The official Rich Harden is SICK and the most underrated player in baseball Thread

Let's raise a bottle of Old Style to another 100 years of failure.

Cubs and Brewers play a bunch in the second half as do the Cubs and Cardinals so it is still definitely anyone's division. The best part of it is more than likely 2 of those 3 teams will be in the playoffs. I am as big of a Cubs fan as there is and I don't think any knowledgeable fan is discounting either of the Cards or Brewers at this time. If the Cubs were I don't know if they would have gone out and made this trade.Will Harden break down? Very possible, but he looked to be the best guy out there available and I am fine with what the Cubs gave up for him. It shows that the management is trying to win this year. The Cubs haters are always saying that the management is not worried about winning because they still sell out and the last two or three years I think have proven differently. They are starting to make the trades and get the players.But at the same time any Cubs hater can go back to the exact same argument being they still haven't won in 100 years and that is totally true. I am pretty excited about the second half of the season and I think that this point we have as much of a chance to win the league and get to the World Series as any team in the league. It would be great to see a Brewers v Cubs matchup to get to the World Series!

midwesta wrote:

I suppose the better indicator is head to head matchups though, and I've kind of forgotten what their record is against the brewers this year. They've only played them at Wrigley, so they must be better than .500 right? Could you remind me?

It's amazing how people can talk bad about Cubs fans. When other professional teams don't win for years, they pick up the stadium and move to another city because fans stop going to the games. That to me is sad. If your child doesn't win, you don't leave your child and pick up another one.

Before the hundred years started, the Cubs dominated the majors. This is just the beginning of another period of domination.

Some perspective.

According to Baseball Prospectus, the Cubs have a 94.8 percent chance of making the postseason, while the Brewers and Cardinals have, respectively, a 59.0 percent chance and a 25.4 percent chance of getting there. Obviously, Baseball Prospectus sees the Cubs as mortal locks for the postseason, and they see the Cards as having a much worse chance than the Brewers. Now let's take a look at another Prospectus tool called "Third-Order Standings." Third-Order Standings lays out what the standings should be once you correct for runs scored and runs allowed at the component level and strength of schedule. Anyhow, according to Third-Order Standings, the Cubs should lead the division over the Brewers by 6.5 games, and the Cardinals should be 7.5 games behind the Cubs.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8326408/What-Harden,-Sabathia-deals-mean-for-NL-Central-race-

To Midwesta,

My exact words were: "Harden (if healthy) is nasty. He is one of the 5 best pitchers in baseball and much better than CC."

So I am talking about him only if he is healthy. Is CC more durable? yes absolutely. But when harden has been healthy his numbers, every single measurable number related to his quality per start, is better.

ERA- Harden

k/9-Harden

Win percentage- Harden

BAA-Harden (by a landslide)

In fact out of Zambrano, Harden and CC guess who has the worst win pct., the worst career era, the worst k/9, and by far the worst Batting Average Against.

CC comes in dead last in every one of those categories.

I would rather have Zambrano and in all honesty I think Harden will have a better career than either of them and put up cy young numbers year after year

I actually just found this article written by the venerable Jason Stark. Lets just say he agrees with me Midwesta. Saying,

"But one thing the Cubs know -- one thing everyone in baseball knows -- is this: When you get Harden to the mound in one piece, he's as dominating a starting pitcher as you can locate on this planet."

Good Read

I actually just found this article written by the venerable Jason Stark. Lets just say he agrees with me Midwesta. Saying,

"But one thing the Cubs know -- one thing everyone in baseball knows -- is this: When you get Harden to the mound in one piece, he's as dominating a starting pitcher as you can locate on this planet."

