Email a copy of 'Reliving Rickey Henderson Trades With Alderson' to a friend
Loading ...
By Howard Megdal | at
Email a copy of 'Reliving Rickey Henderson Trades With Alderson' to a friend
MLB Trade Rumors is not affiliated with Major League Baseball, MLB or MLB.com
hide arrows scroll to top
grumpy3b
Nice piece, but what article about Rickey is complete w/o reading what Rickey has to say about Rickey being traded and that Rickey always did what Rickey did no matter how Rickey was treated wherever Rickey played. 😉
Jonny Dollar
Nice piece! I’m a huge fan of Rickey. I bet he could still play.
grumpy3b
absolutely. For some reason there is not a lot of attention paid to the fact Rickey totally changed the idea of a lead-off hitter. He changed the game bringing clean-up hitter power and elite base stealing all in the same package wrapped with excellent defense.
I might kid about how Rickey always talked about Rickey in the 3rd person but he was and is one of my all time favorite players and I was crushed when the Dodgers did not reach a deal for him when he was first moved.
Still a lot of his SB’s were the more meaningless sort when his teams were losing or leading by a ton. Then again that also put it into the head of the other team the guy could steal whenever he wanted no matter the situation.
He was just fun to watch play the game and I never read a teammate had any probs with him and his effort on the field.
venn177
Rickey is easily one of the ten best hitters of all-time. I mean, just, wow.
And this piece just happens to point out that Alderson is one of the best GMs.
start_wearing_purple
I think top 10 hitter is a bit of a tough sell for me. In no particular order:
Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Jimmie Foxx, Tris Speaker, Willie Mays, Carl Yastrzemski, and a few others…
I think the man was clearly a legendary player, but I can’t call him a top 10 hitter.
Andrew
If you are looking at stats alone and not personal problem you have to put Barry Bonds and Pete Rose in there too. Also in the next 5 years you may have to put Ichiro and Pujols in that list too.
start_wearing_purple
Eh, I was just naming a few. Both Rose and Bonds could easily show up in the argument and if you include Ichiro’s Japan numbers then he should show up in the argument. But Pujols, yeah another 5 years at this production and he’ll easily be considered top 10.
Daniel
Absolutely not Pete Rose. He’s not a top 50 hitter of all time.
paulio_male_gigalo
Yeah Pete Rose never posted an OPS above 1.000 is his whole career. OPS might not be a fair stat when considering the type of hitter he was but you definitely can’t ignore it. He was definitely a very good hitter but I wouldn’t call him one of the greats. Top 50 isn’t out of the question but it’s kind of a stretch when you start listing the undeniable greats and realizing how many there are.
TigersLoveCinnamon
Longevity does not make you an all time great hitter. Rose was barely a .300 hitter, with no power
venn177
I meant top-10 more in the sense that he would be in the all-time greatest lineup ever made, I guess.
PeterJMoss
Fun article… but considering they got nothing out of either of the guys they got from Toronto in retrospect they lost that deal.
mrjjbond
What exactly did they lose? They weren’t making the playoffs anyway. It certainly wasn’t a coup, but it wasn’t a loss either…. not sure what you could call it.
mp87
but the point is, toronto won the deal…any trade you make that leads to a world series is called a win…its a win regardless of who they got in return. Just like how boston won the beckett for hanley ramirez trade the day boston won a world series with him. only thing is of course toronto hardly got a hall of famer in the trade the way he played down the stretch lol
start_wearing_purple
Even as a Red Sox fan I’d have to argue the Red Sox/Marlins trade was an incredibly even trade.
As for “any trade you make that leads to a world series is called a win,” 2007 Gange traded to the Red Sox. I could probably find more if I looked.
mrjjbond
I’m really sick of this argument, but the Gagne trade wasn’t nearly as bad as people seem to think. Yes, Gagne was terrible in Boston, but not much was given up for him in hindsight, and we used the draft pick we got from Gagne for Hagadone, who was the high upside piece traded in the VMart deal.
Encarnacion's Parrot
Toronto didn’t make the playoffs because of Henderson. The guy had a .675 OPS with the Jays, and in the playoffs? .411 OPS in the ALCS, and .711 in the WS [not bad, but not Henderson-ish].
mp87
i knew it was bad, though i didn’t need to look it up and mentioned he wasn’t hall of fame rickey in my post. so i did look up the team stats. Turner ward became the 4th outfielder. He was starting…he hit 192 with a 287 obp…the trade still resulted in an upgrade despite his poor play and still stole 22 bases on 24 attempts down the stretch. his on base percentage down the stretch was better than most and his speed still played just as much a factor as it always had. they would have walked away with that division even more than they had if he continued hitter 327 with a 469 obp, but i guess they wanted to keep things interesting
mrjjbond
But you weren’t arguing that Toronto won the deal, only that Oakland lost it, which wasn’t the case.
mp87
for oakland it was really a nothing deal, it was like it never happened because rickey was back the next season and karsay never contributed…Herrera got into 141 games in the 2 years after the shortened season and thats it
mrjjbond
Ok….. that still isn’t a loss.
bjsguess
Both sides can “win” in a transaction. Oakland received salary relief. At that stage of the season salary relief was just fine with them.
