a pen of cotts, wuertz, howery marmol gaudin and wood looks pretty damn good to me

Patterson and Murton were in Lou's dohgouse

If anything, Eric Patterson, Left Fielder was given more opportunity than he earned.

Murton, Thomas, and M. Sweeney... who knew that the market efficiency of 2008 to exploit was right-handed DH's?

a pen of cotts, wuertz, howery marmol gaudin and wood looks pretty damn good to me

I think Gaudin would look better as a starter than a reliever.

a pen of cotts, wuertz, howery marmol gaudin and wood looks pretty damn good to me

I think so, too. I'd prefer another lefty - I don't see Cotts keeping this up long term.

Ellis can move to third

Uh, why would they move Ellis?

well ohman is on the dl, when is he supposed to return?

well ohman is on the dl, when is he supposed to return?

Whenever he saves up enough to bid for a ticket on Stub Hub.

I think you're thinking of Eyre, meat... when Ohman returns from the DL, it'll be in the ATL pen.

Wow. Say what you will about Billy Beane, but the man has got a pair of cojones the size of cannonballs.

Getting Gaudin too is huge. Plus it gives Fontenot and Theriot someone to boil crawfish with.

Donaldson is a talented enough player to rebound but a .650 OPS in Midwest League for a collegian ain't good at all. Patterson hasn't established himself as an MLB but has a broad enough range of skills to be a good player. Gallager is pretty good as far as non-elite minor league pitching prospects go.

The Cubs' didn't need anyone they dumped though, and no one they dumped looks like a future star. Lovely deal for em.

Plus removing two Techies from your team is always a great day, considering their proven track record of postseason chokes : )

doh thats right

Someone suggested the A's would move Mark Ellis to third in this thread.

Now I'm really just done.

Uh, why would they move Ellis?

Yeah, I don't see the A's playing Patterson much at 2B in 2008. He might be there for 2009 if Ellis isn't re-signed, but in 2008 I'm willing to bet that Patterson sees most of his time in the OF.

Brown and Davis are probably dropped to make room for Murton and Patterson.

Let's just en the Mark Ellis to 3rd silliness. You don't move Ozzie Smith to 3rd base because you traded for Jose Uribe.

Yeah, I don't see the A's playing Patterson much at 2B in 2008.

My crazy idea is that he could be converted to CF. He has the range (but a noodly appendage for an arm) and I don't see where else his all-contact bat will play well enough for Oakland to bother with a roster spot.

Or the greatest SS of all-time because you've got some other ####### there already.

AMAZING,

FOX SPORTS OHIO JUST USED "RUN DIFFERENTIAL"...

OF COURSE, IN A MOST CIRCULAR, NONSENSICAL FASHION -

"ONE OF THE REASONS THE CUBS ARE SO GOOD THIS YEAR IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GREAT RUN DIFFERENTIAL - +102"

I SUPPOSE THIS IS SOME SORT OF SMALL VICTORY???!!!

Barry Zito is available for a wad of chewed gum. He would make for good Mulder-insurance.

That price is far too high.

My crazy idea is that he could be converted to CF. He has the range (but a noodly appendage for an arm) and I don't see where else his all-contact bat will play well enough for Oakland to bother with a roster spot.

I agree. If he can play CF well enough to allow the A's to drop Davis (Davis is only on the roster b/c he's the only one besides Sweeney can play CF), then he's worth a roster spot. If he can fake 2B, LF, and CF well enough, then he can stick around the majors as a bench player (although I don't think he'll ever be an asset as a full-time player).

I still maintain Gallagher's gonna be a very fine pitcher, and he'll look even better pitching in Oakland. 22-year-olds who throw 93-94 and have decent command of 4 pitches don't grow on trees. That said--this is a terrific trade for the Cubs. I can't believe they got this done without giving up either Pie or Vitters.

Cubs prospects LOL!!!

Well said, my friend!

Plus removing two Techies from your team is always a great day, considering their proven track record of postseason chokes : )

Fresno State.

If Hendry could just find someone to handle the offseason roster management and FA signings - the Cubs would have a powerhouse front office.

I think he did much better on those scores this past offseason than he had previously. At least he's not going out of his way to trade for guys like Jose Macias anymore, and his FA venture (Fukudome) beats the hell out of buying middle relievers at retail.

I can't believe any baseball fan still thinks they know better than Beane. When will you learn?

#97, are you being facetious?


No. You don't like my analysis, but you don't say why. Not going along with groupthink isn't a good enough knock on my analysis.

I can't believe any baseball fan still thinks they know better than Beane. When will you learn?

When Dan Meyer pitches for the A's again?

Where the hell is Felix Pie? When I read the headline I thought for sure he'd be included.

I think the odds are down to 30-35% they will keep Bedard now. They'll perceive there is a white-hot pitching market and approach a contender (St. Louis?) to take him.

Do the Cards give up Rasmus for him? 'Cause otherwise, I don't know how that gets done. Then again, with the Harden trade, I suppose you never know.

Uh, why would they move Ellis?

Yeah, I don't see the A's playing Patterson much at 2B in 2008. He might be there for 2009 if Ellis isn't re-signed, but in 2008 I'm willing to bet that Patterson sees most of his time in the OF.

I would think that this is a pretty clear signal that Ellis won't be resigned.

The Hudson deal certainly wasn't Beane's shiniest moment but you have to admit that his timing was perfect in bailing on his pseudo-ace

Let's just en the Mark Ellis to 3rd silliness. You don't move Ozzie Smith to 3rd base because you traded for Jose Uribe.


I'll admit moving Ellis to 3rd isn't a great idea, but continuing to play Hanahan there is an even worse idea.

Do the Cards give up Rasmus for him?

No. Probably wouldn't even give up Anderson, or Garcia. Maybe John Jay, plus Duncan and Reyes or something. The Cards aren't exactly one pitcher away from a WS, they're more like two pitchers and a bat.

I would think that this is a pretty clear signal that Ellis won't be resigned.

Why? Patterson is a rich man's Freddie Bynum. I really really doubt the A's see him as an Ellis replacement. Also, if Ellis had the arm to play 3rd, he'd be the best shortstop in the AL. He's a second sacker until he retires.

The Hudson deal certainly wasn't Beane's shiniest moment but you have to admit that his timing was perfect in bailing on his pseudo-ace

No, I mean, I liked that trade, but clearly Beane is fallible.

Yeah, I can't see how you treat trading for Eric Patterson as a justification for moving anyone worthwhile. I think Patterson should be either a good utility player or a marginal regular (at second base; in the outfield, he'll be a bad regular), which has its uses, but he's nobody you reshuffle your roster for.

The Hudson deal certainly wasn't Beane's shiniest moment but you have to admit that his timing was perfect in bailing on his pseudo-ace

On Hudson?

He posted ERA+ of 120, (91), 128, and 128 (this year) in ATL.

He may not be the ace he once was, but I think ATL is pretty happy with him -- even beyond what they sent out of town turning to dust.

Or, the LIDP. Whatever.

Whoops==wrong thread.

On Hudson?

He posted ERA+ of 120, (91), 128, and 128 (this year) in ATL.

He may not be the ace he once was, but I think ATL is pretty happy with him -- even beyond what they sent out of town turning to dust.

Wasn't he going to be a FA after that first season? The A's weren't going to re-sign him.

I can't believe any baseball fan still thinks they know better than Beane. When will you learn?

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.

I'll admit moving Ellis to 3rd isn't a great idea, but continuing to play Hanahan there is an even worse idea.

No, it's not. If you think otherwise you don't know Mark Ellis and you don't know the A's. Which is fine, Mark Ellis and the A's are probably pretty low on the list of things even a baseball fan should know about. But it's an absolutely, 100% nonsense suggestion.

edit: and before you ask "Why?" I'll be happy to answer: Ellis is an out of this world defensive second baseman. Furthermore, the only other position he's ever played is shortstop, and he had to be moved off of that because he doesn't have a real great arm. So not only would you be taking away the Gold-Glove deserving guy you have playing second currently, you'd be putting someone at third base who's completely overmatched and unfamiliar with the position.

according to hendry, he talks to beane quite a lot so im not surprised that the 2 teams seem to make a lot of deals

i like most of beane's deals. i was confused at the haren deal at first, but when i looked at the prospects, understood the chances. same with the swisher deal.

i hate, HATE this one.

if it was a top level prospect, and a pretty good prospect, and some third player for harden, i'd like that better. but the a's didn't even get that back...

Hendry on the Cubs radio broadcast has no understanding of how good Gaudin is, which makes me really wonder why Beane included him.

I hate this trade for the A's.

If you are the Cubs, this is a play for the World Series. They probably don't need Harden to make the postseason, so they can give him plenty of time to rest so that he's healthy for the playoffs. And then you just ride Zambrano/Dempster/Harden during the playoffs; you can certainly get 3-4 postseason starts from Harden without him getting hurt.

Gaudin is just gravy.

Hendry on the Cubs radio broadcast has no understanding of how good Gaudin is, which makes me really wonder why Beane included him.

Wasn't Gaudin ######## about being a reliever? Maybe he was a big hassle in the clubhouse because of that?

/shrug

Patterson is a rich man's Freddie Bynum.

I was thinking Patterson could be a poor man's Tony Phillips. So Tony Phillips:Freddie Bynum as Warren Buffett:the guy who sleeps on the bench down at the park?

Good deal for the Cubs. I like Murton and still have hopes that he can have a productive major-league career, and Sean Gallagher is already a pretty good major-league starter, but this helps the Cubs now. Although, I can't help but think that Rich Harden has a little bit of a Mark Prior in about 2005 kind of feel to him (of course, Prior won 11 games with an ERA+ of 120 in 2005; I'd take that for this season).

Geez, Murton has been terrible this year. Much worse than I thought. Patterson is last man on the bench. Why not just trade Harden for Gallagher and the catching prospect and keep Gaudin and let the Cubs keep Murton and Patterson. Argh. Gallagher better be a hell of a pitcher.

Hendry on the Cubs radio broadcast has no understanding of how good Gaudin is, which makes me really wonder why Beane included him.

Gaudin's stats don't really seem to have that understanding, either. Yeah, he's a solid guy, but he's no gamechanger.

The more that I see this deal, the more I like it for Oakland. This is certainly not a knock on Harden, but his injury problems required that he be traded while he still had some decent value (and before his free agency clock gets any closer).

I actually really like Gallagher's long-term potential. Given Harden's injury history, it's quite possible that Gallagher could not only be more valuable than Harden for the rest of their careers but for the rest of this year, as well. While he may not be an everyday player, Matt Murton just destroys left-handed pitching. Eric Patterson is nothing special, but he's the kind of utility guy that Beane loves -- gets on base, plays a lot of positions. I don't know if Donaldson will be a good enough catcher to play there in the bigs, but he sure killed lo-A pitching last season. He'll need to climb quickly though, since he's not having a great year at age-22 this season in A-ball.

So, Oakland trades a starter that they've done well enough without for 1/3 of the season already. They get a replacement starter for this season. A replacement for the much-despised Emil Brown and a utility player in the Marco Scutaro mold. And a potential big bat catcher. Did this hurt them in the short term? Barely? Did it hurt them in the long-term? I'd say no.

I think the market for Harden is considerably more bearish than folks here do. He is as great of an injury risk as there is, and I think the market is further dampened by Beane's track record (ok maybe just the Mulder deal).

And I really like Gallagher.

I dunno; I am ok with it.

Ha. I am with you, AG.

I still don't see how Murton fits. Emil Brown has not been getting much playing time lately -- less than 50 PA and just 11 starts in the last month. Sure I'd rather those PA went to Murton (probably) but it's hardly a "free Murton" type situation. Also Gonzalez is sitting there with a 104 OPS+ and must be better defensively than Murton. Thomas, Cust, Sweeney, Sweeney, Gonzalez and the ghost of Travis Buck must be ahead of him on the depth chart. Unless one of those guys is going to take over 1B.

The more that I see this deal, the more I like it for Oakland. This is certainly not a knock on Harden, but his injury problems required that he be traded while he still had some decent value (and before his free agency clock gets any closer).

But not really. The A's had a $7 M option for next season. If Harden's arm blew out before this season was over, they don't exercise the option. If he finishes the season healthy, you'll have no problem trading him with that contract or, god forbid, holding onto a talented players signed to a reasonable contract. This also relates to the market for Harden. I agree it's not likely to be too good -- but they're under no pressure to get rid of Harden so why sell low?

But sure, if Harden's toast for the rest of this season, this is a fine deal for the A's -- it's Gaudin for Gallagher, Murton, Patterson and Donaldson. That's an easy win for Beane. But obviously this isn't what the Cubs think they are getting and trading already damaged goods is frowned upon.

What I mean is that he's a much better starter than Marquis, but Hendry is going to use him as a middle reliever.

Yeah, I think people are vastly overstating how bad this is for Oakland. I think this is a trade that benefits both teams nicely. Gallagher's a good talent. From Beane's perspective, he's stocking his cupboards with some useful players, some of whom with some very good upside, and freeing up a good amount of salary, in exchange for someone who might not be around to help.

