Baseball Prospectus on the Barrett trade

[windycityfan]

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but here's a link to an article from Baseball Prospectus on the Barrett trade - but more importantly, on Jim Hendry's decision making (by the way, nothing that we don't know of).

 

While the argument stands that this trade may hurt the team this year and in the future, Koyie Hill and Rob Bowen have filled in just fine so far and the lineup has picked up elsewhere.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=426

[killthegoat06]

Team chemistry seems to have improved (basing this simply on the fact that they are playing much better)

[Warren Brusstar]

Team chemistry seems to have improved (basing this simply on the fact that they are playing much better)

 

Correlation does not equal causation

[killthegoat06]

Team chemistry seems to have improved (basing this simply on the fact that they are playing much better)

 

Correlation does not equal causation

I know, but I like to think postively whenever I can.

[jersey cubs fan]

But the Cubs, partly because they don’t understand sample sizes, will take the same set of facts and circumstances and come up with a different answer on Wednesday than they did on Tuesday.

 

Oh so very true.

 

Dempster blew a save today, send him to the rotation.

 

Colvin hit 2 HR the day Hendry showed up, promote him.

 

Over and over they've shown a wishy washy approach to decisions. They let one event overwhelm the longterm trends when making decisions.

[Amazing_Grace]

Scathingly accurate. Buy high, sell low. That's how you end up having to spend 100M just to field a team that's good enough to hover around the .500 mark.

[Amazing_Grace]

Team chemistry seems to have improved (basing this simply on the fact that they are playing much better)

 

Correlation does not equal causation

I know, but I like to think postively whenever I can.

 

Yeah, you'll grow out of that.

[windycityfan]

Scathingly accurate. Buy high, sell low. That's how you end up having to spend 100M just to field a team that's good enough to hover around the .500 mark.

 

The applicable concept here is diminishing marginal returns. Overspending for such crappy production leaves you with no choice but driving those players into the ground until they become sunk costs.

 

Simply economics Jimbo. Get it. Better yet, clear up your office and just drift off into oblivion.

[TheDude]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

[Soriano12]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

 

oh for crying out loud....did you even read the article.

[Bruno7481]

Silver says that the Cubs have selled low in many cases and brings up Hee Seop Choi as an example. Excuse me? How did the Cubs sell low on Choi? Too bad all they could get was Derrek Lee in that deal.

 

He also uses Bellhorn as an example, and Patterson. I'm not losing sleep at night over losing them either.

 

I agree that Hendry sends guys out and doesn't do enough to make sure he gets a decent return. So I agree with the premise of the article. But in all the examples he uses, I wouldn't necesarilly want any of those guys back on the team right now.

[jersey cubs fan]

Silver says that the Cubs have selled low in many cases and brings up Hee Seop Choi as an example. Excuse me? How did the Cubs sell low on Choi? Too bad all they could get was Derrek Lee in that deal.

 

He also uses Bellhorn as an example, and Patterson. I'm not losing sleep at night over losing them either.

 

I agree that Hendry sends guys out and doesn't do enough to make sure he gets a decent return. So I agree with the premise of the article. But in all the examples he uses, I wouldn't necesarilly want any of those guys back on the team right now.

 

That doesn't mean he didn't sell low, Patterson especially.

[Bruno7481]

Silver says that the Cubs have selled low in many cases and brings up Hee Seop Choi as an example. Excuse me? How did the Cubs sell low on Choi? Too bad all they could get was Derrek Lee in that deal.

 

He also uses Bellhorn as an example, and Patterson. I'm not losing sleep at night over losing them either.

 

I agree that Hendry sends guys out and doesn't do enough to make sure he gets a decent return. So I agree with the premise of the article. But in all the examples he uses, I wouldn't necesarilly want any of those guys back on the team right now.

 

That doesn't mean he didn't sell low, Patterson especially.

 

Maybe Hendry, and other GM's just knew how limited Patterson's ability actually was.

[CubColtPacer]

Silver says that the Cubs have selled low in many cases and brings up Hee Seop Choi as an example. Excuse me? How did the Cubs sell low on Choi? Too bad all they could get was Derrek Lee in that deal.

 

He also uses Bellhorn as an example, and Patterson. I'm not losing sleep at night over losing them either.

 

I agree that Hendry sends guys out and doesn't do enough to make sure he gets a decent return. So I agree with the premise of the article. But in all the examples he uses, I wouldn't necesarilly want any of those guys back on the team right now.

 

Yeah-he says that the only player the Cubs got back in the Bellhorn, Patterson, Sosa, and Walker deals is Fontenot. However, what he fails to say is that Bellhorn is out of the league, Patterson is the worst OF in the major leagues this year, Walker is out of the league, and Sosa is only back in the league after taking a year off. Two of those players were run out of town because the city hated them (Sosa and Patterson), and the other two are probably the organization's fault, although Walker being in his walk year and not being great last year probably did more to depress his value than anything the club did.

 

His next paragraph is also confusing. Soriano's defense was never the problem-for right or wrong, the Cubs felt it was his offense that was suffering because of the position change, and have not changed in that decision. Pie was not supposed to be up for good the first time he came up, so I do not know why the writer would say that the Cubs determined he was ready and then decided he wasn't ready.

