New Trade Diary
by iglew on Jul 9, 2008 11:38 AM PDT
Email
PrintThere were a zillion trade diaries yesterday, and yet this morning when I return to post my thoughts, it’s not obvious where they should go. I don’t want to fill up the DLD with trade talk, since that should be a haven for readers who don’t want to discuss the trade. The big trade diaries have all been pushed down from the front page. There’s a few new little trade diaries, but none are even close to getting enough recommendations to make the top list.
So for lack of any better place to add my comments, I’ll just make a new trade diary.
I was late to the party last night, so it took me all evening to get caught up on all the discussions, but I did manage to read (almost) everything. My next-day observations:
1. The characterizations of Billy Beane are exaggerated on both sides. Obviously the folks who are saying "he’s sold out the team" or "he’s lost his frickin’ mind" are exaggerating in the heat of the moment. But the supposedly sober folks on the other side saying "you must trust Billy, when has he ever let you down?" are also exaggerating. The truth is Beane’s record isn’t immaculate. The Tim Hudson trade was a complete bust for us, and the Arthur Rhodes experiment did not go well at all. Those aren't the only examples. Like anyone, Beane has made mistakes, and he’ll make more. Maybe this trade will be one of them. You can’t logically conclude that just because Beane did it, it must be right.
On the other hand, he does have a very good track record over all. I see no reason to believe Beane has departed from his usual practice of perpetual reload. He must think this trade will improve the team. Maybe he’s right, or maybe he’s wrong. He’s not perfect, but he’s not stupid either.
2. Way too many people are stuck on the idea of one GM fleecing the other. The way a GM succeeds at trading is not by suckering fools into making stupid deals; it’s by creating a series of win-win trades. The point is to make your own team better, and if in order to do so you have to make someone else’s team better, that’s fine. You both still gain ground against the other 28 teams.
The fleece trades are memorable, but they’re the exceptions. Even when they do happen, I think it’s more by accident than design. Both sides probably evaluated the trade as reasonably close to even, but there’s always uncertainty. Sometimes the uncertainty all tips in one direction and in hindsight it looks like one guy got robbed.
I think the idea that certain GMs are "dumb" is greatly exaggerated on the Internet — a function of the I’m-a-genius-and-everyone-else-is-a-moron mentality that pervades Internet commentary — but to whatever extent some GMs are less savvy than others, Jim Hendry is not one of the dumb ones. I doubt that either Beane or Hendry believes he fleeced the other. I think they both see it as a win-win trade which marginally improves their team.
3. Because of Rich Harden, this trade has more uncertainty than most. This trade is all about risk, and who wants to assume it. Would you rather have a 10% chance at $900, or a 90% chance at $100? Mathematically they’re the same, but which you prefer depends on your current financial situation.
Everybody knows that Harden is a high-upside, high-risk guy. The risk and the upside can be evaluated and set against a package of roughly equal overall value but with different risk distribution. Guys like Gallagher and Murton are the other side of the coin: they’re more likely to be useful contributors on an ongoing basis, but less likely to be great. I think the two sides of this trade are probably nearly equal in total value; the key difference is the distribution of risk. For whatever reason, the Cubs have decided that they want to gamble right now, and Beane has decided that the A’s want to sell risk and buy security. To me, that’s the interesting proposition of this trade, which one might agree or disagree with, not which team came out ahead.
4. Several people have commented that they hope Harden’s health takes a sudden dive and he’s terrible for the Cubs. This is the logical conclusion of the fleece mentality: If Harden sucks then it’s, "Ha ha we fleeced you. We win, yay for us." But if Harden is awesome then it’s, "Oh no, you fleeced us," and hang our heads in shame.
I think this attitude is completely wrong. The trade is done. Harden is off our team now. If he goes on to be terrible, that doesn’t make our team any better; if he goes on to be fabulous, that doesn’t make our team any worse. The only way in which Harden’s future performance affects our team now is how it affects us in future trades. When Beane has a great player and wants to trade him, people are naturally suspicious. They ask, "Why is Beane unloading him? Is something wrong with him? Does Beane know something I don’t?" If they’re afraid, they won’t trade. If other GMs are reluctant to trade with us, that’s a bad thing.
Harden’s future makes a difference in this respect. If his arm falls off tomorrow, as many on this blog have openly wished, when future GMs ask themselves the questions above, they’re going to think, "What if it’s like that time when Beane traded Harden and he was a big dud? Am I going to get ripped off like that?" On the other hand, if Harden goes on to be great, they will think, "Yeah, but maybe it’ll be an opportunity like Harden. The Cubs came out great with that trade."
We want Harden to do well in Chicago. His success won’t make our team any worse, but it will make our trading options better for the future.
209 comments
|
20 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good points - I especially like #2
I think what it comes down to is that Beane DID hold out for something he wanted that Hendry didn’t want to give up, it’s just that the player wasn’t one of the guys ANers thought it would be. It wasn’t Vitters, it wasn’t “a top 4 listed prospect guy,” it was Gallagher. And only time will tell if Gallagher was worthy of being that piece.
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
The entire thing is on the money
Yesterday’s trade was tough pill to swallow. But the trade would not have gone down if both sides didnt feel that it was the best thing to do. Would harden have brought more if he stayed health the rest of the year and up to the deadline next year, you bet but that is a really big IF, when talking about Harden. But good luck to him and Gaudin in the Windy City and good luck to the newest members of the Green and Gold org. Lets all hope there time here is prodective and filled with a lot of winning.
One additional thought on Harden
The extreme possibilities are that he will break down next week, or that he will pitch healthy through 2009. More likely, IMO, is something in between – the Cubs do get value from him in the race, he pitches great but his arm gives out (enough to miss starts or land him on the DL) around Sept 1st.
In that scenario, it might still be worth it to the Cubs to have made this deal – but I think it is well worth it to the A’s, because that scenario means Harden won’t give the A’s enough to be the reason they make the playoffs instead of missing. Gallagher may have just as good a chance to do that by pitching as a solid #3 starter every fifth day, certainly in combination with Murton.
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
This is very wise (and rec'd)
A’s fans should definitely root for Harden to do well for the Cubs. You do NOT want your GM to get a rep as a lemon salesman. I think Kenny Williams has that reputation and quite a number of GMs (not Beane, obviously) just won’t deal for his pitchers at this point because they don’t trust him to offer healthy players.
This is the key point:
For whatever reason, the Cubs have decided that they want to gamble right now, and Beane has decided that the A’s want to sell risk and buy security. To me, that’s the interesting proposition of this trade, which one might agree or disagree with, not which team came out ahead.
Why is it key? Because this is a really weird trade to make when you’re rebuilding a team. Standard rebuilding moves work like the Sabathia trade, or the Bedard trade—giving up a certain good thing for the possibility of great things from some prospects. This is actually an inverted rebuilding move because the A’s are taking on the low risk role.
And that makes no sense to me. How are the A’s in a position to REDUCE risk right now? At this point, it looks like the only risk that’s being reduced is the risk that the A’s will make the playoffs next year.
I would have far rather seen the A’s trade risk for risk—along the lines of the ever-rumored Lastings Milledge trade.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Why?
This was probably the last realistic chance to get something of decent value for Harden. Something may very well be up with his health and the “dead arm” thing. He was only pitching around 5 innings and that type of pitcher is of no use to the A’s. One thing is certain, if Harden were to go on the DL just one more time this year (a distinct possibility), then there would be an almost zero chance of getting anything remotely close to value during the winter. The A’s need to move forward with a plan and that plan needs to have stability and consistency. That is not possible with Rich Harden.
Your team is your child...You love it no matter what.
by TheRaiderWay on Jul 9, 2008 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
If Harden gets hurt soon, it's a good trade
Ergo, Beane feels Harden will get hurt soon.
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
When have the A's ever had "stability and consistency"?
Remember the rules from Moneyball? Small-market teams can’t afford to have long-term solutions.
I’m not buying this “Harden is doomed” thing I’m hearing thrown around. If he was that doomed, the Cubs would not have dealt for him. They have advance scouts, and you can damned well bet that they have watched his starts for as long as they’ve been stalking him. He’s having a dead arm period, no question. But it happens. Remember when the A’s lit up Brandon Webb for 7 runs a month ago? He was having the same thing.
Harden’s still as injury-prone as ever (which is “very”). But I don’t think he’s actually injured right now.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Stability
Good point and ti makes you wonder about Beane’s reiterating the word “stability” in yesterday’s pre-game show.
