BP Tidbit on Reds, Griffey, and Cubs

[Electron Blue]

I cannot believe Hendry will stand still. Remember that he can still make deals within the NL after July 31 w/out first having to pass the aquisition through waivers.

 

I generally agree/hope that the Hamburgler will be able to pull off a decent trade for an power hitter. Hendry is pretty deft at making moves.

 

He's hit 3 big ones (Lee, Ramirez, Nomar) and the rest haven't been all that good.

 

Karros/Grudz

Lofton (along with Ramirez)

Barrett

 

Partial list of bad Hendry trades:

 

Maddux-Izturis

Barrett-Bowen

Prospects-Pierre

 

His track record is mixed, like most.

 

Agreed. I was just adding to the Pros, which I felt was under-represented in Erik's list

[NCCubFan]

Barrett wasn't a trade, he was a cheap signing.

Yes it was a trade. He was acquired from Oakland shortly after Oakland acquired him from Montreal. These were actually packaged as two separate trades, but in effect it was Damian Miller for Barrett.

 

Right. Forgot about that.

Actually according to Baseball Reference it was one trade (I thought it was two for some reason). Miller and cash to the As for Barrett. Maybe it was originally Miller for a PTBNL, with Barrett becoming that player.

[Electron Blue]

I'll play devil's advocate for Hendry, though.

 

Maddux for Izturis

Consensus was that Maddux was pretty much done as a solid starter. No one on this board wanted to him back the next year, especially not at the price he would have wanted. The Cubs weren't going anywhere. Hendry took a chance on a gold-glove SS whose potential indicated his hitting would pick up. EDITED TO ADD: Many believed Maddux and Hendry had a handshake agreement to give him to a contender if the cubs were tanking.

 

Barrett for Bowen

If clubhouse distraction were ever a legit. cause to trade a player, this was it. Mulitple flare-ups would have been one thing were they isolated. But Barrett, a catcher past the age of productive catcher years, was having a bad year offensively and an abysmal year behind the plate. Bowen was cheap, young, had a decent OBP, and virtually guarenteed better defense. Like Maddux, Barrett was not coming back the next year. A certain (if negligible) amount of budget room was freed up with this trade as well, allowing flexibility of deadline/August moves.

 

Pierre for Prospects

no devil's advocacy here :( I guess we . . . needed a "lead-off hitter"[/b]

Edited July 28, 2007 by Electron Blue

[seanimal]

IIRC, it was Barrett to the A's from Montreal, then Barrett to the Cubs from the A's. That might be why you think of it as two trades when it was just one trade from the Cubs perspective.

[NCCubFan]

IIRC, it was Barrett to the A's from Montreal, then Barrett to the Cubs from the A's. That might be why you think of it as two trades when it was just one trade from the Cubs perspective.

It definitely was that. I guess what I was actually thinking was that it was technically two separate trades (Expos-A's and Cubs-A's) but in effect a three-team trade.

[Electron Blue]

IIRC, it was Barrett to the A's from Montreal, then Barrett to the Cubs from the A's. That might be why you think of it as two trades when it was just one trade from the Cubs perspective.

It definitely was that. I guess what I was actually thinking was that it was technically two separate trades (Expos-A's and Cubs-A's) but in effect a three-team trade.

 

if i remember, though, it was a couple days in the making.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

IIRC, it was Barrett to the A's from Montreal, then Barrett to the Cubs from the A's. That might be why you think of it as two trades when it was just one trade from the Cubs perspective.

It definitely was that. I guess what I was actually thinking was that it was technically two separate trades (Expos-A's and Cubs-A's) but in effect a three-team trade.

 

if i remember, though, it was a couple days in the making.

 

baseball-reference.com says both trades happened 12/15, but I recall them happening on consecutive days

[Sarcastic]

I'll play devil's advocate for Hendry, though.

 

Maddux for Izturis

Consensus was that Maddux was pretty much done as a solid starter. No one on this board wanted to him back the next year, especially not at the price he would have wanted. The Cubs weren't going anywhere. Hendry took a chance on a gold-glove SS whose potential indicated his hitting would pick up. EDITED TO ADD: Many believed Maddux and Hendry had a handshake agreement to give him to a contender if the cubs were tanking.

 

I had no problem with trading Maddux, it needed to be done. But trading him for Izturis was not excusable. He was a bad SS who had been injured, and had potential to be decent at best, awful at worst. If he had been on the MLB minimum, cheap and easily replaceable, that would have been okay, but there was no excuse to take on a moderately expensive risk who couldn't have been replaced quickly if he didn't produce.

 

Barrett for Bowen

If clubhouse distraction were ever a legit. cause to trade a player, this was it. Mulitple flare-ups would have been one thing were they isolated. But Barrett, a catcher past the age of productive catcher years, was having a bad year offensively and an abysmal year behind the plate. Bowen was cheap, young, had a decent OBP, and virtually guarenteed better defense. Like Maddux, Barrett was not coming back the next year. A certain (if negligible) amount of budget room was freed up with this trade as well, allowing flexibility of deadline/August moves.

