Cubs Land Harden
by gopherbroke on Jul 8, 2008 7:00 PM EDT
27 comments
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3478902
Looks like they gave up a Gallagher, Murton, Patterson for Harden and Gaudin. From the looks of it i think they made away like bandits in this deal speaking of the cubs. I know there was a 4th guy they gave up, but i cant remember who. They gave up a young pitcher already in the bigs in Gallagher, they gave up Murton whom they had basically soured on, and Patterson who seems to me to be a one tool guy, that being speed. They Get not only Harden who is an ace when healthy and has been rolling, but also another solid arm in Gaudin
The Central race is on...
0 recs |
27 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Keep in mind...
... Billy Beane rarely loses.
- Oh, Bobby. -
by sdp on Jul 8, 2008 7:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He lost when he dealt Hudson. I just dont really see what he gets here. Gallagher has pretty nice upside, but not that of an ace. Granted i dont much about the prospect, Donaldson, but the rest is not over whelming at all.
by gopherbroke on Jul 8, 2008 7:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also,
This ends any chance we might have had at winning the Wild Card. There are two teams coming out of the Central this year, and only one of them can win the division.
- Oh, Bobby. -
by sdp on Jul 8, 2008 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also,
This ends any chance we might have had at winning the Wild Card. There are two teams coming out of the Central this year, and only one of them can win the division.
- Oh, Bobby. -
by sdp on Jul 8, 2008 7:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Harden will break
CC will eat his corpse.
by Euruproktos on Jul 8, 2008 7:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
what’s the over/under on CC weight after a year in the dairy state… a place filled with Frozen Custard (if you dont know what that is its a fattier form of ice cream essentially, but quite delicious), butter-burgers, Cheese, and Cream Puffs
i say he’ll be pushing 320 easy
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Jul 8, 2008 8:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rich Hampton is more like it
Don’t forget, Harden is an injury waiting to happen. The Cubs look good now, both in the trade and securing a playoff spot, but that might not be the case if/when Harden goes on the DL again, like he does pretty much every year.
by skipcaray on Jul 8, 2008 8:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Gaudin is what makes this trade really good for the Cubs
I don’t think Beane would trade Harden unless he knew his arm was going to fall off. Looks like a nice haul for the Cubs though.
by VictorW on Jul 8, 2008 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The guys that the A's picked up equal
Chuck James, Brandon Jones, Brent Lillibridge and Phillip Britton!
by Jay212033 on Jul 9, 2008 1:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d take any of the players the Cubs gave up over their “equivalents”. Especially since Murton almost 1000 ML plate appearances, Gallagher is four years younger and has three pitches, Patterson is actually hitting in AAA, and Donaldson is a year younger and has a higher ceiling.
by 17843 on Jul 9, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We all know the Cubs are doomed
I say either Harden or the big Z goes down to an injury before we’re half way thru march. Also possible that Zambrano takes his belt off and beats an umpire resulting in three month suspension. Plus there is no way Dempster keeps it up.
by Euruproktos on Jul 9, 2008 1:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You know what would be funny?
If the Cardinals, make no blockbuster trades, and win the division, with a pitching staff anchored currently by guys like Braden Looper.
The A’s puzzle me sometimes. No denying Beane’s track record, but the A’s are second in their division, and almost always place as a .500+ and/or playoff squad, no matter what happens. But it’s like they’re always in the pursuit of prospects, even if it means giving up key parts to their currently winning squads. It’s moves like this that have me stating claims that the Oakland A’s, are pretty much declaring themselves the professional-level farm-club for the rest of baseball. The ATM of prospects.
I mean, it’s great for the guys going there, because it all but ensures that they’ll get their chance to shine at some point, but eventually, they have to know that they’ll be traded for two lesser-developed players at some point.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jul 9, 2008 9:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I've noticed that about the A's too
It’s like the A’s are always planning for the future, but that future never comes. But, I think it’s got a lot to do with the economic state of the game right now. The A’s don’t have the fan base or the money of, say, the Red Sox or Yanks, so they either have to trade their stars or watch them walk.
It’s a situation that is becoming increasingly familiar…....
by skipcaray on Jul 9, 2008 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at their market, their stadium, their owner. They’ve made the determination that it’s far cheaper to pay a guy below market rates for six years and then sell him off, saving not only the tens of millions of dollars and guarantees of a free agent contract but also gaining them several other pieces to repeat the process with.