I think the Cubs know what the A’s know, and are taking the chance that the lower velocity is a temporary thing.
My own take is that the last two starts were the final straw for Beane. It’s tiresome to keep an extra pitcher (Gaudin) on staff just because one of your regular starters is known to break down regularly. So the only question is whether he would have pulled off this trade if those last two starts hadn’t happened as they did, and if Harden had thrown 95 MPH in both of them.
You've got your Moneyball wrong...
One of the key points of Moneyball is that there are no fixed rules for a good GM. You have to adapt to changed circumstances, acquire undervalued players, trade overvalued players, etc…. Your so-called rule that “Small-market teams can’t afford to have long-term solutions” is an assumption that can’t be made by a good GM. Affordable long-term solutions may be harder to find in Oakland than elsewhere, but it’s always an option to consider.
All in all, this trade is probably a push. We gave up a high risk/reward pitching talant and a decent back-end starter/reliever type (both of whom would have been gone in 1.5 years) for three “Three-Star Prospects” and a decent throw-in (Murton) who many people here like. And if baseball prospectus is to be believed, it means we got three players of roughly this caliber:
A’s Three-Star Prospects as of 10/10/07
3. James Simmons, RHP
4. Henry Rodriguez, RHP
5. Andrew Bailey, RHP
6. Corey Brown, OF
7. Jermaine Mitchell, OF
8. Javier Herrera, OF
9. Jerry Blevins, LHP
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6985
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7055
Now obviously some people here would rather have gotten one “Five-Star Prospect” like Vitters than three “Three-Star Prospects” (especially considering that 3rd base is currently an area of need), but maybe Beane preferred to spread out his risk a bit. And/or this was simply the best offer he could get, and he didn’t feel waiting was going to change that significantly.
By comparison, the Swisher trade netted the following from the White Sox:
Five-Star Prospects (as of 11/7/07)
1. Fautino de los Santos, RHP
Four-Star Prospects
2. Gio Gonzalez, LHP
Two-Star Prospects
8. Ryan Sweeney, OF
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6912
Ironically, the best prospect (FdlS) is out for the year, with the impact on his career unknown. It’s certainly not a positive. Gonzalez looks promising in AAA but he’s still inconsistant. Sweeney, “just” a “Two-Star Prospect”, is currently a .300/.354/.405 hitter with above average defense and speed in his first ML season.
In other words, we’ve gotten good results so far from a player you apparently would have labled “crap” had he been included in the Harden trade (judging from your posts the last two days regarding the three “Three-Star Prospects” we just picked up).
by andyinfremont on Jul 9, 2008 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure
Go back and read my posts at the time of the Swisher trade, and I wasn’t at all optimistic about Ryan Sweeney as a prospect. Obviously his performance to date has raised his projection somewhat, but I still don’t feel like he’s a tremendous organizational asset, because so far he hits like a center fielder and plays defense like a right fielder. He could improve if that mythical power ever shows up. He looks better than he did. But he’s not looking like any kind of dominant player.
Speaking of changing projections—it’s pretty obvious that the catcher (whose name I keep blanking on) is not a three star prospect at this point. Probably closer to one star than three. Gallagher and Patterson have more or less maintained their status. And Murton. That’s a dismal haul for Rich Harden and Chad Gaudin. I mean, you can look at the list—three stars means a guy is either high-upside-high-risk (Brown, Rodriguez, Herrera) or projects as little better than league-average (the rest—Blevins is a bit of a special case because he’s a pure reliever, and they’re less valuable to a team as a group). I can tell you right now that none of this group are high-upside-high-risk.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Donaldson.
I think of Sam, but maybe that’s before your time.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Ryan Sweeney Has Been Great!
PT, where would we be without Ryan Sweeney? He has been nothing short of outstanding! Are you watching the same games I am? And if he does hit like a center fielder then great! Should I list all of the superstar centerfielders in the history of the game? I’m not sure where you were going with that statement, but I will take Ryan Sweeney and you take Nick Swisher and we’ll compare notes in ten years!
Shane F. Wray
That's a bit unfair, since Sweeney is much younger than Swisher
but I’d put good money on Swisher having the better MLB career, and by a large margin.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Further thoughts
So Ryan Sweeney has exceeded your expectations. Food for thought when evaluating other trades, no?
Your post from Apr 18, 2008 is also interesting:
“The 2009 rotation is likely to be bolstered by one to two of James Simmons, Andrew Bailey and Gio Gonzalez. ... That’s a huge uptick in competitiveness from Harden/DiNardo”.
http://www.athleticsnation.com/2008/4/17/412076/disturbing-trend#4906861
So in April, you thought that two guys who project “as little better than league-average” (Simmons and Bailey) would represent a “huge uptick in competitiveness from Harden/DiNardo”, but now similar quality prospects (although mostly at different positions) from the Cubs are crap.
Now you might argue that not all three star prospects are created equal, but it seems to me you are changing your metrics to suit your argument to some degree.
I would also argue that two months scuffling in A-ball is a little soon to downgrade Donaldson so sharply. How about we give the kid a full season?
Anyway, I don’t see the haul as dismal at all when you take into account all the other factors, as others have noted (Harden’s reduced value due to injuries and his FA status after 2009, Gaudin being a back-end starter (at best) for the A’s and likely pricing himself out of the A’s plans after 2009, the savings of nearly $10 million from 2008/2009 projected salaries which can now be invested elsewhere, etc…). This was a fair trade for both sides.
My only complaint at this stage is that we seem almost too deep with major league ready outfielders now with Murton, Buck, Denorfria (although his rehab numbers suck), and Patterson (unless he goes back to 2nd base), and a bit thin on AAA pitching after so many callups. But I assume further transactions and/or AA pitching promotions will resolve that soon.
by andyinfremont on Jul 10, 2008 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions
So in April, you thought that two guys who project "as little better than league-average" (Simmons and Bailey) would represent a "huge uptick in competitiveness from Harden/DiNardo", but now similar quality prospects (although mostly at different positions) from the Cubs are crap.
Absolutely. When you’re talking about filler, the question is entirely one of what it’s replacing. Patterson is crap for the A’s, because he’d be replacing a player (Ellis) who is much, much better than he is. As I pointed out on another thread, I don’t think he’s crap for the Cardinals, who now have a chance to acquire him and replace the replacement level guys like Aaron Miles who are half-assing the position for them right now. League-average pitching is generically more valuable than league-average position players, because there’s almost always somebody in your rotation who is worse than average and can be replaced.
On cost savings: The money the A’s save in this deal is trivial by MLB standards. $2.5 million or so this year, and no guaranteed money at all after this year. Gaudin wasn’t likely to make more than $8 million total in the next two years of arbitration (and certainly wasn’t “pricing himself out of the A’s plans after 2009”; I have no clue where you came up with that); Harden’s max cost was $7 million. That’s $17.5 million over three seasons. At most. They’ll probably end up spending quite a lot of that money on the players they acquired anyway.
Doesn’t it say something about the quality of players you received if the best thing one can say about a trade is that you hope you can immediately turn around and get rid of them to more desperate teams? If Beane can swing it, fine—maybe I’ll love the new guys. We’ll have to wait and see what happens.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Emotion seems to be clouding your logic
First off, you said filler, not me. At worst we got three good prospects and a solid corner outfielder, and all of whom still appear to have some upside left to explore. In your view Ryan Sweeney was worse than filler, and you’ve been proven wrong, so when you immediately dismiss the quality of four players who many experts seem to value, significant scepticism seems warranted.
Second, if Beane can spin some of these guys off for even better player, that’s fine. I assume Patterson is something of an insurance policy for the A’s, but perhaps he (and/or one of the AAAA players we have in Sacto, or one of our older relief pitchers), will be dealt for someone more to your subjective liking.
Third, regarding league-average pitching compared to other positions, I think it depends on the other positions and the needs of the club(s). Generalities aren’t that useful. The A’s had a rotation where Gaudin was the 6th-best starter. Harden was an ace when he was healthy, but he was worthless when he wasn’t healthy. Together, Harden and Gaudin (with his own injury last year), combine to make one well above-average but non-elite pitcher when accounting for their respective heath risks and Gaudin’s inability to crack the A’s top-5 starter-wise.
