CubColtPacer

He probably doesn't sign a 7.5m deal then. Since he probably would have gotten a few more million by accepting arbitration. I wish luck to Harden, and he does well and finally reaches his potential. But 7.5m is too much for a pitcher who only throw about 150 innings once in his career 5 years ago. Especially when last season he pitched 5.1 innings or less in 11 of his 26 starts. With the Cubs money issues, Rich Harden just wasn't a good risk anymore. Maybe he signs for less. One of Hendry's few good features was his ability to avoid arbitration. Harden wanted to come back. Seems like something could have been worked out knowing that the Cubs had budget constraints. Hendry just usually settles somewhere in the middle of the two numbers. And there's no incentive for Harden to settle for less than he thinks he can get as soon as he accepts arbitration. The Cubs would have had to settle in the middle again or risk the hearing.

It will be interesting to see if that option is a player one or a club one (more likely player, but with his injuries it might be a club). It looks like the question about arbitration has been solved. Harden very likely would have accepted unless like Tim suggested Hendry had strong armed him into refusing. So it looks like the Cubs would have not gotten picks for Harden regardless and that they at least gauged the market correctly. The question of if he will be worth the contract he would have gotten in the arbitration process is still to be answered. Edit: Saw that the contract may not be finalized yet after I wrote this. I definitely agree that going to the Mariners would be the better move especially if Harden is trying to use this year to play his way into a huge contract.

I think they'll steal a few more games than people think. They've really looked pretty good tonight and have been much more competitive this year than last. It helps when you don't have an unathletic midget playing a bunch of minutes at PG. Jeremiah Rivers isn't much better. Whoa? Rivers isn't a world beater by any means, but Daniel Moore can't even carry his jock. Of course, that's much more of a slight against Moore than a compliment to Rivers. Thank God Moore didn't see the court last night. Hopefully that trend continues. It was a really nice win for this team. I was impressed with their rebounding and physical play underneath. I will say, Pitt looked really bad. Well Rivers is a way better defender, but the 2 of them just seem to have the same offensive gameplan of drive into the lane head down and then realize they can't shoot. Last year Indiana wouldn't have been close to Pitt, and it's not so much that the talent level is so much higher than last year, it's that sucking vortexes like Moore don't have to see the court due to lack of depth. I still don't think they'll do much in Big Ten season(though I may need to bump them ahead of Iowa), but they have the bodies where a loss won't be a foregone conclusion before they take the court. I would agree that in many ways Rivers is just a better version of Moore. Both of their strengths are intensity on defense and ability to get the ball up the court. They also are both good at getting into the lane. They are both weak at shooting from beyond 10 feet. They also both try to do too much with passes that lead to turnovers. Rivers is much better on both ends though. Moore could never finish the play after he got into the lane. By the end of the year, teams were actually not even rotating over knowing that he'd have to pass or have the guy who he just beat block his shot from behind. Rivers can score when he gets into the paint which makes the pass more of a weapon. Also of course Rivers doesn't get beat on defense nearly as much because he can close so quickly on people. I'm hoping that Jones steps up more like he did last night. Right now IU desperately needs Rivers on the floor because he is the only one that causes mismatch problems for other teams. If they put Jones as a ball handler a little more he can also cause those problems. I like Hulls a little better than the start of the season but he's not going to be the guy who is going to beat his man off the dribble. I've been impressed with both Creek and Watford's defense. They both have an ability to be lockdown defenders and they both have really quick hands. I've been disappointed with Watford's play at times (he is learning more than anybody else how fast and how athletic players are at the college level), but with his great ability to shoot free throws for a 6 foot 9 player and his athleticism if he learns how to draw fouls he could be a scary player to guard. I just can't see that being this year.

From Bruce's blog yesterday:

With Pittsburgh and Baltimore struggling as they have, pretty much the only team that could be tricky to catch is Jacksonville. Denver, they probably won't catch. I think 9-7 has a pretty decent chance of making the 6 spot in the AFC. But I can't see the Titans making it. They have terrible tiebreaker scenarios. They have head to head losses against both Pittsburgh and the Jets. They will lose the divisional tiebreaker with Jacksonville. And they will lose the conference tiebreaker to everybody. So the only way they could sneak in the playoffs is if the only other team to get to 9-7 is Houston (who they would beat because of a better divisional record). But they need everyone else besides Denver to finish 8-8 or worse (I'm assuming that Denver wins at least one game out of their last 4) and that would be very tricky to have happen.

