Harden > Millwood

The purpose of this fanpost is to find out whether having a lg avg Millwood or a dynamic, albeit oft-injured, Harden is better for the Rangers.  Let me add a few disclaimers.  I am operating on the assumption that there is no way the Rangers could have kept Millwood and still acquired Harden.  I am also assuming the Rangers have/will do the proper due diligence on Harden so that he will not be damaged goods.   The only stat im going to pay particular attention to is ERA+ because Im not knowledgeable enough about tRA, FIP, etc.  Since I have a decent understanding of ERA+ I feel it can very useful for comparisons's sake.

Millwood:

While not being the ace some of us envisioned Millwood was valuable.  He was a league average pitcher for a team that holds that at a premium.  In his four years with Texas Millwood averaged 188 IPs and had an ERA+ of 102.  Okay numbers but definitely not ace quality.   His best year was last year was last year when he sported an ERA+ of 127.  According to those that know more than I do about peripherals, his were perhaps the worst of his 4 yr stint with the Rangers.  He was helped largely by a good to great defense.   Basically, his average year for the Rangers was 31 starts, 188 IPs and an ERA+ of 102. 

Harden:

I think many would agree that Harden's "stuff" is ace quality.  However, he has rightly gotten the reputation for being injury prone.  His past four years he has pitched very well when healthy.    The past two years he has actually only started one less game than John Lackey, I believe.   He had a lights out 2008 and 2009 was actually subpar by his standards.  His peripherials suffered.  Was that simply a blip or a harbinger of things to come?  His past 4 years he has averaged 16 starts, 90 IPs, and had an ERA+ of 155. 

The comparison:

Assume that Harden simply replaces Millwood as a TORP for the Rangers.  Lets say the other Rangers that are in the rotation to start the season are Feldman, Hunter, Holland, and McCarthy.  Harrison, Hurley, Feliz, Nippert, et al among many on the outside looking in.   This team does NOT lack rotation candidates.  With Millwood you knew what you were going to get:  188 innings of strictly league average pitching.   Let's assume that Harden ONLY gets his average of 90 innings in during 16 starts.  With that we would also have to assume that he achieves his average ERA+ over the past four years of 155.  Well with Harden only getting 16 starts someone else has to make the other roughly 16 starts, right?   The rangers still need to make up 98 innings that Millwood would have gotten them.  Who makes them up?  I am going to be conservative and say Matt Harrison does.  Him and Derek Holland had the lowest ERA+ (76) of any Rangers starter with at least 10 starts.  So what does the two headed monster of Harrison (if he repeats his performance from last yr) and Harden give you?  188 IPs and an ERA+ of 114.  This is 12 pts better than what Millwood would give you.

I am making some very pessimistic assumptions here too.  Im assuming that Harden only gives you 90 innings.  What if he gave the Rangers 144 (what he has averaged the past 2 yrs) and Harrison only had to pony up 44 innings?  The ERA+ jumps up to 136.  MUCH better than what Millwood has historically given the Rangers.  I am also assuming that Harrison or whomever would replace Harden, if injured, would perform very poorly.  Feliz could very well replace Harden, Nippert could, Hurley, etc. 

So this brings all of us to THE big question.  Did the Rangers improve themselves by trading Millwood and then using the savings to sign Harden?  In my opinion, the answer is a prohibitive.....YES.