Examining the Garko trade
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 7:38 AM PDT
Email
PrintSo we have posts everywhere about the Garko trade, and I posted this comment in the original fanpost, but I think it's worthwhile enough to give it's own fanpost to. Here's an evaluation of the trade:
I’ve taken the time to do some actual research, and come to a few conclusions. First, let’s assume Barnes is a grade C prospect. According to the work done here, that’s worth $2.1M to the Giants. If he was a grade B prospect he’d be worth $7.3M. So the question is, is Garko worth that to the Giants? Research done here also shows each additional WAR a hitter provides the Giants is actually worth more than 1 win, because of the low run scoring environment we play in.
Let’s call Garko a 2 WAR player, and say he’ll contribute .5 WAR to us the rest of this season. We should be on the hook for about $.2M for Garko this season. Using 40%, 60%, 80% arbitration numbers (I believe those are included in one of the articles I linked), we should pay Garko about $4M, $6M, $8M in each of the next 3 seasons, so we’re at about $18M or so. He accumulates 6.5 WAR over that time, worth about $29M. This is without even taking the low run scoring environment adjustment into account. Garko provides us with an approximate $11M in value, far more than Barnes, even as a Type B prospect, is worth. Great trade, we win.
If Garko is only a 1 WAR player, the numbers adjust (including how much he makes in arbitration) to $2M, $3M, $4M. About $9.2M total for a 3.25 WAR (.25 for the this year's production) player, which is about $14.6M in value. $5.4M in value from Garko, which doesn't quite offset a Type B prospect (though it'll be closer given the run scoring environment adjustment), but is worth more than a Type C prospect. A pretty even trade at that point, given that Sickels had Barnes as a C+ prospect.
Credit goes to BtB for their research.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
159 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well done for a nice examination of the trade, was thinking of doing this analysis but haven’t got round to it so thanks for saving me the time. The result comes out about what i’d expect with regards to relative values of of 1/2 win player in this situation & those of a B/C prospect.
I’m quite a Barnes fan so i’m hoping Garko can perform well enough to make the trade successful & if he can be a 2 win player then i think it’ll have been worth it. Ultimately we’ll have to see both how Garko performs and how Barnes transfer his performances as he moves up the system.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Good numbers, but in terms of valuing Barnes, is it debatable that he’s closer to a B prospect right now after his good year in the CAL?
I’m sure it is, which is why I threw in the grade B figures, too.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions
agreed
I think there’s a legit argument that soft-tossers from college can succeed at lower levels on off-speed stuff alone, but by accounts, Barnes has a reasonably good fastball in the 90-93 range, and mediocre breaking stuff. His K/BB ratio and K/9 ratio are both very impressive, if not Bumgarner-esque.
Jonathan Sanchez. He's left-handed, like Barry Zito. His fastball breaks 80, unlike Zito.
Two main problems
1) This doesn’t show how much he improves our team over what we already had. So his value to us isn’t his absolute value, but the marginal increase in value.
2) Calling Garko a 1 or 2 win player and projecting him as such for the next 3.5 years. He’s not a 2 win player, so let’s just scrap that. So, for projection purposes, you can’t just assume he’ll be a 1 win player each year from here on out, that doesn’t take into account the risk of injury and decline.
I hope he goes Randy Winn on the league, but that won’t change the fact that we overpaid for him.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
How do you figure we overpaid for him?
A. We know what Garko is and we do not know what Barnes is. Could it turn out that we overpaid? Sure. As of today did we overpay? No.
B. You have to take into account the Giant’s organizational strengths vs. needs. Due to the surplus in pitching in the system, a loss of Barnes is not as significant in comparison to the gain in a proven hitter.
All things are relative, but I don’t see how anyone can say that as of today we overpaid for Garko.
Due to the surplus in pitching in the system, a loss of Barnes is not as significant in comparison to the gain in a proven hitter.
A surplus/depth is a funny thing, especially with pitchers in baseball. If we now trade Alderson, which is looking like a possibility, our depth is really not so great anymore. It’ll be Bumgarner, Wheeler, and a bunch of C/C+ arms.
All things are relative, but I don’t see how anyone can say that as of today we overpaid for Garko.
I am, and the math above by Missing Barry shows it.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
If you’re looking solely at the big league starting rotation, you really only have 1-2 spots open for the next 4-5 years. Cain and Lincecum aren’t going anywhere, and neither is Zito. Depending on how Sanchez pans out, we could only have one spot open. One figures that will be MadBum sometime in 2010/2011. Alderson, Wheeler and whoever else we have will be stuck in Fresno or in our bullpen in some capacity until Zito’s contract expires or if, knock on wood, someone gets hurt. It’s never good to lose a promising lefty, but losing that promise is not as dire as you make it sound.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
That’s not an excuse for trading him at a discount. Also, you’re assuming health for all these pitchers, which isn’t likely.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
Why is it not an excuse? If there isn’t room for the man to play, then he won’t get promoted. His stats would have to be phenomenal for the Giants FO to displace someone worthy, and no one know if that will be the case. I love how we’re arguing both sides of a complete hypothetical. Also, you’re assuming just about the sky for Barnes, (and some would argue the basement for Garko) so you can’t really play that card.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
Because giving stuff away at a discount is stupid?
