A Nice Article on the Trade Market

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Here's an interesting take on the market.

 

There's a listing of players whose names have been tossed around here some as well as other commentary.

 

One point I found particularly interesting....

 

There will be more activity before the July 31 non-waiver deadline. But club officials were sounding a similar chorus even after the big trades were completed: Sellers were complaining that the buyers were offering too little, and clubs looking to buy were claiming asking prices were too high.

 

That sets up a game of chicken that could go right to the deadline. The sellers will all pledge that without the right return they will simply retain their players and a) get draft pick compensation if they leave as free agents, or b) try to trade the players again in the offseason if they are not free agents. Buyers will vow to stand pat rather than pay exorbitant prices.

 

And it appears lefty relievers are all too popular these days...

 

Right now, lefty relievers are the hot commodity with Fuentes, Pittsburgh's Damaso Marte and Kansas City's Ron Mahay all being targeted

 

All three of those are names that were tossed about this morning as players who could fill a need for the Cubs.

 

And here's a tidbit about the Cubs acquisition of Harden:

 

Chicago officials insist they were working toward Harden before Sabathia moved to a division rival. But several executives insist that is not true. One AL GM said, "I don't think the Cubs acted rationally. I think that guy (Harden) is going to break and break soon. That deal was not in the works for weeks. That was a reaction. I keep hearing (Cubs manager Lou) Piniella wanted the front office to do something."

 

The Cubs yielded a chunk of a limited system, but one NL GM said, "They did not give up an impact player." They are clearly going for it in 2008 and did not surrender anyone projected to help this year's club. And, in Harden, they obtained a pitcher who if he

[anabiono]

that is stupid, i really doubt that hendry could pull off that trade within the short amount of time that he did in response to C.C.

 

i am calling bollocks

[badnews]

The Cubs yielded a chunk of a limited system, but one NL GM said, "They did not give up an impact player." They are clearly going for it in 2008 and did not surrender anyone projected to help this year's club. And, in Harden, they obtained a pitcher who if he

 

Who if he WHAT? DON'T LEAVE ME HANGIN' LIKE THAT!

[NCCubFan]

The Cubs yielded a chunk of a limited system, but one NL GM said, "They did not give up an impact player." They are clearly going for it in 2008 and did not surrender anyone projected to help this year's club. And, in Harden, they obtained a pitcher who if he

 

Who if he WHAT? DON'T LEAVE ME HANGIN' LIKE THAT!

Here's the complete quote:

The Cubs yielded a chunk of a limited system, but one NL GM said, "They did not give up an impact player." They are clearly going for it in 2008 and did not surrender anyone projected to help this year's club. And, in Harden, they obtained a pitcher who if he stays healthy — a huge if — can dominate from here through October.

[RedFlash]

that is stupid, i really doubt that hendry could pull off that trade within the short amount of time that he did in response to C.C.

 

i am calling bollocks

 

I agree. Those GM's who thought the Harden trade was reactionary, are buffoons. The ONLY way the A's would have traded Harden on the spur of the moment, is if acquriing team gave Beane the keys to the system to pick whoever he wanted in the deal. You definately get the feeling that this trade was not "a spur of the moment" type trade as those bitter, jaded GMs think it was.

[A New Era]

If anything was spur of the moment. It could have been Hendry's acceptance to include Ghallager where he didn't before, (after the Sabathia trade). But I'm sure he was working on it for weeks. I'm calling Sandra Bullocks too.

[RedFlash]

If anything was spur of the moment. It could have been Hendry's acceptance to include Ghallager where he didn't before, (after the Sabathia trade). But I'm sure he was working on it for weeks. I'm calling Sandra Bullocks too.

 

The story I read was that the perimeters of the deal was basically agreed on a few weeks ago sans Sean Gallagher. Beane wanted him, Hendry refused to part with him. Then the CC trade happen, and that trigger Hendry into including Gallagher in the deal. So yes, the CC deal did play a part in the Cubs getting Harden, but not to the point these jaded GMs want you to believe.

[Jehrico]

that is stupid, i really doubt that hendry could pull off that trade within the short amount of time that he did in response to C.C.

