Nico's Official Spin On The Trade
by Nico on Jul 11, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
128 comments
Wait, it’s not “spin” if it’s true. Cool. Understandably, the Harden trade has unnerved some who feel unsure how much the A’s lost and how much they gained. I do think the trade will wind up as a good one for Oakland, and here’s why:
* Rich Harden: Sure, Harden could be shelved after his Cubs’ debut and he could pitch straight through the end of the 2009 season. However, the likeliest scenario is that Harden will make his next few scheduled starts, but that his arm will not hold up over time. History, in the form of six D.L. stints and a worrisome “tired arm” already this season, suggests he will break down later if not sooner, perhaps around September 1st. Perhaps Harden will even pitch well enough and for long enough to have made the Cubs’ investment in him worthwhile – but still not continuously enough to have been the difference in the A’s chances to contend in 2008.
* Chad Gaudin: Gaudin is a solid #4 starter and durable bullpen arm, but he is very replaceable, so much so that there are literally about eight starting pitchers who figure to be past him on the major league depth chart in the next two years, from Greg Smith and Dana Eveland, on to Gio Gonzalez and James Simmons, right on down to Brett Anderson and Trevor Cahill. It's not a big loss, especially when you get a major-league ready starter back in return.
Meanwhile...
* Sean Gallagher: Scouts, on average, only project Gallagher as a #3-#4 starter, an innings-eater, but he’s going to be better than that. Here’s what I think fans easily forget about scouting reports: They are pretty accurate on average, but there are always some players who are better than their scouting report and some who aren’t as good. A team’s job – and the A’s are exceptionally good at this – is to identify which players are actually going to be better than their projections. Sometimes a pitcher is under-projected because he was rushed to the major leagues and put up some ugly numbers (Gaudin, Eveland), sometimes because he doesn’t pop the radar gun (Simmons), or because he doesn’t have a scout-friendly frame (Hudson, Harden). The A’s believe they have identified a pitcher who will be a solid #3 starter, and to get a solid #3 starter who is 22 years old and yours for six years is to get something significant. And it’s not all the A’s got…
* Matt Murton: What are the A’s getting in Matt Murton? They are getting a career .294/.362/.448 (.810 OPS) hitter whose success has not been park dependent – on the road he is a nearly identical .293/.359/.448 (.807 OPS). For perspective, put into the A’s lineup today he would be the A’s second leading hitter for average (behind R. Sweeney), second in OBP (behind Cust), and he would lead the team in OPS (no one is currently over .800). Murton may not be a hitting superstar or a sexy name, but his bat represents a real improvement to the A’s lineup right now (I expect to see him in Oakland any day - I'm guessing that the A's just want him to get hot first in Sacramento so they can bring him up when he's feeling good, just as they did with Bankston).
* Eric Patterson: I don’t know if Patterson will ever play for Oakland but he doesn’t have to be a star in order to be an upgrade. Major league teams need utility players too, and in order to be an upgrade Patterson only needs to exceed the production of a Donnie Murphy or Rajai Davis. If his addition in a trade helps to get a good deal done (as it just did for the Cubs), that’s useful too.
* Josh Donaldson: Like Patterson, he has good physical skills and is worth a flyer. If he exceeds expectations, great, and if he doesn’t, he did not make or break the deal. Over the years you take flyers on ten talented individuals like Patterson and Donaldson, figuring maybe two will pay off – you’re not sure which two, you just know you need to add ten to get two.
Bottom line: I predict that by mid-September, Harden will likely run out of gas before the Cubs run out of season, and we’ll be relieved we’re not the ones cursing “what could have been”. Meanwhile, Gallagher will have shown why the A’s wanted him more than the average scout thought the A’s should want him, and Murton will be helping an A’s offense that needs all the help it can get. And we’ll like the trade more than we thought we would, as usual!
0 recs |
128 comments
Email
Print
Comments
+1
and i don’t mean 25
"It's not my fault your team's so shitty." -Steve Friend, head coach, Chabot College, to Laney College's head coach, who asked why we scored so many runs after we beat Laney 30-3 in 2006
by flipgatey3 on Jul 11, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But
this is a front page diary, which makes it different because … uh … it’s on the front page. Oh, and it’s “official.”
