I’ve poured through all the analysis I could find about the Harden deals, and I still don’t like it emotionally. But there’s a major point that I haven’t seen being made on the rational side of the ledger, so I’ll make it here. I’ll begin with a quote from the San Jose Mercury News:
Asked if dealing Harden might lead to more trades involving players such as Joe Blanton or Huston Street, Beane responded: " ‘No’ is probably the quickest answer." But he added: "I think you have to look at (possible deals) independently."
That’s a load of bull. Beane may make his deals one at a time, but that doesn’t mean he looks at his deals in isolation. He looks at them as to how it affects the team as a whole, and what kind of flexibility it gives him in the future. Which brings us to the missing point: the A’s are saving quite a bit of money in this trade over the next year and a half:
2008 (remaining)
Harden: $2.25 million
Gaudin: $0.87 million
Total: $3.00 million
2009 (estimated)
Harden: $7.00 million
Gaudin: $2.50 million
Total: $9.50 million
Combined: $12.50 million
Gallagher and Murton and Patterson will make about $1 million or so between them, which makes about $11 million or so that can be spent on something besides an extremely injury-prone starter and a mop-up man in the pen. Perhaps $4 million of it has already been spent on Michael Inoa–a younger, hopefully healther Rich Harden for the future. And perhaps the rest of that money can be spent on extending Mark Ellis or Justin Duchscherer. Perhaps you and I wouldn’t trade Harden and Gaudin for Gallagher, Patterson, Murton and Donaldson. But if you think of the deal as including Inoa plus an extra year or two of Mark Ellis, the trade looks a lot better, doesn’t it?
If you figure the A’s are unlikely to make the playoffs in 2008, and you want to load up for 2009, who would you rather have: Harden and Gaudin, or Gallagher and Ellis?
1. Yes, the Harden deal may irk some folks who think the A's were still in it for '08. But a closer look at their record gives one pause.
Going into today's action they are 50-42. However, they have already played 52 home games, and their last three before the break will also be at home (with the Angels). That will leave them just 26 home games (versus 39 road games) after the break.
They are 30-22 (.577) at home and 20-20 (.500) on the road. Let's project that out the rest of the way.
Home = 81*.577 = 46.7 (47) wins
Road = 81*.500 = 40.5 (41) wins
So, would 88 wins nail down the Wild Card? Would it catch the Angels?
Maybe Beane thought not?
2. 1 Perhaps it should be noted that 2/3 of Harden's 2008 innings were at home, as well. (And he did give up one more run on the road than at home.)
3. While I'm always in favor of Beane spending whatever budget the owners grant him as wisely as possible, I'm having a hard time getting excited about cost savings as the upside to a trade that, at least in the short term, seems to weaken the team. Major league payroll was already down about $25 million compared to last year, which suggests that there was already ample money in the budget to sign Inoa, and maybe keep Ellis around.
My first thought about what this trade would mean for Ellis was, in fact, exactly the opposite of yours: it seems likely to me that Eric Patterson will be the starting shortstop for the 2009 A's. I sure hope that I'm wrong and you're right on that point.