A brief explanation (and I'll try to keep it simple): Teams that offer their free agents salary arbitration get Draft picks in return if the player signs elsewhere, and the number of picks is based on the player's rating. To get compensation, a team must offer arbitration to its Type A or B free agent and have that player either reject arbitration or sign before the deadline to reject the said arbitration.
The Elias Sports Bureau determines the designations based on statistical study. Gregg is a Type A free agent, Harden is Type B. Johnson and Fox are non-compensatory. So, if the Cubs did offer arbitration to Gregg and another team signed him, the Cubs could get two Draft picks. One would be a first-round pick from the signing team (if the team's pick is below the first 15 picks in the Draft) and a supplemental pick. The supplemental pick is a player taken between the first and second rounds.
If the signing team has a pick in the first 15 slots, the team that loses the free agent will get the signing team's second-round selection and the sandwich pick.A Type B free agent like Harden would be worth one Draft pick to the Cubs if he signs with another team. That pick is a supplemental pick.
I'm not quite sure how Gregg rates Type A and Harden Type B, but there it is. The Cubs clearly don't want Gregg back, so they won't offer arb even though two picks would come in return, because he'd likely accept and the Cubs would be stuck with him. Chad Fox, obviously, will likely retire. Since Reed Johnson is non-compensatory, it makes no sense to offer him arb -- if the Cubs want him back, they can negotiate with him as a complete free agent.
The official deadline is tomorrow; we'll know more by then.
0 recs | 148 comments
If the price was right
I would still take Harden back. I know we probably don’t have salary to pay him but when he’s good, he’s really good.
mrcubsfan - November 30, 2009
why not offer him arbitration?
hive him how much you want to pay him and if he doesn’t accept, he get a draft pick
Chanman25 - November 30, 2009
the problem is if does accept
and then the Cubs are in a terrible bind with no payroll flexibility to do anything the rest of the offseason. The comparison I always make is to the Kevin Millwood to Philly trade ages ago – Maddux surprised the Braves by accepting arb that year, and the Braves had already made FA moves, limiting their budget. Thus, they were forced to dump another piece for junk (Johnny Estrada).
I’d love to keep Harden, or get a supplemental pick, but considering the situation, I’m fine with the decision.
toonsterwu - November 30, 2009
Agreed - again, I think this is what the Cubs are thinking, too.
daver - November 30, 2009
Well said!
MPH73 - November 30, 2009
toonster, I know we went through this before but just for the record, Estrada wasn't exactly junk
yes, he probably exceeded expectations, but it wasn’t exactly a shot in the dark either. Braves were definitely forced into making a trade, but they certainly did their homework and made the best of it.
ballhawk - November 30, 2009
How much arb $$ are we talking about here for Harden?
Is it $10 million? $12?
It seems like, if he’s worth 3 or so wins in WAR, then that’s not a terrible gamble if we lose an arb battle over $12 million.
Maybe there’s more to the story than meets the eye. Maybe the Cubs know something about his health that’s not worth dropping cash as a gamble over a type B compensation.
IowaCubs- - November 30, 2009
he's worth it...
… if thats your need and you have the money. But $10M to him means $10M less to spend on bigger needs.
dmlichte - November 30, 2009
It might be $12 million
but if Hendry can only afford $5 million for that spot then it is a problem. As someone mentioned elsewhere in this post, Harden could be the first casualty of Hendry’s free spending ways. For example, Hendry needs over $6 million just to cover the increase in Soriano’s and Dempster’s contracts. There is another $1 million plus for Fukudome and so on.
rlpete - November 30, 2009
So what?
You’d have one of the most talented pitchers in the league signed to a contract that’s below market value. The Cubs would be able to trade him and get something in return that’s probably even better than the compensation pick they’ll get if another team signs him.
It’s entirely possible that the Cubs are declining his option because of injury/durability concerns. But not wanting him on the roster for “financial reasons” is sheer madness. He’s a bargain.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - December 1, 2009
A bargain?
You have no idea what he might get in arbitration. How an unknown salary is a bargain makes no sense to me.
rlpete - December 1, 2009
unless I'm mistaken
if a player agrees to arbitration, he can’t be traded until June 15th, unless said player gives written consent. I’m pretty sure of that rule because of all the issues with some Type A FA’s last year unable to find jobs for quite awhile due to the potential draft pick compensation causing interested teams to back off. I think the player’s union has to sign off on that, and considering some of the issues the union will be grappling with in the near future, I’m not sure they’d readily agree.
Let’s say he goes to arbitration. Chances are high that he’d get anywhere from 8-10 million. From an overall value perspective, that really isn’t a bargain. It’s about equal value for his worth. Right now, the Cubs really only have 8-10 million to work with (payroll is only supposed to be at 140-145, and recent spec seems to put it closer to 140). When you factor in arbitration cases, along with MB’s salary being on the books for now, the Cubs are, in a best case scenario, at around 135, and it could be closer to 140 (hence why all the talk about dollar for dollar moves for Hendry).
