Can Giles Bounce Back?
Mon, Nov 13, 2006
by Geoff Young
There’s been some discussion recently on the value of Brian Giles. Specifically, did his 2006 season (.263/.374/.397) represent an aberration or the beginning of the end?
Giles turns 36 in January, so it’s tempting to believe that the latter is the case. However, there is precedent for a player performing at a very high level up until his mid-30s, declining, and then re-establishing himself in his late-30s. And we actually don’t have to look that far back to find such a player.
But before we go there, let’s check out some other players who are comparable to Giles according to Baseball-Reference.com:
| Name | Years | AB | OPS+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stats courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com. | |||
| Bob Johnson | 1933-1941 | 4878 | 137 |
| Larry Doby | 1947-1959 | 5348 | 136 |
| Fred Lynn | 1974-1987 | 5985 | 133 |
| Tim Salmon | 1992-2004 | 5723 | 129 |
| Ryan Klesko | 1992-2006 | 5249 | 131 |
| Dante Bichette | 1988-1999 | 5415 | 106 |
| Ellis Burks | 1987-2000 | 6044 | 125 |
| David Justice | 1989-2001 | 5227 | 130 |
| Paul O’Neill | 1985-1998 | 5645 | 126 |
| Ray Lankford | 1990-2002 | 5547 | 123 |
For what it’s worth, Giles’ OPS+ (142) was higher than that of any of his comparables. Most of this is due to his freakish ability to get on base. Acknowledging that, here is how each of these players did from age 36 to the end of their careers.
| Name | Years | AB | OPS+ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stats courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com. | |||
| Bob Johnson | 1942-1945 | 2042 | 141 |
| Larry Doby | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Fred Lynn | 1988-2000 | 940 | 104 |
| Tim Salmon | 2005-2006 | 211 | 113 |
| Ryan Klesko | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Dante Bichette | 2000-2001 | 966 | 103 |
| Ellis Burks | 2001-2004 | 1188 | 129 |
| David Justice | 2002 | 398 | 106 |
| Paul O’Neill | 1999-2001 | 1673 | 103 |
| Ray Lankford | 2003-2004 | 200 | 102 |
Johnson improved, but that was during World War II, when many of MLB’s best and brightest were serving their country and the talent pool was diluted. Doby, whose career started just after Johnson’s ended, played his final big-league game at age 35.
Lynn and Lankford are the names that Padres fans fear. Each of those fine players saw their skills erode almost completely while in San Diego.
Salmon, Klesko, and Justice all suffered injuries that caused each to miss significant time. Salmon didn’t play in his age 36 season, bounced back in a limited role the following year, and then retired. Klesko collected only a handful of at-bats in his age 35 season and it remains to be seen where he goes from here. Justice retired following his age 36 season due to injuries.
Bichette? He shows up on this list, but his complete inability to draw a walk makes him a terrible comp. Burks looks like a potentially good point of reference, but he never really faced the kind of dropoff that Giles has faced. The main similarity here is that both Burks and Giles are among the most underrated hitters of their time.
O’Neill probably is the most analogous hitter of this bunch, but except for 1994 (his and Giles’ age 31 season are eerily similar), he really is a poor man’s Giles. When O’Neill’s production dropped late in his career, it wasn’t from such great heights. The slope of his decline, in other words, was very gentle. As with Burks, there was no precipitous dropoff from which to rebound.
Having found no suitable comps from Giles’ age 35 list, I investigated further. One name that didn’t appear in the original list kept showing up in comps for previous ages: Moises Alou.
Alou was #1 on Giles’ list through age 28. He was #2 through age 29, #5 through age 30, #2 through age 31, #10 through age 32, #9 through age 33, and #10 through age 34. Suffice to say, their respective careers are more than a little analogous:
| Age | Name | OPS+ | RC/27 | ISO | XB/H | BB/SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stats courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com. | ||||||
| 31 | Alou | 157 | 8.58 | .270 | .423 | .966 |
| Giles | 173 | 10.07 | .324 | .541 | 1.824 | |
| 32 | Alou | injured | ||||
| Giles | 148 | 7.94 | .215 | .408 | 1.810 | |
| 33 | Alou | 151 | 9.86 | .268 | .373 | 1.156 |
| Giles | 126 | 6.34 | .191 | .364 | 1.113 | |
| 34 | Alou | 138 | 8.25 | .223 | .347 | 1.000 |
| Giles | 148 | 7.41 | .182 | .372 | 1.859 | |
| 35 | Alou | 100 | 5.05 | .144 | .293 | .770 |
| Giles | 105 | 5.10 | .131 | .327 | 1.733 | |
Despite missing his age 32 season, Alou followed a fairly unremarkable path: slight decline through age 34, then precipitous drop at age 35. Giles’ progression is a little less linear: steady drop, then slight rebound, then big drop.