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
“Because giving stuff away at a discount is stupid?”
Unless we didn’t give it away at a discount, like I think my math supports. Not sure why you think Garko’s a 1, .5, .25 WAR player for the future.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
basically, he’s convinced that Garko is the next Lance Neikro and Barnes is the next Cole Hamels
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
Yup
That’s the point I’ve been arguing all along.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
It’s because Marcello places a very high value on Barnes, and doesn’t think much of Garko. Even the grey areas are a negative, if you get my drift.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
To be fair, if Garko is a 1 WAR player going forward and Barnes is a legit grade B prospect, based on the valuations I used it’d only be a fair trade for us instead of a good trade for us. If Garko is barely more than replacement AND Barnes is a legit grade B prospect, it would be a bad trade for us. I just think that’s a bit of a stretch to view Barnes as best case and Garko as instantly becoming a worse player despite moving to a place where his numbers should increase…
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Any trade can look awful if you assume the absolute worst case scenario for both players involved
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly, that’s why I tried to give multiple cases within reason – Barnes being a grade C or grade B prospect, as well as Garko being a 1 WAR vs. 2 WAR player.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
not to be too pessimistic
what am I saying? This is McC.
Cain and Lincecum aren’t going anywhere
If we all just keep chanting this it will come true.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
There's 3 ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power/ Ginats Way...
by natteringnabob on Jul 28, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions
You’re correct with regards to point 1, as these calculations are always in a vacuum rather than team related, although the relative increase in value occurs for both sides of the trade. What it does do is compare their value relative to themselves and suggest whether it’s a good or bad trade relative to the league rather than the specific team and that’s still a pretty good way of analysing a trade.
I don’t understand your argument with regards to point 2, in any trade you’re making a projection as to how good the players that are incoming/outgoing, whether it’s a statistical one or a gut feeling and you couldn’t possibly make a trade without their estimate. Saying you can’t project because of injury is strange because of course you never can tell but that can’t stop you from making a trade. You can’t matter of factly say he’s not 2 win player either, especially as that’s how he’s been performing this year, but he probably won’t be going forward. The analysis doesn’t say he is a 2 win player though, it gives an example of two convenient benchmarks for his future performance which are sensible given that his true ability is probably somewhere between those two benchmarks.
Proud parent of Waldis Joaquin!
Well said.
…and speaking of injury, we could have traded for Nick Johnson!!! (ouch! -literally!).
by KrazyKrabMeat on Jul 28, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
You misunderstood
You can’t project him as staying a 1 win player in 2010, 2011, and 2012 due to injury and regression. I don’t know the actual numbers, but a more realistic projection is something like 1, .75, and .5 in those three years.
And he’s been a 2 win player over half a season, let’s not announce a new level of skill, especially considering his fielding at 1B suddenly spiked 10-15 runs in the positive.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
What is this? A school for ANTS??
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
Marcello nailed it
It’s about how much better he makes us compared to what we have.
Right now, based on fangraphs, the difference between Garko and Ishikawa is about half a win. If he hits like he did last season (which I would say was more likely an aberration since his 09 lines up with his 06-07) he’d be worse than Ishi.
Did we get better? Yes. Can we maximize production a bit by using Ishi to replace him late in games for defense? A tad.
All in all, I think the difference between Ishikawa and Garko is about the difference between Uribe and Julio Lugo, only with this move we lose our 6th best prospect
Our 6th best prospect? That is high praise. Im not questioning it, Im just surprised that you had him that high. He wasn’t in mine, or many people’s top 10’s I don’t believe from the list we all made after the draft.
But on what we get with Garko is a cheap player who is an improvement. We needed an offensive upgrade, and Garko gives us that upgrade and stability at first base, without us having to sell off our top 5 prospects for a rent-a-player. I think the trade is a success at this moment in that it sparks the team by showing them that the FO cares enough to make a run. Letting the players know you are in it for this season does a lot for moral, look at the Pirates if you need an example of how the inverse works
by Michael Uhlhorn on Jul 28, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I think 9th best was the consensus.
52-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
Barnes was not our 6th best prospect, and even if he was, his ranking relative to other Giants prospects is not indicative of his actual value as a prospect.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
either way
giving up anything of moderate value for such a marginal upgrade is not something I’d be happy with.
Garko is much, much better than Ishikawa vs LHP’s. Vs RHP’s, their value is pretty much the same. So for 20% of the games we play from here on out, we’ll have an upgrade. I feel like the same thing could have been accomplished very cheaply just by getting a platoon. Sabean actually did accomplish this already for free (Josh Phelps) only that free solution got hurt.
If Barnes goes onto having any semblance of a league average career, we’ll have lost big time
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
it’s pretty unlikely that Barnes will ever have as much MLB value as Garko. That is nothing against Barnes, that is just a fact of like with 21 year old A-ball pitchers who are not regarded as great prospects.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions
possibly...
but what’s important is Barnes value compared to the value Garko has to this team.
Right now, he’s a marginal upgrade only because he can hit LHP much better than Ishi. Against righties, they are pretty much the same.
Then, you have to factor in that starting next year we have to pay Garko in the millions on an escalating pay scale. Is Ryan Garko worth 2-3 million dollars + Scott Barnes more than Ishikawa? Could we not have gotten a similar upgrade via a platoon?