I think the idea would be for the Cubs to flip Burrell to the Mets for Castillo. Like the Cubs with wanting to trade Bradley then sign Cameron, then Mets want to trade Castillo to sign Orlando Hudson. that's not wsr's plan though. he wants to keep burrell Burrell would platoon with Fukudome in RF, be the power RH bat off the bench, and be a starter if any of the 3 OF's got hurt (since Fukudome could slide over if Cameron went down). Burrell would be a nice backup plan in case Soriano went down for a decent part of the season again. He'd be a horribly overpaid platoon player (and the Cubs would probably need to carry a 5th OF as a defensive replacement for him) but he'd have a role on the team. Even if the Cubs sign Cameron, they have to find a platoon partner for Fukudome somewhere.

I'm hoping the fact that they played last year in the bowls means that they switch around the matchups after all the picks have been made (which is possible under the contract of the BCS). That's especially true when they can make two compelling games by just switching one team. The best matchups I think would be to switch Cincy to the Fiesta bowl and have them play Boise (last one with the ball wins) and put TCU in the Sugar and let them see what they can do with Florida. And if you don't want to do that, you can switch Boise instead and put them in the Sugar which leaves a TCU-Cincy matchup for the Fiesta. A third alternative would be to let all of them play who they were supposed to originally. Boise with Iowa, Cincy with Florida (or GA Tech), TCU with Ga Tech (or Florida). That lets the 3 big football schools play the 3 smaller football schools. All of those would be better than TCU-Boise, which would just leave confusion on how good either of them are even after the game.

I saw the review on a Fox game break and it looked pretty obvious to me. The reverse angle showed that his elbow was very likely down before the fumble. In fact they just showed a zoomed in view that pretty much confirmed it. And of course there's the fact that there was no recovery on the field before the play was dead. I'm glad this has happened in this type of game though. Referees have calling this sort of play wrong several times this year (they called it wrong late in the game in the Detroit/GB game for example on Thanksgiving) and hopefully this will cause them to pay a little more attention to it.

Agreed. It likely wasn't out, and the whistles blew before the recovery. Even if i was a fumble, it should have to go back to the Redskins (although the officials have been forgetting about the whistles lately when they do reviews).

I don't think it's that likely. It didn't happen when Michigan lost to OSU a few years ago, and Florida had a loss that year. I'm not an expert on voters though. The problem is the first deserving team after Texas this year would be a mid-major. We'll see how responsive the pollsters are to that. Agreed. While I don't see it as incredibly likely (I'd give both Cincy and TCU better odds than the loser) there is a definite path to a rematch here. The key is to stay ahead of Cincy in the polls and ahead of TCU in the computer rankings. Then if enough voters are split on which one of TCU or Cincy is better, then there is a possibility the loser of the title game could sneak in there. But it would be really hard because a few writers might drop the loser behind Boise which would really hurt the overall average. But a few writers/coaches (probably southern ones) who left them 1/2 might counterbalance that. Looking at Colley's computer rankings which allows you to play around with scenarios, his rankings for this week are Alabama, Florida, Texas, Cincy, TCU, Boise, Oregon. I put in a Cincy win, Alabama win, Nebraska win, Oregon win, and Boise win this week and got this: Alabama, Cincy, Florida, Texas, TCU, Oregon, Boise. There could also definitely be some voting shenanigans going on. Boise might suddenly move ahead of Cincy/TCU on some ballots. It's hard to say what will happen.

That makes no sense. TCU is not going to jump both SEC teams, no matter what happens. An unconvincing win gives a greater chance of both these teams having a rematch in the championship game. That's not gonna happen. Even though this year's SEC is more respected than '06's Big 10, if they didn't give Michigan a rematch against Ohio State, I can't see them giving this loser a rematch. Michigan lost by 3 on the road, dropped to 3rd, then the 2nd place team (USC) lost, and Florida jumped them both just so that a UM/OSU rematch didn't happen. There is a huge difference between the voters sending Florida to the national title game and TCU/Cincy though. If Alabama wins, does that make it more likely that Cincy might jump TCU in the rankings especially if Texas loses? It looks like Florida might still remain ahead of TCU but behind Cincy in several computer polls. It would depend on the human polls though, and I'm not sure a comeback victory is going to help Cincy enough. I think they needed a blowout. But some writers might give Cincy the edge being in one of the BCS conferences especially if it comes down to putting one of those two in the national title game.

