Word right now is, 1 x $7.5m, with another year at $11.5m option, presumably a vest? If it's purely Texas' option, then the market was awfullllly soft for Harden... 1 x $7.5 plus 1 x $11.5 club -- that is worse, for Harden, than 1 x $7.5.
.
=== REL is a skill, too ===
Harden, like Erik Bedard, is awesome when he's on the mound. And $7.5m is an "underpay" in absolute terms, if you expect even 100 innings out of him. (The same is true of Bedard.)
Right now, Rich Harden looks great in the Rangers' rotation -- because he doesn't have to pitch yet. Check him in July.
$7.5m doesn't capture the problemos when this sequence occurs:
1. Harden comes out of the gate as the best pitcher in the AL
2. You get used to him as your #1 (the stRangers do not have Felix)
3. He hits the DL like a bug on a windshield
It's one thing to slot an Erik Bedard in as your #2 behind a workhorse. It's another thing when you get used to him as your big gun.
.
=== Avast, Ye Lubbers ===
The past two seasons, Rich Harden has been worth almost precisely $100,000 per inning.
On average, his performances have been worth $28 million over 280 IP. He's worth $10m over 100 IP. He'd be worth $16m over 160 IP. You see where I'm going with this.
Realizing that, consider what it means that Zduriencik would not give him money for 100 innings.
.
It would be muy interesado to hear Capt Jack's reasoning, for not wanting to beat $7.5m. We've been telling you that this hombre is tough. First we hear that the M's are "adamant" about Harden (or Lackey, one of the two) and then they won't beat an offer that pays Harden for 90 innings a year, two years.
Like we sez, if you look at him wrong, Zduriencik will cut ya. Harden is another case in point.
.
=== The Price of a Gutkick, Dept. ===
At the rate he's been going, he would need to pitch only 75 innings this year, and 115 next, to justify his contract. But as you know, a pacemaker that works well 80% of the time isn't worth 80% as much as one you can count on...
Ask yourself what it would mean to the ballclub, if Felix Hernandez tore his labrum in June 2010.
Would you rather have that $10m worth of performance -- 6 weeks of Felix, followed by weeping and wailing in the night over the death of our firstborn, "there goes the pennant" from the writers, all that jazz -- or simply $10m worth of steady performance from Jo-El Pineiro?
.............
SSI loses enough arguments. It can afford to chalk this one up on its side of the scoreboard. We were quite unenthused about the DL horror show that Harden offers, and it turns out that Zduriencik was, as well.
.
=== The Only Guy In Town Who's Happy Tonight ===
I guess it's the rotodweeb in me, but I much much MUCH prefer John Lackey to Rich Harden. If this scenario steers the Mariners towards Lackey, you amigos will be awfully glad in July.
No Harden = much better chance of a John Lackey press conference.
Lackey is Felix, kiddies. Pretty much. Two of those would be neat-O.
.
=== If You Want Hi-Maintenance Ferraris ===
If I was willing to accept Rich Harden's fragility,I've got no business being worried about Erik Bedard, given a positive report from the surgeon. Erik Bedard never thought of having the health issues that Rich Harden has.
Bedard is Chris Carpenter, but Harden is Butch Henry. I wonder if you could get Bedard for like $4m. Bedard might even be a Ryan Doumit-level add to a main two-three marquee imports.
..................
Or if not Lackey, spending the money on a hitter gives us far more bankable return on our dollar. That's the Shandler LIMA plan: tons of money into the offense, and use wisdom (and defense!?) to keep the ERA low.
Cheers,
Dr D
The other way of looking at it though is that Harden only needs 70 innings to make his contract and its essentially a one-year very low risk deal.
If he pitches 140 innings like the last 2 years, hes a massive bargain. And if hes healthy for the playoffs? He could be the signing of the offseaosn.
I don't like passing on Harden for a mere $7.5mil and letting him fall to a major division rival...
Because that's what it's going to take to get him, I'm betting.