Good Read

if you think Oakland has ever had a one-sided trade under Billy Beane you are an idiot and don't know baseball. Too many of you are looking at this in the now and that isn't how Oakland works. Harden is good. So good that Oakland is 34-11 his last 45 starts, but he has no value to the A's because if healthy, he'll want money the A's aren't willing to give up and let's be honest, he won't be healthy. Second, look at all of the random arms in Oakland doing well right now. They have the lowest team ERAin the American League and you've never heard of half of those guys. The reason? Good coaching, good scouting and a pitcher's ball park. Seah Gallagher is a middle of the rotation guy, Murton's style (gap hitter, high on-base percentage) is a perfect fit for Oakland, not to mention they desperately need a right-handed bat. The minor leaguer is a work in progress, but what better organization to be in. It worked for both teams, but three four years from now, we may be saying yet again, "Damn, that Billy Beane is a smart dude..."

I won't dispute that he's obviously a good pitcher, but, look at the innings pitched. Do you really think that Harden will keep those numbers once he pitches 180-200 innings in a season? I highly doubt it. Another poster said it earlier, one of the major things you look for in a starting pitcher is durability. Sure, he obviously has good stuff, but when he's pitched a total of 150 innings in the past three seasons while CC hasn't had one season under that since he started in 2001, then that's that. I had read that article, and, this quote was alluded to earlier, but: "Asked Tuesday whether the A's got enough for one of the most overpowering pitchers in baseball, one scout chuckled: "For a guy who might break down tomorrow? Yeah." In regards to the CC versus Zambrano debate, keep in mind that Sabathia has been pitching in the AL, which is obviously a much better hitting league than the NL. Now, instead of facing the DH, who's typically one of the best hitters on the team, he'll be facing the pitcher, almost always the worst hitter on the team, and basically an automatic out when facing an ace like Sabathia or Zambrano.

For real,

"if you think Oakland has ever had a one-sided trade under Billy Beane you are an idiot and don't know baseball." I never said anything about past trades.

I'm talking about this trade. Even if they cant afford Harden, Murton is almost guaranteed to be a mediocre big leaguer. He will never hit more than 25 homeruns and will probably be a .280 18 hr type guy (a dime a dozen basically). Patterson may be a little better and yea anything could happen with the minor leaguer. gallagher may be a good pitcher one day but I imagine he projects to be about as good as Gaudin (maybe a little better) who the cubs also got.

Simply put Harden COULD become the next Johan Santana. In fact I think he probably will be in Santana's league if he stays healthy. If he simply stays healthy for the rest of the year his stock will be through the roof. Beane did not get enough value for him. Period. He should have looked for a better deal if they couldnt afford him.

".280 18 hr type guy (a dime a dozen basically)"

Dime a dozen = 21 OF last year. (including 1 Cub, and 0 A's)

Of course, I don't believe Murton will be this type of player, nor do I think the A's used such sophisticated stats as Home runs and batting average.

I would have thought Harden would have had more suitors, but it sounds like only the Cubs were interested in bidding. Sean Gallagher is a guy the A's have targeted for a while, and I would not be shocked if he outperforms Harden over then next two years for one-tenth the price.

Note: 'Outperforms' refers to the combo of ERA *and* IP. Harden has shown he cannot stay healthy.

Me o my wrote:

He is one of the 5 best pitchers in baseball and much better than CC.

Much better than CC at what? Getting injured? Certainly not at pitching.

You can only be good at pitching if you are healthy enough to pitch.

CC's career LOW in IP: 180

Harden's career high in IP: 189

CC's career low in wins: 11

Harden's career high in wins: 11

CC's career low in starts: 28

Harden's career high in wins: 31

CC is a hard throwing durable lefty with good control. Harden is a talented fragile right hander who is more likely to go to the doctor than the All Star game.

I'm sorry, but I'll take the guy who can give me 7-8 good innings every 5th day over the guy who might be able to give me 5-6 great innings every 5th day.

Starting pitchers I'd rather have than Harder: CC, Santana, Haren, Webb, Zambrano, Hudson, Hamels, Peavy, Halladay, Lackey, Hernandaz and there are more, but I'm tired of listing guys.

