Re: Harden close to signing with Rangers

[17 Seconds]

Is a GM job getting his team to the postseason and giving them a chance to win the World Series? I don't care if every move Hendry made was good or if most of his signings were good. If his teams weren't good for the most part he would have been gone.

 

why am i not shocked that a person who uses ERA to determine how good a reliever is would also use playoff appearances to measure how good a gm has been?

 

Look at my post a few down from here......I'm of the same thinking as you on Hendry, for the most part, but do you agree with this assessment of his overall tenure?

 

kind of, but you seem to only be looking at the present and not the future. a lot of the contracts he gave to help us make the playoffs then are starting to hurt us now, and it's only going to get worse.

 

anybody can spend. it's a different thing to spend wisely. it's not as simple as "he brought in these good players". you have to look at HOW he brought them in, and at what cost to the future.

 

we're really starting to pay for those division titles now and will continue to.

 

i mean, how many times did we hear that the cubs were in "all out win mode"? they might as well have said "[expletive] the future, we're going to try to win one in these next couple years and then deal with the mess it created when the time comes."

[A-Cal]

jesus, what did harden ever really do for us?

 

be good at baseball?

 

why are you acting like the cubs just let lincecum walk?

[Cubswin11]

jesus, what did harden ever really do for us?

 

be good at baseball?

 

why are you acting like the cubs just let lincecum walk?

Maybe because there is a good chance Marshall/Gorzo/Samardzija/Wells are going to be making 60% of our starts this year when you consider Lilly is going to miss the first monthish and there is probably a good chance Demp/Z will miss time with random injuries and Wells is no guarantee to be anywhere near as good as he was last year.

 

And while Harden is no guarantee to stay healthy or perform like an ace every start over the season. Based on the last 1 1/2 years with us he is still good for 15-18 starts of absolutely dominating baseball and probably 6-8 starts of average to below average. For $10 or so million he would have been a wise investment IMO with a very questionable rotation in place, right now, for next year.

[davell]

Is a GM job getting his team to the postseason and giving them a chance to win the World Series? I don't care if every move Hendry made was good or if most of his signings were good. If his teams weren't good for the most part he would have been gone.

 

why am i not shocked that a person who uses ERA to determine how good a reliever is would also use playoff appearances to measure how good a gm has been?

 

Look at my post a few down from here......I'm of the same thinking as you on Hendry, for the most part, but do you agree with this assessment of his overall tenure?

 

kind of, but you seem to only be looking at the present and not the future. a lot of the contracts he gave to help us make the playoffs then are starting to hurt us now, and it's only going to get worse.

 

anybody can spend. it's a different thing to spend wisely. it's not as simple as "he brought in these good players". you have to look at HOW he brought them in, and at what cost to the future.

 

we're really starting to pay for those division titles now and will continue to.

 

i mean, how many times did we hear that the cubs were in "all out win mode"? they might as well have said "[expletive] the future, we're going to try to win one in these next couple years and then deal with the mess it created when the time comes."

 

 

I agree that we've spent some money that we shouldn't have as well. But, I guess what I'm saying is we should probably let it bite Hendry, before we get rid of him. If(and its a big if) we make the playoffs in 2010, I'd be willing to give him the next 2 years(provided we make the playoffs once and the next 3, provided we made it twice, leaving it to that 4th year again, before I'd make a change, assuming he misses twice over that 4 year period. In the end, I agree completely with you that it looks really bad for us to make the playoffs that much over that period(in my scenario, we'd have to make it 4 out of 5 times and I don't see it) but our farm system COULD actually start to produce some quality for a change and it's possible that Ricketts has a change in philosophy that Hendry actually buys into that works. I don't think Hendry is the worst GM out there by any stretch, I figure he's completely middle of the road. If someone who's a slamdunk better choice than Hendry comes available, I'd scrap everything I just said, but if it doesn't, I'd be fine looking at it this way for the time being. Assuming that we continue to have a huge payroll advantage over our competition anyway......

[Guest]

jesus, what did harden ever really do for us?

 

be good at baseball?

 

why are you acting like the cubs just let lincecum walk?

Because Harden is a phenomenal pitcher across his career:

 

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

[cubsfan26]

40 games over .500 is great in one season. It is not good over the course of 7 seasons. It is mediocre at best, and should be considered disappointing for a team that dominates in payroll. It's barely better than an 83 win season.

 

That is bad.

 

It's hard to stay consistently good. That 40 game over 500 that you claim is bad. Is 5th best in the NL over that 7 year peroid. Only behind the Cardinals, Braves, Phillies and Dodgers.

