After the Brewers dealt for CC Sabathia I stated on here several times (in the comments mostly) that the Cubs didn't need to make a move to counter the Brewers acquisition. They just didn't need to and I also said that I'd be surprised if Jim Hendry did. Well, I was surprised, but pleasantly so. I'm not the only one who felt this way and Joe Sheehan is more articulate than I am. I was just now spending some time getting caught up on this week's articles on BP and came across that one. It's good. Check it out if you have a subscription.
Sheehan begins by talking about the guest appearances he makes on the radio every Tuesday (several of them in mostly NL Central located areas). Obviously a lot of what is discussed is about the NL Central, but on Tuesday, after the Brewers trade for Sabathia, that's all they talked about. The Cubs had yet to make their trade for Harden and each host asked Joe if the Cubs needed to make a move to answer the Brewers. Joe said he gave them all the same answer:
The Cubs are the best team in the NL, and the last thing they need to do is make a reactive move. With their depth—including a good rotation—and the quality players they have at just about every spot, they're a hard team to improve. They certainly don't need another starting pitcher the way the Brewers did.
Joe quickly added that he got the email about the deal being done about 90 seconds before his final spot was finished. It took him by surprise, obviously, and it took me by surprise for the very same reasons. The Cubs just didn't have to respond to the Brewers deal. They were in first place. Comfortably. They were still a better team.
I'll quote more from Sheehan in a bit, but like him, I believed what I had argued during the day (Tuesday), but was thrilled the Cubs made the deal not just because it makes them better, but because it had a purpose--win in October. The Cubs didn't react to the Brewers trade. They may have finally decided to give up Sean Gallagher because of that, but this deal wasn't in response to their trade. It was a deal to make this team win in October. Period.
The thing is, I stand by everything I said yesterday…and this trade still makes sense for the Cubs. They didn't need to make it, they do have the best team and a difficult roster to improve upon, and the last thing any team needs is to make a move because someone else made a move. Yet with all that, well, this is basically a free Rich Harden. If you're the Cubs, the risk involved in making this trade is so low as to make it a no-brainer. The package of players they gave up will not be missed. Sure, Sean Gallagher might have become a mid-rotation starter in the Jason Marquis mold, and Josh Donaldson could find his way out of the woods and eventually have a career. It doesn't really matter; the Cubs didn't trade anything with enough value to make them regret this deal. There's no Matt LaPorta in here, no Carlos Gomez, no top-50 prospect or high-upside player who could rack up 2000 hits or 200 wins and torment them for 15 years.
I'm a little higher on Gallagher than most scouts or statistical analysts are, which is to say that I'm probably wrong, but Sheehan is right that the Cubs just didn't give much up to get what is potentially the best pitcher in the game along with a more than competent insurance policy to Harden getting injured. Matt Murton and Eric Patterson are what they are. I felt Patterson should be on the field for a couple years now, but it didn't happen and he's now 25 years old with almost no major league experience and he's not exactly gifted on defense either. Murton is a corner outfielder with outfield grass power. Donaldson is a year removed from being drafted out of college, relatively new to his position behind the plate, and sucking in Low A where guys like him should be tearing it up and forcing a promotion. Like Joe Sheehan says though, he's still young and maybe he gets it together, but he's never going to be an elite player in this game. That leaves Gallagher as really the only player they gave up with decent upside. And as for how much upside, there is a lot of disagreement among people who know more about it than I do. Some think as much as number 3 caliber and some think 4/5 starter. Either way, it's not much to give up for Rich Harden and someone who is as good as Sean Gallagher is right now in Chad Gaudin.
I do disagree with Sheehan that this is a difficult team to improve. I think it's an easy team to improve, which is usually the case for good teams because the sore spots stand out more than they do on average teams. There are certainly fewer spots that could or should be improved considering the cost than most teams, but there are definitely some areas that can be improved and we've talked about those for awhile now. The Cubs can get by and win this division without any further improvements. No doubt about that. Assuming the core players stay healthy anyway. As for Rich Harden, and this has been said several times before, this is a move with October in mind and as long as he's healthy then, I don't really care what he does the next 2+ months. The better he is between now and October, or I should say, the healthier he is, the greater chance that the Cubs can run away and hide in this division and have a couple weeks at the end of the season that don't really matter.