 

For all the problems in the article, the overall point is true. The Cubs try one thing, and then at the first sign of trouble move on to the next thing. They need to be more patient overall if they plan to have sustained success. The author makes a very good point, he just doesn't use great examples to support it.

[davearm]

This thread is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. People bashing Hendry for selling low.

 

Seems to me that in the days and weeks leading up to the particular trades being cited (Sosa, Patterson, Barrett, and now Jones), people couldn't wait to be rid of these guys, and they were trashing Hendry for some perceived unwillingness to admit a mistake and move on.

 

How many "just DFA him already Jim" posts have we all read, anyway? It's countless.

 

So a guy's going bad and bringing the team down. (Sh)it happens. So what to do about it?

 

Option A: Sell low.

Option B: Continue running the guy out there and costing the team wins, hoping against hope that things will someday turn around.

Option C: Continue paying the guy to rot at the end of the bench, and play with a 24-man roster.

 

Hmm, suddenly selling low seems pretty smart to me.

[CUBZ99]

Silver says that the Cubs have selled low in many cases and brings up Hee Seop Choi as an example. Excuse me? How did the Cubs sell low on Choi? Too bad all they could get was Derrek Lee in that deal.

 

He also uses Bellhorn as an example, and Patterson. I'm not losing sleep at night over losing them either.

 

I agree that Hendry sends guys out and doesn't do enough to make sure he gets a decent return. So I agree with the premise of the article. But in all the examples he uses, I wouldn't necesarilly want any of those guys back on the team right now.

 

That doesn't mean he didn't sell low, Patterson especially.

 

The biggest problem I have with the article, is the commentary regarding changes in philosophy too quickly. Part of the reason the Cubs have been terrible for so many years was the inability for upper management to make changes or adapt. Dusty's regime was the perfect example of why it isn't always a good thing to stick to your plan regardless of how your plan is working. Dusty continued to play vets for much too long regardless of their ability, simply because he believed Vets game him the best chance to win. It is ignorant to have a plan and stick to it, just because you thought it was a good idea at the time.

 

Now under Lou, we are starting to see that a player's perfromance actually does matter. Michael Barrett was not performing this year, plain and simple. It would be one thing if the guy was defensively adaquate, but he wasn't. Same with Jacque Jones. I would rather the Cubs play their best players in an attempt to win every game on their schedule rather than play a guy simply to drive up his trade value.

 

There are also many examples of times Hendry sold high. I.E. Beltran, Hill, Bruback, Damien Miller, Choi, Harris.

[davearm]

Silver says that the Cubs have selled low in many cases and brings up Hee Seop Choi as an example. Excuse me? How did the Cubs sell low on Choi? Too bad all they could get was Derrek Lee in that deal.

 

He also uses Bellhorn as an example, and Patterson. I'm not losing sleep at night over losing them either.

 

I agree that Hendry sends guys out and doesn't do enough to make sure he gets a decent return. So I agree with the premise of the article. But in all the examples he uses, I wouldn't necesarilly want any of those guys back on the team right now.

 

Yeah-he says that the only player the Cubs got back in the Bellhorn, Patterson, Sosa, and Walker deals is Fontenot. However, what he fails to say is that Bellhorn is out of the league, Patterson is the worst OF in the major leagues this year, Walker is out of the league, and Sosa is only back in the league after taking a year off. Two of those players were run out of town because the city hated them (Sosa and Patterson), and the other two are probably the organization's fault, although Walker being in his walk year and not being great last year probably did more to depress his value than anything the club did.

 

His next paragraph is also confusing. Soriano's defense was never the problem-for right or wrong, the Cubs felt it was his offense that was suffering because of the position change, and have not changed in that decision. Pie was not supposed to be up for good the first time he came up, so I do not know why the writer would say that the Cubs determined he was ready and then decided he wasn't ready.

 

For all the problems in the article, the overall point is true. The Cubs try one thing, and then at the first sign of trouble move on to the next thing. They need to be more patient overall if they plan to have sustained success. The author makes a very good point, he just doesn't use great examples to support it.

Of course that begs the question, how much patience is appropriate?

 

When does watching the same guy make the same mistakes again and again morph from "being patient" into "refusing to admit a problem"?

[SCCubbieFAN]

The article does appear to be contradictory, and some of the examples aren't very good. However, in regard to the point about selling low, I feel the author is saying that the time to deal these players is when their value or perceived value is high because of a high ceiling, as in Patterson's case, or when a player is producing above expectations, as in the case of Jones. Don't wait till they tank horribly and then try to sell when their value has plummeted.

[TheDude]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

 

oh for crying out loud....did you even read the article.

 

Yes, absolutely. He makes a point to note that the Cubs waited until Barret's value was at his lowest to trade him, which is completely a hindsight argument.

 

In the offseason, when his value was high, there was no need or desire to trade him. Trading him at his highest value wasn't in anyone's thoughts. So its a nonsensical argument.