You gonna pay 5X18 for Lackey and then maybe sign ONE bat for the offense and think this team has a snowball's chance in St. Helens of competing?
From a $/WAR standpoint, he's worth $12-14m per easy ...
Haven't thought about my :- ) highest price point for John Lackey... it's pretty high, both for him and Felix. I believe in a little construct I like to call 'Stars and Scrubs.'
How about you lay out Chinese Menu Items A and B with and without Lackey -- just two 3- or 4-player FA lists (including Figgins) as you see them, and I'll choose ... I can front-page it, or you can...
Not joking about S&S. I really am going to take Lackey and Saunders/Field over Harden and Granderson.
we're doing you a kindness here. Harden's off the table. Might as well count the advantages now. :- )
...but even the As weren't comfortable going into a new season with 4 positions that have zero expectation for performance (no idea what they'll give you and not very many fallback options if the first guy fails).
The problem is...the Mariners are currently filling 4 offensive positions with ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
DH, LF, 1B, C
At the moment...if no additional FA signings are made, the Mariner line-up is something like:
RF) Ichiro!
3B) Figgins
CF) Gutierrez
2B) Lopez
1B) Carp
DH) Griffey/?
C) Moore/Johnson/?
SS) Wilson
LF) Saunders
You...the ultimate practitioner of S&S...cannot POSSIBLY be comfortable with that scenario.
So...your options are...be easily the worst offensive club in the AL in the last decade and sign Lackey...praying that Saunders, Moore and Carp all have outstanding years by their own standards?
Or trust your in-house pitching scrubs (*cough*we do have scrubs there too*cough*) and sign Branyan or N. Johnson and Jason Bay?
I'm taking the latter.
I think most of us are pretty psyched about Saunders and Tui. Don't want to add a 3rd one, though.
Question is whether the M's will even field one, even with Lackey.
Maybe he puts it all together and hits a bunch of triples. I really do not like his swing or the fact that he was blatantly and overwhelmingly overmatched in 2009. To me, Saunders is a footnote in history like Wlad.
Now...I do like Tui and I could understand someone who liked Carp (though I don't really like his bat for 1st base)...but the Figgins signing takes Tui off the 2010 board for the Mariners unless they trade Lopez...and word on the street right now is that NO ONE is interested in Lopez.
After reading that Z didn't want to match this deal, I'm a little shocked... Its very unlikely that Z will find another bargain SP on the market this offseason comparable to what Texas got with Harden.
I liked the Figgins deal, but the non-signing of Harden (who WANTED to come to Seattle and ended up signing a bargain deal with Texas) and the passing on Edwin Jackson early in the offseason are both highly questionable moves IMO.
Its going to be hard to find that #2 starter at this point without overpaying, and it makes it that much harder to contend since we're going to need to maximize our bucks here in '10.. We'll see, but this is a pretty huge blow in my confidence towards Z.
The overall picture with Z as a GM is extremely positive, but I think we might be seeing one of his weaknesses here.. He likes to "chisel".. Sometimes it works to his benefit, but at times he may end up missing a huge opportunity here and there. (We've also heard of his 'chiseling' in rumored contract negotiations with Felix and Branyan.)
Until he likes a player and then he GRRRRABS him.
I do like the decisiveness part of the way Zduriencik went after Figgins, Wilson, and Gutierrez like a pit bull.
But yeah, if he's not hot on a guy, the offers seemingly can drop into the kind-of-insulting range...
when he pitches, and would worry about his replacement when he's not on the mound. He has shown no ability to stay on the field. If he makes his contract after 10 starts (very dubious about that) where are you at? The team that won 80% of his starts is now counting on a 50% success rate for 25 more?
His fit would have been in Seattle and I don't like the move in Texas where he will be counted on in the top of the rotation. That said, I think that the gamble of taking him makes sense only when we have decided that we go for it this season. Without some big gains offensively, this team isn't going to compete for the pennant. Maybe we can do both, but it seems like the big payroll move will be for some hitting.