Two things I find interesting here are the changes in strike zone judgment and in isolated power. Both players mostly maintained a constant BB/SO ratio throughout their mid-30s, with one notable exception in each case.
Giles experienced a severe drop at age 33 that accompanied a minor drop in overall production. In truth, though, it was no worse a drop than had occurred the previous season, without any real change to his BB/SO.
When Giles slumped at age 35, his plate discipline was only slightly worse than it had been at age 34 (and still very good by most standards). In other words, he still appeared to be recognizing pitches as well as ever; he just wasn’t able to do as much with the ones he actually atttempted to hit.
Alou’s game, on the other hand, pretty much deteriorated all at once. Like Giles, his power went into serious hibernation (although the slope wasn’t quite as steep); unlike Giles, however, Alou also gave ground in the plate discipline area.
Intuitively, we might expect such a broad decline of one’s offensive game at that age to be irreversible. But with Alou, at least, this hasn’t been the case:
| Age | OPS+ | RC/27 | ISO | XB/H | BB/SO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stats courtesy of Baseball-Reference.com. | |||||
| 36 | 113 | 5.82 | .182 | .367 | .940 |
| 37 | 128 | 7.44 | .284 | .443 | .850 |
| 38 | 141 | 7.76 | .197 | .314 | 1.302 |
| 39 | 132 | 7.24 | .270 | .462 | .903 |
Alou showed a slight rebound at age 36 in all aspects of his game, and has leveled off at a high (albeit not as high as during his prime) level from age 37 to 39. None of this, of course, is any guarantee that Giles will follow a similar path. It should, however, provide at least some hope to folks who are convinced he is the second coming of Lankford.
Picking up where last year's version left off, the Ducksnorts 2008 Baseball Annual provides in-depth analysis of and commentary on the San Diego Padres. Get your copy today.
November 13, 2006 at 6:52 am
Thank you Geoff - very thorough, and does make me hopeful. I said this yesterday, but if he rebounds like Alou, I’ll be happy. Hopefully the self-urination on the hands is not the secret to Alou’s longevity…
Article in the UT today mentions that Giles is in fact on the block, though KT says “we have not shopped one player”. Interesting is the confirmation here that Giles’ no-trade is much more limited now.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
November 13, 2006 at 6:57 am
Clayton: Thanks for helping to provide the inspiration for the research. With luck, Giles will do his part and make me look good.
My favorite part of that U-T article is at the bottom, where it notes that Balsley has signed a 2-year deal. Woo-hoo!
November 13, 2006 at 7:58 am
Another list of comparables (from BP) coming into ‘06:
1 Carl Yastrzemski
2 Gene Woodling
3 Larry Walker
4 Luis Gonzalez
5 Don Buford
6 Jackie Robinson
7 George Brett
8 Brady Anderson
9 Gary Sheffield
10 Paul O’Neill
November 13, 2006 at 8:13 am
Thanks for the list, Richard. Intuitively I thought that Gonzalez should be there. Brett and Walker make sense, too. A quick glance reveals that none of them had a real drop in performance until the end.
November 13, 2006 at 8:34 am
Damn, Geoff, you are good. I think we should dump Giles regardless as he will never meet expectation he set as a first year Padre.
BTW, if the Padres need a player-analyist in the front office (and I assume they have such positions), you, Geoff of Ducksnorts, are the one. You consistantly show the desire and the talent to “break it down,” and all for free. Imagine getting paid. I see you presenting in a meeting (with handy PP slides) to Sandy and Kevin, helping them make the right decisions.
RE:1# self-urination-Elaborate?