 

i am calling bollocks

 

I agree. Those GM's who thought the Harden trade was reactionary, are buffoons. The ONLY way the A's would have traded Harden on the spur of the moment, is if acquriing team gave Beane the keys to the system to pick whoever he wanted in the deal. You definately get the feeling that this trade was not "a spur of the moment" type trade as those bitter, jaded GMs think it was.

I'm guessing there was just one bitter GM. Maybe someone who refuses to believe that any clubs are talking about anything without him knowing about it. Or, maybe it was the Brewers, who didn't appreciate being one-upped so quickly after their big moment.

[RedFlash]

that is stupid, i really doubt that hendry could pull off that trade within the short amount of time that he did in response to C.C.

 

i am calling bollocks

 

I agree. Those GM's who thought the Harden trade was reactionary, are buffoons. The ONLY way the A's would have traded Harden on the spur of the moment, is if acquriing team gave Beane the keys to the system to pick whoever he wanted in the deal. You definately get the feeling that this trade was not "a spur of the moment" type trade as those bitter, jaded GMs think it was.

I'm guessing there was just one bitter GM. Maybe someone who refuses to believe that any clubs are talking about anything without him knowing about it. Or, maybe it was the Brewers, who didn't appreciate being one-upped so quickly after their big moment.

 

If it is just one GM who's being bitter, then my money is on the Cards GM. The rumor was Oakland wanted Anderson and Rasmus for Harden, and quite frankly the Cubs did not give up a prospect to either Cards prospect talent. So, my guess is, the Cards GM is one who made that soundbite.

[Billy_Buck]

Chicago officials insist they were working toward Harden before Sabathia moved to a division rival. But several executives insist that is not true. One AL GM said, "I don't think the Cubs acted rationally. I think that guy (Harden) is going to break and break soon. That deal was not in the works for weeks. That was a reaction. I keep hearing (Cubs manager Lou) Piniella wanted the front office to do something."

Just to play the parlor game... The piece attributes the quote to an AL GM. I'm not one to obsess over the Southsiders, but I could see Kenny Williams saying something like that. Stoney's recent comments about Harden not pitching at the same velocity/ease could reflect what he's heard around the Sox org, i.e. hearing directly or indirectly Kenny badmouthing Harden's health. Plus the reference to hearing what Piniella wanted (not that you'd have to be in Chitown to have "heard" that), I could see Kenny telling himself that as a way of reassuring himself about standing pat before the deadline, as in "I'm strong enough to run my ship, and not let my manager dictate irrational deals."

[rchap24]

Chicago officials insist they were working toward Harden before Sabathia moved to a division rival. But several executives insist that is not true. One AL GM said, "I don't think the Cubs acted rationally. I think that guy (Harden) is going to break and break soon. That deal was not in the works for weeks. That was a reaction. I keep hearing (Cubs manager Lou) Piniella wanted the front office to do something."

Just to play the parlor game... The piece attributes the quote to an AL GM. I'm not one to obsess over the Southsiders, but I could see Kenny Williams saying something like that. Stoney's recent comments about Harden not pitching at the same velocity/ease could reflect what he's heard around the Sox org, i.e. hearing directly or indirectly Kenny badmouthing Harden's health. Plus the reference to hearing what Piniella wanted (not that you'd have to be in Chitown to have "heard" that), I could see Kenny telling himself that as a way of reassuring himself about standing pat before the deadline, as in "I'm strong enough to run my ship, and not let my manager dictate irrational deals."

 

I definitely agree. This totally sounds like a Kenny thing to say. I really can't stand when the Cubs are doing well and Kenny or Ozzie get bitter and down talks us

[UMFan83]

Chicago officials insist they were working toward Harden before Sabathia moved to a division rival. But several executives insist that is not true. One AL GM said, "I don't think the Cubs acted rationally. I think that guy (Harden) is going to break and break soon. That deal was not in the works for weeks. That was a reaction. I keep hearing (Cubs manager Lou) Piniella wanted the front office to do something."

