So far the trade for Harden looks pretty darn good.

Overall, Harden has pitched very well for the Cubs and definitely has
improved the starting rotation.

Meanwhile, Gallagher has been very spotty for the A's. Had a shoulder
problem for a while and today pitched just 4 innings...gave up three
runs and walked four.

Patterson was up and now I believe has been sent back to the minors
having been in 4 games with 1 hit in 12ABs.....Murton?... Not much
better, only been in 9 games and is 3 for 30.

Advantage?.....Cubs!....Big time (just need to keep Harden healthy.)

Maybe it is about time some Cub fans start giving Hendry a little credit....

And, oh yeah, picking up Johnson and Edmonds seems to be working out
well also.

tks

tks wrote:
> So far the trade for Harden looks pretty darn good.
>
> Overall, Harden has pitched very well for the Cubs and definitely has
> improved the starting rotation.
>
> Meanwhile, Gallagher has been very spotty for the A's. Had a shoulder
> problem for a while and today pitched just 4 innings...gave up three
> runs and walked four.
>
> Patterson was up and now I believe has been sent back to the minors
> having been in 4 games with 1 hit in 12ABs.....Murton?... Not much
> better, only been in 9 games and is 3 for 30.
>
> Advantage?.....Cubs!....Big time (just need to keep Harden healthy.)
>
> Maybe it is about time some Cub fans start giving Hendry a little
> credit....
>
> And, oh yeah, picking up Johnson and Edmonds seems to be working out
> well also.

I was far away when this trade was made and figured I'd make my belated
comments on it.

Structurally, I like the trade very much. Give up 4 players to get two.
Get players of more value to you than to your trading partner (Harden
can be a free agent in a year and a half - the Cubs can probably resign
him, the A's can't) and trade players of higher value to them. Both
teams can win that way so making a good trade becomes easy. And if
you give up real value (Gallagher), make sure you get real value in
return (Harden).

I see both Harden and Gallagher as guys who could win a Cy Young if
things break right. Or either could go down in flames or suffer
a devastating injury. The trade may end up being ver lopsided either
way (Karchner for Garland was bad because it could only be lopsided
one way.) Harden seems a safer bet ceiling-wise as he is already
there (but consider Rich Ankiel) while Gallagher seems the better
bet healthwise (but, as tks notes, Gallagher has already had a
shoulder issue - you just never know).

All in all, I think I would take Harden (money issues aside) and
the fact that Harden is a better pitcher in 2008 clinches the
deal (win now without compromising the future). For now, Harden's
big weakness is that he doesn't go deep into games but he is
still young.

Gaudin, Murton, Patterson are players of more limited ability
it would seem and while Murton, Patterson had trade value, they
didn't really have great value to the Cubs. Frankly, Gaudin
is probably more useful than the other two combined.

Josh Donaldson is a wildcard. Oddly he was hitting under .220
at Peoria in low A and I noticed a few days back that he was
now hitting .379 in AA. If he's the next Johnny Bench, this
trade is likely wrong, but I'd guess that won't happen.

It may be that a savvy baseball scout can see something in
one or more of these players that I can't. All I have
reeally is the career paths of the players. But this looks
like a smart deal, a credit to Hendry no matter how it
actually turns out.

****

Assessing Hendry's performance

He is having a good year - perhaps luck, perhaps he is learning.

Baseball isn't fair. Hendry has a big advantage because the Cubs
have money. The Cubs develop more good players and so can
make 4 for 2 trades. The Cubs can pay players approaching fee agency.
It is easy to buy players like Murton and so the Cubs can safely
trade them. Not that the rich guys always win - obviously they don't
as we Cub fans know all too well - but Hendry doesn't have to be
the smartest guy on the block to contend, just a shade above average.

The big success for the Cubs this year, in my opinion, was knowing
whpo could be counted on and who couldn't. Johnson, Edmonds were good
acquisitions perhaps by luck, but they filled a hole and so were low
risk.

Then again, i condemned spending all that money on Samardzija.

ray heitmann

In article heitmann@math.utexas.edu says...
> But this looks
> like a smart deal, a credit to Hendry no matter how it
> actually turns out.

Compared to Hendry's past deals like signing Wade Miller for $1M to
pitch two games in September then yes, there is no doubt Hendry can't
lose on this deal. Also, 20/20 hindsight and posting a month after the
deal to make your analysis doesn't hurt either.

Harden has pitched well so far however it's still a long way until the
Cubs make the World Series this year.

Too early to give the deal a final verdict. If they ride all the way to
ths Series with him in a front role this year, that makes it worth it.
They did have quite a surplus of pitching at the time. Next, they need
to hope that he can be signed after next year and be healthy. That is
once more probably enough to justify it. The Athletics need at least one
of Gallagher, Patterson and Donaldson to become an impact player for it
to have made sense to them.



tks wrote:

> So far the trade for Harden looks pretty darn good.

> Overall, Harden has pitched very well for the Cubs and definitely has
> improved the starting rotation.

> Meanwhile, Gallagher has been very spotty for the A's. Had a shoulder
> problem for a while and today pitched just 4 innings...gave up three
> runs and walked four.

> Patterson was up and now I believe has been sent back to the minors
> having been in 4 games with 1 hit in 12ABs.....Murton?... Not much
> better, only been in 9 games and is 3 for 30.

> Advantage?.....Cubs!....Big time (just need to keep Harden healthy.)