 

hey, it's not my fault that you're seemingly the only one on this board who doesn't understand how to properly look at stats. seriously, how many times do we have to explain to you that ERA for a reliever is a completely crap stat?

 

I know how to look at the stats, I just don't agree that stats are everything and I think there's human factors that don't get included. Like if a guy has a high WHIP due to walking too many guys, but didn't allow many runs to actually score. Instead of calling it good luck or bad luck. I look why Grabow ERA improved over the last two years, despite the WHIPs. Well thats because teams only hit 215 and 233 off him the last two years, and it appears he gives up less hits with guys on base. Can he keep it up? Who knows but I think he can as long as he stays that hard to hit.

 

you just refuse to acknowledge it even though multiple people have explained to you in a million different ways why you're not understanding grabow's stats.

 

From playing baseball and watching baseball for alot of years I realize that stats aren't everything and baseball has alot of human factors involved. I do read all the stats and alot of the advance stats. I just believe that people get too caught up in them when most of those systems are quite flawed. I don't need anybody to explain it to me I know who it works. I just don't agree with it all of the time.

Edited December 10, 2009 by cubsfan26

[17 Seconds]

I know how to look at the stats, I just don't agree that stats are everything and I think there's human factors that don't get included. Like if a guy has a high WHIP due to walking too many guys, but didn't allow many runs to actually score. Instead of calling it good luck or bad luck. I look why Grabow ERA improved over the last two years, despite the WHIPs. Well thats because teams only hit 215 and 233 off him the last two years, and it appears he gives up less hits with guys on base. Can he keep it up? Who knows but I think he can as long as he stays that hard to hit.

 

you're not understanding this. even if he DOES maintain the low ERA, that doesn't necessarily mean he's been good.

 

ERA is nearly useless for a reliever (especially for a lefty) and you seem to be under the impression that if his ERA was good, he was productive. that's not true, and it's been explained to you multiple times. you just ignore it.

 

so not only does ERA not tell you how effective a pitcher was (which is the argument that you at least refernece), but it also doesn't even tell you how much he helped the team.

[cubsfan26]

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

 

Those are beauiful small sample size stats. But when looking at those stats you also need to look at these.

 

09-26 starts- 141 innings

08-25 starts- 148 innings

07-4 starts(7 games)-25.2 innings

06-9 starts-46.2 innings

05-19 starts(22 games)-128 innings

04-31 starts-189 innings

 

 

So when you start talking about paying a guy 7.5m -10m for one season when at best your most likely going to get 140 something innings probably isn't worth the risk. Especially considering nobody factors in you need to have better pieces around Harden. Otherwise it's gonna take away alot of the good he does when he does pitch. Plus that 6th starter or better relievers could often be used as resources in other trades. But you would have to keep them around just to help Harden out.

[cubsfan26]

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

 

Those are beauiful small sample size stats. But when looking at those stats you also need to look at these.

 

09-26 starts- 141 innings

08-25 starts- 148 innings

07-4 starts(7 games)-25.2 innings

06-9 starts-46.2 innings

05-19 starts(22 games)-128 innings

04-31 starts-189 innings

 

 

So when you start talking about paying a guy 7.5m -10m for one season when at best your most likely going to get 140 something innings probably isn't worth the risk. Especially considering nobody factors in you need to have better pieces around Harden. Otherwise it's gonna take away alot of the good he does when he does pitch. Plus that 6th starter or better relievers could often be used as resources in other trades. But you would have to keep them around just to help Harden out.

[Guest]

It's hard to say consistently good. That 40 game over 500 that you claim is bad. Is 5th best in the NL over that 7 year peroid. Only behind the Cardinals, Braves, Phillies and Dodgers.

 

I'm not sure how long you've been a Cub fan, but it's pretty clear that your expectations aren't nearly as high as mine. I won't fault you for that, but I don't like to be faulted for mine, either.

 

In my view, 5th best record with one of the highest payrolls is not special. 3 playoff appearances in 7 years is certainly not special. Having one of the strongest farm systems, an ever expanding payroll, a history of not winning a World Series in nearly a century and some fine players on your major league roster as something to build your future on made his job a dream job of sorts.

 

Unfortunately, the dream results weren't there. If he had one solid philosophy to build that team on, he might have netted better results. Instead, he changed philosophies on how to build the team as often as the wind changed direction. Under his tutilege, he's had players backbiting the guys in the broadcast booth, guys leaving games early and guys running their mouths more often than they run the bases.

