First off, trades cannot necessarily be judged in six weeks. It was a short-term move for the Cubs and a long-term move for the A’s. From the A’s perspecyive, it cannot be judged until some decent amount of time has passed… at least a couple years.

Second, what exactly in Harden’s history led you to believe that he was suddenly going to stay healthy? Even with his current run of health, I can’t help but remain skeptical.

It’s going to happen.

Nobody can prove you right or wrong yet, so what’s the point?

Saying “it’s a failure already” is just an attempt to stir the pot.

this trade is only a huge success if harden pitches and pitches well in the playoffs and they get far. a trade like this for the cubs is only successful if harden has the kind of impact to get them into the playoffs and get them far.

up too much in the Harden/Gaudin trade. I agreed with that then and I see no reason to change my mind.

Obviously we cannot judge this trade after such a little amount of time as others have pointed out. In my mind it doesn’t really matter what harden does in the future because while he was here he couldn’t stay healthy, what else were we supposed to judge him by. Also trading harden allowed us to get a peek at meyer and gio, which is necesary and this time of year. I have to say though that I think matt murton will never get anywhere it just doesn’t seem like he has the ability to produce in the bigs but patterson has a little more potential.

that moneyball or value investing strategies work. value investing is hard. it requires work and some risk but it pays off in the end. the payoffs are not always obvious but executing the discipline works in the long term.

gallagher had a 1.20 whip in the minors and a 1.0 k per 9.

can we please give him some time to execute and not skewer him already? jeez, we’re not new york or boston.

That I’m baffled about with regards to the Harden deal is that Harden can leave and is by all accounts perfectly healthy. Gallagher comes in and his arm is already falling off. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know any more if it’s the training staff or just a horrible curse in the clubhouse but our players are down for the count faster than pitchers under the control of Dusty Baker.

I wasn’t for this trade from day one, and I still think it was a poor deal.

But not because a few weeks of performance data make it look poor. That doesn’t really confirm much of anything.

You see, I say yawn because when I actually yawn, you don’t get it.

when Harden was on the DL the past few seasons with us?

How quickly the bandwagon shifts :X

As fans it is hard to be rational, we want OUR team to win. We want them to win now. We sure as hell want them to be better than the Giants. This type of post is going to be around all off season and next season. As sad as it is the A’s are rebuilding. If we kept Harden and Gaudin, would the team have been any better? They still don’t get on base much. Yes, watching Harden win was fun, seeing the A’s win is fun. If this were a different team, with better attendance, we might not have needed to trade/let go of Swisher, Haren, Harden, Gaudin, Giambi, Tejada, etc. But it is the A’s and this is the way it is. The deal is done.

5-4 record, a 4.80 era and a 1.50 whip.

he’s become a dominating pitcher in the ensuing 5 seasons. please give gallagher time.

can definitely call it a win for the Cubs.

…the fact that they got rid of Harden. That, IMHO, was a painful yet necessary move. Including Gaudin was questionable, and I’m still high on Gallagher, but I still feel a better bat at a position of more obvious need should have also been obtained.

… that it’s waaaaay too early to call this trade a win or a loss yet.
… that Rich Harden spent far more time on the DL than on the pitching mound for us.
… that it may have been near impossible for us to sign him long term in the not-too-distant future.
However, all that being said, I think sometimes you (read: the A’s) have to take a chance. That is, overspend on a guy that may or may not work out. The thing is, Rich Harden is a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher. Not good, not excellent, but all-time great special. Yes, “if healthy” is a key phrase here. But he looks pretty damn healthy at this point … and I don’t agree with some AN’ers who insist that because he’s been hurt before this means it’s a guarantee he’ll be hurt again.
I have a feeling — and that and 2 bucks will get me a cup of coffee, I know — but I have a feeling Rich Harden is going to be winning lots and lots and lots and lots of games for the Chicago Cubs for the next 5 years, at least. And I wouldn’t be the least surprised … in fact, I think it’s probably going to happen … if the 2008 World Series MVP is Rich Harden. He’s the best pitcher in baseball, hands down.

