The Harden Deal — Another Win For Beane
Posted by: Sky in Baseball, tags: Athletics, rich harden, tradesDave Cameron sums it all up pretty well over at Fangraphs. But here’s what it boils down to — Rich Harden still has significant injury issues even though he’s made eleven straight starters. (Can you say, “selling high”?) In return, the A’s received three league-average players that are cost-controlled. I especially like Murton, who sports a career MLB OPS+ of 105 with good corner defense. With the A’s current stockpile of minor league arms and Beane’s obvious ability to look past ERAs and find quality players off the scrap heap, replacing Harden’s 5-7 starts in 2008 shouldn’t be tough, and the same thing goes for Chad Gaudin, who I’m not going to mention again.
Also, if you haven’t already, check out Dave’s series on the 50 most valuable commodities in baseball, where commodity is defined as a player’s production given his current contract. I agree 100% with his choice of Evan Longoria at number one. Why? I left this comment at FanGraphs:
Imagine it’s January, 2014. Gas costs $7.50 a gallon and 850 square-foot apartments in NYC cost $4800 per month. Longoria just became a free agent after his six years of slavery to the Rays, coming off two MVP seasons of 140 OPS+ offense and stellar defense at third. He’s set to sign a huge free agent contract — $25MM per year? $35MM per year? Nope, he signs for three more years at $11MM per season. That’s what Carlos Silva’s earning in 2008, when gas is only $4.25 per gallon. Yeah, that’s a good deal for the Rays.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Share This
Sky is a baseball fan and racket sport afficianado living in upstate NY. His favorite color is orange and is just about ready to give up on his life-long dream to become the next Magnus ver Magnuson (World's Strongest Man). His favorite baseball teams are the Yankees and Red Sox, proving that there's hope in the Middle East.
July 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I don’t know…
I think I have two issues with Cameron’s analysis.
These are off the top of my head (and only moderately thought out), so feel free to refute and tear me a new one.
1. Injuries. While injuries certainly have to be considered, I can’t help but feel that 1/2 season for next year seems like a low estimate and with the high variability of “injury” it seems like the low value is inappropriate. Furthermore, since you can replace someone if they are injured (results below expect value), but you can’t gain anything if they stay healthy (results above expected value).
It’s like stock options, if you have an appropriately priced option, a highly variable stock is potentially better than one with low variance (assuming it’s expected value has a normal distribution). If the value of the stock drops, you’re out nothing; what you’re really trying to capture is the “upside”.
Harden is a high volatility asset and the Cubs have effectively bought an “option” on him. If he stays healthy, they’ve gotten the ability to capture that value, and if he doesn’t they can find someone of moderate value (say Chad Gaudin)
By not considering the “potential” of a player like Harden, and only looking at “expected values” Cameron’s analysis seems lacking.
2. Opportunity cost. I can’t shake the feeling that Beane could have gotten more. Obviously I’m not a GM, and I have no “insider knowledge” of the game, and I have no idea how discussions were going, but it seems like SOMEONE would have offered more for Harden and Guadin. (clearly, this is based on nothing but “gut” feel and is completely subjective, but still…)
July 11th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Given that even the most durable starters should only be projected to throw about 180 innings next year, a half season from Harden almost seems generous. But I don’t know enough to really comment.
I’m not sure how your point #1 is any different from comparing Harden to replacement level. And the fact that the Cubs have starters who could step in to replace Harden who are better than replacement level actually decreases the value of trading for Harden. I’m probably missing your point, though, since I know nothing about economics and options trading.
I don’t think this is a horrible move for the Cubs — they don’t owe Harden much money and the upside is huge. They’d basically given up on Murton and Patterson wasn’t needed. Not sure if Beane could have gotten more — I bet he sees this haul as almost as good as gaining a Laporta. The longer he waits to find something better, the more likely it is that Harden misses a start and loses all his value.