November 13, 2006 at 8:42 am
In case any of you wondered… Why BP’s comps are different:
“PECOTA compares each hitter against a database of roughly 20,000 major league batter seasons since World War II. In addition, it also draws upon a database of roughly 10,000 translated minor league seasons (1998-2005) for hitters who spent most of their previous season in the minor leagues. (When minor league comparables are used, they appear in ALL CAPS). PECOTA considers four broad categories of attributes in determining a hitter’s comparability:
1. Production metrics–in particular, batting average, isolated power, unintentional walk rate, strikeout rate, groundball:flyball ratio and a modified version of the Bill James speed score.
2. Usage metrics, including career length and plate appearances.
3. Phenotypic attributes, including handedness, height and weight.
4. Fielding Position. PECOTA doesn’t require that a comparable hitter play the same defensive position; it is a factor that is evaluated along with many others, and assigned a relatively substantial weight. Consideration is also given to the ’similarity’ between two positions; for example, a shortstop will be compared to a second baseman before he is compared to a left fielder. (See additional discussion).”
November 13, 2006 at 8:43 am
5: Alou urinates on his hands.
November 13, 2006 at 8:48 am
Yas dropped off a bit in his age 35 season, but bounced back in his age 36 season. So did Woodling. Walker had another off year before bouncing back at age 37.
November 13, 2006 at 8:56 am
Hey, if it works for Alou, maybe Giles SHOULD participate.
November 13, 2006 at 8:59 am
I hate even broaching this subject, but I think it’s something to consider when you look at the whole picture. I’m not by any stretch insinuating that Giles was using steroids, but considering the timeline of the dropoff it’s just another complication to the equation.
November 13, 2006 at 9:46 am
10: Giles has been using steroids since high school.
November 13, 2006 at 9:52 am
Gilly was fairly unlucky this past season, btw. His PrAVE/PrOBP/PrSLG was .287/.393/.426.
November 13, 2006 at 10:57 am
To elaborate, it was reported that Alou urinates on his hand to prevent blisters from swinging the bat without batting gloves.
I’m all for signing guys that don’t use batting gloves. We need more throwback guys like that.
November 13, 2006 at 11:17 am
13: That’s the main reason I support Ben Johnson in left field. Maybe he and Alou can form an old school, no batting gloves platoon.
November 13, 2006 at 11:17 am
Ducksnorts favorite Ken Rosenthal’s gotcha scoop of the day is that Aramis Ramirez’s contract is worth $75 million, not $73M, thanks to a $2 million buyout at the end.
He also wrote that, according to sources, if Ramirez tested the free-agent market, the Orioles, Padres, Giants and Phillies were perhaps more willing to meet Ramirez’s desire for a six-year deal.
And talk about connecting the dots with this:
Free-agent left-hander Ted Lilly appears to be one of (the Cubs’) principal targets. The team has made early contact with Lilly’s agent, Larry O’Brien, who describes the Cubs as an “intriguing” possibility.
O’Brien is familiar with new Cubs manager Lou Piniella; his brother, former major-league first baseman Pete O’Brien, played for Piniella with the Mariners in 1993.
November 13, 2006 at 11:33 am
mlbtraderumors.com, citing Rotoworld, citing ESPN, is reporting that the Bosox won the Mats derby, reportedly at a $42 million posting fee. I’m guessing the Japanese team takes it.
November 13, 2006 at 11:42 am
Diamondbacks new uni - kinda resembles the Astros, read the article here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn.....kas/061110
Does this thing resemble anything to anyone else? I mean, what the hell?
http://www.azcentral.com/sshow....._71794.jpg
November 13, 2006 at 11:45 am
ROY results are out… I didn’t expect Josh Barfield to win…but I did expect him to get some votes. Apparently I was way wrong. It would appear that he didn’t even get a vote. MLB.com listed 11 guys who got votes and Barfield is not on that list which is a surprise to me.
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/.....p;c_id=mlb
November 13, 2006 at 11:57 am
The only time I saw Barfield mentioned in connection with ROY was a Lyle Spencer story. Very good, maybe great, year for rookies.
November 13, 2006 at 11:59 am
It was a strong year, but I would have expected Barfield to get some votes, especially over guys like Willingham.
November 13, 2006 at 12:08 pm
I’m disappointed but not shocked that Barfield didn’t garner a single vote. After all, Jake Peavy has never received a single Cy Young vote.