This season was never about contending anyway; they’re only doing that because #4 starters are pitching like #2s and their bullpen has been fantastic. Pair that offense with a league average pitching staff and they’re closer to where most folks had them preseason. Next season and certainly 2010 are what they’re building for; guys like Haren, Swisher, and Harden would be costing them at least $30 million for those years, as opposed to Gio Gonzalez, Carlos Gonzalez, Greg Smith who will be costing them $3 million at most.
by 17843 on Jul 9, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not going to disagree with any of your points, they’re all valid. But my question is, when do they ever go for it? Was 2006 a “go for it” year, or did what they have just click really well, and they went far? What I’m saying is that it’s harder and harder to tell when Oakland is just rebuilding, which is constantly, and when are they actually trying to contend? And as fans, is it fair to keep them waiting for one big year, when they never know if the Red Sox or Yankees are just going to shore up and buy themselves a championship roster?
As fans, I don’t think it’s ever fair to not contend; nobody wants to spend money on a team that’s “going for it in two years.” Furthermore, it kind of has to suck for Oakland fans, knowing that anyone who develops is essentially auditioning for their next team, moreso than other teams’ players.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jul 9, 2008 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, in 2000 they traded highly regarded Jesus Colome for Jim Mecir to fortify their bullpen. The next offseason they dealt a young star (Grieve) and two prospects (Hinch and Berroa) to pick up Cory Lidle and Johnny Damon. That season they dealt prospects for Jermaine Dye and Ron Gant. That offseason they traded a prospect for Billy Koch, more prospects for Dave Justice, and signed Scott Hatteberg. The next season they traded prospects for Ted Lilly, Ricardo Rincon, and Ray Durham. Etc.
They went for it for what, seven years? Last season they lost Frank Thomas, Milton Bradley, Barry Zito, and Esteban Loiaza from 2006’s squad and they weren’t particularly good. Now they rebuild for a year or two and they’ll contend again. I think a realistic fan can accept rebuilding is necessary at least once a decade. The A’s problem in the 90s was refusing to give in and rebuild after three straight pennants and after making the playoffs four out of five years.
As Braves fans we don’t have much perspective (at least I don’t) of what it means to actually rebuild, something that’s probably been hurting us the last few years and hopefully won’t force us to cling to this ‘kind of’ contending we’ve been trying to do.
by 17843 on Jul 9, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve always heard it said that one reason the Braves were so successful for so long was that we were constantly changing our players. Instead of trying to keep the same team intact for years, then let them get old and have to replace them all at the same time, we would let one or two older players go at a time, then reload with a younger guy. I guess that’s why we don’t really know what it’s like to rebuild, and that’s rare in sports. It helps to have the same manager and GM too, I would think.
It makes me realize just how good it’s been for us all these years.
by skipcaray on Jul 9, 2008 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rebuilding or at least fortifying and patching holes is always a necessary thing, I will totally agree. Also right about how many Braves fans don’t understand it as well, because of all the success we’ve had in the past.
I think one major flaw I see with Oakland is the sheer lack of a face for the team. None can really be established, because they’ll just get traded away when they reach the point, or are on the cusp. There’s nobody the local fans can cling to, buy their jerseys, like a Chipper/Smoltz for us, a Jeter for New York, an Utley in Philly. . . you know what I mean? It’s been like that for a while now, and I think Zito was the closest thing they had to a face in recent years, but prior to him, all I could ever really remember associating were the Bash Brothers. Harden seemed the the closest one to having “it” amongst their group, Haren the year prior, and Zito earlier, etc.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jul 9, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me just say, that my knowledge of Oakland quite limited, and is purely my own speculation. I don’t really know if Jack Cust is a cult-hero, or if people out there really like guys like Jack Hannahan. THat being said, there’s a great chance that I’m totally wrong.
No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.
by royhobbs on Jul 9, 2008 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mark Ellis is probably the most popular player on the team right now
Elite defense and pretty good hitter. I read Athletics Nation pretty regularly and he pops up a lot.
by VictorW on Jul 9, 2008 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Philosophy...
