Clipping:George Wright holding out; reserve clause
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, January 18, 1880 |
|---|---|
| Text | There appears to be no prospect of settling the difference between George Wright and the Providence management. Being still held by the “five men” rule, Wright cannot sign elsewhere, although he would like to go to Boston, where he has been offered the position of short-stop in Harry Wright's team. Chicago Tribune January 18, 1880 The trouble between George Wright and the Providence Club in regard to the “reserved-men”matter has already been alluded to in these columns. A great amount of noise is being made in certain quarters over the affair, although it is really not worth the powder already expended upon it. The facts are that Wright was one of the five men reserved under the Buffalo agreement by Providence, the other clubs binding themselves by signing that agreement not to approach him in any way with offers for the present season. When the subject of the year's contract was broached by Mr. Root, President of the Providence Club, Wright demanded an increase of salary, which was refused, he being offered $2,000,--the amount received by him last season. He declined to sign unless his terms were acceded to, and was left to take his own sweet will in the matter. After waiting a reasonable time for him to reach a conclusion, Providence signed Peters for next season in order that their short-field might be properly attended to in case Wright refused to play. As soon as the engagement of Peters was announced the Worcester Club began to meddle with a matter in which it could have no possible interest in case it intended to live up to the agreements it had signed upon becoming a member of the League. Bancroft, the Worcester manager, “happened” to be in Boston, and, during a conversation with Wright, the latter said he would like to play in Worcester this season if he could do so without neglecting his business. Bancroft replied that he would like to engage him, and agreed that in case Wright could get a release from Providence Worcester would take him and allow him to go home every night with the Club was in Worcester. Wright, during this talk, said he would not play in Providence under any consideration, as he did not get along well with President Root. Bancroft thereupon hied himself to Providence and asked Mr. Root if he was willing to release Wright, but received a very prompt and emphatic negative. Thus the matter stands: Wright says he will not play in Providence, Root says Providence will not release him, and Bancroft is trying to create public opinion in favor of Wright, hoping thereby to induce Providence to change its course. Mr. Bancroft's mistake was in meddling in the matter at all. The Buffalo agreement was a wise and necessary measure, and no clubs were benefitted less by it than Providence and Chicago. It was a measure taken for mutual protection, and, having been willingly signed by all the members of the League, no one of the them should endeavor in any way to tamper with it. If George Wright chooses to refuse $2,000 a year in Providence he is at liberty to do so, but the action of Worcester in taking his side in a quarrel with Mr. Root was all wrong. Chicago Tribune April 4, 1880 |
| Source | Chicago Tribune |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />