mbn007 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 OWNED. Not that InsaneMike has enough grip on reality to understand it. True. These posters are all making sense, but Mike will stick to his opinion, and never change his mind, come what may, since he is right, in his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted June 21, 2007 Share Posted June 21, 2007 Add Molina's 58 HR's the last 4 seasons and again there is no disparity. Barrett is a nice player....top5 offensively as a catcher?...NO. Better than the middle tier guys we are discussing? NO. He is also now no longer playing in Wrigley. Common Sense? Since when is that allowed around here? You are only right if the "alphabet soup" menu of Bill James Baseball agrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 You said he was a better power hitter than any of those guys on the list. Apparently you were mistaken. Admit it. Move on. Didn't this whole debate start whenever you referred to Barrett as a "run of the mill" catcher? Are Varitek and Pudge also run of the mill offensive catchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Didn't this whole debate start whenever you referred to Barrett as a "run of the mill" catcher? Are Varitek and Pudge also run of the mill offensive catchers? Offensively? Neither are as good as they used to be. But I didn't just say offensively from the beginning. I talked about defense the entire time, which is more important as far as catchers are concerned. You factor in Tek's CERA and his leadership and he is a better catcher than Barrett, regardless of their ages. Pudge has been around a long time, and while he is still well above average defensively and he is coming around at the plate, I'd have to say he is barely a top 10 catcher in MLB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 Offensively? Neither are as good as they used to be. But I didn't just say offensively from the beginning. I talked about defense the entire time, which is more important as far as catchers are concerned. You factor in Tek's CERA and his leadership and he is a better catcher than Barrett, regardless of their ages. Pudge has been around a long time, and while he is still well above average defensively and he is coming around at the plate, I'd have to say he is barely a top 10 catcher in MLB. I am not talking about defense. I never said Michael Barrett was Brad Ausmus. He isn't. He sucks behind the plate. But, he is a very good hitter. Did you know that Rob Bowen is ALSO a mediocre defensive catcher? And he doesn't have the bat that Barrett does. So, I shouldn't be pissed about this trade? That is where everything started. I was pissed, you called Barrett run of the mill and said the Cubs were better off. They aren't. They are a worse team today than they were three days ago. Because they traded a mediocre defensive catcher with a very good bat for a mediocre defensive catcher with a ****ty bat. Oh, and a prospect that hit .200 in rookie ball last year. Jim Hendry for GM of the Year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 I am not talking about defense. I never said Michael Barrett was Brad Ausmus. He isn't. He sucks behind the plate. But, he is a very good hitter. Did you know that Rob Bowen is ALSO a mediocre defensive catcher? And he doesn't have the bat that Barrett does. So, I shouldn't be pissed about this trade? That is where everything started. I was pissed, you called Barrett run of the mill and said the Cubs were better off. They aren't. They are a worse team today than they were three days ago. Because they traded a mediocre defensive catcher with a very good bat for a mediocre defensive catcher with a ****ty bat. Oh, and a prospect that hit .200 in rookie ball last year. Jim Hendry for GM of the Year! I did call him run of the mill. I didn't say they were better off, although he is a clubhouse cancer and it isn't like the Cubs have any legitimate shot at the playoffs, so get what you can while you can. And he doesn't have a very good bat. He has a very mediocre bat. It's addition by subtraction, if your teammates don't want you there, you aren't going to be there very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 I did call him run of the mill. I didn't say they were better off, although he is a clubhouse cancer and it isn't like the Cubs have any legitimate shot at the playoffs, so get what you can while you can. And he doesn't have a very good bat. He has a very mediocre bat. It's addition by subtraction, if your teammates don't want you there, you aren't going to be there very long. If Barrett's bat is mediocre, then so are Varitek's and Ivan's. Barrett is third among catchers in HR this season. I guess every catcher besides John Buck and Victor Martinez is also mediocre. And it is not addition by subtraction. It is taking your fourth best hitter out of your lineup permanently and not replacing him. I guess you would have no problem if the Sox traded Youk or Mike Lowell for scraps, right? Especially if the rest of your "offense" consisted of guys like Ryan Theriot, Mike Fontenot, Jacque Jones, and Angel Pagan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 If Barrett's bat is mediocre, then so are Varitek's and Ivan's. Barrett