Karchner for Garland- Is it worth it

[teen...@my-dejanews.com]

Okay folks. I just heard that the Sox traded Karchner to the Cubs for Garland
straight up.

Is this a good deal? Garland was our top draft pick. I know Karchner is
having a mediocre year (ERA over 5) but what type of potential does he have?

Anyone have stats on Garland and Karchner?

Also, rumors continue to circulate.

This is double hearsay, so it wouldn't hold up in any court of law, but here
goes:

WGN radio just said (6:25 PM CDT) that a Chicago tv station is reporting the
Cubs are close to a deal for Ventura. As I am no where near chitown, I cant
watch local sports news. Anyone have any idea, which tv station is reporting
this?

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[Michael J. Sacks]

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 teen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Okay folks. I just heard that the Sox traded Karchner to the Cubs for Garland
> straight up.
>
> Is this a good deal? Garland was our top draft pick. I know Karchner is
> having a mediocre year (ERA over 5) but what type of potential does he have?

The reason I would not do this is that Karchner has looked poor since
coming off the DL. Ths Sox coaches are saying he's fine, he's saying he's
fine, but he can't get the side out. I'd rather have Bill Simas at this
point.

Mike Sacks

P.S. Garland looks better than to trade him away for someone who will not
be a major factor in the postseason run. That is, even if Karchner
pitches decently, someone can be picked up on waivers for a lot less.

[Michael J. Sacks]

On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Michael J. Sacks wrote:

> The reason I would not do this is that Karchner has looked poor since
> coming off the DL. Ths Sox coaches are saying he's fine, he's saying he's
> fine, but he can't get the side out. I'd rather have Bill Simas at this
> point.

And as I post that, the trade goes through. Let's see if Lynch has some
idea what he's doing, or the Sox just grabbed another great minor leaguer,
like they did last year with the Giants.

Mike Sacks

[Ed Smith]

I thought lynch was trying to get LEFTY help. What does this do
for us except give adams a break?

ELS

--
Edward Smith
eds...@netcom.com
"That which does not kill you makes you stronger"

[JSLoster]

Nope.

[Kyle]

I like this deal. People don't realize that there is very little relief
pitching out there to trade for, so it is a sellers market. If there is
one thing the Cubs can afford to trade, it's AA or lower right handed
pitchers, we have plenty of those.

teen...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<6pobb3$144$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>
>
> Okay folks. I just heard that the Sox traded Karchner to the Cubs for
Garland
> straight up.
>
> Is this a good deal? Garland was our top draft pick. I know Karchner is
> having a mediocre year (ERA over 5) but what type of potential does he
have?
>

[Kyle]

Garland is 4-7 with a 5+ ERA at A ball

Michael J. Sacks <msa...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.98072...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu>...

> On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 teen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>

> > Okay folks. I just heard that the Sox traded Karchner to the Cubs for
Garland
> > straight up.
> >
> > Is this a good deal? Garland was our top draft pick. I know Karchner is
> > having a mediocre year (ERA over 5) but what type of potential does he
have?
>

> The reason I would not do this is that Karchner has looked poor since
> coming off the DL. Ths Sox coaches are saying he's fine, he's saying
he's
> fine, but he can't get the side out. I'd rather have Bill Simas at this
> point.
>

[Kyle]

Does anyone realize that Garland was 4-7 with a 5+ ERA in A BALL?!?!

JSLoster <jslo...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807300015...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Nope.
>

[JSLoster]

Kyle" nhlman_S...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Does anyone realize that Garland was 4-7 with a 5+ ERA in A BALL?!?!

Yeah but he's only in his first full year of pro ball and he's not even 20
yet.

[Terry Harr]

Prior to his injury, Karchner had an ERA of 3+, given up only 22 hits
in 31 innings, and opposing batters were .204 against him. The only
downside was his walks of 4.5 per game. Given the problems with
Gonzalez, we'll need a deeper bullpen and I like the trade a lot.
Garland was not a power pitcher so his future was certainly
problematical. On Karchner's injury, it appears it was only a groin
pull, so it shouldn't present a problem.

[tks]

Kyle wrote:

> I like this deal. People don't realize that there is very little relief
> pitching out there to trade for, so it is a sellers market. If there is
> one thing the Cubs can afford to trade, it's AA or lower right handed
> pitchers, we have plenty of those.>

I agree. Garland may turn out to be a fine pitcher but he is probably 3 to 4
years away from making the majors (if he makes it at all).....plus the Cubs
still have some pretty good arms left in A and AA ball. Right now, I think it
helps the Cubs....three/four years from now, who knows?

tks

[SP-Douglas]

JSLoster wrote in message
<199807300209...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...

He's 18 years old. Karchner is 31 and has an ERA over 5.

[NDbsktball]

No

[Michael Sliger]

In note <6poijr$m8s$6...@208.134.200.45>, "Kyle" writes:
>Does anyone realize that Garland was 4-7 with a 5+ ERA in A BALL?!?!

But Garland had been pitching better of late. I saw him pitch in Rockford's
series in Cedar Rapids less than a month ago. He has a terrific drop curve,
but his velocity never jumped over 89 MPH that day. He seemed to be adequate
at positioning his pitches, but he will need to get much better to compensate
for his lack of overpowering stuff. It's hard to say in low A ball if he will
become a true prospect. I have no problems with Lynch trading him at this
point, but there is a chance that it will come back to bite him. Still, the
Cubs are hip deep in pitching prospects and I'd rather see Garland go instead
of Norton, Noel (hit 97 MPH often on the gun), and Duncan.

-----Michael Sliger

[Mike Isaacs]

It's an OK deal to make. Karchner is thought to be a young and promising arm
and could turn things around. Of course, it should be about the third and
most minor deal the Cubs make before the deadline and not the
oh-so-big-transaction we've all been waiting for.

There is nothing more difficult than trying to assess pitching at the single
A
level. We may in the future regret having given away Garland but stats say
probably not. Much more than gauging a hitter, gauging a pitcher three years
away from the big leagues is one of the very difficult tasks no matter how
well he's now performing. And Garland was struggling.

So I think this is a very minor risk worth taking. But hardly one worth
praising if this is the only move Lynch is going to make.

Mike Isaacs

Kyle wrote in message <6poi70$m8s$3...@208.134.200.45>...

>I like this deal. People don't realize that there is very little relief
>pitching out there to trade for, so it is a sellers market. If there is
>one thing the Cubs can afford to trade, it's AA or lower right handed
>pitchers, we have plenty of those.
>

>teen...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
><6pobb3$144$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>
>>

>> Okay folks. I just heard that the Sox traded Karchner to the Cubs for
>Garland
>> straight up.
>>
>> Is this a good deal? Garland was our top draft pick. I know Karchner is
>> having a mediocre year (ERA over 5) but what type of potential does he
>have?
>>