let’s not jump the gun here. This is still a new trade. Rich is a great pitcher. One of the best when healthy but of course that when hasn’t been often. Bless the man I hope he has a long healthy career but Gallagher is a young guy and he is still in the process of developing. Give him some time to show us what he really has. I think he will be fine for us.

when the trade was made. Trades SHOULD be evaluated at the time they are struck—when people say that you have to wait X amount of months/years/lifetimes to evaluate a trade, well, no one ever really says what X is. And when people then arbitrarily decide that time X (no, not the shitty watchmaker) has arrived and that they, the wise and prident ones, are fit to assess the trade, they’re doing it on the basis of hindsight. That, or they’ll be the ones to criticize others for having the benefit of hindsight at their disposal.

The best time to evaluate a trade is when it is made, because trades are about odds. Odds of Harden staying healthy and justifying a 2009 $7 million option. Odds of Gallagher developing into a quality major league starting pitcher, or beyond that, a dominant one, some sort of probably-imaginary always-healthy-Harden. Odds of any of the other three guys contributing at the major league level. Odds that Chad Gaudin would have succeeded as an AL starter (or in some increased capacity than the role he occupied with the A’s). I can’t quantify or estimate because I don’t have the time and probably not the ability. There’s always some unspecfifiable margin for error that the intangibles/psychological makeup of an individual human being presents that’s problematic for calculating these odds. But PECOTA and other systems, many of which are probably more advanced than the one I know by name, make reasonable projections all the time. And salary has to be accounted for as well. All the variables make an ultimate assessment tough to offer and likely closer to inconclusive than anything else, but as someone who has some familiarity with odds and making actions based on them (and trying not to let outcomes influence future odds-based decisions), I would suspect the Cubs won the trade.

That is far my nuanced than my drunken “what the fuck was Billy thinking” reaction, which I even wrote a diary to express here. My information is limited, though it could be increased with some (or lots of) research. But as it stands I don’t know at what point the sum of what the A’s received should be expected to exceeed the performance of the sum of what the Cubs received, if ever, and for how long. And then, if that point ever arrives, if the A’s plan to keep the developed players or make yet another trade like this one to perpetuate the process….

is that the Chicago Cubs are a large market team. The A’s are not. It hurts the smaller market team a hell of a lot more to be putting $7-9 million into a pitcher and have him on the sidelines. Not only that but past performance is the best indicator of future performance. It’s really all baseball front offices have to go on and paying that salary next season when chances are Harden would be in a jacuzzi or rehab just isn’t feasible for a team like the A’s. The Cubs can afford to take that risk. The A’s simply can’t.

And I’m just guessing here, but my guess is that Beane was never offered much for Fragile Richie Harden so he did the best he could as soon as Harden proved he could stay on the field for more than five starts.

and all the A’s shake off there year long slump and maybe one or two FA come to town the offense will get better. When your on the bottom there is only one way to go right? This just wasnt the A’s year in so many ways and next year should be better as several of the rookies and young players will look to turn the corner and some guys maybe be getting healthy and a decent to upper level FA come to Oakland.

On the trade I still think more time needs to pass before the trade can be graded in fairness to both sides. Young will get Gallgher straight and the anount on pitching he has done will allow him to last longer next season and approach the 200 inning mark. The hitters aquired in the trade should do better with a fresh start in 2009 as will many of the current A’s

because the trade was made with the idea in mind that it would make the Cubs better now and the A’s better later. So if Gallagher, Murton, and Patterson aren’t performing well, but Harden is doing great, that does not change either projected truth: That the Cubs would benefit now and the A’s would benefit long-term.

In other words, it would be theoretically possible to post a diary today saying, “Harden trade already a success for Oakland” – if Harden were already injured, or Gallagher and Murton had already made the A’s “better even for now” – but you can’t possibly say the trade is already a failure for Oakland before the time comes when it’s even supposed to be a success.