is third among catchers in HR this season. I guess every catcher besides John Buck and Victor Martinez is also mediocre. And it is not addition by subtraction. It is taking your fourth best hitter out of your lineup permanently and not replacing him. I guess you would have no problem if the Sox traded Youk or Mike Lowell for scraps, right? Especially if the rest of your "offense" consisted of guys like Ryan Theriot, Mike Fontenot, Jacque Jones, and Angel Pagan. You're going in circles. Catching is made up of more than just hitting. I understand he was a decent hitter for you team. Varitek and Pudge also have better BAs, scored more runs, had more RBIs, and are both great defensive catchers. Barrett is a liability behind the plate. And I suppose if Mike Lowell or Kevin Youkilis were disliked by their teammates, I could see them being moved. Sometimes you have to just get rid of a guy to make your clubhouse better. It's no fun being a losing team, it's even worse when someone is trying to fight someone new every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 You're going in circles. Catching is made up of more than just hitting. I understand he was a decent hitter for you team. Varitek and Pudge also have better BAs, scored more runs, had more RBIs, and are both great defensive catchers. Barrett is a liability behind the plate. And I suppose if Mike Lowell or Kevin Youkilis were disliked by their teammates, I could see them being moved. Sometimes you have to just get rid of a guy to make your clubhouse better. It's no fun being a losing team, it's even worse when someone is trying to fight someone new every day. I am not sure where you are getting the impression that Barrett was some sort of clubhouse cancer. As far as know, the whole Zambrano incident is the only knock against Barrett. In fact, the Padres were willing to trade for Barrett on the recommendation of Greg Maddux. I doubt Mad Dog would have told the Padres that it was a good idea to trade for a guy that is a cancer. And I am not sure why you keep talking about defense. I have already said that Barrett absolutely blows at his position. Barrett was very useful, strictly from an offensive point of view. If we had a lineup like the Sox or Yanks, he would have been more expendable. But, we don't. Without Barrett, the Cubs lineup is on the verge of horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCarl40 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 I am not sure where you are getting the impression that Barrett was some sort of clubhouse cancer. As far as know, the whole Zambrano incident is the only knock against Barrett. In fact, the Padres were willing to trade for Barrett on the recommendation of Greg Maddux. I doubt Mad Dog would have told the Padres that it was a good idea to trade for a guy that is a cancer. And I am not sure why you keep talking about defense. I have already said that Barrett absolutely blows at his position. Barrett was very useful, strictly from an offensive point of view. If we had a lineup like the Sox or Yanks, he would have been more expendable. But, we don't. Without Barrett, the Cubs lineup is on the verge of horrible. There was that whole thing with Rich Hill last week too. And to be honest, with Barrett the Cubs lineup was on the verge of horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted June 22, 2007 Author Share Posted June 22, 2007 There was that whole thing with Rich Hill last week too. And to be honest, with Barrett the Cubs lineup was on the verge of horrible. The Rich Hill thing was blown out of proportion. It was a conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 I am not talking about defense. I never said Michael Barrett was Brad Ausmus. He isn't. He sucks behind the plate. But, he is a very good hitter. Barrett does flat out suck defensively but I think what might be a bigger issue is the way he handles pitches and pitchers. Everybody (Cub pitchers) they're quoting in the papers is saying they're sorry to see him leave - all I know is he only caught a couple games for Maddux and he said no mas. There's few sharper pitching minds in the game than Greg Maddux. Barrett is a good stick and should end up in the AL in a DH role. I'm sure his power numbers could elevate in a role like that. The fact that the Cub got doink for him just shows how much they wanted him outta here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanDoug Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 The fact that the Cub got doink for him just shows how much they wanted him outta here. Very well said, NJ. Hey, am I close to getting my "the Cubs are at .500" pinch yet? Just askin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJ Posted June 23, 2007 Share Posted June 23, 2007 Hey, am I close to getting my "the Cubs are at .500" pinch yet? Just askin' Boy - I don't know Doug. It sure is nice to see Z come back strong and Lou is setting totally new ground in his style with playing kids in the outfield... actually infield too. They just have real trouble producing runs. They have the bats to really do some damage and the starting pitching has been much better than expected. Maybe by mid July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.