Master Index of Archived Threads


Tom Seaver Research Question

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 02:03 PM

I'm researching Met transactions and have a few questions about Tom Seaver becoming a Met. First, read my lengthy background, then the questions: January, 29 1966: The first annual January draft consisted of two phases: A regular draft consisting of midterm high school & college graduates; and a secondary or “special” phase, consisting of players selected in the previoius June draft but who did not sign. USC pitcher Tom Seaver had been a 10th-round Dodgers’ draft pick in the June 1965 draft but did not sign (he resisted a $2,000 bonus and Tommy Lasorda’s sales pitch). This qualified Seaver for the secondary phase of the January draft, where the Atlanta Braves, with the 20th pick in the first round of the "special" phase, selected him. On Feb. 24, Seaver signed a contract with the Braves for a $40,000 bonus and incentives (some reports say the bonus was $45,000 + incentives). The Braves however were either unaware that USC had already played two exhibition games, or perhaps, unaware that the myriad of rules surrounding the draft had prohibited signing a college player after games had been played (remember, the draft was a brand-new thing). It is also possible they knew the rule existed but thought it didn't apply to exhibition games. Whatever, on March 17, William “Spike” Eckert, in what would be his only notable acheivement in a brief term as baseball commissioner, voided the contract, fined Atlanta $500, and prohibited the franchise from signing him again. The ruling, clearly a letter-of-the-law interpretation, thrust Seaver into limbo: Having signed a contract, even a voided one, prohibited him from continuing to play for USC. So Eckert ruled that those teams willing to match the Braves bonus would be entered into a special April drawing for exclusive rights to Seaver. If no team bid for Seaver, he’d be free to negotiate with any club (since he was 21 and no longer a college pitcher, rules stipulated he was no longer eligible for the next draft in June). As we know the Mets, Indians and Phillies each expressed interest and on April 3, the Mets won the hat drawing, signed Seaver for the same bonus as Atlanta, and the rest is history. Got it? QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION: 1) Who blew the whistle on the Braves' rules violation? --It probably wasn't Eckert himself, since he was generally considered clueless. Obviously, someone pointed it out to him. But who? --Was it USC coach Rod Dedeaux, who must have been disappointed to lose his best pitcher, but at the same time, probably wouldn't want for him to go into limbo (Dedeaux was well aware he could no longer play Seaver after signing the contract)? --Was it another club that also had its eye on Seaver, and if so, why did they let him go by? (the order of the "special" draft was by lottery; if Atlanta selected Seaver 20th overall, then they picked ... last). The Mets, for example picked six guys in the "special" phase but none went onto a big-league career. I suppose it's possible Seaver was 2nd on their list. 2) Why did the Mets put in a bid? --Whitey Herzog's book suggests the Met scout in LA didn't like Seaver and that the team made the bid only because Bing Devine felt they should as a show of effort for the fans. This is suspect in my mind, especially because Herzog goes on to get several details regarding the acquisition of Met pitchers wrong, including placing himself into a story of the signing of Nolan Ryan when in reality, Herzog hadn't yet been a Met employee at the time Ryan signed. The "for the fans" bit also seems a stretch: only super geeked-out insiders knew the names of amatuer pitchers at that time, and the NY papers barely covered it: The Times announced the Mets signed "George Feaver." --I think its more likely the Mets knew and thought highly of Seaver (they'd acquire 2 of his summer-league teammates, and they were certainly into collecting pitching prospects) and figured 40 or 45 grand could be a bargain for his skill, but I don;t know for sure. Do you? --Or did they get in because the contract snafu drew attention to Seaver, whom they subsequently reserached, and liked what they saw? 3) How unfair was all this to Seaver? --The draft limiting a player to negotiating with only one employer is bad enough, but imagine having 3 potential employers who all have essentially agreed to offer the exact same salary? If he were smart he'd refuse to sign with whoever won the hat-drawing and negotiate with the losers, which begs the question: 4) What if the Mets lost the drawing? --The 1966 Mets were cheapskates, but rich cheapskates. In the open market they had the resources to spend with anyone. Can you imagine a sketchy backchannel arrangement whereby the Mets get word to Seaver to refuse the drawing-winner and take his chances on the open market (wink, wink).? I'm throwing out a few wild guesses above obviously. Anyone know the real answers or where to find them?