Fourth, the cost savings to the A’s is not trivial. This has been proven over and over again by the types of moves they’ve made for many years. You may consider it trivial, but the A’s clearly don’t. Harden was either going to earn $7 million (but still be an injury risk) or he was going to get nothing and be worth nothing (i.e., no trade, no draft pick, nothing). Gaudin projected as nothing better than a 5th/6th starter with the A’s, and historically they have paid $1 million or less annually to fill that role. Thus Gaudin either had to become a 3rd or 4th starter (unlikely with the A’s), or his days were numbered.
There is a significant cost savings now and in 2009 for sure. We got four guys earning the ML minimum (or less) this year and next (except maybe for Murton in 2009, I’m not sure, although it would certainly be quite low). As for 2010 and beyond, if the A’s “probably end up spending quite a lot of that money on the players they acquired”, then it means they’re good enough to keep and pay arbitration-type money.
Lastly, I never said that “the best thing” was “that you hope you can immediately turn around and get rid of them”. You did. I think further trades are quite possible, that other teams value some/all of these players to some degree, and that’s one factor among many in favor of the deal (but it doesn’t even rank in my top-3).
Bottom line: you seem to have grossly overinflated the real world, law-of-average, how-long-until-he-breaks, value of Harden/Gaudin. Maybe the Cubs will luck out and run the table with them for a year and a half, but the odds have to be at least 65/35 against it (and that’s probably being too kind). This was a good deal. But I agree, we’ll see what happens (on both sides).
by andyinfremont on Jul 11, 2008 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions
"scepticism"
andyinmanchester? andyinliverpool?
Three solid prospects? Not quite. Three minus two.
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 11, 2008 2:30 AM PDT up reply actions
oops
Three “good” prospects. My bad. Even worse for you, though.
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 11, 2008 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Gaudin
Nowhere near the 6th-best starter. Perhaps 2nd-best if Duke wasn’t so lucky.
"Behind both goals were banners bearing the word 'Calamity' while another carried the warning: 'You will drown in the Bosphorous.'"--Threats made by Turkish soccer fans to the British from a match in 2003. Tribute to their miraculous run in Euro 2008.
RIP Tim Russert, quintessential Buffalonian.
by Cutthemullet on Jul 11, 2008 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions
That's laughable
Gaudin isn’t a #2 quality starter and the odds of him ever being that good are incredibly small.
As for the quality of the prospects, you cite no evidence to support your claim. I consider good and solid to be roughly the same by the way.
by andyinfremont on Jul 11, 2008 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I was just about to say much the same initial point regarding security ...
... albeit with a different conclusion: the A’s, in their current state (whether you include or exclude Harden), have massive amounts of risk/indeterminacy (or, depending on what exactly Beane et al know, surety in the negative outcomes) regarding the health and reliable productivity of a massive proportion of their ‘08 roster: Chavez, Crosby, Thomas, MSweeney, Foulke, and Devine are all disabled; Street, RSweeney, Buck, Murphy, and Gonzalez all have been/may still be hurting; and Barton and Blanton are underperforming. That’s a whole lot of unreliability (or, as I said, reliable unproductivity)—and a lot of it is unreliability that stands to potentially project into ‘09.
I agree with you that the haul wasn’t especially impressive. (I also don’t think the guys we got give much upside for ‘09 and beyond.) But it seems as though the A’s FO was convinced Harden’s about to go into the tank, and they wanted to realize some return on him before he fell to 0.
And if you presume that Harden was/is about to stop providing much performance value, let alone trade value - and if, as seems apparent, that the FO didn’t have a lot of confidence in Gaudin - then it seems to me that Beane may actually have improved the A’s odds at contending this year: Gallagher likely provides an upgrade on Gaudin, Harden would have been a null set, Murton provides an improvement over DFA, Patterson provides an improvement over Rajai.
I think this was actually mostly a short-term move by Beane.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
+1
I explain my emotional negative reactions to this move-and Beane’s body of work in general-below, but I think what monkeyball said is the most-logical way to read the Harden trade from the A’s perspective.
Brainless Automaton #439
by rubin sierra on Jul 9, 2008 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Let the trade play out!
PT, Harden really needed to be dealt before injuries set in again! I agree it’s a risk, but all trades involve a certain amount of risk. That’s the beauty of trades in general! Harden has NEVER been able to stay healthy for a full campaign, so why would you expect it to be any different this year?? Had we waited we would have received next to nothing in return instead of the peanuts that you claim we did get back in return. We now have stockpiled quality minor leaguers for a potential blockbuster to come!? Try to look ahead a little and don’t be a Doubting Thomas! There I go again!, another religeous reference!
Shane F. Wray
Did you actually read my post?
The thing that bugs me about this trade is that there is almost NO risk, on the A’s part, of any of these players amounting to stars. There’s no upside. No playoff-level performers.
Given where the franchise is at right now, I’d prefer risk to consistent averageness. If the MLB team was 6 wins ahead of where it is right now, I might well be singing a different tune.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Yeah, in a "your team has no actual all-stars so we'll take a random pitcher who's sort of OK" sense
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That definitely was a factor in my equation
Though the best pitcher on the A’s has genuinely been deserving of an All-Star spot for years now.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I dunno -
Beane, Forst, Leipmann, Kubota, C. Young, Krukow all feel Gallagher could be special, while PaulThomas feels he’s a “random pitcher who’s sort of ok”.
I mean, come on!
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
You make it sound like I'm the only one
as opposed to, you know, the considerable majority of the people I’ve seen weigh in on his talent level.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
"People" - fans or experts?
Fans who haven’t watched him in person are lukewarm on Gallagher, Cubs fans say “You got a good one; you’ll like him,” and experts are pretty high on Gallagher.
Curt Young: “I don’t even know who I’m watching but I’m especially impressed – who is he?”
John Sickels: Grade B
Billy Beane: “We’ve always really liked this guy, all the way back to the draft.”
Mike Krukow: “This guy’s the real deal.”
Meanwhile, the majority of fans who just lost Rich Harden from their team don’t like a guy their team is getting return whom they’ve never seen pitch? I’m saying I’ll go with the perspective of fans who have seen him pitch, and of baseball experts who really know pitching, over…yes, over fans like you and me.
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 that I mean
“People whose opinion I trust about things baseball,” which is mostly not fans. I have yet to see a single reputable, unbiased scouting report that suggests he is capable of being one of the top 5-10 starters in the league. I’ve read what Law says, I’ve read what BA says, I’ve read what BP says, I’ve read what THT says. These are not random sky-is-falling fans.
BTW, getting a B from Sickels supports my position, not yours. If you’re a 21 year old who’s cracked the majors and has good minor league numbers, and you’re only getting a B, that’s a good way of saying he thinks your upside is as a #3 starter.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Maybe we're talking about two different things here
I never thought he would be, or that anyone thought he might be, a “top 5-10 starters in the league” prospect I think he might be a solid #3 starter – and I think that getting a solid #3 starter, along with Murton and two other prospects, for Harden would be doing very well.
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
The phrase used above was "All-Star potential"
Judging by the number of SP selections from this year, that means “top 5-10 starters in the league.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I see myself in Billy Beane
In an epiphany I had yesterday morning, I realized that I have spent the last 18 years squinting at life with distrustful eyes. Traumatic experiences from my adolescence were I think what set this off, and in the interim my own talent for isolation and depression have allowed me to hide the pain and anger and hurt I felt deep down ever since—I’ve been hiding this stuff even from myself. In other words, I’ve been mad at the world all these years, and I didn’t even know it, and I’ve dealt with it by cutting myself to a large extent, avoiding intimacy, sulking by myself.
The risk-for-security nature of this trade (so aptly labeled by iglew) is therefore the kind of transaction that epitomizes my own behavior over the past 18 years. I usually don’t take risks; I don’t “go for it.” I have learned how to live my own solitary life, to avoid the risks of interaction poised by both conflict and intimacy.
You could argue that Beane has been trading risk-for-security ever since Hudson-Mulder. In doing so, he has compromised as I have; he has shunned the traditional model of success sought by most teams and has cultivated his own niche instead. “You all compete for the big-money free agents,” he has said to the rest of baseball; “I’ll just sit here and build a good team out of no-names.”
Of course, my own issues are more problematic than Beane’s. While he shuns big-name free agents (which many here argue is smart), I shun prizes like winning (I flea from competition) and girlfriends (I run from intimacy) for the alternative and limited success I find from isolating. If Beane had my personal problems, we’d never have heard of him by now. Nevertheless, I still think his philosophy and my personal issues are analogous, and I hope that we both get over our respective shit and start "going for it" more in the future.
Brainless Automaton #439
Whoops--heh heh
cutting myself OFF to a large extent.
