Baseball Prospectus on the Barrett trade

[TheDude]

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.

 

The assumption being made is that Barret, or any of the names in the article had better value than at the time of their departure from Chicago.

 

Yes these folks were all sold low, some inescapably IMO. However, none of them had tremendous value to begin with, and even had they been sold high, it's unlikely the returns would have been much better than at the low point.

 

Only Patterson and Choi from the article were guys expected to be on the upswing (and I would add Dubois, who wasn't named). All the other guys were average players or journeyman on the downswing of the age/production bell curve.

 

My point is this: there is too much being made of perceived value vs. actual value, regardless of 'high' or 'low'.

 

To illustrate, Jacque Jones value in the offseason was high, as his production exceeded salary and he represented a good value on paper for any low/mid market team. Still Hendry couldn't move him or chose not to move him, as the rumored returns weren't much more than the deal recently quashed. His 'high' value wasn't much more than his current 'low' value.

 

I think folks are right to more upset about his original deal, as he probably deserved a 1-2 year deal, not a 3 year deal.

[Chocolate Milk]

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.

 

The assumption being made is that Barret, or any of the names in the article had better value than at the time of their departure from Chicago.

 

Yes these folks were all sold low, some inescapably IMO. However, none of them had tremendous value to begin with, and even had they been sold high, it's unlikely the returns would have been much better than at the low point.

 

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here at least in regards to Barrett. Barrett was essentially given away and the Cubs are paying a portion of what is a very reasonable contract. I don't see how you could possibly think his value wasn't much lower when he was traded than if he was traded coming off the following seasons.

 

276/345/479/824 (Silver Slugger)

307/368/517/885

 

Maybe he wouldn't have brought a king's ransom, but he certianly would have brought the Cubs something signifigantly better than what they ended up getting.

 

The Barrett saga was actually a perfect example of what the author was saying. Hendry was wishy washy, he paniced, and dealt a player at his lowest possible value.

[Tracer Bullet]

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?

 

Actually, sometime around the end of last season, the poster formerly known as goony and I had an argument over whether trading Barrett at that point was a good idea. Unfortunately for me, I argued that they shouldn't trade him b/c I thought he had another couple good seasons in him (he still might, but it doesn't look great for my side right now).

[Roast]

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.

 

Hahaha.

 

For the record, Team Chemistry, in the words of da hawk: "DATS B.S."

 

Team Chemistry means absolutely squat, and I'll prove it:

 

After 2004 Jim Hendry decided he was going to get rid of all the "Bad Apples" on the team to improve team chemistry. Coincidentally (or maybe not) we have not had a winning season SINCE 2004. Hmm. **I'm not suggesting its the reason we lost in 05/06. There are tons of other things to blame. I'm just proving that trying to build a happy team will not help you win**

 

Or, my favorite example: The 1920/1930's Yankees. Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig did not talk to each other for five years. FIVE YEARS. They couldn't stand each other, and they batted back-to-back in the lineup. That's five years of being on the same team and batting back to back(most of the time) and not a single word was said. And...The yankee's managed to do pretty well in spite of it.

 

Plus, building a happy team is 99.9% of the time synonymous with building a GOOD team. If the team wins, the team is happy. Period.

[sunnydoo]

For the record, Team Chemistry, in the words of da hawk: "DATS B.S."

 

Seriously.

 

We need to come together as a community, take a vote, and then start banning people for using Hawkisms.

 

It perpetuates a stereotype and myth that we simply do not need on this board or need to accept as Cub fans.

 

He is an awful awful baseball announcer and has no place on this board.

[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.

 

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.

Between Sosa, Patterson, Barrett, and Jones, Jones is the only one you can logically argue Hendry gave a bad contract to. Hendry didn't sign Sosa, Patterson was an arbitration guy, and Barrett's deal turned out to be a real bargain.

 

Regardless, who Hendry has signed, and for how much, is a different discussion altogether from the one we're having here.

 

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.

And by all accounts, Hendry was trying like crazy to move Jones in the offseason, but had no takers then, either.

 

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.

If you made a list of GMs that this statement could apply to, you'd have a pretty lengthy list.

[Roast]

For the record, Team Chemistry, in the words of da hawk: "DATS B.S."

 

Seriously.

 

We need to come together as a community, take a vote, and then start banning people for using Hawkisms.

 

It perpetuates a stereotype and myth that we simply do not need on this board or need to accept as Cub fans.

 

He is an awful awful baseball announcer and has no place on this board.

 

Meh.

 

He's a disgrace to baseball announcers everywhere, I agree. But, his tirade was hilarious and I just wanted to use a line. No harm done, as far as i'm concerned.