G-Fafif Dec 11 2005 02:29 PM

From The Perfect Game by Tom Seaver and Dick Schaap: ]On March 2, William Eckert, the commissioner of baseball, ruled my contract void. Jess Hill, the director of athletics at USC, had protested my signing to the commissioner's office, quoting organized baseball's rule that no team could sign a college player after his school's season had begun. By February 24, USC had played two other college teams -- California Poly and San Fernando State -- and even though I hadn't pitched in either of those games, I was off limits to professional teams. From The New York Mets by Leonard Koppett: ]Among the regulations that had been worked out when baseball adopted the free-agent draft was a provision to help college coaches and the professional game live together. A college player in his junior or senior year could not be signed once his college team's season had started. What came around went around and around: 1) The Mets gained Tom Seaver in 1966 because of a new rule involving free agents -- amateur free agents. 2) The Mets lost Tom Seaver in 1977 because of a new rule involving free agents -- this is a little more indirect, but certainly the Mets were flummoxed by the coming of the re-entry draft and what it meant to baseball. Seaver was still simmering over Grant's refusal to go after Gary Matthews the following winter and it was obvious to him that he was stuck in a plantation situation while all the other serfs were going free. 3) The Mets lost Tom Seaver in 1984 because of a new, short-lived and quickly discredited rule involving free agents -- the compensation pool. The name Dennis Lamp will forever turn me off since it was his signing by the Blue Jays that gave the White Sox (who lost him) a chance to pick any unprotected player they wanted. 4) Tom Seaver ended his career in a failed comeback with the Mets in 1987 in the wake of collusion winter, a shameful episode aimed at curbing free agency that Seaver, in an interview in the last couple of years (can't remember where), says kept him from re-signing with the Red Sox or getting any other offers. Claimed he could have rehabbed and pitched sooner than June of that year. By then he was done. Four different spins on free agency, four different impacts on Tom Seaver and the Mets.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 02:45 PM

Jess Hill: American Hero. Thanks! ]2) The Mets lost Tom Seaver in 1977 because of a new rule involving free agents -- this is a little more indirect, but certainly the Mets were flummoxed by the coming of the re-entry draft and what it meant to baseball. Seaver was still simmering over Grant's refusal to go after Gary Matthews the following winter and it was obvious to him that he was stuck in a plantation situation while all the other serfs were going free. A lot of the 77 Seaver controversy focused on him demanding out after serving just 1 year of a three-year contract, but you're right, his dissatisfaction wasn't really about him so much as the organization he played for. The Mets couldn't have been more adamant about their distate for the union & free agency and Seaver realized he was stuck on a team that refused to evolve with the times. He probably could have shown more foresight with regard to that when he demanded the 3-year deal. ]3) The Mets lost Tom Seaver in 1984 because of a new, short-lived and quickly discredited rule involving free agents -- the compensation pool. The name Dennis Lamp will forever turn me off since it was his signing by the Blue Jays that gave the White Sox (who lost him) a chance to pick any unprotected player they wanted. They eventually settled on draft choice compensation instead, bringing the Mets another Fresno pitcher, Bobby Jones, and perhaps their next great superstar, David Wright. ]4) Tom Seaver ended his career in a failed comeback with the Mets in 1987 in the wake of collusion winter, a shameful episode aimed at curbing free agency that Seaver, in an interview in the last couple of years (can't remember where), says kept him from re-signing with the Red Sox or getting any other offers. Claimed he could have rehabbed and pitched sooner than June of that year. By then he was done. I wasn't aware of that either. Thanks!