Brainless Automaton #439
by rubin sierra on Jul 9, 2008 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Good self-reflection rubin.
Let us know how it goes. Realization is the first step towards progress. :-)
Crap, I thought it was alcohol
:-(
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
Thanks
That post was much more about me than it was Beane … hell, if he can get the A’s rolling by just sticking with his guns and continuing to do what he’s been doing, that would work for me, too.
Brainless Automaton #439
after a night of binge posting...
This is a sober posting that 100% correctly and succintly nails every aspect of the trade.
I have to agree with you on every point.
"the A's need more quality preembreetive pitching" ~monkeyball
I am as big a fan of Rich Harden as anyone. Everytime he took the mound I made sure I had tickets to the game or was watching it if possible because you never know what would happen. That being said all the crap being talked about with Gallegher I don’t agree with. The other guys, who knows, but doesn’t Gallagher have a similar past as Haren? Wasn’t Haren bounced between AAA and the majors and went back and forth from the pen to starting? The numbers are even similar if I recall. Didn’t Haren turn out okay? Can we please give Gallagher a chance before we say he sucks, this sucks and WTF is Mr. Beane doing?
Gallagher
ERA W-L SO WHIP
4.45 3-4 49 1.36
Haren
G GS IP H R ER HR BB K W L
2003 StL 14 14 0 0 72.2 84 44 41 9 22 43 3 7 - 5.08
2004 StL 14 5 0 0 46.0 45 23 23 4 17 32 3 3 - 4.50
Definitely Agree
I was displeased because for some reason I thought Gallagher was 25, when I found out he was 22 I felt a lot better about the trade. I think this is a classic trade of “Current stud SP for Future stud SP” The Cubs have to go for it now, and the Brew crew getting CC forced Hendry’s hand.
Goliath, dissatisfied with his size advantage, decided to buy David's sling, which took steroids.
Excellent Points, People Define "Winning" In Different Ways
The contrasting views seems largely tied to what people think the A’s are trying to do. There are some who think the A’s are wise to try to load up on free young talent for their entry into Fremont. These people seem to like the trade, thinking that by the time the A’s get to Fremont Harden will be hurt, Ellis will be over the hill, and the kids in the minors will be ready.
As a guy who hates the move to Fremont and would like to see a good club now, I am in the camp of people who look at this trade and think: WTF? This trade clearly makes the A’s a worse club right now. But if this group (my group) could come around to the view that making the club worse now doesn’t matter, then we might get to understand the opinions of the other group.
For me personally, the last time I felt so mystified by a dump of talent for nothing is when the A’s unloaded Milton Bradley last year. Yet even at that time my views were ripped in AN. I kept wondering why the A’s, who were at that time, too, right in the race, would unload their best player, even though he was frequently injured. And sure enough the plucky, winning A’s (7 games over .500) followed that trade with a huge and predictable nose dive that took them right out of the race – and yet many on AN either didn’t care, or were offended that you actually pointed out that the A’s without Bradley were nowhere near as good as the A’s with Bradley. It because almost impolite to point out the trade took a team with below average offense and made it a team with way below average offense.
With the benefit of hindsight, that trade is probably even now still seen in the conventional yet disparate lights that the Harden trade is now seen. People like me who would like to see the A’s win now (especically while they’re in Oakland and we can go and afford to go to the games) wonder why in the hell the A’s gave away Milton Bradley, and we have no trouble imaging that an A’s team that had All Star Milton Bradley this year (instead of the hideous called strike 3 machine Jack Cust) would probably have won another couple of games and would therefore be right on the Angels heels. The “Billy is never wrong” group think it’s a good trade because it improves the Fremont A’s. People are simply talking past each other.
Why are you operating under the delusion
that the A’s would have had Milton Bradley this season?
He was a free agent at the end of last year, and there’s no way on God’s green earth the A’s were re-signing him.
Meanwhile, as Monkeyball points out, you can make a pretty good case that this trade helps the A’s more in the short term than in the long term. I doubt any of these players will be providing sizable value by the time the A’s hit Fremont, with the possible exception of Gallagher.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't think this trade is about Fremont
I’m not even convinced it makes the team significantly worse now. It all comes down to how much you value Harden, I guess. His last two starts were good but not great, and I worry about how long he’ll last. Our supply of replacement pitchers is decent enough that even losing a good pitcher isn’t a huge drop-off, and Gallagher augments that supply. Murton looks like a slight upgrade to our offense.
I’m of neutral opinion on the trade, but it has nothing to do with improving the Fremont A’s at the expense of the Oakland A’s or vice versa
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
My problem is with letting Gaudin go as part of the trade
Everyone (including Beane), has rightly pointed out that Gaudin is “insurance” in case Harden is injured. In case of injury, the Cubs would then have someone to fill in for Harden since that fill in would have been Gallagher. Obviously only Beane & doctors know how Gaudin would fare as a starter given his hip surgery in the off-season. But to throw in Gaudin as insurance was giving the Cubs too much IMO. Before his injury last year, Gaudin was pitching pretty well (maybe someone with more time can look up his good hip vs. bad hip splits, assuming we know his date of injury), and IMO was pitching as good or better than Blanton. Why not expect him to continue that trend?
So how to deal with this?
Normally insurance only kicks in “in case shit happens” but because we are dealing with rosters, trade deadlines, and real human beings, then maybe Beane HAD to throw in Gaudin. But if Gaudin is truly insurance, why not add some conditions to the trade that if Harden makes X number of starts for the Cubs this year, then at the end of the season the Cubs give Gaudin back to the A’s? How to do this?
I think the legal way to do this is to send Gaudin and add a PTBNL or cash considerations as part of the trade. The PTBNL can be Gaudin if Harden makes X number of starts (a gentleman’s agreement) or it can be cash (some nominal amount like $10,000) if Harden did not make X number of starts. This way, Gaudin acts as a true insurance policy, but at the same time if Harden delivers for the Cubs, then it can be said the Cubs got the benefit of their bargain and did not need insurance and the A’s get Gaudin back. This is just a suggestion, so those of you who know more let us know if this is even possible.
Without Harden on the roster any more
the need to have insurance in case he is injured becomes null and void. If Gaudin was only going to be a starter for the A’s at any other time than when Harden or for that matter any of the other starters went down he would have been, so replacing him with Gallagher means that instead of two roster spots be taken up for what amounts one guy, the A’s get some flexability and a chance to see if some of the young guys are ready and or if anyone can stepup and produce for them this year.
I just still think Gaudin had some value
more than as an insurance policy and believe he had the potential to be as good as Blanton if not better, and of course he is going to be cheap for the next few years.
Not really
He cost 1.7M this year.
If it’s cheap + potential you want, I present one Sean Gallagher.
Gaudin can't be a PTBNL
though Vitters can. It could work if the Cubs decided that they would give us a prospect based on how many starts Harden made (Vitters being the PTBNL if he makes nearly all, someone else if he gets DLed tomorrow). But then again it’s probably against the rules and seems littered with possible complications.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
I though there have been cases
where the PTBNL was the actual player initially traded for. See this link.
Weird. Bonderman.
Wasn’t he traded for Weaver, who was sent to the Yanks for Lilly?
"These Boston People Are AWFUL"
Whose agent is...Kevin Bacon!
Not really, but wouldn’t that be cool?
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
Nothing earth shattering, but interesting...
Cubs general manager Jim Hendry checked in from time to time throughout June with Oakland general manager Billy Beane about the availability of Rich Harden, and their conversations traveled down the same path: Yes, Harden was available, but only at the right price, and that price would include right-handed pitcher Sean Gallagher. And Hendry indicated, repeatedly, that Gallagher wasn’t available.
On Sunday evening - the same night when word broke that the Brewers had worked out a deal for CC Sabathia - Hendry indicated to Beane for the first time that he would make Gallagher available in a Harden deal, but it would create a problem: If Gallagher was traded, the Cubs wouldn’t have the kind of depth they needed to deal with an injury.
...
Beane had an idea. He could fill Hendry’s need for depth by adding veteran swingman Chad Gaudin in the trade. He phoned Hendry back on Monday night with the suggestion. “That could work,” Hendry said, and the two general managers began piecing together other parts of the trade.
Nice to hear that the A’s were high enough on Gallagher that they didn’t even consider a deal without him.
dagnabit, why is there no freaking edit button
The last sentence is mine, everything else is from Olney’s blog.
Thanks for that info.