> Maybe it is about time some Cub fans start giving Hendry a little credit....

> And, oh yeah, picking up Johnson and Edmonds seems to be working out
> well also.

> tks


--
Newsoffice.de - Die Onlinesoftware zum Lesen und Schreiben im Usenet
Die Signatur läßt sich nach Belieben anpassen ;-)

Mark Anderson wrote:

> In article heitmann@math.utexas.edu says...
>
>>But this looks
>>like a smart deal, a credit to Hendry no matter how it
>>actually turns out.
>
>
> Compared to Hendry's past deals like signing Wade Miller for $1M to
> pitch two games in September then yes, there is no doubt Hendry can't
> lose on this deal. Also, 20/20 hindsight and posting a month after the
> deal to make your analysis doesn't hurt either.

While the Miller deal turned out unfavorably, it was hardly a disaster.
The Cubs threw away a million dollars and some time. This trade has the
potential to be one of the worst deals in history; Hendry can lose very
big on it. This is true of many really big trades.

I am not a fan of hindsight. It is not 20/20, not even 20/80. It is,
unless used with great care, worse than nothing. For example, when an
established player is dealt for a prospect or two, typically the team
that gets the extablished player gets the better of the deal.
However, when the prospect hits his mark, the deal can be very lopsided.
Two years after the trade, it is impossible for most people to evaluate
it because they are distracted by the results.

I didn't write earlier because I was unaware of the trade for quite
a long time and i only used post-trade facts in two places in my
analysis. Gallagher's injury is a useful reminder that while Harden
(still) is the pitcher most likely to be derailed by injury, any
pitcher can go down at any time. And Donaldson's stats (which make the
trade look worse actually) are the best measure I have of assessing that
prospect.

Incidentally, I probably like Hendry less than you do. I am nowhere
near the Cub fan I was when he took the job and that is about the
strongest disapproval one can state. However, I like competence
and one cannot support competence without commending positive action.

Sean Gallagher has the potential to win a Cy Young next year
with a six figure salary. That is very important to the A's,
less so to the Cubs, who do not need to rely on cheap quality
players. The fundamentals of this trade are exactly what they
were on July 1.

ray heitmann

"User Name" <heitmann@math.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:g8c7k4$81f$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>> In article heitmann@math.utexas.edu says...
>>
>>>But this looks
>>>like a smart deal, a credit to Hendry no matter how it
>>>actually turns out.
>>
>>
>> Compared to Hendry's past deals like signing Wade Miller for $1M to pitch
>> two games in September then yes, there is no doubt Hendry can't lose on
>> this deal. Also, 20/20 hindsight and posting a month after the deal to
>> make your analysis doesn't hurt either.
>
> While the Miller deal turned out unfavorably, it was hardly a disaster.
> The Cubs threw away a million dollars and some time. This trade has the
> potential to be one of the worst deals in history; Hendry can lose very

That's hyperbole. "Worst deals in history?" Are you joking? Gallagher
is a fine young pitcher but the odds of him winning a Cy Young are still
very small. I would give Harden better odds of achieving that over the
coming years.

On Aug 18, 6:00 am, Hakan <H...@softhome.net> wrote:
> Too early to give the deal a final verdict. If they ride all the way to
> ths Series with him in a front role this year, that makes it worth it.
> They did have quite a surplus of pitching at the time. Next, they need
> to hope that he can be signed after next year and be healthy. That is
> once more probably enough to justify it. The Athletics need at least one
> of Gallagher, Patterson and Donaldson to become an impact player for it
> to have made sense to them.
>


Actually, this deal made sense for both sides from day 1. The A's
were in a no-win situation with Harden. Even if he stayed healthy
and pitched well they couldn't afford to re-sign him after next year.
Every GM in baseball knows this so the longer they held on to
him the more his trade value was going to drop. Billy Beane needed
to work his magic and turn his ace pitcher into young players for
the future and thats exactly what he did.

From our point of view we have a chance to win now and Rich
Harden is the type of player who could easily put us over the
top. Making the deal better for us is the fact that Rich Harden
is signed through next year.


Lance

"Eric Margheim" <nospam***emargheim@centurytel.net> wrote in
news:T4adnZ7LvJe5LTTVnZ2dnUVZ_sbinZ2d@centurytel.net:

>
> "User Name" <heitmann@math.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:g8c7k4$81f$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
>> Mark Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> In article heitmann@math.utexas.edu says...
>>>
>>>>But this looks
>>>>like a smart deal, a credit to Hendry no matter how it
>>>>actually turns out.
>>>
>>>
>>> Compared to Hendry's past deals like signing Wade Miller for
>>> $1M to pitch two games in September then yes, there is no
>>> doubt Hendry can't lose on this deal. Also, 20/20 hindsight
>>> and posting a month after the deal to make your analysis
>>> doesn't hurt either.
>>
>> While the Miller deal turned out unfavorably, it was hardly a
>> disaster. The Cubs threw away a million dollars and some time.
>> This trade has the potential to be one of the worst deals in
>> history; Hendry can lose very
>
> That's hyperbole. "Worst deals in history?" Are you joking?
> Gallagher is a fine young pitcher but the odds of him winning a
> Cy Young are still very small. I would give Harden better odds
> of achieving that over the coming years.

The word "potential" is key here. Ray was comparing the potential
risk-reward in the Harden trade vs. the Miller signing, not
assigning probabilities to any outcome.