I get it. Eric Patterson = Lou Brock.

If you are going to trade a future HoF'er before he really does anything for you then you are going to want that HoF'er to be Lou Brock. Obviously this without the VC selections.

I keep telling Cub fans that they are going to end up being more happy with Gaudin over Harden in the long run. I still think Gaudin should be starting.

On June 15, 1964, future Hall of Fame outfielder Lou Brock was sent to the St. Louis Cardinals for starting pitcher Ernie Broglio. To this day, that trade is viewed as the worst in the 132-year history of the Cubs. It is the trade by which all other major Cubs transactions are measured.

Context of course matters not a whit, but...The Cubs had Lou Brock and Billy Williams. Neither player could play CF nor RF. Brock was tried in both places with terrible results. Billy Williams was, and continued to be, a far superior player to Brock. Thus, Brock had to be traded. And since he was the Corey Patterson (without the stellar D) of the time, the Cubs were lucky to get what they did in return.

Was it Bill James that said the Brock/Broglio trade was justifiable both at the time it was made AND in retrospect?

To this day, that trade is viewed as the worst in the 132-year history of the Cubs. It is the trade by which all other major Cubs transactions are measured.

You're telling me that Aramis Ramirez and Kenny Loften for Jose Hernandez, Matt Bruback, and Bobby Hill wasn't the worst in the 132 year history of the Chicago Cubs? I saw Bobby the other day; he's a hell of a grill guy at Carls, Jr. I still contend that Pittsburgh included a PTBNL; who turned out to be Dave Littlefield.

I've always said it was justifiable from the Cub point of view. One part of it: Brock was something of a white elephant for the Cubs, for precisely the reasons Misirlou explained - in particular, Brock was never going to be the answer for the Cubs in CF. (If you want to complain about something, why was is that the Cubs never did seem to answer the CF question?) On the other side, Broglio was the exact same age as Bob Gibson, and you can argue that his career through 1963 was equal to, or maybe even slightly more valuable, than Gibson's.

Three things make the trade stand out in Cub memory:

1. Broglio lost the rest of his career to injury. Was he already damaged goods at the time of the trade? Who knew what? Of course, medical imaging technology and diagonosis of arm ailments in 1964 wasn't what it is today.

2. Brock's subsequent development was unusual, and he had an unusually flat career - essentially no peak, but a long, steady career. I'll note that he has not been elected to the Hall of Merit.

3. Brock may well have been making some progress offensively in early 1964, but that was masked by a flukishly low BABIP. For the rest of the season, his BABIP was flukishly, unsustainably high - and that helped the Cardinals win the pennant and the WS. Starting the next year, his BABIP settled in the middle, and stayed rock-steady for the rest of his career. He always struck out too much (for a non-HR-hitter) to have ever been a .330 hitter. Late in his career, he cut the strikeouts down enough to be a .300 hitter, although he wasn't really there yet in 1964.

I think it's #3 that really gets to people: that Brock was so blazingly hot for the rest of 1964, even if that wasn't his true talent level.

in retrospect there was nothing wrong with the trade at the time (although I would love to see what the opinions of fans were in the paper around the time of the trade, instead of looking at it through a lens of time in any way)

But even if Brock isn't trully a hof quality player, it still was a guy who had 16+ years for the team that he was traded to at a good level of performance. Not a guy you build a team around, but definately not a guy you say "we have to get rid of him if we want to win" It would have been nice if he could play center though.

For obvious reasons, this has gone down in history as one of the most lopsided trades ever made, and it certainly turned out that way. One team got a future Hall-of-Famer who played the rest of his career there; the other team got a washed-up pitcher who won a total of seven more games in the majors. But was it such a bad trade, if you didn’t know that then? I would certainly have done it, if I were the Cubs…

Let’s look at the players. Brock turned 25 during the 1964 season. He had been a regular for two full previous seasons, hitting .263 and .258. His home run totals were 9 each year; his stolen base totals were 16 and 24. When Brock was traded, he was hitting .251 with 2 homers and 10 stolen bases, in 52 games.