Let’s say I’m wrong about the trade rule for now. Okay, you sign him, and you are over. You have to cut costs. Teams know that. Furthermore, right now, rumors suggest Harden might get only around 6 million on the open market (perhaps with incentives, I think that 6 mil spec involved the Mariners). So, the Cubs would likely have to eat a decent amount of money to move him (at least 4 mil, if not more if teams think the Cubs have to dump him to address other areas).
Okay, let’s say I’m right on the trade rule. Then, you are at your limit financially without addressing anything on the roster. Certainly, it’s fair to question if the Grabow contract, but that’s done with. How do you create the financial room to make other moves? It’d be nice if Ricketts would bump payroll some more (140ish is actually a small bump) but that seems unlikely. Now certainly, an argument could be made that perhaps Harden in the rotation, with say, Fuld in CF, might be a better combination than say, Marshall and FA CF. That said, much as I think starting Fuld wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world, there’s little to no chance of that happening. So the Cubs would either have to get lucky in a MB trade and have a team take on more salary than currently expected, or we’d have to move another contract. And let’s face it, there’s very few moveable assets on our roster that can clear enough payroll, and most of the options would create a bigger hole.
At the end of the day, I’m sure there are injury/durability concerns, but the finances don’t add up enough right now for the Cubs to take that chance on a luxury. Would I love to have Harden back? Sure. His xFIP was a solid 3.7 last year. I don’t see any huge concerns with his statistics, so I think he could have a big year. The 2008 run with us was a bit of a mirage, as he was never going to maintain a .229 BABIP, but if healthy, he’s still a great pitcher. Personally, I would’ve rather seen them dump Grabow, find a cheap 1 or 2 million FA to pair with Fuld in CF, and keep Harden. I’d be fine gambling on Fuld as the starting CF, as I’ve expressed before, but that simply won’t happen, and we are just extremely limited financially as of right now.
toonsterwu - December 1, 2009
Rec'd.
This makes a lot of sense, unfortunately enough.
daver - December 1, 2009
First to say goodbye to Gregg
Good riddance. Why you are a type A I’ll never know
I’d like to see Harden back but there are more pressing issues and he will be too costly and for too many years
RJ is welcomed back with open arms in my eyes
Chad Fox, do Hendry a favor and retire
Musicdude10 - November 30, 2009
I'm guessing Gregg is a Type A
because of the saves stat.
DGU - November 30, 2009
I bet the forumula will be changed in the next CBA
since it has hurt players in recent years by not ranking them according to their value. This is due to the stats formula being used is outdated.
cowsarecool220 - November 30, 2009
Harden and arb again
I didn’t get the impression that Harden would get anything beyond a 1 year deal in arbitration and I think one year would come without any no trade provisions. I’m no student of arbitrations rules, obviously. Unless the Cubs have no flexibility at all in the budget plans, or unless they think this is damaging to a player’s career, then I don’t see why they wouldn’t offer Harden arb. If Harden wants to sign elsewhere, the Cubs get the pick. I do think they could use his services, especially with Lilly not expected to start the season.
AboutTheCubs - November 30, 2009
The Cubs have very little flexibility in their budget.
Don’t forget they have quite a few arbitraition eligible players. That leaves a little more uncertianty at this point to an already tight budget.
cowsarecool220 - November 30, 2009
Plus the increased money owed in backloaded contracts.
rlpete - November 30, 2009
meh, I wish we could have held on to Harden
oh well..
Chanman25 - November 30, 2009
So whose replaces him
I think Marshalls due
Chanman25 - November 30, 2009
early indications
seem to suggest that he’ll get a shot, along with maybe Gorzelanny. I wouldn’t be surprise to see the Cubs sign a cheap veteran FA late.
toonsterwu - November 30, 2009
There may be more available after the non-tender deadline, too.
Al Yellon - November 30, 2009
That's a scary thought
Hopefully, we’ll see the Marshall version of ’07-08.
propheteer - December 1, 2009
I sense a flood of non-tenders this year
due to the general state of the economy, and the fact that teams will try to pare down their huge payrolls a little this year.
CubFanSince1970 - November 30, 2009
boy
this is a terrible move by the Cubs. Worst case you get Harden on a one year deal which is exactly the kind of deal you want with a pitcher like him.
CalCalender - November 30, 2009
Except a one year deal
In which Harden makes 8-10 million could be a budget buster and the Cubs are probably worried that Harden is just too unreliable to bother. Personally I think it is very unlikely he would accept but a sandwich round prospect may not be worth the risk.
Doggie Stalker - November 30, 2009
Agreed...