Just to play the parlor game... The piece attributes the quote to an AL GM. I'm not one to obsess over the Southsiders, but I could see Kenny Williams saying something like that. Stoney's recent comments about Harden not pitching at the same velocity/ease could reflect what he's heard around the Sox org, i.e. hearing directly or indirectly Kenny badmouthing Harden's health. Plus the reference to hearing what Piniella wanted (not that you'd have to be in Chitown to have "heard" that), I could see Kenny telling himself that as a way of reassuring himself about standing pat before the deadline, as in "I'm strong enough to run my ship, and not let my manager dictate irrational deals."

 

Well it makes sense because he was the last person to see Harden when he was an A...the same start when people speculated his velocity was down and probably his worst overall start of the season.

[rchap24]

Chicago officials insist they were working toward Harden before Sabathia moved to a division rival. But several executives insist that is not true. One AL GM said, "I don't think the Cubs acted rationally. I think that guy (Harden) is going to break and break soon. That deal was not in the works for weeks. That was a reaction. I keep hearing (Cubs manager Lou) Piniella wanted the front office to do something."

Just to play the parlor game... The piece attributes the quote to an AL GM. I'm not one to obsess over the Southsiders, but I could see Kenny Williams saying something like that. Stoney's recent comments about Harden not pitching at the same velocity/ease could reflect what he's heard around the Sox org, i.e. hearing directly or indirectly Kenny badmouthing Harden's health. Plus the reference to hearing what Piniella wanted (not that you'd have to be in Chitown to have "heard" that), I could see Kenny telling himself that as a way of reassuring himself about standing pat before the deadline, as in "I'm strong enough to run my ship, and not let my manager dictate irrational deals."

 

Well it makes sense because he was the last person to see Harden when he was an A...the same start when people speculated his velocity was down and probably his worst overall start of the season.

 

Yeah OK that's true, but kind of off subject going with what I said about the them being bitter. Why is it for the last two years at Wrigley that he has to make fun of the stadium and locker room? I feel like when they won the World Series and were doing better he wasn't talking about it and ever since last year that its the first thing he says when he get there. I know that was off subject sorry, but I never understood that

[cubweiser03]

Maybe putting together the whole deal happened fast but i dont think it was a spur of the moment either. Hendry said they scouted Harden 6 times this year. How is that acting too fast. They had their stuff on Harden and just needed to come to grips about letting Gallagher go (Beane was asking for this all along).

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Maybe putting together the whole deal happened fast but i dont think it was a spur of the moment either. Hendry said they scouted Harden 6 times this year. How is that acting too fast. They had their stuff on Harden and just needed to come to grips about letting Gallagher go (Beane was asking for this all along).

 

Yeah, Hendry long has a reputation of being a straight shooter, so I believe him when he said it was in the works for a month. Plus the Cubs were linked to Harden going back that far in the rumor mill, which is stronger evidence than a nameless AL executive trying to make Hendry sound desperate.

[BigbadB]

Maybe putting together the whole deal happened fast but i dont think it was a spur of the moment either. Hendry said they scouted Harden 6 times this year. How is that acting too fast. They had their stuff on Harden and just needed to come to grips about letting Gallagher go (Beane was asking for this all along).

 

Yeah, Hendry long has a reputation of being a straight shooter, so I believe him when he said it was in the works for a month. Plus the Cubs were linked to Harden going back that far in the rumor mill, which is stronger evidence than a nameless AL executive trying to make Hendry sound desperate.

 

Yep. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Friendly Confines]

Why does any of this matter?

[RedFlash]

Why does any of this matter?

 

In the grand schemes of things it doesn't, but it is fun to speculate who the "bitter" GM is who made the comments. To which, I originally thought it would be the Cards GMs, but thinking about it, that comment does reek of Kenny Williams.

[Amazing_Grace]

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

[RammyFanny]

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

 

It's like you type what we all are thinking 8-)

 

Though, IMO, Hendry was using the Gallagher "untouchable" label at the beginning of the negotiations just to make him more appealing to Beane when we decided to "actually" make him available. If i'm Hendry, I know once I "budge" on Gallagher it's less likely Beane would ask for more players on top of that since you've already and made a player available to him that he thought he wouldn't originally get. At least that's what I would have done.

