Cubs thinking about moving Barrett??

[goonys evil twin]

You and I have different definitions of selling high. If we're going on the assumption that Barrett puts up roughly the same numbers for 2-3 years, it's not selling high. It's getting roughly equal value.

 

Selling high is trading JJ for what you would typically get for an .850 OF b/c Jones is not really an .850 OF, despite what his numbers say right now. So you trade him now (sell high) before he cools off. If you trade him for his actual value, you're not selling high. That's my point.

 

Could you get anything more for Barrett in 2-3 years than you could get right now? Highly doubtful. Therefore, trading this year would be selling high.

 

I just don't think you'd get that much for Barrett right now (don't think teams see a C as the guy that gets them over the top) and I don't think we can afford to give away a .350 OBP from the C position (we don't have enough as it is - let alone one that plays C) if we intend to contend any time soon.

 

He's never had a full season of .350 OBP in his career. It's not like you are trading away guaranteed great production, OPS+ of 105 and 113 the past two years, there's a pretty mediocre list of comparable players throughout history. If nobody is interested in his services come July 31st, or next offseason, then so be it, hold onto him. But he's not a must keep player.

Edited July 5, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[Twiggy]

No way this deal happens, too valuable for the team at this point.

[Tracer Bullet]

You and I have different definitions of selling high. If we're going on the assumption that Barrett puts up roughly the same numbers for 2-3 years, it's not selling high. It's getting roughly equal value.

 

Selling high is trading JJ for what you would typically get for an .850 OF b/c Jones is not really an .850 OF, despite what his numbers say right now. So you trade him now (sell high) before he cools off. If you trade him for his actual value, you're not selling high. That's my point.

 

Could you get anything more for Barrett in 2-3 years than you could get right now? Highly doubtful. Therefore, trading this year would be selling high.

 

We'll just have to disagree on this point. In my world, trading a player for what he is currently worth isn't selling high, it's trading for equal value. Selling high is taking advantage of overvaluation by the market. JJ and JP (after a few decent weeks) may be sell high candidates right now. I don't think Barrett is. You're not going to get more for Barrett in 2-3 years, but probably not much less either. And he's not likely to bring back a top prospect anyway, so I don't much see the point in dealing him.

 

I just don't think you'd get that much for Barrett right now (don't think teams see a C as the guy that gets them over the top) and I don't think we can afford to give away a .350 OBP from the C position (we don't have enough as it is - let alone one that plays C) if we intend to contend any time soon.

 

He's never had a full season of .350 OBP in his career. It's not like you are trading away guaranteed great production, OPS+ of 105 and 113 the past two years, there's a pretty mediocre list of comparable players throughout history. If nobody is interested in his services come July 31st, or next offseason, then so be it, hold onto him. But he's not a must keep player.

 

His last two seasons were .337 and .345 (I don't know his history in Montreal, but he didn't play much in '03, but in '02 he was .332 in 117 games). This year he's .371. Given that those are his 27-29 years, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he'll keep that up until he's about 31. And he's only been a C for a few years, so I don't see a sharp early decline for him. But whatever - I don't think we should trade a .340 OBP C for some average prospect. I think we have enough in terms of talent, prospects, and payroll to turn this thing around in less than 3 years. So why give up Barrett for what is likely not going to be a difference-maker?

 

To be clear - Barrett's not untouchable. In fact, to me, no one is. If the Cards offer Pujols for Lee - I'm all over it. If the Twins offer Santana for Z - I'm all over that. But I'd have to get a great offer for those guys. And no one's going to make even a real good offer for Barrett. If they do, take it. If not, why try to deal him? He's not bad now and his production isn't likely to plummet next year, so keep him around and worry about fixing the problems.

[goonys evil twin]

We'll just have to disagree on this point. In my world, trading a player for what he is currently worth isn't selling high, it's trading for equal value.

 

That's not trading high, that's fleecing somebody. Trading high is trading at a point when you can get the highest return. You could trade Neifi Perez tomorrow for a B prospect and you'd be getting more than equal value, but that doesn't mean you traded high.

 

 

 

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons, and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.

[Tracer Bullet]

We'll just have to disagree on this point. In my world, trading a player for what he is currently worth isn't selling high, it's trading for equal value.

 

That's not trading high, that's fleecing somebody. Trading high is trading at a point when you can get the highest return. You could trade Neifi Perez tomorrow for a B prospect and you'd be getting more than equal value, but that doesn't mean you traded high.

 

Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else. Not every trade where one side pays more than a guy's actual value is a fleecing. And your Neifi example is irrelevant to the points I'm making; I've never suggested trading worthless players for good prospects. Trading JJ now or JP now would truly be "selling high" to me.

 

Besides, if you trade someone for a player of essentially equal value, you haven't improved your team (unless that player plays a position of need and you're trading from a position of excess). The Cubs don't have a lot of solid hitting Cs, so trading Barrett only improves the team if you get more than he's worth. I don't think you will.

