I agree totally. Good players get sent down early in their careers—-it isn’t like we’d be giving up on him. And since he plays the outfield corners it’s not like he’s guaranteed to be Wally Pipped by Ishikawa if he gets called up and turns into Will Clark.

I don’t read this as blaming Bowker. There’s no disguising that he’s slumping badly and swinging at bad pitches. Sending him to AAA to work on his craft in a less pressured situation for a couple weeks would be a good thing.

This sure seems like blaming the victim. Yes, Bowker has struggled; and yes, he should be in AAA this year. And who’s fault is that? I blame Sabean (although Canada came in a close second). If ever an organization needed Ritalin….

It’s not rocket science to say that 2007 was the year we should have been auditioning Fred Lewis at the ML level, 2008 was the year we should have been auditioning Nate Schierholtz, and 2009 should be the year we audition John Bowker and possibly Travis Ishikawa. 2010 for Copeland and Rohlinger, etc, etc. That’s not to say all of them succeed at those points, but that those would be logical starting points. The fact that Bowker wasn’t completely Bococked in his first month in the majors only barely obscured the fact that this organization had no plan for 3B, SS, or 1B for this season. Again, I blame Sabean.

Bowker sinking. Bocock shafted. Burriss possibly sliding. I get it; the Giants have no regard for players whose last names begin with B. Hmm. Seems like I’m leaving someone else out…..

I’m OK with Ishi getting some reps at 1B in the bigs. He’s been ridiculous in AAA and it makes sense to give him a shot with Bowker struggling.

the organization is treating its 1st basemen in the worst possible way. let’s review: Dan Ortmeier. He had a great September and the organization took the small sample size and said “This guy is a 1B we can get behind!” before dropping him at the first sign of trouble in ST. Then we have the inconsequential (as far as the future is concerned) reign if Rich Aurilia. Enter John Bowker. Bowker has a flashy start, allowing the organization to say “This is a (possible) 1B we can get behind!” Bowker does well for 2 and a half months, then starts to struggle. Now the organization is doing the same thing to Bowker they did to Ort, “You aren’t a magical solution the 1B? FAIL!” The decision is made easier with TI in AAA, but there isn’t a magical solution. the organization has to take 1 (or 2) guy(s) and allow them to get reps. Bowker isn’t as bad as this, nor is he as good as the .280 BA with good power either. not yet, at least. the Org needs to come out and support bowker, and the time in AAA he needs to develop, not send negative vibes because he didn’t mask the front office’s inadequacies with organization depth and the “plan” for the infield this season. The FO is just disappointed Bowker didn’t bail them out from their own poor planning

Give us TI or give us death.

Baggs says John Boy’s being sent down

Sorry, but I agree with leftymalo up top: You guys are reading way too much into this. I don’t see the article as “blaming” Bowker at all.

As for it not mentioning his skipping a level—the article was written for the print publication and therefore had a space limitation. Not every detail is going to make it in there.

Blame Sabean all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Bowker isn’t hitting as well as he did earlier. Me, I’m looking forward to seeing Travis get another shot.

Bowker is no 1B, and using age to justify poor production is no excuse. Bowker isn’t as bad as he’s been playing, but I don’t know if he’ll ever crack an .800 OPS. He strikes me as more of a 4th OF type, that could get maybe 200-300 at-bats a year of nice production and a good bat off the bench.

I for one am happy this happened, because at least maybe now Sabean will see 1B as the problem it is and not just hand it over the flavor of the month OF’r. The next time I want to see Bowker in SF is playing outfield, preferably in a reserve role

they called him up, mot likely intending for him to get a brief look in the majors and then go back to AAA to resume his normal development track, but he kind of changed those plans by going on his ridiculous hot streak for a week or so at which point they figured maybe they should give him an extended look in the big leagues. They realized full well they were rushing him a bit and that he skipped AAA so they stuck with him through good times and bad (which is what you are supposed to do with a young player). I think by now they feel like his struggles have gotten to the point where it’s not productive to send him out there everyday and the best thing for him to do is go down to AAA. I agree that this article is unnecessarily negative in its tone, but I think if somebody is mistreating Bowker it is John Shea, not the Giants.

And your answer to yourself will likely be, “Well, he probably should be at AAA.” So if that’s where he SHOULD be and that’s where he’s GOING, then what is the problem?

If I’m fixing my car engine and grab the wrong size wrench, I will put it back where it belongs and get a different wrench. Was I “blaming” the first wrench by putting it back where it belongs? Of course not. It’s just putting it back where it ought to have been in the first place.

Keep Bowker up here, i’d love a higher draft pick.

The way the article said “the Bowker experiment may be coming to an end” or something at first scared me. It then said only a break, at least. I was worried they were already giving up on him for good. I don’t mind giving him some time in AAA to work some things out and build up his confidence. But this was a little harsh.

Whatever you do, don’t read the headline to Shea’s latest magnum opus

Giants send three underperformers away, bring in three youngsters