…though Rich may well accept because he feels comfortable with the conditioning program the Cubs had him on and another season of 26 starts (or so) would put him in a better position in 2011.
daver - November 30, 2009
It's about value
Harden was a 1.8 WAR player last year in season filled with flukey outcomes. He is usually a 3-4 WAR player. If you can get 3-4 on a 1 year deal you do it. You find room in the budget if you want to win.
Or you get draft picks. This is a no brainer for the Cubs and they failed big time.
CalCalender - November 30, 2009
To be clear, I was agreeing with her explanation...
…of why the Cubs probably won’t offer Rich arbitration not necessarily with their justification for doing so.
daver - November 30, 2009
The problem is the room isn't there
Let’s say Harden accepts the 1 year offer (a strong likelihood, as it may be more than he could command on the open market, based on early rumors, along with the fact that he wants to reestablish his value). The Cubs, all of a sudden, don’t have any financial flexibility the rest of the offseason. Sure, you can find room for that, but that means dumping, say, Derrek Lee (I mean, look at our tradeable assets), and creating another hole that needs to be filled on a limited buget, while also probably dumping a player without getting much in return. Short of it is, the Cubs would actually create a bigger hole if Harden accepted.
toonsterwu - November 30, 2009
I'm not sure that dumping Derrek Lee...
would be the logical result of retaining Harden. I think it would be more likely that the Cubs would just decide to not make any other moves and go with the team they’ve got, whether or not they have “holes” they’d like to fill.
CubsWin!Oregon - November 30, 2009
Wrong
The contract length means nothing. Hendry can’t afford him. He has to get money for backloaded contracts, arbitration increases, the Bradley debacle, etc.
rlpete - November 30, 2009
its a smart move
arb CANNOT take current economics into consideration, meaning that arb will be jacked up for Harden, and it owuld not be wise for the Cucs to offer it. White Sox did the same last off season with their arb eligible for that exact reason
Cubbie-Tim - November 30, 2009
♪♫ Go Cucs, go! Go Cucs, go! Hey, Chicago, whaddya say... ♪♫
daver - December 1, 2009
You may be at the wrong web site.
N Oakley - December 1, 2009
Wow
I figured they would offer Harden arbitration.
Ace Venom - November 30, 2009
I just don't get this
WHat’s the downside of offering arbitration to Harden? Are the Cubs that dead set to get rid of him? Like others have said, if he accepts, we get him on a 1 year contract, which is a good thing with Harden. If he doesn’t accept, we get a draft pick. Are the Cubs afraid that if he accepts, the arbitration number will be that high? IF thats the case, we are in a heap of trouble with these new owners being penny pinchers.
kaseyi - November 30, 2009
I agree...dont see the downside.
Does anyone know what the Arb $ would be?
JB 23 - November 30, 2009
I don't think this is about money
so much as not wanting to go through another Wood/Prior situation where you have a guy you can’t rely on and it makes it harder to set up the rotation. Also keep in mind the Cubs have a policy of not going to arbitration which can certainly be frustrating but I do think it makes it easier to sign players.
Doggie Stalker - November 30, 2009
Yeah, but the Cubs have never really relied on Harden...
…the way they relied (or wanted to rely) on Prior and Wood.
daver - November 30, 2009
They had better rotation
so he was not counted on as the ace but his problems have certainly contributed to Cubs failure while he has been on the team.
Doggie Stalker - November 30, 2009
Have they, though?
I mean, he helped the ‘08 team make the postseason and pitched relatively well in the one playoff game in which he appeared. He definitely had a down ’09 (for him), but lack of run scoring seemed like a much larger problem than Harden’s drop in production.
daver - November 30, 2009
If he accepts arbitration his 1-year-deal will likely be at over market value
based on career stats. meaning they’ll end up being forced to pay a lot of money for a guy they KINDA want, money which can’t fill other holes
RightFieldSucks - November 30, 2009
i bet above market rate
since arb cannot take current economics into consideration, meaning that the rate for non arb FA likely is less than arb
Cubbie-Tim - November 30, 2009
Penny pinchers?
How do you know? Outside of the Yankees all teams have salary caps. The Red Sox had to bow out of the Texiera bidding last year because they couldn’t afford it.
This is the same argument when people were saying how evil Zell was when he wouldn’t let Hendry add someone mid-season last year.
How much money is enough? 140 million or whatever the total is a lot of money. Just because Hendry blew a lot of it, doesn’t mean he now gets an unlimited budget.
rlpete - November 30, 2009
Not surprised at all.
Since the season ended, there’s been little to no indication that the Cubs would offer Harden arbitration. I think it’s a shame because he’s a great pitcher who appears to have gotten his injury issues under control with the team. But it appears management intends to use the money it would take to re-sign Rich elsewhere.
daver - November 30, 2009
" gotten his injury issues under control" ?
I don’t think so. Harden is amazing when he is on but even beyond constantly having to baby him you watch him implode and start walking and serving up hits. At some point it may just be too much of a risk.