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on Jul 11, 2008 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this one could still get rained out
Then, of course, we’d still have to replay it in its entirety immediately after another front-page story in September. And we’d have to charge separate admissions.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well put Nico! I’m trying to be positive about it all! Bring on the Halos!
by jwnewman on Jul 11, 2008 2:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the only thing that's changed for me regarding the trade
(still not a fan of it) is my belief that Beane acquired these guys while planning to flip them. I now think that the A’s really do like all 3 players from the trade and can see potential roles for them in the future.
Maybe Murton is Langerhans redux, but acquiring players you don’t value, even if you’ve got a deal lined up in the near future, strikes me as foolish. And that’s especially true for a team that deals with a small payroll.
by rebus on Jul 11, 2008 2:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I could very well see a scenario in which BIlly aquired Gallagher to keep, and some combination of Murton/Patterson/Donaldson because that was who another team wanted in exchange for the second player we’ll be aquiring soon.
by mikev on Jul 11, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks
... but that’s kind of the opposite of what I think. I don’t think they’re going to move them… or at least did not intend to when acquiring them.
by rebus on Jul 11, 2008 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly I don't see a situation in which Patterson and/or Donaldson are desirable players.
I guess Patterson is basically somebody who could replace Rajai Davis, but with Weeks there is no need for a “2b of the future” type – especially when he’s supposedly a bad fielder anyway.
Murton should be on the MLB roster right now. The fact that he isn’t is highly, highly suspect to me.
Donaldson is a throw in. He’s probably got about 6 guys ahead of him on the organizational depth chart for catchers, that’s a long way from MLB.
by mikev on Jul 11, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You underestimate Donaldson's value
He was the #48 pick in the draft last year based on his athleticism and offensive potential. He was fantastic last year, but has struggled in for half a season in the worst hitters’ league in minor league baseball. It is way to early to write off Donaldson’s value after one bad half season. He is a legitimate prospect. That doesn’t mean he won’t be a bust, but he is a legitimate prospect.
by BlameChannel53 on Jul 11, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I agree with your take. He’s probably the best middle infield prospect the Cubs have, and Sickels liked him enough to grade him a B. And it would have been a B+ if not for his defense, which makes me think the A’s have some sort of plan for him. Either they think he can learn to play a league average 2nd base or that he’s got the skill set for CF.
Donaldson’s a more straight forward case. Another B prospect, (though old for his level) the A’s must like him at least from a value standpoint. I’d imagine their plan is moving him back to 3B, or at least trying him back there. No reason to be optimistic about Patterson and pessimistic about Donaldson – he’s probably the better prospect.
by rebus on Jul 11, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of them filled any sort of organizational need
I guess that’s my biggest problem (still) with the trade.
Harden was - arguably - the best trade chip Beane had after Haren and Swisher were dealt during the offseason.
To me, it’s just very worrisome that neither 3B or SS were addressed in any of the 3 major trades that have been made so far.
by mikev on Jul 11, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who was to say they offered any SS, or 3B. It might be an organizational
need for them too, so why would they give them away.
by theblackpearl on Jul 11, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of them filled any sort of organizational need
I guess that’s my biggest problem (still) with the trade.
I don’t think there’s any denying that. That’s why I don’t like it much either, though the process was most likely sound.
I’d imagine they could have netted Vitters+1 (and I’m kinda upset they didn’t broach it), but it’s certainly possible that they thought they’d be able to extract more value from the Cubs’ package without Vitters. Getting ultimate value is more important.
And, beyond Vitters, I don’t see what the Cubs had to fill Oakland holes.
by rebus on Jul 11, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think what it comes down to is that we REALLY wanted Gallagher
And we weren’t getting Vitters + Gallagher.
The fact that we wanted Gallagher so badly is a big reason I’m fine with the trade.
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oy, this language is really bugging me
It’s absurd enough to refer to the team as “we”.
It’s REALLY absurd when you make it sound like the team and the fans agreed on something which, it is immediately obvious from reading this blog, they didn’t.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
old habits
Once you fall into the habit it’s really hard to stop. I catch myself doing it every now and then, and it annoys the piss out of me too.
by rebus on Jul 11, 2008 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I can say is get used to it
My favorite teams are “we.” In this case, “we” wanted him refers to Beane/Young/etc. not the team and all fans.
I think it’s a pretty clear (and pretty normal) way to talk about the team I’m invested in, so I hope for your sake you’ll abandon this particular peeve.