November 13, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Well, all the players who received votes other than Ramirez, Zimmerman and Uggla received three or fewer votes. Four of them received just one third-place vote. So in a way, all of those players received flucky votes, at a voters’ whim, because the top three rookies were fairly clear — Ramirez, Zimmerman and Uggla.
So was Josh Barfield better than Josh Willingham last year? Maybe, probably. But Willingham receiving one vote isn’t exactly a rininging endorsement. Some voter decided to waste his third-place vote because he had a hankering for Willingham.
Here’s another thing to remember: If voters are voting for three people on a ballot, in this instance — then that’s all the voting system can decide. Meaning, 1. Ramirez. 2. Zimmerman. 3. Uggla. It doesn’t mean anything that Josh Johnson is fourth, or that Prince Fielder is tied for seventh, because the ballot went only three places. In MVP voting, only the top 10 is significant. In Cy Young voting, only the top three.
November 13, 2006 at 12:13 pm
$42 million!!! That is freaking INSANE! I am seriously at a loss for words that a team would risk that much money on a total unknown at the major league level and then still need to sign him to a contract. The Boston fans are going to destroy this guy if he is anything less than amazing!
November 13, 2006 at 12:28 pm
The UT article and everyone says the Padres have $30M in reduced payroll to spend. But this doesn’t seem to consider the insurance proceeds from Klesco’s disability. How much was that and am I correct that it isn’t counted?
November 13, 2006 at 12:45 pm
It’s not like Barfield deserved any votes…
November 13, 2006 at 1:26 pm
23 - I don’t know the answer to that, but your comment rekindled a thought I’ve been having lately which is: $30MM really doesn’t buy you as much anymore! With the weaker crop of FAs added to the flush-with-cash status of so many teams, we don’t have as much purchasing power as we had hoped it seems. Not to say we can’t still make a splash, but it will be 1 big bat or 1 better than average bat and 1 good SP. Probably can’t get a good SP and a big power bat with this budget in this market.
November 13, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Can someone please explain to me why we don’t give Ben Johnson a chance to play every day next season? Last year, his AAA stats were similar to those of Jason Bay when he was in AAA, back in 2003, and Johnson was 10 months younger than Bay was when he put up his numbers.
Is there no possibilty that Johnson can end up being another Bay? After all, his AAA stats support that he could.
November 13, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I heard that Kouz went undrafted in last year’s Rule V Draft. He could have been chosen by any one of 29 teams, but they all passed. That does not inspire confidence in his abilities. Can anyone confirm that he was in fact available in that draft?
November 13, 2006 at 3:12 pm
John Sickels, home from Arizona, gave this opinion:
First, Chase Headley of the San Diego Padres. I like his approach at the plate, but I am uncertain how much power he will develop.
Second, Gavin Floyd of the Philadelphia Phillies. He showed an effective curveball and a fastball with better movement than he’s had in the regular season lately. I still think he can be an effective pitcher but he will probably need a change of scenery.
Should the Padres trade for Floyd?
November 13, 2006 at 3:13 pm
#28: the last question is mine, not John’s observation.
How do I do italics on comments?
November 13, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Here’s the Cleveland MLB site’s discussion of the Barfield trade.
http://cleveland.indians.mlb.c.....p;c_id=cle
November 13, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Kouzmanoff was available in the Rule V and was undrafted despite his great numbers in high-A because he was too old for the league. Last season he was dominant in both AA and AAA and that inspired the demand for him this off season. All the guy has done in the minor leagues is hit. He’s going to be a stud.
November 13, 2006 at 3:42 pm
#27: I read that. The Rule V draft precedes the season. Stock goes up and down.
November 13, 2006 at 3:50 pm
#25 Your point is well made. Given the high $ of the contracts this week, our expectations are too high. Let’s just hope that’s the budget’s at least $30MM after accounting for insurance reimbursements.
November 13, 2006 at 4:02 pm
#32: Another consideration is that most guys who get taken in the Rule V draft end up sitting at the very end of the bench. It’s extremely difficult for a kid who hasn’t even played Double-A to develop if he only gets into a game situation once or twice a week.
Honestly, finding a Johan Santana in that thing is like winning the lottery. It can happen, but there are much smarter investments.