 

It's been chaos littered with poor excuses. No one cares about the chaos or the poor excuses, just give us some results.

[17 Seconds]

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

 

Those are beauiful small sample size stats. But when looking at those stats you also need to look at these.

 

09-26 starts- 141 innings

08-25 starts- 148 innings

07-4 starts(7 games)-25.2 innings

06-9 starts-46.2 innings

05-19 starts(22 games)-128 innings

04-31 starts-189 innings

 

 

So when you start talking about paying a guy 7.5m -10m for one season when at best your most likely going to get 140 something innings probably isn't worth the risk. Especially considering nobody factors in you need to have better pieces around Harden. Otherwise it's gonna take away alot of the good he does when he does pitch. Plus that 6th starter or better relievers could often be used as resources in other trades. But you would have to keep them around just to help Harden out.

 

the reason the price is so low is because of the innings. it seems like you think 15 mil a year for 210 innings is better value than 140 inning for 7.5 million

 

the injury risk is taken into account in the salary.

[17 Seconds]

It's hard to say consistently good. That 40 game over 500 that you claim is bad. Is 5th best in the NL over that 7 year peroid. Only behind the Cardinals, Braves, Phillies and Dodgers.

 

so the vast majority of the teams the cubs are ahead of in that time span are teams with lower (and most significantly lower) payrolls than the cubs.

 

awesome.

Edited December 10, 2009 by 17 Seconds

[17 Seconds]

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

 

Those are beauiful small sample size stats.

 

those are CAREER STATS

 

jesus

[cubsfan26]

ERA is nearly useless for a reliever (especially for a lefty) and you seem to be under the impression that if his ERA was good, he was productive. that's not true, and it's been explained to you multiple times. you just ignore it.

 

Thats because I don't agree with it. A pitchers job is not to allow runs to score. If a guy does a pretty good job at that, he's doing well and helping the team. Especially a guy like Grabow who usually pitches decent to good with other guys base runners on base as well.

 

the injury risk is taken into account in the salary.

 

I still think it's a little high, for the amount of innings we get.

 

I'm not sure how long you've been a Cub fan, but it's pretty clear that your expectations aren't nearly as high as mine. I won't fault you for that, but I don't like to be faulted for mine, either.

 

In my view, 5th best record with one of the highest payrolls is not special. 3 playoff appearances in 7 years is certainly not special. Having one of the strongest farm systems, an ever expanding payroll, a history of not winning a World Series in nearly a century and some fine players on your major league roster as something to build your future on made his job a dream job of sorts

.

 

 

It's not special and I never said Hendry was doing a GREAT job. But overall he's done a solid job and gotten good results. Of course it could be better, and I think if it doesn't get better soon he could be gone. But when people start acting like Hendry is this bad GM or so awful. When this team overall has gotten pretty good results during his reign.

 

 

those are CAREER STATS

 

jesus

 

Which is a very small sample size when comparing it to the other guys numbers.

 

jesus!!

[inari]

[

 

Which is a very small sample size when comparing it to the other guys numbers.

 

jesus!!

 

This is just getting embarrassing.

[Derwood]

Thats because I don't agree with it. A pitchers job is not to allow runs to score. If a guy does a pretty good job at that, he's doing well and helping the team. Especially a guy like Grabow who usually pitches decent to good with other guys base runners on base as well.

 

On a more basic level, a pitcher's job is to not let hitters reach base. Grabow wasn't particularly good at that.

[17 Seconds]

Thats because I don't agree with it. A pitchers job is not to allow runs to score. If a guy does a pretty good job at that, he's doing well and helping the team. Especially a guy like Grabow who usually pitches decent to good with other guys base runners on base as well.

 

you're STILL not understanding the second part of the argument.

 

let's say grabow comes into the game with runners at 1st and 2nd with one out. the first 2 guys he faces get rbi singles, followed by a double play to get out of the inning. guess what grabow's ERA is for that inning?

 

0

 

ok let's say grabow starts an inning and gets himself into a bases loaded, one out jam. they then bring in a new reliever who gets a double play ball to get out of the inning. guess what grabow's ERA is for that inning?

 

0

 

it's not an "i don't agree with it" thing. it's an "i dont understand" thing.

 

I still think it's a little high, for the amount of innings we get.

 

140 innings of harden pitching even close to his career numbers for 7.5 million dollars is a [expletive] steal. harden wasn't even that good last season and fangraphs still had his value at over 8 million last season.

 

When this team overall has gotten pretty good results during his reign.

