Padres - Signed Giles
San Diego Padres - Signed 2B Marcus Giles to a 1-year contract.
Being that this is $3.25 million for a single year, it certainly looks like while the Cubs were correct about outfielders going for a lot of money this offseason, they really overshot for Mark DeRosa in a market in which there was a glut of 2B, none of which really got big contracts.
I’m really shocked that the Braves did this in the end. It’s one thing to dump salary when you can pick up something to help the team, but I have a really hard time believing that the Braves weren’t offered anything for Giles.
Obviously, this is a winning situation for the Padres. They don’t give up Scott Linebrink for Giles and get to pay Giles less than they would have if he were going into arbitration. It also makes the Barfield trade look even better and makes up for the Padres not winning the bid for Iwamura. Big thumbs up for the Padres here.
2007 ZiPS Projection - Marcus Giles
———————————————————————————————————
AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
———————————————————————————————————
Projection 525 84 145 31 2 11 54 61 102 11 .276 .356 .406
———————————————————————————————————
Opt. (15%) 545 100 160 37 3 14 69 71 98 16 .294 .381 .450
Pes. (15%) 413 58 107 21 1 7 35 43 87 7 .259 .331 .366
———————————————————————————————————
Dan Szymborski
Posted: December 21, 2006 at 08:19 PM |
37 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. frannyzoo Posted: December 21, 2006 at 08:33 PM (#2266604)I'll take the under on that projection by the way. That line is pretty close to what I'd project from him with the Braves - PETCO's gonna push that down some.
C: Bard
1B: Gonzalez
2B: Giles
3b: Kouzmanoff
SS: Greene
LF: Sledge
CF: Cameron
RF: Giles
I thought that too, but this contract kind of proves that it was true. He would have gotten about $6 million in arbitration. This is about half that. Even assuming a discount because he wanted to play with his brother, I'm still guessing no one offered him more than $4 million, or more than one year. I mean, if the Mets had offered a three year deal worth $15 million, he'd be a Met today.
With that in mind, I'm convinced that no one offered the Braves anything for Giles.
Second baseman are like kickers in football these days.
Of course, it didn't help that the Braves were waving the "If we can't get anything for him, we'll non-tender him!" flag since Day 1. Would you trade anything for him if you knew you could get him for just cash if you held your ground? The Braves should have called the other teams' bluffs on this one.
Gonzalez and Kouzmanoff? That looks like a long, frustrating summer waiting to happen. Here's to a bunch of 2 - 1 10 - inning home wins and 85 or so 8 - 2 road losses in parks where everyone else will be able to hit....
Anyway, their starting rotation is pretty nasty, and I think they'll hit enough to stay in it, and their oldest infielder will be 29 next year.
Link
The lesson: keep having more.
True fact.
He lacks the arm strength to throw out baserunners from Cleveland?
Not really; once you take into account park effects, Giles, Giles, Gonzalez and Cameron will be projected to be above average at their position; nobody is below replacement level, half are above average, and their is a good chance 2-3 out of the other 4 will be about league average.
No superstar; but you don't need one to have a league average offense.
Anyone consider that the Braves could look better to free agents and players in their own organization as a result of how they handled Marcus Giles? Rather than sending him somewhere he didn't want to go for some marginal return, they non-tendered him and allowed him to sign with San Diego. Coupled with Glavine's apparent desire to go back to Atlanta, the Braves look like an organization that treats players well. Also, Rocker's diatribe against Schuerholz and the reminder that they cut ties with him can't help but be a positive. All in all, quite an offseason for Atlanta in terms of cementing itself as a great place to play. It'll be interesting to see if this translates into market discounts over the next few years.
You know what else will cause those accusations? Losing power every year since steroid testing began. See also Blalock, Hank and, oh, what a coincidence, Giles, Brian.
1. This didn't happen.
2. What does this have to do with Barry Bonds?
3. This didn't happen to Brian Giles, either.
See: Accusations, unsubstantiated; rumours, mongering of; and rudimentary research, lack of.
443
461
387
Graph the line, Dextor.
514
475
483
397
Is there any reason to think that projections actually work like this - ie, a straight line downward slope?
If we took 1000 players with a 500, 470, 440, 400 slg'ing line, would the best projection be a weighted average with an age adjustment, and some various adjustments for league and park, and a adjustment towards the mean (either population/position specific, or general)? In other words, given Giles's age, if he stayed in the same park/league context, shouldn't we expect him to rebound. If we are graphing the next point, shouldn't it be above 400?
There were a number of threads about this when discussing Lowell to the Red Sox last year, amongst other transactions. MGL's 4 yr wght'd avg for Lowell, iirc, turned out pretty spot on, though it is really meant for a larger population rather than any specific player. Unless we have concrete real knowledge that keeps this player out of the larger population group (eg, Julio Franco), shouldn't we assume that the rules for projecting the larger population group are valid?
Chipper Jones has become a hell of a lot more injury prone in the post-testing years too. Or do you suppose that the only players using steroids or PEDs were the stars called before congress or a grand jury? Surely you're not that stupid.
I don't know for certain what happened, of course. I'm not in an MLB front office. But somewhere between 2004 and now Marcus Giles' stock dropped from "potentially the best 2B in the league" to "Mark Derosa except when dealing with the Cubs." A couple of notable things happened in that span. He got the living #### knocked out of him by Mark Prior, going unconscious on the field due to the collision of his head and Prior's knee. Since then his OBP and SLG have slipped to pedestrian levels. Maybe his eyesight isn't as perfect as it was before? He then got run through wholly and entirely by Andruw Jones on a pop to shallow CF, breaking his collar bone in the process. His SLG went even worse at that point. Maybe he hasn't healed properly and doesn't generate the same power stroke he used to get to the majors? Finally he's been hampered by nagging injuries -- hand problems from sliding into bases, leg aches and the like. In the mean time he's gotten visibly less bulky.
Does that all add up to proof positive of steroid use? No, of course not. But steroids have two primary uses for baseball players. First they allow them to recuperate faster from gym sessions, which allows them to bulk up. Giles used to be bulky, now he's not so much (just like his brother. And Ryan Klesko and Jason Giambi.) The other use of steroids is to return from nagging injuries faster, as the same process that heals the body from repeated workout strain also heals the body from wear and tear of playing the middle infield (or relieving.) Marcus Giles now has nagging injury issues he never had before (as does Chipper Jones.) So, while it's far from proof positive, anecdotally it is something reasonable people should consider. The bottom line is that the league doesn't think of Marcus Giles the same way it used to think of Marcus Giles, and I'm kinda interested in figuring why.
168
169
210
132
170
125
Brian ISO
257 (121 AB)
191
191
299
279
281
324
215
191
172
134
No, steroids assist in adding muscle. The frame, the skeleton, is what you're born with.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main