In the minors there were rumors that Fox didn't take very well to coaching, but it appears he's gotten past that with his offensive resurgence. Plus that's not really relevant to clubhouse relationships and the like. Agreed. There were rumors that he wouldn't change his swing even when coaches asked him to. And then the rumors escalated when he was summarily yanked from a game and quickly taken off the major league team in August 07 (which was after he went into Lou's office and asked why he wasn't playing in Spring training 07 which Lou initially liked). But he's also been seen as a great guy in his personality and in the last couple of years he's been willing to do just about anything to make sure he makes it to the major leagues. There's been nothing to indicate that Fox is anything but a great clubhouse guy which is what is relevant in this situation.

I wouldn't like the contract or the loss of draft picks. Is he a fantastic fielder? Boston has had SS issues, right? I don't even know who the incumbent is. Is it there one weak spot? His reputation is very mixed defensively. Many see him as average to below average defensively at SS. And Boston has definitely had SS issues. They had Alex Gonzalez there at the end of the year but he already went to the Blue Jays. There was talk of moving Pedroia to SS but with Scutaro on board it looks like that won't happen.

I wouldn't want to give up a first round pick for Scutaro. The money and years looks about right, but to give up a pick for what is probably a slightly better version of Ryan Theriot is not something I'd normally consider.

J.P. Blevins and Mike Wuertz Cubs have given up Damien Miller, Jerry Blevins, Mike Wuertz, Rob Bowen, Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson, Josh Donaldson and Matt Murton In return they've gotten Rich Harden, Michael Barrett, Jason Kendall, Chad Gaudin, Richie Robnett, and Justin Sellers. I'd say Hendry is whupping Beane's ass right now. Yeah, the Wuertz trade is the only one that Beane has really won. Even the Blevins trade hasn't been a problem for the Cubs after they got a little lucky and managed to net Flaherty because of Kendall. While I will agree with you and Rob that the Cubs have come out looking much better on these deals, I will say that it isn't really a fair fight. Oakland is a small market team that is constantly forced to move their veteran talent (bonified major leaguers) for prospects that may or may not make the big leagues (the ratio of minor leaguers who make the bigs is not very good, let alone to become veteran major leaguers) to knock down payroll while Jimbo has the ability to retain his veteran players AND increase payroll. We are kicking Pittsburgh's butt too, but again, not a fair fight. Payroll has not been a key factor of any of those trades though. Barrett and Miller made about the same amount of money (Miller actually made more but the Cubs sent cash to offset the difference). The Kendall trade was just Beane trying to get anything he could get for a player that wasn't helping a team that was already out of contention (he didn't anticipate that Kendall would play better with the Cubs and drive up enough interest that the Cubs ended up receiving a compensatory pick for him). The Harden trade was Beane trying to trade a pitcher after he had finally shown health for a couple of months. And now this trade the Athletics took on money and traded prospects away. So the biggest win for the Cubs (Barrett) had nothing to do with money. And the others had very little to do with money. In two of those four trades Beane got the veteran in the deal. So while I agree that Oakland as a whole has to make some deals because of money, their dealings with the Cubs haven't really been about that. It's just a matter as Tim said of the Cubs and Athletics liking different things in players making them natural trading partners and so far the Cubs have won in that department (with the exception of Wuertz).

Don't poo poo on Jim. I think we all should take 24 entire hours and focus on a move that actually has a bit of logic and improves our ballclub. Tomorrow we can lament at the fact that he's fixing mistakes. I just don't see the point in applauding a move that only accomplishes making a previous move less bad. Every single transaction affects other transactions and can only be judged in the big picture of the state of the franchise. So when they trade away a productive underpaid player it shouldn't be criticized because in the long-term state of the franchise getting that player in the first place was still a good move? For example, Hendry made the Harden and Miles moves just a few months apart. And now he's undone both of them. The Harden move wasn't a mistake in the first place so he was applauded for getting him and then criticized for letting him go. The Miles move was a mistake so he was criticized when he got them and he should therefore be praised when he gets rid of him in a pretty productive move. Measuring everything by the long-term state of the franchise is unrealistic because teams frequently make both good and bad decisions involving one player. That doesn't mean Hendry is absolved from signing Miles. His time with the Cubs is still a net negative. But it's a more positive than it was 24 hours ago.

J.P. Blevins and Mike Wuertz Cubs have given up Damien Miller, Jerry Blevins, Mike Wuertz, Rob Bowen, Sean Gallagher, Eric Patterson, Josh Donaldson and Matt Murton In return they've gotten Rich Harden, Michael Barrett, Jason Kendall, Chad Gaudin, Richie Robnett, and Justin Sellers. I'd say Hendry is whupping Beane's ass right now. Yeah, the Wuertz trade is the only one that Beane has really won. Even the Blevins trade hasn't been a problem for the Cubs after they got a little lucky and managed to net Flaherty because of Kendall.