Ernie Broglio was four years older, turning 29 during the 1964 season. He had been in the majors full-time since 1959. In 1960, he led the NL in wins, with 21. The previous season, 1963, Broglio was 18-8, with a 2.99 ERA. He had pitched at least 175 innings in each of the previous five seasons. At the time of the trade, he was 3-5, with a 3.50 ERA.

Now I ask you – who would you rather have; an outfielder who hit .258 with 9 homers, or a pitcher who was 18-8 with a 2.99 ERA? I’d take the pitcher, and so would you, if you’re honest.

There are a couple of other factors. Virtually all of Brock's worth was on the offensive side. He was a lousy outfielder. Brock holds a career fielding record – he led the NL in errors by an outfielder seven times, including 1964. This ties him for the major league record, for any position, of leading the league in errors the most years. It ties him with first baseman Dick Stuart, acknowledged to be one of the worst fielders in history, and catcher Ivy Wingo, of whom I know little. Bill James gives a description of Brock’s fielding which states, “Lou had no arm and a tendency to freeze up on balls hit right at him.”

Brock had an OBP of .302 in 1963, and was at .300 in 1964 before the Cubs traded him. I realize that few people outside of Branch Rickey cared about OBP in 1964, but it must have occurred to the Cubs, subliminally or otherwise, that it was going to be hard to win with a leadoff man with that kind of OBP – in Wrigley Field, no less.

Secondly, and this is the thing that seems always to get overlooked, the Cubs had another young left fielder, who had established himself in 1962 by making the All-Star team for the first time – Billy Williams. If the Cubs were going to play both of them, one would be playing out of position – Brock was indeed playing right field for the Cubs at the time of the trade. Williams, of course, went on to his own Hall-of-Fame career, all but his last two seasons spent with the Cubs. The Cubs traded Brock and kept Williams – and who can say that was a horrible decision, at least for those two? Looking at the dynamics of the two ballparks, both ended up in the best possible place.

So what do you have? The Cubs’ thinking probably went something like this: A poor fielding outfielder who hits for a mediocre average with no power, and plays the same natural position as one of our upcoming stars. A consistent, durable pitcher who won 18 games last year. Hey, let’s make that trade. They probably concentrated on the negatives, rather than the positives, and saw the deal blow up in their face.

It couldn’t have worked out worse for the Cubs. But I understand why they did it.

I'm not going to try that hard to defend Brock's defense - it wasn't good. But as far as I can tell, OF errors are, on average, less costly than IF errors, as they more often involve base advancement but not outs. And Brock did catch a respectable number of fly balls - with his speed, he could outrun some of his mistakes.

The only other thing I'll add to vortex's post is that in a couple of places he's quoted Brock's early-1963 BA or OBP. As I said above, that was actually a low-side BABIP fluke; he was really hitting a little better than that.

For more, go look at the first few posts here.

I know that we can look back now and justify the trade from the Cubs point of view, but I really do think what people were saying at the time should matter. I mean this could be a trade of a good young outfielder for a Mark Mulder (right when the Cardinals made the deal) many people at the time knew Mulder was probably injured etc.

Was Brock thought of as a future all-star (not hof, just a guy that is going to be playing everyday in the lineup for the next 5 seasons)
Was Broglio overrated, underrated?
Was there a better deal to be had from a non-rival? or even as good of a deal?
etc.

I know that we can look back now and justify the trade from the Cubs point of view, but I really do think what people were saying at the time should matter. I mean this could be a trade of a good young outfielder for a Mark Mulder (right when the Cardinals made the deal) many people at the time knew Mulder was probably injured etc.

There have been numerous discussions of this in the past here. The consensus at the time was that the Cubs fleeced the Cards. Imagine the reaction if Beane had traded Harden for Murton straight up? And then imagine the hindsight 20 years later if Harden were to get injured shortly after the trade while Murton went on to a HOF career?

