At least the Red Sox have learned their lesson and don't ever get rid of All-Star third basemen prematurely.

Sigh.

I can think of at least three players with Giants caps on their plaques whose number haven't been retired. All deceased, though.

So Boston missed out on 6 years (93-98) of a 3Bman with a 109 OPS+ OPS for which they would have payed $51 million? He actually made $17+M during those years. It would seem the Sox did well NOT paying him that much! Cooper and then Naehring were league-avg players and they were cheap.

OTOH... guys, retire his # already. Boggs not making the all-century initial ballot of 100 players was a crime.

So Boston missed out on 6 years (93-98) of a 3Bman with a 109 OPS+ OPS for which they would have payed $51 million? He actually made $17+M during those years. It would seem the Sox did well NOT paying him that much!

He had about 20 fWAR during those years. Is $51 million a lot for that kind of production? It would seem to me that there was some middle ground between $17 million and $51 million that would have made everyone happy and kept Boggs in Boston for his whole career. As for Cooper and Naehring, sure they were cheap, being pre-FA players, but they would then have value as trade chips if Boston had re-signed Boggs.

In his first year with NY, he played 143 games. After that:97,126,132,104 and with Tampa: 123 and 90. Looks a bit like another Boston 3B who recently left town.

Adding up the salaries for those years gives about $16-17 mil and he was available on the free agent market three times. Sounds like market value.

Not retiring his number is full of spite--which is exactly what this team has too much of.

7 years, 51 million in 1991 would have been like the A-Rod deal. If I remember correctly, a year later Bonds and Maddux were setting records with deals around 35-40 million.

“I’m the only Hall of Famer whose number has not been retired [by the team whose cap is shown on the plaque],” Boggs said. “Fergie [Jenkins] and I were the last two, but now Fergie is in [with the Cubs]. That leaves me. It’s disappointing.”

Goose is a living Hall of Famer with a NY cap, but his number hasn't been retired by the Yankees.

Goose is a living Hall of Famer with a NY cap, but his number hasn't been retired by the Yankees.

I didn't know that. In their defense, he only spent seven of his 22 seasons in pinstripes. By contrast, Boggs had 11 of 18 years for the Red Sox. Not to mention that he had his best, most famous seasons with the Red Sox.

I'm gonna go ahead and state that Boggs is mis-remembering the contract details. Nobody was getting offered that much for that long back then. Ryne got 4 years at 28.4 in March of 1992. Bonilla got 5 years and 29 million in 1991.

We called Jeff Idelson, president of the Hall of Fame, to ask whether all living Hall of Famers have had their numbers retired, and the research was ongoing.

This research should take 45 minutes, tops. Fire up the internet, Globe. It's an amazing research tool.

The Reds have not yet officially retired Barry Larkin's number, which is possibly a bigger deal than the Red Sox and Wade Boggs. The guy was born and raised in Cincinnati, spent his entire career with the Reds, won a World Series and an MVP award, is a Hall of Famer and a 12-time all-star. He should be a slam dunk, no-brainer for number retirement. No idea what they're waiting for...maybe the actual HoF enshrinement ceremony?

No idea what they're waiting for...maybe the actual HoF enshrinement ceremony?

That, and they probably want to schedule a day for the ceremony where he can be present.

Whining about not having your number retired strikes me as even worse than whining about not being in the Hall of Fame.

We called Jeff Idelson, president of the Hall of Fame, to ask whether all living Hall of Famers have had their numbers retired, and the research was ongoing

I think Barry Halper stole the HOF's internet

Yeah, the $51 mil sounds nuts, but nobody ever said Boggs or Mrs. Yawkey were sane. That said, I'd rather they have paid Boggs that much than let him go to the Yankees AND replace him with Cooper.

As for Cooper and Naehring, sure they were cheap, being pre-FA players, but they would then have value as trade chips if Boston had re-signed Boggs.

In the early 1990s, teams didn't realize the value of young, cheap players the way they do now. Remember, that just two years earlier, the Red Sox had traded Bagwell for a couple months of Larry Andersen. Remember, also, that Naehring at the time had developed a reputation for being so injury-prone as to be worthless - sort of like Jed Lowrie had, at least with Boston fans, by the end of last year.