Edgy DC Dec 11 2005 02:52 PM Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Dec 11 2005 04:15 PM

The Herzog account was my main source. Peter Golenbock's Amazin', which is pretty comprehensive, if none too original, adds that the ruling to invalidate the contract and the ruling for the seperate draft were two seperate actions. After Eckert voided the contract, the book reports, the NCAA subsequently ruled him ineligible for signing it. Eckert, if he was as clueless as you say, may not have known this would be the consequences. Seaver had returned to USC thinking he'd be eligible to resume his amateur career. (Bill Lee's Spaceman also reports this.) Eckert acted, supposedly, after Seaver's father called the commissioners's office and threatened a good ol' 'Merican lawsuit. I assume you mean Danny Frisella and Al Schmelz when you mention the two summer-league teammates, but the Mets also had Dick Selma, who was a high-school teammate and friend, and Seaver's brother Charles was living in New York (working in the Department of Welfare). Even though Seaver was merely a good high school pitcher, I imagine they had their eye on him for a long time. So, I wouldn't discount your theory that the Mets did the whistle-blowing. Mrs. Payson's organization was still learning how to operate a baseball team, but they probably had no shortage of clever lawyers around. Amazin' also goes on to say that Cleveland's folks told Seaver they'd have paid $80,000 for him, but the Mets felt no obligation to budge. Seaver's account in Joseph Durso's Amazing (next guy to use that title is going to get such a slap) is that he called the commissioner's office himself and dealt with McPhail (who maybe was the real brains anyhow). This account differs slightly with the rehashed one in Golenbock's book in that Seaver says McPhail told him up front that he couldn't negotiate for more money, while Golenbock's book says he tried to dicker and the Mets stonewalled him. The Year the Mets Lost Last Place seems to have been a secondary source for the story for Golenbock. But this book also includes Dick Selma's account that he had tried to sell Mets scout Al Lyons on Seaver, feeding Lyons information about Seaver's makeup. The primary source for Golenbock, I think, was Joy in Mudville, by George Vecsey. This account, though, says that Seaver actually pitched in those two exhibitions --- a pretty material detail that I'm surprised isn't in the other accounts. One thing all the accounts seem to share is that they use the word "lucky." If the Mets engineered this fate, nobody seems to have suspected it. Also consider that Lee McPhail was generally considered a good and capable man, and if he allowed anybody an inside track at franchise-changer, it would be more likely to be Baltimore or the Yankees, his employers before and after his stint as the commissioners assistant.

Edgy DC Dec 11 2005 02:56 PM

Damn it, I was just about to look to The Perfect Game when I saw that G-FaFiF had beaten me to the right book and account. Good job. But that account still demands that we find out if that whistle was blown because Dodeaux wanted to retain Seaver, and didn't anticipate GTS losing his eligibility.

G-Fafif Dec 11 2005 03:39 PM

]He probably could have shown more foresight with regard to that when he demanded the 3-year deal. There is a sad, Clan of the Cave Bear quality to this, with the Mets operating as the Neanderthals and Seaver getting sucked into their prehistoric values system -- the three-year contract that predated free agency -- when he could have been one of the emerging Homo Sapiens exploring a new world. I may be drastically misrepresenting the movie here, but hopefully you get my drift. Seaver likely signed his 1976 deal with an old-rules mindset while baseball had moved on to new rules. The Mets' comfort level with free agency has been anything but consistent: 76/77: An insult to our delicate sensibilities! 77/78-80/81: Small potatoes, little meat. 81/82-89/90: Get that stuff out of here! 90/91-92/93: The answer to our prayers! 93/94-97/98: Can barely tolerate it. 99/00-03/04: Like it, don't love it. 04/05-05/06: Wait here while I find my checkbook. I wonder if any other franchise has swung back and forth on the issue in the thirty years since it became part of the player procurement equation.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 03:39 PM