November 13, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Lyle Spencer is at it again. In the latest “Mailbag” feature, he calls Barfield the “total package, bound for stardom.” That sounds like something a fan or Mark Grant says after a game-winning homer. Is that what you call a rookie with one good month all year? He also cites Kouz as being the Indians’ 23rd-ranked prospect (BA) in the spring. As in before his 2006 season. He was still a 25-year-old playing much of the year in AA, but those preseason rankings just don’t mean as much now. I like Barfield and think he will be a solid to good player, but cool it with the hyperbole, Spencer.
November 13, 2006 at 4:07 pm
An addendum to #35: I kinda discounted Barfield’s September, when he hit .277/.294/.470 line. Obviously, the middle # is awful, but 10 XBHs and 11 RBI in 83 ABs count for something.
November 13, 2006 at 6:11 pm
#26- There isn’t much of a chance that Johson will approach Bay’s success. Bay controls the strike zone; Johnson doesn’t.
I think Johnson makes a hell of a fourth outfielder, however, and could probably be used to spell AGon at first. He could get a couple hundred at bats that way, mostly against pitching he could be successful against. A player like that, as inexpensive as Ben is, has real value.
November 13, 2006 at 7:08 pm
re: 25
Thank you. That’s what I should have said.
November 13, 2006 at 7:33 pm
As much as I liked Barfield, I have to say that since he’s been traded I am alittle surprised at the over-estimation of his abilities. He couldn’t draw walks at all, was just average defensively, and really wore down as the season went on. Just the fact he was benched late in the year for Todd Walker should speak volumes. Among NL rookies he was last in most of the rate statas and counting stats too, which is why he didn’t get any votes for ROY. I don’t know if Kouzmanoff is going to develop any more, but the man can hit, and even if he ends up in left that’s not going to change. The PAdres needed a cheap bat to go along with the expensive one they’re presumably going to add sometime this off-season, and Barfield’s not a bad chip to trade for that.I am less than thrilled about the prospect of Linebrink for M. Giles, if it happens. I think there’s good 2B options that can be had much more cheaply.
As far as Giles, I think he’s the type of player that tends to age well - draws walks, hits for average and a bit of power. I think his stats last year were a fluke - remember, he played though some pretty hardcore knee ipain last year that a lot of people seemed to think he couldn’t play through. He’s a hell of a lot different player than Ray Lankford.
November 13, 2006 at 8:20 pm
40: The more I think about a Liney for Giles trade, the more I like it. The guy gets on base and plays good D. Linebrink is a middle reliever. Also, I tend to believe Marc Normandin’s assessment that Marcus is due to bounce back.
November 13, 2006 at 9:25 pm
I’m w/ Richard, but I kinda think I want Iwamura even more…
November 13, 2006 at 10:10 pm
42: I’d be fine with Iwamura, too. I was kinda operating under the assumption that we weren’t getting him (mostly because the posting process is insane).
November 13, 2006 at 11:05 pm
If we make a bigger signing than getting Balsley under contract for two more years, I think it will be an extraordinarily successful offseason. As it is, just making sure he is around for another two seasons makes it a very good offseason already. I honestly think he is that good with and that important to our pitching staff.
Geoff, good comparison and analysis of Alou and Giles, but we all know Alou’s rebound is due to his hitting behind Barry.
November 14, 2006 at 2:47 am
At the GM meetings going on now in Florida, the GMs went bowling, and the winner was our own Kevin Towers. That’s gotta be worth the low scoring GM’s teams’ draft pick, right? KT won with a 160. We might not sign any big names, and we might not pull off any good trades, but our GM is definitely at the meeting dominating the competition.
If you got to http://www.mlb.com there are some pretty comical pictures of GMs in Hawaiian shirts.
November 14, 2006 at 6:51 am
MLBtraderumors.com has this analysis of OG’s slugging % drop:
“I really thought Giles would age better than this. His slugging plummetted 86 points. His flyball percentage actually increased, and his home runs per flyball didn’t drop too far. Almost half of the power outage can be blamed on a decrease in triples, believe it or not. Extrapolating his 2006 to the 545 ABs of the previous year, Giles had six fewer singles, five fewer doubles, seven fewer triples, and two fewer home runs. Doesn’t sound like much, but in sum it looks pretty bad.”
November 14, 2006 at 8:42 am
Cy Young results coming out today…apparently Trevor’s got some first place votes already:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....adres.html
Keeping my fingers crossed…would be a great lifetime achievement sort of thing for him.
