Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-07-29
sv GEORGE wi

s,se;.I cs,rs.,endest Of The Great Fails Tribuss.
Copyright. 1872. By The Great Falls Tribune.
New York. July 28.-As the situa-
ton stands today, Phil Douglas, open
ly placed on the block by the New
York National league club prior to the
beginning of the season. is the main
prop of the structure that is being
built by the Giants toward another
championship. There have been in
stances like this before where the line
has been SO sharply drawn. If Doug
las has not injured or lost his effect
iveness the chances of the Giants to
repeat their victory of 1921 will be
about fifty fifty. Result s of the year
prove it.
What a bargain it might have been
for st. Louis to have succeeded in
procuring Douglas from the Giants
Il they could. 1t might even have paid
Philadelphia to get him. But could
any club have got him-that's the
other side Of the question. 1t was
openly stated that Douglas had made
the New York club more trouble than
any player on the team in 1921 and
sneeringly it wa asserted by n New
York man that just because Douglas
had "won a few games in a worlds
series he need not think he could do
as he pleased" The clarion voiced
cit" who accepted his knowledge of
being that fashion perhaps had over
looked the fact that Douglas had done
his share toward winning the pennant
of 1921.
Barnes q Mainstay
Barnes was also put on the block
BY the Giants. He next to Douglas
is the mainstay in the box. Withdraw
from the New York team the total vic
tories the nineteen games that the
slaves" have won and the Giants
record would be a poor, weak affair
like that of the Phillies.
When the Giants talked of throwing
Douglas and Barnes overheard in
March, Charles II. Ebbets of Brooklyn
was quoted as saying he would not
make an offer for the players because
he did not believe Brooklyn could get
either of them. Brooklyn had Phil
once and he preferred Coney to the
Brooklyn ball park.
A National league owner was asked
if he knew positively whether Douglas
and Barnes could have been obtained
from the New York team when the
club announced them for sale. 1T
calls for O too definite statement from
me-" was the reply. THE only way l
can reply is to say that if | had en-
tered into negotiations with the Giants
] would no have expected to get
either player. l can't remember that
waivers were asked on them. In fact.
! think they were not. and if they
were they would likely have been with
drawn, for the Philadelphia club surely
would have put in a claim for one OF
them. Under the waiver rule we would
have got them
DO you think. as some others do,
that the Giants owe their present po-
sition to the good pitching of Doug
las and Barnes"
II certainly do. I can't recall an
other instance like it in baseball
There have been owners who have
bluffed before this about transferring
players for whom they had lost a deep
and abiding affection. but never an
owner who has publicly announced that
he had put two pitchers on the market
only to see the very same pitchers
turn about and save his bacon"
1t is very fortunate for the Giants
that they have developed as they have
because there is no secret to the fact
that Toney has been a disappointment
A First Year Success
Speculation among players on the
probable success of first year pitchers
has turned all one way to Pillette OF