The guy who made this a great deal for the Cubs was Gaudin: an above average pitcher whom the cubs can count on for 6-7 decent innings every 5th day. Despite everything, the Cubs will still not win the World Series.

for real wrote:

if you think Oakland has ever had a one-sided trade under Billy Beane you are an idiot and don't know baseball.

Gotta call you on that one. Beane has made some great trades, but not all have worked out. The Hudson trade has been absolutely awful and the A's would probably have been better off letting him walk and taking the draft picks.

The haul for Hudson: Dan Meyer, Charles Thomas, and Juan Cruz.

All three have been impressively awful in their short stints with the A's.

Beane could have gotten more, but for someone to be calling Harden the "Next Santana" is flat out ridiculous.

He's much more likely to be the next Prior or Wood.

Really 1 cub only hit .280 with 18 hr? Hmm thats funny Actually 3 did. Soriano Lee and Ramirez. This year Lee, ramirez, Soto, Derosa, Soriano, will do it and Fukudome could possibly be in that neighborhood though doubtful. I dont believe only 21 players did as you were wrong on the cubs thing.

Garret Anderson is on pace to hit .270 with 16 HR Yahoo has him ranked #230 according to his offensive production this year. Please what stats did they use? OBP? He has a comparable MLB OBP to Chris Iannetta.

As far as Gallagher is concerned. yes if Harden gets injured you will be correct if he stays healthy you will certianly be very very wrong and the paltry 4.75 mil will seem like nothing for what they are getting. Any team with aspirations of winning a world series would take Harden and his contract over Gallagher. If you are just trying to stay afloat and save money then gallagher may be your man.

Baseball guy what is my sentence just prior to that. Read that and get back to me.

When healthy, as I said before, he performs better than almost all of these guys. Id venture to guess that Peavy, webb and Santana have better numbers. If he stays healthy he will be dominant with Santana-like numbers.

That's just an awful argument though. Because even if he's a healthy for a season (which he hasn't been) we don't know how he'll pitch over the course of a 200+ inning season. You're taking stats from a 40 innings or 70 innings in a season, and extrapolating them for 200+. After hitters have faced a pitcher more than once, they get a better grasp of what he pitches and how he pitches. Since Harden has never pitched consistently, the hitters don't get that scouting report or experience. Compare that to Sabathia, who hitters have ample film of and experience with, and he still dominates. Once again, I'm not disputing that Harden is a good pitcher. He is. But he's nowhere Santana or Webb or Sabathia.

Me o my wrote:

Baseball guy what is my sentence just prior to that. Read that and get back to me.

When healthy, as I said before, he performs better than almost all of these guys. Id venture to guess that Peavy, webb and Santana have better numbers. If he stays healthy he will be dominant with Santana-like numbers.

You're mixing apples and oranges and failing to see that durability is just as important as anything when it comes to pitching. Even when Harden is healthy, he throws a lot of pitches and doesn't go deep into ballgames. CC does. Harden also walks a hell of a lot more batters than CC (something none of your stats took into consideration).

You also fail to consider that CC has been a different pitcher the last 3 years than he was earlier in his career. I've got a "quality per start" stat for you: innings per start. Last three years: CC 6.86, Harden 4.97 which INCLUDES the innings from his relief appearances without counting the appearances as starts. Here's another one: walks per 9. CC 2.05, Harden 4.73. K/BB, CC 4.24, Harden 2.47. None of these are even close. How about WHIP, CC 1.18, Harden 1.17 - pretty damn close. I'll take CC thank you very much.

I just thought of another thing: Sheets is considerably better than Harden and much less fragile. Sheets's 2004 season is better than anything Harden will ever do, and I'm pretty sure he's been better than Harden this year too.

This gives the Brewers 2 pitchers that are better than anyone the Cubs have to offer. The bullpen is a bit lacking, but the lineups are closer than you might think. Things could get interesting...

baseball guy wrote:

This gives the Brewers 2 pitchers that are better than anyone the Cubs have to offer. The bullpen is a bit lacking, but the lineups are closer than you might think.

You must have a bratwurst wedged in an orifice that threw your brainwaves off.