goonys evil twin

he only had 30 ab's in AA in 05. why not bring up the fact that he is hitting .375 in the playoffs then? he had several years of college ball and will be 23 next year. if he has a good year in AA next year, i dont see how it would be considered rushing him to bring him up at the end of 06. You bring up my point for me, he's barely cracked into AA. What did he have, 2 years of college ball? EPatt had a good year in low A. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. He's not Mark Teixeira. Look at somebody like Chad Tracy, drafted in the 7th round in 2001 out of college. He put up good numbers in low A. Had a full season in AA, and a full season in AAA, then came up after 1300+ plate appearances. That is a reasonable and responsible process for a player like EPatt. There is nothing to be gained by rushing him, or putting expectations of rapid promotion on him. Don't make 2006 roster decisions based on the theory that Eric can be called up that September. Unless he's murdering AA ball next year there is no reason to even consider such a move.

EP ready by late next year should not factor into the equation. He's got one partial pro season of great success under his belt, and his start at AA has been less than impressive (.200/.324/.267) He needs a full season of AA ball, and probably needs to start at AAA in 2007. Rushing prospects is not the way to go.

I fall into camp one, but if option two produces a solid trade, I would not object. But it really has to be a big influx in talent to justify the deal.

So 5 of the 8 position players on the Cubs are better than the Cards, and 6th one is a wash this year (Lee/Pujols). So that means that you'd only take the Cards for 2 of the 8 positions? And yet the Cards have scored 80 more runs than the Cubs. I don't get your logic. when you compare the SS the Cubs have had in there most of the year to Eckstein, the Cards have obviously gotten more production out of that position. FYI Team production from SS position: Cards - .290 .363 .388 Cubs - .276 .312 .375

It wouldn't kill the Cubs to have one position with an OBP of .310, especially if that positions costs less than $1 million and plays good defense.

Hunter in a corner spot? That's awful. He's not better than Burnitz, who has been disappointing as a $4m middle of the order guy.

He's a highlight reel star, but not a true one. He's a John Kruk/Harold Reynolds kind of player, not a GM who is trying to field the best possible team kind of player. He's a $4-5m player, not a $10+ million player.

White Sox losing 9-7 in 9th.

Does that mean big Mac will be there to talk about the past?

The relationship doesn't matter. The ability to speak to one another does.

Johjima. ;) He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB. I think I'm done with believing those rough equivalents. Iguchi's equivalent was .311/.358/.474 last year and he's hit .279/.347/.440 this year. Not perfect but not bad either. I understand they hold some merit, and that Japanese players should be considered, but I refuse to get on another bandwagon for these guys. I also have some serious questions per the language barrier. Perhaps if they signed Matsui and he came in from LF everytime the pitcher and catcher wanted to speak, it would be easier.

Johjima. ;) He's a free agent after this offseason, he's 4 months older than Barrett, and his numbers last year roughly equate to .315/.373/.533 in MLB. I think I'm done with believing those rough equivalents.

No, I said reasonable improvements readily available. I'm not sure how anybody can be certain this guy would be a reasonable improvement, meaning there's no way to tell what he would do next year. And I don't think he's readily available, meaning a cost efficient acquisition (no more expensive than Barrett).

So now you don't think he should be replaced? You can live with him as catcher? I don't get where this debate is going. I guess everybody is close to agreeing that Barrett isn't perfect, but there probably aren't any reasonable improvements readily available.

So now you admit you're ripping him? There's nothing wrong with it. But it's become quite clear that those with a strong anti-Barrett bias have very little interest in discussing realistic options for improvement. People are claiming pitchers can't trust him, he's losing games and that he must go. Yet nobody has come up with a replacement that would improve the team. Name one that is realistic.

The fact that you picked 5 words out of that post and repeated them over and over while completely ignoring the overall message means that you have very little interest in actually discussing the merits of the call to replace Barrett.

That was a pretty weak attempt at reading what I wrote. I never said it was OK that he screwed up. My point is Barrett's defense isn't costing this team wins. Keep the team the same, and replace him with a real live catcher who is available, and this team is no better. There just isn't a catcher who is overall better than Barrett that you can get. All of you ripping him, and yes, you are ripping him, and making it quite clear you want him replaced, are ignoring the very important fact that you would have to replace him with a catcher that is available. And that's just not very likely to happen.

Barrett is average, maybe a little below. Blanco is very good. Barrett plays about 2.5 times as much as Blanco, put those together and I see above average. If you want to say average, fine. Either way, they are fine in the catchers spot overall. Defense has not killed this team all year. There have been bad episodes. However, bad pitching and poor approaches at the plate have been far more damaging to the team. It's nont like they were a few less mistakes from taking the division. Everybody likes to point out specific times when defensive lapses lost games, but opponents' defensive lapses have also won games for the Cubs. And when you talk about things like Barrett in Philly, who in their right mind could say the Cubs would have won if he didn't make that mistake? Odds are they still lose. It's not like they were winning and he let in the tying and winning run with stupidity. Simply improving defense is not nearly enough to make this team better. Odds are, when you improve the defense, the lineup will decline, and more times than not, that offensive decline will be greater than the defensive improvement, because of many factors previously discussed. Yes, defense is important, but it's clearly 3rd on the list. You can't win just with defense, you must pitch and hit first and second. The total OF production, hitting and fielding combined, has been the biggest problem on this team. The catcher position is fine overall. Not great, but fine, and I've yet to hear any realistic option to improve it, while improving the team as a whole as well.