Doggie Stalker - November 30, 2009
He made 26 starts and pitched 141 innings.
For Rich Harden, I’d say that’s keeping his injury issues under control. He’ll probably never be a 32 starts, 200+ innings guy. You live with the shortened workload because his strikeout numbers are awe-inspiring and he could be a great weapon in the postseason. He did have problems with walks and home runs this past season, but bad luck probably played some role in all the long balls.
daver - November 30, 2009
A great weapon in the postseason?
You mean, like in game 3 of the 2008 NLDS after his dominant regular season?
I’m just not convinced.
Al Yellon - November 30, 2009
Kind of a small sample, don't you think?
daver - November 30, 2009
Sure, but you cited....
… him being a great weapon in the postseason as a reason to keep him. He failed last year, even after having a GOOD year with the Cubs.
Al Yellon - November 30, 2009
Well, I said "he could be a great weapon in the postseason."
And I’m basing that on his capacity to strike out batters in droves and keep the ball out of play. His postseason experience is so small, I’m not sure there’s much point in trying to read too much into it. Honestly, the way the ‘08 Cubs were scoring runs in the playoffs, something tells me Rich could have pitched 7 innings of shutout ball and they still would’ve lost 2-0 in the late innings.
daver - November 30, 2009
And people would have blamed Piniella years later for taking him out . . . .
Shanghai Badger - November 30, 2009
...
daver - November 30, 2009
ha!
Emelie - November 30, 2009
He only the pressure of the world on his shoulders...
…He certainly didn’t pitch well that night but the pressure was incalculable and the offense was again no where to be found. I am trying not to make an excuse for him here, but that is not the best example IMO.
JB 23 - November 30, 2009
Couldn't the same be said for most if not all the 2008 Cubs?
ballhawk - November 30, 2009
Maybe the Cubs don't want the draft pick
Seriously… If the Cubs have a very strict budget and/or are looking for every few hundred thousand dollars to make each move, an additional two draft picks before the 2nd round may be substantial. Teams have done this before, not offering arbitration to guys they know will sign elsewhere (SF Giants most notably).
dmlichte - November 30, 2009
Note that Harden would bring only one pick.
Gregg would bring two, but there’s no way the Cubs want him back.
Al Yellon - November 30, 2009
I stand corrected...
… but still, don’t think the Cubs want to spend the extra money.
dmlichte - November 30, 2009
I think the money for a first round sandwich player
isn’t significant enough to keep us from making the offer. You can find someone cheap at that point in the draft it that’s really an issue.
DGU - November 30, 2009
Harden
this makes the non-trade to the twins make even less sense. I guess Hendry really thought they were still in it.
mjk83 - November 30, 2009
We don't know what Minnesota was offering
But if it was just a warm body, why bother?
salparadise23 - November 30, 2009
Not necessarily
Sometimes you say “No” out of principle when you know you’ll be dealing with that GM again someday.
DGU - November 30, 2009
Exactly, DGU.
On a related note, you also don’t lowball a pitcher of Harden’s caliber, especially if you want to retain a good relationship with his agent.
As widely noted, when Harden’s good he’s very good, but do you really want to keep someone who, as often as not, is going to give you five innings? I don’t.
leothelip - November 30, 2009
this is a situation ...
where we need to hope that Hendry read the market and figured there was a very good chance Harden would accept arbitration, get $10 million for next year and screw up the team’s remaining financial flexibility.
I’m not a huge Harden fan, but I can see where this move could backfire.
elgato - November 30, 2009
I was thinking the same thing.
I don’t know how I feel about this move. I know Harden is the type of pitcher that number one, is always injury prone, and number two, even when healthy, if he doesn’t have his good stuff he can easily exceed 100 pitches by the fifth inning, which taxes the bullpen. However, when he’s on, he can be dominant. He’s basically the Cubs #4 starter, so how much would he really be able to make on arbitration? I don’t see the Cubs going out and acquiring another, so this basically puts Randy Wells as the #4 guy, and we can all just hope he doesn’t fall into a Rich Hill-Geovany Soto type sophomore slump. And I guess it means we are going with one of the in-house young guys for the number 5 starter slot. Even if it cost a little bit of money, I was pretty comfortable with a rotation of Z, Dempster, Lilly, Harden, and Wells. Now our 4 and 5 guys are Wells and a big ? Let’s hope for the best, but I have a bad feeling we are in for another Jason Marquis-type situation here.
ctcoff99 - November 30, 2009
Agreed.
chilango2 - November 30, 2009
I would've loved to keep Harden, or get a draft pick, but
IMO, this is the right move. Simply put, the Cubs can’t risk their limited payroll flexibility to keep a luxury, which is what Harden is right now. Early indications suggest that Harden probably won’t get what he could’ve gotten in arbitration (6/7 million have been floated around as possible for Harden, IIRC). Add in that Harden wants to reestablish his value and that he liked playing here, and he might’ve accepted arbitration. The problem is, if he accepts, the Cubs have no room to make changes. Actually, based on some spec right now, Hendry could be over the payroll if Harden accepted arb. Subsequently, to clear said room, they would have to dump a player. Look at our tradeable assets – there’s really few guys. Would you dump a Derrek Lee to make room for Harden? Furthermore, dumping a player would mean creating another hole to address.