I guess it comes down to the team’s philosophy: does the team exist primarily to win, or primarily to make money?
I heard somewhere where the most profitable team over the last few years was not the Yankees, Red Sox, or Cubs, but the Pirates! That’s what you get with cheap players and pocketing the luxury tax revenues. Sad.
by skipcaray on Jul 9, 2008 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it’s fair to classify the A’s as a team that exists just to make money and not to win championships. If that’s what you were doing?
I think it comes down to having an ownership group who understands the economic reality of both the market and the league and can formulate a strategy to win within that reality. For example, Pittsburgh is a smaller market team that drafted poorly and spent money on old free agents. That’s basically the opposite of what a small market team needs to do to win. I applaud Billy Beane for having a losing record twice in ten years as GM in Oakland. He knows what works in Oakland’s market. Just as the Red Sox management know what works in a large market.
by 17843 on Jul 9, 2008 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I wasn’t saying the A’s exist “just” to make money, that’s why I said “primarily” to make money. The A’s have done a good job of winning on a budget over the years. They haven’t been great, but they haven’t been bad either.
All I was trying to say is that some teams want to win no matter what the cost, while some teams want to win, but they’re not willing to put winning over econimics, and they often are forced to trade good players for the sake of money. Until teams re-sign these good players, it’s going to be tough to make a run and win it all. Beane has done a good job of balancing both needs, but the A’s aren’t going to make a run until they start hanging on to some of their talent.
This is the problem I have with corporate ownership. Baseball teams I believe are better-run by really stinkin rich guys who run the team like it’s a hobby and they will do what it takes to win, whether they make money or not. Steinbrenner is a good example: no matter how much I can’t stand the Yankees, I have to admire that they make winning their #1 priority.
When the corporate suits take over, their #1 priority usually is to not let their team lose corporate money. Winning takes a back seat to economics, especially when the corporation hits hard time, and I think that hurts the integrity of the game. That’s what has happened with the Braves lately and why we haven’t won for a long time. That’s also why the NFL doesn’t allow corporate ownership. Personal owners are using this philosophy too though.
I think the size of the market is a factor, but not as much as other things. The Braves are a good example again. When Ted Turner ran the team, we had a high payroll, got who we wanted, and won a lot. Then Time Warner took over while they were bordering on bankruptcy, and all of a sudden we can’t get big-name free agents and we’re a small-market team. But, Atlanta hasn’t gotten any smaller, and in fact has only gotten bigger since Time Warner took over. On the other hand, the Yankees win all the time, or at least try to do what it takes to win, because Steinbrenner will spend the money. I think the biggest factor is how the owner spends money, not the size of the market.
Sure, the size of the market factors into how much money a team has, but in theory, the owner would be making money through business or something, not through baseball.
Ok, this post is waaay too long…
by skipcaray on Jul 9, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's primary goal is to win
Plain and simple. The difference is the only way to win when your budget is 40M (or whatever it is) is to draft well and stay young so you can underpay them. Of course they’d like to keep a lot of players and sign impact free agents when they can, but they can’t do it. I see what you’re saying about wanting to do anything to win, but just because you aren’t hemorrhaging money into your team, doesn’t mean you don’t want to win. The Athletics simply have to win in a different fashion
I think part of the Braves revenue problems is that fans started showing up less since they got spoiled by the playoffs every year. Losing TBS also cost us a lot of money.
The A’s have made runs before. Like 17843 said, he’s been a buyer before at the deadline. Beane’s taken them to the playoffs 5 times in the last 10-11 years. If you go back and look at the series, most were pretty close. The playoffs is mostly a crapshoot anyway and the best team doesn’t always win. People have also caught onto OBP = good so Beane has shifted his focus more on pitching and defense. If I recall, some poor defensive mistakes cost the A’s at least 2 series before.
by VictorW on Jul 9, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very good point, but we’ve seen deadbeats like Pohlad refuse to put up money to back a contendor largely because he knows in a small market like Minneapolis he won’t get really any return on his investment. The effects of stimulating the rooting interest of a 25,000,000 person metro area by making the playoffs is much higher than doing the same to a 5,000,000 person metro area, which just encourages teams like the Red Sox, Mets, and Yankees to remain relevant by pouring more money into their teams.
by 17843 on Jul 9, 2008 9:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