Sheehan begins by talking about the guest appearances he makes on the radio every Tuesday (several of them in mostly NL Central located areas). Obviously a lot of what is discussed is about the NL Central, but on Tuesday, after the Brewers trade for Sabathia, that's all they talked about. The Cubs had yet to make their trade for Harden and each host asked Joe if the Cubs needed to make a move to answer the Brewers. Joe said he gave them all the same answer:
The Cubs are the best team in the NL, and the last thing they need to do is make a reactive move. With their depth—including a good rotation—and the quality players they have at just about every spot, they're a hard team to improve. They certainly don't need another starting pitcher the way the Brewers did.
Joe quickly added that he got the email about the deal being done about 90 seconds before his final spot was finished. It took him by surprise, obviously, and it took me by surprise for the very same reasons. The Cubs just didn't have to respond to the Brewers deal. They were in first place. Comfortably. They were still a better team.
I'll quote more from Sheehan in a bit, but like him, I believed what I had argued during the day (Tuesday), but was thrilled the Cubs made the deal not just because it makes them better, but because it had a purpose--win in October. The Cubs didn't react to the Brewers trade. They may have finally decided to give up Sean Gallagher because of that, but this deal wasn't in response to their trade. It was a deal to make this team win in October. Period.
The thing is, I stand by everything I said yesterday…and this trade still makes sense for the Cubs. They didn't need to make it, they do have the best team and a difficult roster to improve upon, and the last thing any team needs is to make a move because someone else made a move. Yet with all that, well, this is basically a free Rich Harden. If you're the Cubs, the risk involved in making this trade is so low as to make it a no-brainer. The package of players they gave up will not be missed. Sure, Sean Gallagher might have become a mid-rotation starter in the Jason Marquis mold, and Josh Donaldson could find his way out of the woods and eventually have a career. It doesn't really matter; the Cubs didn't trade anything with enough value to make them regret this deal. There's no Matt LaPorta in here, no Carlos Gomez, no top-50 prospect or high-upside player who could rack up 2000 hits or 200 wins and torment them for 15 years.
I'm a little higher on Gallagher than most scouts or statistical analysts are, which is to say that I'm probably wrong, but Sheehan is right that the Cubs just didn't give much up to get what is potentially the best pitcher in the game along with a more than competent insurance policy to Harden getting injured. Matt Murton and Eric Patterson are what they are. I felt Patterson should be on the field for a couple years now, but it didn't happen and he's now 25 years old with almost no major league experience and he's not exactly gifted on defense either. Murton is a corner outfielder with outfield grass power. Donaldson is a year removed from being drafted out of college, relatively new to his position behind the plate, and sucking in Low A where guys like him should be tearing it up and forcing a promotion. Like Joe Sheehan says though, he's still young and maybe he gets it together, but he's never going to be an elite player in this game. That leaves Gallagher as really the only player they gave up with decent upside. And as for how much upside, there is a lot of disagreement among people who know more about it than I do. Some think as much as number 3 caliber and some think 4/5 starter. Either way, it's not much to give up for Rich Harden and someone who is as good as Sean Gallagher is right now in Chad Gaudin.
I do disagree with Sheehan that this is a difficult team to improve. I think it's an easy team to improve, which is usually the case for good teams because the sore spots stand out more than they do on average teams. There are certainly fewer spots that could or should be improved considering the cost than most teams, but there are definitely some areas that can be improved and we've talked about those for awhile now. The Cubs can get by and win this division without any further improvements. No doubt about that. Assuming the core players stay healthy anyway. As for Rich Harden, and this has been said several times before, this is a move with October in mind and as long as he's healthy then, I don't really care what he does the next 2+ months. The better he is between now and October, or I should say, the healthier he is, the greater chance that the Cubs can run away and hide in this division and have a couple weeks at the end of the season that don't really matter.
Original Story:
View Comments (0)
