Darwin Barney is the bee's knees.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Omar Vizquel is maybe the 2nd best defensive shortstop ever to play baseball.

It was quite nice of a man of his stature to lend his glove to Darwin.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Omar Vizquel is maybe the 2nd best defensive shortstop ever to play baseball.

 

He must be a very distant 2nd, assuming you go by dWAR. Ozzie Smith has a 44.5 career dWAR in 19 seasons, to Omar's 28.1 in 24 and counting.

 

Again, depending on how you much you value dWAR, Ozzie Smith was 25 in his 3rd full big league season, in which he posted a 3.5 dWAR. Darwin Barney is 26 in his 2nd full season, with a 3.2 dWAR with more than 1/3 to go. Vizquel's career high was 2.5. I'm not saying that Barney is Ozzie Smith. Probably not even Vizquel. And I really don't know how dWAR even works, but it's pretty impressive, on paper anyway.

[biittner77]

What kind of value would Barney have in a trade to a team that needs a SS? His ~.700 OPS would play a lot better there, he's young and also cheap.

[Little Slide Rooter]

What kind of value would Barney have in a trade to a team that needs a SS? His ~.700 OPS would play a lot better there, he's young and also cheap.

 

If we were to trade him, I'd take a gamble and wait a year. If he can have two years like this, teams will really start to take him seriously. Especially looking at all of the middle infield prospects that we have throughout the system, none of which appear big league ready just yet, but if nothing esle, Logan Watkins could be a band-aid for a few years while we wait on one of Hernandez, Amaya, Torreyes to be ready. Maybe even Bruno. Cubs fans would eat the little bugger up like a $9 hot dog.

[biittner77]

What kind of value would Barney have in a trade to a team that needs a SS? His ~.700 OPS would play a lot better there, he's young and also cheap.

 

If we were to trade him, I'd take a gamble and wait a year. If he can have two years like this, teams will really start to take him seriously. Especially looking at all of the middle infield prospects that we have throughout the system, none of which appear big league ready just yet, but if nothing esle, Logan Watkins could be a band-aid for a few years while we wait on one of Hernandez, Amaya, Torreyes to be ready. Maybe even Bruno. Cubs fans would eat the little bugger up like a $9 hot dog.

 

But you decrease his value by subtracting one year of team control and you run the risk of him not hitting enough to be seen as an every day player. I'd like to see them sell high on Barney, in the right deal of course.

[Little Slide Rooter]

What kind of value would Barney have in a trade to a team that needs a SS? His ~.700 OPS would play a lot better there, he's young and also cheap.

 

If we were to trade him, I'd take a gamble and wait a year. If he can have two years like this, teams will really start to take him seriously. Especially looking at all of the middle infield prospects that we have throughout the system, none of which appear big league ready just yet, but if nothing esle, Logan Watkins could be a band-aid for a few years while we wait on one of Hernandez, Amaya, Torreyes to be ready. Maybe even Bruno. Cubs fans would eat the little bugger up like a $9 hot dog.

 

But you decrease his value by subtracting one year of team control and you run the risk of him not hitting enough to be seen as an every day player. I'd like to see them sell high on Barney, in the right deal of course.

 

He's under control through 2017, so I don't know if the difference in a single year of control would be more valuable than him having back to back 4-5 WAR seasons. The problem is, to really max out his trade value he should be playing SS, which isn't an option for obvious reasons. I do love the idea of the A's as a trade partner. They have a lot of what we need.

[Guest]

keithlaw ‏@keithlaw

 

I do not. “@Sam_Stecher: @keithlaw @jimcallisBA either of you like Darwin Barney as an everyday 2B long-term? Or stopgap?”

stop being a jerk, keith

[dew1679666265]

keithlaw ‏@keithlaw

 

I do not. “@Sam_Stecher: @keithlaw @jimcallisBA either of you like Darwin Barney as an everyday 2B long-term? Or stopgap?”

stop being a jerk, keith

 

That might not be him being a jerk. It depends on what his view of "long term" is. If he hears long term and thinks 10 years from now or something, I probably agree with him. I'm fine with Barney as a starter through his arbitration years, but probably not longer than that.

[hawkeyecub]

keithlaw ‏@keithlaw

 

I do not. “@Sam_Stecher: @keithlaw @jimcallisBA either of you like Darwin Barney as an everyday 2B long-term? Or stopgap?”

stop being a jerk, keith

 

That might not be him being a jerk. It depends on what his view of "long term" is. If he hears long term and thinks 10 years from now or something, I probably agree with him. I'm fine with Barney as a starter through his arbitration years, but probably not longer than that.

 

Is he saying no to stopgap also?

[Post Count Padder]

keithlaw ‏@keithlaw

 

I do not. “@Sam_Stecher: @keithlaw @jimcallisBA either of you like Darwin Barney as an everyday 2B long-term? Or stopgap?”

stop being a jerk, keith

He's having a fine season and is a solid fielder, but he probably shouldn't be a starter for more than a few years.

[dew1679666265]

Is he saying no to stopgap also?

 

Hm, he may be. And if he is, then either he's being a jerk or he's not paying attention.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Could be that like someone said above, he'll be great to have through his arbitration years, which are up in 2017, unless someone elase emerges by then. It's not exactly long term but is far from a stop gap. Then again, he could view him as more of a utility IF. Of course, he could also be insinuating that Barney's most valuable as a short stop. I could be wrong, but

isn't Law in the Castro destined for 3B camp?

