Baseball Prospectus on the Barrett trade

[jjgman21]

the problem with this article and this thread is it makes me do something tremendously unpalatble, write a post that is mistaken as a defense of Hendry when it is really nothing of the sort.

 

just because something is written about a subject you feel strongly about, in this case the ineptitude of Jim Hendry, does not mean it makes a tenable argument or uses defensible facts or opinions.

 

contrary to the myth that has been created on here, an organization rarely has anything to do with lowering the value of a player or scapegoating a player. the accusation is simply absurd. I don't even know why it's a point of discussion. a players value going down is due to the production of a player and magnification of said production by the media covering, and fanbase of, the team.

 

Bellhorn shouldn't have been benched in favor of Lenny Harris, but that doesn't mean running him out there everyday would have increased his value in anyway. he went on to do even worse in Colorado.

 

the one example of when this happened, and one of the players mentioned, was Sosa, and as I have had to explain a couple times in the past couple of weeks, the trade of Sosa was simply brilliant. the organization adding to the trashing of the player was exactly what was needed to get him to opt out of the auto vesting clause of his contract. it turned out to not be of much benefit, but getting out of 18M in dead weight was simply brilliant.

 

 

as has been said, few teams trade high. Schuerholz has a knack for it. few others do. occassionally a GM gets lucky, but there aren't too many great examples of 'selling high' out there. saying Mulder and Hudson were traded at maximum value is an absolute joke. they were traded after the year in which their ERA+ dropped 30 and 25 points respectively.

 

the only player discussed in my opinion that gives this theory any credence is Patterson. his flaws were obvious, but he still had very good stats as late as August of 2004, so he probably could have been dealt after that season and fetched something decent. they didn't, and he fell on his face. it's not the first time a young player didn't live up to his supposed potential. but to think he could have fetched anything other than a marginal major leaguer if he were traded earlier is nonsense.

 

the soon to be Jacque Jones accusation is a rather silly example as well. now of course this is a Hendry created problem because the third year of the contract was ridiculous (a two year deal with the Cubs should have been plenty to keep him from a two year deal with KC). but as others have mentioned, by all accounts, Hendry did everything he could to ship Jones out in the offseason. and again, as we see at this very website, it is not the organization, but the media and the fanbase that is crucifying Jacque Jones, as if his poor production weren't enough to tell other teams that the Cubs want to get rid of him.

 

Walker? why is he even mentioned in the article?

 

 

 

Jim Hendry is bad and the organization still has 'fear of repeating Lou Brock' syndrome. that might not make a good article, but neither does that drivel posted on BP.

[weis21]

It's easy after a player struggles and loses trade value to say we should have traded him when his value was highest. But it was because he was performing so well that he got the contract or the playing time.

 

Hendry didn't trade barrett this past offseason because he put up great offensive numbers. Lou didn't demand him being traded because he probably thought his offensive contributions would outweigh his defensive short comings. In the end they didn't and he was dealt, which has worked out well so far(coincidence or not).

 

Hendry has made some good trades and some bad ones. No, or at least very few, GM's have an immaculate record. I'm not a Hendry supporter, he has huge flaws such as the contracts he gives out (both money and length) for marginal talent needed at the time to fill holes and not stressing enough stats such as OBP enough. I think this team would and will do better in the future with another GM, but I disagree with the analysis of this particular article.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Barrett got off to an awful start offensively, but he was clearly not a good bet to continue to be that bad. He was having some terrible luck BABIP-wise, and at the time of the trade this was his line in June: .302/.370/.476.

[CubColtPacer]

Barrett got off to an awful start offensively, but he was clearly not a good bet to continue to be that bad. He was having some terrible luck BABIP-wise, and at the time of the trade this was his line in June: .302/.370/.476.

 

In 43 June at-bats. Now his line looks like this in June-.277/.319/.400. So the Cubs might have actually traded him at higher value. If they had waited a few weeks like one poster suggested and he turned cold again (like he has right now for the Padres) that simply further depresses his trade value.

[Chocolate Milk]

this is just silly. you take a statement you know is just PR and use it as evidence that Hendry is wishy washy.

 

I understand where you are coming from with the rest of your post, but this I don't understand. How is this just a "PR statement?" (by which I am assuming you don't think it is valid). Lou obviously wanted a defensive minded catcher, Barrett isn't a good defensive catcher, and Hendry proceeded to trade Barrett for a defensive minded catcher. It's not a PR statement, it's the truth. They traded Barrett because of his defense. I think it's clear that's the case considering that the Cubs are now trotting out two defensive minded catchers who can't hit.

