Harden & Gaudin for Gallagher, Murton, EPatt & Donaldson

[CubinNY]

Harden is a very high risk player. To think otherwise is foolish

 

I don't care. He's was the best available and the Cubs are in the cat-bird seat. This trade doesn't put them over the top. They're already there.

Edited July 9, 2008 by CubinNY

[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.

 

So just like many Cubs fans and Sheets comments?

 

Yeah but Sheets is evil.

[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.

 

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

 

You said near future. The Cubs gave up assets for a highly talented by injury prone player. They no longer have those assets to deal if they need something else. Their season doesn't hinge on Harden's shoulder, but it's high risk nonetheless. They were going to trade for somebody at sometime, and they chose a guy who might not make it through July. As I said before, I'm completely fine with that. I like the go for it mentality. But it's still risky.

[abuck1220]

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.

 

you have a very low (shallow? quick? what am i looking for here?) line.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

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?

he can clearly see your nuts

[cubfan]

From the BP article, I'm trying to figure out how cheating at home for the Cubs would help Gallagers stats? Unless someone is flashing a light in the batters eyes while he is pitching, I can't see cheating being different for a pitcher at home than while away.

[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?

 

You said near future. The Cubs gave up assets for a highly talented by injury prone player. They no longer have those assets to deal if they need something else. Their season doesn't hinge on Harden's shoulder, but it's high risk nonetheless. They were going to trade for somebody at sometime, and they chose a guy who might not make it through July. As I said before, I'm completely fine with that. I like the go for it mentality. But it's still risky.

 

There's certainly some degree of risk, but I think Hendry did a good job of minimizing it (giving up assets that are blocked and getting insurance in the form of Gaudin to replace Gallagher). Murton's value was only decreasing as he got older, more expensive, and continued performing poorly. EPatt's value wasn't bolstered by his horrid play in the OF and it's clear we don't think he can play 2B in the majors. So while he has value, it wasn't getting much higher. I don't have a real solid grasp on Donaldson's value, but he's pretty far away from contributing and Geo looks pretty locked in to the C spot.

 

But if you're looking beyond 2 years for this particular trade, you're looking too far. The Cubs are trying to win now. Their best players are at the end of their primes or already past them. Their window looks to be right now. If Harden is healthy, they have possibly the best 1-2 punch in the playoffs. If he's not, they have the same rotation in the playoffs they had w/o him. Again, the $ isn't significant and the assets were blocked. That's not high risk to me.

[Tracer Bullet]

Harden is a very high risk player. To think otherwise is foolish

 

I don't care. He's was the best available and the Cubs are in the cat-bird seat. This trade doesn't put them over the top. They're already there.

 

Not sure if this is directed at me, but if that's what you're getting from my posts, you're not reading them or not understanding them.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I don't have a real solid grasp on Donaldson's value, but he's pretty far away from contributing and Geo looks pretty locked in to the C spot.

Donaldson's big value is in his draft spot and good numbers at Boise. he struggled mightily with Peoria this season. with Soto, Castillo, and Bautista having monster seasons, Donaldson was becoming an even bigger long shot to make it here anyway.

[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.

 

you have a very low (shallow? quick? what am i looking for here?) line.

 

I'm not known for my thick skin, I'll give you that.

[CubinNY]

Harden is a very high risk player. To think otherwise is foolish

 

I don't care. He's was the best available and the Cubs are in the cat-bird seat. This trade doesn't put them over the top. They're already there.

 

Not sure if this is directed at me, but if that's what you're getting from my posts, you're not reading them or not understanding them.

It wasn't really directed at anyone, just the idea that Harden isn't a gamble.

[jersey cubs fan]

There's certainly some degree of risk, but I think Hendry did a good job of minimizing it (giving up assets that are blocked and getting insurance in the form of Gaudin to replace Gallagher).

 

I would agree, it was good. It was still risky.

 

But if you're looking beyond 2 years for this particular trade, you're looking too far. The Cubs are trying to win now.

 

Sorry, but that sort of thinking, in and of itself, is very high risk. You cannot simply ignore the longterm ramifications just because some people have a 100 year itch. Yes, they are trying to win now, as well they should. But in doing so they've put themselves in an interesting situation for the future. The next owner is going to have to approve substantial increases in payroll, otherwise they are going to lose Dempster and Wood, and will need to rely on Harden staying healthy next year. They will once again have fewer trading chips to find what they need, and will have fewer internal options, including nobody on the roster who could reasonably fill-in for Fukudome or Soriano if they go down (a job Murton could have filled).

[Soul]

There's certainly some degree of risk, but I think Hendry did a good job of minimizing it (giving up assets that are blocked and getting insurance in the form of Gaudin to replace Gallagher).

