Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Collins Affair, Part Three

The following letter from President Haldeman of the Louisville Club, explains itself. That club was notified of Collins' standing before he reached Louisville, and there can be no excuse for having played him. Now that all the circumstances connected with the case are understood, it is not likely that Collins will be permanently engaged. No disagreement existed between him and the Red Stocking management until he broke his contract and jumped. the subjoined letter will repay perusal:

Louisville, Auguast 8, 1876.-Thos. McNeary, Esq., Manager St. Louis Reds: Dear Sir-Your telegram of the 5th was duly received, and placed in the hands of our Manager, Mr. J.C. Chapman. Mr. Collins, as I am advised, has no engagement with the Louisville B.B.C. He was employed by one of our directors to play while two of our men, who were sick and disabled, were unable to perform duty, and he has played in two games this week. He was so employed before anything had been heard from you, and when we were not aware his leaving was counter to your wishes. Of course we have nothing to do with any difficulty between you and Mr. Collins; but we have no desire to interfere with any of your arrangements, and had we been aware of your disinclination for him to leave your club we would not have thought of giving him even temporary employment. Very respectfully yours, etc.,

W.N. Haldeman
President Louisville B.B.C.
-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, August 12, 1876

For the record, Collins played in seven games for Louisville. I know that Collins played for Louisville against Chicago on August 6 and that he played in two games against the Browns on August 10 and August 12. He did not play in any other games for Louisville between August 6 and August 12. Therefore, giving Louisville the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they were not aware of the contract relationship between Collins and the Reds prior to August 12, the club played Collins in four more games after being made of the relationship and stating that they had no desire to interfere in the arrangements of the Reds. Of course, it's highly unlikely that Louisville was not aware of the contractual relationship between Collins and the Reds when they signed him.

I think the bottom line here is that Haldeman was not being truthful. I believe that Louisville would have continued to employ and play Collins if he had been good enough to play in the League. He was not good enough and that was why Louisville got rid of him. It had nothing to do with the fact that they wanted to respect his contract with the Reds.

No comments: