Tracer Bullet

I only liked early Metallica, but like all Phish, especially in concert.

Everyone but you? :wink:

Trying to sway the voters, are we?

I agree. I don't think Metallica is really a #2 and I don't think Phish is really a #15.

You do not like predominantly defensive catchers. Correct? Can Blanco hit? No. But neither can most of the catchers in the majors. He is one of the top back up catchers in the league. Barrett helps the team from an offensive standpoint and is detrimental from a defensive standpoint. Considering the Cubs have a young staff they really could use a good defensive catcher who can call a good game and help instill confidence in those youngsters. The offense that Barrett provides puts a few runs on the board which in the long run does nothing for the Cubs future which is what they should be focusing on. I didn't really mean backup, I meant replacement, which is my bad. But that said, I'm not sold on the impact that Blanco or any other "defensive" catcher would have on our young pitching staff. I don't believe that Barrett's D is costing us so many runs that it's hurting our young pitchers. I think Dusty and Hendry mis-using them is doing that just fine. And I'm tired of thinking about the long run. I want to win and as soon as possible. Barrett gives us a better chance of winning in the near future than trading him for a mid level prospect and using Blanco full time. We don't need any more low-OBP guys in our lineup.

Agree Agree Agree

I'm saying that most teams don't look at a productive C (unless it's Piazza in his prime) and say - now that's the bat that's going to win the division for me. And I'm not saying he's too valuable to trade. Here's my point: I don't think we should trade Barrett unless we get a great offer b/c he's a good hitting C w/ a pretty good OBP (we don't have nearly enough guys w/ good OBP's) and b/c we don't have a solid backup. I think he's going to be about this good for at least 2-3 more years and I think with the right moves, we can be contending in that time. So it doesn't make sense (to me) to deal him unless we can really improve the team. Given the dropoff in offense from Barrett to whoever would take his place, we'd have to be getting back something pretty darn good to improve the team overall.

Very tender, and juicy. He plays like a caged animal. But he's soft. Nicely done.

link ...

One more time. NOBODY IS 100% OFF LIMITS! So you're telling me Lee and Zambrano can be traded?? The main reason for not trading Howry and Eyre are b/c they should be in our 2007 plans. The fact that it could put the White Sox over the top is a side thing. Cards offer you Pujols for Lee, you turn it down?

Yeah, Weathers! Thought so.

That don't sound too good. But otherwise I'd be all over Gomes.

Essentially yes - they are not very good. Though Miller I think has been a bit better with the bat the other guys listed - I don't have time to check his stats though.

Plenty of high quality baseball players have been acquired by trading away relievers. But it doesn't just have to be a 1 man deal. Throw him in with Walker, Jones or Pierre and the deal could be sweetened. Jon Garland/Matt Karchner leaps to mind. Who did the Cubs trade to Pitt for that right handed middle relief pitcher in 2003? I can't remember his name....either I suppose. :oops: It wasn't Pitt and I don't think it was '03, but are you talking David Weathers?

I don't follow the Rays very closely - how bad are his shoulders? Is it a "one-time it'll be better next year" thing or a chronic problem?

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca. Blanco sucks - thus never plays. Lo Duca has less than 4 "full" seasons (more than 91 games) in his career. Neither of these guys really support your argument. Blanco is considered one of the best defensive catchers in the game. His offense is the reason he does not play. His defensive prowess prevents any validity to the label of he "sucks". Well, I think his offense is so bad (until the last 2 weeks or so) that it outweighed whatever value he brought defensively. I don't think Blanco is a very good player and the fact that he's rarely been a starter does not support goony's argument about the number of innings that Barrett has played at C in his career. Is that better?

Sell a stock that is worth $55 for $55, or wait for that stock to fall to $20 but manage to sell it at $30. The first option is selling high, the second option is just making the best of a bad situation. I don't like the comparison to stocks. I guess if we use dividends as an analogy for production, but it just doesn't work. I want Barrett for 2-3 years b/c I think we could be good in that time and we don't have a replacement for him. Plus, I don't think we'll get much. Frankly, your argument above is exactly my point. If we expect Barrett's production to drop in the next year, then trading him now is selling high. If you go back about 8 posts, this hypo was based on our assumption that Barrett's production was flat for 2-3 years. If you change the assumption, then whether it's selling high or not also changes. Trading something right before the value drops would be selling high. In terms of ball players, I think 2-3 years of production is enough lag time such that it's not selling high. I'm ok w/ disagreeing w/ you about this. Really.