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I could "abandon" it, I already would have
Sadly, I don’t get to pick and choose what I find niggling. And one of the things that I find niggling is people saying things that make no sense (eg “could care less”)—particularly when their nonsensicality makes them confusing.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure you do
Of course you have absolute control over what you find niggling – you just choose to let it niggle you. To say otherwise is nonsense.
by Larry E on Jul 11, 2008 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What you meant to say
To say otherwise makes no sense..
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So all things that people find annoying
are only annoying because those people deeply, inwardly desire to feel the emotion of annoyance?
I know you don’t even believe that.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find this entire conversation annoying
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"we" find this entire conversation annoying
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By which you mean, "the Oakland A's decisionmakers find this conversation annoying"
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the organization and the fans alike!
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually I think this time it's pretty clear
“we” means “every human being on earth unanimously believes.”
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No not exactly
I’m not saying that you desire to be annoyed – I have no idea whether you do or don’t – but you always have a choice in how you respond to virtually any stimulus. You may be in the habit of responding or feeling a certain way but you can break that habit. One possibility is that you may prefer to be annoyed rather than invest the time and energy in breaking the habit/conditioned response. Basically, you are in control of your own emotions.
Just so you know, I don’t mean any disrespect in any of this to you; I too find things annoying but a lot less so since I realized it’s my own choice; I think you bring a lot of baseball knowledge to this site.
by Larry E on Jul 11, 2008 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's sort of abusive for one to berate people for talking in terms that annoys one.
If it annoys you thats fine. But to call someone absurd, or to call them REALLY absurd when it’s clear what they are talking about and what they mean is just abusive. 3 steps below beating your wife for looking at you funny.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What makes you think we care what niggles you?
by Sacred#24 on Jul 11, 2008 5:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who would fardels bear?
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oy, this insufferable peevishness is really bugging me
It’s absurd enough that you take yourself as seriously as you do.
It’s REALLY absurd that you feel it necessary to pick apart innocuous transgressions like this with such overbearing derision.
I view you as kind of like a super death ray gun, capable of reducing fortresses and mountains and aircraft carriers to ash in a blinding apocalyptic flash. But when you have a super death ray gun at your disposal, you don’t use it to swat mosquitoes! You go after evil scheming bad guys and existential threats. I want you in every superfluous OMG Beane sucks! thread, laying waste to inanity and preventing the hyperventilation from going malignant, not here, criticizing harmless self-team conflations. Dammit man, pull yourself together! Focus!
by 74mk on Jul 11, 2008 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I view PT as a shark with frikkin' lasers
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Condescending
know-it-all. If he didn’t love the A’s, it would be harder to forgive.
Besides, in my experience, you either change, or life dishes out the punishment. No need to hate.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was born on National Grouch Day
(True fact. Look it up.)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I , however, was born on Thanksgiving
So I guess that explains that.
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was born on the anniversary of D-Day.
Incidentally, I share a birthday with our very own unicorn, MaEl.
by mikev on Jul 11, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was born on My Birthday, so I guess it makes me special
where you have to share your grouchy birthday
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
by Eastbayjim on Jul 11, 2008 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Having calmed down myself from the Harden trade..
I see the Cubs rationale on it now….
Harden is traded for the X-Factor when they hit the playoffs. He’s not durable for the whole season (hence inclusion of Guadin) , but if you can rest him just in time for the playoffs….watch out!
Wonder why Patterson isn’t on the MLB/AAA roster yet though? Is he being packaged else where?
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
by ST on Jul 11, 2008 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Patterson played for Sacramento lastnight.
When will then be now? Soon.
by Syphon on Jul 11, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh he did?
He’s not listed on their online roster…....
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't figure out what's going on with Murton
He’s not on the Rivercats roster, but he’s listed on our 40 man roster. Just kind of in no man’s land right now. I suppose it could indicate that he might be a park of another deal sending him elsewhere, but it’s a little unusual that he hasn’t played anywhere since being traded.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What's the rule on this?
How long can a guy stay in limbo before he has to be sent, like, somewhere?
Does a player like Murton or Patterson have to be added to some actual roster or is being on the 40-man the only thing required?