In his first year with NY, he played 143 games. After that:97,126,132,104

The 97 is out of 113, and the 126 is out of 144. Still not spectacular, but not as bad as the raw totals make them look.

In the early 1990s, teams didn't realize the value of young, cheap players the way they do now. Remember, that just two years earlier, the Red Sox had traded Bagwell for a couple months of Larry Andersen.

Thanks, I had almost forgotten that. :)

On the games played, Boggs was generally healthy during those years. He was sharing a job with Charlie Hayes for some reason. And as #17 points out, the numbers aren't nearly as bad as they look either. Adjusted for the season lengths: 139, 142, 132, 104.

I don't really think it's about the value of young, cheap players. I think it's about nobody wants to be the next guy that traded Jeff Bagwell for a couple months of Larry Andersen.

I think it's about nobody wants to be the next guy that traded Jeff Bagwell for a couple months of Larry Andersen.

Too bad they may have pulled just that with the Bailey-Reddick trade.

This is how I remember it going at the time. Prior to the 1992 season, the Sox offered Boggs something like 2 years/$9 mil. But Boggs wanted 3 years. Then when he sucked that season, the Sox didn't budge and the Yanks gave him 3/10 or so (I think there were deferrals), and Boggs naturally took it.

I don't really think it's about the value of young, cheap players. I think it's about nobody wants to be the next guy that traded Jeff Bagwell for a couple months of Larry Andersen.

I think that's entirely wrong. The move toward low returns on mid-season rentals occured more than a decade after the Bagwell trade, and has been correlated instead with the growth in saber-conversant front offices. I think general managers have a better understanding of player value now, and this is reflected in things like midseason trade returns dropping and no David Ortizes being non-tendered, and so on.

Too bad they may have pulled just that with the Bailey-Reddick trade.

No. (Not even if Bailey never throws another pitch.)

No. (Not even if Bailey never throws another pitch.)

Obviously we can't know what Reddick's career will look like. But 137 OPS+ at age 25 (Reddick) isn't much different than Bagwell's 145 OPS+ at the same age. Especially since Bags was playing 1B, while Reddick's playing a more-skilled position in RF. Bags didn't hit for power in the minors either--how many people foresaw his 1994 explosion and subsequent higher level of performance thereafter? Yes, Bags was walking more than he stuck out, but Reddick has always shown power.

Reddick might well have another jump in production in him. This is his first full season.

At this point, the Red Sox should just fire whoever is making the decisions on trades and big-money FA signings. The record over the past two years is unbelievably bad.

Obviously we can't know what Reddick's career will look like. But 137 OPS+ at age 25 (Reddick) isn't much different than Bagwell's 145 OPS+ at the same age. Especially since Bags was playing 1B, while Reddick's playing a more-skilled position in RF. Bags didn't hit for power in the minors either--how many people foresaw his 1994 explosion and subsequent higher level of performance thereafter? Yes, Bags was walking more than he stuck out, but Reddick has always shown power.

I'd put the odds on Josh Reddick becoming a Hall of Famer at 2%, maybe. The odds of Reddick putting up a 200 OPS+ next year (Bagwell's age 26 season) are likewise vanishingly slim.

Bagwell, of course, had put up 139 and 135 OPS+ numbers in his age-23 and age-24 seasons, slightly better than Reddick's production at the same age.

You can make the case that the Reddick trade was terrible (it was) without making patently silly player comparisons.

Yes, but at the time he was traded, Bagwell's chances of making the Hall were around %2, as well.

It's not a silly comparison at all, if you compare Bagwell's career and foreseeable future with Reddick's career and forseeable future at the time both were traded.

I'm obviously not foreseeing a HoF career for Reddick. I'm merely saying that the difference between Reddick and Bagwell at age 25 is not very much.

And you can quit the sanctimony any time.

I'm obviously not foreseeing a HoF career for Reddick. I'm merely saying that the difference between Reddick and Bagwell at age 25 is not very much.