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now. No, because it tallies entirely with what he threw, fastball, curveball, no third pitch. I know there are some here that think entirely in terms of numbers, so why don't you make a nice long list for me of effective major league starters with just two pitches. Then multiply the number of pitchers on that list by Adam Dunn's VORP and divide by the square root of Derrek Lee's BABIP in the first half of 2005 and tell me what you get. Numbers are great, and I love using them too, but they're the end result of processes. If the processes are bad, and you can often see that with your eyes, then the numbers will be too. What about another list of pitchers who took time to develop a third pitch. Zito is curveball, mediocre fastball, changeup and he's won Cy Youngs. Why is it impossible to think Hill could develop a decent changeup, thus making him a credible 4th/5th starter.

I think you, and all the others dogging Barrett, are the ones going to extremes. Those of us that are addressing the need for balance, are acknowledging that Barrett has his pluses and minuses. He's a top line offensive catcher, and just average defensively. Overall, with Blanco and Barrett, the Cubs are getting top line offense out of catcher (2nd in NL in OBP and OPS), and above average defense. That's pretty good balance. Those of you ripping Barrett to shreds and begging for a replacement to solidify up the middle defense are completely ignoring offense. Because quite frankly there is no realistic option to significantly upgrade the Cubs overall catching defense without significantly decreasing their offensive production, thus, throwing off the balance. I can't believe I have to fall on the side of Barrett defense. I never liked his acquisition. But the fact is catcher is not a trouble spot on the Cubs, and the chances of upgrading there are slim to none. Other problems are far more pressing, and much easier to address.

This is why I like the catcher to be the coach on the field. Does Barrett notice these things? Yeah, the coaches and manager are suppose to see what's going on but having a catcher that can take care and recognize things on the field, during the flow of the game, are very important IMO. He sees the release point better than anyone. He sees the movement better then anyone. Can he commute this to the pitcher? Does he have the respect from the staff to do so? I remember the highly regarded Joe Girardi once talking about a Cubs pitcher who got injured and saying something to the effect of, "I noticed behind the plate that his delivery was off, he looked like he was wearing down." Yet Joe never went out and talked to that pitcher in that game, and he never said anything pre-injury that might have caused the manager to pull the guy before the injury got worse. I don't know where the myth of the all-knowing, soothing, Dr. Phil-esque catcher leading the weak-minded and timid pitchers through a ballgame came from. But it probably got a big boost from Crash Davis, and almost always comes after the fact. When Pudge was in Texas he first received high praise for his masterful arm. Then as Texas pitchers routinely got hammered, conventional wisdom said he was selfishly calling too many fastballs so he could gun down baserunners more easily, and therefore jeopardizing the team. He was considered a terrible leader in the offseason before signing with Florida, then his reputation soared after winning the world series. Now that Detroit is struggling with him around, that reputation is taking another hit. Jason Varitek is considered perhaps the ultimate catcher as coach in the game today, yet for years his genius was unable to help the Red Sox faltering pitching staff from taking advantage of that team's great offense. And now that Boston's pitching is struggling again, you don't hear nearly as much about his greatness. Damien Miller was supposed to be a defensive stud with great ability to manage the pitchers. Yet when he came to Chicago, he routinely failed to prevent wild pitches and passed balls with what many saw as a lazy approach to blocking pitches, and when he went to Oakland the big three suffered a decline and the team failed to make the playoffs for the first time in 5 years. The almighty Mike Matheny doesn't seem to have meant anything in terms of seeing a decline out of STL pitching or an improvement out of SF. All this talk about catcher coaches, much like clutch hitting and other intangibles, just doesn't hold up to objective analysis. Now, I'm not saying there's no value in great catcher defense. I just think many of the Barrett bashers are really getting carried away with the talk of finding his replacement. All things considered, Barrett is top half of the league as a catcher. He does not kill the team with his defense or game calling. But he's not great at either. I would have no problem with the Cubs replacing him, as I was never a fan of his from the start. But the offensive hit would likely be significant, and you'd have to make serious upgrades elsewhere to make it worthwhile. Right now the Cubs pay about $5.5m for all around good catching (offense and defense). If you could bring that figure down to about $2m and still get all around above average catching and get significant value from a Barrett trade, and fill needs elsewhere in the lineup, then it makes sense. But none of that is going to be easy. Hendry has not shown a great aptitude for filling multiple needs at once, I don't they should make their job any more difficult than it already is.

What did Morgan Ensberg come back from?

I'd take him if Arizona adds Quentin to the deal and the Cubs pay all of Gonzo's salary. Wait, you want the Cubs to pay $11m for a guy who probably won't have much more than an 800 OPS and has a good chance to be sub 800?

Doesn't that right there cause you to take pause and perhaps maybe not pass judgement just yet? 80 PA. That's nothing. Talk of Hill as strictly a LOOGY makes no sense to me right now.

Do you really think that Hendry would sell high on this one? Williams for Carlos Quentin, baby! Very interesting....Who do you slide into Williams slot? Burnett. I'd pay the 4/40 to get him. If it turns out to be impractical to outbid the Yanks for his services, I'd go with an open competition between Hill, Guzman, Pinto, Nolasco, etc. Tim, I gotta say, I don't understand your infatuation with Burnett. I don't think I'd come close to 4/40 with him. He's just not that special. This will be only the 2nd time in his career he's gone past 200 innings, and that's assuming he doesn't get hurt during his next outing (a relatively big assumption with him). You're talking about somebody who is significantly less reliable than Kerry Wood, and less accomplished at the same age. I just don't get it. Yes, he's a quality arm with some upside. But the Cubs don't lack quality arms with upside. They lack consistently solid pitchers, and Burnett is anything but consistently solid. Just look at his road ERA of 4.38 from 2002-2004 (it's 3.88 this year).