="Edgy DC"]The Herzog account was my main source. Peter Golenbock's Amazin', which is pretty comprehensive, if none too original, adds that the ruling to invalidate the contract and the ruling for the seperate draft were two seperate actions. After Eckert voided the contract, the book reports, the NCAA subsequently ruled him ineligible for signing it. That's my understanding also. My sources on this are lots of Sporting News pieces & contemporary newspaper accounts, Joy in Mudville & a crappy Seaver biographry by Gene Schoor. I could really use that Koppett book Greg references. ]Eckert, if he was as clueless as you say, may not have known this would be the consequences. Seaver had returned to USC thinking he'd be eligible to resume his amateur career. (Bill Lee's Spaceman also reports this.) Eckert acted, supposedly, after Seaver's father called the commissioners's office and threatened a good ol' 'Merican lawsuit. That makes sense, and the Schoor book relates that Seaver was surprised to learn he was ineligible after the voiding action. The lawsuit thingy, now that you mention it, is something I must have heard before. ]I assume you mean Danny Frisella and Al Schmelz when you mention the two summer-league teammates, but the Mets also had Dick Selma, who was a high-school teammate and friend, and Seaver's brother Charles was living in New York (working in the Department of Welfare). Even though Seaver was merely a good high school pitcher, I imagine they had their eye on him for a long time. Herzog's full of it, in other words. I'd imagine at least since the summer of 65 baseball people knew who Seaver was. Amazin' (oops, sorry) that that summer with the Goldpanners he'd increased his bonus value from 2 grand to 40 grand. ]So, I wouldn't discount your theory that the Mets did the whistle-blowing. Mrs. Payson's organization was still learning how to operate a baseball team, but they probably had no shortage of clever lawyers around. That really wasn't my theory but a wild guess. I figured someone had pointed it out. Jess Hill makes perfect given what else we know and I'm prepared to accept that as gospel until someone tells different. ]Amazin' also goes on to say that Cleveland's folks told Seaver they'd have paid $80,000 for him, but the Mets felt no obligation to budge. Which begs the question why Cleveland selected (I'm not making this up) SS Kris D. Krebs, 19 years old, from Manatee Junior College when Seaver was available to them. The Mets picked 1B/OF James "Fire and Rain" Taylor from SMU; and Philly picked P Lowell Raymond Palmer from American River Junior College. None made it. ]Seaver's account in Joseph Durso's Amazing (next guy to use that title is going to get such a slap) is that he called the commissioner's office himself and dealt with McPhail (who maybe was the real brains anyhow). This account differs slightly with the rehashed one in Golenbock's book in that Seaver says McPhail told him up front that he couldn't negotiate for more money, while Golenbock's book says he tried to dicker and the Mets stonewalled him. I'm certain that IF he dickered the Mets would have stonewalled him. ]The Year the Mets Lost Last Place seems to have been a secondary source for the story for Golenbock. But this book also includes Dick Selma's account that he had tried to sell Mets scout Al Lyons on Seaver, feeding Lyons information about Seaver's makeup. The Schoor book also includes some Selma talking up Seaver stuff but not in the context of convincing Met brass to get him. ]The primary source for Golenbock, I think, was Joy in Mudville, by George Vecsey. This account, though, says that Seaver actually pitched in those two exhibitions --- a pretty material detail that I'm surprised isn't in the other accounts. Yup. That book,. which I like, also drove me crazy because it reports *specifically* that "somebody" informed Eckerd but not who. This question prevents me from even proceeding on a rough-draft history while actual published guys get published.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 04:13 PM

Lowell Palmer DID make it, but a short career with the Phillies.

ScarletKnight41 Dec 11 2005 04:16 PM

Do I glean that there's a MBTN book in the works?

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 04:37 PM

Not really, just trying to account for the arrival and departure of every Met player. At the rate I am working I will have said project finished in 2016.

Edgy DC Dec 11 2005 04:39 PM

I predict Baby Dickshot will initially slow you down, but then turn out to be a whiz bang research assistant.

ScarletKnight41 Dec 11 2005 04:40 PM

Well, once it's done, consider the book idea. You're in the perfect position to put together a unique Mets book at a time that everything else out there seems rehashed.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 04:40 PM

I'm doomed.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 11 2005 08:20 PM

I've determined the USC-Cal Poly game was played on Feb. 11, but can't find the San Fernando State game. If that game was held earlier, it's possible that teams that understood the college rules may have held off on selecting Seaver for fear of not getting a contract done in time.

Zvon Dec 11 2005 11:56 PM

great thread and info.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 12 2005 12:13 AM

One guy who might help clear this up is Mike Garrett, Seaver's USC teammate who was selected in the same draft by the Dodgers. Garrett didn't sign: He'd already won the Heisman and would be a KC Chiefs running back. He's now the USC athletic director, or today's version of Jess Hill. Weird, huh?

