Originally posted by Niners99:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by ads_2006:
Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
It's PURELY hypothetical and extremely unlikely this would get Stanton, but would you trade the following:
Heath Hembree
Kyle Crick
Clayton Blackburn
Gary Brown
Hector Sanchez
I'd probably throw in another prospect, but no idea who.
no, thats too much for a player the marlins are gonna trade anyways. Plus i'd imagine we take on a big contract for the marlins as well
you gotta keep at least 1 of those pitching prospects if not 2
gotta keep
Since pitching has been the key to winning the title 2 out of the last 3 years, there's no way I trade 3 of my top young arms for a bat...ANY bat. I keep developing the pitching I already have and plug in enough hitting to get us in to the playoffs, where we've absolutely dominated!!!
That formula has worked and should put us in a position to reach the playoffs for years to come.
Come on Ghost. You would trade all of those guys in a heartbeat for Trout. And more.
Trout is a once-in-a-generation type player, so yah, I would probably do that. But I would do that knowing I had almost no room for error in my pitching staff, and would likely pay the price for losing so much pitching talent. Again, the Giants have proved that great pitching can beat even the game's best hitting, so I would personally always lean towards keeping/acquiring game-changing arms as opposed to game-changing bats.
I get your point but Mike Trout or Mike Stanton are proven game changers right now. The players on this list are not even considered elite prospects at this point. None of them are sure things anyway. I would do that deal for Mike Stanton in a heartbeat. You would still have Stratton and really all of the non starters would be expendable.
Cain wasn't considered an elite prospect either, but he's turned in to one of the all-time great pitchers in Giants history. This park is built for pitching, and I would even say it turns really good prospects into potentially great ones (much more room for error). So I'd keep building my team to reflect the dynamics of the park. I mean, we've won 2 world titles in 3 years with 2 has-beens in LF (Burrell, Ross) and 2 never-were's (Blanco and Nady). That tells me all I need to know about the right formula to win with AT&T as my home park.
I'd be the most hated GM in Giants history if I didn't pull the trigger on that deal...but in response, I'd find a way to cobble together just enough hitting to compliment my great pitching staff and keep winning titles. 
Cain definately WAS considered an elite prospect. I followed him closely after we drafted him. Entering 2005, Cain was ranked as the 13th best prospect in baseball by Baseball America, and the 3rd best pitcher. The only righty ahead of him on the list was Felix Hernandez.
I should've clarified that my point was related to John's statement that Crick and Blackburn aren't considered elite prospects "yet," and that's true. They have to develop, no doubt about it. But Cain wasn't considered elite either
when he was drafted 25th overall in 2002. Good, but not necessarily elite or he would've gone a lot higher...it was his development in the minors that led to him becoming an elite prospect. In the same vein, Crick and Blackburn are on that same path; not that they've arrived, but they're headed in that direction. Especially Blackburn...if he puts together another good year in San Jose, he could easily move into the top 25-50 of all prospects. And Crick has the kind of stuff that projects nicely as a #2-3 starter, even though he's very, very raw.
So my point was, with that kind of talent and the Giants track record of developing young arms, it just doesn't make sense to give up on those guys even if RIGHT NOW, they're not considered elite. Give it a few years, and they very well could be.