[Guest]

How in the great blue sea is being happy with someone through 2017 not long term? There are 3 players who played at all on the 2009 Cubs who are a part of the 2012 Cubs still.

[Pushfrog98]

How in the great blue sea is being happy with someone through 2017 not long term? There are 3 players who played at all on the 2009 Cubs who are a part of the 2012 Cubs still.

Plus, anymore, "long term" is about 3-4 years.

Also, thinking about 2017 pisses me off. Only 2 years before I turn 40. [expletive] off, 40!

[Guest]

Exactly. Unless you sign someone for an eternity, the idea that you need to plan to the roster 5 years from now is insane.

[StarlinOnYou]

100 games without an error. Pretty impressive.

[dew1679666265]

How in the great blue sea is being happy with someone through 2017 not long term? There are 3 players who played at all on the 2009 Cubs who are a part of the 2012 Cubs still.

 

Part of my thinking in my post was in reference to the people I've talked to (primarily on here) who don't consider guys signed to 4 year contracts as "long term" options (i.e. BJ Upton). Their definition of long term seems to be (if I'm not misinterpreting) much longer than that. My thinking was if Law shares their view on what long term is, then he wouldn't consider Barney a long term option.

 

I tend to agree with you on this, though. To me, 2-3 years is mid term and about 4+ years is long term (roughly).

[Gilby]

isn't Law in the Castro destined for 3B camp?

 

I don't believe so, but I could be wrong. Law was one of Starlin's earliest and biggest supporters as a prospect.

[Little Slide Rooter]

How in the great blue sea is being happy with someone through 2017 not long term? There are 3 players who played at all on the 2009 Cubs who are a part of the 2012 Cubs still.

 

Part of my thinking in my post was in reference to the people I've talked to (primarily on here) who don't consider guys signed to 4 year contracts as "long term" options (i.e. BJ Upton). Their definition of long term seems to be (if I'm not misinterpreting) much longer than that. My thinking was if Law shares their view on what long term is, then he wouldn't consider Barney a long term option.

 

I tend to agree with you on this, though. To me, 2-3 years is mid term and about 4+ years is long term (roughly).

 

If they only plan on keeping him through his arbitration years, that's really not long term, especially with the recent trend being for teams to lock up their young, star players through theyre prime with 8+ year contracts.

 

By long term, he could also be referring to the Cubs long term plans, IE the Baez/Soler/Almora era, and by then, I wouldn't expect Barney to be around.

[dew1679666265]

If they only plan on keeping him through his arbitration years, that's really not long term, especially with the recent trend being for teams to lock up their young, star players through theyre prime with 8+ year contracts.

 

Like I said in the post you quoted, I consider 4+ years to be "long term." So keeping Barney through his arbitration years (5 years) would be long term in my eyes. And the 8+ year contracts are being given to the Ryan Brauns and others, guys well above Barney's class.

 

By long term, he could also be referring to the Cubs long term plans, IE the Baez/Soler/Almora era, and by then, I wouldn't expect Barney to be around.

 

That's the point I made earlier - he may consider "long term" to be 8-10+ years, as many on here seem to. My problem with defining long term that way, though, is that there are next to no current major league players who could be considered "long term" pieces under that definition.

[jersey cubs fan]

Contemplating whether a 26 year old middle infielder will be with the team in 10 years is freaking stupid. If Law was considering long-term to be 8-10 years he's a moron.

[Guest]

Mike (Chicago) Darwin Barney was top 10 in WAR the other day. Who is wrong, the stat or my eyes?

 

Klaw (2:07 PM) The stat - it's not properly accounting for defensive shifts. He's an extra guy at best.

[dew1679666265]

Mike (Chicago) Darwin Barney was top 10 in WAR the other day. Who is wrong, the stat or my eyes?

 

Klaw (2:07 PM) The stat - it's not properly accounting for defensive shifts. He's an extra guy at best.

 

I get quibbling over whether he's a decent starter or one of the better second basemen in the league, but I just don't see any way you can argue that he's nothing better than a utility guy.

[Guest]

Mike (Chicago) Darwin Barney was top 10 in WAR the other day. Who is wrong, the stat or my eyes?

 

Klaw (2:07 PM) The stat - it's not properly accounting for defensive shifts. He's an extra guy at best.

 

I get quibbling over whether he's a decent starter or one of the better second basemen in the league, but I just don't see any way you can argue that he's nothing better than a utility guy.

 

I thought they already made an adjustment to the stat for the shifts? I remember Brett Lawrie rating off the charts defensively before they changed it.

[Guest]

Mike (Chicago) Darwin Barney was top 10 in WAR the other day. Who is wrong, the stat or my eyes?

 

Klaw (2:07 PM) The stat - it's not properly accounting for defensive shifts. He's an extra guy at best.

 

I get quibbling over whether he's a decent starter or one of the better second basemen in the league, but I just don't see any way you can argue that he's nothing better than a utility guy.

 

I thought they already made an adjustment to the stat for the shifts? I remember Brett Lawrie rating off the charts defensively before they changed it.

The shifts should not matter. The problem is quantifying defense. In its current state it is inherently unreliable. Having said that, Law is a weeping sore.