When Players Leave Your Favorite Team [merged threads]

[Fuzzy Bear]

Much is written about the "curse" that befalls a team when they trade a player that is not only a big star, but a fan favorite.

Rocky Colavito of Cleveland. Bret Saberhagen of the Royals. Tom Seaver of the Mets. These are some examples of player trades that have evoked hatred from the fans, and are the source of blame for the subsequent longsuffering the fans had to endure with prolonged losing.

I remember other trades, however, that were blasted at the time, but were good for the team.

I remember in 1969 when the Red Sox traded Ken Harrelson for Sonny Siebert. The fans were up in arms. I remeber picket signs in front of Fenway Park, with one of them reading, "To hell with Siebert! We want Hawk!"

And Hawk, to be sure, had a great year in 1968. He was, IMO, arguably more valuble to the Red Sox in 1968 than was Yaz. He hit 35 HRs in 1968, and would hit 30 in 1969. He was a patient hitter, with an OBP over .100 above his BA, offsetting his relatively low BAs (although his .275 in the AL in 1968 was 45 points over league).

Yet 1969 was to be Hawk's last good year. He broke his ankle in 1970, missing almost the entire season (which was starting out as one of his best), and in 1971, while hitting .199, he abruptly retired to pursue a golf career. (Harrelson was always somewhat ambivelent about baseball as a career, always keeping golf as an option. Robin Yount became great when he stopped doing that.)

As for the Seaver trade, the problem was that the Mets did not recognize that a 25 year old minor leaguer is not going to improve from where he is, in all likelihood, as opposed to a 22 year old, who still has growth left. They also did not recognize that the best player they acquired in the deal, Steve Henderson, the 25 year old minor leaguer, was an excellent leadoff hitter. Had they installed him at leadoff, they would have achieved much, much more return on the trade.

What about it? What are your examples of teams trading the big star, or the most popular player? Were they good for your team?

[gyb13]

don't forget the modern age corollary: what happens when you allow your team's most popular player to leave via free agency?

[Golden Bear]

Thome you be referring?

(Play on words; not sure it works.)

[Skip]

Or even a simpler sidebar type question to append to this thread: Who is the most popular/dominant/missed player your team ever traded -- and what happened? Note, this isnt necessarily the 'worst' trade you made, depending upon what you got back.

e.g. RSox trade/sell Ruth -- what happens? "The Curse"
e.g. Reds trade F. Robby -- what happens? He wins MVP in the AL ... and both teams end up with a 'dynasty' not too long after anyway (thought the O's come first).

[Max Power]

Golden Bear, cute!

I think another factor is that he has to come back to haunt you.

Ruth as a Yankee v. the Sox, for example.

Take the modern Yankees - - they trade Willie McGee for Bob Sykes and it's "bad trade" - - but, when they trade Jay Buhner for Ken Phelps, and Buhner goes on to HR against you for a decade, it's "Why did they ever trade Jay Buhner?!?!"

Frank Robbie even came back to haunt the Reds himself.

[WiredTiger]

Originally posted by Max Power
But, when they trade Jay Buhner for Ken Phelps, and Buhner goes on to HR against you for a decade, it's "Why did they ever trade Jay Buhner?!?!"

Classic Seinfeld episode. I think it can take a toll on the support of the team's fans if it was done for the wrong reason or in the wrong way. Indians fans at least know that the Indians tried to keep Thome. I think Tiger fans realized that the Tigers weren't going to win and that trading Jeff Weaver might have made sense.

The Tigers were definitely burned by this in the late 80s. The heart of the team was ripped out when Kirk Gibson and Lance Parrish left.

Originally posted by Skip
Reds trade F. Robby -- what happens? He wins MVP in the AL ... and both teams end up with a 'dynasty' not too long after anyway (thought the O's come first).

This isn't entirely accurate. You had a very young Pete Rose and a 1st- or 2nd-year Tony Perez on the team when Robby was traded. Frank was, by far, the best (and most popular) player on the team since Ted Kluszewski left in the late 1950s.

The Reds received nothing in return for Robinson. It was a horrible, horrible deal. Owner/GM William DeWitt was called Bill "Dim Wit" around town for years after that.

The Big Red Machine didn't get going until they had new management in the front office, a new manager in the dugout and a boatload of youngsters from their own and other farm systems. Griffey, Foster, Morgan, Bench, Concepcion, etc. weren't yet with the team at the time of the trade and no one who was instrumental in the dynasty or in being used to acquire someone who was, came to Cincinnati as part of that trade.

The Reds won in spite of one of the worst trades in history, but because of it.

The one has nothing to do with the other.

Imagine, however, if Robinson had stayed with the Reds --- on those 1970, 1972 and 1973 teams...he might have been the difference maker in October.