I think that Bradley is a Plan B option for several teams. I do think the desperation does have some level of impact, though. The primary (or only if you believe some studies) power in any negotiation is the willingness to walk away. If you are in a negotiation and you let the buyer know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, your negotiation position in any 1-1 situation is lessened. If you let the entire market know that you absolutely have to deal and will not walk away, and if the players in that market have an opportunity to share information -- then your position with them collectively is lessened as well. I don't know that he's impacted a huge amount - ultimately he could still walk away and play Bradley again in 2010. But I do believe he hurt his position somewhat. I agree with Bradley being a plan B which is why I don't think the Cubs want teams starting to turn to other outfielders who are also plan B options. I agree that in a 1-1 negotiation that the willingness to walk away is the absolute most important part of the negotiation. I disagree when there are so many other teams involved. Even if everybody in the league knows that, they still have to compete with each other. And they don't want the team in their division to get a huge discount on Bradley when they could get a slightly lesser discount on him. As I said in my previous post, the one thing that you do get is that teams will never overpay even slightly from what they feel his value is. But I don't think that's a concern in Bradley's situation because teams rarely overpay for players who are considered risks like him. They like to exercise caution when it comes to players like Bradley. And so the eagerness by the Cubs to move him hasn't really affected his current value at all because the only thing it hurt was irrelevant anyway.

I disagree that it doesn't matter. Last year, the owner of the Padres made it known that Peavy needed to be traded before the start of the season. Well, he didn't get traded at the beginning of the season. Between the owner letting his marriage woes become a team problem and Towers completely failing Negotiations 101, the market for Peavy dried up. If the Padres would have spoken privately with Peavy first, it's quite possible that Peavy would have granted a trade to more teams, maybe wouldn't have gone public with what teams he was or wasn't willing to be traded to, and if Towers wouldn't have spent more time talking than he should have, it's quite possible teams would have attempted to outbid each other for Peavy's services. Instead, it filtered down to just a discussion between Towers and Hendry, and this time Hendry wasn't willing to pay the necessary cost to acquire Peavy. No team has to have Bradley. He's a luxury item. In other words, he would be a nice player to have, but only in what it would cost to get him. True, he's better than some of the players on the teams that are looking at him, but they can spend any money it might cost for Bradley and upgrade elsewhere and potentially be better overall without upgrading the position Bradley would have been playing. It's sorta like making that trip to Tijuana. That mexican blanket sure would be nice to have, but only on my terms, not yours. I can go home with out it. This is what I'm willing to give, otherwise I'll spend the money I set aside for that on something else. I do believe the eagerness to move someone does devalue the player. With 29 teams out there, the likelihood you might win the bid over someone else isn't very good to begin with, especially when you have teams like the Yankees and Red Sox who can throw money at everyone. Basically, a few teams are showing moderate interest because they think Hendry might be willing to pick up the whole tab. Other players have been moved under those pretenses, so maybe that's where the interest really lies. Let's also remember how ridiculous Texas and Tampa (two teams linked to be interested) likes to get with trade offers. If they can pillage another owner, they will. I thought they did talk to Peavy and his agent before the whole thing started and got his approved list of teams. I think the Peavy situation was a clear case of the Padres putting too large of a price on a player with a large contract. They were asking way too much for him and teams simply weren't wiling to give up that much value. The Cubs came closest which is why there were so many rumors connecting them but at the end of the day the Padres were too greedy and mistimed the market badly. I would definitely agree with you that teams are not going to be desperate to acquire Bradley and that he'll be a luxury item. For certain players when teams are desperate, they are willing to overpay based on their needs. That won't happen with Bradley. But they will be willing to pay what they believe to be a fair price for him if they have to after they try to get the best discount they can. That won't involve paying his entire contract (nobody but the Cubs wanted to pay that much last year and his value has dropped with the bad season and continued troubles) but they'll pay close to what they think he's worth unless they can get a better discount on a different outfielder. I believe the eagerness to move someone can depress value. Sometimes it brings up questions of what that team is hiding about that player and you never get the chance to have a team suddenly decide to overpay for a player. But in this case neither of those scenarios apply and I don't see how the Cubs have dropped his value any more by being eager to move them. That eagerness hasn't affected what any other team thinks of Bradley because everything was so public before that. And it's what other clubs think of Bradley that is important and not what the Cubs think.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have? It's not the sentence I would have picked, but I think I know what he means. Essentially, the Cubs bought Bradley for $21 (actually 21 million, but for the sake of the analogy). They're now putting him on Ebay. They are desperate to get rid of him so they put absolutely no reserve price on him. Whatever the best bid is the buyers are going to get Bradley no matter what. They start the bidding at 99 cents. But as long as there are multiple bidders the price will be driven up a little past what the second best bidder wants to pay. It doesn't matter if there is a reserve price or not-people are going to bid similar amounts either way. So the fact that the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him (which davearm is calling availability) is not affecting the purchase price (the value) as long as there is competition (or a competitive marketplace as he calls it). Now, it doesn't work if 1 bidder is willing to go significantly above what other bidders are. In that case, that bidder is getting a discount because the seller is desperate to get rid of Bradley and doesn't have leverage to hold out for much more than what the second best bidder was offering. But since it looks like most teams are valuing Bradley about the same, that leverage is mostly meaningless in this case and the Cubs will likely receive about the same amount of trade value for Bradley as they would if they were willing to keep him. Also, the more the Cubs can hide the value that each team is offering the more they force teams to pay much closer to what they think is Bradley's actual value because they force teams to risk losing a discount by holding out for a bigger one and losing Bradley to another team. Understand what you're saying. That's not at all what his sentence says. Also, the marketplace is dynamic because Bradley's not the only OF available on eBay. Prospective buyers may want to see if they can get a Jason Bay at a bargain price before they choose to bid on a Milton Bradley. The people who lose out on the sexy auctions may come back to Bradley with more interest later on. I definitely agree that the dynamic nature of the market goes against the analogy. In fact, that's going to be the hardest job for the Cubs in the offseason. While I believe the previous analogy indicates that teams will offer what they feel Bradley is worth (and not shortchange the Cubs just because they are desperate), how much Bradley is worth to their team will change based on the available options and money available. The Cubs have to figure out when is the time in the offseason in which the market for Bradley is at its absolute highest. That isn't based on the desperation level of the Cubs but trying to gauge the desperation level of the other teams involved. And they cannot allow the market to get down to 1 team, because as soon as it's only 1 team interested they can pay whatever price they want. That's why I think the Cubs are so interested in getting this done early. They'll wait just long enough to get the premier free agents out of the way but they'll definitely try to trade him before teams start filling their corner outfield holes with their Plan B options.