Toronto received a stud player, who performed poorly. However, it was still an upgrade that cost them next to nothing.
I call that a win/win for both organizations. They each received value from the transaction.
FowlofCanada
The fans really like Steve Karsay. He was on the brink of becoming a major league starter. I remember fans on Jays talk were split on whether they gave up too much at the time of the deal. It’s too bad Karsay had injury problems. When you trade for potential, it some times happens that way.
Gumby65
Untimely card games in Atlanta not withstanding, Rickey being Rickey was nothing short of a good time.
Tammy Rainey
The rest of this story: If the Mariners GM had answered his phone more quickly, Karsay would have went to Seattle for Randy Johnson. Henderson was Plan B.
Encarnacion's Parrot
Hard to say who the best shortstop to ever play the game is between Ripken and Henderson, but being in the top 2 ever isn’t so bad.
Lunchbox45
:/
start_wearing_purple
One problem with that point… Henderson was not a shortstop.
Encarnacion's Parrot
Yeah, I’m a numpty.
Paul Hornak
Rickey was an outfielder…
woadude
A sacrifice fly will always be known as a Rickey run, Rickey Henderson would steal 2nd and 3rd and a sacrifice fly would score him, he would always end up on 3rd base with no outs or one outs and the shallowest of fly balls would score him.
HerbertAnchovy
I’m guessing the link to Luis Polonia is incorrect, unless they traded a four-year-old!
start_wearing_purple
Well teams have been signing younger and younger prospects.
AaronAngst
I saw Luis Polonia play for the Madison Muskies in the mid-80’s before he was even a zygote! Great looking jheri curl on that kid… almost on par with Henderson.
HerbertAnchovy
Ahh, the jheri curl. The most exciting hair in baseball.
WFAN Critic
Is this an April Fools column?
I didn’t really see how Alderson came out ahead. He dealt a HOFer and got back serviceable players. Plus, Rijo hit his stride only when he went to Cincinnatti. Also, Alderson dealt Rijo + Birtsas for 37-year old Dave Parker. The net return on Henderson was terrible.
A heist? Really?
I remember the Mets traded Seaver for some serviceable players too; Zachary, Henderson, Flynn, and Norman. Did the Mets come out ahead? In my mind to come out ahead on dealing a future HoFer, a team better receive at least 1 impact player in return.
The author mentions that Alderson dealt Henderson a second time – to Toronto – for highly rated prospects…okay that’s nice. Did they pan out? No.
I’m not knocking Alderson’s decision on for whom he dealt Henderson – Rijo, Birtsas, Karsey, etc were all well regarded young prospects. I am knocking the author’s thesis that Alderson came out ahead. He did not.
AaronAngst
I’m with you on your thesis – this seems like a pro-Alderson propaganda hit piece to me.
Ralf
there is no way that you can spin the trade to Toronto as being a good one for Oakland. Karsay was a great prospect but never panned out. It doesn’t matter in the least that Oakland was going to lose him anyways, or that they were a 7th place team going no where. They had a great asset to trade and in the end they got little in return. Let’s just call it the way it is instead of trying to make a story here.
Micah Smith
How about this attempt:
1. No matter how great an asset, it is only so valuable in a trade if the asset can only be utilized for 2 months. So the asset of Henderson had extremely limited rental value…see what the Braves got in return for Texieira, for instance. The fact they got 2 top 100 prospects was a good return at the time of the trade. So when the trade was made, it was a good trade.
2. Looking down the road, the 2 players didn’t pan out. So does this make it a bad trade? Absolutely not! That season Oakland was going nowhere and they brought Henderson back the next season. So Oakland, even if they did not receive either prospect, came out ahead in the trade because they did not have to pay one of their more expensive contracts when the post season was out of reach. Henderson made about $3.5 million that year, so I’m guessing that Oakland saved a least $1 million (in 1993 baseball dollars), which they were able to invest in future years instead of burn on a lost season. Also, they were able to bring him back for another try the next season. So the trade was still a good trade.
Look at it this way. Suppose several branches of a sales company compete every year for an awesome prize based on having the highest sales. Your branch, unfortunately, is out of the competition early, but even more unfortunately, still is paying some expensive contracts. Then another branch comes along and says they will pay the rest of the contract for one of your expensive salesmen, plus they will give you two trainees that are cheap and whose contracts are controlled for years who have a potential to be good salesmen, plus you can resign the salesman at the end of the year after his contract is up anyway. I think you would be ecstatic as a a branch manager to make that deal. And if the two trainees don’t work out, you’re still pretty happy with the deal.
Nick
The problem with that Ralf is that a few months of a player in the last year of his deal is not a “great asset”, it dimishes there value greatly. That is why Greinke got moved with 2 years left on his deal, dealing him at the deadline next year and they would not get near as much. It makes sense for any team not contending with a star player(if they can’t afford him, or don’t think he will re-sign) to trade him for what they can get. This is interesting though because Rickey re-signed in the off-season, makes me wonder if him and Alderson had a gentlemans agreement to trade him to a contender and then re-sign back in Oakland in the off-season.
brian
Any trade where you lose Rickey is a BAD trade.
You don’t trade away hall of famers.