PDA

View Full Version : 42 years ago today...



RShack
12-09-2007, 04:48 PM
On Dec 9, 1965, the Frank Robinson trade was announced.

At the time, it was controversial and a little bit scary in Baltimore. Milt Pappas was our ace. Frank Robinson was a scary black guy who carried a gun, didn't take any crap from anybody, and who the Reds thought was over the hill. While nobody used the label "clubhouse cancer" back then, that's basically what a lot of people were worried about.

IMO, this began the 3rd era of the modern Orioles: The First Era was Paul Richards. He was mainly a wheeler-dealer who liked the idea of trading everybody. Not only did he once do a 17-player deal with the MFY's, he almost traded the entire 25-man roster for the 25-man roster of the KC A's.
The Second Era was AM's daddy. Lee MacPhail took over in '58 and stayed 7 years. His own daddy, Larry MacPhail, ran 3 different teams, owned some of them, and is in the HOF. Larry's son Lee is the guy who built the Baltimore organization from top to bottom. He's the guy who made the O's the best organization in baseball. He's the guy who got the whole Oriole Way underway. Within just a couple years, the O's were contending with the MFY's, who were *way* more dominant then than they are now. (Back then, the MFY's went to the WS 4 years out of every 5, like clockwork.)
The Third Era began with the FRobby trade. With the best farm system of anybody's in place, and providing fresh ML'ers just about every year, they went outside the org to add whichever parts were missing. Immediately after he set up the FRobby trade and left, the O's were a monster, won the AL by a mile, and swept the Dodgers. Immediately after his successor did the Mike Cuellar trade, they went to the WS three years in a row.
Lee MacPhail's organization pretty much lasted until Hoffberger sold the team in '79. That's when the Fourth Era began. We can also call it the era of "Farm system? What farm system?" The last good position player they signed was Cal in '78. After Hoffberger sold it to EBW, the organization was left to rot. The next guy they signed who wound up playing everyday was BRob who they signed in '99. That's a 21 year gap. That's an awful long time to produce absolutely nobody. In the middle of the Fourth Era, PA tried to buy a ring. Didn't work. But that was just an island of unsustainable almost-success during the Fourth Era of organizational suckitude.
While different people have different opinions, I think Flanny *tried* to get the Fifth Era started. He knew what he wanted to do, he wanted to rebuild the system. And he has. Sorta. The lower-level MiL guys look pretty good. But Flanny also seems to have been in over his head, evidently didn't know exactly how to fix an entire organization, had one hand tied behind his back, and managed to make some bad decisions about ML signings. Oh, well. Now we've got AM. He appears to know how more than Flanny knew how. No surprise, really. AM grew up with this stuff. Flanny grew up learning to be a pitcher. Different skill sets. Plus, AM appears to not have one hand tied behind his back.
So, this is the Fifth Era, and it's just debatable about whether it starts with AM or whether it really started with Flanny worrying about the farm system for the first time in a quarter-century. Regardless of that, we'll see how it goes. It took AM's daddy 2 years to get a contender, based on young pitching and one big bat, and 8 years to finally win it all based on more of everything.

Times are different now, but baseball is still baseball, and nobody stays on top forever, not even the MFY's, and certainly not the Red Sox. Somebody's gotta be next, it might as well be us. That would be good for everybody: It would be good for us.
It would be good for the AL East.
It would be good for baseball.
It would get AM's ticket to Cooperstown punched.
It would make the idiots in Bristol, Conn humble up and look beyond the end of their collective nose.
It would be a good thing all around. Personally, I'm betting it happens.

ps: AM's daddy shoulda first won it all in '64 instead of '66. That was Brooks' MVP year. But they folded at the end. Good thing the Phillies folded even worse, because everybody remembers them folding and completely forgets about the O's folding. At the time, it was heart-breaking. But people loved them anyway. That was before message boards. People didn't hate their team back then.

Boy Howdy
12-09-2007, 05:21 PM
Great stuff.

I'm a big Orioles history buff, and I've followed the team closely in real time for 30 years, but there's nothing better than hearing about the first quarter-century of O's baseball from people who were paying attention.

The five eras concept sounds like the outline for a good book.