 

You might not agree with me here but I believe the two main reasons that Barrett were traded were his defense #1, and to a lesser extent his contract #2.

 

I think that defense is largely subjective. I also think that the perception of Barrett's defense is largely tied to the way he was swinging the bat at the time. He had a few extra passed balls this year but I don't think that largely changed what he was defensively, which was bad. He was bad before the season and he was bad during the season. I don't think it should have been a surprise to anyone with the Cubs that he would struggle behind the plate.

 

His contract wasn't going to be renewed. I'm speculating here, but I don't think they had any plans to resign him after this year. Considering how fast they soured on him, I don't think I'm wrong. I think they hoped to get another good season out of him and then offer him arbitration at the end of the year which he would have obviously turned down. His contract situation made it easy to justify trading him.

 

I think his offensive struggles were an afterthought. He was still slugging well but his average was down. That dragged down his OBP. This was largely due to his BABIP which was about .030 lower than it had been the last 3 years. He was unlucky. The guy was batting cleanup up until he got traded so that says to me that they thought he would eventually come around. Not only that, the two catchers they are trotting out there now aren't good offensive players. If offense was the issue, Soto would probably be up right now. Offense wasn't the issue, defense was.

 

In any event, I think Hendry botched the Barrett thing. In my opinion, the two major factors in the trade, his defense and contract status, didn't fundamentally change during the season. His offensive production did change and that's what drove his value down, but that wasn't a major factor in his departure. Lou always wanted a defensive minded catcher. Knowing this, in my opinion, Hendry should have moved Barrett before the season when his value was higher. I think he underestimated how Lou felt about defense from the catcher position, and that's Hendry's fault. He didn't know what was wanted before the season started so he ended up selling a catcher when his best attribute was the lowest it had been in years.

[Chocolate Milk]

Barrett got off to an awful start offensively, but he was clearly not a good bet to continue to be that bad. He was having some terrible luck BABIP-wise, and at the time of the trade this was his line in June: .302/.370/.476.

 

In 43 June at-bats. Now his line looks like this in June-.277/.319/.400. So the Cubs might have actually traded him at higher value. If they had waited a few weeks like one poster suggested and he turned cold again (like he has right now for the Padres) that simply further depresses his trade value.

 

This is hindsight. At the time of the trade, his offense was improving. The Cubs didn't have any reason to beleive that he would all of the sudden slump again. To think that they should be commended for trading him because they somehow saw a slump coming, is silly.

[CubColtPacer]

Barrett got off to an awful start offensively, but he was clearly not a good bet to continue to be that bad. He was having some terrible luck BABIP-wise, and at the time of the trade this was his line in June: .302/.370/.476.

 

In 43 June at-bats. Now his line looks like this in June-.277/.319/.400. So the Cubs might have actually traded him at higher value. If they had waited a few weeks like one poster suggested and he turned cold again (like he has right now for the Padres) that simply further depresses his trade value.

 

This is hindsight. At the time of the trade, his offense was improving. The Cubs didn't have any reason to beleive that he would all of the sudden slump again. To think that they should be commended for trading him because they somehow saw a slump coming, is silly.

 

Which is exactly what the article is doing by saying the Cubs traded these players too late-hindsight. There was no reason to believe that Sosa would fall as far as he did so fast and lose the city, or that Patterson would suddenly do worse at 25 than he did even at 22, or that Walker's offense would drop like it did. He blames the Cubs for waiting to sell until after their dropoff, which is quite a bit of hindsight.

[Chocolate Milk]

Barrett got off to an awful start offensively, but he was clearly not a good bet to continue to be that bad. He was having some terrible luck BABIP-wise, and at the time of the trade this was his line in June: .302/.370/.476.

 

In 43 June at-bats. Now his line looks like this in June-.277/.319/.400. So the Cubs might have actually traded him at higher value. If they had waited a few weeks like one poster suggested and he turned cold again (like he has right now for the Padres) that simply further depresses his trade value.

 

This is hindsight. At the time of the trade, his offense was improving. The Cubs didn't have any reason to beleive that he would all of the sudden slump again. To think that they should be commended for trading him because they somehow saw a slump coming, is silly.

 

Which is exactly what the article is doing by saying the Cubs traded these players too late-hindsight. There was no reason to believe that Sosa would fall as far as he did so fast and lose the city, or that Patterson would suddenly do worse at 25 than he did even at 22, or that Walker's offense would drop like it did. He blames the Cubs for waiting to sell until after their dropoff, which is quite a bit of hindsight.