What kind of crazy econ background do you have? It's not the sentence I would have picked, but I think I know what he means. Essentially, the Cubs bought Bradley for $21 (actually 21 million, but for the sake of the analogy). They're now putting him on Ebay. They are desperate to get rid of him so they put absolutely no reserve price on him. Whatever the best bid is the buyers are going to get Bradley no matter what. They start the bidding at 99 cents. But as long as there are multiple bidders the price will be driven up a little past what the second best bidder wants to pay. It doesn't matter if there is a reserve price or not-people are going to bid similar amounts either way. So the fact that the Cubs are desperate to get rid of him (which davearm is calling availability) is not affecting the purchase price (the value) as long as there is competition (or a competitive marketplace as he calls it). Now, it doesn't work if 1 bidder is willing to go significantly above what other bidders are. In that case, that bidder is getting a discount because the seller is desperate to get rid of Bradley and doesn't have leverage to hold out for much more than what the second best bidder was offering. But since it looks like most teams are valuing Bradley about the same, that leverage is mostly meaningless in this case and the Cubs will likely receive about the same amount of trade value for Bradley as they would if they were willing to keep him. Also, the more the Cubs can hide the value that each team is offering the more they force teams to pay much closer to what they think is Bradley's actual value because they force teams to risk losing a discount by holding out for a bigger one and losing Bradley to another team.

You're completely subtracting the factors of his injury history and how much he's owed in this analysis. I have no doubt his personality plays a factor in any deal, but I think you're overstating it over reasons that are far more likely to dictate how this will play out (Cubs' position, cost, health history). I agree with all of that besides the Cubs position. It appears that this isn't a situation where one team puts Bradley's value at much higher than others do. So the Cubs position of desperation is pretty much irrelevant. This is kind of like a free agent situation. Teams are trying to bid as little as they can. They will be willing to bid as high as what they perceive his value to be though if other teams are also bidding little amounts. But I agree Bradley's contract is the biggest thing depressing his value because no club seems to think he's worth that much. His health and his attitude make the amount they're willing to pay even lower. In the end, Bradley will be traded for very close to what other teams would be willing to pay even if the Cubs weren't desperate to trade him.

