Hendry: Sam Fuld is an untouchable

[CubinNY]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today.

 

Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough.

 

But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more.

Huh? Aramis Ramirez was one of the best defensive 3B in MLB last season.

We think that, and it probably is true, but ask Barry Rozner and the average fan about that.

[Elrhino]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today.

 

Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough.

 

But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more.

 

If anyone could have made them, why didn't they. How come another team didn't snatch them up? How come we got them from for so cheaply, when they were made available to the entire league?

 

Funny how those deals became hindsight "no brainers" that anyone could have made, but the board nearly melted down when they were made going on and on about how badly we were fleeced. Because we gave up Bobby Hill and Hee Seop Choi who were "just as good, but cheaper".

[BigbadB]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

 

How did the Pierre trade end up being the "signature" bad trade? While that one was most certainly horrible, I like the Greg Maddux for Cesar Izturis one better. Not only did the Cubs just give away Maddux to a team in the hunt for the playoffs, but when they realized just how bad Izturis was the following year, they traded him AND cash for a PTBNL.

 

And another one that some may like but I absolutely despise is the trade where the Cubs just gave away an outfielder (Jacque Jones) for crap, and paid cash to make that deal as well. What we end up with that deal is Jacque Jones and Will Ohman for a minor league reliever.

 

Should I bring up the Steve Tracshel trade, or have I just pissed off the entire board for reminding them again that the Cubs actually made this deal?

 

The Sammy Sosa trade still pretty much sucks, also.

[CubinNY]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today.

 

Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough.

 

But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more.

 

Funny how those deals became hindsight "no brainers" that anyone could have made, but the board nearly melted down when they were made going on and on about how badly we were fleeced. Because we gave up Bobby Hill and Hee Seop Choi who were "just as good, but cheaper".

Who gives a crap about what "the board" thinks? I wasn't here when Lee was traded. I think the Aramis trade was not universally panned. But it is all completely beside the point.

[Elrhino]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

 

How did the Pierre trade end up being the "signature" bad trade? While that one was most certainly horrible, I like the Greg Maddux for Cesar Izturis one better. Not only did the Cubs just give away Maddux to a team in the hunt for the playoffs, but when they realized just how bad Izturis was the following year, they traded him AND cash for a PTBNL.

 

And another one that some may like but I absolutely despise is the trade where the Cubs just gave away an outfielder (Jacque Jones) for crap, and paid cash to make that deal as well. What we end up with that deal is Jacque Jones and Will Ohman for a minor league reliever.

 

Should I bring up the Steve Tracshel trade, or have I just pissed off the entire board for reminding them again that the Cubs actually made this deal?

 

The Sammy Sosa trade still pretty much sucks, also.

 

In all those cases, it was pretty much the Cubs trading garbage for other garbage. The Cubs may not have ended up for optimal value (which would be completely impossible to prove, unless you know for a fact what else is on the table).

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for peanuts. What was it? Damian Miller and a little cash? For a catcher who put up three very good offensive years, including one year for .880+ OPS?

Edited December 5, 2007 by Elrhino

[Elrhino]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

Anyone could have made those trades. Baltimore failed to come to terms on a long term contract for Lee after he was traded by the Marlins. I supposed Hendry gets credit for the first person to say, "I'll take him". Aramis was traded after questions about his "make up" and ability to play defense. Two things that still haunt him today.

 

Hendry should get credit for the Nomar deal, but again Boston couldn't get rid of him fast enough.

 

But all that is beside the point, Hendry has demonstrated repeatedly that he's real good at putting together mediocre to terrible teams, year in and year out. Frankly, I want more.

 

Funny how those deals became hindsight "no brainers" that anyone could have made, but the board nearly melted down when they were made going on and on about how badly we were fleeced. Because we gave up Bobby Hill and Hee Seop Choi who were "just as good, but cheaper".

Who gives a crap about what "the board" thinks? I wasn't here when Lee was traded. I think the Aramis trade was not universally panned. But it is all completely beside the point.

 

Only pointing out the difference between a real baseball general manager and us. A real baseball general manager's stupid decisions are on record. Meanwhile we call all make absolutely ridiculous claims like "Hee Seop Choi is just as good as Derek Lee, but cheaper" and they just vanish into thin air when they turn out to be laughable.

 

Or even worse, deny it altogether and say that "anyone could have done it".

[CubinNY]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

[BigbadB]

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

 

He also gave him away for nothing. How does that make it a good trade if you gave up nothing to get him and turned around and gave him away for nothing?

[Elrhino]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .885 OPS for us while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Elrhino

[BigbadB]

Only pointing out the difference between a real baseball general manager and us. A real baseball general manager's stupid decisions are on record. Meanwhile we call all make absolutely ridiculous claims like "Hee Seop Choi is just as good as Derek Lee, but cheaper" and they just vanish into thin air when they turn out to be laughable.

 

Or even worse, deny it altogether and say that "anyone could have done it".

 

Anyone who could afford Lee's contract could have done it. Lee was on the market for a whole year prior to the Cubs trading for him, and yes, it was a shining moment for Hendry in a tenure that has featured way more poor decisions than moments of brilliance.

