PDA

View Full Version : And now for something completely different (Harang)



jojo
02-07-2007, 12:42 PM
First, locking up Harang was a good move and the contract that it took to get it done is a good one for the Reds. A big high-five to all involved.

But now, here's something that many may not have considered:

Harang's trade value has dramatically increased with this contract. The Reds may have locked him up long term but it's not safe to assume this means they'll keep him for 4-5 years. I guess this contract is supposed to symbolize their commitment to winning and a willingness to increase payroll but they also just increased their leverage for potential trades dramatically. While a good move, signing Harang doesn't prove anything to me regarding a commitment to winning/payroll. Basically the Reds bought out his remaining arb years at somewhat of a discount (importantly they erased an unknown in the payroll ledger for those two years). It would've been incompetent beyond belief to not have extended him. Krivsky does get props for getting it done the way he did though.

Anyway, here's a list of guys on the 40-man roster that are in my view eminently trade-able based upon them being desirable enough (considering a combination of established performance, upside, contract) to both attact attention and to net something back in return that is useful (equal to or greater than what the Reds would be giving up). I'm assuming some guys like Griffey are simply untradeable because of the contract while a guy like Courmier probably could be traded but I'm ignoring erasing payroll from the books as a useful commodity. The return they might net is obviously variable (they're not listed in any particular order). Not surpirsingly, the list might resemble alot of people's list of core Reds for the future.

1. Harang
2. Arroyo
3. Edwin
4. Homer
5. Denorfia
6. Coffey
7. Bray
8. Freel

I'm not advocating that any of these guys be traded. I'm just suggesting that these are the guys any given GM would likely target. If the Reds have a disastrous first half, I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Harang or Arroyo were traded.

kaldaniels
02-07-2007, 12:47 PM
First, locking up Harang was a good move and the contract that it took to get it done is a good one for the Reds. A big high-five to all involved.

But now, here's something that many may not have considered:

Harang's trade value has dramatically increased with this contract. The Reds may have locked him up long term but it's not safe to assume this means they'll keep him for 4-5 years. I guess this contract is supposed to symbolize their commitment to winning and a willingness to increase payroll but they also just increased their leverage for potential trades dramatically. While a good move, signing Harang doesn't prove anything to me regarding a commitment to winning/payroll. Basically the Reds bought out his remaining arb years at somewhat of a discount (importantly they erased an unknown in the payroll ledger for those two years). It would've been incompetent beyond belief to not have extended him. Krivsky does get props for getting it done the way he did though.

Anyway, here's a list of guys on the 40-man roster that are in my view eminently trade-able based upon them being desirable enough (considering a combination of established performance, upside, contract) to both attact attention and to net something back in return that is useful (equal to or greater than what the Reds would be giving up). I'm assuming some guys like Griffey are simply untradeable because of the contract while a guy like Courmier probably could be traded but I'm ignoring erasing payroll from the books as a useful commodity. The return they might net is obviously variable (they're not listed in any particular order). Not surpirsingly, the list might resemble alot of people's list of core Reds for the future.

1. Harang
2. Arroyo
3. Edwin
4. Homer
5. Denorfia
6. Coffey
7. Bray
8. Freel

I'm not advocating that any of these guys be traded. I'm just suggesting that these are the guys any given GM would likely target. If the Reds have a disastrous first half, I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Harang or Arroyo were traded.


I could never see Harang being traded this year period. Either 1) He will continue to pitch great, at which the Reds have an absolute bargain the next 2 years, or 2) He will digress, and be totally undesirable. I know never say never, but I see no possible scenario where the Reds would dump Harang over the next 2 years.

lollipopcurve
02-07-2007, 12:59 PM
Harang was eminently tradeable before this contract happened, given that he was 2 years from FA still. I don't see this contract as increasing his tradeability at all, because any team that would have won the trade sweepstakes would have had to give up significant talent and, as a result, would have been intent on extending Harang anyway (with plenty of time to try to do so).

Given the commitment the Reds have now made, I see very little chance they will consider trading Harang in the next 2-3 years unless his performance falls off. And I have no problem with that -- if you're going to establish a core, might as well start with your starting pitchers. As suggested elsewhere, I'd be very curious about their position on trying to extend Arroyo.

terminator
02-07-2007, 01:26 PM
I agree it sure doesn't hurt his trade value.

But if the Reds were to trade away an affordable, durable #1/#2 pitcher in his prime because they struggle in the first half of 2007 they should just roll up the franchise and quit. If they traded him to me it would mean that they do not think they can compete in the next five years.

jojo
02-07-2007, 01:29 PM
Harang was eminently tradeable before this contract happened, given that he was 2 years from FA still. I don't see this contract as increasing his tradeability at all, because any team that would have won the trade sweepstakes would have had to give up significant talent and, as a result, would have been intent on extending Harang anyway (with plenty of time to try to do so).