Sure, some may view this as a worst case scenario, but a GM should be prepared for that. Furthermore, it seems fairly possible to me. As much as I would like to have Harden back, or pick up a pick, I’m fine with this move. Turn the page and move on.
toonsterwu - November 30, 2009
Rec'd
and it’s worth my adding – as I used to be against the failure to offer arb in most cases, even in Bob Howry’s case – that the Cubs may be looking at Harden’s medical records and just not convinced he’ll pitch well next year. In general, you can argue that Harden on a one year deal is exactly what you want, but more specifically, the Cubs may know something about this next year that none of us can know.
DGU - November 30, 2009
Both rec'd.
Al Yellon - November 30, 2009
i think this also makes sense in light
of the increasing possibility that Ricketts will be forced to eat $18M of MB’s contract.
Andronicus - November 30, 2009
Where did you get that figure?
Just guessing? Or any rumors? I haven’t heard a specific number — yet.
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
just a guess...i think a bad contract swap is unlikely
Andronicus - December 1, 2009
Perhaps not.
It would seem to be the most logical way to deal with this situation, if you’re going to get anyone else to take him, why not take some money back from the other guy?
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
Yes, it's very logical until you look at specific candidates...
The least insane targets are Burrell and Castillo and i’m not convinced either one is likely. Burrell is a DH and essentially useless in the NL (flipping him to an AL team is highly unlikely with a saturated DH market) . The salaries match up, but shelling out $10M for a guy to sit on the bench seems like an awful PR move for Hendry and the new ownership. This also assumes TB has little hope Burrell can rebound and that they believe MB will change his attitude. Castillo makes sense for the Cubs, but i think even the Mets are smart enough to do this math: MB + NYC = epic meltdown.
Andronicus - December 1, 2009
I agree with you re: Burrell....
… but it seems a better choice than having Bradley around.
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
Plus, the Mets were so snakebit by injuries last season...
…they probably don’t want to touch a guy with Milton’s injury history. It’s a shame because it looks like he could fill a need for them in left field.
daver - December 1, 2009
toonsterwu
What do you think the chances are that Jay Jackson gets a shot at the rotation this year? Or is he still a year or so away?
nick_reny - November 30, 2009
rotation shot this year?
Out of the gate, probably not. He’ll start in the minors, at either AA/AAA. He has to iron out his mechanics. The delivery’s fine, but he doesn’t use his lower body enough and is more of a thrower with good stuff than a pitcher with good stuff, and that’s probably the root cause for the control problems. It’s not an issue that I am significantly worried about … yet, considering that he’s still relatively new to full time pitching, and considering his raw athleticism. That said, long run, he has to iron it out. Ironing it out could get him better movement on his fb, and there’s a chance that it offers a bit more tick on the fb as well.
Could I see a situation where, if he has a strong start, that he makes the rotation if our 5th starter struggles? Perhaps. That said, with innings as a potential concern, my best guess for this year, assuming all goes well, is that he may get called up to fill in the pen if he shows he’s ready, where he could really let it rip (out of the pen, he’s tossed in the mid-upper 90’s on the fb with a plus breaking ball).
toonsterwu - December 1, 2009
Alright
Thanks
nick_reny - December 1, 2009
Another thing to consider is...
that after we non-tender him, he could still come back and sign a more favorable contract with the Cubs for say $4-5m on a one year deal.
He probably won’t sign for that low on a one-year deal, but there is always that possibility.
CubFanSince1970 - November 30, 2009
Why did the Cubs...
allow Harden to shut himself down at the end of the year if they didn’t have any future plans for him? Makes no sense.
kanderber - November 30, 2009
Did he shut himself down or did the team shut him down?
Or was it a mutual decision?
daver - November 30, 2009
It sounded, from what we heard at the time, the decision was mutual.
Al Yellon - November 30, 2009
IIRC...
Harden asked the Cubs if he could not pitch again for the year. They granted his request.
kanderber - November 30, 2009
I don't see how it makes a difference
The season was over at that point anyways.
salparadise23 - November 30, 2009
Hendry...
…has a history of letting a player make the call on these things, especially with the remaining games being meaningless. It was also a good opportunity to see other guys pitch.
MPH73 - November 30, 2009
The first casulty...
…of Hendry’s poor contract decisions. I cannot not see Harden taking a big pay cut from the Cubs when there’s a sure-fire chance another team will give him 2-and-an-option for $6-7M a year.