[NCCubFan]

For the record, Team Chemistry, in the words of da hawk: "DATS B.S."

 

Seriously.

 

We need to come together as a community, take a vote, and then start banning people for using Hawkisms.

 

It perpetuates a stereotype and myth that we simply do not need on this board or need to accept as Cub fans.

 

He is an awful awful baseball announcer and has no place on this board.

We should also ban people who advocate trading for Alex Sanchez. :D

[CubmanPi]

For the record, Team Chemistry, in the words of da hawk: "DATS B.S."

 

Seriously.

 

We need to come together as a community, take a vote, and then start banning people for using Hawkisms.

I completely agree!

 

::coughbutdontlookatmysigcough::

[NewUserName]

I also think part of all of this is that some of this talent is a little over-hyped by us the fan also. Barrett was never a good defensive catcher, Patterson was never a smart or disciplined hitter, Sosa was aging, Bellhorn was let go by the A's before he became a Cub, Walker rubbed several other organizations wrong. I dont think Jones has ever been overrated by the fans.

 

That being said though we would have gotten more for Sosa if he was traded in 2002. We would have gotten more for Patterson in 2003. We would have gotten more for Barrett up to the beginning of this year. We would have gotten more for Bellhorn after 2002.

 

I was always amazed that the Cardinals traded Ken Bottenfield and got Jim Edmonds. Cards knew Bottenfield was a fluke and Edmonds had A-holed his way off the Angels. Wouldnt it have been amazing if Jim would have realized Bellhorn was way over his head in 2002 and gotten someone good for him. Or Corey was not going to come close to his half of 2003 again.

[KingCubsFan]

Silver's premise was good, but he went about it the wrong way. In almost every example of those individual players being traded, there were outside factors involved in their values being downgraded (i.e. Hendry could never have predicted Barrett would fight Zambrano in the clubhouse and argue with Hill the following week). And most of those players turned out to be worse after they were traded.

He should have focused on the fact that they basically change the team philosophy every year. 2004 was power pitching and power hitting. 2005 became Team Chemistry. 2006 was Speed Never Slumps. 2007 is inning eaters and a return to power hitters. If Hendry would have just stuck with his preference for power hitters and power pitchers (which was his original philosophy) we'd probably be in better shape.

[Danny82]

Just for clarity's sake, the Cards also traded Adam Kennedy in that deal.

[IWU_CUBS_FAN]

For the record, Team Chemistry, in the words of da hawk: "DATS B.S."

 

Seriously.

 

We need to come together as a community, take a vote, and then start banning people for using Hawkisms.

I completely agree!

 

::coughbutdontlookatmysigcough::

i don't think your sig should count as a hawkism like he gawn....that is more or less making fun of the moron cuz of how he acted in a moment that benefitted the cubs, but yea all the other -isms need to go

[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.

Between Sosa, Patterson, Barrett, and Jones, Jones is the only one you can logically argue Hendry gave a bad contract to. Hendry didn't sign Sosa, Patterson was an arbitration guy, and Barrett's deal turned out to be a real bargain.

 

Regardless, who Hendry has signed, and for how much, is a different discussion altogether from the one we're having here.

 

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.

And by all accounts, Hendry was trying like crazy to move Jones in the offseason, but had no takers then, either.

 

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.

If you made a list of GMs that this statement could apply to, you'd have a pretty lengthy list.

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03. That's it. Other than that, name some player Hendry has acquired through trade or FA that turned out to be a great value. The salary dump type moves like Sosa, Hundley, were forced on him by the media, though in the case of Sosa, he could have traded Sosa earlier in 04 rather than wait until the offseason. It's hard to say with Barrett, but I think we would have gotten better value for him if we'd held off a couple weeks and let his hitting improve as the stats say it should. If Hendry could convince Lou to give Jones a few more weeks, why would it be so hard with Barrett?

[A New Era]

How many teams ACTUALLY sell high most of the time? (besides when they are having a firesale, ofcourse). .

[Amazing_Grace]

How many teams ACTUALLY sell high most of the time? (besides when they are having a firesale, ofcourse). .

 

The Braves are the best example I can think of. They seem to always know what players are due to rebound and when it's time to part ways with a guy. The Cardinals seem to do a fairly good job most of the time. Then there's the Yankees, who have the money to keep paying players even while they're playing for other teams or sitting at home so they never have to sell low. The Marlins have 2 World Series titles in their short franchise history, and each time they blew the team up afterwards. That's selling very high.

[Drew Doughty]

How many teams ACTUALLY sell high most of the time? (besides when they are having a firesale, ofcourse). .

 

The A's come to mind. Mulder & Hudson. Lots of Zito rumors last summer too.