 

 

 

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons, and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long. Given that many Cs caught in HS if not before, that's probably at least 5 if not 10+ years of catching that he hasn't done relative to other ML Cs. So my point still stands: the sharp decline at 30 that someone pointed out earlier may not apply here.

[goonys evil twin]

Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else.

 

Sell a stock that is worth $55 for $55, or wait for that stock to fall to $20 but manage to sell it at $30. The first option is selling high, the second option is just making the best of a bad situation.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

We'll just have to disagree on this point. In my world, trading a player for what he is currently worth isn't selling high, it's trading for equal value.

 

That's not trading high, that's fleecing somebody. Trading high is trading at a point when you can get the highest return. You could trade Neifi Perez tomorrow for a B prospect and you'd be getting more than equal value, but that doesn't mean you traded high.

 

Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else. Not every trade where one side pays more than a guy's actual value is a fleecing. And your Neifi example is irrelevant to the points I'm making; I've never suggested trading worthless players for good prospects. Trading JJ now or JP now would truly be "selling high" to me.

 

Besides, if you trade someone for a player of essentially equal value, you haven't improved your team (unless that player plays a position of need and you're trading from a position of excess). The Cubs don't have a lot of solid hitting Cs, so trading Barrett only improves the team if you get more than he's worth. I don't think you will.

 

 

 

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons, and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long. Given that many Cs caught in HS if not before, that's probably at least 5 if not 10+ years of catching that he hasn't done relative to other ML Cs. So my point still stands: the sharp decline at 30 that someone pointed out earlier may not apply here.

 

Is it possible for Barrett to decline much more from a defensive standpoint? He's not very good.

[goonys evil twin]

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons' date=' and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.[/quote']

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long.

 

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca.

[Tracer Bullet]

We'll just have to disagree on this point. In my world, trading a player for what he is currently worth isn't selling high, it's trading for equal value.

 

That's not trading high, that's fleecing somebody. Trading high is trading at a point when you can get the highest return. You could trade Neifi Perez tomorrow for a B prospect and you'd be getting more than equal value, but that doesn't mean you traded high.

 

Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else. Not every trade where one side pays more than a guy's actual value is a fleecing. And your Neifi example is irrelevant to the points I'm making; I've never suggested trading worthless players for good prospects. Trading JJ now or JP now would truly be "selling high" to me.

 

Besides, if you trade someone for a player of essentially equal value, you haven't improved your team (unless that player plays a position of need and you're trading from a position of excess). The Cubs don't have a lot of solid hitting Cs, so trading Barrett only improves the team if you get more than he's worth. I don't think you will.

 

 

 

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons, and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long. Given that many Cs caught in HS if not before, that's probably at least 5 if not 10+ years of catching that he hasn't done relative to other ML Cs. So my point still stands: the sharp decline at 30 that someone pointed out earlier may not apply here.

 

Is it possible for Barrett to decline much more from a defensive standpoint? He's not very good.

 

I was talking offense.

[Tracer Bullet]

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons' date=' and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.[/quote']

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long.

 

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca.

 

Blanco sucks - thus never plays. Lo Duca has less than 4 "full" seasons (more than 91 games) in his career. Neither of these guys really support your argument.

[Tracer Bullet]

Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else.

 

Sell a stock that is worth $55 for $55, or wait for that stock to fall to $20 but manage to sell it at $30. The first option is selling high, the second option is just making the best of a bad situation.

 

I don't like the comparison to stocks. I guess if we use dividends as an analogy for production, but it just doesn't work.

 

I want Barrett for 2-3 years b/c I think we could be good in that time and we don't have a replacement for him. Plus, I don't think we'll get much.

 

Frankly, your argument above is exactly my point. If we expect Barrett's production to drop in the next year, then trading him now is selling high. If you go back about 8 posts, this hypo was based on our assumption that Barrett's production was flat for 2-3 years. If you change the assumption, then whether it's selling high or not also changes. Trading something right before the value drops would be selling high. In terms of ball players, I think 2-3 years of production is enough lag time such that it's not selling high.

 

I'm ok w/ disagreeing w/ you about this. Really.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons' date=' and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.[/quote']

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long.

 

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca.

 

Blanco sucks - thus never plays. Lo Duca has less than 4 "full" seasons (more than 91 games) in his career. Neither of these guys really support your argument.

 

Blanco is considered one of the best defensive catchers in the game. His offense is the reason he does not play. His defensive prowess prevents any validity to the label of he "sucks".

[CUBZ99]

Does Toronto have enough young talent to get Barrett? I have no idea who their top prospects are.

 

If Hendry can get a great catching prospect and a couple of the Jays other top prospects I don't see why Hendry would not a least consider dealing Barrett. Barrett is a fine offensive player when he is on, but it would be nice to have a catcher that was avg. to above avg defensively.

 

I found it amazing that this offseason with all of the talk about upgrading in the field, they went into the season defensively deficient at arguably the most important position.

[NCCubFan]

Molina?

