Tracer Bullet

Um...he had multiple offers on the table. He picked this one. I'm not sure there's anyone that needs "blaming" for his contract (which is what your use of "fault" implies) but if there is, Kosuke gets some if not all of it. This is a confusing response considering that Kosuke took less money to be a Cub. Only if you read into it meaning that isn't there. As I said, I'm not sure anyone is at fault for Kosuke's contract. I'm just disputing the bolded statement. Kosuke chose the Cubs over a number of teams. How can you say it's not his "fault" that he got the contract he did. Of course it's his "fault." If he didn't want that contract, he could have signed a different one. I'm not sure what RynoRules' intent was when he made that comment, but it seemed to miss the point. dexter was saying that when you sign a contract for a lot of money, fans expect a certain level of production. Suggesting that Kosuke had no control over his contract and thus can't be blamed for fans feeling disappointment is just wrong. Obviously his stats aren't going to get better because he signed a big contract - that's stupid. But people expect more production from players with bigger salaries - and are more disappointed when they believe that a highly paid player is underperforming, relative to his contract. I think its dumb to base your expectations for performance on salary insomuch as salary has no correlation with ability. Kosuke is what he is in terms of his realistic abilities no matter how much he makes. I think there's some faulty logic in your post. Do you really think there's no correlation between salary and ability? Salary has no effect on ability - fully agree. Once arbitration starts and certainly for FAs, performance (or, more accurately, expected future performance) has a huge effect on salary. So, if you pay a player $6m and you get the same production you could get for half of that, he's underperforming and people are going to be disappointed.* * I'm not saying you could get Fukudome's current level of production for $3m. It's a hypothetical.

Open bag. Shovel 'em in until you puke. I love Oreos.

Um...he had multiple offers on the table. He picked this one. I'm not sure there's anyone that needs "blaming" for his contract (which is what your use of "fault" implies) but if there is, Kosuke gets some if not all of it. This is a confusing response considering that Kosuke took less money to be a Cub. Only if you read into it meaning that isn't there. As I said, I'm not sure anyone is at fault for Kosuke's contract. I'm just disputing the bolded statement. Kosuke chose the Cubs over a number of teams. How can you say it's not his "fault" that he got the contract he did. Of course it's his "fault." If he didn't want that contract, he could have signed a different one. I'm not sure what RynoRules' intent was when he made that comment, but it seemed to miss the point. dexter was saying that when you sign a contract for a lot of money, fans expect a certain level of production. Suggesting that Kosuke had no control over his contract and thus can't be blamed for fans feeling disappointment is just wrong. Obviously his stats aren't going to get better because he signed a big contract - that's stupid. But people expect more production from players with bigger salaries - and are more disappointed when they believe that a highly paid player is underperforming, relative to his contract.

i didn't know you lived in 1957. Drive-ins are back. There was a drive-in in the town where my wife (then girlfriend) went to college. Drive-ins are great.

Fukudome's salary dictates what expectations should be. Huh? So Kosuke's game should go from high OBP and 20 HR's to Dunn-like power simply because someone chose to pay him big money? Sounds like the one(s) you should be criticizing are the guy(s) who set the mkt price for OF'ers of his skill level and then decided to compound the issue by continuing to pay it. Its not Koskue's fault that he got the contract he did. Money won't magically change what he is capable of. Um...he had multiple offers on the table. He picked this one. I'm not sure there's anyone that needs "blaming" for his contract (which is what your use of "fault" implies) but if there is, Kosuke gets some if not all of it.

Over $15m in '09 and '10 (plus $1m buyout in '11) for a bench player? Holy crap no.

Murton looks like he belongs in the green and gold. Glad to see him somewhere where he'll be appreciated. Which is why they sent him to AAA.... He's clearly struggling so they're not going to throw him out there Day 1. Don't you imagine they want him to work with their minor league coaches to see if they can fix it. If they took him in a deal, one would think their scouts saw something they thought could be fixed.

Here Least you could do was point him to BR

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I think it's instructive to realize that, on the whole, the rest of the country would like the Brewers to beat us. Yes there are a lot of Cub fans out there. But with that comes many more Cub haters. The national media probably has quite a few. Secretly, many people are probably out there rooting for a Harden injury. Sorry to say, but I have no doubt it's true. Or, and I may be way off here, they're looking at Harden's injury history, including a DL stint this season, and betting he won't pitch for us down the stretch, let alone the playoffs. Or it's an anti-Cubs conspiracy.

