Trade Barrett?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

We have enough holes already. Why move one of the best offensive catchers in the game?

 

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move.

[badgercub]

Being a big Michael Barrett fan it pains me to even suggest this, but would it be in the best interest of the Cubs to trade him now while his value is sky high? I am not saying give him away for nothing or even actively shop him, but I would think he could bring a huge return on the market.

Thoughts?

 

We have enough holes already. Why move one of the best offensive catchers in the game? I realize his game calling and defense aren't stellar, but this team needs consistent bats.

 

That is what I am saying, we have bigger holes to fill so why not use Barrett to plug the BIGGER holes, for once as an organization let's sell high. Barrett is not the player that is going to lead a team to a championship, he is a good role player who will most likely start to see a decline in production relatively soon, and being a catcher that decline will be much sharper than other position players. I like Michael Barrett and think he is a good player, I wish the Cubs were in a position and had a strong enough team to not even think about trading him, but that isn't the case, they have so many other holes to fill and trading Barrett at his peak will give the Cubs the opportunity to fill those holes. I am not advocating trading him for peanuts but for max value.

[FadeToBolivia]

As for consisten bats, Barrett generally only plays 70% of the team's games. Which means he's not consistently in the lineup and you have to find the production elsewhere. I'd rather get similar production from a player that plays everyday.

 

So he's a full-time catcher who plays inconsistantly, yet plays consistently enough to decline early?

[goonys evil twin]

As for consisten bats, Barrett generally only plays 70% of the team's games. Which means he's not consistently in the lineup and you have to find the production elsewhere. I'd rather get similar production from a player that plays everyday.

 

So he's a full-time catcher who plays inconsistantly, yet plays consistently enough to decline early?

 

"Full-time" catcher isn't the same as a regular position player. They don't play everyday. It's exactly because of that beating their body takes.

[soccer10k]

And after we trade Barrett, we can trade DLee, ARam and Z.

 

Absolutely not. Keep Barrett.

[Backtobanks]

We have enough holes already. Why move one of the best offensive catchers in the game?

 

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move.

 

I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C.

[snoodmonger]

If the Cubs could net Abreu for Barrett, holy crap, do it. Offense with a catcher is a nice bonus...a big bat in the OF is beyond critical at this point.

 

Is Abreu even a better hitter than Barrett anymore? He's older, his OPS is way lower, and he's got 8 HR. and he plays a position where it's easier to find an impact bat. Personally, I don't see the benefit of pursuing a declining Abreu at the expense of one of our best players.

 

Given their positions, Abreu is likely to sustain his production longer than Barrett. Catchers are always the first to decline. And going into this year, Abreu was a consistent 120 or higher OPS+ hitter, and usually much higher. Barret was 105 and 113 going into this season. I'd bet Abreu outproduces Barret the next two years. Plus, Bobby plays everyday, Barrett doesn't, and MB may or may not have a negative defensive contribution. MB has 30% fewer plate appearances a year. Even if his rate stats are a little better, the overall contribution from Abreu would be significantly higher.

 

I don't think there could be a straight up deal. I think Philly would want an arm, but the Cubs could get more than Abreu for Barrett and an arm.

 

I wouldn't have a prob w/ trading Barrett...for the right price. I guess I'm not as high on Abreu anymore as a lot of people. His power has dropped considerably this year, and he might end up with his 3rd year out of four w/ a sub 900 ops. While I expect Barrett's OPS to drop next year, I think he'll match Bobby for the next year or two. So if we're going to deal him for a player at a traditional hitting position (OF), then I'd like to see us net an outfielder who outproduces him significantly.

[beowulf28]

If the Cubs could net Abreu for Barrett, holy crap, do it. Offense with a catcher is a nice bonus...a big bat in the OF is beyond critical at this point.

 

Is Abreu even a better hitter than Barrett anymore? He's older, his OPS is way lower, and he's got 8 HR. and he plays a position where it's easier to find an impact bat. Personally, I don't see the benefit of pursuing a declining Abreu at the expense of one of our best players.

 

Abreu has an OBP of .434, with 90 walks! Barrett's OBP is .391 (which is still great), but only 27 walks. Better patience than Barrett, or most anyone else on the team. Of course, Barrett and Abreu together on the Cubs would be preferable.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

We have enough holes already. Why move one of the best offensive catchers in the game?

 

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move.

 

I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C.

 

You probably don't get it because you're not reading the reasoning. Nobody is advocating trading Barrett or Aramis for "decent prospects or even a veteran OF". Barrett's value is at an all-time high and a deal should be explored if that deal makes the team better overall, plugging other holes as well as finding a suitable replacement behind the plate. If dealing Barrett and getting that talent in return takes this offense from pathetic to tolerable, that's a huge step in the right direction. Aramis should be dealt if there's strong evidence that he will opt out of his contract and go elsewhere. Losing him for nothing would be dumber than any trade we could make.

 

Having said that, there is nobody within the entire Cubs organization that should be 100% off limits. There is nobody in baseball that should be considered untouchable. Any player should be available for the right price.

