tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36905269.post1962645287016758573..comments2008-07-23T23:24:42.326-04:00Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01901496230287324865noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36905269.post-11306268170482062372008-07-23T23:24:00.000-04:002008-07-23T23:24:00.000-04:00John ... my false premise was based on a Buster Olney report that was published on ESPN.com.<BR/><BR/>Even if the trade weren't rushed, I still stand by the spirit of the post, which was to wonder if the Cubs took on too much risk with Harden given his injury history. Those players could not have landed CC Sabathia, but could they have landed a pitcher who may not have the stuff that Harden has (which, btw, he does have nasty stuff) but could add more value to a long pennant chase because of increased reliability and durability? I don't know for sure, but I can't help but wonder.Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01901496230287324865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36905269.post-85544180768089272432008-07-10T10:22:00.000-04:002008-07-10T10:22:00.000-04:00It's not as if it's a secret who the Cubs gave up. They sent Matt Murton, Eric Patterson, Sean Gallagher, and a AA catcher who is hitting .216. Gallagher is an OK middle-to-end-of-the-rotation guy or bullpen righty. So is Chad Gaudin. So essentially, the trade comes down to Harden for Murton/Patterson/Donaldson. Of the guys the Cubs gave up, I think Murton has the most potential. He definitely fits the Beane-coveted stereotype: not very athletic, but gets on base, and is young enough that he could develop power. But with Soriano and Fukudome locked in at the corner OF positions, Murton has more value to the Cubs as trade fodder than as a player. Patterson hasn't looked all that great at the MLB level. The catcher could be just dandy, but Geo Soto seems to have the Cubs' catching position locked down for a while. In any event, it's odd to make a post about how the move reeks of desperation without even mentioning any of the guys the Cubs sent to Oakland.<BR/><BR/>So, it seems to me that the trade was a good value for the Cubs. Obviously, Harden's injury history was taken into account. If you look at Harden's career stats, he would be considered one of the best pitchers in baseball if it weren't for his injury history. If Harden were putting up his career numbers and had started 30+ games a year for the last four years, the Cubs never would have gotten him for what they gave up. They didn't give up nearly what Milwaukee had to give up for CC.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure Beane likes some things about the players he got. That's how trades work. But your observation about the "speed" of thr trade is based on a false premise. All indications are that the two teams had been talking for some time.John Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00904933804078748933noreply@blogger.com