Giants Trade for Ryan Garko

by Brendan Scolari on Jul 27, 2009 9:30 PM EDT

Ed Price from AOL Fanhouse tweets that the Giants have just acquired Ryan Garko from the Indians. Garko is hitting .285/.362/.464 so far this season and has played good defense at first base. He will replace the platoon of Travis Ishikawa and Rich Aurrilia there. More details to follow...

9:40 ET: (Matt Buggenhagen)

Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus tweets that the Indians received LHP prospect Scott Barnes and PTBNL for Garko. John Sickels of Minor League Ball grades Barnes as a C+ and ranks him the Giants 14th best prospect.

Sickels: "Intriguing lefty out of St. John’s in the 2008 draft. Good stuff, decent command."

9:45 ET:

Price writes that the Indians will receive lefty Scott Barnes from the Giants. Barnes is 21 and has been terrific for the High-A San Jose Giants, going 12-3 with a 2.85 ERA with 99 strikeouts and only 29 walks.

9:52 ET: (Matt Buggenhagen)

Check that. Anthony Castrovince of MLB.com tweets that there is no PTBNL in the deal, it's Garko for Barnes straight up.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

nice trade

Garko’s not great, but he’s a better hitter than what they have there.

by FreeBradshaw on Jul 27, 2009 9:57 PM EDT reply actions

I'm a Giants fan and I'm pissed

Barnes was a very good prospect and we gave him up for Garko?!? I would’ve preferred we trade Sosa or Pucetas or someone like that.

Grab Some Pine Meat!

by Gobroks on Jul 27, 2009 10:02 PM EDT reply actions

Agreed.

They could have at least gotten a more consistently good bat for a solid prospect like Barnes. Garko just looks like a platoon player, not a type of bat that could solidify a lineup.

I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad

Good ol' KO

by thecoolest on Jul 28, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions

get over it.

We have 9,000 pitching prospects. You have to give up something to get something.

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 1:21 AM EDT up reply actions

I think they should trade their quality pitching prospects

just not for guys like Garko. If you’re giving away a good prospect, you’d expect to get a better bat. I think Barnes could have netted Huff.

I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad

Good ol' KO

by thecoolest on Jul 28, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions

Entire Giants lineup is full of platoon players

On a good day. Garko’s instantly the 2nd best hitter on the Giants behind Pablo.
Sosa? Maybe the Giants could’ve traded him last year when he was the #5 rated prospect. A mediocre season later and he’s off the list and no one will take him except as a throw-in. Barnes could be in a similar spot. You can only trade someone when they have some value, as a “sell high.”

Speaking of which … quick, see if we can trade Eugenio tonight!

by 18 Mile on Jul 29, 2009 4:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Barnes

Was a marginal prospect at best. Im not sure if the Giants received fair value for Garko, but they gave up virtually nothing to get him.

I think that if any team out there starts to ask about Alderson for a trade, depending on the bat, they have to jump. Alderson is a nice prospect, but he will be a bottom of the rotation guy, and there is a lot that can be returned for a guy like him as opposed to developing them and keeping them in house.

by backtocali on Jul 28, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions

In Fact

I would say that the Giants recieved about $10 million in surplus value in the trade. At the very worst Garko is a $10m player. Barnes was a $2 at best.

by backtocali on Jul 28, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions

Marginal at best?

As Gobroks said, he was the Giants #3 pitching prospect and 9th best prospect according to BA (before the season), and he was having a good year at A+.

I am like your Dan Aykroyd and biglow would be Jane, the ignorant slut. -Chad

Good ol' KO

by thecoolest on Jul 28, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

9th best prospect

To put that in perspective, last year’s #9 prospect was John Bowker. Others from last year are Eugenio Velez (#7), Nate Schierholtz (#4) and Emmanuel Burriss (#10). In 2006 Burriss was #4, Wilson #5, Frandsen #6, Lewis #7, Schierholtz #8 and pitcher Billy Sadler #10. Jonathan Sanchez was #2 that year, behind Lincecum of course. Sergio Romo is our #10 prospect this year, right behind Barnes.

The same article listing Barnes as the #9 prospect also doesn’t project him to be in the starting rotation in 2012. Sanchez, #2 on ’06, was projected to be a SP4. In the past 4 years, pitchers rated in the #7-#10 range are Craig Whitaker (#10 ’06), Billy Sadler (#10 ’07), and Barnes and Romo in ’09. (Henry Sosa was rated the #5 prospect in ’08 but fell out of the list this year.)

What’s Garko worth? I’m not sure, but he’s instantly the 2nd best hitter in the Giants lineup statistically and it’s not even close. HIs #‘s this year are comparable to V-Mart and Nick Swisher. Even against RHP, which he’s not as strong against as he is against LHP, only Pablo and Uribe have significantly higher OPS, and Garko is in the same range as Rowand, Winn and the Fred Lewis.

The real question should be do the Giants feel Garko is worth $5-$8M next year. He’s arbitration eligible, and if the Giants weren’t willing to pay that much for him, then they shouldn’t have made this deal, even if they didn’t think Barnes would pan out.

by 18 Mile on Jul 29, 2009 4:13 AM EDT up reply actions