Boy Howdy
12-09-2007, 06:55 PM
Also on December 9:

1973 - Tony Batista born

1970 - Tony Tarasco born

1960 - Juan Samuel born

1871 - old Oriole & Hall of Famer Joe Kelley born

mikezpen
12-11-2007, 03:18 PM
RShack, you're maybe a little too rough on Paul Richards. Look, I'll admit he did a lot of bizarre things, it's true. I know, because I watched it all. But he also took what was essentially the St. Louis Browns and had a big hand in making them a contender in 6 years. And it was a lot harder to get better back then because there were no free agents.You traded or developed your own. And Richards did both-and pretty well overall. He traded for Gus Triandos and Gene Woodling and signed Billy O'Dell early on.He kept the O's respectable during the middle to late 50's by bringing in a steady stream of veteran players while the minors did their work. When you look at the 1960 Baby Birds, a number of them-Brooks, Pappas, Estrada and Barber, were signed under Richards' reign and developed in his farm system.

MacPhail and the others were great and they turned the Orioles into a great organization, but Richards got it started.

BTW, I read that the only reason that KC and Baltimore didn't trade rosters was the fact that they had some outfielder named Roger that they wouldn't trade, and we had a guy named Brooks. Others were added and the idea died.

RShack
12-11-2007, 04:10 PM
RShack, you're maybe a little too rough on Paul Richards. Look, I'll admit he did a lot of bizarre things, it's true. I know, because I watched it all. But he also took what was essentially the St. Louis Browns and had a big hand in making them a contender in 6 years. And it was a lot harder to get better back then because there were no free agents.You traded or developed your own. And Richards did both-and pretty well overall. He traded for Gus Triandos and Gene Woodling and signed Billy O'Dell early on.He kept the O's respectable during the middle to late 50's by bringing in a steady stream of veteran players while the minors did their work. When you look at the 1960 Baby Birds, a number of them-Brooks, Pappas, Estrada and Barber, were signed under Richards' reign and developed in his farm system.

MacPhail and the others were great and they turned the Orioles into a great organization, but Richards got it started.
I agree that Paul Richards did a good job of signing good young talent and making trades like crazy. (In Baltimore and Houston anyway. I'm not so sure about how much good young talent he signed for the Braves. I think there he mainly did trades but without signing much young talent.) However, that never got him much success. He was GM on and off for a period of nearly 20 years, and the best his "sign-guys-and-trade-guys" approach ever got him was 1 division title and one 3rd place finish. The rest of the time he was usually either in next-to-last-place or one step above next-to-last. True, he was working for then-crappy franchises who didn't have much of an organization, but that was the problem with the guy: the thing he never did was build an organization, he was too busy making trades instead. If you take his approach, and keep the signing young talent part, but replace the lotsa-trades part with building-an-organization instead of that, then you get what Lee MacPhail did. That worked a whole lot better, infinitely better, than anything Paul Richards ever did with all his trades.

I don't hate the guy. I think he was a very interesting character, and there are ample reasons for remembering him fondly (mainly because of who he signed, plus the catcher's mitt story). But his approach never worked. The O's figured out that his approach was the wrong one after 4 years of it. That's why they brought in Lee MacPhail, to do something else. The main reason he comes to mind these days is because I read stuff here and Some People think that signing young talent and making lotsa trades is the way to do it. Well, nobody bought that idea more than Paul Richards did, and he never got anybody anywhere, really.



BTW, I read that the only reason that KC and Baltimore didn't trade rosters was the fact that they had some outfielder named Roger that they wouldn't trade, and we had a guy named Brooks. Others were added and the idea died.
That's what I read too. First it was a 50-player trade. But then the O's wanted to keep Brooks, and the A's wanted to keep Maris, and then the A's wanted to keep somebody else too, and it all just fell apart from there...

Boy Howdy
12-11-2007, 07:51 PM
The O's figured out that his approach was the wrong one after 4 years of it. That's why they brought in Lee MacPhail, to do something else.

Did the O's really figure anything out about Richards? (Not trying to break balls, just wondering).

As I understand it, Richards built the Orioles his way. Out of the ashes of the former St. Louis Browns starting in 1955 and into a team that played .578 ball under his leadership in 1960-61 until he resigned with a month remaining in the 1961 season. Richards departed to take on a similarly impossible task with the expansion Houston Colt 45's.

Nobody was too mad at him because his nickname was "The Tall Texan" after all, and he'd successfully accomplished his mission in Baltimore.

I always thought the "Oriole Way" was built upon a foundation spelled out by Paul Richards.

(BTW- Though it's nothing ground breaking by today's standards, Richards' book Modern Baseball Strategy is an interesting read)

RShack
12-11-2007, 08:59 PM
Did the O's really figure anything out about Richards? (Not trying to break balls, just wondering).

