Harden & Gaudin for Gallagher, Murton, EPatt & Donaldson

[RedFlash]

Guess what Rich Harden's favorite city is? This is from May: http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200805022627603

how could he pick Batman over SUPERman?

 

No the question should be, why doesn't he like Canada's Premier Team, Alpha Flight?

[Soul]

BP on the deal:

Subscribers

 

Non-subscribers can read this

 

By the way, joe sheehan of BP will be on outside the lines at 3:30 (i think that's 3:30 my time, eastern) and will be talking about the trade.

 

Which Dempster would the team get, the guy who's given them three quality starts in eight on the road, or eight of ten at home? Would the playoff schedule cooperate? (And is this another brickbat in the burgeoning conspiracy theory that the Cubs are enjoying something extra in their home-field advantage?)

 

so now it's a burgeoning conspiracy theory?

 

The non-subscriber article seems more like a drug-induced ramble than a well-reasoned piece of journalism.

 

He's basically saying that all the players the A's got back could suck. Yeah, that's true. So what? So could LaPorta.

 

And Harden could implode too.

 

The trade was risk for risk. Period. And Beane didn't suddenly take a bottle of stupid pills, so he might want to consider that before rambling on as if he knows everything about all these players.

[CubinNY]

BP on the deal:

Subscribers

 

Non-subscribers can read this

 

By the way, joe sheehan of BP will be on outside the lines at 3:30 (i think that's 3:30 my time, eastern) and will be talking about the trade.

 

Which Dempster would the team get, the guy who's given them three quality starts in eight on the road, or eight of ten at home? Would the playoff schedule cooperate? (And is this another brickbat in the burgeoning conspiracy theory that the Cubs are enjoying something extra in their home-field advantage?)

 

so now it's a burgeoning conspiracy theory?

 

The non-subscriber article seems more like a drug-induced ramble than a well-reasoned piece of journalism.

 

He's basically saying that all the players the A's got back could suck. Yeah, that's true. So what? So could LaPorta.

 

And Harden could implode too.

 

The trade was risk for risk. Period. And Beane didn't suddenly take a bottle of stupid pills, so he might want to consider that before rambling on as if he knows everything about all these players.

He's a she I think. And I don't like the cheating speculation either. The Cubs aren't the only team to play well at home.

 

She can go scissor the scissorsisters.

[Tracer Bullet]

I like reading a lot of writers at BP. Kahrl isn't one of them.

[daske17]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

[Soul]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

[Tracer Bullet]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

Or, and I may be way off here, they're looking at Harden's injury history, including a DL stint this season, and betting he won't pitch for us down the stretch, let alone the playoffs.

 

Or it's an anti-Cubs conspiracy.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

Oh geez louise, are you kidding me? The national media adores the Cubs, by and large. And they would love to see them go to, if not win, the world series.

 

Some people just realize it's a tremendous risk that may or may not pay off.

[Joe_Cub]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

i think it's also harden's injury history + the cubs injury history with prior and wood + the belief that beane always wins trades, so (since people seem to think the cubs' package of players suck) harden is about to go down again

[Tracer Bullet]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

 

I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

 

I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday.

 

They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk.

[hawkeyecub]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

You have to look at it objectively. The guy made 13 starts over the previous two years and pitched a total of 72 innings. What do you think the theme would be here if the Cardinals acquired Harden? "Yeah he's good when he's healthy but he's never healthy, he'll be on the DL within a month, etc..."

 

When the Brewers acquired C.C. there was a lot of the "it's likely to be a wash because Sheets will get hurt anyways." And Sheets has a much better injury history than Harden.

 

From our perspective it's a very good deal because of what we gave up and the possible reward. But it's fair to have a lot of skepticism over his health.

[Soul]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

Oh geez louise, are you kidding me? The national media adores the Cubs, by and large. And they would love to see them go to, if not win, the world series.

 

Some people just realize it's a tremendous risk that may or may not pay off.

 

Maybe it's because I'm sitting up here in Brewer land. Believe me, some of the talk has crossed the line, IMO.

 

I never kid you goony, you know that. OK well actually some times I do.

[RedFlash]

Dempster on the Harden acquisition: "Finally, someone who speaks my language. We're gonna set up some hockey nets in the clubhouse". :D

 

Sig.....

[David]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

You're nuts.

[Tracer Bullet]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

 

I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday.

 

They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk.

 

The difference in salary this year isn't that much - didn't I see that Harden is only owed about $2m the rest of this year? And next's year's contract is team option; we go to arb if we don't pick up the option. If he's hurt so much we don't pick up the option, how much is he getting in arb?

 

I think we'll just have to disagree on whether the risk is really that high. The risk that Harden gets injured is certainly high. But Murton had EPatt had almost no place at all on this team this year or in the near future (unless EPatt overtook everyone else to start at 2B, but the Cubs didn't seem to think he could play there anymore). Gallagher clearly would, but is he that much better than Gaudin and/or Marshall, in terms of value this year and next?

 

Certainly those guys have value, but with CC traded, there weren't many other possible targets. Hendry got one of the most talented pitchers in the league, with a big injury history, while giving up only 1 guy with a real chance to contribute now or in the near future. And he picked up a good insurance policy if the main piece does get hurt. The total risk, in terms of damage to the Cubs ability to win games this year and next, is minimal.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe it's because I'm sitting up here in Brewer land. Believe me, some of the talk has crossed the line, IMO.