[Elrhino]

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

 

He also gave him away for nothing. How does that make it a good trade if you gave up nothing to get him and turned around and gave him away for nothing?

 

Because getting 3 years of above average offensive production from the catcher position isn't nothing.

[GoCubsGo1679625768]

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

 

He also gave him away for nothing. How does that make it a good trade if you gave up nothing to get him and turned around and gave him away for nothing?

I think you have to factor in the 3 years of solid offensive production that Barrett provided. He gave him away for nothing because there was not much value left..I guess you could argue that he sold too low.

[USSoccer]

Hendry has made some nice moves. Walker for Ceda was good. Neifi for the C prospect whose name I can't remember was good. The Nomar trade was good, even though it didn't work out. Lee and Aramis were good trades, but neither took much effort (Lee was going to be non tendered by Florida and Ramirez was the price we had to pay to get Lofton. We had the ability to absorb 2003 and 2004's salary for Aramis. Other teams didn't. The Barrett deal was nice.

 

However, look at the bad deals. We demolished Sosa's value, then got Mike Fontenot for him (Crouthers retired and we got cash for him). We demolished Corey Patterson's value, then got nothing for him. The Pierre trade. The Maddux for Izturis trade. The Trachsel trade was the worst of these. We gave up 3 players who could have been chips in another deal for a completely awful baseball player who cost us a couple games down the stretch. The Jones deal resulted in us getting a nice AA arm, but trading Jones and Ohman for $3m and a AA player isn't good. It's poor asset management.

 

The bad deals were just freaking awful.

[Tracer Bullet]

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

 

He also gave him away for nothing. How does that make it a good trade if you gave up nothing to get him and turned around and gave him away for nothing?

 

That's not really anywhere near good analysis. Acquiring a player for virtually nothing, getting 3 goods years out of that player, and then trading them for nothing when that player started performing poorly doesn't mean you traded nothing for nothing. You're ignoring the 3 good years we got out of Barrett.

[KingCubsFan]

I don't agree with his philosophies, but I do take issue with the fact that the Pierre trade has become the signature Hendry trade that we talk about years after the fact and everyone just brushes aside the ARam and DLee trades as though anyone could have made them. Especially the DLee trade, which was universally panned on this board. Even the ARam trade drew a lot of growls because we gave up freaking Bobby Hill. Compared to awesomeness of those two trades, the suckiness (and no one is debating it sucked) of the Pierre trade pales by comparison. Everyone acts like Hendry gets fleeced on every trade, but when you look at the track record objectively he's ended up on top at a pretty good clip.

 

How did the Pierre trade end up being the "signature" bad trade? While that one was most certainly horrible, I like the Greg Maddux for Cesar Izturis one better. Not only did the Cubs just give away Maddux to a team in the hunt for the playoffs, but when they realized just how bad Izturis was the following year, they traded him AND cash for a PTBNL.

 

And another one that some may like but I absolutely despise is the trade where the Cubs just gave away an outfielder (Jacque Jones) for crap, and paid cash to make that deal as well. What we end up with that deal is Jacque Jones and Will Ohman for a minor league reliever.

 

Should I bring up the Steve Tracshel trade, or have I just pissed off the entire board for reminding them again that the Cubs actually made this deal?

 

The Sammy Sosa trade still pretty much sucks, also.

 

No, the Pierre trade was far and away the worst. I'm still not sure why everyone considers the Maddux trade so bad. I'm guessing it's due to the board generally overvalueing our own players. He was a 39 year-old rent-a-player who had been pitching horribly for two months. Izturis, at the time, was coming back from injury but was generally regarded as a superb defender and passable starter. So he had some value. Not saying it was a great trade (I didn't agree with it), but it wasn't the worst thing he's ever done.

And the Jacque Jones trade wasn't nearly as bad as Pierre either. Jones had done nothing but spike throws into the ground, refuse to take walks, and take time away from our young players since he got here. Everyone disliked him, until he had a good OPS for about 2 months and someone posted a defensive metric on here saying he was good at defense. Now Hendry committed a cardinal sin by trading him. At this point, he'd either be a below average right fielder for the Cubs or Felix Pie's personal career killer.

Hendry struggles with building a team, because he's constantly switching his offensive philosophy from year to year and he refuses to give young players a chance to fill marginal roles at half the cost of proven veterans. But he's generally been pretty good at making trades.

[CubinNY]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

You are obviously trying to play devil's advocate here.

[Elrhino]

Hendry has made some nice moves. Walker for Ceda was good. Neifi for the C prospect whose name I can't remember was good. The Nomar trade was good, even though it didn't work out. Lee and Aramis were good trades, but neither took much effort (Lee was going to be non tendered by Florida and Ramirez was the price we had to pay to get Lofton. We had the ability to absorb 2003 and 2004's salary for Aramis. Other teams didn't. The Barrett deal was nice.