 

I would agree, it was good. It was still risky.

 

But if you're looking beyond 2 years for this particular trade, you're looking too far. The Cubs are trying to win now.

 

Sorry, but that sort of thinking, in and of itself, is very high risk. You cannot simply ignore the longterm ramifications just because some people have a 100 year itch. Yes, they are trying to win now, as well they should. But in doing so they've put themselves in an interesting situation for the future. The next owner is going to have to approve substantial increases in payroll, otherwise they are going to lose Dempster and Wood, and will need to rely on Harden staying healthy next year. They will once again have fewer trading chips to find what they need, and will have fewer internal options, including nobody on the roster who could reasonably fill-in for Fukudome or Soriano if they go down (a job Murton could have filled).

 

Can't disagree. I think we've always been in that boat though. At least since our minor leagues started to run a little dry. I've read a few interesting articles in retrospect where people speculated that we didn't even have enough in the minors to acquire Harden. We were always going down the path of high payroll, IMO. We're just even more in that boat now.

[Tracer Bullet]

There's certainly some degree of risk, but I think Hendry did a good job of minimizing it (giving up assets that are blocked and getting insurance in the form of Gaudin to replace Gallagher).

 

I would agree, it was good. It was still risky.

 

But if you're looking beyond 2 years for this particular trade, you're looking too far. The Cubs are trying to win now.

 

Sorry, but that sort of thinking, in and of itself, is very high risk. You cannot simply ignore the longterm ramifications just because some people have a 100 year itch. Yes, they are trying to win now, as well they should. But in doing so they've put themselves in an interesting situation for the future. The next owner is going to have to approve substantial increases in payroll, otherwise they are going to lose Dempster and Wood, and will need to rely on Harden staying healthy next year. They will once again have fewer trading chips to find what they need, and will have fewer internal options, including nobody on the roster who could reasonably fill-in for Fukudome or Soriano if they go down (a job Murton could have filled).

 

I'm not saying you ignore ramifications 3 years away, but if you think you can fairly estimate the impact of this single trade on the 2011 Cubs, you're a better man than I.

 

And you and I agree that Murton could fill-in for Fukudome or Soriano. I know you don't believe he would in reality, given that there were no fewer than 2 times he could have replaced Soriano for a few weeks each and at least once he could have replaced Fukudome when he had a bum leg for a few games and was totally passed over. And since the Cubs don't need another 2B (if EPatt can play there) and EPatt doesn't seem like a fit in LF, what role could he fill with the team? And Bob makes it seems like Donaldson had little chance to contribute here.

 

I just don't understand your position, I guess. Harden is, without a doubt, and injury risk. But Hendry didn't hurt the Cubs chances of winning anytime in the near future by making this deal. That spells low risk to me. As for financial concerns, the salary we'll owe Harden will be tied to his health. So unless he's great for the last 3 months of this year and we pick up his option only to have his arm fall off, that risk isn't that big. Otherwise, the guys we traded were blocked by others (I don't think the Cubs saw EPatt playing 2B). And the big financial commitments weren't impacted by this deal at all (except maybe Gallagher, but I think that's a small risk with all the arms we have).

[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?

 

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.

 

I guess you all are right. It's just funny that before this trade, whenever talk of high-impact starting pitchers being traded it was Sabathia, Harden and Burnett. Then once Harden is traded the talk turns to, "He's a huge risk," etc.

 

It just seems like a double standard. Either he's a high-impact starter or he's a question mark.

 

But overall, I agree with everything everyone's said thus far. :thumbsup:

[RedFlash]

I don't have a real solid grasp on Donaldson's value, but he's pretty far away from contributing and Geo looks pretty locked in to the C spot.

Donaldson's big value is in his draft spot and good numbers at Boise. he struggled mightily with Peoria this season. with Soto, Castillo, and Bautista having monster seasons, Donaldson was becoming an even bigger long shot to make it here anyway.

 

To be fair, that Bautista kid, doesn't look like he will be staying at C as he progress in the minors.

[jersey cubs fan]

Either he's a high-impact starter or he's a question mark.

 

He's a high impact starter that is also a tremendous question mark due to his injury history. It's not a double standard.

[swordsman]

So no one can give me more info on Gaudin?

[C.C.]

So no one can give me more info on Gaudin?

 

Here

[Tracer Bullet]

So no one can give me more info on Gaudin?

 

Here

 

Least you could do was point him to BR

[Guest]

Matt (Chicago, IL): What are your thoughts on the Harden trade? Did the Cubs give up too much in terms of young talent?