As I understand it, Richards built the Orioles his way. Out of the ashes of the former St. Louis Browns starting in 1955 and into a team that played .578 ball under his leadership in 1960-61 until he resigned with a month remaining in the 1961 season. Richards departed to take on a similarly impossible task with the expansion Houston Colt 45's.
After the '58 season they wouldn't let him be GM anymore. That's when Lee MacPhail replaced him as GM, to do the things he did. At the time, the O's ownership was more about civic pride than what normally happens in MLB these days. They were doing it for the City (and to sell beer, both National and Gunthers) and wanted the O's to be run like a reliable company, one you could count on being run properly. They didn't want somebody who kept it in a constant state of uproar and chaos by trading everybody left and right, especially since they never got our of the 2nd division (what they said to mean "bottom half") under Richards. They kept Richards as the manager. Evidently, he was good at motivating players, etc., and was viewed generally as a good baseball man. They were happy to have him be manager, happy to have him making game decisions about the personnel he had, they just didn't want him to run the organization and be making the personal decisions. He quit because he really wanted to be GM, and going from GM-and-manager of the O's to being just the manager was a step down for him. While he was GM, he signed lotsa good kids and made a zillion trades. It was MacPhail who turned the outfit into the organization that ran as a single unified system and that reliably produced fresh ML-ready faces on a regular basis.

Boy Howdy
12-11-2007, 09:06 PM
After the '58 season they wouldn't let him be GM anymore. That's when Lee MacPhail replaced him as GM, to do the things he did. At the time, the O's ownership was more about civic pride than what normally happens in MLB these days. They were doing it for the City (and to sell beer, both National and Gunthers) and wanted the O's to be run like a reliable company, one you could count on being run properly. They didn't want somebody who kept it in a constant state of uproar and chaos by trading everybody left and right, especially since they never got our of the 2nd division (what they said to mean "bottom half") under Richards. They kept Richards as the manager. Evidently, he was good at motivating players, etc., and was viewed generally as a good baseball man. They were happy to have him be manager, happy to have him making game decisions about the personnel he had, they just didn't want him to run the organization and be making the personal decisions. He quit because he really wanted to be GM, and going from GM-and-manager of the O's to being just the manager was a step down for him. While he was GM, he signed lotsa good kids and made a zillion trades. It was MacPhail who turned the outfit into the organization that ran as a single unified system and that reliably produced fresh ML-ready faces on a regular basis.

Thank you!

Now, I'm really glad I asked.

That explains why Richards quit managing the O's to take the Colt 45's GM job.

RShack
12-12-2007, 05:46 AM
That explains why Richards quit managing the O's to take the Colt 45's GM job.
Yep. He lasted 4 years there too, before they fired him too. He lasted a little bit longer as Braves GM, 5.5 seasons there. He lasted a little longer there because they actually won their division once. That was his only 1st-place finish as either GM or as manager. Too bad the Miracle Mets beat them. Too bad for us. If his Braves had just beaten the Mets like they were supposed to, then the monster '69 O's would have only had to beat the dang Braves instead of running into the Miracle Mets ;-)

Tranquil1
12-19-2007, 06:54 AM
Rshack, mikez great dialogue. Rshack, you probably go back a little further than me, would you agree or disagree that back then it might have been some what easier to move up due to the fact that there was no draft. It was sort of first come first served with scouts scrambling to reach talent and sign them before someone else. Just a theory of mine. It did not take the Orioles all that long to stockpile alot of talent. Yeah, I remember that Frank Robinson trade and thought giving up Milt might hurt but in the end we made out like bandits.

mikezpen
12-20-2007, 08:56 PM
Pappas was our only real solid pitcher and trading him was a risk. But the management determined that McNally, Bunker, Barber and Palmer could carry it and they did.And they were nothing but kids then, except for Barber who was about 27 at the time.

But the team was coming up short and they had nothing to bring up. Frank gave them a super bat in the middle of the lineup.

One thing about Richards and pitching coach Harry Brecheen was bad though, in my view. He was at least indirectly responsible for ruining some great young pitchers. Jerry Walker was very good-a rookie in 1959 and only 21. In September of that yr. Richards let him pitch a complete 16-inning game. We won 1-0 on a Brooks single, but Walker was virtually finished as a Major League pitcher after then. Chuck Estrada came up at 22 and was pretty much finished after 2 or 3 years.Barber had lots of arm trouble under Richards as did Pappas,although they had good overall careers as Orioles.Steve Barber was their first 20-game winner (20-13 in 1963) as a matter of fact.