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 11, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Patterson is on their roster
I messed that one up. But it only adds to the mystery….if patterson was added, why not Murton? Murton must either be on his way to Oakland or being packaged in another deal.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I don't know that there are any rules on it
And why should there be? If a team is paying a guy’s salary, as The A’s are with Murton, that should be incentive enough to get him out on the field.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are rules
because it’s part of the standard contract – on the one hand players can’t just show up when/if they feel like it, and on the other hand they need to be given a reasonable amount of time to take care of personal business before moving to a new place, especially if they have families.
I think players are given something like 3 days when they are traded or demoted, though in most cases they report sooner than that.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
by andeux on Jul 11, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like Murton just got called up
And Wes Bankston got sent down to AAA
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not finding that anywhere
Where’d you see it?
Might as well Jump! - Van Halen
by sprtsnwyn on Jul 11, 2008 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So now
the A’s have 6 outfielders and 1 first baseman on the 25 man roster. i’m still scratching my head…why is Rajai Davis still with the team?? Bankston showed enough IMO to be more valuable than a designated pinch runner as Davis pretty much will be as a 6th outfielder.
by cvdoug on Jul 11, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Swooney will almost certainly miss the Angels series
One of the OF may be gone after the ASB coughDFAcough
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 11, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Rajai have options?
If not, there’s your explanation.
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Out of options
The A’s claimed him off waivers from SF.
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 11, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do options matter
when the player in question has no talent?? i don’t see any reason (even with swooney missing the next 3 games) to keep Rajai on the roster unless of course he is now the backup at 1B.
by cvdoug on Jul 11, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's one
He’s really, really, really, really fast
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You've managed to identify the ONLY reason
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Jul 11, 2008 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rajai
is the perfect complement to Jack Cust. They are probably hoping to hang on to him as long as they expect Jack to be in LF.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What's even more unusual
is that they have 11 outfielders on their 40 man roster and only 8 infielders (9 including MSweeney)
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only because Cust and Patterson are listed under OF
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 11, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea looks like
Patterson played 2nd last night.
Its more just the confusion of having all these MLB ready outfielders. It would seem that they’ve lost all confidence in Denorfia’s health and Buck’s talent for the time being.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Denorfia is still on the DL
despite the fact that he is not actually listed as such on the 40-man. He’s on a rehab assignment (of sorts).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea
Have a feeling it’ll wind up being the same type of rehab assignment Buck went on earlier in the year. Ya know…where he just stays down there after he’s done with the rehab. That’ll teach you not to complain about shin splints.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was what the team was planning to do
Then they realized that he was still hurting, and that if they optioned him down when he was still hurting, they’d have a union grievance on their hands. So… that was that.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rumor has it
Murton is batting 2nd and playing left tonight. Gotta love new guys
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 11, 2008 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly thats the right place for him
Until Sweeney’s back.
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 6:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bankston never hit in the minors, what they got out of him was nice enough.
Murton a lot better, you are only getting through the weekend with the roster compiled as it is, and eventually Thomas will come back for Brown I guess.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong 1B sent down
I would rather see Barton in Sacramento.
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 11, 2008 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think the A's should have held out for more
But I also think Gallagher and Murton will be useful. I see no use for Patterson. Davis fills the fast guy who can’t play role. Murphy is a better infielder than Patterson and fills a right-handed bat role. Patterson just doesn’t have much going for him, and he’s already 25 and hasn’t been able to stick on a major league roster because he doesn’t do that much well. He only plays with Oakland if guys get hurt or Ellis is traded. I don’t think he’s in the organization in 2009.
That doesn’t make acquiring him bad. Like you said, Nico, he can be used as a piece to some other deal. That’s what I’m hoping.
http://bocropleasestopswingingatbadpitches.blogspot.com/
by thejd44 on Jul 11, 2008 2:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
davis can't hit
patterson can hit and hit well.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd rather see Petit in there than Patterson if Elly goes down
My ability to rationalize this trade has just about jumped the shark. I’ll echo the idea that it was less than thrilling to see the A’s fail to address any of their more pressing needs in favor of bolstering ranks that were plenty bolstered to begin with. But I’ll also grant that it’s probably not as bad as us trade-haters would believe. Murton is an upgrade, and I would not mind seeing him along with Sweeney and Gonzo in the outfield next season, pushing Cust to DH. Patterson—who, believe me, I’m not all that enamored with—was at least anointed “the Cubs’ second baseman of the future” by Baseball Prospectus. If they think he’s an everyday major leaguer—whatever his defensive shortcomings—I’m willing to believe it until I see otherwise.