 

Huh? Read above if you want my take on the Barrett trade. The rest of the guys, I couldn't care less about.

[Careless]

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.

 

 

Your mistake is thinking that gooney is sunnydo and oldcubsfan is jon.

[Amazing_Grace]

Hundley trade: All you can say is that it was dumb luck? You have to give him credit for it, and Grudzelanek had good years after the trade. That was good scouting and finding good fits for the team.

 

Nomar trade: Again, you're trying to take away any credit Hendry gets for assembling that trade at the last minute. That trade didn't fall in his lap like you suggest. Not to mention he also picked up Murton, who will most likely have a better major league career than any of the other prospects.

 

Getting LaTroy Hawkins for anything at that point should be considered a success, especially two young pitchers with a lot of upside.

 

Randall Simon: Bit players like him really shouldn't factor into the question, but he was a good pinch hitter down the stretch. I don't remember giving up anything significant to get him.

 

Pierre was a terrible trade.

 

Maddux was a bad trade, although we really weren't going to get much for him regardless.

 

Barrett trade was a result of unfortunate events, but is it really worth waiting a month to see if his offensive numbers pick up when everyone could see how much he was struggling mentally? He's in the last year of his contract and he's a 31 year old catcher. The Cubs are trying to salvage their season, and it would be equally bad if Hendry kept an unhappy player with no long term future on the team with the hope of getting a better prospect.

 

I suppose I ought to clarify what I mean by, "good". For a trade to be good in terms of the GM's skill, I would say it has to

1.) Improve the team either over the short or long term.

and

2.) Maximize the value received for said player by trading at the proper time or a time when his value is decent or high relative to other points where he could be traded in the past or future (future expectations being based on statistical evidence).

and

3.) Be initiated by the GM or GMs specifically to improve the team, not foisted upon him by other circumstances, in which case we might discuss a trade as being good under the circumstances, or making the best of a bad situation, or getting lucky.

and

4.) Be based upon solid statistical (or scouting in the case of prospects) evidence available at the time that the player or players in question would benefit the team over the short or long-term.

 

In my view, the Hundley trade fails both 2, 3, and 4. The Hawkins trade fails 4 and 3. Note, that this does not make them "bad", but merely "not good". The Nomar trade was probably a good trade. I'll concede that point.

 

By similar token, a bad trade is one where either

 

1.) The players acquired cannot be reasonably expected to make the team better at any point in the future based on statistical (or scouting in the case of prospects) evidence available at the time, and the players traded are likelier to improve the team than those acquired.

or

2.) The player traded was traded at such a time that his value, as would be indicated by his statistics, is at a very low point, and lower than can be expected if he were traded in the future or at some point in the past when his value could reasonably have been determined to be at a high point.

or

3.) The player or players traded were of considerably greater combined short or long term value, than the players acquired.

 

 

Now, the definition of a bad trade is larger, and that is as it should be. No matter what your profession is, it's generally much easier to do a lousy job than a good one.

 

The Pierre trade meets 1 and 3. The Maddux trade meets them all. The Barrett trade meets criteria 2 for the reason Transmogrified Tiger states, and probably 1 as well. It's hard to say how much Piniella influenced Hendry's decision and he couldn't be persuaded to wait until the deadline, that would mean the decision was coerced, and it can't be a bad trade. My other example, the Patterson trade, meets 2 as well. What could we have gotten for Patterson when he was a top prospect? What could we have gotten even a year or a year and one half before?

 

The article deals with the 'timing' aspect of trades. If you think that timing when a player is traded is not important, out of the GM's control, or that the nature of baseball is so unpredictable that determinations of high point and low points on the value spectrum are not determinable, then that is perhaps the reason you might dismiss an article like this. I take the position that determining the high point and low point in value is possible, and that some are better at this than others, and this is an important part of what constitutes a "good" GM. Many here could easily and properly say last offseason that Jones's value would be very unlikely to rise. Many here were calling for a trade of Patterson much earlier in his career.

 

People on a message board really shouldn't be better than a GM at determining player value, yet some posters here have been right more often than Jim has.

[ltb]

My initial reaction was ‘wow,’ ” he said. “If it was in my control, I’d still be wearing a Red Sox uniform, because it’s the place I know, I love. All of those fans, I’ll always remember.

 

this is just silly. you take a statement you know is just PR and use it as evidence that Hendry is wishy washy.

 

so you can take an obvious PR quote and attempt to use it to make an argument, but then attack someone else for using one?