I disagree. It's huge. Bagwell, at age 25, was having his third outstanding major league season, and had previously put up one of the best seasons ever in Beehive Field. Reddick is likely to regress to the mean next year - or at least far more likely to regress than Bagwell was at the same age. Reddick is halfway through a season similar in value to Bagwell's at age 25, but that doesn't mean he's as good a bet going forward as Bagwell was.

Interesting to contemplate the "What If?" with Bagwell if the Sox hadn't made the trade, since he played primarily at 3B in the minors, where he was blocked at the major league level by Boggs. And he was blocked at 1B, where the 'Stros stuck him, by Mo Vaughn, drafted in the 1st round in the same year as Bagwell's 4th round selection by Boston. If they had kept him at 3B, he probably doesn't get a chance to break into the majors as a regular until Boggs leaves via free agency in '93.

The Sox also had Scott Cooper in the system ahead of Bagwell who they were high on. Tim Naehring was there too but he was still a shortstop at that point.

It's not a silly comparison at all, if you compare Bagwell's career and foreseeable future with Reddick's career and forseeable future at the time both were traded.

First, as tjm1 says, this ignores all of Bagwell's career previous to age 25. He was the #32 prospect in the world at age 22, and he was underrated because of the lack of understanding of park factors in baseball at the time. Then he was an All-Star quality 1B for two seasons at ages 23 and 24. Josh Reddick was #75 at age 22, but then regressed and spent his age 22-24 seasons struggling to make the transition to the majors. They're not similar players, and there is nothing that Josh Reddick could realistically do in the second half that would make his age 26 projection come close to Bagwell's age 26 projection.

Second, the original claim you made was that the Red Sox may have made another Anderson-Bagwell trade. The Anderson-Bagwell trade isn't famous because of what Bagwell projected to become in 1991, it's famous because of what Bagwell actually did become. "Making another Anderson-Bagwell trade" means trading away a Hall of Famer, not trading away someone who has a small chance of being a Hall of Famer in the future.

EDIT: Also, sorry for the rhetorical escalation in the last sentence of the post. I was pissy for other reasons and took it out in a post on a baseball website, which is dumb. Sorry.

The Sox also had Scott Cooper in the system ahead of Bagwell who they were high on. Tim Naehring was there too but he was still a shortstop at that point.

I sort of remember that the rumors were that the Astros would have taken either Cooper or Bagwell, and the Red Sox, not realizing how bad a hitters' park Beehive Field was, and how good that meant Bagwell was, decided to keep Cooper.

Interesting to contemplate the "What If?" with Bagwell if the Sox hadn't made the trade, since he played primarily at 3B in the minors, where he was blocked at the major league level by Boggs. And he was blocked at 1B, where the 'Stros stuck him, by Mo Vaughn, drafted in the 1st round in the same year as Bagwell's 4th round selection by Boston. If they had kept him at 3B, he probably doesn't get a chance to break into the majors as a regular until Boggs leaves via free agency in '93.

I doubt this. Given what Bagwell did in Houston in 1991, there's every reason to think he'd have torn up the International League at Pawtucket. They'd have found a place for him to play. He was a good enough athlete he could have easily played LF in Fenway and probably could have played in RF and in 1992 the Red Sox had a motley crew of outfielders, and Jack Clark having a terrible season as the DH. Bagwell would have forced the issue somehow. The more likely scenario is that the Sox might have given up on Mo Vaughn, since Vaughn didn't produce in either 1991 or 1992. Worst case, I figure, is that he'd have cracked the lineup in LF when Greenwell go hurt, and they'd have sent Vaughn back to the minors when Greenwell got healthy.

Clubs in contention often do things they later regret. The Sox actually got an excellent result from their August 30 acquisition, as Anderson gave them 22 IP of 1.23 ERA (and no UE runs), with 25/3 K/BB. That they failed to advance in the PS, plus the subsequent play of Bagwell, make this one of the most lopsided trades ever. But on 10/1/1990 I'd guess the Sox management was fairly satisfied with it.