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

Why in the world would they carry Lieber, Marquis, and Gaudin all in the pen? Seems if Marshall is in the rotation, at least 1 of those guys has to be gone (dfa or trade). Given that Lou seems to want 2 LHP in the rotation, I'd say Lieber gets DFA or Marquis traded. Wuertz has been much too good to put in AAA so that we can have 3 long men.

LA Times had said keeping Kemp was the reason the Dodgers weren't bigger players for CC. I thought there were conflicting reports on that. I saw one source say Kemp was offered for CC and another had McCourt saying "the players didn't match up." Just figure with him struggling and Jones back from the DL, might be a good time to try to get our hands on him. Didn't Penny just have a setback? Maybe the Dodgers need some pitching.

what would it take to get Matt Kemp? Wasn't he rumored to be in the package offered for CC?

That's assuming that Harden ends up a Cub long term. If Harden pitches well and helps the Cubs win a WS this year, does it matter where he is long term?

indeed. hopefully we won't be changing our tunes come october. In this year of presidential politics, NSBB has a lot more flip-floppers than the Republicans or Democrats. I've been a supporter of Hendry since the begining and for all of the jokes and personal insults, I think he is constantly working on making the Cubs better. His biggest weaknesses are a tendency to overpay certain players and to trust his managers (esp. Baker) too much. All of us (myself included) "armchair GMs" forget that it takes 2 teams to make a trade. There should be no reason to "change our tunes come October" because Hendry has done what he has had to do to get us to October (assemble the best team in baseball). If injuries happen or players fail, don't put the blame on Hendry. I don't think anyone forgets it takes 2 to make a trade. I think we look at Hendry's track record and his inability to string together years of success, despite now having a big payroll and a weak division, and find him lacking as a GM. Doesn't mean he doesn't try or doesn't make some good moves.

Wasn't Oakland just a middle-man there? They got Barrett from Montreal for a ptbnl and the next day traded him to Chicago for Miller. I don't know who the ptbnl was, but I thought that was just a slightly delayed 3-team trade. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.

Maybe I'm really oversimplifying this, but it looks like they say he usually hovers around 92-94 with his heat and hits 94-96 a few times a game (one pitch above 96 in the both the May start and the July start). Looks like he had a couple pitches below 82 in his last start but that doesn't really concern me. I think Jon posted those 3 to show that the concerns over his decreased velocity aren't based in fact. But again, I might be missing something.

Maybe. The top "Pitch Speed" label is just the title. The graph shows pitch speed and number of pitches. Should be pretty easy to read.

Hendry took over as Cubs GM midway through 2002. His trades with Oakland: Traded Damian Miller for Michael Barrett A 3 team deal where the Cubs got Freddie Bynum, A's got Juan Dominguez(gave up John Rheinecker as well) Traded Mark Watson to Oakland on a conditional deal Jerome Williams was taken off waivers by Oakland Traded Jerry Blevins and Rob Bowen for Jason Kendall I'm not sure Hendry has "lost" a trade to Beane yet. I guess Blevins could still make that one a loser, and the Cubs being forced to have Freddie Bynum for a season may have qualified as well. Those are pretty minor deals and I'm not sure either team really lost. But I wouldn't rush to say Beane got worked over yet. I don't remember too many reports about how Beane worked over the Cards in the Mulder deal until Haren became a stud in Oakland. If Harden's arm falls off in a few weeks and Gallagher becomes an ace for 2-3 years in Oakland, we might have a different view of this deal. I think this was a great deal for Hendry - he gets a high risk/high reward ace but was smart to get an insurance SP to replace the insurance SP he was giving up. Oakland got a lot of young players that are cheap and they can control for a while (I wouldn't be surprised if Murton and EPatt play LF and 2B respectively and are solid contributors for several years). I think both teams got what they wanted. It's not like Beane probably wanted to hold Harden too much longer. One more DL stint and he'd barely get pennies on the dollar - if anything - this year. As for an apology - that'll come with a WS win and sustained success (meaning 90+ wins for several years running).