 

you don't have to sell high MOST of the time, but you shouldn't do it zero percent of the time either.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03.

 

Alex Gonzalez and 3 bits of string for Nomar and Murton

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros

 

LaTroy for Aardsma and Jerome Williams.

 

With all of Jim Hendry's faults, and there are many, I have no clue why somebody would try and pinpoint his trading as being the problem. it's the one thing he's actually done well.

[hitop810]

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03.

 

Alex Gonzalez and 3 bits of string for Nomar and Murton

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros

 

LaTroy for Aardsma and Jerome Williams.

 

With all of Jim Hendry's faults, and there are many, I have no clue why somebody would try and pinpoint his trading as being the problem. it's the one thing he's actually done well.

 

hundley's trade was good at the time but only because he had an equally dumb general manager he was dealing with. LaTroy was also another media/fan driven trade and neither of the pitchers we got in return are on the team. Jerome Williams sucked for us and Aardsma was traded for Cotts, who is struggling in AAA, not even in the major leagues. Hendry has gotten lucky on a few trades because he got players that were being basically dumped by the other teams but it seems that the trades that Hendry initiates are the ones that the Cubs get ripped off in.

[KingCubsFan]

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03.

 

Alex Gonzalez and 3 bits of string for Nomar and Murton

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros

 

LaTroy for Aardsma and Jerome Williams.

 

With all of Jim Hendry's faults, and there are many, I have no clue why somebody would try and pinpoint his trading as being the problem. it's the one thing he's actually done well.

Yeah, his problem is building an entire team, not making individual trades. And as for the A's, they traded Hudson and Mulder out of money concerns

[Drew Doughty]

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03.

 

Alex Gonzalez and 3 bits of string for Nomar and Murton

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros

 

LaTroy for Aardsma and Jerome Williams.

 

With all of Jim Hendry's faults, and there are many, I have no clue why somebody would try and pinpoint his trading as being the problem. it's the one thing he's actually done well.

 

hundley's trade was good at the time but only because he had an equally dumb general manager he was dealing with. LaTroy was also another media/fan driven trade and neither of the pitchers we got in return are on the team. Jerome Williams sucked for us and Aardsma was traded for Cotts, who is struggling in AAA, not even in the major leagues. Hendry has gotten lucky on a few trades because he got players that were being basically dumped by the other teams but it seems that the trades that Hendry initiates are the ones that the Cubs get ripped off in.

 

the Hawkins deal was great at the time. As is the case with unknowns, it might not look very good later. Williams was actually pretty good for 100 innings in 05, even if they were flukey good.

[Amazing_Grace]

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03.

 

Alex Gonzalez and 3 bits of string for Nomar and Murton

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros

 

LaTroy for Aardsma and Jerome Williams.

 

With all of Jim Hendry's faults, and there are many, I have no clue why somebody would try and pinpoint his trading as being the problem. it's the one thing he's actually done well.

 

The Hundley trade was dumb luck at its finest. When that trade was made, everyone was irritated because it got an old player to block our best prospect at the time (Choi), and they were right to be. Nobody knew Choi would stink, including Hendry who was as high on him as everyone else by all accounts.

 

 

The Nomar trade was probably a good trade, but based on the information from that time, it looked like we gave up a lot to get a lot, so we certainly didn't fleece anyone. It wasn't 3 bits of string. We gave up what were, at the time, two of our better prospects in Harris and Justin Jones, as well as a decent prospect in Beltran. Beltran never amounted to much and Harris didn't have any success in the majors (until this season in Tampa where he's hitting for an over .850 OPS playing SS). I have no idea what happened to Jones. There's also the fact that what we gave up still might not have been enough to get Nomar (or match some other team's offer) if he hadn't been a disgruntled player with a NTC demanding a trade to somewhere he approved of. How much credit a GM gets in a case like this is debateable.

 

Aardsma and Williams sucked, and he traded Aardsma for someone equally sucky and arguably worse. This example is not as helpful to your argument as the other two.

 

Actually I was wrong about the Pittsburgh trade. I thought Lofton and Simon were in one deal and Ramirez the other, making 2 good trades, but Lofton and Ramirez were in the same trade, so that's only one good one. If we include the Nomar deal, that's still just 3 good trades.

 

Here are some BAD trades.

 

Pierre for Mitre, Nolasco, and Pinto... awful and indefensible then, now, or any period between.

 

Maddux for Izturis... same

 

Patterson for two less than great prospects... considering what he would have gotten in trade earlier in his career, this looks rather bad.

 

The Barrett trade... again, the problem is timing, why not wait for his value to increase (the stats suggest his hitting will rebound).