But that ignores the value of:
1. removing the unknown concerning arbitration
2. removing the unknown concerning what it would take to extend him.
3. removing the unknown about whether the new team really could extend him. It's not a given that he'd want to pitch for the new team long term if he had a choice (i.e. if he found out that his wife hates Philadelphia, why would he sign a long term deal with them?).

His trade value has increased.

jojo
02-07-2007, 01:30 PM
I agree it sure doesn't hurt his trade value.

But if the Reds were to trade away an affordable, durable #1/#2 pitcher in his prime because they struggle in the first half of 2007 they should just roll up the franchise and quit. If they traded him to me it would mean that they do not think they can compete in the next five years.

Doesn't that really depend upon what they got back in return? I'm not suggesting that they shop him. But why should it automatically be assumed that there couldn't be a deal offered for Harang that would be stupid to pass on?

WMR
02-07-2007, 01:34 PM
The Yankees would cream in their pants at the prospect of acquiring Harang with this contract in tow.

lollipopcurve
02-07-2007, 01:42 PM
But that ignores the value of:
1. removing the unknown concerning arbitration
2. removing the unknown concerning what it would take to extend him.
3. removing the unknown about whether the new team really could extend him. It's not a given that he'd want to pitch for the new team long term if he had a choice (i.e. if he found out that his wife hates Philadelphia, why would he sign a long term deal with them?).

His trade value had increased.

Your assumption ignores the value of:

1. the team wanting 20+ million dollars of flexibility in 2009 and 2010
2. the team wanting a year or two to evaluate (or trade) Harang before considering a big money commitment
3. Not making a 4 year commitment to a pitcher -- I believe some teams still hold the line at 3 years, no?

I think it's likely that some teams would not make the financial commitment and the time commitment the Reds have just made. Just a guess. But I doubt there are any teams that wouldn't have been interested in the possibility of trading for Harang before he got the contract. Teams don't get scared off by a two-year pre-free-agency window, in my estimation. One-year, yeah, but not two.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
02-07-2007, 01:50 PM
Doesn't that really depend upon what they got back in return? I'm not suggesting that they shop him. But why should it automatically be assumed that there couldn't be a deal offered for Harang that would be stupid to pass on?
Oh come on, we finally have something to be happy about. I think your reaching to say that signing our ace long term had anything to do with tradability. I have always been supportive of WK but I just found out what he has done wrong, he came to Cincinnati and it's band of miserable never on the bright side fans. Not talking to everyone obviously but theres a handfull out there that seem to have a hard time posting anything but negativity period. For a team that has struggled in the pitching department for years I doubt there is a team willing to give up enough talent to make a deal stupid to pass on.:angry:

RedFanAlways1966
02-07-2007, 01:53 PM
For a team that has struggled in the pitching department for years I doubt there is a team willing to give up enough talent to make a deal stupid to pass on.:angry:

I don't know... after seeing some of this off-season's signings (and $$$$) there seems to be a lot of stupid GMs out there!

;)

jojo
02-07-2007, 01:53 PM
But I doubt there are any teams that wouldn't have been interested in the possibility of trading for Harang before he got the contract.

Right. But if teams were interested before, they would be even more interested now. Four years control at a very economical price is worth more than two years at an unknown though still economical price. I don't see how his trade value wouldn't be increased with this contract.

At this point, I doubt there are very few clubs that would automatically dismiss a four year deal for a quality starter in his prime years.

jojo
02-07-2007, 01:57 PM
Not talking to everyone obviously but theres a handfull out there that seem to have a hard time posting anything but negativity period.

There is nothing negative about this thread.

Red Heeler
02-07-2007, 02:21 PM
Right. But if teams were interested before, they would be even more interested now. Four years control at a very economical price is worth more than two years at an unknown though still economical price. I don't see how his trade value wouldn't be increased with this contract.

At this point, I doubt there are very few clubs that would automatically dismiss a four year deal for a quality starter in his prime years.

