There are 12 users in the forums

Giants acquire Garko

Jul 27, 2009 at 7:19 PM
nice garko is a stanford product and can hit some bombs. i do like ishi though
Jul 27, 2009 at 7:22 PM
Guess we won't go after Dunn. Since he plays first too.
Jul 27, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Garko AND Dunn can play OF, Although dunn sucks in the OF
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:02 PM
good news and we didn't give up much
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Originally posted by JMC52:
Garko AND Dunn can play OF, Although dunn sucks in the OF

Interesting. Here's a link about him playing in the outfield:

http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index...utfield_a.html
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Ron.. I dont know where you got Barnes being the #9 pitching prospect in the minors. I would say that he was the Giants #4 rated pitching prospect:
1) Bumgarner
2) Alderson
3) Wheeler
4) Barnes

Barnes is a FAR better prospect than Puectas or Sadowski in my opinion. I'm sure Cleveland could had their choice of any of them.

He is very good and has been great in SJ. It could end up being a deal that you wish you hadnt made. Having said that, I think its a good deal because of our need for an impact RH bat and our minor league depth.
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Originally posted by Giantjohn:
Ron.. I dont know where you got Barnes being the #9 pitching prospect in the minors. I would say that he was the Giants #4 rated pitching prospect:
1) Bumgarner
2) Alderson
3) Wheeler
4) Barnes

Barnes is a FAR better prospect than Puectas or Sadowski in my opinion. I'm sure Cleveland could had their choice of any of them.

He is very good and has been great in SJ. It could end up being a deal that you wish you hadnt made. Having said that, I think its a good deal because of our need for an impact RH bat and our minor league depth.

the rating is from mlb.com not me.
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:26 PM
Originally posted by Giantjohn:
Ron.. I dont know where you got Barnes being the #9 pitching prospect in the minors. I would say that he was the Giants #4 rated pitching prospect:
1) Bumgarner
2) Alderson
3) Wheeler
4) Barnes

Barnes is a FAR better prospect than Puectas or Sadowski in my opinion. I'm sure Cleveland could had their choice of any of them.

He is very good and has been great in SJ. It could end up being a deal that you wish you hadnt made. Having said that, I think its a good deal because of our need for an impact RH bat and our minor league depth.

I reckon he means #9 prospect for the Giants only.

linkage

-GfA
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:30 PM
Originally posted by BigRon:
the rating is from mlb.com not me.

Ron.. the rankings were made before this season even started. They were made in January. There is no question that Barnes has passed guys like Noonan and Gillespie. AND... Barnes wasnt the 9th ranked pitching prospect in the organization as evaluated by BA. He was the 9th rated overall prospect of the Giants. Come on Ron.. you arent old enough yet for Alzheimers to be setting in.

TOP TEN
PROSPECTS
1. Madison Bumgarner, lhp
2. Buster Posey, c
3. Angel Villalona, 1b
4. Tim Alderson, rhp
5. Nick Noonan, 2b
6. Ehire Adrianza, ss
7. Conor Gillaspie, 3b
8. Rafael Rodriguez, of
9. Scott Barnes, lhp
10. Sergio Romo, rhp
Jul 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM
One more point about this trade and why Sabean will never a great GM. He gave up a top 5 -10 prospect in the entire organization for Garko. As a comparison, the Red Sox gave up 2 low rated prospects for Adam LaRoache who is a better hitter than Garko over his career. I am not upset with the trade but just once I wish the Giants could get a steal.
Jul 27, 2009 at 9:05 PM
To add GiantJohn,

The offseason 2008 free agents have plenty of hitters. Sabean did not bother getting any one of them. Going into 2008 offseason Sabean said he will be looking for hitters. He went and get 3 pitchers and a shortstop.

My point was, we should NOT be in this predicament if Sabean as more proactive rather than" kicking the tires" and "due diligence"..BuLLS!!!T!
Jul 27, 2009 at 9:28 PM
damn, i don't despite the trade but i do think like other have said we gave up more, having said that i hope Garko plays well for us.
Jul 27, 2009 at 9:41 PM
i think its a good deal and if we get sanchez we become a contender
Jul 27, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Originally posted by Giantjohn:
Ron.. I dont know where you got Barnes being the #9 pitching prospect in the minors. I would say that he was the Giants #4 rated pitching prospect:
1) Bumgarner
2) Alderson
3) Wheeler
4) Barnes

Barnes is a FAR better prospect than Puectas or Sadowski in my opinion. I'm sure Cleveland could had their choice of any of them.

He is very good and has been great in SJ. It could end up being a deal that you wish you hadnt made. Having said that, I think its a good deal because of our need for an impact RH bat and our minor league depth.

Horrible. The Giants get raped in situations like this and have to overpay for a bat that everyone in the world knows they need, so they overpay for a mediocre bat that now has to learn the pitching of a new league. I brought up the LaRoche trade last week as well as the Gmen could get rid of two lower level prospects. Barnes was a 6'-4" lefty with great K/BB ratio. This one will hopefully not blow up in their face like they normally have been lately. Hope Garko does well but I don't like the trade.
Jul 27, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Originally posted by 49erha:
i think its a good deal and if we get sanchez we become a contender

Freddy Sanchez is overrated. He is slumping badly right now. Read this:
Sanchez went 0-for-12 with seven strikeouts in Arizona and remains hitless in his last 20 at-bats. Sanchez, who also has just three hits in his last 36 at-bats overall, travels to San Francisco for three games this week before returning to PNC Park against the Nationals. The Pirates are 22-12 in games in which Sanchez gets at least two hits. He might settle down after he learns of his trade deadline fate later this week.

I just dont see how trading for a guy who is hitting .296 with just 6 homers and 34 rbis and is a marginal defensive 2b is going to make us a contender. In fact, he wont.