(and Kevin, before you start, I know you think it’s insane to even consider him for the CY but I hope he wins it anyway
)
November 14, 2006 at 9:32 am
I meant to direct comment #38 toward #27, not #26. Not that it matters much now.
What time does the Cy Young get announced???
November 14, 2006 at 9:49 am
The Cy gets announced at 1PM Eastern, I think.
November 14, 2006 at 10:39 am
Interesting thought on the Matsuzaka deal. I didn’t copy the link but it’s currently front page on http://www.mlb.com. The writer of the article suggest the possibility that the Red Sox bid through the roof to just block the Yankees from getting D-MAT. If they don’t come to terms on a contract within 30 days then oh well he goes back to japan and as long as that’s not New York who cares. He also says he doesn’t think that’s what the Sox are trying to do and that they actually want D-MAT but I thought it was a really interesting point. Crazy to think that is a possible strategy over there. I know we think we have good rivalries out here with the Giants and Dodgers and we do but I honestly don’t know if anything else in sports compares to those two teams.
November 14, 2006 at 10:59 am
re 50: I think the Bosox can actually trade the negotiating rights, as well, at least according to ESPN. So, if they couldn’t sign him, they could control his rights, get someone else’s bid money to reduce their outrageous bid, and work out some sort of trade, where they would control his destination, i.e., not New York.
November 14, 2006 at 11:03 am
They should require the bidding team to pay 10% up front if the bid is accepted…that way a team can’t bid some ridiculous amount they never intend to pay just to own the negotiating rights.
November 14, 2006 at 11:04 am
(though Boston may think it a no-brainer to spend $4.2MM just to block NY in that scenario)
November 14, 2006 at 11:10 am
Webb officially announced as CY young winner, Hoffman takes second place with 12 first place votes. SOO close again…
November 14, 2006 at 11:16 am
I understand - this is what SA has said - that the bid $ is due within 30 days. No six months with nothing down and no interest, ha.
November 14, 2006 at 11:21 am
52.
That’s a really good idea. In a situation like that when teams are not responsible that seems like the only way to make the team accountable. Then again if a team puts in a legit bid and the player has a crazy agent or a huge asking price then the teams might get hurt. It’s definitely not a perfect process but I guess it is what it is.
November 14, 2006 at 11:23 am
The winning team has 30 days to reach a contract with the player. If that doesn’t happen the negotiations end and the player goes back to Japan and the posting fee is returned.
November 14, 2006 at 11:36 am
Hoffman loses to Webb. Bummer. Haven’t seen the detailed voting results, but the ESPN.com blurb said no pitcher was on every ballot, which I find hard to believe.
November 14, 2006 at 11:39 am
How many slots are on each ballot?
RE: 55, 57 - I should have looked it up before posting but the key part I remember is the postingn fee is due in full
November 14, 2006 at 11:43 am
only 3 per ballot, so I take that (#58) back. With this cast of contenders, I can believe a few voters had a top 3 w/o Webb
November 14, 2006 at 11:48 am
The Red Sox wouldn’t be able to trade the rights to negotiate with Matsuzaka. They could sign him to a contract and then trade him, but they can’t trade the rights.
FWIW, there is no way that the Sox bid without the intention of signing him. This is not a blocking move. There are a lot of reasons to bid that high, including the possibility of opening Japanese markets, but a lot of it has to to with the availability of a rare commodity, a potential ace starter, who can be had for money alone–no trades, no draft picks–at a relatively young age. Is it a huge sum to risk on one player? Sure. But no matter what happens, the Sox always have the Yankees in their division. Sometimes you have to pony up. A surprising number of folks out here were upset that the Sox didn’t jump for $30 million of Abreu’s contract last year–i.e. that they didn’t do what the Yankees do routinely. Matsuzaka is one of the few players for whom I’m personally delighted that they have apparently decided to make that commitment.
Bummer, if not a surprise, about Trevor.
November 14, 2006 at 11:49 am
I’ll be the bad guy. I love Trevor, but no way does he deserve the award over Webb. Full voting is up at MLB.com.
November 14, 2006 at 11:54 am
62: But Carpenter did.
November 14, 2006 at 11:54 am
I’ll be the homer . . . screw Webb. Hoffy should have gotten the Cy Young.
It was close — webb had 15 1st place votes and Hoffy had 12.