Players traded in the middle of a contract can demand a trade from their new team at the end of the season which could make him less attractive than he would have been before. Besides, the point is moot. How often do you see teams trade very good pitchers signed to discounted contracts before the last year of said contract?

noskill27
02-07-2007, 02:44 PM
What I like about the contract is that it gives the Reds a season or two to see if Harang can step up his game or if he's peaked. As good as his other numbers are, a 3.76 ERA is too high. Was it the terrible defense or an inability on Harang's part to buckle down in tough situations? With the improved defense up the middle this year, we should get an idea. If it was the defense, then we've got a great pitcher locked up for a couple years. If it was Harang, we can trade him in a market where pitching is overvalued and hard to find. The salaries the first two years of the contract make it win-win for the Reds

anthonyb
02-07-2007, 03:08 PM
I would not trade Harrang but I would trade Arroyo to the Yanks for Melkey Caberea and Philip Hughes.

terminator
02-07-2007, 03:35 PM
Doesn't that really depend upon what they got back in return? I'm not suggesting that they shop him. But why should it automatically be assumed that there couldn't be a deal offered for Harang that would be stupid to pass on?
Technically, yes, but what are they going to give us -- an affordable, durable, proven #1/#2 starter signed "cheap" for the next five years AND something else? I guess I just can't fathom how the Reds could get anything in a trade more valuable to them than Harang for the next 4-5 years.

MartyFan
02-07-2007, 03:45 PM
I don't think you are offbase at all...I brought up the same point yesterday and frankly I don't think it is out of line at all to look half way into next season and see both Harang and Arroyo as BLUE CHIP TRADE BAIT...that could deliver younger aces + positional value that is MLB ready.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
02-07-2007, 03:49 PM
[QUOTE=jojo;1238759]There is nothing negative about this thread.signing Harang doesn't prove anything to me regarding a commitment to winning/payroll. This doesn't sound like a very positive comment to me if you take in consideration that Wayne clearly said at the press conference that it was the exact reason why this move was made. I am just pointing out that no matter what he does it's always going to be second guessed even if the move makes us better in the future.

jmac
02-07-2007, 03:55 PM
I agree it sure doesn't hurt his trade value.

But if the Reds were to trade away an affordable, durable #1/#2 pitcher in his prime because they struggle in the first half of 2007 they should just roll up the franchise and quit. If they traded him to me it would mean that they do not think they can compete in the next five years.

i agree. we need pitching and finally have a solid #2 if not #1 who says he likes it here.
why trade him for less !!! or unproven "prospects" ??

mound_patrol
02-07-2007, 05:06 PM
I would not trade Harrang but I would trade Arroyo to the Yanks for Melkey Caberea and Philip Hughes.

I'd love to see Cashman's face if this trade was proposed. No way they would do that deal

Heath
02-07-2007, 05:16 PM
I'd love to see Cashman's face if this trade was proposed. No way they would do that deal

Cashman to make that deal would look like this -

http://www.seinfeld-fan.net/pictures/george/george_costanza003.jpg


also - in the spirit of the thread name, we need this.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/images/640/flyingcircus_1.jpg

kaldaniels
02-07-2007, 05:31 PM
But that ignores the value of:
1. removing the unknown concerning arbitration
2. removing the unknown concerning what it would take to extend him.
3. removing the unknown about whether the new team really could extend him. It's not a given that he'd want to pitch for the new team long term if he had a choice (i.e. if he found out that his wife hates Philadelphia, why would he sign a long term deal with them?).

His trade value has increased.

Without reading much of the rest of this thread...I agree, his trade value has increased...no doubt. But...the likelyness of the Reds to trade him has now decreased.

fearofpopvol1
02-07-2007, 05:42 PM
i'd trade arroyo straight up for hughes.

jojo
02-07-2007, 06:55 PM
[QUOTE=jojo;1238759]There is nothing negative about this thread.signing Harang doesn't prove anything to me regarding a commitment to winning/payroll. This doesn't sound like a very positive comment to me if you take in consideration that Wayne clearly said at the press conference that it was the exact reason why this move was made. I am just pointing out that no matter what he does it's always going to be second guessed even if the move makes us better in the future.

First, they actually got a small discount on his remaining arb years. If they trade him in year three, did they really add payroll/commit to long term winning? The point was, this deal did nothing to make the team better now or next year and you can't assume he'll be around more than a year let alone all five.

Second, I give you Krivsky spin (a key motivation for the *trade* is that it dramatically improves the defense) and reality (clayton at short). Concerning Krivsky's spin yesterday, i think he was reading from one of O'brien's old press conference note cards (used to announce Milton). It was pure GM speak...he's a proven winner, he's a gamer, he knows how to pitch, this should prove to fans that we are committed to winning, this is the largest contract we've ever given a pitcher (as if comparing Harang's salary to Browning's or Soto's has any meaning). The point isn't that Harang is Milton (nothing could be farther from the truth-this is a good signing). The point is, you really shouldn't take anything said at a press conference that seriously. I mean really, what would you expect them to say? Maybe something like this, "we're disappointed that we had to commit this much money to a guy but it was such a no brainer, our fan base would've abandoned us if we didn't. And really, I dont get along with Harang's wife-in fact, I dont like her very much at all. Truthfully, I hope they both get stuck on the tarmac for several hours tonight on their flight out...."?

jojo
02-07-2007, 06:56 PM
Without reading much of the rest of this thread...I agree, his trade value has increased...no doubt. But...the likelyness of the Reds to trade him has now decreased.