From the Cubs perspective, they're taking a risk on acquiring a player who may have a big impact, for players who probably aren't going to have key roles. If Harden breaks down, they aren't that much worse off than they were before.

I'd like to have seen Gallagher higher on the Cubs' depth chart, and won't be shocked to see him emerge as a front of the rotation guy. But he's not someone you want to count on short-term.

I see it now. This is part of the plan to turn the Cubs "curse" thing into as much of a cash cow as the Red Sox one. The Cubs use Harden to cruise to the division lead...in the ONE HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY SEASON of their last World Series win, no less...and then Harden throws the first pitch of the ALCS, grabs his groin/shoulder/knee/elbow, and is carted to the clubhouse. Oh why are the Cubs so cursed?!? Meanwhile, if Harden has really managed to avoid injuries until then and has to fake one, he gets a nice kickback and signs with the Cubs again for five more years of "OH WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, IF RICH HARDEN WERE HEALTHY?!? THE CURSE OF SOMETHING OR OTHER LIVES ON!"

What I mean is that he's a much better starter than Marquis, but Hendry is going to use him as a middle reliever.

Gotcha.

Gaudin and Gallagher are similar talents, Gallagher with more upside and injury risk, but Gallagher's going to cost 1/5 as much next year.
Donaldson was included in this trade because the A's have two similar-hitting guys up the road in Kane County. No, because Donaldson was the supplemental pick the Cubs got when they "lost" Juan Pierre and they wanted to remove any trace of that stain from the organization.

I'd feel better about Murton if he'd had more than one home run this year. Does he have syphilis or something? Patterson has 10 walks against 45 k's in Iowa this year. They have better histories than that, but the way they're playing now doesn't instill a lot of confidence. Is there something going on with these two guys that would explain their struggles this year?

Is there something going on with these two guys that would explain their struggles this year?

You mean aside from them both sucking?

To me this is simple. Billy Beane believes Harden's arm will go boom any day now, and thus believes the trade is Chad Gaudin and maybe a month's worth of Rich Harden for Sean Gallagher, Matt Murton, Eric Patterson and a lottery ticket.

Or, essentially, it's two trades:

Harden for Gallagher
Gaudin for Murton/Patterson/lottery ticket

The former is very likely to be a win for the A's. The second is likely to lack significance. Beane is swapping out a great starter he expects will soon be injured for a good starter he expects will pitch the rest of the year, and he's trading a good reliever for what he believes are undervalued hitters that will help the lineup and bench right now.

I'm not sure I'd have done it, but

1. It's a reasonable risk;
2. I don't have access to the information Beane does; and
3. Beane has a pretty good trading track record.

Also, I don't buy the "he could have gotten more" argument much. Beane knows what he could have gotten a hell of a lot better than we do. We went through this with Santana, too. I'm going to assume this was the best offer on the table, and it's a matter of accept this or keep him for a few more weeks. Harden's dicey health situation encourages one to trade him now.

So, I still believe Beane expects he's improved the 2008 A's (because of Harden's expected absence) and gotten a couple of productive players he'll control for a few years.

I don't know that I would have done it, but my reaction overall is: We'll wait and see.

The decisive factors on this trade are going to be whether Harden can stay together and whether Murton is toast. I think the answers are, respectively, 'no' and 'yes', and if I'm right, this trade is a win for the A's, because it's basically Gaudin for Gallagher. It's a higher risk for the Cubs than the A's. If Harden goes boom within the next two months, the Cubs lose.

You mean aside from them both sucking?

I'm trying very hard not to apply Occam's razor to their performance.

It's a higher risk for the Cubs than the A's. If Harden goes boom within the next two months, the Cubs lose.

I do wonder, if Beane has some inside information that leads him to "expect" Harden to get hurt soon, could we possibly be looking at a Mike Sirotka type situation?

So, my initial reaction was pretty much the same as everyone else's, that this didn't make much sense.

But consider what this trade would have looked like if it had been made, say, last November. The A's were moving a young pitcher who showed he could dominate when healthy, but who couldn't stay healthy (think Kerry Wood or Mark Prior). In return they were getting:

1. A 25 year old who looked ready to be a solid everyday second baseman (Patterson -- e.g., Sickels rated him a "B" prospect).

