M’s Sign Harden?

Dave · December 9, 2009 at 2:08 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Buster Olney reports that Rich Harden is on the verge of signing. He doesn’t identify the team, but the Mariners have been the most active team in pursuing Harden, and it makes all kinds of sense, as we’ve laid out previously. It sounds like he’s backed off his demand for a multi-year deal, so if this gets done, the M’s will get a pretty significant upside pitcher while minimizing the long term risk. He’s always going to be a durability question mark, but on a one year, incentive laden deal, the move would be a great one for the M’s.

Get it done, Jack.

Craig Calcaterra reports that Harden is signing with the Rangers – $7.5 million for one year with a second year option. Lame. M’s should have beaten that, unless he just didn’t want to come here. T.R. Sullivan confirms.

Comments

85 Responses to “M’s Sign Harden?”

  1. Frozenropers on December 9th, 2009 4:56 pm

    Actually, that was pretty stupid of me. Considering Lackey is still out there……forgotten about him….I’d have to go with Lackey. He’s pitched in more “big games” and performed well in them than both Harden and Sheets combined.

    Price excluded Lackey would be the safest bet.

  2. dingbatman on December 9th, 2009 4:57 pm

    How does Harden’s contract compare market-wise? If there seems to be a downward trend then maybe Jack Z is waiting it out a little bit to take advantage.

  3. Bodhizefa on December 9th, 2009 5:04 pm

    I love Zduriencik, but I think this was his first legitimate miscalculation as the GM of the M’s. The deal Harden got was a veritable bargain, and I doubt we’re going to find anyone with nearly as much upside for any less. I’ll eat my words if Z manages to net Sheets or Lackey, but for now, I think missing out on a cheap Rich Harden was a mistake.

    And it hurts doubly worse because the stupid Rangers got him. Ugh.

  4. Mike Snow on December 9th, 2009 5:04 pm

    If there seems to be a downward trend then maybe Jack Z is waiting it out a little bit to take advantage.

    If you read Dave over at Fangraphs, you’ll see his take – that may not be the actual trend this year.

  5. Boy9988 on December 9th, 2009 5:24 pm

    I think that with the recent trades and signings, Seattle would be better off backing out. Wait until January, try to pick up some of the aging vets on 1yr deals for 2-3mill and use the rest of the money to pay Silva to get the hell off the roster. Then take your time to sign Hernandez, take your now 35mill into the next offseason where there are a lot more attractive names including (at present) Joe Mauer, V Mart, C Pena, A Ramirez(PO), Crawford, Dunn, Beckett, Lee, Halladay, Webb, etc. I could also see Jack going after a big trade for A Gonzalez or P Fielder for 1B since there arn’t really too many attractive free agents for a few years, unless Carp gets a shot to show what he’s got. But im not real high on Lackey for the amount and length of contract that is being discussed. Dont do it Z! Just cuase you have money dont mean you have to spend it. Sometimes addition by subtraction really is the best option (or at least the best option left).

  6. Wilder83 on December 9th, 2009 5:39 pm

    We were supposed to be one of the more active teams, yet we haven’t done anything.

    GMZ has done more than any of us know. Just because no transactions took place doesn’t mean nothing happened. The Winter Meetings are a time to gauge the market, not necessarily make deals. GMZ has been labeled the busiest and most active GMs this year at these meetings. Expect to see pieces fall in place during the coming weeks.

  7. Jeff Nye on December 9th, 2009 6:04 pm

    I love Zduriencik, but I think this was his first legitimate miscalculation as the GM of the M’s. The deal Harden got was a veritable bargain, and I doubt we’re going to find anyone with nearly as much upside for any less. I’ll eat my words if Z manages to net Sheets or Lackey, but for now, I think missing out on a cheap Rich Harden was a mistake.

    Why would you say that? We have no information about why Harden went with the Rangers instead of the Mariners. We certainly don’t have enough information to call it a “miscalculation” on anyone’s part.

  8. Adam B. on December 9th, 2009 6:29 pm

    These Winter meetings have been in general, a huge let-down.

    Certainly part of that is the fact that we knew about Figgins going into them, but it doesn’t help that so much hype was placed on the Mariners, and so much smoke has been created with no actual fire.

    I really hope something compelling is in the works, otherwise it’s starting to look like Zduriencik will be choosing from a selection of second and third tier choices.

    P.S. It goes without saying that Corey Patterson does not constitute “something compelling”.

  9. Carson on December 9th, 2009 6:57 pm

    You really can’t make some people happy, can you?

  10. Liam on December 9th, 2009 7:06 pm

    It seems that the Winter meetings had way more coverage than was needed. As for the Mariners, after last year’s big deal I guess some were expecting a repeat, especially with the money that they have to spend.

  11. 3cardmonty on December 9th, 2009 7:08 pm

    We have no information about why Harden went with the Rangers instead of the Mariners.