At least it clears up a few questions. It’s just too bad went sent Gaudin and not Cupcakes.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
Not really - Blanton is the much better pitcher
There’s a reason he keeps starting and Gaudin has been in the pen. Blanton was a solid #2 for a 3-year stretch of his career. Gaudin is a 3-4 guy.
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
Plus Blanton is at the point in the year when he normally turns it around, this years lows
were just a little lower than previous years. He has had more solid performances lately.
by theblackpearl on Jul 9, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
According to the pitch-count-in-previous-start theory,
Blanton will be awful in his next start.
I look forward to seeing if the new evidence supports or refutes the theory.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I'm looking forward to proving my
doughnuts-eaten-before-current-start theory. I think there’s merit in it, and grant money, if I play my hand right…
That’s right folks, you could say this meat has been on the disabled list for 21 days.--Marty Lurie
by Leopold Bloom on Jul 9, 2008 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
That was sarcasm. Should've included a ;) or somethin'...
It wasn’t more than a week ago everyone was saying we needed Gaudin in the rotation and needed to demote Blanton or send him to the pen.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
There is an edit button.
It’s the one labeled “PREVIEW”.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
real men don't "PREVIEW"
That’s for little girls and small dogs. I have hair on my chest thank you very much.
"Why thanks, I'd love one ... but don't call me 'Cookie'."
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Because the Cubs wanted someone they could give a start to without crying
And, apparently, Gaudin’s been in Billy’s doghouse for awhile
You mean like this?
WOOF!!!!!!!!
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
Re Gaudin in Beane's doghouse
Have we heard this anywhere besides speculative posts on AN?
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Well said
In particular, I take great issue with the people actually wishing injury upon Harden now. What kind of bullshit is that? I still like him and I would love to see him do well in Chicago. I would also love to see Gaudin do well. Of course, I hope the guys we got can perform too.
Like you said, trading is not about fleecing or screwing the other team. It’s about both sides trying to get people they want and think will help their team. It just happens to be that Beane has hit on a number of trades that were great for the A’s, but he’s had some that didn’t pan out either.
The man is not perfect, nor is he some sort of failure just because of a questionable trade or two. If people want to pass judgment on the trade already and call it a failure for Beane, so be it. But, that’s not even giving the guys he got a chance to make it or not.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
Great post
Most level-headed approach to the trade I’ve seen yet.
Also, it makes me feel better :)
I like Murton less than I did yesterday
That Cubs fan was talking about how he hits in away from the infielders and gets IF hits, and some commenter on fangraphs noted that he “peppers the left side of the infield.” It does not sound like he hits the ball hard, and I like guys who hit the ball hard…
The A's colors are green and gold.
Same, but I have to question the fan more than Murton
because I’ve never heard that before. Maybe the fan went to a game where Murton had two infield hits and extrapolated that to “all the time”.
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
Yeah, there've been a lot of cubs fans
Talking about his power. I think he’ll be very good for us (just not Soriano/Fukudome good)
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Hey, that's pretty good
But I still say you rely too much on record album covers.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
point taken
However, my non-LP options for that last one were mostly confined to either [hippies in a parking lot] or [Japanese underwear model].
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
I guess I could have made it easier on you if
I’d called it a 
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Your Point about Harden's sustained health
Is taken but not well recieved. While you never want to wish ill health for a player, I’m still having trouble seeing how we’ve come out on top of this trade if Harden does not fall back to his unhealthy mean.
And if he does get hurt I don’t necessarily think that Billy will be percieved as a lemon dealer as stated above. He could start 5 more games, then go on the DL, thus at least helping the Cubs a little, and clearing Billy of any wrong-doing. Besides everyone in the league knows the risk associated with Harden, including Hendry.
If Harden goes on to win 10 more games this year and wins the Cy Young award next year, how can one not be upset for having given him up? Couldn’t a performance like that help us next year more than any of the players we recieved in exchange for him? The fact that GMs would look to this trade as a way to justify dealing with Beane down the road will be, at best, a silver lining to a deal that did not go our way.
Seriously
If you told me that I could either have $100,000 or would pay 10 million—and the determinant would be whether or nor Harden would win the CY next year with me paying in the latter case, I’d take the $100,000 right now and go whistling to the bank. There is simply no evidence—none—that Harden can make it through an entire season injury-free. He’s already missed time this year and the odds would favor, though I am not rooting for it—that he’ll miss more in the next 3 months and next year as well. Hendry even said yesterday they might hold him back an extra day or two or even have him skip a start.
A poker analogy
If I’m playing a cash game and get you all in with a better hand, I won the betting. You might still win, but I outplayed you on the betting.
Since Harden playing well doesn’t hurt us (unlike the poker analogy), why should we wish him ill?
Schadenfreude?
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
My schadenfreude takes the form
of hoping that Harden dominates but the rest of the Cubs rotation falls apart at the seams.
I’ll be making my Ryan Dempster voodoo doll this evening.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I LOVE THAT MUSICAL!
I saw it in S.F. and then again in New York – and then bought the soundtrack.
Avenue Q rocks.
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
Why does this scare me?
That’s right folks, you could say this meat has been on the disabled list for 21 days.--Marty Lurie
by Leopold Bloom on Jul 9, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Because your father beat you and you blocked out the memories.
"God doesn't pay attention to your cute little hypotheticals." -- Jeff from LL
But if you hadn't played poker at all
Then you’d have a Cy Young award winner and lost nothing.
This poker analogy could work for any trade. If Mark Teahan would have gone on to win 3 MVP awards since we traded him for Dotel would Beane have come out short that trade? Was there an A’s fan out there who really wished that Tehan would go on to win 3 MVPs after he left the A’s? If you really wish good health for Harden then you must answer “yes” to that question as well. Which is fine, but I personally would be jealous as hell that we didn’t have that bat in our line-up.
I know it sounds really bad to wish bad health for a player, but if you treat health as a factor of production (not unlike OPS, ERA, etc) then its easier to get your head around it. Rich Harden is going to have good numbers when he pitches. The only risk is whether he stays healthy. And this fan post makes that point very nicely: We traded health risk for performance risk in this case and the only way this trade works for us is if 1) Harden does not sustain the health he’s had so far this year and we get decent production out of Gallagher & Murton or 2) Harden sustains the health and pitches well AND Gallagher & Murton contribute equally as well.
by GusanoQuemador on Jul 9, 2008 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Who will our 13 position players be??
Assuming Chavez, Crosby and Hurt all back by August 1.
2 catchers
Chavez-Hannahan-Crosby-Ellis-Barton-Bankston
Thomas
Swooney-CarGon-Cust (Murton as the 4th OF??)
Does Brown stay and either Bankston or Barton get sent down??
Hard to imagine any possibility for Buck, Davis, Murphy until 9/1 callups. Patterson too.
I doubt Chavez will be back by August 1st, personally
I’d say Bankston gets sent down once he cools off (he was chosen for the callup because he was hot – the A’s are smart that way) and that E. Brown finally gets shown the door once Murton is established on the major league roster (maybe at the ASB?). Murphy’s spot is safe because the A’s need a backup SS.
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
you are right
Which means if Bankston doesn’t cool off, Barton becomes very vulnerable unless Chavy doesn’t come back.
Calling up players because they're on a hot streak
is neither smart, nor something that the A’s do.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
Todd Linden disagrees on the former but can attest to the latter
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Considering his .762 AAA OPS since the A's let him go,
I’m siding with Beane on this one.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I am too
But then again Emil Brown is in our outfield, so maybe Linden should have gotten a chance.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Yup, Emil Brown is the problem
As long as Emil Brown is on the roster of a team with a poor offense that struggles to score, that is a big freaking target on Beane.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Yeah, Chavez's injury smacks of a season-ender
Let him rest for the duration of this season and the off-season, getting him (hopefully) altogether healthy for next year.
When he is back, I wouldn’t mind seeing Hannahan and Murphy both either sent down or DFA’d, and letting Petit take over the utility IF role. Frees up an extra roster spot for one of our many OF/1B/DH types.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
I'll bet anyone on this board a dollar...
...that Emil Brown stays on the roster until the last game of the season.
Barring injury or trade or some other weird circumstance, of course. IOW: he ain’t gettin’ DFA’d or released.
(Limit 5 dollars total… haha)
You can't sit on a lead and run a few plays into the line and just kill the clock. You've got to throw the ball over the goddamn plate and give the other man his chance. That's why baseball is the greatest game of them all. ~Earl Weaver
Sadly
I think you’re right. If they were going to DFA him, he’s already earned it for a long time.