I definitely agree, prospects are overvalued quite often by us the fans in this day and age (Noonan’s, even Villalona, etc.), but I think a guy like Barnes is clearly very intriguing. His stuff is regarded as quite good and he has performed well thusfar as a pro. He’ll have to keep it up, but he’s got enough going for him to reasonably look like a major league pitcher.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
He’s also got enough going for him to have a total value between $2.1 and $7.3 million. That’s really not all that much for a player in his first year of arbitration to beat out.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
we don't HAVE to pay Garko anything
He’s under team control, meaning the team can do whatever they want with him. If we don’t want him we can just release him.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
even better...
giving up Barnes for a 2 months of a marginal upgrade.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Meh ...
I’m pretty meh on the trade. It’s a decent upgrade. It didn’t cost a lot. I’m not butt-hurt that we traded away Barnes. By the time Barnes is MLB ready, we’ll have 3-4 Scott Barnes’ in the system to replace him.
LinceCain and pray for rain .... or for someone to take Zito off our hands.
WE ARE ALL SCOTT BARNES
STEVE HOLM! refuses to be the odd man out.
by UnleashTheGore on Jul 28, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
To address a couple of points. I see Ishikawa as essentially a replacement level player. His bat is not good, and it could be even worse than what we’ve been seeing (poor peripherals). He’s been worth -2.2 runs so far with his bat this season. He’s a good fielder, but +20 UZR/150? No way. I believe fangraphs numbers overstate Ishikawa’s contributions, and he’s still not very good.
Second, we’re looking at players values relative to the market. The market says Garko is worth more than a C-level prospect, and if he’s a 2 WAR player, worth much, much more than even a B-level prospect. Considering the price we have to pay is dictated by the market, it’s likely we did not overpay for Garko. The fancy math actually, surprisingly enough, supports the notion that Sabean DOES have an understanding for the market (not that I actually believe he does)…
Third, Garko is on pace to be a 2 WAR player this year. His batting peripherals are solid and suggest his performance isn’t inflated and likely to continue, and he may be suffering from a small amount of bad luck. His defensive peripherals may be slightly inflated and due for some regression. However, the previous 2 seasons, he was worth 4 WAR combined. A player averaging 2 WAR a season over 3 straight seasons looks like a 2 WAR player to me. He was a 1 WAR player the year before that in limited playing time. I don’t think projecting him to average 1-2 WAR in his time here is a stretch at all. He’s in his prime currently, and will still be in his early 30’s at the end of our control over him.
Forgot point 4 – his bat should play better in the NL than the AL.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Sorry quickly did some math wrong. He averaged 1 WAR his first two years of significant playing time after putting up almost 1 WAR in limited playing time, and is now on pace for 2 WAR.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions
This overvaluing of Barnes by some is a great example of the Internet baseball nerd crowd’s overvaluing of prospects in general (I’m probably as guilty as anybody). I think as more and more information about prospects becomes available on the Internet people are inclined to greatly overstate their value vis-a-vis proven MLB players. A guy like Barnes, who is an interesting prospect but has never been thought of as a top tier prospect, has a pretty small chance of ever having as much MLB value as even a decent player like Garko.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
A guy like Barnes, who is an interesting prospect but has never been thought of as a top tier prospect, has a pretty small chance of ever having as much MLB value as even a decent player like Garko.
True, but Barnes does have trade value. And I’m not sure I like that trade value being cashed in for a platoon 1B.
Yeah
This is my thinking. I really think Barnes was totally expendable but I don’t think Garko is the type of player I would have traded him for.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
Follow up question to that point – would you have rather gotten a one year rental that provides all the value this year, or a player like Garko that will provide less value in any given year but be around longer (assuming they give us the same overall amount of value)?
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure I get your question. I wouldn’t want either, really. Couldn’t you shake any tree and out would drop a guy that plays -4 run defense at first base and mashes LHP? I’d want Barnes to be used, as a trade piece, for a better player under control for 2-3 years or more.
I just don’t like the idea of trading for a guy that doesn’t crack an .800 OPS against RHP, plays poor defense, can’t run the bases, and is about to get more money in arbitration. It just seems to me that the things that Garko’s does well, are things that you should be able to scrounge up from the minor leagues for nearly free.
Are the Giants better with Garko? Yes, but very marginally.
The question is this. If Barnes trade value is $4M (in between grade C and B), and you can get back $4M in value, do you want the guy that gives you $4M in value in one year or the guy that gives you $4M in value over 3 years? Hypothetical question, though obviously Garko falls under the 3 years category (but don’t answer based on whether you want Garko specifically or not).
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
You forget that Garko gets hit by righties twice as often. 42 HBP in slightly over 1000 AB’s against RHP, and 10 in 374 Ab’s against lefties.
10/374 = aprox. .02
42/1030 = aprox/ .04
Yeah, I just did that math.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
you really think Barnes had more trade value than this?
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Why trade for something that you should be able to get for free? I haven’t said anything about his value.
exactly.
We had already gotten Garko for free, his name is Josh Phelps. He got hurt yes, but there’s probably a few of those guys in AAA that are good enough to be one dimensional LHP mashers
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
“Why trade for something that you should be able to get for free?”