I nothing Gallagher. Seems like a nice kid. Hope he pitches well.
But that Donaldson schmuck? Fuck him.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Jul 11, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To "sex up" Matt Murton's name how bout
“Mortimer” Murton
alaska A
by ak_A on Jul 11, 2008 3:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I prefer Mickey
A little plumbing! Got to plumb! Plumb the depths! The depths of hell! - Larry David, CYE
by Swooney's Left Foot on Jul 11, 2008 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MIckey is certainly a 'sex up'
and of course an almost ideal baseball first name…..”and mickey murton is safe sliding into third”
alaska A
by ak_A on Jul 11, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Excuse the French
But that is fucking creepy.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Jul 11, 2008 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so...
according to Nico, the glass is half full. That is a new concept for me.
by save10 on Jul 11, 2008 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
here's a kooky idea ...
Given: we all presume the risk of Harden hitting the DL is pretty high, as is the chance that if he does, he could be done for the year
Given: Chicago, while not a mortal lock for the playoffs, is likely to get to the postseason with or without Rich (and Gaudin can be an asset in getting them there, in the rotation or the pen)
Given: Chicago’s win-now, get-an-edge-in-the-WS-quest status was the prime motivator for the deal
If you’re Jim Hendry, might you approach Harden and try to get him to agree to either park himself on the 60-day DL or sit at the far end of the bench in the pen, bide his time on a regular-weekly-workouts regimen, come back mid-September for a couple low-pressure warmup starts, and then enter the playoffs as #1/#2 fully healthy and energized?
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thought crossed my mind
the a’s needed him pitching him through dead arm just to get to playoffs…the cubs would be foolish to press him too hard through this dead arm phase and should save him for playoffs if neccesary.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great minds think alike?
From the minorleagueball thread:
You know what might be really smart (but will never happen) for the Cubs?
Just stash Harden away in a cubbyhole until the playoffs. It looks like they’ll make it easily as is. Let him make a couple of warm-up starts in September, but otherwise don’t risk his arm on relatively meaningless regular season games.by PaulThomas on Jul 10, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the risks, of course, being ...
1. You do that, yet still (through non-Harden-related issues) miss the playoffs, with Harden never having thrown a pitch in anger
2. You do that, the team starts to collapse, and you panic and rush Harden back into the rotation - and he blows his arm out
3. Everything goes according to plan until the second week of September - and Harden blows his arm out in the tuneup (which would have been a risk regardless, but then you get no reg-season benefit out of the trade)
Overall, though, yeah, I think shelving Harden until September is probably the smartest approach (though the most outside-the-box—I seriously doubt there’s any chance Hendry actually does this; he’d be drawn and quartered in the media).
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty sure
you can’t DL a guy without a real injury. “Dead arm” is more-or-less real, but not a DL-able injury, as far as I’m aware. Definitely not a DL-till-September injury.
However, in principle, that is exactly what the Cubbies should do. The fact that we couldn’t have done that and had much any hope of making the playoffs pretty well explains why Harden had to go.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if the player agrees, basically, you can
You’re right in that the Cubs couldn’t DL him peremptorily. That’s why I phrased it as Hendry approaching him with the plan.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dead arm is absolutely a DLable injury
Nate Robertson went on the DL with it just last year.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 12, 2008 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you look at it, the A's got the same package, as they did for Swisher, a good
young possible front of the rotation pitcher (Gio, Gallagher), and enigmatic, but talented outfielder (Sweeney, Murton) Sweeney had fallen way out of favor, and noone thought he would be this good, and a talented, yet far away from the pros prospect (FDLS, Donaldson). The A’s even got an extra piece in Patterson.
by theblackpearl on Jul 11, 2008 3:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Except DLS was much more highly regarded
(at least before the injury)
I’m fine with the trade we made, but I don’t think it really compares that well (especially b/c we also gave up Gaudin)
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t think this compares. Harden was worth way less than Swish, what with the arm trouble and shorter, more expensive contact. I like(d) the guys we got in the Swish trade better, too. We are definitely getting a little more junk in this deal, or at least guys who’ve seen their stock drop.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only pitfall I see
Is if Beane is less inclined to re-sign Ellis because we have Patterson. He’s no kind of replacement, so if it reduces our aggressiveness towards Ellis this is a huge downside.