2. A 26 year old outfielder with three solid major league seasons under his belt, moving into his career peak (Murton)

3. A very highly regarded 21 year old pitching prospect (Gallagher, ranked in the top 50 by several sources, including Sickels and BP)

4. A hitter who maybe could even catch, picked in the 2nd round of the 2007 draft, who had just crushed Northwest League pitching (Donaldson)

Frankly, I doubt the Cubs would have made this deal -- certainly not for all four of them. Beane's buying low in the hopes that their performance is just a small sample size effect, and selling high on Harden.

Now, this is pretty risky, in that it's hard to believe that all of these guys are just underperforming, and you'd think getting an A prospect in return (which none of them were even in the offseason) would have been better than any three of them, but I'm guessing that's his reasoning. It might work out, but I'm skeptical.

Projections and commentary here.

I don't know if it's inside info or just better due diligence. The Red Sox seem ok at it (Pedro, Anibal Sanchez, notsomuch Schilling), and Beane has gotten it right before.

I have heard that teams are putting a lot of resources towards investigating pitcher injury patterns, historical comps, etc.

**edited because I am a dope.

The former is very likely to be a win for the A's.

Um, sorry? Gallagher is a good live arm, but geez, the guy has a 4.45 ERA in the NL... If you're so certain Harden is about to go down, then he won't pass the physical.

I do wonder, if Beane has some inside information that leads him to "expect" Harden to get hurt soon, could we possibly be looking at a Mike Sirotka type situation?

I'm assuming the Cubs were given full medical records and the ability to do a physical, so I'm not sure how. There's been deals scotched by a failed physical before.

So the third place team gets CC Sabathia, and the first place team gets Rich Harden.

I do believe the phrase that best describes the Cardinals is "jolly well ######\".

I'm assuming the Cubs were given full medical records and the ability to do a physical, so I'm not sure how.

How'd the Mike Sirotka situation happen?

I'm more thinking that some people are overstating the impending, inevitable demise of Rich Harden, because if it was really that inevitable then, as bibigon says, Harden just wouldn't pass the Cubs' physical and this deal won't happen (has he already passed his physical?).

These 4 comments sum up this trade.

This is a great trade for the Cubs. They didn't give up anything more than spare parts for a dominant pitcher....Gallagher will be a decent 4th starter, but this is a real steal.

There's like one B prospect in the deal. What a ####### joke.

The only way the A's make this deal is if they are convinced there is a high probability that Harden will get injured again... soon.

Gaudin as a throw in is a steal for the Cubs.

Billy Beane either a) finally got taken to the cleaners in a trade b) knows something we don't -Harden is going to implode <20 IP c) felt bad about this deal, knowing what he knows and "threw in" Gaudin proving he has a conscience or d) Hates the Brewers

Hey, the Brewers traded for a Zambrano, so the Cubs had to go out and get a Sheets.

I don't think Beane knows that Harden is going to go down again - but I think he believes that it is likely to occur. And Harden staying with the A's and remaining healthy likely still leads to the A's out of the playoffs. Once the A's traded Haren last offseason, I think they figured any success on the field this year would be nice, but they are really building for future years.

The Cubs have to be concerned about Harden going down - but as others have said, if Harden is hurt the Cubs really aren't much worse off. If he stays healthy, maybe he helps them win the World Series.

The only way this makes sense is if the Cubs agreed (1) not to require a physical on Harden and (2) not to file a complaint with the league if/when he breaks down this season.

I guarantee Harden will remind Cubs fans of Mark Prior.

Whether he does this in a good way or a bad way, we'll find out.

When can Harden be a free agent? For some reason I can't find that info anywhere - some places say he's got six year and some say five.

How'd the Mike Sirotka situation happen?

The Jays thought that the White Sox hid the severity of Sirtoka's injury, wasn't it?
They had been given full medical records, IIRC, and the Jays' own doctor had cleared Sirotka, so that was obviously a problem for their claim.

When can Harden be a free agent?

Club option for 2009.

Harden's definitely had a physical. Hendry mentioned that they had full access to Oakland's doctors and all medical information as well.

What was the situation a couple years ago with Gary Majewski?

Hmm. Well, perhaps the physical doesn't look good, but good enough that he *might* finish out the season. If Harden had a clean bill of health, there's no way he could have gone this cheaply.

#163 and #166 make a good case for the A's and Beane.