 

However, look at the bad deals. We demolished Sosa's value, then got Mike Fontenot for him (Crouthers retired and we got cash for him). We demolished Corey Patterson's value, then got nothing for him. The Pierre trade. The Maddux for Izturis trade. The Trachsel trade was the worst of these. We gave up 3 players who could have been chips in another deal for a completely awful baseball player who cost us a couple games down the stretch. The Jones deal resulted in us getting a nice AA arm, but trading Jones and Ohman for $3m and a AA player isn't good. It's poor asset management.

 

The bad deals were just freaking awful.

 

They weren't just freaking awfull, because we traded garbage for garbage. No one is questioning that we've traded for some bad players, but we've usually haven't given up anything but garbage to attain them. We didn't demolish Corey Patterson's value, he just turned out to be garbage and garbage doesn't have any value.

[Elrhino]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

So Beane "knew" he had a catcher who had three future seasons of .800+ OPS, and the best he could get in return was Damian Miller and a little cash?

 

Wow, now that's a stupid trade.

[CubinNY]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

So Beane "knew" he had a catcher who had three future seasons of .800+ OPS, and the best he could get in return was Damian Miller and a little cash?

 

Wow, now that's a stupid trade.

No, no one knows what the future holds. He wanted Miller to handle his pitching staff. It is not rocket science here. And yes Beane values defense.

Edited December 5, 2007 by CubinNY

[BigbadB]

I'm still not sure why everyone considers the Maddux trade so bad. I'm guessing it's due to the board generally overvalueing our own players. He was a 39 year-old rent-a-player who had been pitching horribly for two months. Izturis, at the time, was coming back from injury but was generally regarded as a superb defender and passable starter. So he had some value. Not saying it was a great trade (I didn't agree with it), but it wasn't the worst thing he's ever done.

 

No. It's because when you have given up hope on the season, you don't just trade the equivilent of a rent a player for a crappy shortstop. You hold out for something better, and if you don't get it, then you just keep the player.

 

It looks like the Padres signed Maddux a day or two after the arbitration deadline, so I can't be sure whether the Dodgers got a sandwich pick for Maddux or not, but even gambling that they might get a supplemental pick would have been better than just giving him away for a player who had a ridiculous contract guarantee for the following year.

 

If the Dodgers really wanted the pitching help bad enough, Hendry should have made them cough up a prospect or two. Especially considering how the Dodgers trumped Hendry on Furcal and Milton Bradley, and also snuck in and grabbed Nomar.

[Elrhino]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

So Beane "knew" he had a catcher who had three future seasons of .800+ OPS, and the best he could get in return was Damian Miller and a little cash?

 

Wow, now that's a stupid trade.

No, he wanted Miller to handle his pitching staff. It is not rocket science here. And yes Beane values defense.

 

Just because you "knew what you were doing" in your mind doesn't mean you didn't get fleeced., and Beane got fleeced in that deal. I'm sure Hendry thought he "knew what he was doing" when he made the Pierre trade.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Elrhino

[Bruce Miles]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

You are obviously trying to play devil's advocate here.

 

 

Actually, the real story is that Hendry initiated this trade and used Beane as the conduit because Hendry couldn't get a deal done one on one with Minaya, who was the Expos GM at the time. Hendry had tried for two years to get Barrett, to no avail.

[David]

Bruce with the pwnage

[CubinNY]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

So Beane "knew" he had a catcher who had three future seasons of .800+ OPS, and the best he could get in return was Damian Miller and a little cash?

 

Wow, now that's a stupid trade.

No, he wanted Miller to handle his pitching staff. It is not rocket science here. And yes Beane values defense.

 

Not just defense, but "handling pitchers" to the point where he'll knowingly give up three consecutive seasons of .820+ OPS from the catcher just for one year of "handling pitchers".

 

That's absolutely Dusty-Bakerian.

 

How did he "knowingly give up...". That statement is just moronic as. Up to the point that Barrett was traded he'd never put up number like that as a catcher. He was a washed out 3rd baseman when Hendry got him.

[CubinNY]

[

 

I just find it funny how those trades are talked about on a weekly basis on this board and gone over and over again, but nobody ever brings up how Hendry stole Michael Barrett from Billy Beane for nothing.

You have got to be kidding me? Beane traded garbage for Barrett so he could get Damien Miller to handle his young pitching staff.

 

Stole Barrett, that's a good one.

 

Yes, nobody is a bigger believer in how a catcher "handles pitchers" than Billy Beane. Obviously Miller made a huge impression, considering he let Miller walk after one year.

 

Barrett proceeded to hit .800+ OPS for us for a couple of more years while Miller was "handling pitchers" in Milwaukee.

Are you kidding? Seriously, Barrett spent all of two days on the A's roster during the off-season before he was traded to the Cubs. It was almost like a three-way deal. He was then released by the Cubs and resigned at a lower rate than he would have gotten during arbitration. The Cubs didn't have anything the nationals wanted.

 

Beane knew exactly what he was doing and who he was getting.

 

You are obviously trying to play devil's advocate here.

 

 

Actually, the real story is that Hendry initiated this trade and used Beane as the conduit because Hendry couldn't get a deal done one on one with Minaya, who was the Expos GM at the time. Hendry had tried for two years to get Barrett, to no avail.

Did Beane not care who he was getting, or did he want Miller?