This implies you think Garko is a replacement level player?
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
No, but the bar is set pretty low if we’re looking for guys that hit LHP and can stand around at first base.
So given he’s above replacement level, we can’t get him for free. I take it you just think his production will be worth less than Barnes trade value? Do you think my WAR estimations for Garko were overly optimistic, and/or Barnes should be a grade B prospect then?
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not so much worried about what Barnes is valued at (I’ll probably call him a borderline B prospect right now) but my personal floor for trading prospects was a +1 win improvement over in-house options. Garko, if everything goes right, is about .5 wins better than Ishikawa.
I don’t hate this trade, it just seems like a waste of a prospect. I’d rather put Barnes’ value (be it $4M or $7M or whatever) to a better player* who provides more than just .5 wins of improvement this year. If not, I’d rather just keep sending out Ishikawa.
* And to get a better player, the package would need more than Barnes. I’m not saying Barnes alone would get a better deal done.
Ok, that’s the kind of elaboration I was looking for. An interesting thought. Personally what I like about the trade is that we aren’t selling the farm just for a shot at the wild card. We’re only trading away one prospect in a minor trade that should help keep us in the wild card race, and later on when the time is right we can look to trade more prospects.
Basically, the way I see it, we have no chance of winning the division, and we have about 6 teams or so to beat out for the wild card. Realistically, the playoff odds are against us. In the next couple of years, though, we might be in the position where we’re competing for the division title (against less teams), with a chance to win the wild card even if we don’t win the division title. That’s the kind of situation where I’d be more inclined to give up a few prospects.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
i will keep it very simple….Garko is a major league hitter, while everyone that we have in AAA are minor league hitters
Fransden, Bowker, the Jesus, etc. were raking AAA and sucking at the pro’s. I applaud the trade and am looking for more from Sabes especially if it includes multiple #5-20 propects
It's funny
This trade has convinced me of exactly the opposite. The complete disregard for non-top prospects is shocking.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
I think you’ve made that clear, grumpy-pants.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
I do find it odd that anybody has so much passion to oppose such a modest and innocuous trade
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I like the trade and am amazed at how much it is being OVER analyzed. Nobody knows how it’s going to work out, not even the stat nerds. I also agree that by the time barnes will be in the majors we will have atleast 3 more of him.
Proud father of Dallas Mcpherson. If you have any information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for the kidnapping of my son please contact me immediately. Reward if found!
by The Thrill on Jul 28, 2009 11:45 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It’s an issue with the process being faulty. Plus, people here not understanding how utterly replaceable Garko is.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
and all before he’s even had a Giant AB. Sheesh.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
This is a real problem too
I’m going to root for him, I’ll be begging for him to succeed, but your logic (that he needs to have a Giant AB before I can admit that he’s really nothing special) is ridiculous.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
That’s not what I’m saying. I was just stepping back and marveling over all this heated analysis that has happened before the man has even stepped up to the plate yet.
53-46 - Giants Series Record: 17-10-4, 13-2 at home
Adopted Giant: Daryl "Dealio" Maday - 3.66 ERA, .275 BAA, crappy 1.66 K/BB ratio in Norwich. OK.
U DEAD, DAWG
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
I think you might be underestimating how replaceable Barnes is
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, good pitching prospects are overrated.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
replaceable?
He’s the best pitching prospect we have behind Bumgarner and Alderson. If he’s that easy to replace, shouldn’t every team have a couple of Barnes in high-A? Please find them if they exist
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
it's early but...
Barnes current success is pretty much on track with where Noah Lowry was to this point. I know that they are different pitchers and Lowry’s currently looking his career is done, but Lowry in his first two years as a Giant was much, much more valuable than Garko is an Ishikawa upgrade over the next 3 years
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
wow, that's a useless comparison
Barnes ranking among Giants prospects is not very relevant. He is a 2nd tier pitching prospect. 2nd tier pitching prospects do have value, they do not grow on trees, but they can be found (this organization has done a fair job of finding them).
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree the Giants excel at finding good pitchers in rare places, but that doesn’t mean we should give them away in virtually lateral moves. Is your logic just because we are good at producing pitchers they are expendable?
That’s really not to knock Garko too much, he is a decent major league hitter, but all that matters is his value to us. If Rich Aurilia was our best 1B option, I’d be on board with Garko. The upgrade between those two is substantial and it’s worth Barnes.
However, vs Ishikawa, it’s just so marginal. I truly believe if Sabean was just more open minded and gave some AAAA masher a chance to platoon with Ishi, we’d probably be just as good and not pay anything.
It’s all about market value. A dollar might be fair market value for a cold Coke in a store, people happily pay this price every day, making it a fair market price. However, if your fridge is already stocked with cold cokes at home, it is probably not worth it to you to spend a dollar on something you already have
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
my point is that 2nd tier prospects of any kind are worth trading for decent MLB players in positions of need if you are a playoff contender. If the Giants gave Scott Barnes away for nothing, I would be pretty upset about it. I think Ryan Garko is a fair return for a 2nd tier prospect
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree that it would be, if Garko we had nothing at 1B
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m not convinced we don’t have nothing at 1B. There’s really not a whole lot to like about Ishikawa, sad2say.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
remember his awesome spring training? I was totally fooled by that
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
PABLO SANDOVAL AM STEAL DEATH, DESTROYER OF WORLDS.