Re: The Cardinals. The Cardinals had an unexpectedly nice first half, fueled by a few unexpectedly great performances by players that are as likely as not to come back to earth in the second half. Any trading of young assets for a pitcher to help try to win in 2008 would be a bad mistake on the Cardinals' part, in my opinion.

I know everyone hates Murton's defense, but UZR has him at +14/150 in LF and +9/150 in RF coming in to 08. If he's in that neighborhood, he's a pretty darn valuable player.

Of course, this trade is still hard to figure.

Wow, I'm really surprised/disappointed by this thread. Apparently, most of you don't understand risk management at all. The "great gamble by the Cubs!" posts are ridiculous considering that none of you have any idea about what the probability is of Harden reaching his potential and not breaking down.

Beane almost definitely has the best understanding of what Rich Harden is worth and the percentages of his possible outcomes. Essentially, all of you are saying that Hendry has a better understanding than Beane of the risk/return of Harden. If they have the same information than this trade would be fair and Beane would just be locking in returns while removing both risk and upside. However, I think that Beane has much better information about Harden and a better understanding of how that information impacts value. This sort of like a senior executive of a company writing and then selling out of the money calls on his company. In that hypothetical no one would take the other side of the trade.

Would any of you say "great gamble!" if your friend went to the casino and dropped $500 on a random number on the roulette table? My guess is that Hendry thinks the percentage of Harden being successful is much higher than it actually is and/or he is misinterpreting how much that percentage is worth.

It is really hard to imagine this being a good trade for the Cubs.

Beane almost definitely has the best understanding of what Rich Harden is worth and the percentages of his possible outcomes. Essentially, all of you are saying that Hendry has a better understanding than Beane of the risk/return of Harden.

That's assuming the trade is zero-sum.

Cubs prospects LOL!!!

Well said, my friend!

Zambrano
Wood
Marmol
Harden

Each have arms hanging by a thread. It is a long season.

I know everyone hates Murton's defense, but UZR has him at +14/150 in LF and +9/150 in RF coming in to 08. If he's in that neighborhood, he's a pretty darn valuable player.

I don't "hate" Murton's defense, but I'm skeptical of those numbers. I think he's a decent/averagish corner outfielder. The main knock I'd have on Murton's defense is just that he's locked into a corner (and preferably LF, he doesn't seem to have the arm for RF). If he could play a passable CF, like, say, Nick Swisher, then he'd be a much more valuable player.

Carlos "I Haven't Thrown Fewer Than 200 Innings Since 2002" Zambrano?

Zambrano's arm is hanging by a thread? Really? I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but c'mon.

Beane almost definitely has the best understanding of what Milton Bradley is worth and the percentages of his possible outcomes. Essentially, all of you are saying that Towers has a better understanding than Beane of the risk/return of Bradley. If they have the same information than this trade would be fair and Beane would just be locking in returns while removing both risk and upside. However, I think that Beane has much better information about Bradley and a better understanding of how that information impacts value. This sort of like a senior executive of a company writing and then selling out of the money calls on his company. In that hypothetical no one would take the other side of the trade.

It's Beano, Pops. Even the Brewers fans have learned to ignore him at this point.

Darren stole my line.

Whenever Murton is mentioned, Cubs fans say he's a terrible fielder, etc. But UZR, Dewan, and RZR all show him as a very good fielder in a corner.

Essentially, all of you are saying that Hendry has a better understanding than Beane of the risk/return of Harden.

Not at all. Some of us have posted that the Cubs are in a position where the risk of Harden being injured is fairly small to their chances (they're a good team without him, even after this trade), while if he is healthy it helps them considerably. The A's are trailing for a playoff spot, and have a bunch of injuries which makes it less likely for them to come from behind. Improving some spots in their lineup with players the Cubs had no use for, AND getting players who should contribute significantly for more than a year or two, helps the A's. Basically, two teams with different prospects and needs making a move that could end up helping them both.

Kind of amazing that we got to post #167 on a saber-friendly website before someone actually, you know, referred to some modestly sophisticated quantitative analysis. Anyway, a couple of thoughts on what the Cubs gave up based on my observations and BPro's views:

- Gallagher: I like Gallagher a lot and think he's likely a number #3 starter (with some further upside) if he can avoid the injury bug. I certainly wouldn't have traded him straight up for Gaudin as some have suggested. PECOTA isn't nearly as high on him, although I'd expect the projection to improve substantially after this year's solid performance. He definitely has a starter's arsenal of pitches, all of which are least average, and the fastball is good-to-very-good. He also seems to have a very solid pitcher's mentality, not getting easily rattled with men on base (I've noticed this, and BPro points it out in Gallagher's 2007 player comment).

