Jump to content

Lou Brock Steals Home


Recommended Posts

Perhaps it should be noted that Ernie Broglio, the star Cards pitcher traded to the Cubs for Brock (in what is now considered one of the most lopsided deals in baseball history) passed away here in San Jose last year.

“You live with it,” Broglio said in 2016. “You go along with it. I mean, here you are 50-some years later after the trade and we’re talking. And I’m thinking, ‘What trade is going to be remembered for 50-something years?

“I told Lou Brock, ‘I better go before you, because you’re in the Hall of Fame and well-remembered.’ I’m only remembered for the trade.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing of it is, Ernie Broglio was no bum.  He was good for the Cardinals for a number of years. 

He hurt his arm not long after joining the Cubs, which ended his career.  And the Cubs traded a young talent for an older guy who wouldn't have that many more years on top anyway.

But I don't recall anyone suggesting when the trade was made that Broglio (and therefore the trade) stunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, GA Russell said:

The thing of it is, Ernie Broglio was no bum.  He was good for the Cardinals for a number of years. 

He hurt his arm not long after joining the Cubs, which ended his career.  And the Cubs traded a young talent for an older guy who wouldn't have that many more years on top anyway.

But I don't recall anyone suggesting when the trade was made that Broglio (and therefore the trade) stunk.

I wish my Father were around (and still lucid) to hear his opinion on Brock for Broglio. 

Somewhat remarkably I am just now looking over the Baseball Reference pages for each for the first time; the question to my mind is whether anyone thought Brock was a can't miss youngster at the time because he had shown little for just over 2 years in the Bigs. Broglio had one excellent season four years earlier - actually was 3rd in Cy Young balloting.

I know its not the same context exactly but its sort of funny to realize that Broglio was in his sixth full season and free agency would be on the horizon, so if the trade happened today it would have been a rental for the Cubs. As it is they got 7 wins out of him in 2.5 seasons.

Last thing I'll say is that trade was wiped out in the annals of bad ones when the Red Sox sent Bagwell for Larry Andersen. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JSngry said:

I don't think they had free agency in Ernie Broglio's day?

 

 

No the Reserve Clause would be in place another 10 years or so. I was saying that if this trade happened now, when its six years service time to free agency, the equivalent would be a 4 year cost-controlled young player with upside for a pitcher who would be a free agent at the end of the season, i.e., a rental.

And on that basis it would have been really insane.

BTW in 1964 Brock was earning $12,000 a year (way above his $4800 rookie salary).

Unfortunately Baseball Reference doesn't have much info for Broglio's salary, they have him making $20,000 in 1961, three years earlier. That was also after the best year of his career, so he probably didn't top out all that more than his 1961 salary. Maybe $25-30,000 by the time the Cubs traded for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...