No. Resist.
Murton does everything Brown “does” but better. There is no reason at all not to make that upgrade.
Beane is probably shopping Brown as we speak (although I doubt there are takers). I’d be shocked if he’s with the team the day after the trading deadline.
Shopping Emil DFA Brown?
ROFPMLOLZ.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
Joe Gaetti
I’m starting to think he gets a shot soon too somewhere.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop
Judging from past patterns, I’m guessing there could be another trade in the next couple of days and it will be someone we don’t expect. With Hudson it was Mulder, with Haren it was Swisher. No one expected the second trade and I don’t want to be shocked again. But really how can we be shocked any more (trade Cahill I guess). The obvious candidates for the “shockers” of course are Ellis, Duke, and Street. Their most obvious suitors are the Mets/Cards, Phillies/Cards/Yanks/Marlins, and Rays respectively. How about Ellis and Duke for Rasmus and Anderson (maybe substituting in Duncan or Reyes)?
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
A trade of Ellis or Street would hardly qualify as a "shock".
Personally, I don’t think this trade portends future moves, nor do I believe it precludes them. I think other trades are no more or less likely than they were before.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
personnel departures via trade that would qualify as a shock
Not at all that any of these guys are untouchables, but that it would be a shock if Beane were to get equivalent value for them (and that some of their values are dependent on their not having immediate replacements in-house):
Ellis (I don’t think there’s any way in hell any GM gives Beane enough to match how Ellis is valued by the organization)
Duke (ditto)
Cust
Patrol Craft
Swooney
Suzuki
DFA
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
oh, and: Blanton (b/c his value is at an ebb)
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
it is shiny, I just don't think other GMs will value him only on that
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Risk tolerance
iglew’s point #3, and the subsequent comments from PT and rubin have pretty much summed up how I feel about the trade.
The A’s traded a very high risk, very high reward player in Harden, for several lower-risk lower-reward pieces, most notably Gallagher, who has a high probability of becoming an average starter but a much smaller chance of being a star, and Murton, who is already an OK player, but again has no real star potential. In the strict calculus of expected value, the A’s may well have gotten the better of this trade, and may even be better off with Gallagher and Murton than they would be with a single riskier prospect like Vitters or Rasmus.
But Beane’s apparent strategy of hording good-but-not-great players and prospects leaves me feeling somewhat underwhelmed. Certainly investing all your savings in lottery tickets is a poor idea, but on the other extreme you’re not likely to get rich investing solely in T-bills either. By the same token, it seems to me that if you’re trying to build a championship team, you want a mix of safe bets along with some high-ceiling prospects. Maybe when the team is closer to being a real contender Beane will move back in the other direction, and trade some of the accumulated surplus for a couple of higher-caliber players. But until that happens, I just can’t get very excited about the current approach to rebuilding.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
I'm just hoping grover doesn't decide to end it all in a blaze (heh) of glory
when he sees this trade.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
yeah, grover's take on this will be ... interesting
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
I've been very eager to see grover's take on this.
There are about a dozen regulars on AN whose trade opinions, whether I agree or not, I really want to hear, and grover is the main one that we haven’t heard from yet.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Reading all the comments last night,
especially from posters like Paul who frequently speculate about possible trades, I sensed that among the less knee-jerk crowd, much of the objection had to do with this question of risk and whether our team should or shouldn’t be taking that approach right now.
I thought that was a much more interesting avenue of debate than all the back and forth about how good or how bad the guys on each side are. That’s really what I had in mind with point #3, which was the main inspiration of the post.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I agree
but it’s impossible to completely ignore the good/bad angle. For example, if you think (as many people seem to, but I do not) that Gaudin is likely to be a better pitcher going forward than Gallagher, then it’s pretty much impossible to justify the trade on any level.
And also, quite honestly, beyond any intellectualizing I might do about the calculus of risk vs. reward, I’m a baseball fan, and I just loved watching Rich Harden pitch for the A’s, damn it.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
like being an astronomy fan, and loving watching Halley's comet
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Christina Kahrl from BP take on it...
She is an A’s fan and I like reading her stuff…..Thought everyone might like to read it, even though it isnt overly positive.
Link (Note: Free article on BP)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7774
Bring back Hammer.
I would never have expected ...
... that she would be a fan of Emil ..
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Damn
She isn’t impressed, either. Like, emphatically not impressed.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
With the exception that it's both much longer and probably somewhat less annoying,
her article is basically an exact carbon copy of what I’ve been saying since this trade came down.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Preach to the choir, my man
“Underwhelmed” doesn’t begin to describe my outlook. I think we both drink deeply from the Baseball Prospectus well.
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
Very likely
But it’s not entirely my fault. All the insiders kept talking about how Billy wasn’t going to give Harden away for an injury discount. If that’s not what happened here, then I’d hate to see what an injury discount would look like.
“Neifi Perez, Sal Fasano, AND Ryan Leaf’s Greatest NFL Moments on DVD? Sold!!”
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
Great read
I agree with every one of your well-stated opinions on this trade.
I hope Rich Harden is a huge success for Chicago; not only for himself, but for us going forward trading.
With our injury history the past two seasons, some lower ceiling / higher security type players might be a good idea.
This trade seems evenly matched to me. You can’t expect the world for Harden, he isn’t a sure thing to pitch every 5 days. Than again, trading the known element always looks bad initially, but Beane has a great track record on the talent we receive back for that known element.
Hopefully Harden & Gaudin both contribute to a successful Cubs team, all the way to the World Series to represent the NL. Hopefully our return package develops into something productive for our team, whether it be as a member of the team, or as a piece in another trade.
Interesting tidbit from Jaymee Sire's Blog
I’m not sure how much stock to put into this blog entry (especially since there’s a disclaimer, “don’t quote me on [this],” but Jaymee Sire suggests that Harden may indeed be hurt, based on his last two starts—and sources say he could possibly not start with the Cubs until after the All Star break.
Meanwhile…suspicions that the Cubs traded for “damaged goods” started circulating around the field later that evening. Harden hasn’t really been himself the last two starts, and the rumor is he’s been playing hurt and might get shut down before actually pitching in a Cubs uniform. Sources tell me the Chicago staff will check him out today to see how he’s feeling, and if he’s too sore, then we probably won’t see him again until after the All Star break.Anyway, I know there has been some speculation about his health (for instance, in the Jayson Stark article this morning), but this is the most specific suggestion I’ve read.
Cash Saved is an overlooked part of this trade
In trading Harden and Gaudin, the A’s will save about 4 Million against this year’s budget and 7 Million against that of 2009 (plus a potential pay raise to Harden).
This year, the A’s were a little under budget, which may well have been a precondition for signing Inoa.
In addition, next year’s payroll already stood to be substantially lower as the subsidy of Mark Kotsay comes to an end. My guess is, Beane will have the aforementioned 4 Million this year, plus a little more since they were already under budget, and almost 20 Million next year to play around with.
There are a number of possibilities for what one might do with that kind of money – here are a few that come to mind:
- Resign Mark Ellis (currently making $5M). An additional $2M – $3M per year should do the trick, perhaps quite a bit less if you give him some of this year’s savings as a signing bonus.
- Sign Duchscherer ($1.2M) to the three year deal he is reportedly seeking. I’m not sure what he would cost – perhaps an extra $5M per year, though that price is going up every time he starts :)
- Give Street and Blanton raises and keep them through their option years plus one or two more.
- Continue to aggressively pursue Central American talent.
- Draft a few young players who claim they want to go to (or stay in) college and make them offers they can’t refuse.
- Sign a couple of mid-priced free agents.
- Sign a high-end free agent (how about K-Rod, then see what you can get for Street in the marketplace) or a first baseman who has actually shown he can hit. (I didn’t actually check to see who’s out there; we must be able to do better than what we have right now).
I know this is not the most important part of the deal, but it’s more than a marginal consideration.
AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Beane signs dor-K, I’m outta here.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
I've made the same point a couple times
All I’ve gotten is “I bet Wolf will just use it to buy a yacht.”
Couldn’t agree more that it’s an important factor
I'd rather he buy a yacht than sign dor-K
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Oh, you needn't worry about that
K-Rod will get the most expensive non-Yankees reliever contract in MLB history this offseason.
And the A’s won’t be the ones giving it to him.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
some day, he's gonna pull a Clemens ...
... and throw his arm at some batter.
I swear, his mechanics get more and more ridiculous each year.
