 |
|
|
| |
« Odds And Ends: Rogers, Myers, Hosmer, Reynolds, Dunn | Main | Tigers Offseason Plans »
Padres Were "Livid" When Giles Nixed Trade
San Diego Union Tribune's Bill Center talked to Padres manager Bud Black about Brian Giles, who could be a free agent after the season.
And do you pick up Giles $9 million option for 2009 or let him walk into free agency with a $3 million buyout?
“Brian still gets it done,” Padres manager Bud Black said last night after the Brewers snapped a four-game losing streak and inched to within four games of the plummeting Chicago Cubs in the National League Central race.
“Brian is a mainstay player.”
While Black thinks Giles is a mainstay, the Padres front office obviously feels differently. Buster Olney says he heard that "the Padres were livid when Giles vetoed the trade that they pursued with the Red Sox in August."
Will San Diego buy out Giles after this season? If you believe the rumors that the franchise is looking to cut payroll, then it makes sense that they would.
Coley Ward writes for Umpbump.com. You can reach him here.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e200e55506aac38834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Padres Were "Livid" When Giles Nixed Trade:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
yeah the padres organization stinks
but isn't it weird, in all sports now, fans and front offices, after years of dissing players for being take-the-money-and-run disloyal sluts, now climb on players for wanting to stay where they are?
Posted by: crash | September 06, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Then they should have offered a incentive... it's how you get a star to drop their no trade clause.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | September 06, 2008 at 04:44 PM
They shouldn't have given him a no-trade clause if they didn't want him to be able to bail out of a trade.
Posted by: J the Dizzolla | September 06, 2008 at 04:46 PM
I'm going to suppose that Brian Giles had to take less salary to obtain the no-trade rights?
The Padres front office are jerks if they get upset about a situation like this.
They were perfectly happy to get Giles to play for them at a lower rate. But its a problem when he exercises his no-trade rights?
jeez
Posted by: wihargo | September 06, 2008 at 04:52 PM
"They shouldn't have given him a no-trade clause if they didn't want him to be able to bail out of a trade."
10-5 rights... they didn't give him a no trade clause, he got it from the league.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | September 06, 2008 at 05:16 PM
I could be wrong but I thought his 10-5 wasn't effective in 2008. It was my understanding that he vetoed the trade as permitted by his contract.
To not pick up Giles at $6m is the stupidest thing San Diego could do. Absolute worst case scenario is that you pay him his salary ($6m + the $3m you would have paid to decline). The team goes through a rebuilding phase and you make life miserable for Giles. With a little gentle prodding I'm sure you can get Giles to change his mind on moving.
Also, why not sit down with him and let him know that you are going to do everything possible to move him. Let him come up with teams (behind the scenes) that he would be interested in and would accept a trade to. The Pads can then start working hard with those teams to make a deal come to pass.
He's too good to just let walk. Too risky to offer arbitration to (if you decline the team option).
Posted by: bjsguess | September 06, 2008 at 05:36 PM
Maybe they were getting an Ellsbury, Buchholz, Lester, Pedroia, Anderson, Bowden, Kalish, Lowrie, Reddick package.
That would explain the lividness
Posted by: scribbletone | September 06, 2008 at 05:42 PM
""They shouldn't have given him a no-trade clause if they didn't want him to be able to bail out of a trade."
10-5 rights... they didn't give him a no trade clause, he got it from the league."
From Cot's:
full no-trade clause in 2006, limited no-trade clause in 2007-08 (allowing Giles to block trades to 8 clubs: Baltimore, Boston, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Florida, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and Washington)
annual salary increases by $2M if traded
Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | September 06, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Scribbletone-
I think they held out Reddick and threw in Matsuzaka instead. lol
Posted by: ballerwhiteboy | September 06, 2008 at 08:56 PM