Bret Sabermetric Dec 12 2005 07:31 AM

And a fabulous RB for a few years. His Chiefs, the Len Dawson/Fred Bilitnikoff Chiefs, were perhaps the most dangerous team the Jets faced in those years. Garrett was a tiny little guy, about 5'8" as I recall, but a fantastic runner. Think he wore number "32" too--like OJ, Koufax, Elston Howard, Jim Brown--but I could be wrong about that.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 12 2005 04:54 PM

Bam. Cal Poly: Feb. 11 San Fernando State: Feb. 19 (doubleheader). Any team that had drafted Seaver therefore had 13 days to sign him.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 12 2005 04:56 PM

Would you like me to invite Tom Seaver to join us here? I've been on a roll lately. Or do you think that would be pushing my luck?

Edgy DC Dec 12 2005 05:03 PM

Worst that can happen is a terse "No," right?

ScarletKnight41 Dec 12 2005 05:18 PM

What Edgy said. What do you have to lose?

sharpie Dec 12 2005 05:27 PM

Tell him we'll be on our best behavior and will purge all of that stuff about him being a jerk in real life.

Bret Sabermetric Dec 12 2005 08:36 PM

I ran this through the NY Times database at work but all I got was "Searching for (Seaver AND Jess Hill ) AND PDN(>1/1/1965) AND PDN(<12/12/2005) did not find any documents. " If you have search refinements, I'll try again.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 13 2005 07:38 PM

Strand Book store to the rescue... again. This book was published last year: add Bing Devine to the "still alive" thread. (also picked up the maligned AMAZIN' -- despite Gfafif's blistering review at Amazon.com and a billion-message thread sheredding it at the old board. It was half-price, so sue me). I was thrilled that I scored the only copy of this thing at Strand & tore into it on the subway only to learn Bing also gets some facts wrong (he doesn't recall the status of the selection properly, thinking it was pre-draft and that the USC games in question was a single exhibition against the Marines), but after that goof, sheds this light: ]Joe McDonald and I had had trouble convincing George Weiss that we should go into the drawing. George said, "We don't have proof that he's worth that kind of money." Remember, $40,000 back then was like $4 million now. But I thought: If you're losing 100 games a year and competing for attention in New York with the Yankees, you'd better do something. So Joe McDonald and I talked George into it a day or two before the drawing. We theorized that George finally gave in because we had been talking about Seaver using so many facts and figures. George probably thought: 'If he's that good, 12 or 15 teams will be in the pool ... and our chance will be slim of getting him anyway.'" But George didn't know our chances were one in three! I can remember getting the call from Lee McPhail, who was an executive in the commissioner's office. I took the call and he told me, "You've got Seaver." Forty years later the whole thing is indelible in my mind. "I remember thinking, "Great!" And then, "Uh-oh, Joe and I are in trouble." But when we told George, he shrugged his shoulders as if to say "So be it." Even though we were paying Seaver a lot of money, we actually gave him a little bonus when we won his rights. We liked him, and we wanted him happy because he wasn't going to the team of his choice. Well, I don't buy the beginning or ending of his story, and his "$40,000= $4 million" is a big exaggeration (tho bonus repoorts vary wildly, the Mets were reported to make payments double that to Kranepool and Dennis Musgraves) but the main point seems to fit the Met MO at the time. The org was rich but Weiss hated spending money and only took low-risk chances. For the Mets, this was a double risk because Devine also writes he hadn't seen Seaver pitch personally, even though his job at that time basically involved traveling to see the prospects that the scouts recommended. Herzog in a sidebar repeats his claim that the Met scout, Nelson Burbrink, didn't like Seaver because he didn't throw hard enough (which would explain why Devine hadn't seen him). I'm now thinking it's possible that was true, especially if Burbrink's report came prior to the June 65 draft, when Seaver got only a 10th-round bite and a paltry offer from the Dodgers and before another summer of maturation with the Goldpanners.