Bob Caruthers failed to leave for home last night, notwithstanding his reiterated assertion that he would do so. He now states that he will positively leave for Chicago to-night. He seems to have changed his mind in regard to Brooklyn, and said last night that he would just as soon play in Brooklyn as not, although his offer from Cincinnati was a better one. He states that when he arrives home he will go to work, and his office hours will be from 8 to 5. The outcome of the matter will be that he will sign with Brooklyn, but not until late in the spring.
-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, November 30, 1887
Since I just argued that the reason Foutz was sold to Brooklyn was because Caruthers refused to sign, would it be weird if I now argued that the reason Caruthers suddenly changed his tune was because Foutz had just been sold to Brooklyn?
I don't have the source for this and it may be something that I'm just making up but I don't believe that the two men had the best relationship. That Browns' clubhouse doesn't seem to have been the closest and it just seems that it would be within the character of the two men not to get along. I don't know but the idea that Foutz and Caruthers didn't like each other is something rattling around the back of my head.
And if that's true, how likely would it be that Caruthers would want to sign with Brooklyn after they just picked up Foutz? Would he sign just out of spite? I can see Caruthers, thinking he had played everything perectly, suddenly very upset that Brooklyn had bought Foutz. He would sign and show them that he couldn't be replaced by the likes of Dave Foutz.
Honestly, I don't even know what I'm arguing anymore. All I know is that trying to get into Bob Caruthers' head is very tiring.