    Jeff, isn’t it pretty safe to assume we didn’t match their offer? Especially since Texas is not exactly conducive to Harden cashing in next year (unless all the GMs have caught onto park effects at this point, in which case I take it back).

  12. cumminjb on December 9th, 2009 7:14 pm

    Yes, but the money is not necessarily what we wouldn’t match. There may be incentives in that first year that we don’t know about to bring the deal much higher than $7.5M. Baker has hinted at something like that. I don’t mind that Jack is cautious. He has said numerous times that “you don’t just make a deal to make a deal. It has to be worth making.” At this point, I think we can safely say the entire Mariners staff knows enough about acquiring talent that we can trust in their decision making.

  13. msb on December 9th, 2009 7:14 pm

    from Baker tonight:

    “In the end, we’re told there were certain clauses the Harden camp wanted included in any deal that the Mariners side was not entirely comfortable with.

    Did the Texas Rangers meet those demands? We don’t know for certain yet. But the Rangers did indeed get their man, agreeing to a one-year, $7.5 million deal with Harden, followed by what’s been reported as a club option worth $11.5 million. Now, if it’s purely a club option, then that latter figure isn’t such a big deal.

    But we’ve yet to hear what the buyout would be on that. Or whether there are any additional incentives in the 2010 part of the deal that could take the $7.5 million well beyond that amount. On the surface, this contract does not seem all that unreasonable if it’s just the guaranteed money and a club option with a nominal buyout.

    If there is indeed more to this than has been reported, it might go a long way in explaining how the M’s did not get this deal done after investing so much time and effort in it.”

  14. Sports on a Schtick on December 9th, 2009 7:40 pm

    I would have liked Harden but whatever. If the Braves are dangling Derek Lowe (and willing to eat some salary as reported) that would be my next move.

  15. Taylor H on December 9th, 2009 7:54 pm

    I don’t really mind that we didn’t get Harden. I do mind that he went to another team in the division, though. Good thing he doesn’t fit well in that tiny bandbox the Rangers play in anyway.

  16. Dave on December 9th, 2009 7:56 pm

    Deal specifics: $6.5M in salary, $3.5M in incentives (up to 195 IP), $11 million option for 2011 with $1 million buyout.

    So, its basically $7.5 million guaranteed with the possibility of making up to $11 million if he stays healthy.

    That’s a great deal for Texas. If the M’s weren’t willing to compete with that kind of offer, then they must be very comfortable with the alternatives. We’ll see how this shakes out, but I’d bet we look back at this as a real missed opportunity.

  17. goraniers on December 9th, 2009 8:02 pm

    Maybe it was about run support for Harden, and he took the lesser or equal money to head to Texas.

  18. Benne on December 9th, 2009 8:10 pm

    Maybe it was about run support for Harden, and he took the lesser or equal money to head to Texas.

    I don’t know, the bandbox in Arlington isn’t exactly the best place to resurrect your market value. Maybe Harden just didn’t want to play for Seattle, or maybe, like Dave, Jack was comfortable enough with his Plan B and Plan C that he didn’t want to get into a bidding war with Texas.

  19. Benne on December 9th, 2009 8:10 pm

    Maybe it was about run support for Harden, and he took the lesser or equal money to head to Texas.

    I don’t know, the bandbox in Arlington isn’t exactly the best place to resurrect your market value. Maybe Harden just didn’t want to play for Seattle, or maybe, like Dave said, Jack was comfortable enough with his Plan B and Plan C that he didn’t want to get into a bidding war with Texas.

  20. Benne on December 9th, 2009 8:11 pm

    Crap. Sorry about the double post. I meant to say “Dave said”.

  21. coreyjro on December 9th, 2009 8:30 pm

    Dave,

    Does a mutual option mean either side can pick it up? I read a report saying Harden’s option was mutual, which would make him liking the offer way more.

  22. goraniers on December 9th, 2009 8:33 pm

    Well, at the very least this may set the market for free agent pitching a lot lower than otherwise expected.

  23. DMZ on December 9th, 2009 8:51 pm

    Mutual means usually both sides have to pick it up. Which in practice means it’s illusory, since if the player over-performs he won’t pick it up, and if he’s terrible the team won’t.

  24. nickwest1976 on December 9th, 2009 9:40 pm

    I’m not losing any sleep over not getting Harden. Sure he was a nice risk/reward guy but I was listening to Drayer on 710ESPN on the way home today and she said she has spoken with a lot of team doctors/trainers who confirmed that Harden’s shoulder is a MAJOR risk with the surgeries he has had.

    There’s a good chance this is Bedard 2.0…when he pitches he’s great but you can’t count on him for a full season’s worth of work.

    She also said that the team drew the line at 7.5 mil…for whatever that is worth.

    Hopefully Jack Z has backup plans…well seeing his work so far I am sure he does!