The A’s got rid of a liability in Harden and got a super utility player in E-Pat, an OFFENSIVE (YEEHAA!) minded catcher who can also probably third base and therefore probably first base in Donaldson-a guy that a LOT of scouts like and a pitcher that hasn’t even come close to maturing in Gallagher.

It’s not Beane’s masterpiece, but it’s one that time’s going to once again prove Beane is right. And to call it a failure in the first six weeks or whathaveyou, is an absolute joke.

I do think you can gauge who’s winning the deal right now with a little hypothetical game called Takebacks.

Assuming that whatever has happened so far this season remains true, would you take back a deal right now if given the opportunity?

For example, knowing what Dan Haren has done this year and knowing what the six prospects have done this year, would you take that deal back? No.

Knowing what Nick Swisher has done so far this year and knowing what Sweeney, Gio, and Fautino have done, would you trade those 3 guys for Swisher today? No, but I bet Chicago fans would be happy to re-trade.

Knowing what Joe Blanton has done, would you take him back today? Hell no.

But knowing what Rich Harden has done since the trade (stayed healthy and dominated) and knowing that Murton and Patterson weren’t part of a second deadline deal (as many assumed/hoped), would you trade those guys (plus Gallagher and Donaldson) back for Harden?

Some of you might take that, some of you wouldn’t. I probably would just to gamble on the chance of having him finish the season still healthy and trade him for even more value.

The A’s have made a handful of trades for the immediate future within the past season, and all of them except this one look like winners already. That doesn’t make this deal an absolute failure, but I wouldn’t mind having a re-do.

And I didn’t like the trade then, and still don’t. But the answer is still, “No.”

Arm fatigue happens with young pitchers, actually with any pitcher. He just has to learn how to warm up, etc. He’ll learn and he’ll do very well for the A’s. You guys worry too much! Chill!

If something is already deemed a failure, do we ask for our money back? File a grievance? I’m having a tough time moving on with my day.

Could be I’m just being lazy.

Jun 14, 1988, graduated High School
Aug 22, 1988 Turned 18, joined Air Force, mom says don’t do it, you are throwing your life away( failure)
Aug 22, 2008, I am a MCSE, a CCNA, and am employed as a Applications Lead, married 2 kids, own my own house.

See mom, you judged me too quickly, the A’s will prove Jasonlbe and all the people who doubt Billy. He is the all knowing, all encompassing genius of baseball

disclaimer: There are a few true pieces of this post, but it is mostly in fun :)

• "Got an interesting stat passed along to me by a smart colleague, hot off the web conversation. Since his July 12 Cubs debut, is Rich Harden out-winning the A’s all by himself? Could that be true?

Well, no, actually, it’s not true. Close. Not true. Hate to be a stickler for stuff like that.

Turns out that, of course, Harden is pitching very well for the Cubs (1.49 ERA), but he hasn’t been unbeatable. The Cubs are 5-2 in Harden’s 7 starts, with both losses coming in his first three starts, and Harden’s own Cub record is 4-1 with two no-decisions.

The Cubs have scored 45 runs in the Harden games–an average of 6.43 of run support.

In the meantime, since that July 12 Harden debut (he was traded July 9), the A’s are a horrendous 6-27 and have scored a total of 88 runs in those games–a woeful average of 2.7.

The A’s have been held to 1 run or less in 11 of those 27 games, which is 40.1% of the time, and that is atrocious no matter who is pitching.

(The Cubs have scored more runs in Harden’s 7 starts than the A’s have scored in their last 18 games, combined. Wow.)

I’ll get bounced as a slight Billy Beane apologist for this, but oh well: The A’s would be losing at almost an identical rate with or without Harden.

You can’t win if you can’t score… and if the ace is only going an average of 6 innings, so even if he’s lights out and he leaves ahead 1-0 or 2-1, you need your bullpen to be lights out for 3 more innings, too."

Pretty much sums it up other than the Gallagher/Patterson/Murton/Donaldson vs. Harden/Gaudin debate.