[Jehrico]

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

 

It's like you type what we all are thinking 8-)

 

Though, IMO, Hendry was using the Gallagher "untouchable" label at the beginning of the negotiations just to make him more appealing to Beane when we decided to "actually" make him available. If i'm Hendry, I know once I "budge" on Gallagher it's less likely Beane would ask for more players on top of that since you've already and made a player available to him that he thought he wouldn't originally get. At least that's what I would have done.

 

Am I the only one who thinks Gaudin is undervalued as well? This guy broke into the majors at 19. How many pitchers made their ML debuts before turning 20 over the last 20 years? How many did that and didn't have arm problems before they were 25? This guys got good stuff, still has a couple of years before he hits his physical peak years, is still learning how to pitch despite having more experience than most other 25 year old pitchers, can work out of the pen or start, and knows that Lou hates walks :) . People keep looking at Gaudin as a decent swing man, an insurance policy in case Hardin goes down. I look at getting him in the deal not as an insurance policy, but a coup.

[Amazing_Grace]

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

I think the logic of the Harden deal from the Cubs perspective is this. We know Sabathia is gone, so with that known, our realistic options are now 1 guy having a lights out season who might get injured, 2 guys who are proven but having awful years, 1 of whom has a long injury history himself (Burnett), and the other of whom has mental makeup questions (Bedard). There's no question leaving health aside, Harden is the best player. His health concerns are well known and that's driving the price way down, so I can get a much better player for the same cost as a lesser player, if I assume a risk. Nevertheless, if I trade Gallagher, then Harden gets hurt, I'm looking stupid for making this trade and really missing the guy I traded, I can't do it. I have to have some insurance for a possible injury given who I'm acquiring. So, Beane comes back offering Gaudin. Now I can include Gallagher because I'm getting a guy back who's probably no worse than Sean at least this season. If Harden does get hurt, I'm no worse off than I started at the ML level, and we were already winning the division.

 

From Beane's perspective, I need to deal Harden before he breaks. It could happen anytime and I'm not likely to do much better in 3 weeks than I am now if he doesnt get hurt, because the history is still there. I have a small budget so I need young players who will be cheap for several years, preferably some who are ML ready. I know I want Gallagher, but Hendry won't deal him because Sean is his best 6th starter in case Harden or someone else gets hurt, and I can't blame him for being concerned about that. I have a 6th starter too, Chad Gaudin, who is closer to arbritration/FA than Gallagher is, but who will probably look like a suitable replacement for Gallagher for this season, which is what the Cubs are concerned with. I can also expect to get maybe one or two more players than I would have if he weren't included.

 

Gaudin is the player that makes the deal work. Without him, I don't think it happens, or at least doesn't happen for another couple weeks. It makes sense for the A's to include him even though he is a comparable player to Sean because he's closer to FA, and they can ask for one or two more guys that will be cheap for many years. I think this was a good deal for both teams. I think that if Harden does stay healthy, it will look like the A's got robbed, but the Cubs were willing to take the risk and others possibly were not, so they get to reap the rewards if the gamble pays off. The A's got several serviceable young players and a decent prospect regardless of what happens from here on out, so they cut their risk.

 

Did the Cubs "react" to the Sabathia deal? In a sense yes, because they weren't going to move in the SP market while there was still a chance that the talks with the Brewers fell through and C.C. could fall in their lap. He was clearly the best player. Once he was gone, there was no reason not to pursue the other options out there to their conclusion.

 

It's like you type what we all are thinking 8-)

 

Though, IMO, Hendry was using the Gallagher "untouchable" label at the beginning of the negotiations just to make him more appealing to Beane when we decided to "actually" make him available. If i'm Hendry, I know once I "budge" on Gallagher it's less likely Beane would ask for more players on top of that since you've already and made a player available to him that he thought he wouldn't originally get. At least that's what I would have done.