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
Actually save well over $7 million next year
I think it is important to remember also that Gaudin not only enters his arbitration years next year, he also, since demotion, was not contributing much this year, and was highly unlikely to next year (to be fair, if Smith and Eveland collapse from fatigue this year, Gaudin could have moved back into high leverage situation the last two months.) Bottom line, as talented as Gaudin is and as much as it’s possible he has taken a genuine leap forward in his command, he was low man on the totem pole, unlikely to receive opportunity or to build much trade value. And with arbitration looming, he was probably going to be dumped in the offseason if not now. If Beane is as high on Gallagher as purported, and it took including Gaudin now instead of trading him for some live arm A baller in the offseason, I think it was actually a pretty good move. On paper, it certainly bugs and disappoints. In reality, it’s no great loss.
Gaudin
Entered his Arbitration Year, This year…. right? He’ll be a Free Agent after the 2010 Season.
FWIW
I did some mental arithmetic last night and came up with a payroll of $47 million next season. That’s highly variable, because the A’s have six unsigned arbitration players (Matt Murton, Duke, Huston Street, Joe Blanton, Jack Cust and Rob Bowen). Only three (!) players are under set contract for next year—Chavez, Street and Embree (on a team option that I can’t really see the team declining).
So the A’s have room to add not one but two big-ticket free agents, or to add one and a smaller purchase and continue to pay (relative) big bucks in amateur signings and over-slot bonuses, without exceeding the soft payroll cap that I assume 2007 represents.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
That's Chavez, Crosby and Embree for the set contract guys
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Matt Murton
What’s the control/arbitration situation with Murton, if anyone knows.
According to Cots
he’s under contract for this year only, but he has only 2.055 years of ML service. I’m not sure, but I think that means he’s eligible for arbitration for 2010.
Cots doesn’t say what he’s paid in 2008, but he got $415,000 for 2007. MLB minimum salary this year is $390,000, which I assume goes up a bit next year. If I understand the rules right, we technically could pay him only MLB minimum in 2009, but for what little difference it is, I doubt we’d insult him with a pay cut. More likely if we re-sign him for one year, offer him something in line with recent salaries, so maybe $480,000 or so.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I think he'll be well short of Super-2 if he's at 2.055 and spends the rest of the year with the team, right?
So 2010 sounds right
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Not unless the A's hold him down basically all year
Assuming he comes up soon, and because that 2.055 doesn’t include his earlier service with the Cubbies this year, he will be a Super Two next season.
If anyone wants to check my math, these are the figures I used to generate that $47 million number:
Blanton $6 million
Street $5.5 million
Murton $1.5 million
Bowen $1 million
Cust $2.5 million
Duke $4.75 million
Couple that with $19.25 million in guaranteed money to Chavez, Crosby and Embree, and $6.5 million in near-minimum salary for the rest of the roster.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I had almost identical numbers
A little more for Duke, but had Murton at 400K, since he isn’t on the 25 man roster. I wonder if Street will really get that much. His stats are not exactly stunning.
I don't see where you get $4M
Looks more like $3M to me. What am I missing?
Anyway, “overlooked”? Well, yeah, except for the umpteen who were screaming this is purely a salary dump.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
I think he forgot to account for the fact that the season is half over
It’s a pro-rated savings of over $5 million, but that’s halved by the fact that we’re in July.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I mis-read Harden's 2008 salary
$3M is more like it.
Link to the entry.
Should have included that; here is the link.
Small disagreement
I wholeheartedly agree that the way this trade makes sense for the A’s is that Billy traded away high risk/high reward for more consistency. But if we are operating under the assumption that both GMs are competent (and I’m on board with that), Hendry clearly knew what he was getting himself into. Thus, I don’t think Haren getting injured right away necessarily reflects poorly on Beane. Hendry gave up a very moderate package specifically because Harden is an injury risk. The prevailing feeling that I’m getting from most of the insiders and talking heads is that Hendry is willingly rolling the dice that Billy provided.
I think what really grips me about this whole trade is that the Cubs really lose nothing if Harden goes down. Even if he gets hurt after 1 start, Hendry looks around, sees all the talent he bought, furrows his brow and asks, “who did I give up for that guy, again?” Meanwhile, the A’s gave up 2 of their more competent pitchers for some marginal improvements at positions that were already deep.
(sigh) I thought I came to terms with this…
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
We've been winning without Harden for years
And Gallagher will keep me from missing Gaudin
If DFA finally gets his well-earned DFA, it’s a party as far as I’m concerned
1. iglew, you have salvaged my hanging-by-a-thread sanity by writing a smart post and herding all useful trade commentary into a single thread.
2. I will now create a horde of new usernames so I can recommend this diary 25 times.
3. Can’t grover post something via Blackberry while doing battle with wildfires? Whatever happened to multitasking?
4. If that vegasgm fanpost gets a third recommendation, I’m going to become a Mariners fan.
+1 on point 4
Since our admins refuse to ban that guy, can they at least permanently set his recommendations to 0?
Oh fine
I wouldn’t wish Mariners fandom on anybody. Couldn’t you have just threatened to set yourself on fire instead?
Unrec’d.
I still think the humor value put it several notches above many of the other recent fAnPOsTs.
"May a nit suck Cajun geese?" wonders Red. No, we see gnu Jack Cust in a yam.
I’d just finished angrily deleting your screen name from the upper echelon of my double top secret “Best All-Time AN Posters” listing, but now that you have come to your senses I will add it back in. Unfortunately, this temporary lapse in judgment has cost you at least 3 or 4 power ranking spots. I can’t just pretend it never happened.
AN is nearly unusable on a Blackberry based on the organization of the pages.
It loads a ton of stuff sequentially in a stacked manner and makes it very difficult to navigate.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site
jamesvenes.com - Blog
Gallagher has to have some great upside for Beane to want him this much.
Also, Someone above mentioned the possibility of a second trade. One like Swisher after Haren or Mulder after Harden. I am thinking that Beane got close to trading Hardin to ST Louis for Rasmus, but it would have required us sending them Ryan Sweeney. I wonder if they might take Blanton and Buck?
It is just a thought but with the Brewers and Cubs both trading up St Louis is going to be under a bit of pressure.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Blanton and Buck for Rasmus would be interesting.
But I think that would decimate the pitching staff just a bit too much.
Blanton and Sweeney, more likely
Since they seem to be rather high on young Ryan. Or maybe Blanton and Ellis, considering how wretched their middle infield is. (Although I think I’d hold out for a prospect if the A’s were giving up two players.)
I’m in favor. Jesus, this team needs some offensive upside.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Whoa, wait....
You’re in favor of a deal that includes giving up Ellis??
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Better that than kicking him to the curb after this season
Rasmus > draft pick.
Obviously if the team is going to seriously attempt to re-sign him I’d be more in favor of that. But either of those is better than just having him pointlessly play out the string on his contract.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
yeah f'it
Trade Ellis for Rasmus, let Patterson play 2nd and pray for lazy fly balls not hit towards Jack Cust.
The only thing I don’t get about Rasmus is that he sort of sucks in AAA right now.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
His BABIP was like .050 for the first month of the season
Other than that, he’s basically been the same prospect he always was.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well...
Mulder looks about done in St Louis. He was walking back to the dugout in the 1st Inning w/ the Training Staff. Mulder looks done. They now need another starter.
Someone wave the Magic Wand and get us a 3B
who can be here by 2009 and can launch the ball. Do they have anyone in the minors who has potential for the future. Chavy is injured and you would think Beane would be conscious of our infield needs at 3B and SS.
Yes, they cost money if you don’t draft them.
That is a glaring weakness.
And sign Ellis and Duke.
I predict Chavy will pretty much be a non-factor in 2008
but will have his “return to form” in 2009. That always seemed like the likeliest timeline to me.
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
Just like Kotsay last year.
He came back too early and sucked. But this year he has been his old self, or at least the last I heard.
I think that next year Chevy will be 100% also.
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Here I'll note ...
... that the food at Chevy’s is not really authentic Mexican food …
Brainless Automaton #439
LOL - so true
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
vitters
quick questions. many folks seem to wish that we had gotten vitters as a key part of the deal. as i look at vitters’ slash stats, he’s hitting .214/.214/.429 at A, while Donaldson who we got is hitting a very similar .217/.276/.349 at A.
aside from the obvious difference in slg % this year (though donaldson’s ‘07 sg% was higher than vitters’), why the long faces about donaldson vs vitters?