November 14, 2006 at 11:57 am
#61, you’re right. Originally Olney’s 11/11 blog said they could trade way the negotiation rights if Boston couldn’t cut a deal with Boras. A few days later, which I didn’t see until today, he corrected it to be a sign and trade deal, since the negotiation rights, per the contract between MLB and the Japanese League are non-assignable. I, and apparently Olney, stand corrected.
November 14, 2006 at 11:58 am
I can’t say Webb doesn’t deserve it…but I was pulling for Trevor.
November 14, 2006 at 12:03 pm
For this season, I would vote for CC or BW over Trevor - and obviously the award is only supposed to be about this season.
I was secretly hoping enough voters would get sentimental and ignore that aspect and vote for Trevor based on lifetime achievement. I think that is what happened for those 12 votes, but it wasn’t enough.
November 14, 2006 at 12:14 pm
46 - That decrese in triples was probably due to the knee problems he had this season…
November 14, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I profiled Marcus Giles - well truthfully, I piggybacked Normandin’s article w/ some of my own analysis sprinkled in…
November 14, 2006 at 12:17 pm
re 68
…which were caused by simply getting older, and aren’t really going to go away barring some flaxseed oil treatments ala Mr. Bonds
November 14, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Si’s Jon Heyman is reporting that the Doc wants 3 yrs/$15 million.
November 14, 2006 at 2:15 pm
re 71: sounds about right as an asking price in this market and with the number of teams interested in him. (ESPN reporting like 6 or 8 teams interested in his services, not including the Pads). 3 years at his age is risky, but at $5MM per, assumedly front-loaded so you’re protected in year 3 from having a big number to pay…I bet there will be more than 1 team willing to pony that up.
Like I said yesterday, our $30MM of payroll to spend that we’re so proud of is unfortunately not going to buy us much this year. Very frustrating…$30MM any of the last several offseasons would have put us right in the thick of things, but it’s sort of like you need a deflator for what the true value is comared to prior years.
November 14, 2006 at 3:56 pm
According to The Cleveland Plains Dealer, the D-Rays won the rights to Iwamura.
http://www.cleveland.com/weblo.....tml#204730
That’s sort of a bummer. I was hoping that the Padres would have the opportunity to use him as a super-sub or at 2B this year.
November 14, 2006 at 5:14 pm
I wonder if Iwamura to the D-Rays accelerates a Linebrink-Giles deal. I don’t have a problem with acquiring a guy like Marcus nor am I that upset about using Linebrink as trade-bait. That said, even with Linebrink’s down-from-2005-year, I think his “closer-potential” value is higher than Marcus’ diminished 2B value. I’d love to see the Padres get Atlanta to throw in a pitcher…
November 14, 2006 at 5:42 pm
74: Always get an arm…
November 14, 2006 at 6:24 pm
…unless, apparently, you’re allowing a division rival team to talk to your under-contract manager…
November 14, 2006 at 6:37 pm
How on earth does signing Iwamura make any sense at all for the Rays? They have a glut of players that can play second, third, or the outfield, and most of them are significantly cheaper with higher ceilings than Iwamura. And this is definitely not a signing that comes close to putting them over the top.
Maybe it’s just annoying to be outbid for someone by the D-Rays.
November 14, 2006 at 6:48 pm
“Mr. Friedman, Kevin Towers here, I wanted to talk to you about B.J. Upton…”
November 14, 2006 at 7:02 pm
78 - hahaha. I like it! Or maybe, “I wanted to talk to you about Evan Longoria.” Or Elijah Dukes. Or Delmon Young. Carl Crawford? Rocco Baldelli? I’m not picky.
November 14, 2006 at 7:07 pm
76: Don’t you mean we should have had to give San Fran an arm in the deal?
November 14, 2006 at 7:07 pm
78: I’d also take any of them.
November 14, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Damn. I meant 79.
November 14, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Boston paid $51 million for Matsuzaka. They must feel they can make a lot of that back with merchandising or something. It’s not really worth it from a purely baseball standpoint. Or is it? It’s a one time hit that doesn’t count against the cap. How long until Boras starts selling exclusive negotiating rights to his free agents?
Maybe Tampa felt like getting a Japanese player is going to give them a presence in Japan. They should worry about fielding a winning team, not selling Devil Rays jerseys in Tokyo.