[poorme]

during my life, this has only happened once - harold baines for sammy sosa and wilson alvarez. well, that could have been a great trade, but we all know how that goes...

[Skip]

You miss my lack of point BigKlu. I'm simply saying what happened ... not implying any causality or lack of it. I was just interested in looking at the end result of losing your best/most popular player regardless of what you did or did not get back. Not analyzing the value of the transaction, just the aftermath. I'm sure there are numerous cases where seemingly disastrous losses ended up not having a negative impact (i.e. the Ewing factor) ... for a variety of reasons. You've provided the reasons why losing Robby didnt really affect the Reds as much as it might have ... as well as bringing up my favorite what-if scenario of all time. Sob.

Seattle loses Alex Rodriguez after the 2000 season and they go on to win 25 more games the following year. Attendance rose by 7,317 per game.


Oakland loses Jason Giambi after the 2001 season and they go on to win more games the following year and move from wild card to division winner! Their attendance increased by 451 per game in spite of the overall downward trend in attendance from the labor conflict!

[KCBOOMER]

A team can do most anything and the fans will go along if they win. They may be upset at first but will get over it. But woe betide the team that trades their fan favorite and slides into sub-mediocrity and stay there. This is what happened to the Indians with the Colavito trade and the Royals with the Saberhagen trade.

[Max Power]

I have this to be true - - - find 10 Yankee fans, aged anywhere between 37 and 43, and 6 of them will tell you that they cried the day the Yankees traded Bobby Murcer. No matter how many times you do this, 60% will tell you they cried. It's amazing - - considering that trade yielded Bonds, who then yielded Rivers and Figgy (two cogs of the late '70's pennant winners).

I know at least 3 guys who told me they stopped rooting for the Yanks the day they traded Murcer.

[TimmyB]

I am old enough to remember the simply awful winter of 1980-81 when the Sox...

1) Lost Carlton Fisk as the result of a clerical error.
2) Traded Fred Lynn, Rick Burleson and Butch Hobson to the Angels for Frank Tanana, Mark Clear (?), Carney Lansford (?), and Joe Rudi

Granted, the team had not returned to form after 1978. Both '79 and '80 were dissappointing years. But... Fisk and Lynn were immensly popular (on a team that also included Yaz, Rice, Dewey, etc.). Red Sox Nation was devestated.

In the long run it turned out to be a mixed bag. Catcher remained an achillies heel well into the '90s. Gedman had a couple good years (including '86), but in the end, from '81 until Fisk retired in '92 (?), the Sox went through the likes of Gary Allenson, Dave Rader, Tony Pena, Rich Gedman, Rick Cerone... and more motley names that I am unable to recall as I have must have supressed them for mental health reasons.

The California trade worked out okay...
Hobson, while gritty and popular, was no match for Lansford and then Boggs. Burleson injured his rotator cuff (?) either in '81 or '82 and that pretty much did in his career. Tanana, Rudi and Clear amounted to mostly nothing. Lynn never reached his Boston level again (although, it must be noted California won the west in '82). I guess the best that can be said about that trade was that it began the rebuilding process that eventually led to the '86, '88 and '90 teams.

On a more recent note, there were Clemens and Vaughn. Clemens was not in the twilight of his career... and as disappointing as Mo has been in Anaheim and NY, he still would have been an upgrade over Tony Clark.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

I was only 3 when Rocky was traded to Detroit -- a trade my dad talks about to this day, but I vividly remember Joe Carter leaving.

We had some good talent in 1986, and I recall a series against the defending champion Royals -- a series we swept -- and the big crowds that flocked to Muni Stadium because the Tribe was (GASP!) in FIRST PLACE in MAY! Of course, our pitching tanked the next year and before we knew it, the talent was gone -- again.

When Robbie went to the Mets, it was the end of an era again -- the first winning era after decades of "five-year-plans". It hardly matters that Robbie flopped last season or that the young arms could be pennant winners in the future. What matters is that one era is over and the future is up for grabs.

Of course, we've lost so much talent since then, it's hard to keep track of it -- you kind of get numb to it all.

This is a good experience for the younger Tribe fans, the ones who grew up winning division titles at the Jake. They now share a common bond with older Tribe fans, a Tribal bond as it were -- something they can pass on to THEIR kids.

Tell you what -- it makes the wins that much sweeter when they come only a once in a generation or two.

I cried over the loss of Dave Parker to the A's. At the time, I'd never heard of Jose Rijo - and didn't ever expect to again.

The Reds letting Paul O'Neill go to New York was also very upsetting at the time.

Interestingly enough, the single biggest move that's upset me the most as a fan - over 20 years - was the Reds' decision to keep their biggest "home grown" star, Barry Larkin, back in 2000.

Something I've been wondering lately, for no reason in particular, does Barry Larkin have the longest tenure with his original club of any active player? I sure can't think of anyone else.