 

at what cost? do you like the situation we're in right now, with basically no money to spend? well we're in that position because he sacrificed the future to build those teams you're so impressed with. soriano was a huge part of making the playoffs in 07 and 08, and we're already starting to pay for it.

 

it's not just about what players you. it's about what you get them for. the red sox spend a ton, but they spend wisely. hendry does not spend wisely. he just spends.

 

Which is a very small sample size when comparing it to the other guys numbers.

 

annnnnd i think we're about done here

[CubColtPacer]

It's hard to say consistently good. That 40 game over 500 that you claim is bad. Is 5th best in the NL over that 7 year peroid. Only behind the Cardinals, Braves, Phillies and Dodgers.

 

Having one of the strongest farm systems, an ever expanding payroll, a history of not winning a World Series in nearly a century and some fine players on your major league roster as something to build your future on made his job a dream job of sorts.

.

 

I mostly agree with the rest but I'm not sure about this part. In hindsight, I'm not sure that Hendry really walked into a great situation. The farm system turned out to be not strong at all (most of the strength had already left the minors at that point). The major league roster had an amazing starting pitching core. The lineup and bullpen were both old, expensive, and fading fast though. And the payroll was expanding but it wasn't expanding that much faster than an average team until more than halfway through his tenure where it then exploded.

 

Don't get me wrong, it was still a good job. The Cubs still had an above average (growing to well above average and now to upper echelon) payroll. They also had that amazing pitching core. But there were huge problems too. Just over three years after he took over, every single position player that was there when Hendry got there was gone. For most of them, their last good days came as a Cub. There were no star position prospects in the minors to fill any position when those players left so Hendry had to fill all of them through either free agency or trades. That's too large of a problem to be a dream job.

[cubsfan26]

so the vast majority of the teams the cubs are ahead of in that time span are teams with lower (and most significantly lower) payrolls than the cubs.

 

awesome.

 

The Dodgers actually spent more money during that span(the West has been worse then Central during that time as well). It's true that over that span of time the Cubs spent 45-55m more then the Braves and Phillies. The Cardinals spent probably 70m or so less during that time. But most of the difference in the salaries is over the last two years. Since the Cubs payroll has raisen alot while those teams have stayed the same. It doesn't mean that other teams ranked below the Cubs haven't spent more money though. For example the Mets.

 

 

This is just getting embarrassing.

 

To not call what Harden has done in his career a small sample size when comparing to those guys long careers is embarrassing. Harden basically pitched enough for three and half seasons.

[17 Seconds]

so what exactly is your argument? that he's not really as good as his career numbers show and he just got lucky?

 

because if that's not your argument, then you don't have one. tim didn't post anything about his health. he just posted numbers to show how good he is when he IS healthy. sample size has nothing to do with this current argument.

[A-Cal]

jesus, what did harden ever really do for us?

 

be good at baseball?

 

why are you acting like the cubs just let lincecum walk?

Because Harden is a phenomenal pitcher across his career:

 

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

 

right, factor in a decline last season and a very questionable health issue...which in the situation the cubs are in right now...makes it very easy to understand not wanting to be on the hook for this one pitcher alone

[Guest]

so the vast majority of the teams the cubs are ahead of in that time span are teams with lower (and most significantly lower) payrolls than the cubs.

 

awesome.

 

The Dodgers actually spent more money during that span(the West has been worse then Central during that time as well). It's true that over that span of time the Cubs spent 45-55m more then the Braves and Phillies. The Cardinals spent probably 70m or so less during that time. But most of the difference in the salaries is over the last two years. Since the Cubs payroll has raisen alot while those teams have stayed the same. It doesn't mean that other teams ranked below the Cubs haven't spent more money though. For example the Mets.

 

 

This is just getting embarrassing.

 

To not call what Harden has done in his career a small sample size when comparing to those guys long careers is embarrassing. Harden basically pitched enough for three and half seasons.

You do realize that's not just comparing him to those guys but to ALL PITCHERS IN MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, right?

[cubsfan26]

let's say grabow comes into the game with runners at 1st and 2nd with one out. the first 2 guys he faces get rbi singles, followed by a double play to get out of the inning. guess what grabow's ERA is for that inning?

 

If you look at Grabow numbers, they would tell he's been above average at letting inherited runs score. He was actually one of the best in the leage a few years ago.

 

ok let's say grabow starts an inning and gets himself into a bases loaded, one out jam. they then bring in a new reliever who gets a double play ball to get out of the inning. guess what grabow's ERA is for that inning?