There have been numerous discussions of this in the past here. The consensus at the time was that the Cubs fleeced the Cards. Imagine the reaction if Beane had traded Harden for Murton straight up? And then imagine the hindsight 20 years later if Harden were to get injured shortly after the trade while Murton went on to a HOF career?

and that in the nutshell is the justification for the trade, it's ridiculous to judge a trade by knowledge after the fact. I mean it's nice to judge them on a "who won" basis, but when berating or judging a gms ability you have to look at what he could know, did know etc. not the unknowable.

heck the Mulder trade I can justify at the time, although it was pretty much a consensus that the Cardinals got fleeced, there was a small justification--mind you no justification for the re-signing of Mulder that is a different story.

Or it could be reminiscent of the Sutcliffe trade. The Cubs gave up real talent in that trade (Carter and Hall) but Sutcliffe led them to the division title and won the CYA (and was then extended with reasonable results). The Cubs also got Ron Hassey -- who would have been really useful but got hurt soon after arriving -- and George Frazier -- ALWAYS a bad idea -- in that trade, so they are similar to Gaudin in that sense.

Interestingly, one of the strengths of the 89, 98, 03 and 07 playoff teams is that their starting staffs were pretty stable and healthy through the season.

and that in the nutshell is the justification for the trade, it's ridiculous to judge a trade by knowledge after the fact. I mean it's nice to judge them on a "who won" basis, but when berating or judging a gms ability you have to look at what he could know, did know etc. not the unknowable.

And even if it were fair to judge the trade that way, it's far from the worst ever. Some that come to mind:

Babe Ruth for $100,000
Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson
John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander
Ryne Sandberg as a throw in in a trade of of mediocre SS
Sammy Sosa for George Bell
Fergie jenkins for the remains of Larry Jackson and Bob Buhl*
Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi
Amos Otis for Joe Foy
Nellie Fox for Joe Tipton
Ozzie Smith for Garry Templeton

Three of those of course worked out quite well in the Cubs favor.

* Adolpho Phillips also came over with Jenkins. Had he continued the promise he showed in 1966 and 1967, no one would ever mention Brock vs Broglio again. As it was, he did more for the Cubs than Jackson and Buhl did for the Phils, making Jenkins essentially free of charge.

Ozzie Smith for Garry Templeton

actually Templeton wasn't that bad of a trade, yes Ozzie kicked butt, but Templeton was a starter for the Padres for 10 seasons, making one all star appearance, sure he wasn't Ozzie, but I find it hard to fault any trade that gets you a 10 year starter. I mean you can fault the trade overall, but there is almost no way that trade is one of the worse of all time.

Norm Cash for Steve Demeter.

actually Templeton wasn't that bad of a trade, yes Ozzie kicked butt, but Templeton was a starter for the Padres for 10 seasons, making one all star appearance, sure he wasn't Ozzie, but I find it hard to fault any trade that gets you a 10 year starter. I mean you can fault the trade overall, but there is almost no way that trade is one of the worse of all time.

Well, 9 years. He played only 32 games for the Pads in 1991. And some of those years were pretty awful. A Nefiesque OPS+ of 56 in 1987, 5 other seasons below 80. Whereas Ozzie was a 13 year regular, a much better hitter, a much better baserunner, and a much, much better defender. Overall, Ozzie played 1990 games after the trade and hit an OPS+ of 93, with 433/102 SB/CS to Templeton's 1330 games, 76 OPS+, and 104/50 SB/CS, and much worse defense. Ozzie's OBP heavy OPS combined with his superior baserunning probably made him a league average offensive player. Playing almost 2000 games of historically great SS defense.

You're right, it's not one of the worst, but it's pretty bad.

