One man's folly is another's triumph
I don't blame you (and those somewhat like you). Selling the greatest hitter in the game's history just before he entered his prime ... well, there's no way to make that one look real good.
But as I detail in my new book, there was some reasonable doubt about Ruth's ability to make good on his obvious potential. It wasn't unreasonable to think that Ruth might drink or eat himself out of the majors or perhaps drive one of his many fast automobiles off a bridge somewhere. To this day, there's disagreement about whether Red Sox owner Harry Frazee sold Ruth because he needed the money to keep his other business interests afloat or because he simply believed the money -- the $100,000 sale price, plus a huge personal loan from the Yankees' owners -- was worth more than the player. Obviously, things didn't work out for Frazee. But the Red Sox probably would have been bad with Ruth, and the Yankees probably would have been good without him.
To continue reading this article you must be an Insider
We see that you are not an ESPN Insider. Upgrade today and gain access to our exclusive coverage.
MORE MLB HEADLINES
- Source: Ellsbury, Yanks agree on 7-year deal
- Source: Mets, Granderson talk 3-year deal
- Konerko returns to White Sox for 16th season
- Insurance? Yanks, 2B Johnson close to deal
MOST SENT STORIES ON ESPN.COM
Content related to "Rob Neyer's Big Book of Baseball Blunders":
• August 30, 1990: Bagwell for Andersen
• December 9, 1965: Reds trade Robinson
• February 26, 1935: Braves sign Babe