Clubs in contention often do things they later regret. The Sox actually got an excellent result from their August 30 acquisition, as Anderson gave them 22 IP of 1.23 ERA (and no UE runs), with 25/3 K/BB. That they failed to advance in the PS, plus the subsequent play of Bagwell, make this one of the most lopsided trades ever. But on 10/1/1990 I'd guess the Sox management was fairly satisfied with it.

One other aspect to this was that Andersen was one of the collusion guys. Andersen should have been in Boston for another year but was granted free agency as a result of the lawsuit after the season was over.

Admittedly, a year and a month of Andersen for a future Hall of Famer is not exactly a great return either but the deal makes a bit more sense if you assume you are getting a full year out of the guy you acquire.

Clubs in contention often do things they later regret. The Sox actually got an excellent result from their August 30 acquisition, as Anderson gave them 22 IP of 1.23 ERA (and no UE runs), with 25/3 K/BB. That they failed to advance in the PS, plus the subsequent play of Bagwell, make this one of the most lopsided trades ever. But on 10/1/1990 I'd guess the Sox management was fairly satisfied with it.

this is a myth. Larry had virtually no effect on the Red Sox or their playoff race.

I would link to a post I wrote in 2002 but apparently the BTF monster ate it.

1st game: Brought in in the 9th with a 6 run lead
2nd game: Mid 6th inning with the team losing 3-1. Gives up a single to make it 4-1. Leaves after the 8th trailing 4-2
3rd game: Comes in in the 8th inning with his team losing by 1. Red Sox tie it up in the 9th and he pitches through the 10th.
4th game: Pitches the 9th with his team down by 2 runs
5th game: Pitches the 9th with his team down by 2 runs
6th game: Comes in after a walk in the 6th and pitches 2 innings. His team is trailing by 2 runs.
7th game: Comes in mid 6th inning with team down by 2 runs. Gives up a single to put them behind by 3 runs.
8th game: Pitches the 7th and 8th inning. Enters game with his team leading by 4 runs.
9th game: Comes in in the 8th with his team winning by 3 runs and gets a save.
10th game: Comes in the middle of the 7th and an error allows the tying run to score. He gets a blown save.
11th game: Comes in in the middle of the 6th with his team down by two runs. Gives up a hit to allow a run to score. Opens the 7th with two straight hits before getting pulled.
12th game: Comes in in the 7th after a walk opens the inning. The team is up by 5 runs.
13th game: Comes in in mid 7th with the team winning by 3 runs. Allows 3 runs to score to get a blown save.
14th game: Comes in in the 8th after a double opens the inning. His team is up by 3 runs. He gives up two runs before being pulled and one of his runners will later score to give him a blown save.
15th game: Comes in in mid 8th with the scored tied and throws a wild pitch to lose the lead.

Of his three blown saves the Red Sox went on to win 2 of them. His leverage index for his first 12 games with the Red Sox was .69. His last three game had an average LI of 2.26 and he got 2 BS and gave up a go ahead run in the other off a wild pitch. One of his BS was against Toronto which finished 2 games back but luckily for him the Red Sox won that game.

So how about the playoffs?

1st game: Started the 7th with a 1 run lead. Allowed a run to score that cost the Sox the lead. Starts the 8th and gives up a single before being pulled. That runner would eventually come around to score and Larry would be tagged with the loss.
2nd game: Came into the game in the 7th after two singles opened the inning. He would walk the bases loaded and give up a run to break the tie.
4th game: Pitched the 8th with his team losing by 3 runs.

#35: agreed. And the larger point is that the role Andersen had was such that there was essentially almost no way that he could have affected his team's final place in the standings in a month. He had a 1.2 WAR, which seems to inflate his actual value, since he allowed a lot of inherited runners to score and he pitched mostly in low leverage situations, and which is just about the upper limit on what it could have possibly been, given that he had a 1.23 ERA. Even in another full season, he'd still have been unlikely to make more than a 2 game difference in the standings.