Now a situation that would gain us some on this front is moving Silva. I like the idea of moving him to someone like Houston who would likely love to save some Carlos Lee money. Same with the Cubs and Soriano. Both teams take on Silva, and in Chicago's case send some more money back this way. Moves like the above might free up enough payroll to sign Lackey and provide the RH sock to go along with whomever we end up with at 1b, and DH.
Note: The above players would make the transition quickly to full time DH.
Let me clarify. Lackey is an All-Star, or at least it wouldn't be a surprise for him to make the team in '10. However, over the next 5 years I see his performance being closer to Aaron Sele in '01 than Freddie Garcia '01. Assuming injuries aren't an issue, he peaks as a low-level All-Star and bottoms out at league average.
The reason I liked Harden and don't like Lackey is two fold. One is the money. If Harden misses the year to injury it doesn't impact your planning moving forward, not true with the contract Lackey gets. Two is the talent. Lackey has above average stuff, above average command, and above average pitchability. I think he will soon have league average stuff and league average command due to the wear and tear of 1500 innings in the bigs. This is why he's not a star in my book. He can't make up for the inevitable fall in stuff with improved command and pitchability.
By the way, I put my chances of being wrong with the Lackey projection at 50/50.
Harden just made a lot more sense. One year bargain deal, more ability then Lackey, and 140 IPs the last two years. Very low risk, very high reward.
Z is going to have to make up for this one.
that IMHO Harden makes very LITTLE sense for the 2010 M's. I do not think it is a stretch to all agree that we will probably NOT win the world series in 2010. I am not conceding right this moment mind you, I am just saying the likely hood is that right now we are still in foundation building mode. So why do we need a one year rental, who may or may not be a big bargain, who next year will be in the same exact boat as he is currently in (even if he pitches 250 innings in 2010 Harden next year at this time will still just be a highly volatile high upside, high injury risk signing, just like he is now). If he pitches well he declines the option and is looking for a big contract (which we wont want to give him because he is still a huge injury risk, and would then no longer be a bargain), if he gets hurt or pitches poorly then the team declines the option and he is looking for employment elsewhere. In the end you are still hoping against hope for a one year wonder type of year where he leads you to the promised land, which has very small odds of happening. No foundation building at all.
At least with a Bedard type of injury risk signing if he proves himself recovered from his surgeries then you can feel better about extending him out for several more years when you are more likely to be making a true WS run.
Bottom line I guess is what is the upside to letting Harden use us to try and prove his health? Most likely result if he does prove his health is we get a worse draft pick (but not a WS ring) and he gets to go look for big time FA money that we will either not pay, or if we do pay will no longer be the big bargain you are hoping for now. In the end these injury risk signings don't actually make that much sense unless you are a cash poor team who needs that one roll of the dice pitcher to put you in serious contention for the WS.
In that sense, whats the point of signing Figgins or any FA? The Ms should just play the kids, or trade for some kids. I wouldn't be opposed to that either, but clearly Z thinks we can contend.
I think the Ms do have a shot at contending, but they really had their work cut out for them this offseason. A cheap guy with upside like Harden was neccesarry for a dream season IMO. I suppose there are still guys like Sheets and Harang on a discount, etc. I just feel like this might have been a missed opportunity.
the Figgins deal is that it is 5 years long and he should still be playing well when we expect to seriously contend for a WS in 2012 and 2013 (maybe even outside chance of 2011).
Harden will either be gone, or very expensive (and still a huge injury risk) by the time we are in serious contention (iow past this next year)
The bulk of Figgins' value is going to be in those first 2-3 years. I can't see Z signing a guy like Figgins in FA if he wasn't trying to contend.
I'd also argue that Harden's long-term value was irrelevant. He signed a one-year guy with a club option. If you like him hes back in '11, if not hes a bargain in '10 and hes gone.