[snoodmonger]

If the Cubs could net Abreu for Barrett, holy crap, do it. Offense with a catcher is a nice bonus...a big bat in the OF is beyond critical at this point.

 

Is Abreu even a better hitter than Barrett anymore? He's older, his OPS is way lower, and he's got 8 HR. and he plays a position where it's easier to find an impact bat. Personally, I don't see the benefit of pursuing a declining Abreu at the expense of one of our best players.

 

Abreu has an OBP of .434, with 90 walks! Barrett's OBP is .391 (which is still great), but only 27 walks. Better patience than Barrett, or most anyone else on the team. Of course, Barrett and Abreu together on the Cubs would be preferable.

 

I understand he's got a great OBP. And while I'm a huge OBP fan, I'm pf the opinion you want a decent SLG from your corner OF. I happen to think Abreu's lack of pop is the sign of a downward trend. Don't get me wrong; I'd take him. Just not at the expense of a player who's posting a better OPS than him from a non-offensive position.

[beowulf28]

If the Cubs could net Abreu for Barrett, holy crap, do it. Offense with a catcher is a nice bonus...a big bat in the OF is beyond critical at this point.

 

Is Abreu even a better hitter than Barrett anymore? He's older, his OPS is way lower, and he's got 8 HR. and he plays a position where it's easier to find an impact bat. Personally, I don't see the benefit of pursuing a declining Abreu at the expense of one of our best players.

 

Abreu has an OBP of .434, with 90 walks! Barrett's OBP is .391 (which is still great), but only 27 walks. Better patience than Barrett, or most anyone else on the team. Of course, Barrett and Abreu together on the Cubs would be preferable.

 

I understand he's got a great OBP. And while I'm a huge OBP fan, I'm pf the opinion you want a decent SLG from your corner OF. I happen to think Abreu's lack of pop is the sign of a downward trend. Don't get me wrong; I'd take him. Just not at the expense of a player who's posting a better OPS than him from a non-offensive position.

 

You're right. His SLG and OPS are down from last year. What is a good SLG and OPS? I'm newer at the stats game, but I understand the importance of OBP! But the other two are important as well.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

You're right. His SLG and OPS are down from last year. What is a good SLG and OPS? I'm newer at the stats game, but I understand the importance of OBP! But the other two are important as well.

 

Quite obviously the higher the better, but SLG over 500 is generally pretty good. If coupled with a good OBP, the OPS will be 900+. A 900 OPS will put you in the top 10 of outfielders.

 

Comparison:

Jacque Jones - 313 OBP, 497 SLG -- 810 OPS

Bobby Abreu - 430 OBP, 440 SLG -- 870 OPS

 

Abreu has taken a hit in SLG this year, but his OBP is 25 points higher than last year making the OPS difference a lot smaller. If you can't do both well, you better be pretty darn good at one of them. Abreu's been outstanding with OBP and a little below average with SLG. Overall, he's still top 15.

[Backtobanks]

We have enough holes already. Why move one of the best offensive catchers in the game?

 

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move.

 

I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C.

 

You probably don't get it because you're not reading the reasoning. Nobody is advocating trading Barrett or Aramis for "decent prospects or even a veteran OF". Barrett's value is at an all-time high and a deal should be explored if that deal makes the team better overall, plugging other holes as well as finding a suitable replacement behind the plate. If dealing Barrett and getting that talent in return takes this offense from pathetic to tolerable, that's a huge step in the right direction. Aramis should be dealt if there's strong evidence that he will opt out of his contract and go elsewhere. Losing him for nothing would be dumber than any trade we could make.

 

Having said that, there is nobody within the entire Cubs organization that should be 100% off limits. There is nobody in baseball that should be considered untouchable. Any player should be available for the right price.

 

I worry about some posters wanting to make trades just for the sake of making a trade. A lot of these top prospects mentioned make us drool at the thought of getting them, but let's not forget that they're still "prospects". I agree that nobody is untouchable, but it would take a real knock-your-socks-off deal for me to trade Barrett or ARam.

[imb]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

[SouthSideRyan]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

 

I think it's important to note that Barrett isn't just hitting good for a catcher, he's doing pretty well for a 1B or corner OF right now.

[goonys evil twin]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

 

Top hitting catchers have drawn significant interest in the past. Maybe nobody feels the need to upgrade that position right now, but your comparison to tallest midget is absurd. 900+ OPS is a 900+ OPS. There is a wide disparity in catcher production across the league, with just as many teams getting over 800 OPS as teams getting under 700.

[badgercub]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

 

And noone in this thread has said anything about giving him away for nothing, we are just saying it is something that should be explored if you can get the right deal, how hard of a concept is that to grasp?

[Backtobanks]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

 

And noone in this thread has said anything about giving him away for nothing, we are just saying it is something that should be explored if you can get the right deal, how hard of a concept is that to grasp?

 

Of course, the key words are "if you can get the right deal". Whether it is "the right deal" is what makes all of this speculation so much fun. Also, everyone's opinion of "the right deal" is different and we all worry about the only opinion that counts.....Hendry's.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

 

It's nothing like that. Being a great hitting catcher makes that player more valuable because they are more rare.