 

The other notable names in his article (aside from Sosa) are people who have bounced around baseball, playing for numerous teams, and not sticking with any of them for more than 2 years. How much value do these career journeyman have anyway? Has any team received real value in trading for guys like Walker or Bellhorn?

[Chocolate Milk]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

 

oh for crying out loud....did you even read the article.

 

Yes, absolutely. He makes a point to note that the Cubs waited until Barret's value was at his lowest to trade him, which is completely a hindsight argument.

 

In the offseason, when his value was high, there was no need or desire to trade him. Trading him at his highest value wasn't in anyone's thoughts. So its a nonsensical argument.

 

Hendry said after he traded Barrett that he wanted to go to a more defensive minded catcher. He suddenly decided that a quarter of the way through the season? If he really wanted a defensive minded catcher he could have dealt Barrett in the offseason at his highest possible value. Everyone knew what Barrett was. Nothing changed this season other than a downtick in his offensive production. The guy was a below average defensive catcher his entire career. Nothing changed.

 

Of course, we all know that Hendry didn't want a defensive minded catcher as much as he just wanted to dump Barrett. So, yes, this is a perfect example of Hendry being wishy washy and trading someone at their lowest possible value.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Chocolate Milk

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Bellhorn ultimately resulted in Aramis

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

 

oh for crying out loud....did you even read the article.

 

Yes, absolutely. He makes a point to note that the Cubs waited until Barret's value was at his lowest to trade him, which is completely a hindsight argument.

 

In the offseason, when his value was high, there was no need or desire to trade him. Trading him at his highest value wasn't in anyone's thoughts. So its a nonsensical argument.

 

That's true only if you assume it's impossible for Barrett's value to go up ever again.

[Amazing_Grace]

This thread is hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. People bashing Hendry for selling low.

 

Seems to me that in the days and weeks leading up to the particular trades being cited (Sosa, Patterson, Barrett, and now Jones), people couldn't wait to be rid of these guys, and they were trashing Hendry for some perceived unwillingness to admit a mistake and move on.

 

How many "just DFA him already Jim" posts have we all read, anyway? It's countless.

 

So a guy's going bad and bringing the team down. (Sh)it happens. So what to do about it?

 

Option A: Sell low.

Option B: Continue running the guy out there and costing the team wins, hoping against hope that things will someday turn around.

Option C: Continue paying the guy to rot at the end of the bench, and play with a 24-man roster.

 

Hmm, suddenly selling low seems pretty smart to me.

 

But, if he hadn't given them a stupid contract to begin with, he wouldn't wind up in this position over and over again. Hendry, and Lynch before him, overpay for mediocre players and then have to unload them for peanuts because nobody wants to pay their contracts. He, and Ed Lynch before him, allow rookies to sit on the bench or be yo yoed back and forth from Iowa to the majors until whatever trade value they had as prospects is gone over fear that they will become superstars for someone else.

 

Let's not act as if it wasn't Hendry's fault that he's in the position he's in. Nearly everyone here said the Jones contract was bad when Jones signed it. That's not hindsight. Nearly everyone said he should be traded last offseason when he was coming off a career year and his value was as high as it was ever going to be. That's not hindsight.

 

Hendry has occasionally sold high, with prospects that didn't pan out like Hill and Harris, but on the whole, his pattern has been one of trading players too late.

[Soriano12]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

 

oh for crying out loud....did you even read the article.

 

Yes, absolutely. He makes a point to note that the Cubs waited until Barret's value was at his lowest to trade him, which is completely a hindsight argument.

 

In the offseason, when his value was high, there was no need or desire to trade him. Trading him at his highest value wasn't in anyone's thoughts. So its a nonsensical argument.

 

The other notable names in his article (aside from Sosa) are people who have bounced around baseball, playing for numerous teams, and not sticking with any of them for more than 2 years. How much value do these career journeyman have anyway? Has any team received real value in trading for guys like Walker or Bellhorn?

 

That still doesn't change the fact that Barrett was incorrectly sold low, mainly because they decided to make him a scapegoat for this teams struggles.

[Rob]

That's as fine a piece of hindsight equals 20/20 as I've ever seen.

 

oh for crying out loud....did you even read the article.

 

Yes, absolutely. He makes a point to note that the Cubs waited until Barret's value was at his lowest to trade him, which is completely a hindsight argument.

 

In the offseason, when his value was high, there was no need or desire to trade him. Trading him at his highest value wasn't in anyone's thoughts. So its a nonsensical argument.

 

The other notable names in his article (aside from Sosa) are people who have bounced around baseball, playing for numerous teams, and not sticking with any of them for more than 2 years. How much value do these career journeyman have anyway? Has any team received real value in trading for guys like Walker or Bellhorn?

 

Barrett is a catcher on the wrong side of 30. Given that, there was quite a risk of offensive implosion. While I probably wouldn't have traded Barrett in Hendry's shoes, I would have certainly thought about packaging him with Jacque and Eyre (whose values were certainly about to crash, as they had shown no ability to keep that level of performance up) to see if I could get an upgrade at SS or RF.

 

At any rate, Bellhorn was an extremely valuable part of the Red Sox in 2004. He hit .264/.373/.444 for the team that won the WS. I'd say he has pretty decent value.