The Cardinals also sent Sixto Lezcano to the Padres in that trade, and the Padres sent Steve Mura to the Cardinals. Mura held down a rotation slot, mostly, with an ERA+ of 90 the next year. Lezcano played full-time corner outfield and had an OPS+ of 145. Lezcano declined rapidly after that but was still worth more than Mura.

The instant reaction to the trade among Cardinal fans at the time: we understood that Templeton had to go, for behavioral reasons, but we thought we'd taken a big talent loss on the deal. The best comparison I can give you for Templeton before the trade was Juan Samuel with a shortstop's glove. He was a star. We didn't really know who Ozzie was but thought he was probably another Dal Maxvill - good glove, no hit.

Take a hundred players who are what Brock was in 1964, and what happens to them? 50 or 60 of them are out of the league in another three years; 5 or so develop their power, lose their speed, and become Brian Jordan or Reggie Sanders - someone like that. And only one of them becomes Lou Brock. His career path was unlikely.

Take a hundred players who are what Ozzie was in 1981 ... Wait a minute, there aren't a hundred players like that; no one played defense like that. But if you take a merely excellent-fielding SS who hit like Ozzie 1978-81, what do you really expect him to become? You're not really expecting him to ever have a .390 - or even .350 - OPB.

Mark Grace-Rafael Palemiero
Billy Williams-Lou Brock

Brock got you Broglio, Palmeiro (and Moyer) got you Mitch Williams.

it's far from the worst ever

Nobody said it was the worst ever. Just the worst for the Cubs.

Babe Ruth for $100,000
Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson
John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander
Ryne Sandberg as a throw in in a trade of of mediocre SS
Sammy Sosa for George Bell
Fergie jenkins for the remains of Larry Jackson and Bob Buhl*
Nolan Ryan for Jim Fregosi
Amos Otis for Joe Foy
Nellie Fox for Joe Tipton
Ozzie Smith for Garry Templeton

What kind of list of "worst trades ever" fails to mention Milt Pappas for Frank Robinson? That's the worst of them all, the worst since Babe Ruth. I also think that Heathcliff Slocumb for Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe was up there on the modern list, but nothing comes close to Sizemore/Lee/Phillips for Colon. THAT is the worst trade ever made over the last 30 years. Spare me the "Omar was playing for the present!" excuses. By the time the trade went down, he wasn't - relocation was a given. He was merely trying to feather his nest for his next job.

The Smoltz for Alexander trade isn't as awful as people make it out to be, as many here have pointed out. It served its purpose: the Braves got a talented young arm, and the Tigers got a pitcher who put them over the top in 1987. It was obvious at the time that long-term possibility was being traded for short-term success, and both sides got what they were looking for.

Worst ever that wasn't rigged?

There is the Pete Alexander trade. There is the Joe Jackson trade where he was the PTBNL.

Pedro for Delino?

Brett Butler and Brook Jacoby to Cleveland for Len Barker - after which, Atlanta didn't have a CF, a leadoff hitter, or anyone to step in when Horner was out of the lineup.

Mark Grace-Rafael Palemiero
Billy Williams-Lou Brock

Brock got you Broglio, Palmeiro (and Moyer) got you Mitch Williams

Yeah, Palmeiro and Moyer for Wild thing is another huge Cub debit. But the problem with post-hoc trade analysis in the modern era, is free agency. The Cubs could have had Palmeiro back a couple of years after the trade, had they wanted to pay market value for him. Likewise, had they not traded him, they would have had to pay market rate to keep him after a few more years.

Nobody said it was the worst ever. Just the worst for the Cubs.

Nobody? Ever? OK, nobody in this thread, or the article (I assume, I haven't RTFA). But it is always brought up in worst trade ever discussions and lists, usually right after the big 2: Anderson-Bagwell, and Robinson-Pappas (thanks, eso). And it is nowhere near that level, even in hindsight. Fox-Tipton, to mention one that never gets mentioned, was worse.

How about the Astros getting Jason Grimsley in exchange for sending Curt Schilling to Philadelphia?