If, however, the money we’re saving makes it easier to re-sign Ellis and Duke I’m a very happy A’s fan.
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 3:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree....sign Ellis & Duke with the savings!
by Vegas Ace on Jul 11, 2008 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't worry about that -
Ellis is so far above and beyond Patterson, being established and good and a team leader, that one should not impact the other.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jul 11, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I feel very strongly that, in gathering the next cohort of young players that will hopefully grow into something special as a team (like the A’s had in the early part of this decade), the A’s need to make sure that they have players like Ellis on that team. I would think that the young players would have so much to learn from him (e.g. preparation, work ethic, professionalism, etc) and their development would be that more enhanced by his presence. Sure they could learn some of this stuff from the couple of 38-39 year olds that might be on the team at the time but I think there is something to be said for having younger, star, veterans as leaders. For economic reasons it seems like our last group were all either pre-free agency or approaching retirement; hopefully this time around we will have a couple of star players in between. I would love to see Chavez (assuming he can gain some resemblance of health) and Ellis fulfill these roles.
by Larry E on Jul 11, 2008 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to know
what BB is thinking about a number of topics, but the Ellis issue is near the top of the list. I’m still guessing he is gone, but hoping I’m wrong.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really hope you're right
After all, if Crosby was a 3B prospect we’d probably have kept Tejada and shipped Chavez
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 6:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what about the $$$?
your analysis was solid….very enlightening about the Murton having the highest OPS on the current team.
The only thing missed was the savings, which was in the 9 million dollar range? That will be used to re-sign Ellis and maybe roll the dice in the free agent market next year. Any possibilities to think about?
by Cochran86 on Jul 11, 2008 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or possibly sign Duke longer-term?
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jul 11, 2008 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or
did we already spend it on Inoa?
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other thing to keep in mind
is that the A’s have to sit back constantly and wonder about what’s happening with Harden. They’re scheduled to pay him I think something like $8 million next year. What if he got hurt (and I think it’s more likely WHEN, not what if) and the A’s have to basically eat that money next year because another DL stint and he becomes even more untradeable. You have to move Harden while you can. I mean even his last two starts made it seem like he was headed toward another DL stint again. And Billy publicly proclaimed his love for Gallagher.
The Cubs are an organization who can take the risk of having $8 million tied up on the DL because they have so much money. The A’s simply are not.
I think someone mentioned this in the initial trade thread too, but eventually Beane has to start to get right of the guys who are injury prone because he’s changed a bunch of the methods of the organization and the same old guys are getting hurt again. Harden, Crosby. Eventually you have to take how healthy a guy can be into consideration. I hope Harden lasts the year for the Cubs and helps them win a World Series (if the A’s can’t win it), but if I was tired of worrying when Harden was going to drop again, you have to imagine it had to have driven the organization nuts and throws it into a general state of chaos.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Jul 11, 2008 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's a declineable club option for 2009
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With no buyout, on top of that
If he blows his shoulder out, he’ll be nontendered and get doodly squat.
Another reason why I suspect that he was, if not precisely jaking it, being more than usually cautious about giving 100%, shall we say, to the A’s during the past few years. He had a pretty clear and well-defined motive for taking it easy.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that analysis is simultaneously giving Harden too much and too little credit
Too much in the sense that I doubt Harden games the system with such precision; too little in the sense that whatever Harden’s motivations (and/or pain tolerance), I don’t think anyone really can legitimately question his desire to get on the field and compete.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That pissed off smirk
on his face every time he gives up a hit says otherwise.
Maybe I’m just imagining things, but every time I’ve seen him pitch he gets a certain look in his eye when he gives up the first pitch. Like “damn! Now I’ve gotta wait 5 days to try again.”
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, but you'd have to take it unless Harden's career is over
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, but if he's not hurt it's not $7M lost
And you can trade him for more in the offseason than they got now, etc.