[ChiCubsFan]

Being a great hitting catcher is like being a tall midget. No one needs him bad enough to give us enough value to make it worth our while.

 

It's nothing like that. Being a great hitting catcher makes that player more valuable because they are more rare.

 

I agree. Being a great hitter makes you valuable, but being a great hitter at a tough postition to find hitting at (i.e. Catcher, 2b, SS) makes you MUCH MORE valuable.

[NorthsideAvenger]

If the Cubs could net Abreu for Barrett, holy crap, do it. Offense with a catcher is a nice bonus...a big bat in the OF is beyond critical at this point.

 

Is Abreu even a better hitter than Barrett anymore? He's older, his OPS is way lower, and he's got 8 HR. and he plays a position where it's easier to find an impact bat. Personally, I don't see the benefit of pursuing a declining Abreu at the expense of one of our best players.

 

Given their positions, Abreu is likely to sustain his production longer than Barrett. Catchers are always the first to decline. And going into this year, Abreu was a consistent 120 or higher OPS+ hitter, and usually much higher. Barret was 105 and 113 going into this season. I'd bet Abreu outproduces Barret the next two years. Plus, Bobby plays everyday, Barrett doesn't, and MB may or may not have a negative defensive contribution. MB has 30% fewer plate appearances a year. Even if his rate stats are a little better, the overall contribution from Abreu would be significantly higher.

 

I don't think there could be a straight up deal. I think Philly would want an arm, but the Cubs could get more than Abreu for Barrett and an arm.

 

I wouldn't have a prob w/ trading Barrett...for the right price. I guess I'm not as high on Abreu anymore as a lot of people. His power has dropped considerably this year, and he might end up with his 3rd year out of four w/ a sub 900 ops. While I expect Barrett's OPS to drop next year, I think he'll match Bobby for the next year or two. So if we're going to deal him for a player at a traditional hitting position (OF), then I'd like to see us net an outfielder who outproduces him significantly.

 

What's more disturbing about Abreu's declining power, is that he PLAYS at a homerun haven in Philly, and still only has put like 14 homeruns in over 590 at bats since ASB 2005. That is roughly a homerun ever 42 at-bats....For $15 million next yr, and Michael Barrett, that simply won't due. I like Abreu, but as of 2006, he is awfully expensive #2 hitter.

[UMFan83]

If the Cubs trade Barrett, I'd like a Boof Bonser, Francisco Liriano, and a Joe Nathan please.

[imb]

Yeah, he's a great hitting catcher. Exactly what team is so desperate for a great hitting catcher that they would give us something that would make starting Blanco 140 times a season worthwhile?

 

If someone wants to blow the Cubs away with an offer, then by all means, do it. Hell, someone wants to blow the Cubs away with an offer for Lee, Aramis or Zambrano, go for it.

[soccer10k]

We have enough holes already. Why move one of the best offensive catchers in the game?

 

To potentially plug some of those holes, that's why. Barrett's trade value is likely as high as it will ever be. If dealing him can plug 2 holes and an adequate replacement could be found to take his spot, it would be a great move.

 

I don't get it the Cubs offense stinks and people are suggesting trading Barrett and ARam. Yes, we might get back some decent prospects or even a veteran OF, but you need to take into consideration that it is much harder finding decent replacements at C and 3B than the OF. For the Cubs to consider a trade of ARam or Barrett, they would need to have Cabrera, ARod, or many can't-miss prospects including a 3B and C.

 

You probably don't get it because you're not reading the reasoning. Nobody is advocating trading Barrett or Aramis for "decent prospects or even a veteran OF". Barrett's value is at an all-time high and a deal should be explored if that deal makes the team better overall, plugging other holes as well as finding a suitable replacement behind the plate. If dealing Barrett and getting that talent in return takes this offense from pathetic to tolerable, that's a huge step in the right direction. Aramis should be dealt if there's strong evidence that he will opt out of his contract and go elsewhere. Losing him for nothing would be dumber than any trade we could make.

 

Having said that, there is nobody within the entire Cubs organization that should be 100% off limits. There is nobody in baseball that should be considered untouchable. Any player should be available for the right price.

 

I worry about some posters wanting to make trades just for the sake of making a trade. A lot of these top prospects mentioned make us drool at the thought of getting them, but let's not forget that they're still "prospects". I agree that nobody is untouchable, but it would take a real knock-your-socks-off deal for me to trade Barrett or ARam.

 

Include DLee and Z in there for me.

[katway]

Barrett is a great hitting catcher, but he's not a great catcher (he has a lot of room for improvement in defense, handling pitchers, etc.). If someone did approach the Cubs with a good offer, they'd have to consider it because his hitting may not be replaceable from the catcher position, but the rest of his game is easily replaceable.

 

in any event, there really aren't contenders that may need a catcher. The only team that comes to mind is Texas, but they already have enough hitting elsewhere in the lineup.