Vitters is younger than Donaldson
and is already playing 3B. Even though Donaldson has played third before, it would take him even more time to adjust, and time is something that he doesn’t seem to have, being a 22 year old in A ball.
Procrastinators unite....tomorrow
Look at the games played stat before you look at the slash stats
The numbers you cite are from a 4 game sample size.
The guy was the #3 overall pick last year. He’s a pretty good prospect.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Fleeced?
One reassuring thought about the A’s possibly being fleeced: we have two of the brightest front-office minds in all of baseball in Beane and Forst. I think they wouldn’t have asked for Gallagher for Harden straight -up (initially), if they didn’t think the guy could contribute to the team now and in the long-run. I agree with your assessment, Harden is too high-risk, high-reward and his fleeting moments of pitching domination cannot compare w/ me choosing to avoid ulcers from here on out.
when will we start looking at the present
Here’s the problem I have with this trade, it’s not that Harden is gone because he basically has been out the equation for the past few years anyway; it’s that this team is overachieving and right in the thick of things for the playoff hunt and instead of rewarding them with the mentallity of we are going for it like the Brewers did, we are telling our guys we had a good run but we need to look good for the future. This team is already young, and the upside is incredible. Why can’t we have a winning team when we open the new stadium (which buy the way can increase finances meaning we can sign these young players like Suzuki) rather than having a team that will finally be turning the corner to competing? I love Beane and I know I felt the same way about the Haren trade, but we were expecting to rebuild, we see the players that we are expecting to rebuild with competing on the field right now. The future is here right now!!!!
Brewers not a good comparison
In so many ways
Start with the clear notion that with negotiations essentially moribund with Sheets and with Fielder approaching a huge arbitration award and uncertain Boras-led future (from the Brewers standpoint) this, not 2009 or 2010, is really their shot;
Then go to the two offenses and realize that the impact of Sabathia on a lineup with Braun, Fielder, Hart, etc.. is enormous
Then compare the two leagues. The Brewers have one realistic wild card opponent and an outside chance at the division. We have an outside chance at the division and—what?—5 wild card opponents, if you include both the Yankees and Tigers which is the prudent thing to do.
Then compare the two fan bases and the economics. Brewers will likely draw 3 million this year; A’s will fall short of 2 million.
two interestesting reads
Why the Harden Deal was Good for the A’s
Harden vs Gallagher—this was mentioned last night.
Nice. And accurate, IMO
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
Neyer says the A's are better...
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3479108&name=Neyer_Rob
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
The following is from the article"
You know what this reminds me of? When the A’s traded Mark Mulder to the Cardinals and got Dan Haren plus two other prospects. Since then, Haren has won 51 games and Mulder has won 22.
I don’t know that Gallagher’s going to win more games than Harden over the next few years. I wouldn’t bet the house against it, though. And he might even win more games than Harden this summer.
In fact - and I’m surprised that I’m writing this - the A’s might be better right now than they were yesterday. Beane’s giving up on 2008? Nah. He’s just retooling for the stretch run.
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Damn
Neyer is really going out on a limb there. The A’s might be better now than yesterday? Once Emil is DFA for Murton, I might agree.
Might as well Jump! - Van Halen
That will be a glorious day
Filled with two dancing unicorns (Murton, apparently) and many celebrations
I remember when the Mulder trade went down, everyone was jazzed we got Barton, super stud
prospect, and we knew Calero was a pretty good setup man, but we all just thought Haren was a throw in 5th starter.
by theblackpearl on Jul 9, 2008 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
that's essentially what I said above
... arousing men to burst the chains under which monkeyish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves ... @('.')@
technically this trade could hurt the A's further
If the A’s play the Cubs in interleague or the world series (HA!) and Harden beat the A’s. In the case of the WS the case could be made that the trade helped get them there but that’s beside the point.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
harden, gaudin trade,gold for the cubs
the cubs didn’t just get a no.1 starter,they got a leader.look at his starts and record w/the a’s,they always supported him w/runs and solid play,thats a sign of leadership,when others follow. chad gaudin would be starting for any team in the majors,if he had been given a chance,he’s a solid young arm,he’ll have a successful mlb career,as a no.3 starter probably.if you doubt,look at how he responded last year when he was thrust into a starting role,he alone was worth the 4th and 5th cubs prospect.
on the subject of longevity,if you noticed rich threw less splits in his last two starts,that tells me he got a bit of a sore elbow in his previous,hench the loss of velocity.the good news for the cubs,he’s learned from his previous injuries.
don’t forget the christmas card for billy,cubbies,and enjoy your gifts.
He's baaaaaaaaaaaack
the a’s,they always supported him w/runs and solid play,thats a sign of leadership
I beg to differ. It’s a sign of luck to the extent it’s even true.
Strictly Hypothetical: Early Opportunity vs. Long Term Rewards
(I posted this in another diary, but no action there and wanted to hear some thoughts…)
A thought that was inspired some time ago by Harden’s seemingly delicate nature and the time of his tenure with the A’s: What if Harden’s reluctance to pitch through any sort of physical discomfort is his own diabolical, evil-Canadian genius means of artificially limiting his innings pitched and early wear-and-tear on his greatest asset in an effort to save himself for huge paydays and greater longevity post-arbitration/Oakland? The A’s have an excellent rep for the development and promotion of pitchers at a young age, virtually ensuring early exposure to MLB experience & salaries, and rewarding the most promising of the group early with security through their arbitration years – Blanton excepted. That said, the A’s have also have shown a willingness, nay encouragement, to let relatively young guys shoulder 200+ IP work loads year-in and year-out only to ship them off for fresh blood and continued organizational relevance when their economically "useful" years are coming to a close.
Now imagine you’re a young Rich Harden at the end 2004 – you’ve just started 31 games, and pitched nearly 200 innings in your first full year of major league ball. You also just witnessed Mark Mulder and Tim Hudson running themselves into the dirt for a team that refuses to negotiate extensions with free agents, or will trade you with two years remaining on your bargain contract in calculated moves for prospects or draft picks. You’ve got the kind of golden arm that is historically abused early and often by former middle-infielder/managers – and you’ve just earned yourself guaranteed multi-million dollar/multi-year security at the ripe old age of 23. You hail from a nation with universal healthcare, and despite your own reports of your puck-handling skills, you managed to avoid mangling your mug by pursuing a career in hockey. At what point do you say, "Fuck it. Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough and doggone it, people like me. Well, not everybody. But that’s their problem. And your problem." To avoid becoming another Mark Mulder/Kerry Wood/Mark Prior/Sandy-freakin’-Koufax, you set yourself on cruise control for 3+ years, only to turn it on in the last couple of years of your contract to re-establish your own market value – fully secure in the knowledge that some asshole in New York/Chicago/LAAAA/ San Francisco will set you up for life, AFTER you’ve freed yourself from the shackles of indentured-Moneyball-servitude.
I know this theory has it’s share of flaws, namely the desire to win, the team aspect, the fact that jocks typically aren’t that calculating or smart, – but you would think that in the Project X environment that is the Oakland A’s clubhouse – sooner or later one of these monkey’s is going to wise up and refuse to play your goddamn radioactive video game.
I responded on the other one
basically, Hardens injuries have probably cost him 100 Million on his last contract. Underperforming is something no soon to be FA would do.
If he had been healthy, his next contract would be bigger than Zito's/Santana's
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
Splendidly articulated!
Your point about assumption of risk w/Harden gets to the heart of the matter. I would have rather carried that risk unless we got power hitting prospects (which apparently we couldn’t get), and thus I’m disappointed, as I think of Harden as being the potential Josh Beckett/Kevin Brown (before the massive contract/injuries) guy who you just don’t want to face in the playoffs. At his best, he’s the best A’s pitcher since Vida Blue and Catfish (hard to compare him to Stewart, who had a whole different kind of mojo.) But he’s gone, and nothin’s gonna bring him back.
So, on to the new. We’ll see where it goes. Thanks for the sharp writing.
See, he'd have fit in perfectly.
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
Wanted to say
will miss futures game and is expected to be back after AAA all-star break.
I think you certainly could
quantify certain GMs are far more incompetent than others. The recently fired Bill Bavasi comes, Wayne Krivsky, and Brian Sabean all come to mind. Billy makes mistakes like everyone else, sure. But I would argue that he makes them far less than most, and that you’d be hard pressed to find someone better for the A’s.
Sorry
ignore the grammatical error in the second sentence right after Bavasi
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
