Franchises at Birth: The Colt .45s and the Mets (Part One)

[Frayed Knot]

That Met mgmt was run by a bunch of older conservative looking men is, I think, part of what gives legs to the story. That they would make a decision based on Jackson's persona rather than his talent "fits the profile" so it's easy for many to assume it to be fact (which ironically makes some of those claiming prejudice guilty of stereotyping themselves).
I even had an exchange w/a guy on a board one time who not only claimed it was true but that that MD Grant "in his own words" had admitted it. Not surprisingly, he was unable to locate "his source", although I believe he was thinking of Jackson's book and managed to simply transfer the ASU coach's words into MD Grant's mouth.

And again, not that any of this means it isn't true, just that it's hardly the settled matter that many seem to believe.

[Guest mlbaseballtalk]

BTW one thing that sort of would poke a hole in Reggie's Center Stage story is that Winkles said it was Scheffing who was the guy who ixnayed the whole thing.

Anyone know if Scheffing was that high up in the chain of command at that point? One would point to either Whitey Herzog, George Weiss (or Bing Devine depending on the timeline) or M. Donald Grant as being the major decision makers at the time

Steve

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Part II

[url]http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/franchises-at-birth-the-colt-45s-astros-and-the-mets-part-two/[/url]

[MFS62]

Y'know what I just noticed?
One of their contributing authors has visited the CPF.

Later

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Scheffing who was the guy who ixnayed the whole thing.



Scheffing was in the org., but was still 5 years from taking a major role with it. He'd been among the guys they used to evaluate talent however.

He'd turn out to be a very ineffective GM.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's a shame (or telling, you decide) that the 1966 draft comes up not at all.

I'd sure like a solid high-profile writer to do some digging and come up with a definitive recount of what is known and unknown while there are still perhaps enough witnesses alive to piece it together.

[seawolf17]

Hey, you can't spell Scheffing without "effing."

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

I'd sure like a solid high-profile writer to do some digging and come up with a definitive recount of what is known and unknown while there are still perhaps enough witnesses alive to piece it together.

Other than not being solid, nor high-profile, I read just about all I could find on the 1966 draft, which quite honestly, wasn;t much. There was no Baseball America at the time that covered amatuer & college baseball and the Sporting news coverage of the draft was mostly centered on who got who but not why who got who, if you know what I mean.

The NYC papers barely gave coverage to the Mets and Yankees drafts and amatuer signings right through to the 1990s. The NY Times covered the Seaver story with one graf headlined: Mets Get George Feaver.

Generally, drafts were covered in the "Notes" graf tacked onto the end of a game story in early June. It would say: "The Mets are expected to select Oklahoma State outfielder Jeromy Burnitz with the first pick in today's draft. Local high schoolers also eligible are _______ ." and that was it.

One of my far-off projects is to do an interview with every No. 1 draft pick.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, I did a lot of reading also. I only long for a high-profile writer so he or she can (1) use her or his clout to interview all the living witnesses and check the accounts against each other, and (2) publish it in a high-profile reputable outlet and put the mythmaking to rest.

[seawolf17]

It's too bad that Feaver kid never panned out. He coulda been somebody.