But is he as fast and fun to watch? I don’t think so!
Judgment Day is coming
comics | art | Nattowear
Yes, but ...
if every time you opened up one of those refrigerated cokes with your left hand it would end up swinging at a slider in the dirt, and you had the chance to trade for a another cold coke that could handle the left-handed opening, you should probably sacrifice one of your 2nd tier Pepsi’s to acquire it.
LinceCain and pray for rain .... or for someone to take Zito off our hands.
by Lincecain on Jul 28, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Really?
He’s the best pitching prospect we have behind Bumgarner and Alderson
Maybe in your mind he is. IMO he’s also behind Sosa, Martinez, and Pucetas. I don’t know any publications that had Barnes as our #3.
You also asked about a replacement for Barnes – well the Giants have several. Besides the 3 mentioned above we’ve got a guy named Craig Clark that just happens to be Barnes’s teammate in SJ, and he has a better record and better numbers than Barnes (although he is almost 3 years older).
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
Sosa’s strikeout rate and injury history put him firmly behind Barnes. Martinez I like, and Pucetas is interesting, but I think Barnes being our 3rd best pitching prospect is a pretty defensible claim.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
Sosa’s K rate was better than Barnes’s in his first go-round in SJ in 2007. I don’t think that you can call a leg injury that wasn’t incurred while pitching, and that has since been healed, a big negative. Now his current possible arm problem is troubling, but we have to wait for a diagnosis before we knock him down. His numbers in AA until then we’re quite impressive – definitely better than T2’s.
As for Martinez, I rank him higher because he’s actually pitched well against major league hitters, and he pitched well enough to be the Giants’ 5th starter this year before his freak accident. He’s much more of a known quantity than Barnes. Their upsides are similar at this point (# 4 starter), but Joe’s downside risk is much, much less. Pucetas is a similar story – he’s already pitching and thriving in AAA. Who know’s if Barnes will ever get there.
IMO, you’re placing too high of a value on Barnes’s potential, and too low a value on what Sosa, Martinez, and Pucetas have actually accomplished at higher levels.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
I’m not sure why you would like any of those guys better than Barnes. Pucetas and Martinez were 2 and 3 years older than Barnes when they made it to San Jose and their stats were less impressive. Barnes is a lefty who throws in the 90’s and strikes out more than a batter an inning.
We're all basically Pedro Feliz.
i like you more than a friend.
Proud father of Dallas Mcpherson. If you have any information leading to the arrest of the person responsible for the kidnapping of my son please contact me immediately. Reward if found!
by The Thrill on Jul 28, 2009 1:22 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
+1
but I’d add people also aren’t understanding what the difference is between Garko and Ishi. It’s one thing to say Garko is a 2 win player, but since he’d replacing Ishikawa, we are picking up perhaps half a win overall, but paying for 2 wins.
Ishikawa/Phelps in 2010 = Ryan Garko
I know that doesn’t help us as much right now, given that Phelps is hurt, but I also think we could find players of a similar ilk off the scrap heap.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
giving up Scott Barnes is paying for 2 wins?
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Isn’t that what just happened, assuming Garko is a 2-win player (which to us, he is not)?
It also bought us the right to pay 12 million dollars over the next 3 years for about 0.5-1.5 wins above Ishikawa/Phelps.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Assuming Garko gives us 2 wins, I think everyone needs to take a step back and just look at the trade value numbers. 2 wins are worth more than Scott Barnes. This is an important concept. 2 wins are worth $9-10M, Scott Barnes is worth somewhere between $2.1M and $7.3M. There’s an argument Garko will not ever give us 2 wins of value more than we pay him, but if he does, we win the trade. He really only needs to give us 1 win of value more than we pay him for us to break even.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions
he’s worth 2 wins over replacement. Not over what we have
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
psst
ishikawa ~ replacement level
Sharlon Schoop - de favoriete Nederlandse honkbalspeler van McCovey Chronicles.
You always have to be one step ahead of your drunk friends
--Daisy Owl
Because of a +20 UZR/150. His hitting peripherals also may indicate he’s an even worse hitter than he’s shown so far.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
could be right there...
although his hitting numbers are also clearly weighed down by a terrible April.
I’m definitely not an Ishikawa guy, Garko is definitely better, but I don’t think it is really that huge. And I certainly agree that his UZR boosts him artificially, but I also feel Garko’s value this year is boosted by faulty UZR numbers, so it evens out a bit. (Garko is positive this year, but has been negative the rest of his career).
I also think Ishikawa’s glove in particular helps out our infielders performance, something that is often overlooked among 1B’s
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, what do you think Ishikawa’s talent level is? If you think he can be a 1-2 WAR player, obviously you have a point, but if Ishikawa is more a replacement level player, using WAR for his value is fine. Also keep in mind any upgrade is going to face this problem. We have to pay market price for any upgrade, and that’s in WAR terms, not “wins over Giant they’re replacing” terms. Maybe we should focus on another position that’s worse, that’s certainly a good point, but it’s not we can get a discount just because Ishikawa is over replacement level (which I don’t think he is).