 

 

Crossed the line? Are they making dead mother jokes? 9/11 cracks? Is it just one giant Aristocrats sketch?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Maybe it's because I'm sitting up here in Brewer land. Believe me, some of the talk has crossed the line, IMO.

 

 

Crossed the line? Are they making dead mother jokes? 9/11 cracks? Is it just one giant Aristocrats sketch?

as told by Bob Saget

[jersey cubs fan]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

 

I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday.

 

They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk.

 

The difference in salary this year isn't that much - didn't I see that Harden is only owed about $2m the rest of this year? And next's year's contract is team option; we go to arb if we don't pick up the option. If he's hurt so much we don't pick up the option, how much is he getting in arb?

 

I think we'll just have to disagree on whether the risk is really that high. The risk that Harden gets injured is certainly high. But Murton had EPatt had almost no place at all on this team this year or in the near future (unless EPatt overtook everyone else to start at 2B, but the Cubs didn't seem to think he could play there anymore). Gallagher clearly would, but is he that much better than Gaudin and/or Marshall, in terms of value this year and next?

 

Certainly those guys have value, but with CC traded, there weren't many other possible targets. Hendry got one of the most talented pitchers in the league, with a big injury history, while giving up only 1 guy with a real chance to contribute now or in the near future. And he picked up a good insurance policy if the main piece does get hurt. The total risk, in terms of damage to the Cubs ability to win games this year and next, is minimal.

 

But that's not the only risk.

[Billy_Buck]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

i think it's also harden's injury history + the cubs injury history with prior and wood + the belief that beane always wins trades, so (since people seem to think the cubs' package of players suck) harden is about to go down again

 

A variation on this theme, I think eminating from Bristol but I forget the exact offenders, has been "OMG, the Cubs traded 4 prospects for yet another busted pitcher; the Brewers only gave up LaPorta for CC." Superficial and misinformed, so not worth paying any heed IMO.

[Soul]

Maybe it's because I'm sitting up here in Brewer land. Believe me, some of the talk has crossed the line, IMO.

 

 

Crossed the line? Are they making dead mother jokes? 9/11 cracks? Is it just one giant Aristocrats sketch?

as told by Bob Saget

 

It's more like "going to be fun when Harden hits the DL and all the Cub fans start crying" kind of comments.

[jersey cubs fan]

Maybe it's because I'm sitting up here in Brewer land. Believe me, some of the talk has crossed the line, IMO.

 

 

Crossed the line? Are they making dead mother jokes? 9/11 cracks? Is it just one giant Aristocrats sketch?

as told by Bob Saget

 

It's more like "going to be fun when Harden hits the DL and all the Cub fans start crying" kind of comments.

 

So just like many Cubs fans and Sheets comments?

[Tracer Bullet]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

The Brewers got a guy who is a good bet to make every start and be very good while doing so. The Cubs got a guy who is a good bet to miss some time. I think the national media reports that I've read have been fair and accurate. I think some people are delusional in thinking this was some sort of steal by the Cubs. It was a high risk high reward trade that I applaud Hendry for making. But the high risk is very real and why the cost was not as big as some may think it should have been.

 

I agree with everything but the "high risk" part. I guess I don't see this deal as much of a high risk, other than the opportunity cost of giving up Gallagher for Harden rather than a different acquisition. If Harden is hurt, the Cubs have the same rotation, except Marshall or Gaudin has to match Gallagher's stats this year. I think that's a real possibility. So the only risk in adding Harden is if he gets hurt and we don't add another SP, we have the same team we had yesterday.

 

They'd be out money, the guy they traded for, plus all the guys they gave up. And all of those guys had/have value. It's high risk.

 

The difference in salary this year isn't that much - didn't I see that Harden is only owed about $2m the rest of this year? And next's year's contract is team option; we go to arb if we don't pick up the option. If he's hurt so much we don't pick up the option, how much is he getting in arb?

 

I think we'll just have to disagree on whether the risk is really that high. The risk that Harden gets injured is certainly high. But Murton had EPatt had almost no place at all on this team this year or in the near future (unless EPatt overtook everyone else to start at 2B, but the Cubs didn't seem to think he could play there anymore). Gallagher clearly would, but is he that much better than Gaudin and/or Marshall, in terms of value this year and next?

 

Certainly those guys have value, but with CC traded, there weren't many other possible targets. Hendry got one of the most talented pitchers in the league, with a big injury history, while giving up only 1 guy with a real chance to contribute now or in the near future. And he picked up a good insurance policy if the main piece does get hurt. The total risk, in terms of damage to the Cubs ability to win games this year and next, is minimal.

 

But that's not the only risk.

 

When evaluating a trade, what risk are you concerned about beyond the team's ability to win now and in the future?

[Soul]

Is it just me or does it seem that the national media is not seeing this as the positive trade we are?

 

The major online outlets and columnists that I've read are basically saying things along the line of "Harden isn't the saviour the Cubs will get, nor will he stay healthy." (generalization, of course)

 

I'm certainly cautious based on Harden's injury history, but this is a much better trade than what I'm hearing nationally, right? Why the apathy for the Cubs when the Brewers are universally acclaimed?

 

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us.

 

Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few.

 

Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true.

 

You're nuts.

 

How nuts? Like, "Beautiful Mind" nuts? Or just Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future nuts?