He's been a full-time catcher for 6 years, he's been a catcher for longer. He's got more innings behind the plate than career catcher Henry Blanco. He's got nearly as many major league innings behind the dish as Paul Lo Duca. Blanco sucks - thus never plays. Lo Duca has less than 4 "full" seasons (more than 91 games) in his career. Neither of these guys really support your argument.

That's not trading high, that's fleecing somebody. Trading high is trading at a point when you can get the highest return. You could trade Neifi Perez tomorrow for a B prospect and you'd be getting more than equal value, but that doesn't mean you traded high. Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else. Not every trade where one side pays more than a guy's actual value is a fleecing. And your Neifi example is irrelevant to the points I'm making; I've never suggested trading worthless players for good prospects. Trading JJ now or JP now would truly be "selling high" to me. Besides, if you trade someone for a player of essentially equal value, you haven't improved your team (unless that player plays a position of need and you're trading from a position of excess). The Cubs don't have a lot of solid hitting Cs, so trading Barrett only improves the team if you get more than he's worth. I don't think you will. Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long. Given that many Cs caught in HS if not before, that's probably at least 5 if not 10+ years of catching that he hasn't done relative to other ML Cs. So my point still stands: the sharp decline at 30 that someone pointed out earlier may not apply here. Is it possible for Barrett to decline much more from a defensive standpoint? He's not very good. I was talking offense.

That's not trading high, that's fleecing somebody. Trading high is trading at a point when you can get the highest return. You could trade Neifi Perez tomorrow for a B prospect and you'd be getting more than equal value, but that doesn't mean you traded high. Again - I guess we disagree. I'm not saying you fleece someone. I'm saying you're getting more than what a guy is worth based on recent performance or whatever else. Not every trade where one side pays more than a guy's actual value is a fleecing. And your Neifi example is irrelevant to the points I'm making; I've never suggested trading worthless players for good prospects. Trading JJ now or JP now would truly be "selling high" to me. Besides, if you trade someone for a player of essentially equal value, you haven't improved your team (unless that player plays a position of need and you're trading from a position of excess). The Cubs don't have a lot of solid hitting Cs, so trading Barrett only improves the team if you get more than he's worth. I don't think you will. Wow. Ok - sorry for my mischaracterization. So he's been catching for 6 years. For a 29 (near 30) year old, that's not all that long. Given that many Cs caught in HS if not before, that's probably at least 5 if not 10+ years of catching that he hasn't done relative to other ML Cs. So my point still stands: the sharp decline at 30 that someone pointed out earlier may not apply here.

Could you get anything more for Barrett in 2-3 years than you could get right now? Highly doubtful. Therefore, trading this year would be selling high. We'll just have to disagree on this point. In my world, trading a player for what he is currently worth isn't selling high, it's trading for equal value. Selling high is taking advantage of overvaluation by the market. JJ and JP (after a few decent weeks) may be sell high candidates right now. I don't think Barrett is. You're not going to get more for Barrett in 2-3 years, but probably not much less either. And he's not likely to bring back a top prospect anyway, so I don't much see the point in dealing him. He's never had a full season of .350 OBP in his career. It's not like you are trading away guaranteed great production, OPS+ of 105 and 113 the past two years, there's a pretty mediocre list of comparable players throughout history. If nobody is interested in his services come July 31st, or next offseason, then so be it, hold onto him. But he's not a must keep player. His last two seasons were .337 and .345 (I don't know his history in Montreal, but he didn't play much in '03, but in '02 he was .332 in 117 games). This year he's .371. Given that those are his 27-29 years, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he'll keep that up until he's about 31. And he's only been a C for a few years, so I don't see a sharp early decline for him. But whatever - I don't think we should trade a .340 OBP C for some average prospect. I think we have enough in terms of talent, prospects, and payroll to turn this thing around in less than 3 years. So why give up Barrett for what is likely not going to be a difference-maker? To be clear - Barrett's not untouchable. In fact, to me, no one is. If the Cards offer Pujols for Lee - I'm all over it. If the Twins offer Santana for Z - I'm all over that. But I'd have to get a great offer for those guys. And no one's going to make even a real good offer for Barrett. If they do, take it. If not, why try to deal him? He's not bad now and his production isn't likely to plummet next year, so keep him around and worry about fixing the problems.