Do you mean Molina, Molina, or Molina? :lol: (Remember, there are three of them: Benji, Jose, and Yadier.)

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Molina, Lind, and Thigpen for Barrett?

[Guancous]

How about Barrett, Jacque Jones and Williamson or Dempster for Dioner Navarro and Carl Crawford?

[bhogg]

I wish the Cubs were built to withstand a bad offensive catcher; similar to Matheny's run with the Cards. Their offense was so good that it wasn't such a bad deal having Matheny hitting 8th every night.

 

I wish we could have held onto Miller. He had a bad 2003, but other than that year, he's been a .260 / 9 / 50 kind of guy and has always had the rep of being a good receiver.

[Tracer Bullet]

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons' date=' and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.[/quote']

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long.

 

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca.

 

Blanco sucks - thus never plays. Lo Duca has less than 4 "full" seasons (more than 91 games) in his career. Neither of these guys really support your argument.

 

Blanco is considered one of the best defensive catchers in the game. His offense is the reason he does not play. His defensive prowess prevents any validity to the label of he "sucks".

 

Well, I think his offense is so bad (until the last 2 weeks or so) that it outweighed whatever value he brought defensively. I don't think Blanco is a very good player and the fact that he's rarely been a starter does not support goony's argument about the number of innings that Barrett has played at C in his career. Is that better?

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

The "he's only been a catcher for a few years" disclaimer has got to stop. He's been a catcher his entire major league career. He's been a full-time catcher for 6 seasons' date=' and has racked up nearly 6000 inning behind the plate.[/quote']

 

Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long.

 

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca.

 

Blanco sucks - thus never plays. Lo Duca has less than 4 "full" seasons (more than 91 games) in his career. Neither of these guys really support your argument.

 

Blanco is considered one of the best defensive catchers in the game. His offense is the reason he does not play. His defensive prowess prevents any validity to the label of he "sucks".

 

Well, I think his offense is so bad (until the last 2 weeks or so) that it outweighed whatever value he brought defensively. I don't think Blanco is a very good player and the fact that he's rarely been a starter does not support goony's argument about the number of innings that Barrett has played at C in his career. Is that better?

 

So do you feel that Matheny, Yadier Molina, Ausmus, and even to a lesser extent Damian Miller are "not very good players"?

 

These are all guys not known for their hitting and even have the luxury of consistent at bats unlike Blanco.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

So do you feel that Matheny, Yadier Molina, Ausmus, and even to a lesser extent Damian Miller are "not very good players"?

 

Correct.

[imb]

Ok, let's see, Damian Miller might as well be a good player, a .790 ops at catcher is probably slightly better than average for a catcher, but Matheny, Molina and Ausmus are god awful. If you have a decent offense, you can hide them in the lineup and let them make their money on defense.

 

Having either of those three basically gives you two pitchers in the lineup.

[RonnieWooWooSanto]

Ok, let's see, Damian Miller might as well be a good player, a .790 ops at catcher is probably slightly better than average for a catcher, but Matheny, Molina and Ausmus are god awful. If you have a decent offense, you can hide them in the lineup and let them make their money on defense.

 

Having either of those three basically gives you two pitchers in the lineup.

 

Absolutely. And if Blanco were to start everyday somewhere he falls into that category with them. The younger the pitcing staff the better it is to have one of these guys catching.

[Tracer Bullet]

So do you feel that Matheny, Yadier Molina, Ausmus, and even to a lesser extent Damian Miller are "not very good players"?

 

These are all guys not known for their hitting and even have the luxury of consistent at bats unlike Blanco.

 

Essentially yes - they are not very good. Though Miller I think has been a bit better with the bat the other guys listed - I don't have time to check his stats though.

[biittner77]

GRCubsFan wrote:

 

I just don't think you'd get that much for Barrett right now (don't think teams see a C as the guy that gets them over the top) and I don't think we can afford to give away a .350 OBP from the C position (we don't have enough as it is - let alone one that plays C) if we intend to contend any time soon.

 

I don't understand your logic here. Barrett is too valuable to trade because we'd have a hard time replacing him but not valuable enough for a contender to want him?

 

Production from the Catching spot can very well be the difference between a good and great lineup. Therefore if Barrett really is available I'm sure there would be plenty of interest.

[Tracer Bullet]

I'm saying that most teams don't look at a productive C (unless it's Piazza in his prime) and say - now that's the bat that's going to win the division for me.

 

And I'm not saying he's too valuable to trade. Here's my point: I don't think we should trade Barrett unless we get a great offer b/c he's a good hitting C w/ a pretty good OBP (we don't have nearly enough guys w/ good OBP's) and b/c we don't have a solid backup. I think he's going to be about this good for at least 2-3 more years and I think with the right moves, we can be contending in that time. So it doesn't make sense (to me) to deal him unless we can really improve the team. Given the dropoff in offense from Barrett to whoever would take his place, we'd have to be getting back something pretty darn good to improve the team overall.