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Ryan (Long Island): Did Chicago actually rob billy beane in this Harden deal? Seems like the only solid player they got back in the trade was Gallagher...and they gave up a potential star and a solid sub/bullpen arm

 

Jim Callis: Two differing viewpoints . . . I was surprised the A's didn't get more. Harden is a risk with his health, and his last two starts haven't been stellar, but I don't think the Cubs gave up much. Gallagher can be a solid mid-rotation guy, but Murton and Patterson aren't regulars on good teams and Donaldson is having a rough year in low Class A. If I were the A's, I would have shopped for a better deal. Doesn't seem like they got enough considering Harden's huge upside and the inclusion of Gaudin as well. The Cubs wouldn't have turned down this deal if they had to wait two weeks. It amuses me that there's a lot of analysis on the blogosphere saying that the A's must know Harden is about to get hurt again, or else Billy Beane wouldn't have made the trade. Beane is a tremendous GM, but I swear, if Kenny Williams made a similar deal, he'd be getting killed for it.

 

John (Oakland): I think that Beane had two choices given Harden's last two starts: Trade him now and get whatever you can get or risk the possibility of having him get hurt again, thereby negating his trade value. Remember this is the first time in three years that Harden has made eleven starts in a row. Billy has managed to keep a very competitve team throughout the years dispite one of the lowest payrolls, so "In Billy we trust".

 

Jim Callis: There is risk, but I still think they could and should have done better, or at least shopped him more. There's not a lot of quality starting pitching on the trade market. To use your logic, what if Harden was lights out in his next start? Then his value would be up. Not saying Beane isn't a tremendous GM, just don't think this is one of his stronger moves.

 

Rick (Boston): While Beane seems to have targeted guys the Cubs undervalued and managed to get 3 MLB ready young players there is very little upside there. Don't you have to get a little more even if Harden is essentially a lottery ticket?

 

Jim Callis: That's a good way of putting it.

 

Jonathan (San Francisco): Jim, A's fans want to know, who would you have had to get from the Cubs to give up Harden & Gaudin? Thanks!

 

Jim Callis: I would have liked the trade a lot more if Jose Ceda was the fourth player instead of Donaldson. That still would have been worth the Cubs' while, too.

 

Andrew (New York): With Steve Phillips no longer employed by a team, I have to think this was about as well as the A's were going to do with Harden. Nobody's backing up the truck for the ticking time bomb that is Harden's right arm, and the A's got... let's say one and a half immediately usable players.

 

Jim Callis: The problem is you can bag the word "immediately" -- I think Gallagher is the only guy who can play a prominent role on a good team. I don't see the harm in trying to find a better deal over the next week or so. Harden has only one more start before the All-Star Game, right?

 

Steve (Cicero, IL): I disagree with some that say Beane had to make this deal. Beane still had Harden under contract next year. So even if Harden got hurt they could of still got him ready for 2009. You can have tommy john sugery today and have no value and pitch a complete game shutout tomorrow and get top prospects in a trade.

 

Jim Callis: I agree with Steve.

 

Matt (College Park): NL Central: Cubs or Brewers?

 

Jim Callis: Cubs. Brewers as the wild card.

[BCVM22]

Cubs disappointing me. I'd have thought that by now, they'd have him and Gaudin numbered and rostered. Typical Cubs, they make one move and then sit back and rest on their laurels.

[Butterscup1679666578]

I can't believe we haven't gotten Matt Holliday and Tim Hudson yet. What's the deal, Jim?

[Backtobanks]

There's certainly some degree of risk, but I think Hendry did a good job of minimizing it (giving up assets that are blocked and getting insurance in the form of Gaudin to replace Gallagher).

 

I would agree, it was good. It was still risky.

 

But if you're looking beyond 2 years for this particular trade, you're looking too far. The Cubs are trying to win now.

 

Sorry, but that sort of thinking, in and of itself, is very high risk. You cannot simply ignore the longterm ramifications just because some people have a 100 year itch. Yes, they are trying to win now, as well they should. But in doing so they've put themselves in an interesting situation for the future. The next owner is going to have to approve substantial increases in payroll, otherwise they are going to lose Dempster and Wood, and will need to rely on Harden staying healthy next year. They will once again have fewer trading chips to find what they need, and will have fewer internal options, including nobody on the roster who could reasonably fill-in for Fukudome or Soriano if they go down (a job Murton could have filled).

 

They still have Wuertz, Eyre, Cedeno, Fontenot, Marshall, Pie, Hill, Veal, etc. as trading chips. I would think that they ought to be able to get what they need with a package from that group.

[CoolHandLuke]

Cubs disappointing me. I'd have thought that by now, they'd have him and Gaudin numbered and rostered. Typical Cubs, they make one move and then sit back and rest on their laurels.

 

I don't quite understand your complaint.