PTs point is that saving money on Harden can’t be viewed as an asset to this trade because they either would have saved money on him if he was hurt OR traded him and saved money on him in the longterm anyways.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not technically true
The team could decline the option but still tender a contract, in which case he would go to arbitration like most 3-6 year players. The minimum he could be paid under this scenario is $3.6 million (80% of his 2008 salary), and the maximum is theoretically unlimited, so it’s risky for the team, but if he misses the next 2 months (with a non-structural injury like a pulled oblique) it could be a possibility.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In any case, I'm glad it's a decision we won't have to argue about later
And that would be about the scariest arbitration ever. The arbitrator could easily say “medical reports indicate you’re completely healthy now. I award [whatever amount Harden asks for]”
by nevermoor on Jul 11, 2008 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I imagine it would be contentious
However, I don’t know what arbitrators (arbiters?) are allowed and not allowed to consider in making their decisions. There are pretty defined rules about what you can and can’t talk about in an arbitration hearing (not just for baseball, all arbitrations are like this). Medical records may not be one of those things.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 11, 2008 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Donaldson promoted after the trade
I’m not sure if this was mentioned anywhere else, but Donaldson was playing in the Midwest League (home of Kane County). After the trade he reported to Stockton of the high-A California league. I’d like to think this shows some confidence that he’ll get going. Also, the Cal League is a very hitter friendly league and as Pappagiorgio pointed out to me (while we were discussing software in Yuma) this could really help his confidence if he can get to hitting again.
Niners Nation - The premier 49ers blog on the Internet!
by Fooch on Jul 11, 2008 4:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes it was pointed out and applauded :-D
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Jul 11, 2008 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love Ellis...
And we gotta keep him.
I am reminded of this awesome post:
by Bretter on Jul 11, 2008 4:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A's website reports that Murton was called up
to the big club, and Bankston was optioned back to Sacramento
by OaklandSi on Jul 11, 2008 5:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ESPN reporting Murton is in the lineup too
by calhockey2 on Jul 11, 2008 6:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Murton AND Murton?
Woo hoo!!!!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jul 11, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Murton in the starting lineup!
Yippee! Can’t wait to see him in action…...
Go Gallagher! Go get em’!!!!
by mrod on Jul 11, 2008 6:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I find it funny...
... – and I’m not accusing Nico of this – how many people on this blog have changed their turn regarding Harden’s health. Before the trade, many were cautioning that Harden making double digit consecutive starts was akin to a Jason Kendall homer—awe-inspiring and achingly beautiful in its preciousness, yes, but also not something to be counted on. Those people were roundly shouted down by choruses of “so what, he’s healthy now!” and “he’s the only way the A’s can win the World Series!” and the ever-present “NO WAY HEIS AWSUM!”
Post-trade, I’ve noticed a lot more people drinking the “well, he’s gonna get hurt anyway” Kool-Aid. Glad to see we can all agree on something.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Jul 11, 2008 6:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
^"tune," not "turn"
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Jul 11, 2008 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
{draws Venn diagram}
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good ol' cognitive dissonance
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jul 12, 2008 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Nico
What is your unofficial spin on the trade?
by Larry E on Jul 11, 2008 6:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh my God, it SUCKS!
Email me privately and I’ll rant some more.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Jul 11, 2008 6:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
people have really come around on this one. There was so much crying that first day… I mean, watching Rich Harden pitch for your team is one of those awesome things in sports. That being said, I’m glad people can see that he didn’t belong on our team.
I actually think the guys we got fill out some needs for us a little better than we give them credit for. I, too, wish we’d gotten some left-side-of-the-infield help, but Murton and Gallagher are starting tonight, and catcher dude might be able to move to third base by the time he makes it up here. Don’t know about Patterson, need to see what happens with Ellis. I feel like we’ve got enough AAAA talent in the infield that a utility infielder isn’t all that helpful. Then again, maybe he’ll be the starting 2B next year.
by Mark Borgschulte on Jul 11, 2008 8:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think most of the people who were crying the loudest simply left
... after registering for the first time when the trade was announced.
(I’m not including folks such as PT who have rational and well-founded arguments against the specific details of the trade.)
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
by monkeyball on Jul 11, 2008 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Bud's All-Star tie tops our non-steroid controversies of decade
- D12: Revisiting the Twins decision of Mauer over Prior (again)
- After locking up of AL MVP, it's time for Twins to lock up Mauer
- November means R&R for Raiders fan CC Sabathia and others
- D12: Honeymoon over for big Bobby Jenks and Ozzie Guillen?
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