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I also think we could find players of a similar ilk off the scrap heap.
Wait a minute. Wasn’t one of the main reasons to do this trade that we wanted a RH bat to upgrade a weak position (and I don’t think anybody here is arguing that Garko isn’t an upgrade over Ishi) right now for the wild-card race? If we waited to find somebody off the scrap heap then you’re talking about the offseason. This was a Sabean move to supply us with something that could help us in the race now, without drastically hurting us in the next several years.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
not necessarily...
there’s guy in AAA or the trade market that could serve a similar purpose (cough Jeff Bailey cough)
The Jeff Bailey’s of the world are cheap and easy to find. They are certainly flawed, but in this offense, flawed is okay. If you platooned Jeff Bailey and Ishikawa, you’d get Ryan Garko’s production levels, save Barnes, and potential money in arb next year.
Bailey and Lugo > Garko IMO
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
it’s a SSS, but he’s raked lefties in the bigs just like he has in the minors.
To simply rule out guys as having no use because of age is just terrible, terrible thinking.
Jeff Bailey has one advanced skill, which is to hit left handed pitching hard. For most teams, that skill is worthless since he plays 1B, a position chock full of good hitters. However, to the Giants, it has a good deal of use because a platoon of he and Ishikawa could prove to be just as valuable as Ryan Garko, with lots of resources saved.
It’s not teams have tried Bailey and he’s failed. He has succeeded in his role when given his chance. His role is just not that significant to Boston, who hits lefties just fine collectively. But to us…it’s another story
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I think its a bit of a reach. I wish grabbing another teams AAAA guy would work out, but it almost never does, they are usually still in the minors for a reason. After seeing our guys kill the ball in AAA this year and then suck it up in SF makes me want a guy that has proven he can hit big league pitching. Thats what the Giants got, without giving up a piece that is likely to significantly hurt them in the future
Oh yeah, because the Giants have been so good at finding decent production at first base.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
What makes you think they’ve finally figured out how to identify the solution? Hell, the fact that the Giants wanted this guy should make everyone a little nervous.
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
If Garko is so utterly replaceable, how come the Giants haven’t been able to come up with a first baseman that rakes left handed pitching in like…Forever?
I am really surprised how much negativity is going out towards this trade. The Giants offense sucks, and the last roadtrip really put an exclaimation point on that. The FO went out and got a guy that can help without giving up a guaranteed prospect. Think of how many guys we have had in the past that succeed in A ball, only to be out of baseball completely in five years. Scott Barnes could be great, but thats the risk of trading guys that are great in A ball. 2% are great in the big leagues, the rest end up coaching high school baseball.
We won’t know the results of this trade for years, but at least the giants did something. I think its fair to give Sabean the benefit of the doubt that if someone wanted to take Barnes for something better than Garko, it would’ve been done already
If Garko is so utterly replaceable, how come the Giants haven’t been able to come up with a first baseman that rakes left handed pitching in like…Forever?
Because they suck at it and don’t understand what makes a good hitter?
Proud father of Juan Carlos Perez. Think Albert Pujols at a position to be determined.
@#$% Juan Uribe. Dios es grande.
Josh Phelps has a career .860 OPS vs LHP
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions
He is replaceable in a vacuum yes but not to the Giants, I think that we way overvalue prospects because most of us HAVE NEVER EVEN SEE THEM PLAY!!!!!! We can look at a video and see exactly what we want to, or we can take the opinions of others and warp it to our own predisposed fantasies, or look at their numbers and imagine doing it with blazing stuff and impeccable command. The reality is a lot of pitchers can come out of college and dominate high A, lots of pitchers with fringe stuff or a lefty can befuddle hitters in high A ball. One thing to keep in mind is that Barnes probably is not hitting 93 on the gun, minor league radar guns are a little crazy, he is probably a 88-91 type of pitcher, so who knows. Nothing against Scotty but I think people might overvalue him without really knowing a lot about him.
Congrats to my soul mate and birth brother Zach Wheeler on being drafted into greatness. Should I just buy my Wheeler jersey now, or wait till my next birthday?
For now the trade is a good one. No one will know what happens in the future so we won’t know whether Barnes will develop into a frontline starter or never make it out of the minors. Garko will be under control for a few years and with Winn, Johnson, and Molina’s contracts all coming off the books, we’ll keep him around. He may not be a great defender, but he can play a bit of the outfield, first, and be an emergency catcher as well. Plus, we finally have someone who can come in late game and be a threat with the long ball.
One thing not being considered
Everybody is crunching the numbers as if Ishi won’t play another inning at 1B for us with Garko here. That won’t be the case. Ishi will come in as a D replacement and also get some starts vs. RHP. Therefore, you can’t just compare Garko’s WAR values to Ishi’s and say that’s the answer. You have to place a value on what the Garko/Ishi combo will give us and then compare that to what Ishi alone would yield. Because of his outstanding D, having Ishi play the field late in games that Garko starts should yield a better WAR value than just having Garko play the whole game. It’s not a huge difference in value, but it is not minuscule.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
this is true...
but it’s still very marginal.
My big point, could we not get a 28 yr old lefty masher in AAA and not see a similar upgrade?
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe. One hears a lot about veteran lefty mashers hanging around AAA, but they’re probably scarcer than you think. Do any names come to mind?