 

I'll give you this, but if you look at the game logs Grabow usually was put in games for full innings. Or usually came into games to get the final out or two in a inning. He was rarely pulled in a middle of a inning after having guys on base.

 

140 innings of harden pitching even close to his career numbers for 7.5 million dollars is a [expletive] steal. harden wasn't even that good last season and fangraphs still had his value at over 8 million last season.

 

Well I disagree with it, but maybe it's because Harden left a bad taste in my mouth from last season. I think going forward he will be alot closer to the pitcher we saw last season, then in 08. Fangraph and how much salary it claims guys are worth is one of those stats I don't pay attention to. When a guy pitches 5.1 of less in 11 of 26 starts(averages 4 innings in those games), it really hurts your team. You also gotta factor in human factors of due to Harden needing to skip starts and miss starts. We need to have other guys replace him and sometimes at the last minute. Who might not be ready or stretched out enough to start that soon.

 

at what cost? do you like the situation we're in right now, with basically no money to spend? well we're in that position because he sacrificed the future to build those teams you're so impressed with. soriano was a huge part of making the playoffs in 07 and 08, and we're already starting to pay for it.

 

I guess it depends on what happens from here. If he can't make some smart smaller moves things aren't gonna get better. But if we are back in the postseason next year Hendry isn't going anywere and deserves some credit. Or would at least deserve to get people off his back. But as a person you claim blindly defends Hendry, I will say right now if he doesn't fix the mess he created, then I want him gone to.

 

it's not just about what players you. it's about what you get them for. the red sox spend a ton, but they spend wisely. hendry does not spend wisely. he just spends.

 

I don't really think the Redsox have spent all that more wisely then the Cubs. They have gotten better in recently, but overall it's pretty close. The difference is what the Redsox have gotten from there farm system compared to the Cubs. The Redsox farm system has covered up alot of the big mistakes.

[Gmoney08]

Despite having a somewhat down year in 2009, Rich Harden is one of the best pitchers in MLB when he's on the mound.

 

* 3.39 Lifetime ERA (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Peavy, Webb, Unit & Smoltz among active starters)

* 9.4 K/9IP (behind only Unit, Wood & Pedro among active starters)

* .633 win % (behind only Pedro, Santana, Oswalt, Halladay, Hudson, Unit & Cliff Lee among active starters)

* 1.237 WHIP (14th among active starters)

 

Those are beauiful small sample size stats. But when looking at those stats you also need to look at these.

 

09-26 starts- 141 innings

08-25 starts- 148 innings

07-4 starts(7 games)-25.2 innings

06-9 starts-46.2 innings

05-19 starts(22 games)-128 innings

04-31 starts-189 innings

 

 

So when you start talking about paying a guy 7.5m -10m for one season when at best your most likely going to get 140 something innings probably isn't worth the risk. Especially considering nobody factors in you need to have better pieces around Harden. Otherwise it's gonna take away alot of the good he does when he does pitch. Plus that 6th starter or better relievers could often be used as resources in other trades. But you would have to keep them around just to help Harden out.

 

 

Umm thats the reason he is only getting 7.5 to 10 million... So you say Harden needs to give you 200 innings for that type of money? Your delusional because if Harden was a consistent 200 inning a year pitcher he would be making 16 million a year easy and be signed longterm somewhere. I would say hes still a steal at at 7.5 million even if he only gives you 140 innings.

[cubsfan26]

so what exactly is your argument? that he's not really as good as his career numbers show and he just got lucky?

 

Well I don't think he's as good as those career numbers show, at least not at this point of his career. Plus I was kinda saying the guy is almost never healthy. Since he's basically pitched 3 and half seasons over seven years. So you barely get to enjoy that type of pitching out of him. We were very lucky as is to get as much out of Harden as we did. I think the Cubs realized that and thats why they weren't interested in bringing him back at that price.

 

Umm thats the reason he is only getting 7.5 to 10 million... So you say Harden needs to give you 200 innings for that type of money? Your delusional because if Harden was a consistent 200 inning a year pitcher he would be making 16 million a year easy and be signed longterm somewhere. I would say hes still a steal at at 7.5 million even if he only gives you 140 innings.

 

I understand that, and I would much rather pay 16m a year for 200 innings out of Harden. Then 7.5m for 140 innings, because I think having a part-time pitcher like that on your staff has a bad domino effect on your team. That doesn't show up in the stats when you are considering having Harden on your team.

Edited December 10, 2009 by cubsfan26