 

So, if you look at his great trades and his stinkers, maybe they cancel out and make him .500 in the trades department. That's not good for a baseball team or a GM. It doesn't make up for his lack in other areas.

[KingCubsFan]

 

Whatever, my point was that Hendry overvalues and undervalues the wrong players and ends up making bad deals pretty consistently because of that. He's basically had four deals sort of work out for him, Lee, Barrett, and the two Pirates deals in 03.

 

Alex Gonzalez and 3 bits of string for Nomar and Murton

 

Hundley for Grudz and Karros

 

LaTroy for Aardsma and Jerome Williams.

 

With all of Jim Hendry's faults, and there are many, I have no clue why somebody would try and pinpoint his trading as being the problem. it's the one thing he's actually done well.

 

The Hundley trade was dumb luck at its finest. When that trade was made, everyone was irritated because it got an old player to block our best prospect at the time (Choi), and they were right to be. Nobody knew Choi would stink, including Hendry who was as high on him as everyone else by all accounts.

 

 

The Nomar trade was probably a good trade, but based on the information from that time, it looked like we gave up a lot to get a lot, so we certainly didn't fleece anyone. It wasn't 3 bits of string. We gave up what were, at the time, two of our better prospects in Harris and Justin Jones, as well as a decent prospect in Beltran. Beltran never amounted to much and Harris didn't have any success in the majors (until this season in Tampa where he's hitting for an over .850 OPS playing SS). I have no idea what happened to Jones. There's also the fact that what we gave up would never have gotten close to getting Nomar if he hadn't been a disgruntled player with a NTC demanding a trade to somewhere he approved of. How much credit a GM gets in a case like this is debateable.

 

Aardsma and Williams sucked, and he traded Aardsma for someone equally sucky and arguably worse. This example is not as helpful to your argument as the other two.

 

Actually I was wrong about the Pittsburgh trade. I thought Lofton and Simon were in one deal and Ramirez the other, making 2 good trades, but Lofton and Ramirez were in the same trade, so that's only one good one. If we include the Nomar deal, that's still 3 good trades.

 

Here are some BAD trades.

 

Pierre for Mitre, Nolasco, and Pinto... awful and indefensible then, now, or any period between.

 

Maddux for Izturis... same

 

Patterson for two less than great prospects... considering what he would have gotten in trade earlier in his career, this looks rather bad.

 

The Barrett trade... again, the problem is timing, why not wait for his value to increase (the stats suggest his hitting will rebound).

 

So, if you look at his great trades and his stinkers, maybe they cancel out and make him .500 in the trades department. That's not good for a baseball team or a GM. It doesn't make up for his lack in other areas.

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.

[jjgman21]

wasn't 3 bits of string. We gave up what were, at the time, two of our better prospects in Harris and Justin Jones, as well as a decent prospect in Beltran. Beltran never amounted to much and Harris didn't have any success in the majors (until this season in Tampa where he's hitting for an over .850 OPS playing SS). I have no idea what happened to Jones.

 

so what you are saying is, he sold high.

 

There's also the fact that what we gave up still might not have been enough to get Nomar (or match some other team's offer) if he hadn't been a disgruntled player with a NTC demanding a trade to somewhere he approved of. How much credit a GM gets in a case like this is debateable.

 

your claim isn't debatable, it is simply completely untrue.

 

 

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.

[jjgman21]

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.

 

 

nothing changed other than a downtick in offense? now first of all, downtick? it was a 31 point drop off in OPS+, with the better part of that due to his terrible OBP. but to say nothing changed when you are a regular follower of the Cubs is just absurd. his bad defense turned absolutely terrible. kick in the bad baserunning, the fight, etc.

 

now alot of it was bad timed plays partially due to other players, but he looked terrible on defense. much, shall we say less defensible, than in the past. whether these things were under Barrett's control or not, the fact is they happened and they involved Michael Barrett and hence circumstances with Michael Barrett changed.

 

I absolutely loved Michael Barrett as a player with the Cubs. there were large stretches of the past couple years where he appeared to be one of the few who gave a damn. but to say nothing else changed is simply being obtuse.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

the author of this article does the same exact thing, only in reverse. it lays the accusation before clearly stating the known reality instead of after like you do.

 

the Cubs’ have developed a nasty habit under Jim Hendry’s tenure of doing everything in their power to degrade a player’s value

 

then two sentences later, he admits the reality...

 

you could see the writing on the wall when Barrett started getting railroaded in the Tribune and the Sun-Times, and became the scapegoat for the Cubs’ sloppy play thus far this season.

 

 

Hendry and the organization did nothing to degrade Michael Barrett. Michael Barrett built a nice pile of logs, the media and the fans, and perhaps even some of his fellow players, added gas and matches.