I'm fine with the Red Sox trade in 1988 of Brady Anderson and Curt Schilling for Mike Boddicker. Teams wouldn't make a move like that now, probably, but Boddicker pushed them over the top for two playoff appearances. In 1988, the Sox acquired Boddicker early enough in the season that he could have been expected to make the difference in a tight race. He also displaced sub-replacement level options for the rotation, and gave them a quality third starter for the playoffs. On top of that, people remember Anderson and Schilling as having become great players, but neither was really all that great while under complete club control. In particular, Schilling had to be traded two more times before he amounted to anything at the major league level, and the deal where Baltimore got rid of him - Schilling + Steve Finley + Harnisch for Glenn Davis - was an absolute disaster for them. Interestingly, Schilling was traded 5 times in his career, and in the other four cases, the team trading for him clearly got the better of the deal.

So the problem with the Andersen for Bagwell trade, in my view, isn't that Andersen performed badly - it's that middle relievers just cannot be worth your best prospect, ever.

But on 10/1/1990 I'd guess the Sox management was fairly satisfied with it.

this is a myth. Larry had virtually no effect on the Red Sox or their playoff race.

Surprising that you know what the Sox management was thinking at that time (and I chose 10/1 with the intention of excluding the PS, where he failed.) Anderson was a very good ("excellent" probably overstated things) middle reliever in Sept, 1990.
However:

So the problem with the Andersen for Bagwell trade, in my view, isn't that Andersen performed badly - it's that middle relievers just cannot be worth your best prospect, ever.

This is the real bottom line. It's a trade that should have looked bad for the Sox even in foresight, and it's tragicomically awful in hindsight, even worse than trading Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek to get Heathcliff Slocumb.

He was a middle reliever that was hardly ever brought into a game with the game on the line and when he was he blew it. He allowed a ton of inherited runners to score. He had 20 inherited runners on base and he let 50% of them score. The league averaged 33% that year. Up until his final three appearances he was only brought into very low leverage situations.

Sparky Anderson managed the Tigers for 16+ seasons.

1331 wins, 200 more than any other Tigers' manager
12 winning seasons; no other manager was even there more than 11.
Managed one of the all-time great teams.
First manager to win 100+ games in each league.
First manager to win a World Series in each league.
Voted into the HOF in 2000.

The Tigers didn't retire his number until after he died in 2010.

I did a worst trades piece (free agency era) using WAR and salary for surplus value. I only gave credit to years teams could actually get rather than free agent years. In lost surplus value (converted to win) the 20 worst I got were:

1. Colon to Montreal (36.2)
2. Teixeira to Atlanta (34.5)
3. Davis to Baltimore (28.6)
4. McGriff to Toronto (27.6)
5. Slocumb to Seattle (27.2)
6. Eaton to Texas (27.0)
7. Anderson to Boston (26.2)
8. Stocker to Tampa Bay (25.6)
9. DeJesus to Philadelphia (21.9)
10. Barker to Cleveland (21.8)
11. Langston to Montreal (21.4)
12. Wells to Los Angeheim (20.9)
13. Taubensee to Houston (20.9)
14. Mulder to St. Louis (20.7)
15. Unit to Houston (19.8)
16. DeShields to Montreal (18.2)
17. Broussard to Seattle (17.8)
18. Bedard to Seattle (15.8)
19. Rincon to Cleveland (15.5)
20. Sykes to Yankees (15.2) (McGee trade, for those that forget)

If you also factor in how much the receiving team hated the player they received, then Pierogi to San Fran would be high on the list (honestly, I'm surprised he isn't on there anyway).

Dan: that's an interesting list. A few of those trades are worse than others, though, witout regard to the list. E.g. the Stocker for Abreu trade was a one-for-one trade made in the off-season. Those are the worst kind. Three players above replacement level, but below average aren't worth as much as one player above replacement level by the same amount, at least to a team trying to win a pennant. Trades in the middle of a season at least have the potential to push a team over the top in a close race. Off-season trades aren't made for that reason.

The Teixeira trade is still piling up dividends for the Rangers, and if they had been a bit more patient with Saltalamacchia, it might even be worse.