depends on whether they drop out of the BCS Top 12 or not Top 14. And Oregon will stay in the top 14 unless they get absolutely demolished in the game and pollsters punish them for that. I can't see them getting picked even if they stay in though. You usually lose credit if you lose your last game of the season especially when that game could have played your way into the BCS. That will probably be enough to push them below Iowa/Penn State. And I don't see a 3 loss Oregon who would not have played well over the last month of the season being picked over an undefeated Boise State team even with travel considerations. I think even the Fiesta bowl would stay away from that firestorm. I definitely don't think another BCS bowl would want a Pac 10/Big 10 matchup either so they would have to shake up the matchups after they were chosen. I see Oregon's chances in that scenario to just be a little higher than Virginia Tech's, but I don't see either having much of a chance at this point.

Soriano, ARam, and Zambrano have a history of injuries. So, saying the Cubs were over .500 with them being injured doesn't mean much, when it should have been reasonably expected that they would get injured anyway. They are a .500 team if they don't have contingency plans for when players get injured or underperform again. No team can have a contingency plan when they have the number of injuries the Cubs had. If you don't believe me ask the Mets. Last year ARam had 55% of the ABs that he averaged in the last 7 seasons, Soriano had 85% of the ABs that he averaged over the last 3 seasons when he has had "a history of injuries" (before that he played almost every game for quite a few years), and Zambrano pitched 80% of the innings he's averaged the 6 years before. Every team suffers injuries, but when they become excessive the Win-Loss stat is going to suffer. When your "regular" starting lineup is on the field 6-8 times out of 162 games, you aren't going to be a contender. In 2010, there's no reason to think ARam is going to miss half the season, Zambrano will miss 20% of his starts, Soriano will play most of the season on one leg, Dempster will break his toe hopping over the dugout railing, etc. Injury problems mount as guys get older and deal with more and more past injuries. And if there's one thing the Cubs didn't suffer from, it was a lack of Soriano on the field. When he did play, he sucked. More of that doesn't help. And the best of that group, Ramirez, is a lock to get injured again. He always has and he always will. He's going to miss time. I wouldn't call it a lock that he's going to miss time...at least not a significant amount. He played 157 games in 2006 and played 149 in 08 (and 4 of the 13 games he missed were the Cubs resting starters the final week of the season after they clinched). So two out of the last four years he hasn't hit the DL at all. And even if he misses more time like he did in 05 or 07 and plays in the 120-140 game range, that still means he's very, very likely to play 40-50 more games than he did this year. That's a quarter of the season that was lost at the position that the Cubs are most vulnerable at. Even if other players on the team have serious injuries next year, having Ramirez be likely back for a much bigger percentage of the season will be a big help to the team.

I believe so. Fangraphs only has the Athletics/Cubs numbers combined for 2008, and Harden threw all 4 pitches over the course of the year but the other two were very limited compared to previous years. But 2008 has all sorts of red flags attached to it. He changed leagues in the middle of the year which made his 2 pitches have more deception than they otherwise would have. He gave up a large percentage of fly balls and yet kept the ball in the ballpark the best he ever had even while moving to a smaller ballpark. He also stranded an abnormally large percentage of runners (84.4%). He also continued his string from 2005/2006 of having a much better BABIP than his LD percentage would suggest. This year the only number that was out of line on his peripherals was his HR rate. And we know that wasn't because of cheap home runs as people were clobbering the ball off of him. All the rest of his numbers returned to normal luck status for most pitchers. Harden still has the potential to be the guy who defies the norms and becomes the dominant pitcher he was in 2005 and 2008. He still has one of the best upsides in the league But there's also a huge downside to him that is irrespective of health. Even when healthy, a 2 pitch Harden might end up walking too many and giving up too many home runs to be a consistently great pitcher. When you add in the fact that he's likely not going to go over 160 innings and is a threat to miss a very large percentage of the season, then his value is just not that high. Would I have offered arbitration? Probably...but that's because I really think some teams will want to take the risk with him. A 10 million dollar Harden is not a great investment for any team that is not desperate for pitching though so I would really hope that he wouldn't accept. The roster issues he's going to cause during the year is going to depress his value and his production when healthy is a huge question mark. He could be a huge steal for some team, but I believe the percentages favor him being overvalued by getting that much guaranteed between the money spent, the fact that you have to give him as much extra rest as possible to help his effectiveness, and the fact that he'll have to skip starts at random times without going on the DL.