Yankees, Red Sox and Ellie Howard Didn't Compromise the Integrity of the Game

Harold FriendFeb 25, 2011

The year is 1967. The columnist is Leonard Koppett. The topic is trading a player for "a player or players to be named later."

In 1967, the trading deadline was June 15. After that date, only waiver deals could be made.

In a waiver trade, each team is given the chance, based on reverse order of won-lost record, to buy a player's contract. The major purpose of the procedure was to prevent wealthy teams vying for the pennant from raiding teams that were out of contention.

If the second-place Boston Red Sox wanted Elston Howard from the ninth-place New York Yankees, all the teams with worse records than the Red Sox would have the chance of obtaining Howard's services before the Sox.

On Aug. 3, 1967, the Yankees sent Howard to the Red Sox for Pete Mangrini and a player to be named later. Five days later, right-hander Ron Klimkowski was sent to the Yankees. Klimkowski didn't know he was going to the Yankees until it was announced publicly.

Koppett called trades for "a player or players to be named later" as "disgraceful" and "dishonest." He explained that they undermine the belief that baseball is structured in such a way as to prevent a player from playing against his future employer and knowing it.

Late in 1964, the Yankees obtained the services of Pedro Ramos, without whom the Yankees would not have won the pennant. In return for Ramos, the Yankees were to send the Cleveland Indians a player to be named later. The player turned out to be Ralph Terry, who remained with the Yankees until the end of the season and who, like Ramos, helped the Yankees win the pennant.

Terry didn't know that he was the player who would be named later, but if he did know that he were going to be an Indian, would that have affected him when he faced the Indians? Probably not, because the Yankees were in a pennant race.

Koppett asks, "What if a player, knowing he'll be with Cleveland next year, has to play against them for the Yankees this year while Cleveland is fighting for a pennant? Will he do his best to damage his next employer? He should—but sooner or later someone might not."

Some light is shed on the problem by the Bo Belinsky situation. Belinsky found out that he was the player to be named later in a trade. Then commissioner Ford Frick nullified the trade because Belinsky spoke about it. End of trade. What would Bud have done?

Let us move to 2005. The trading deadline is July 31. Two-thirds of the season has been played and many teams are out of contention. In the era of free agency, team rosters have little stability.

Teams in contention that are willing to spend money or give up promising minor leaguers pluck players they need from teams that are out of it, especially if the needed player will be eligible for free agency or arbitration after the season.

Koppett's concerns have become greatly magnified. The Yankees, Red Sox, Los Angeles Angels and Philadelphia Philles are among baseball's biggest spenders.

Take a player on the Kansas City Royals or Pittsburgh Pirates or any other team that refuses to spend money and is usually out of the race by July 31. The better players on those teams read the newspapers and watch television.

They are aware of the chances that they will be pitching for a particular contender after July 31. Will all of those players, "...do his best to damage his next employer? He should—but sooner or later someone might not."

Everyone talks about the integrity of the game. Huge sums of money are involved. The potential for improprieties cannot be allowed to exist.

Koppett addressed the issue almost 40 years ago. The potential for abuse has only increased.