And after making $13M this up-coming season I feel Ted Lilly will be the domino to fall this time next year.
blackhawk24 - November 30, 2009
I actually think it would be a good move to not extend Teddy.
Lilly has had his best years of his career as a Cub as he’s in the prime of his career. However, Teddy is getting to the age where pitchers start to decline. It seems like pitchers can go downhill quickly and I’d be very cautious about extending a pitcher who’s going to be 34 in January.
cowsarecool220 - November 30, 2009
No way...
…Harden takes any discount to stay with the Cubs, and he is as good as gone.
Good point on Lilly, he is aging and that is starting to show up with the recent injuries we have seen. Ted has been “sneaky” quick with his fastball and it has kept hitters honest. When he loses just a little bit on his heater, he will start to get hit hard.
MPH73 - November 30, 2009
In
theese five drafts since 2006 and counting next year 2010, the Cubs will have only one extra pick, which was a sandwich pick in 2007, which we took Donaldson who was the key player in the Harden deal according to Billy Beane in article I once read.
Slamdog - November 30, 2009
A big reason for that is
the Cubs have resigned their own front-line players. In recent year’s they’ve signed, Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Carlos Zambrano and Ryan Dempster.
cowsarecool220 - November 30, 2009
I have nothing against Chad Fox,
but his Cubs career needs to finally end. I’m fine with Harden going, and hope they do keep Reed Johnson. Good guy to have around, hopefully he can stay healthier this year.
slocs55 - November 30, 2009
Agree...
…but if ownership hadn’t changed, I wouldn’t have been surprised to see Hendry bring Fox back again.
MPH73 - November 30, 2009
Goodbye, Kevin "Turtle from Entourage" Gregg.
I always disliked you. Leave.
dtpollitt - November 30, 2009
from what I've read here...
…it seems to me like the Cubs already know they will probably eat MB’s contract and Harden is the guy they would “sacrifice” .
cooliogirl47 - November 30, 2009
Can anyone succinctly explain why Gregg is Type A and Harden only a B?
I’m pretty sure they assign values based on the previous TWO years of stats, not just one. But aside from ERA, Gregg’s 2008 wasn’t that much different than 2009. In other words, not very worthy. So I’m not seeing where the “A” comes from, unless they just totally overvalue the Save stat and not look at anything else. I expect that mentality out of regular fans, but not out of some well-established statistical-based league-wide function.
Likewise, Harden’s 2008 was a lot better than 2009, and 2009 wasn’t all that bad to begin with. And yet he still only grades out as a “B”?
Be that as it may, I’m sure this entered the Cubs thinking as well. If Harden had been an “A” and thus worth two picks in return, Cubs might have been more inclined to offer arb and possibly deal with the payroll flexibility issue later. But for just one pick? Nah….
ballhawk - November 30, 2009
I think you may be underrating how important saves are to some teams.
Established closers are making big bucks on the free agent market. Why, in the Cubs’ case, did they decide to give up Michael Wuertz, who is better than Kevin Gregg in nearly every statistical category that isn’t saves?
DGU - November 30, 2009
er - completing my thought...
why give up on Wuertz, but trade for Gregg?
DGU - November 30, 2009
Losing Wuertz really huertz.
daver - November 30, 2009
actually, I was more wondering why Harden is only a "B" when Gregg is an "A"
I realize it’s apples (starters) to oranges (relievers) but it would seem that over a two year period Harden was clearly better than Gregg, from both a statistical sense and gut-feel sense.
ballhawk - November 30, 2009
Here's a good explanation:
LINK
cowsarecool220 - November 30, 2009
Interestingly
Type A status would make him more likely to accept the Cubs arb offer since teams would be less willing to pay him $$ and give up their first round pick.
If the Cubs aren’t offering him arb as a type B, I bet him being a type A wouldn’t change their minds much.
Cubinator - November 30, 2009
Good move. Get out.
Worf - November 30, 2009
A sandwich pick
would have been nice, but recent history is not on the Cubs side when it comes to developing players from the amateur draft. So how much are the Cubs really giving up here?
I’ll miss Harden, though I understand why this move is being made. I think, for me, this move just highlights the number of other horrible contracts that will be strangling the Cubs for a little while. I’m not upset with this move, just the general position of the Cubs payroll.
Cubinator - November 30, 2009
Is it pretty much certain...
…that Harden won’t be back?
TheHawkRules - November 30, 2009
bye bye bullpen killer
jesus christos - November 30, 2009
To answer this question
1) There’s a penalty for time on the DL in the equation to determine free agent type. Harden’s had a lot of that, which is why he can be one of the best pitchers in baseball and still be a Type B.
2) Saves and Wins. As DGU noted above, the equation to determine free agent status counts saves, something Gregg actually has gotten a lot of in the last couple years. It also uses wins, and Harden’s frequent DL trips and short outings have left him short of (he only has 50 career wins.)