Anyway, from a practical standpoint, the Giants just never ever do anything like that, so it’s like complaining that they haven’t gone to a three-man rotation.
Jeff Bailey
1.024 OPS vs LHP last 2 years in AAA
1.040 OPS in 64 Major League PA’s vs LHP
30 years old, in AAA.
I think you are mostly right about practicality (although maybe if Josh Phelps was healthy….), but that speaks to the idiocy in the front office, which is the real problem.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions
You can’t just take a career minor league journeyman and project those numbers (or his 64 MLB PAs worth of numbers) into what he will do in MLB. Show me an available player who is roughly the equivalent of Garko who you are sure we could have acquired for less than Scott Barnes and I will say that maybe you have something.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
/missed the point
It’s not about finding a player as good as Garko, Garko is a fine player, it’s finding the same marginal production that Garko gives us.
What Garko gives us over Ishikawa is the ability to hit LHP. That’s pretty much it. He’s a tad better offensively vs RHP as well, but any gains he earns there is probably negated by his inferior defense. That still makes him a better players, but only when we play LHP’s.
Now, if we just had a decent RH platoon option (and not Rich Aurilia in that role) we would probably be able to match the marginal upgrade Garko gives us. Jeff Bailey is an example, and while he’s nearly as good as Garko, there is a somewhat decent chance that he can hit LHP almost as well as Garko has.
Yes, he’s really only proven against LHP in the minors, but when he has been given a chance in the bigs to hit LHP, he’s matched his minor league success. I wouldn’t expect him to keep up a 1.000+ OPS, but he wouldn’t have to do so in order to give us a Garko-like upgrade. .275/.360/.520 vs LHP would pretty much replicate any value Garko brings us, at least to a fairly close degree.
Maybe he’s not capable of that, but I think there is a decent enough chance, and he clearly wouldn’t have cost us Barnes and millions of dollars (which will be coming up via arb)
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
look, there is a reason why Jeff Bailey (or Dallas McPherson or Scott McClain or any other old minor league veteran with good AAA numbers) hasn’t been given an extended look in MLB. I’m guessing that reason is not that all 30 MLB clubs are too stupid to read his AAA stats.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions
not at all
He can’t get a job in MLB because he can’t hit right handed pitching. Given that 80+% of all pitchers are right handed pitching (my guess he can’t pick up RH sliders, the most common of all problems plaguing RH hitters) that really doesn’t make him very useful since he can only play 1B.
He’s a one-dimensional player that plays the easiest position (for anyone not named Sabean) to fill on the diamond. There just simply isn’t much of a need for RHH platoon 1B, for most teams. However, the Giants actually need this. Rich Aurilia was supposed to be this, but he failed miserably (because he was old and Sabean doesn’t know when to cash out). Josh Phelps was a good option as well, but he got hurt.
Bailey has one good skill, the ability to hit LHP. It’s a rarified skill, one that generally isn’t useful, but guess what, for SF it absolutely is.
As for your 30 MLB team logic, I always hate hearing that one. You severely overrate the intelligence of a number of major league front offices. There are definitely a good portion of them that are very, very smart and the team that actually has Bailey’s rights (BOS) happen to be one of them.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions
just so I know in the future, of the 30 MLB teams how many of them do you think employ at least one non-idiot in their front office?
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions
You don’t have to be an idiot to not be smart. Most people in the world don’t fall into either of those two categories.
And even if there is a smart person in every front office, it only matters if that person has the GM’s ear or not.
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
You know, Bill James showed 25 years ago that you could predict from their stats how career minor leaguers would do in the majors with some accuracy. This is not exactly breaking news.
As NC says of Bailey, they tend to have specialized skills and serious limitations. So they need to match up well with a team in need of their particular skill set.
I suspect major-league teams neglect these guys in part because they’re afraid — afraid of looking weird or unconventional, afraid of being mocked or fired if it doesn’t work out.
I agree with Evan, plus as I said earlier, I think that player with Bailey’s skillset (LH mashing 1B) just isn’t that useful to most teams.
Most of the contending teams right now have good 1B offensive production where they want their guy in everyday.
Only two contending teams other than the Giants really have a “hole” at 1B and that would be ATL (which platoons Kotchman and Prado, who is killing LHP) or TEX (who really have little excuse to be that bad at 1B vs LHP, but with the Chris Davis blowup & pitching being the bigger issue, I suppose that could be why).
As for bad teams with 1B problems, well, their bigger concern is developing their own guys rather than taking on an old AAA player to try and win another game or two
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions
So, in summary
A) If you look at Scott Barnes and see Noah Lowry’s year in high-A, you value Scott highly.
B) If you look at Scott Barnes and see Ben Snyder’s year in high-A, you don’t value Scott highly.
C) If you look at Travis Ishikawa and see a 1-1.5 WAR player based on his being the best defensive firstbaseman since JT Snow, you value Travis highly.
D) If you look at Travis Ishikawa and see a replacement level player based on the +20 runs of defensive value being a short sample size illusion, you don’t value Travis highly.
And pretty much eveyone agrees that Ryan Garko is an above average major league hitter, but probably barely average as a firstbaseman, and plays slightly below average defense.