How about the Orioles getting Glenn Davis in exchange for sending Curt Schilling, Steve Finley and Pete Harnisch to the Astros?

nothing comes close to Sizemore/Lee/Phillips for Colon. THAT is the worst trade ever made over the last 30 years.

No way.
The fact the other team got 1.5 years (the last 1.0 of which they traded away for dreck, but that is a different matter) of great, in-his-prime starting pitcher doesn't allow it to be on the list of ripoff trades. Colon could have been the A.L Cy winner had he stayed in CLE for the remainder of the year.

The total amount of talent, obviously, ultimately favored the Indians to an obscene degree but I can't see any trade where the other team gets what they were paying for as a "worst ever" trade. To me, a "worst ever" trade has to be a bust for one side.

I guess when the topic of Schilling comes up, when one mentions one of the trades, the other gets mentioned.

I mentioned the one I did because Grimsley never pitched for Houston and was released a year after the trade. (He later surfaced in Cleveland and pitched for other teams after that.) They dealt Schilling for essentially nothing and did so right before he broke big.

But I suppose they could in a sense afford to do that given that they traded Glenn Davis (who played 3 ineffective and injury-riddled seasons in Baltimore before hanging up his spikes) at exactly the right time, while Finley and Harnisch both contributed for the Astros.

The total amount of talent, obviously, ultimately favored the Indians to an obscene degree but I can't see any trade where the other team gets what they were paying for as a "worst ever" trade. To me, a "worst ever" trade has to be a bust for one side

agreed, any trade that the other team got something in return cannot be on the list of worse ever. It could be on the list for best ever though in my opinion if you are looking from the Indians point of view and they got rid of something that wasn't going to help them when it matter to lay the foundation for something that does help them when it matters. (yes best and worse don't automatically have to be exact opposites in these situations)

Leaving aside my Orioles bias of saying the Glenn Davis trade, I don't see how anything can top the Bagwell deal. The thing about that deal was that it would have been a disaster no matter what. They traded Bagwell for 22 innings of relief. Anderson could have been Bob Gibson 1968, Dwight Gooden 1985, Pedro Martinez 2000, and Greg Maddux 1995 all rolled into one, and it couldn't possibly have been a good deal. It was 22 freaking innings. (Oh, plus 3 more in the postseason.)

I mean, just to put emphasis on this, the first thing they did when they got him was have him pitch the ninth inning of a game with a 6-run lead.

Joe Jackson was a PTBNL. Mack threw him in when they aquired the King of the Snip.

The Cardinals were on the receiving end of a much worse trade than the Brock trade: the Steve Carlton one.

Nellie Fox for Joe Tipton

Wish I would have thought of that.

agreed, any trade that the other team got something in return cannot be on the list of worse ever.

That's why I think Robinson for Pappas can't be the worst ever, either. Yes, it was lopsided in favor of the Orioles, because Frank Robinson still had another five years of inner-circle Hall of Fame performance in him, but Milt Pappas was a good starting pitcher for a long time, too. He pitched for eight more years, seven of them at the level of a solid number-two starter. That has a lot of value. The Reds didn't get all of that value, but at least they traded him for Clay Carroll (and others), who was a key part of those great early-70s Reds teams.

How about 1 year of A.J. Pierzynski for Joe Nathan, Francisco Liriano, and Boof Bonser?

How about 200 innings of Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir?

How about a straightjacket and a kazoo for Srul?

How about 1 year of A.J. Pierzynski for Joe Nathan, Francisco Liriano, and Boof Bonser?

This was a better example before the latter two started sucking.

This website lists Rusie for Matthewson as the most lopsided trade ever, using win shares.

Wasn't the Rusie for Matthewson trade in reality a ruse by John T Brush to get Matthewson cheaply by having Cincinatti buy him and then trade him, rather than the Giants buy him for what would have been a higher amount? I seem to recall reading this story in a Neyer article/book.