I'd actually look to deal Dempster first (teams might give a pretty good prospect for a closer), but I'd have no problem dealing Eyre, Howry, Williamson or any other BP arm. If we could come up with 2-3 more good starters, we wouldn't need 5 good BP pitchers anyway. And if we don't come up with 2-3 good starters (either from in-house or elsewhere), we're not going to be any good next year anyway - so these guys wouldn't help us.

The fact that he might have 2-3 years left as a solid hitting C is exactly why it would be selling high. Barrett isn't the biggest problem with the team, but neither is Jones, and I'd be happy as heck if Jacque was dealt. Not being the biggest problem isn't a good enough reason to not trade a guy. When you trade your big problems you are trading low and getting very little back in return. You and I have different definitions of selling high. If we're going on the assumption that Barrett puts up roughly the same numbers for 2-3 years, it's not selling high. It's getting roughly equal value. Selling high is trading JJ for what you would typically get for an .850 OF b/c Jones is not really an .850 OF, despite what his numbers say right now. So you trade him now (sell high) before he cools off. If you trade him for his actual value, you're not selling high. That's my point. As for dealing Barrett, I'm not opposed to it. But if you do, I think we have a decent sized hole at C for a couple years. So unless we got a good C back, what's the point of creating another hole? JH isn't that good at filling the ones we have. And I haven't suggested dealing our problems (other than JJ - who I think is a big problem, given we have him for 2.5 more years and I don't think he'll put up .850 OPS for that entire time). I think JJ has more value right now than he normally would. I think teams in need of some pop (esp LH pop) from a corner OF might deal for JJ. And I'd prefer it if he weren't in our long term plans. I also think some teams would be interested in Dempster. He's been pretty good, but I think he's more valuable to a contender than to us right now. I'd also trade Maddux, Howry, Eyre or anyone else with value who is relatively easily replaceable. I just don't think you'd get that much for Barrett right now (don't think teams see a C as the guy that gets them over the top) and I don't think we can afford to give away a .350 OBP from the C position (we don't have enough as it is - let alone one that plays C) if we intend to contend any time soon.

I believe the track record for catchers after age 30 is not the greatest (though Barret's late switch to catcher may mean a more delayed decline). That said, trading a productive Barrett at age 29 is a great idea if the Cubs can get 2-3 good prospects out of a farm system that has emphasized plate discipline and OBP (qualites that to date have been completely foreign to the Cubs). I highly doubt they would move Barrett just to shake things up -- but he does represent one of the more valuable pieces that they could deal and get real good value in back in terms of prospects. I'm not arguing that Barrett isn't a valuable trade chip, I was arguing that trading him wouldn't be selling high. I think he'll continue to produce around an .850 OPS for another couple years. That'll likely keep him toward the top of the list of offensive Cs. And I don't think his D is costing us as many games as losing 150 points of OPS (and one of the few .350+ OBP guys in the lineup) would. So we agree - trading Barrett may net us 2-3 good prospects. But I don't think Barrett is the biggest problem w/ the team and I think he could be a good piece of a quality team for 2-3 years. So why not sell high on other pieces that may currently be overvalued by the market (JJ, Dempster, maybe Maddux) for prospects?

Not sure giving up Barrett now is truly selling high. Yes, he'd be trading him when his value is high. But the point of sellin high is getting more value than a player is really worth. Barrett's only 29. So he may have a few more years of production at this level. And it's not like the market for Cs is really fantastic, so it's not like a bunch of teams are going to be in hot pursuit of him to boost his value. I wouldn't trade Barrett unless it was a GREAT offer. Trading Jones now would be the definition of selling high.