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

Pierre for Prospects

no devil's advocacy here :( I guess we . . . needed a "lead-off hitter"[/b]

 

This trade was truely bad.

[seanimal]

Pierre for Prospects

no devil's advocacy here :( I guess we . . . needed a "lead-off hitter"

 

Well, I guess the line here would be that he was just getting something his manager valued and thought the team was lacking. Not much of a defense considering that to most it was pretty obvious that Pierre wasn't worth the price we paid. The best I can say is that at least he realized that signing Pierre would have been moranic, especially at that price. Though, he followed not overpaying Pierre with overpaying Soriano.

 

That was the worst one in my opinion, as I don't really see a problem with trading away Maddux in principle, just what he got from it that was bad.

 

I also don't see the Barrett/Bowen trade as being a 'negative', more a wash than anything.

 

Furthermore, the positive weight of the Ramirez/Lofton and the Garciaparra/Murton trades, though Garciaparra didn't work out, still outweigh the negatives presented here. If Hendry is good at anything, it is definitely player acquisition via trades.

 

I think the Grudz/Karros is the cherry on top. That was a pretty lopsided trade.

[Electron Blue]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

[RynoRules]

OK, rather than use the term "team chemistry", just think of the Barrett trade as, "I don't want to play here anymore". If you think otherwise go back and listen to the interview he gave to MJ&H on ESPN 1000. He could barely contain himself.

[Sarcastic]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

 

Replacing a bad player with worse players is a bad idea. You can talk about getting rid of a bad player, but that only helps you if you have a better player to replace him with. The Cubs didn't.

[Electron Blue]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

 

Replacing a bad player with worse players is a bad idea. You can talk about getting rid of a bad player, but that only helps you if you have a better player to replace him with. The Cubs didn't.

 

Rob Bowen's Pros (in order of importance)

.268/.371/.439, OPS+ 120

Significantly better defense

League-minimum salary, signed through next year

26 years-old

Has never punched opponent, or own pitcher

 

Why is he worse?

[seanimal]

Yeah, I consider Bowen for Kendall as being more offensive than Barrett for Bowen. Maybe Hendry has a ocd-esque fascination with catchers who have redundant letters in their last names.

[Electron Blue]

Yeah, I consider Bowen for Kendall as being more offensive than Barrett for Bowen. Maybe Hendry has a ocd-esque fascination with catchers who have redundant letters in their last names.

 

Dunn. Griffey.

 

:)

[UMFan83]

Seriously, were all the Cubs on HGH last year and just quit? I've never seen so many warning track shots than on this team.

[Electron Blue]

Seriously, were all the Cubs on HGH last year and just quit? I've never seen so many warning track shots than on this team.

 

game thread oops? ;)

[UMFan83]

Seriously, were all the Cubs on HGH last year and just quit? I've never seen so many warning track shots than on this team.

 

game thread oops? ;)

 

Most definitely :oops:

[Sarcastic]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

 

Replacing a bad player with worse players is a bad idea. You can talk about getting rid of a bad player, but that only helps you if you have a better player to replace him with. The Cubs didn't.

 

Rob Bowen's Pros (in order of importance)

.268/.371/.439, OPS+ 120

Significantly better defense

League-minimum salary, signed through next year

26 years-old

Has never punched opponent, or own pitcher

 

Why is he worse?

 

Where did you get those numbers? His current OPS+ is 75. Perhaps you were referring to his numbers this year before the trade, but he accomplished that in a handful of ABs, not a meaningful sample compared to his entire pro career, in which he has been mediocre. He is a back up catcher at best.

[nilodnayr]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

 

Replacing a bad player with worse players is a bad idea. You can talk about getting rid of a bad player, but that only helps you if you have a better player to replace him with. The Cubs didn't.

 

Rob Bowen's Pros (in order of importance)

.268/.371/.439, OPS+ 120

Significantly better defense

League-minimum salary, signed through next year

26 years-old

Has never punched opponent, or own pitcher

 

Why is he worse?

 

Where did you get those numbers? His current OPS+ is 75. Perhaps you were referring to his numbers this year before the trade, but he accomplished that in a handful of ABs, not a meaningful sample compared to his entire pro career, in which he has been mediocre. He is a back up catcher at best.

 

Those might have been his #s at the time of the trade...of course he also had like a 148765 BABIP at the time, but if you told Jim that he'd just look at you blankly.

[Electron Blue]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

 

Replacing a bad player with worse players is a bad idea. You can talk about getting rid of a bad player, but that only helps you if you have a better player to replace him with. The Cubs didn't.

 

Rob Bowen's Pros (in order of importance)

.268/.371/.439, OPS+ 120

Significantly better defense

League-minimum salary, signed through next year

26 years-old

Has never punched opponent, or own pitcher

 

Why is he worse?