So:
- If you believe A and D, you probably agree with Marcello and Neifichicken.
- If you believe B and C, you probably agree with Flulikesymptoms and Fla-Giant.
- If you have a soul, you probably agree with me that the Dodgers are hellspawn.
Go Giants.
Still the loving, adoptive father of Hector Sanchez. And who doesn't love switch-hitting catchers with power and patience?
nice wrapup
but anyone who sees B is an idiot. Not only were Snyder’s A+ numbers worse than Barnes, he was 23 when he got them, Barnes was 21.
Also, Snyder sits at 86-88, Barnes sits at 90-92
It’s night and day.
I’m not anti-Garko though, I’m anti-stupidity. I believe Ishi/Jeff Bailey can = Garko, just much, much cheaper to do so
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions
for the record, I don’t think anybody has made that exact Ben Snyder comparison. I doubt one would have to strain too hard to find a few pitchers like Barnes who flamed out in the jump from A+ to AA. In all of my support of this trade I don’t mean to put down Scott Barnes. I like him as a prospect, I saw him pitch a game in Modesto earlier this year and came away pretty impressed. My whole point is any pitcher or the Scott Barnes type (decent but not great prospect with a good short track record in pro ball) is worth trading for a decent upgrade of the MLB club if the situation is right. One can argue that this situation isn’t right, but so far I don’t think anybody has.
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions
K Law pretty much did
Barnes has an average fastball and changeup with a fringe-average slider with a lot of effort in his delivery. He’s thrown well in a good pitchers’ park this year in high-A, but that’s not surprising for a semipolished college product like Barnes. Given the lack of a plus pitch and the effort in his delivery, he’s much more likely to end up a reliever in the big leagues.
there you go, better than I could have said it myself (and plus, he actually knows what the hell he is talking about)
by FluLikeSymptoms on Jul 28, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think you're necessarily wrong
As I’ve said before, I think in terms sheer value, Barnes for Garko is pretty fair.
However, this is about marginal value, essentially what Garko can do for us that Ishi can’t do. The answer to that is sadly quite simple, and unfortunately it’s pretty one dimensional (mash LHP) and is something I think we could have found cheaper.
To use another analogy, I think it’s like this. The engine of our car has a problem, so we bought an entirely new engine at a fair price. However, we could have just bought one additional part for the old engine, saved money, and gotten the exact same performance.
Nick Johnson = superior engine
Ishikawa = standard engine missing a piston
Garko = standard engine with a piston
Bailey/RHH type = piston
Why pay 10x the price for the new standard engine when we can just buy a new piston?
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll chime in too
Hey, tedfordfan, you were a bit off in your summary of my views. For the record, I think Barnes is a much better prospect than Snyder. I wrote in another thread that I thought his upside was as a #4 starter (although for us only #5), but his downside was a failed starter that might limp into the majors as a LOOGY or mop-up man. While I would have liked to see him develop in our system, we have probably 6 other pitchers in our system that have the same upside/downside profile.
As for Ishi, I love his D, and he has intriguing potential, but we’ve given him more than enough time to show he can hit, and he just hasn’t delivered. The worst part about it is that he’s been so streaky about his hitting. If he would just hit a consistent .270, even with an OPS below .800, I could live with that in the hopes of him getting better next year. But his splits are maniacal. I think that he actually has some psychological problem with hitting on the road. How else do you explain a home/road OPS split of .940 vs. .500? AT&T is a tough park for lefties, but he’s scorching both LHP and RHP there at near Panda-like levels. I still think Ishi has a chance to put it all together and be at least an average offensive 1B some day (which would make him very valuable when added to his stellar D), but we don’t have the luxury of giving him any more leeway this year because we’re in a wild-card race.
In addition, I posted my immediate reaction to this trade in another thread as (to paraphrase) not a HR, but at least a single. So, you can see that I wasn’t jumping up and down in celebration. However, while reading this thread I was struck by some of the truly negative reactions, and by some commenters that were raving about how huge a prospect Barnes is. I just wanted to counteract some of those comments by putting my 2 cents in that Barnes wasn’t our #3 pitching prospect and he wasn’t i the top 10 of all our prospects, IMO.
"There ain’t much to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer." - Honus Wagner
I'm not sure why people fail to grasp that ...
buying at the trading deadline usually requires you to overpay a little bit.
We probably overpaid a little bit. That little bit is fairly inconsequential. We can move on.
LinceCain and pray for rain .... or for someone to take Zito off our hands.
I stand by the fact that we did not overpay. We may have paid more than the value we’ll get out of Garko (though I don’t think that’ll be true, either), but we didn’t give up more than the normal trade market demands.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with this, but that doesn’t mean I like the trade
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Well that’s fair – I see your argument and understand where you’re coming from, even if we don’t agree if it’s a good move for the Giants.
by Missing Barry on Jul 28, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions
even then I don’t think we severely disagree. This is a move that DEFINITELY improves the team. Cannot deny that, we are better today than we were yesterday.
I just felt that this type of upgrade could be done just as easily for a much cheaper price. I’m like a mother bitching at her daughter for spending $100 on groceries at Whole Foods when we could have gotten the same groceries for $50 at safeway
by NeifiChicken on Jul 28, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