- Patterson: At the beginning of this year, Nate Silver ranked Patterson the #2 second base prospect in the game, behind the White Sox's Alexei Ramirez. That's not quite as shiny as it sounds given the state of secondbaseprospectdom, but he still qualified as an "Excellent" prospect. Quoth Silver: ". . . . I think PECOTA nails it with Patterson’s #2 comparable -- this is the Ray Durham skill set, and some team is going to figure that out and come knocking on Jim Hendry’s door." My own view isn't as rosy -- he seems to have his brother's baseball IQ, which is a few ticks above that of my five-year-old daughter, who thinks that baseball is golf. Moreover, his approach at the plate hasn't seemed to develop a whit since he's been promoted to the big leagues, despite semi-regular playing time. Oh yeah, and he's a butcher in the outfield. I'd have been much sorrier to lose Cedeno or Fontenot.

- Murton: like probably every other Primate Cubs fan, I'll always hold a special place in my heart for Hee Seop Choi, Angel Guzman, and Matt Murton, and although Murton's almost guaranteed to turn out better than the first two, the complete failure of his power to develop in the bigs is more than a little concerning. Yes, he's been screwed with, and hopefully that will end, but I see him more as a good platoon mate than an everyday player. Also doesn't have nearly the baseball IQ a dopey looking guy with red hair should -- he's the king of the triple-clutch before throwing wide of the cutoff man.

- Donaldson: really don't know anything about him beyond the stats, but the Cubs are trading from a position of organizational strength here, even if you don't believe in Wellington Castillo's breakout this year (and I don't, at least not yet). Soto -- who hit another home run tonight (*he's so dreamy*) -- isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

***

So it's not like Beane got a bunch of detritus in return. I'd expect Gallagher, Murton, and Patterson to be basically free, major-league-caliber talent on the Oakland roster for at least the next few years, and it's not out of the question that Donaldson joins them before too long.

That said, I like this trade for the Cubs for this reason -- Hardin's arm could fall off tomorrow and the Cubs would still be no worse off this year (i.e., still the NL team most likely to win the pennant). Murton wasn't accretive to the existing talent; neither was Patterson. Gallagher was, but the expected difference between him and Gaudin this year is negligible. So even giving Beane the information advantage (which you must), it's a *great* gamble by Hendry.

Hey, the Brewers traded for a Zambrano, so the Cubs had to go out and get a Sheets.

This was what I posted on the Cubs' game chatter thread immediately upon hearing the news. The Cubs basically just got Sheets plus David Bush (I originally said Manny Parra, but that was a bad comp; Parra's better than Gaudin).

Whenever Murton is mentioned, Cubs fans say he's a terrible fielder, etc.

As a Brewer fan, and thus qualified to weigh in on bad defense, I'd agree with that assessment. At least below-average.

Zambrano
Wood
Marmol
Harden

Each have arms hanging by a thread. It is a long season.

Zambrano? Keep telling yourself that. And call me when Ben Sheets makes it through a second half without breaking down. (To say nothing of Parra...)

Not that the Cubs can't or won't suffer some pitching injuries, and god knows Harden's a risk, but I'll take my chances with what we've got, thanks.

Would any of you say "great gamble!" if your friend went to the casino and dropped $500 on a random number on the roulette table? My guess is that Hendry thinks the percentage of Harden being successful is much higher than it actually is and/or he is misinterpreting how much that percentage is worth.

Good frackin' christ...

Yes, Rich Harden has an extensive history of injury problems, but this hardly plunking $500 on 17, and considering the Cubs gave up what are essentially two spare parts, a college catcher with suspect defense that isn't hitting a lick in single A, and yes -- a nice mid-rotation starter who's got plenty of value for a small market team until he hits arbitration -- it's pocket change for the Cubs.

I can kiss Beane's ass with the best of them, but he's most certainly not infallible. He's made plenty of mistakes -- and Jim Hendry has made a fairly good number of excellent in-season trades.

Billy Beane's name should come up in any discussion of the league's top GMs, but gimme a break here.

I guess it took us 150+ posts to wander in BBTF Beane worship fantasy land, so I suppose that counts as progress.

It's Beano, Pops. Even the Brewers fans have learned to ignore him at this point.

Yeah, but shooting fish in a barrel can be fun.