Here’s a rundown of the stats used for pitchers, per Keith Law:
Wreckard - November 30, 2009
So a RP gets points for saves
but doesn’t lose points for Blown Saves. So a reliever who’s out there every day, gets 40 saves and blows 20, gets more points than one who’s 35 for 35.
ChipSet - December 1, 2009
Yes, assuming everything else is equal
In fact, although losses count against starters they don’t count against relievers.
It’s s a pretty dumb system.
Wreckard - December 1, 2009
Harden was the Cubs #5 starter last year...
if you look at the statistics…
And to pay a #5 starter the estimated $10 million he’ll likely get in an arbitration avoiding deal is not smart.
Do I think he’d be the fifth best starter if he was on the team in 2010? No…he’d likely be better than at least Wells. But the point is, the Cubs have 4 other guys that have pitched pretty well, and starting pitching isn’t really a weak point for this club.
It is smart to look for a cheaper option to fill the #5 starter spot.
doc_blume - November 30, 2009
True that.
Harden in total was merely average at best. He still had a few amazing starts, but didn’t put together a season worthy of $10M in salary allocation.
I’m not saying Marquis can hold Harden’s supporter, but compare Marquis’ 2008 to Harden’s 2009.
2008 Marquis: 11-9, starting 28 games, 167 IP, 4.53 ERA.
2009 Harden: 9-9, starting 26 games, 141 IP, 4.09 ERA.
Marquis wasn’t good enough to keep on the roster and the Cubs still have some Marquis cost on the 2010 payroll in the form of $500,000 owed Vizcaino. However, some of the same people who hated Marquis because a 5th starter shouldn’t be paid what Hendry paid Marquis want to pay Harden $10M to fill what is essentially a 5th starter role? I don’t understand.
N Oakley - December 1, 2009
Eh, I'm not really buying this.
To me, Rich Harden defies categorization – including calling him a No. 5 starter. He was more like a wild card starter – at times the No. 3, at other times No. 4, but never really a No. 5. And, seriously, do we really want to compare Rich Harden to Jason Marquis? Because the results aren’t pretty. The only advantage Jason has over Rich is durability and innings pitched.
daver - December 1, 2009
My comparison is in lack of angst.
Marquis was a bum as a .500 pitcher with a big contract. Harden is wanted for a big contract and his recent results were, in total, similar.
Rich is an infinitely more talented pitcher, but as a luxury starter on a cash strapped team, there isn’t room.
N Oakley - December 1, 2009
Yeah, when all is said and done, I think your last sentence is the bottom line.
daver - December 1, 2009
Cubs have a brewing pitching crisis
What we had better damned well wake up to is the fact that there are HOLES in the starting rotation and bullpen.
BLou - November 30, 2009
ballhawk - November 30, 2009
You do realize we have an entire offseason, right?
Ace Venom - November 30, 2009
Been wondering when the automatic falling sky alert system would kick in.
Cubs pithing will be fine if they can score RUNS. 4/5 of the pitching staff remains in place. Harden was a luxury, and a questionable one at that.
drewishdrewid - December 1, 2009 via mobile
Correct.
The 2009 team would have won many more games if they could have hit. They scored over 100 fewer runs than the 2008 version.
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
What I would do if I were the Cubs...
If I am the Cubs, here’s what I do-
I meet with Harden and tell him we are offering him arbitration.
I tell him that if he is with the Cubs, he will be used exclusively as a reliever.
He will get the chance to close, but, he will most likely be used as the 8th inning guy.
He will not get a chance to pitch in the rotation, because the Cubs do not need a starter who generally goes five innings a start.
I do think Harden would make an excellent reliever, but there is almost no chance he accepts because his opportunity for a big payday as a reliever. If he does accept, he gets his payday and if he doesn’t work out as a reliever, the Cubs deal him shortly after the season starts.
Ross - November 30, 2009
What you say ...
I agree with Ross on the potential usage of Harden as a set-up/closer; that’s one reason why the signing of Grabow was a bit surprising, given the money situation
-unless, of course, Grabow already is designated to be part of a trade. I think he’d take an offer of $5 Mil plus a bunch of incentives (150 IP or 50 Games covers Harden either way), and if things don’t work out, then trade him before the deadline.Just like Bradley and Grabow, I think Harden’s trade value will go up as the season progresses …
HotRuta - December 1, 2009
Oakland trie to use Harden as a reliever, and he’s not capable of warming up that fast, or of pitching that often. Essentially, you’d have a reliever who could go every five days.
Besides, if you make him a reliever, you still have to come up with another starter.
drewishdrewid - December 1, 2009 via mobile
I can’t argue against that
-but then nobody thought Kerry Wood ever could be a reliever, and he did have some success there. I’m just saying that there are several possibilities for Harden, and the existence of these possibilities mitigates the risk (somewhat).I don’t have a lot of faith in Marmol these days
-this could be the same story as a lot of relievers in the Ryne Duren mold: effective, but only until batters figured out that if you kept your bat on your shoulder, you’d eventially get a walk, or at least a MUCH more hittable pitch.HotRuta - December 1, 2009
This is really, really bad news.