 

seems reasonable.

[Guancous]

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.

 

It sure beats spending 100M to field a team 30 games under.

[jjgman21]

My initial reaction was ‘wow,’ ” he said. “If it was in my control, I’d still be wearing a Red Sox uniform, because it’s the place I know, I love. All of those fans, I’ll always remember.

 

this is just silly. you take a statement you know is just PR and use it as evidence that Hendry is wishy washy.

 

so you can take an obvious PR quote and attempt to use it to make an argument, but then attack someone else for using one?

 

seems reasonable.

 

GM statements are pure PR. player statements not so much. this is not hypocrisy as the honesty behind Nomars statement is far less in doubt. if you want to make a case that Nomar's statement was more PR than honest statement, be my guest.

 

alot of posters want to have it both ways. in other contexts, they complain that the organization does nothing but lie to the fans, then turn around and use Hendry's statements as the truth as to what he is saying just to use it as evidence that he is wishy washy or trades low or improperly values a player or skill set.

[ltb]

My initial reaction was ‘wow,’ ” he said. “If it was in my control, I’d still be wearing a Red Sox uniform, because it’s the place I know, I love. All of those fans, I’ll always remember.

 

this is just silly. you take a statement you know is just PR and use it as evidence that Hendry is wishy washy.

 

so you can take an obvious PR quote and attempt to use it to make an argument, but then attack someone else for using one?

 

seems reasonable.

 

GM statements are pure PR. player statements not so much. this is not hypocrisy as the honesty behind Nomars statement is far less in doubt. if you want to make a case that Nomar's statement was more PR than honest statement, be my guest.

 

yeah, nomar is gonna say "boy, i hated boston, i'm glad to be out of that craphole."

 

come on. if you think every statement a GM makes is a PR move, then you can't even reasonably think that nomar's statement after his trade wasn't the same thing.

[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.

 

It sure beats spending 100M to field a team 30 games under.

 

Touche

[sunnydoo]

1. Here come the Cubs

Hmmm, so maybe Michael Barrett was the problem. Ever since the catcher-turned-punching-bag was exiled to the Padres (as if San Diego could ever be a place of exile) June 20, the Cubs have played like a team reborn. The Cubs have won six straight, pulling to within a game of .500 (38-39) and into second place in the NL Central. Perhaps most encouragingly, it is Zambrano who has led the way.

 

Finally pitching like he's more concerned with the here and now than his impending free agency, he's 9-6 overall and 4-1 since his TKO victory over Barrett June 1, and his only loss in that stretch was 1-0 defeat at San Diego in which he took a no-hitter into the eighth inning.

 

Mix in the contributions of Alfonso Soriano, he has 11 homers in his last 25 games, drove in the tying and winning runs in the bottom of the ninth Monday, and is playing like he's intent on living up to the $136 million contract he signed in the off-season, and 27-year-old minor-league callup Mike Fontenot, who's hitting .408 and went 9-for-13 in a three-game sweep of the Rockies, and it's almost enough to mellow Lou Piniella. We said almost.

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6973136

 

Bradley, Barrett, Wells and Cameron on the same team. Just a matter of time and pressure til the teapot explodes.

[SouthSideRyan]

Soriano and Fontenot got hot because Barrett's gone.

[frostwyrm]

Hasn't it occurred to anybody else here that the teams who sell high often do it because they don't try to contend every single year? They actually embrace the concept of rebuilding/retooling seasons. The Cubs don't. If a choice between being a longshot dark horse or helping the future the Cubs always take curtain 1.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Soriano and Fontenot got hot because Barrett's gone.

 

ARAMIS CAN'T HIT HOME RUNS WITH BARRETT WATCHING HIM

[nilodnayr]

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?

 

There were threads on this very board during the offseason about trading Barrett at his peak value. So, yeah it was in people's thoughts, just not the right people's thoughts.

[frostwyrm]

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?

 

There were threads on this very board during the offseason about trading Barrett at his peak value. So, yeah it was in people's thoughts, just not the right people's thoughts.

 

True. I wanted to write off 2007 so I would've made trading Barrett and Z my top priorities. Their trade value was very high in the offseason and even higher mid-season 2006.

[Banedon]

Soriano and Fontenot got hot because Barrett's gone.

 

ARAMIS CAN'T HIT HOME RUNS WITH BARRETT WATCHING HIM

 

Barrett's C3BHRR (Catcher's 3rd basemen HR Rate) is just terrible. Glad we traded him.