 

Am I the only one who thinks Gaudin is undervalued as well? This guy broke into the majors at 19. How many pitchers made their ML debuts before turning 20 over the last 20 years? How many did that and didn't have arm problems before they were 25? This guys got good stuff, still has a couple of years before he hits his physical peak years, is still learning how to pitch despite having more experience than most other 25 year old pitchers, can work out of the pen or start, and knows that Lou hates walks :) . People keep looking at Gaudin as a decent swing man, an insurance policy in case Hardin goes down. I look at getting him in the deal not as an insurance policy, but a coup.

 

I could see Gaudin being the "Matt Clement" of this trade, if he gets a chance to start. Everyone in Oakland including Gaudin himself thought that he was going to get a rotation spot when Harden was dealt. Whether he actually gets that chance is an open question. The back of the Cubs rotation is still pretty crowded with Marshall and Marquis both possibly ahead of him. If Harden stays healthy for the next 2 weeks, I'd look for Marquis to be dealt. It's no secret that Marquis isn't Lou's favorite guy, and this would leave room for one of Gaudin/Marshall to fill his spot, and there's also the slim chance that Hill gets back to the majors in September.

 

What has gotten lost in the analysis of this trade is that the Cubs sent one ML starter to Oakland and got two ML starters back. The Cubs added some depth to a team that already had great pitching depth. Leiber, Marshall, and Gaudin would all be starting for a lot of teams. Hendry has learned the lessons taught by the Prior/Wood fiasco. You can't have too much pitching, and if a guy has injury problems, you'd better have a backup plan.

[davearm2]

I could see Gaudin being the "Matt Clement" of this trade, if he gets a chance to start. Everyone in Oakland including Gaudin himself thought that he was going to get a rotation spot when Harden was dealt. Whether he actually gets that chance is an open question. The back of the Cubs rotation is still pretty crowded with Marshall and Marquis both possibly ahead of him. If Harden stays healthy for the next 2 weeks, I'd look for Marquis to be dealt. It's no secret that Marquis isn't Lou's favorite guy, and this would leave room for one of Gaudin/Marshall to fill his spot, and there's also the slim chance that Hill gets back to the majors in September.

 

What has gotten lost in the analysis of this trade is that the Cubs sent one ML starter to Oakland and got two ML starters back. The Cubs added some depth to a team that already had great pitching depth. Leiber, Marshall, and Gaudin would all be starting for a lot of teams. Hendry has learned the lessons taught by the Prior/Wood fiasco. You can't have too much pitching, and if a guy has injury problems, you'd better have a backup plan.

I'm very anxious now to see Marquis traded, although not for the reason most people have. I think he's done just fine in his role, and lots of teams have worse guys at the back of their rotation (probably most teams).

 

But obtaining Harden and Gaudin makes it that much more important to shed Marquis' salary for '09. Money figures to be tight with all of the raises built into existing multiyear contracts, plus a handful of arb guys, plus guys like Wood and Dempster requiring significant raises to retain. Marquis' $10M is absolutely better spent elsewhere, and thus must be shed. I'd be all for making the deal right now, if there's interest.

[RedFlash]

I'm very anxious now to see Marquis traded, although not for the reason most people have. I think he's done just fine in his role, and lots of teams have worse guys at the back of their rotation (probably most teams).

 

But obtaining Harden and Gaudin makes it that much more important to shed Marquis' salary for '09. Money figures to be tight with all of the raises built into existing multiyear contracts, plus a handful of arb guys, plus guys like Wood and Dempster requiring significant raises to retain. Marquis' $10M is absolutely better spent elsewhere, and thus must be shed. I'd be all for making the deal right now, if there's interest.

 

With the acquisition of Gaudin (Harden has no bearing on what the Cubs will do with Dempster), I think it's more likely that the Cubs are prepared to let Dempster walk after the yr, and grab a couple of draft picks. If the Cubs trade Marquis and do indeed let Dempster walk (I love Dempster, but I rather acquire draft picks to continue to stockpile the system), then the Cubs could feesible go into next season with Hill/Marshall/Gaudin/Veal/Shark fighting out for the 4 and 5 spots in the rotation. IMO, Gaudin makes it likely that Dempster won't be back in 2009.

[JeffH]

I will be shocked - shocked, I say! - if Ryan Dempster is not a Chicago Cub in 2009.