Either:
a.) Rich Harden’s arm is really messed up, and the Cubs know it, or…
b.) the Cubs are doing something monumentally stupid in not offering him arbitration.
There’s not much room for any other options here, and neither a. and b. are both bad news.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - December 1, 2009
and
c.) They can’t afford him because Hendry needs to cover other arbitration cases, increasing back loaded contracts and getting rid of Bradley.
And yes, c is bad news too.
rlpete - December 1, 2009
Bad news, but necessary.
As noted elsewhere in this thread, there may be some decent pitching available later in December after the non-tender deadline.
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
doh. I meant to say...
a. and b. are both bad news.
Shawn Domagal-Goldman - December 1, 2009
There is no possible way this team can be a contender with a rotation like this
Zambrano, Dempster, a rehabilitating Lilly (who was a 6 inning pitcher to begin with), Wells (a “non-prospect” a year ago who very well could be coming off a lightning in a bottle season until proven otherwise), and a suspects (Gorzelanney, Samardzija top off that list).
Add this to a bullpen which has four open slots by last my acccounting.
BLou - December 1, 2009
What’s that, you say? The trading deadline is December 2?!?
drewishdrewid - December 1, 2009 via mobile
Apparently, Opening Day is tomorrow, too.
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
Weather seems about right
Shanghai Badger - December 1, 2009
It's 53 degrees outside my window in Chicago right now.
That’s definitely warmer than it will be on Opening Day.
Al Yellon - December 1, 2009
It was a bit tough to come back inside from lunch.
Shanghai Badger - December 1, 2009
zzzzzzzzzzz
Look at the Phillies rotation prior to the Lee acquisition.
You really think the Cubs are hopeless unless they have an All-Star at every position. Well I have news for you, they won’t this year or next year or the following year or the year after that.
So you can proudly state that the Cubs seasons for 2010, 2011, 2012 and probably 2013 are already over. And while you are at it, 2014 and 2015 too.
rlpete - December 1, 2009
You're wrong
According to Back to the Future Part II, the Cubs win the World Series in 2015.
Ace Venom - December 1, 2009
Against Miami.
So we have to get the Marlins into the AL by then.
Al Yellon - December 2, 2009
And become the Gators, IRRC
Shanghai Badger - December 2, 2009
GETITDONE BUD
jesus christos - December 2, 2009
My bad
In my recent post I said Lilly was the only Cub I could remember BLou not attacking. One simple question BLou , is there ANY Cub player you actually like and think is doing a good job ?
Doggie Stalker - December 1, 2009
I would, personally, prefer to field a team of BLou's.
Managed and directed by a front office entirely composed of BLou’s as well.
AndrewJStone - December 1, 2009
I would welcome this as well...
…so much so, that I do believe my online allegiances could be swayed as well. Yes, as much as I like and respect what Al has done here, I confess – I’d be spending most of my time over at Bleed Cubbie Blou…
ballhawk - December 1, 2009
my quick math
The Cubs just gave John Grabow $3.75 million/year for 2 years and my quick math says that John Grabow (at his best) is worth somewhere between 1/5 and 1/20 of what Rich Harden is worth. So unless Harden is injured and the Cubs know it (zero return on investment), it doesn’t make much sense to not offer arbitration because Harden is a strong bet to offer a better return on investment than Grabow.
I’d much rather spend the money on Harden and his upside and try to get Grabow’s production from someone making near the league minimum than pay Grabow and try to replace Harden’s production on the cheap.
circuitclout - December 1, 2009
Please explain how you determined Grabow was worth 1/5 to 1/20 of Harden's value ?
Grabow pretty much did exactly what was expected of him, while Harden was wildly inconsistant and has a history of injury issues. Do you just generally think relievers are worth 1/5 to 1/20 of starters ?
Doggie Stalker - December 1, 2009
WAR
From 2003 to 2009 Grabow’s low in WAR is -0.1 and high is 0.5. Over the same period, Harden’s low in WAR is 0.4 and high is 4.5. I roughly guessed that Harden will post a WAR between 1 and 4 next year and Grabow between 0.0 and 0.5 and guestimated some values. It wasn’t very scientific.
circuitclout - December 1, 2009
"Money is more than a transfer of value. It's a statement of belief."
I read that quote the other day and i think it applies to this situation.
It isn’t hard to believe, taking in to account the current market, other available options, and whatever else, that Grabow will be worth $3.75 this year.
Its easy to believe that Harden won’t live up to the $10 million we’d likely end up forking over in arb.
Simple as that.
AndrewJStone - December 1, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bleed Cubbie Blue to post a comment.