Originally Posted by Wealz
I'll give you Garland, but he came at a price that was too good to refuse -- Matt Karchner. Even though he's a success story, I think that you'd have to agree that he's devolped slower than any of us would have liked. I understand he's 24, but with as many major league innings as he has under his belt his career performance has been a mild disappointment to this point.
1) I don't think you can fault the organization for getting Garland at a great price. For all we know the deal required significant holding out and strong negotiating by Schuler. At a minimum it required patience and level headedness to realize that despite one mediocre season Garland was still a strong prospect.
2) Look at Garland's AAA numbers at Charlotte in '00. His ERA was outstanding but his peripheral stats don't suggest he was dominating AAA hitters. I think it's unfair to peg his slow development to a poor ability to develop young talent as opposed to promoting him prematurely.