  25. ThundaPC on December 9th, 2009 9:47 pm

    The most annoying thing about Harden to the Rangers is the fact that the team currently has zero payroll room to work with thanks to the ownership situation. This deal doesn’t happen without salary dumping Kevin Millwood.

    They found just enough spare change on the floor to screw up our plans.

  26. bookbook on December 9th, 2009 9:48 pm

    Talk to Jonah Keri about this, but I think it’s something like a straddle play on option contracts.

    There’s a narrow range where it gets picked up, but players sometimes do perform as projected.

  27. Faceplant on December 9th, 2009 10:17 pm

    I wonder if the M’s were just more concerned about his health than the Rangers.

  28. ninjasintheoutfield on December 9th, 2009 10:19 pm

    Hmmm, I really thought that would get done….What an exciting few minutes though… i love this stuff! So while that is slightly disappointing news, what would be truly disappointing is Joel P. back in the M’s rotation, no thank you, keep your new splitter in the NL sir. Looking forward to see what Jack has in store over the next couple weeks.

  29. charliemountain on December 9th, 2009 11:19 pm

    Is $7.5 mill for one year worth it in the abstract? Surely, given Harden’s upside. Hopefully the fact that Z didn’t spend it is a good sign that he’s got something even sweeter in store.

  30. charliemountain on December 9th, 2009 11:25 pm

    Wait, why would the Orioles want to spend 9yr on Millwood (8 when you subtract 1 for Chris Ray) and not 7.5yr for Harden? Millwood had injury issues last year, too, and on what planet is he a better pitcher at this point? It looks to me like Peter Angelos and the Orioles got pantsed again here.

  31. rlharr on December 10th, 2009 2:54 am

    It’s not really an answer at starter, but I could see offering Randy Johnson or John Smoltz a job as a Goose Gossage type reliever – 2-4 innings 40 times a year. It would be a risk, but you might get a lights out pitcher who would could pitch the highest leverage endgames. Young pitcher struggling, high pitch count, but the game’s still close one way or the other? Bring in the Goose. I’m tired of one-inning closers, I want a Gooser.

    The other day Derek said something about roster construction for the playoffs being different. I agree, and I wonder if the old adage that pitching and defense are more important in the postseason doesn’t have a thread of truth. In general one will see better hitters and pitchers in the postseason. The hitters will get less at bats than they would against an average pitcher, so they lose a bit of importance. But the defense is likely to see more balls in play, and harder hit balls, so good defense gains importance.

    Pitching gains importance in a different way. First of all, your top three starters go from starting ~65% of the games to starting 75-80%, making them more important. However, as they are facing a superior offense, they are not likely to go as far into games, so the importance of the bullpen is also increased. Coming back to the idea of a Gooser, a reliever who can come in early and slam the door would also gain value. Think Mariano Rivera, but for three innings. Having that available 2-3 times in a series could be decisive.

  32. Mekias on December 10th, 2009 6:19 am

    The contract that Harden got played down his risk/reward label. Realistically, the contract is worth between 7.5 and 12 million. The likelihood that the option year gets picked up is pretty slim so you can almost add that 1 million buyout to his current year contract. If he pitches > 195 innings, he’ll likely earn the 12 million but the reward isn’t maybe quite as much as the Mariners were hoping considering his injury history.

    What I’m worried about now is either overpaying for mid-level players or else just not spending any more money at all and trying to pick up the scraps at the end. I’m not real excited about many of the free agents left but if we don’t go after any of them, the chances of our being competitive is slim.

  33. Seattleken on December 10th, 2009 6:42 am

    [off-topic]

  34. joser on December 10th, 2009 9:23 am

    What I’m worried about now is either overpaying for mid-level players or else just not spending any more money at all and trying to pick up the scraps at the end. I’m not real excited about many of the free agents left but if we don’t go after any of them, the chances of our being competitive is slim.

    Sounds like you’re still suffering from the Bavasi hangover.

    Why does everyone assume that once the free agents are gone, that’s it? Or that the only (or best) players available to the M’s are free agents? Need I remind you that the M’s vastly improved last year without signing a significant free agent? Free agents are sexy and fun and are topmost in the mind of fantasy players, but they’re hardly the end of the story; moreover, they’re the most expensive way to add wins to a team.

    The end of the winter meetings doesn’t mark the end of the offseason. It marks the beginning. Now the real work, the hard work, of the offseason starts. The obvious names have come and gone, and the GMs have done all the ass-licking the agents demand. But the orgs also spent a lot of time schmoozing with one another, opening up the lines, getting the preliminaries out of the way, setting the table. Now they can get down to business burning up the phone lines on those blockbuster trades.

  35. joser on December 17th, 2009 8:10 pm

    Heh, I just came back to this thread and realized I wrote that last comment before the Big Trade broke.

    Some of these comments look almost comical now. Ah, ye of little faith….

    Rich Who?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.