Seamheads: Murphy: Trading Jeff Kent

Or as cyclamatin’ Francesspool said the other day…“Biggio and the HOF? You might as well put Jeff Kent in!”

Looking back on Kent’s career from 1992 to 1997, there are a number of tantalizing what-if questions. Would the Blue Jays have won back-to-back titles with Kent? Surely, his bat would have been useful, but again, there was no place for him in the lineup, and Cone was clutch in his short time with the team. Why did the Mets trade him for the declining Baerga? The 1996 team was a collection of driftwood; by the time they got to the NLCS three years later, only three regulars (Alfonzo, Rey Ordoñez, and John Franco) remained. And, most hauntingly, would the Indians’ fortunes have changed with Kent on board? Their 1997 infield would have had Omar Vizquel at short and either Kent at second with Thome at third and Julio Franco at first, or Kent at third with Thome at first and Tony Fernandez at second. Matt Williams’ production can not be faulted for the World Series loss, but there’s no way of knowing how Kent’s stellar 1997 season would have fit in—or, indeed, whether he could have had it in Cleveland at all.

As it happened, fans of all four teams—Toronto, New York, Cleveland and San Francisco—have Kent to thank or curse for their respective success or failure, all as they see fit. His integral role in the power dynamics of the decade was due not only on the field. Through him, the aspirations and concerns of fans and GMs alike were expressed, resulting in victory parades in some cities (Toronto, Florida) and bitterness in others (Atlanta, Philadelphia, Cleveland). When it comes time to vote on his Hall of Fame candidacy, the visceral opinions formed by these three controversial trades will not be easily suppressed, by writers or by the public.  Such is the game of baseball, and such was the career of one of its most reviled, most talented practitioners, Jeff Kent.