Still, this didn’t look like a fantastic deal at the time, either.

(It’s still tonight, right?) I think Garrison has a change to end up being the best player out of that deal. He really seems to be blossoming.

Still, Evan Frederickson had a really nice game of his own in his debut, and it’s going to take years, like you said, to really ascertain the true value involved.

What may trouble some people is Melvin’s assertion in the paper today that he wouldn’t hesitate to pull another prospects-for-rental trade. Me, I don’t mind the concept, it’s just that this particular one was poorly conceived. Some people, though, are against the idea whole-cloth.

they wrote about potential pitchers who could be available come the deadline. I knew Zach Grienke could become available, but Matt Cain was on that list as well.

If we’re going to use our big time prospects, lets go after one of these guys with Matt Cain a little bit ahead. Cain is a free agent in 2012 while Grienke is a free agent in 2011.

Forget C.C., let’s target these guys.

People always get too worked up when they hear the word prospects. I remember when we got Zach Jackson. People were freaking out (in a good way) because we got Toronto’s #1 pitching “prospect”, even though there were serious questions about whether or not he could actually pitch. In hindsight, he wasn’t much of a prospect.

Take Thatcher. Might he have a career as a useful LOOGY? Sure, but is it likely that his value is anything above your standard Shouse/Tony “The Mechanic” Fossas/Steve Kline? Not really. He sure looks like your typical replacement level pitcher that you can find without any real trouble, thereby making his value a lot less than what people think, regardless a 1.29 ERA in a totally irrelevant sample size might make you believe. Bottom line is that he was and remains expendable.

Now, maybe Inman or Garrison turn into Johan Santana, but neither was viewed as an elite level prospect, and certainly no better than the guys they drafted with the compensation picks.

Bottom line is that the bullpen was a mess and Melvin made a play by giving up a couple of non-elite prospects. Time wil be the true judge of the trade of course, but I think it was a good move at the time.

Not all prospects turn into Jeff Bagwell.

was the kind of guy that a lot of ‘stat geeks’ liked and the scouts never thought much of. He had great control, could trick young hitters, and just kept getting people out. Apparently the ‘stuff’ was unimpressive because he didn’t have one ‘out pitch.’

Kevin Goldstein of BP assessed him in FEB in his review of the Padres’ system:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7162 (subscription required)

Signs were that Linebrink was not 100% when they acquired him. Regardless of what he is doing this year, I didn’t like that trade, but I don’t think it hurt us too bad because it gave us two draft picks and wasn’t a totally unreasonable gamble at the time. The Brewers’ collapse that yielded the division lead was not Linebrink’s fault, and Joe Thatcher could have been a lot worse in a different ballpark vs. different opponents.

The trade might have worked out better last year if Melvin threw in Yost as a bullpen catcher. That might have been worth 2-3 wins down the stretch.