 

Where did you get those numbers? His current OPS+ is 75. Perhaps you were referring to his numbers this year before the trade, but he accomplished that in a handful of ABs, not a meaningful sample compared to his entire pro career, in which he has been mediocre. He is a back up catcher at best.

 

Well, in that case he has no sample size in his entire career to satisfy you. Last year he had 94 ABs in 94 games. He had 27 and 10 ABs the two years before. This year, he was getting more (and more consistent) PT than he had ever received before (thus making this year's stats more important than "his entire pro career"). Therefore, yes, those stats are from before the trade and represent the best possible look at Bowen's potential (for the rest of 2007 at least).

 

We needed a stopgap anyway. Barrett would be gone after '07 trade-or-not, and Soto/Hill/Fox are, at best, no better than Bowen (except maybe Soto, who would need to be tried out as a backup first anyway; being under Barrett or Bowen would make no difference if Soto is the eventual future). We weren't going to get a great catcher for '08 out of trading Barrett for sure, so why not get a defensively capable, affordable, young stopgap?

[nilodnayr]

Honestly I agree with your assessment of a return of Izturis

 

Team chemistry trades are BS. Barrett's production has declined dramatically this year, but he is significantly better than any of his replacements. His poor performance this year may have made him resignable cheaply, and replaceable should his production have continued to decline. In any case, nothing the Cubs got for him justifies the decline in production from the catcher's position.

 

The chemistry problems were the icing on the cake. The defensive lapses (which were always a problem, but were at their worst this year) along with the terrible offense (OBP of .307 :(), made his leash very short. What do you mean his performances would make him more affordable to us? His performance is why we shouldn't want him for even $1M per year. The defense was always bad and the offense as I said (and numerous studies support) was unlikely to pickup, given his age/position.

 

Replacing a bad player with worse players is a bad idea. You can talk about getting rid of a bad player, but that only helps you if you have a better player to replace him with. The Cubs didn't.

 

Rob Bowen's Pros (in order of importance)

.268/.371/.439, OPS+ 120

Significantly better defense

League-minimum salary, signed through next year

26 years-old

Has never punched opponent, or own pitcher

 

Why is he worse?

 

Where did you get those numbers? His current OPS+ is 75. Perhaps you were referring to his numbers this year before the trade, but he accomplished that in a handful of ABs, not a meaningful sample compared to his entire pro career, in which he has been mediocre. He is a back up catcher at best.

 

Well, in that case he has no sample size in his entire career to satisfy you. Last year he had 94 ABs in 94 games. He had 27 and 10 ABs the two years before. This year, he was getting more (and more consistent) PT than he had ever received before (thus making this year's stats more important than "his entire pro career"). Therefore, yes, those stats are from before the trade and represent the best possible look at Bowen's potential (for the rest of 2007 at least).

 

We needed a stopgap anyway. Barrett would be gone after '07 trade-or-not, and Soto/Hill/Fox are, at best, no better than Bowen (except maybe Soto, who would need to be tried out as a backup first anyway; being under Barrett or Bowen would make no difference if Soto is the eventual future). We weren't going to get a great catcher for '08 out of trading Barrett for sure, so why not get a defensively capable, affordable, young stopgap?

 

If only Jim were smart enought o look behind the #s to see that they were completely flukey and unsustainable.

[Sarcastic]

No, those stats don't represent the best possible look at Bowen's abilities. As has been mentioned, his BABIP was through the roof before he was traded to the Cubs. His scorching return to the earth when he came to the Cubs showed that clearly.

 

Why not trade for Bowen? Because he was worse than what we already had. A lucky handful of ABs does not make a good player. When I spoke of his pro career, I meant his entire career, in the majors and minors. His career numbers in both do not suggest that he is a starting catcher.

[rickrolled]

What time did Levine report that about Dunn/Griffey? I was listening to ESPN Radio for a while this afternoon and never heard it.

[NCCubFan]

IIRC, it was Barrett to the A's from Montreal, then Barrett to the Cubs from the A's. That might be why you think of it as two trades when it was just one trade from the Cubs perspective.

It definitely was that. I guess what I was actually thinking was that it was technically two separate trades (Expos-A's and Cubs-A's) but in effect a three-team trade.

 

if i remember, though, it was a couple days in the making.

 

baseball-reference.com says both trades happened 12/15, but I recall them happening on consecutive days

Here's how it went down according to the 2004 Cubs' media guide:

 

12/16--Barrett acquired from Oakland for PTBNL

12/20--Barrett non-tendered for 2005

12/21--Barrett signed as a free agent; Miller and cash traded to Oakland for PTBNL

 

No mention of PTBNL settlement; I suspect the PTBNL owed each way were simply cancelled out. This effectively made it Miller and cash for Barrett. This is the way I remember it; the ability of the Cubs to re-sign Barrett as a free agent (rather than him being able to file for arbitration) was the key to the Miller trade. If Barrett didn't sign with the Cubs they would have kept Miller and sent another player to Oakland to complete the Barrett trade.