those 31 wins in 1968 were a huge aberration. Detroit had the best offense in the AL in 1968 by a pretty wide margin (about 50 runs up on Boston, and 100 runs up on Baltimore). The Sox, in 1968, had the worst offense in baseball. With any other team (except maybe the Reds), Denny doesn't get those 31 wins.

I'm not defending Greenberg here. I'm arguing McLain's effectiveness.

HITMEN OF 77
02-10-2003, 01:58 AM
Well, look at the bright side, even if McClain wouldn't have pitched well for us in 1964-1968 he at least played a mean Hammond organ. Can you imagine him and Nancy F as a 1 2 organ combo during the seventh inning stretch? It would have been ineteresting to see Denny pitch for the Sox though! I'm going to dig up my Denny McClain LP now and listen for a bit!

hose
02-10-2003, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The McClain story is an interesting one but it also has its roots in the rules of baseball at the time.

McClain, a Chicago native, was a "bonus baby" when he signed with the Sox in 1962. The Sox also had ANOTHER "bonus baby" in pitcher Bruce Howard. Both played for the Sox farm team in Clinton, (Iowa?)

UNDER THE EXISTING RULES the Sox were allowed to only protect one 'bonus baby." Waivers could NOT be recalled on first year bonus players. So the person whom the Sox let go was lost to the organization.

On April 8, 1963 McClain and Howard had a "pitch off" in an exhibition intersquad game. Howard won a 2-1 decision and was assigned to Lynchburg, (Virginia?) on Double A. McClain was waived.

I don't believe Dave DeBusschere was involved in this because he was already with the Sox in 1962 and appeared in some major league games for them.

I have no idea how the intersquad teams were divided so I can't tell you if one pitcher had a better team to work with nor can I tell you why the Sox gave "bonus baby" money to two players knowing what the rules were at the time.

Of such small items pennents are won and lost (at least with the Sox...)

Rich Lindberg said letting McClain go was "the worst decision ever made by Sox GM Ed Short." (and he made a LOT of them!)

Lip



Thanks for clearing up how the waiver came about, thats some very good info that I didn't have a clue about.

hose
02-10-2003, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I never argued that. The Sox would have been damn good if they kept Cash and Callison. My arguement is...



So we were going to have a below-average, cocky pitcher. How would we be better if McLain stayed on our team?



Those 31 wins in 1968 were a huge aberration. Detroit had the best offense in the AL in 1968 by a pretty wide margin (about 50 runs up on Boston, and 100 runs up on Baltimore). The Sox, in 1968, had the worst offense in baseball. With any other team (except maybe the Reds), Denny doesn't get those 31 wins.

I'm not defending Greenberg here. I'm arguing McLain's effectiveness.



Give the man credit, McLain DID win 108 games from 1965-1969.

Take him away from Detroit and that in itself changes the pennant races.

idseer
02-10-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The McClain story is an interesting ....................

I don't believe Dave DeBusschere was involved in this because he was already with the Sox in 1962 and appeared in some major league games for them.

...................

Lip

in was sure i remembered debusschere being somehow involved with the letting go of mclain, so i did a little seasrching and came up with this:

http://www.nba.com/history/debusschere_bio.html

specifically ....
:"DeBusschere played professional baseball for four seasons. A tall righthanded pitcher with a lively fastball, he was called up by the White Sox in 1963 and went 3-4 with a 3.09 ERA. He showed enough promise that the White Sox protected him by exposing another player to the draft-future Detroit Tigers star and 31-game winner Denny McLain. During the next two years DeBusschere compiled a 25-9 record for Chicago's Class AAA Indianapolis farm club"

it was a long time ago now but i thought all 3 pitchers were involved simultaneously, but i'm really not sure. this article doesn't even mention bruce howard.

in any event i don't see how anyone could fault the logic in leaving mclain unprotected. the sox made some poor decisions but this one couldn't have been foreseen i don't believe.

Lip Man 1
02-10-2003, 12:11 PM
For what it's worth the 1964 White Sox Yearbook shows that DeBusschere appeared in a dozen games in 1962 pitching 18 innings with an ERA of two. It also says he walked 23 guys! (so he must have had a lot of double plays to bail him out!)

That being said I don't know how the NBA can make that link. Because he already was on a major league roster he wouldn't come under the "bonus baby" rules. The two "bonus babies" signed in 62 and 63 according to what I've found were Howard and McClain.

By the way after McClain was released no major league team picked him up for a full week until the Tigers did. Anybody could have had him (except for the Sox)

Lip

SI1020
02-10-2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by hose
Give the man credit, McLain DID win 108 games from 1965-1969.

Take him away from Detroit and that in itself changes the pennant races. Some people are religiously attached to Jamesian statistics. If a player doesn't measure up he couldn't have ever of been any good.

idseer
02-10-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
For what it's worth the 1964 White Sox Yearbook shows that DeBusschere appeared in a dozen games in 1962 pitching 18 innings with an ERA of two. It also says he walked 23 guys! (so he must have had a lot of double plays to bail him out!)

That being said I don't know how the NBA can make that link. Because he already was on a major league roster he wouldn't come under the "bonus baby" rules. The two "bonus babies" signed in 62 and 63 according to what I've found were Howard and McClain.

By the way after McClain was released no major league team picked him up for a full week until the Tigers did. Anybody could have had him (except for the Sox)

Lip

curious. baseball reference.com also shows he pitched in '62. the article i previously mentioned doesn't actually say he never played till '63 ... just that he was called up and did such & such in '63. he wasn't a pitcher of record in '62 so perhaps that's why they didn't mention it.
the thing is, i remember vividly having a conversation about mclain just after his 31 win season and how the sox lost him. debusschere was definitely a part of that scenario.
i'll soon be talking with my buddy and see if he either more clearly remembers what happened or has some literature on it. it just bugs me now.

Procol Harum
02-10-2003, 06:34 PM
Love the thread, the '60s Sox were my "Boys of Summer" and I often wonder what might have been.....<sigh>

One little point which I will admit is of the Parking Lot-variety. With all due respect, Hose, the thread title should be "Could Have Owned the 60s" As an educator, I often run into folks mis-using the contraction for "could have" (could've) and "would have" (would've). If you try to actually make sense of the words "could of" or "would of" (of--meaning in its common sense, pertaining or belonging to someone or something) you see that they literally make no sense together. :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
Love the thread, the '60s Sox were my "Boys of Summer" and I often wonder what might have been.....<sigh>

One little point which I will admit is of the Parking Lot-variety. With all due respect, Hose, the thread title should be "Could Have Owned the 60s" As an educator, I often run into folks mis-using the contraction for "could have" (could've) and "would have" (would've). If you try to actually make sense of the words "could of" or "would of" (of--meaning in its common sense, pertaining or belonging to someone or something) you see that they literally make no sense together. :smile:

Thanks for reminding me. I meant to fix this yesterday. I'm sure Nellie will be pleased, too. :cool:

hose
02-10-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Procol Harum
Love the thread, the '60s Sox were my "Boys of Summer" and I often wonder what might have been.....<sigh>

One little point which I will admit is of the Parking Lot-variety. With all due respect, Hose, the thread title should be "Could Have Owned the 60s" As an educator, I often run into folks mis-using the contraction for "could have" (could've) and "would have" (would've). If you try to actually make sense of the words "could of" or "would of" (of--meaning in its common sense, pertaining or belonging to someone or something) you see that they literally make no sense together. :smile:


Never argue with a man that buys ink by the gallon, you are correct.