You are probably right.

jojo
02-07-2007, 07:02 PM
What I like about the contract is that it gives the Reds a season or two to see if Harang can step up his game or if he's peaked. As good as his other numbers are, a 3.76 ERA is too high. Was it the terrible defense or an inability on Harang's part to buckle down in tough situations? With the improved defense up the middle this year, we should get an idea. If it was the defense, then we've got a great pitcher locked up for a couple years. If it was Harang, we can trade him in a market where pitching is overvalued and hard to find. The salaries the first two years of the contract make it win-win for the Reds

Harang's xFIP last season was 3.89 (very respectable). I'd suggest his ERA would've probably been lower if the Reds actually had a functional bullpen for most of last year. Truthfully, if Harang just maintains an ERA of 3.76 the next 5 years, that would be alright by me.

RedEye
02-07-2007, 07:32 PM
What I like about the contract is that it gives the Reds a season or two to see if Harang can step up his game or if he's peaked. As good as his other numbers are, a 3.76 ERA is too high.

I'm not sure I agree that a 3.76 is too high, especially given that Harang has to play at the GAB. I can't recall his home-road splits precisely, but I think his home ERA was at least a run higher than on the road. 3.76 may not have been too good 10 to 15 years ago, but in this day and age, when pitchers with 4.50 lifetime ERAs are signing 5-year free agency deals in the 50 millions, a 3.76 (heck, even a 3.83 from the year before!) is darn competent, verging on virtuosic IMO.

Given that ERA has such a factor of unpredictability in it because of defense, I also think you need to treat it with a grain of salt. The stat that really concerns me is Harang's 1.27 WHIP, which really needs to come down if he wants to take that next step to the elite level. If he can bring that number down by 0.15 net year while still striking out 216, he's moving into healthy Ben Sheets territory. Then his contract will look like a bargain to anyone in the world.

That said, even if Harang remains his old self--or at least the more mature self that he seems to have developed into over the past two seasons--the Reds still got a fantastic deal. $7 million per for a solid, dependable #2 pitcher is a great price--and it's the kind of deal that contending teams revolve around for years with any luck.

Way to go, Kriv. I'm starting to see your plan.

noskill27
02-07-2007, 10:35 PM
I'm not sure I agree that a 3.76 is too high, especially given that Harang has to play at the GAB. I can't recall his home-road splits precisely, but I think his home ERA was at least a run higher than on the road. 3.76 may not have been too good 10 to 15 years ago, but in this day and age, when pitchers with 4.50 lifetime ERAs are signing 5-year free agency deals in the 50 millions, a 3.76 (heck, even a 3.83 from the year before!) is darn competent, verging on virtuosic IMO.

Given that ERA has such a factor of unpredictability in it because of defense, I also think you need to treat it with a grain of salt. The stat that really concerns me is Harang's 1.27 WHIP, which really needs to come down if he wants to take that next step to the elite level. If he can bring that number down by 0.15 net year while still striking out 216, he's moving into healthy Ben Sheets territory. Then his contract will look like a bargain to anyone in the world.

That said, even if Harang remains his old self--or at least the more mature self that he seems to have developed into over the past two seasons--the Reds still got a fantastic deal. $7 million per for a solid, dependable #2 pitcher is a great price--and it's the kind of deal that contending teams revolve around for years with any luck.

Way to go, Kriv. I'm starting to see your plan.

I don't think 3.76 is high either... I just think that when you look at Harang's other numbers, it's not as good as it should be. Was that because of the terrible defense or an inability on Harang's part to buckle down in clutch situations? I think we'll find out pretty soon...

jojo
02-07-2007, 10:52 PM
I don't think 3.76 is high either... I just think that when you look at Harang's other numbers, it's not as good as it should be. Was that because of the terrible defense or an inability on Harang's part to buckle down in clutch situations? I think we'll find out pretty soon...

bullpen, manager, bullpen...... well you can get the idea I'm suggesting...

This is an interesting split for Harang in '06:

innings 1-3: OPS= .662
innings 4-6: OPS= .780
innings 7-9: OPS= .858

I think Narron rode Harang hard and often a little too long...