Cubs get HARDEN

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Made a mistake to Kemp...Crushed it.

[Cannon Shell]

Joe Sheehan on the trade

"The trade ends up looking like one that made sense for both teams, given the expectations on each and each organization’s relative focus. The A’s are trying to build for 2010, while the Cubs are trying to not go 101 years without a championship. The A’s didn’t have much reason to bet on Harden’s upside, given the money owed to him and their chances of winning this year, while the Cubs not only have reason to, they were offered the pitcher for a price they could happily pay. Neither team is likely to lose this trade, and it seems clear that both could win it. That’s the definition of a good deal."

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Joe Sheehan on the trade

"The trade ends up looking like one that made sense for both teams, given the expectations on each and each organization’s relative focus. The A’s are trying to build for 2010,

Yea, but my problem lies in the expectations and overall focus of the A's management right now. Building for 2010? This didn't just start a couple years ago. They were surely using the excuse of building for 2008 when giving away other good players 2-5 years ago. If I really believed they were trying to get young talent together(to keep to one day get a ring,) then, believe me, I would buy into their stories. They have proven they are liars. This is why you see very few people in that green stadium, but the lil house across the bay is full every time you see a game on T.V. there. One has relative good will from the people of the bay area,and the other doesn't. The one with much fewer fans is the one who has won rings for the bay area, but they choose to pay to see the team with no rings, and the team with the consistently worse record. There is a reason for that. They know that if this Gallagher kid does get good, then the A's will trade him before they have to pay him. Why would fans be interested in seeing them trade their players just when they are getting good? Why couldn't they have held on to Harden, and seen how they do in 2009? That's what they did with Zito in 2006. Now, if they are decent in 2009, they won't have Harden to help them. Like I said, they almost seem to want to make sure they never have quite enough to contend with teams like the Angels. The Angels had to have a pretty crappy year in 2006 for the A's to beat them, and it took a God-like year from the combination of Thomas, Bradley, and the other leftfielder free agent hitter(can't think of his name, but they refused to pay him anything after that season.....anger control an issue with this one as well as Bradley.) Point is they don't seem to have made this trade to really accomplish anything (except stay young n' cheap, and hated by bay area fans.) You see a plan, and I see them doing nothing but the same bull that is keeping them from having enough to really compete with top teams in 2008. It's always gunna be 2 years in the future with this management. That's the claim 8 years ago, and it will be the same false claim as long as Billy is there.