 |
|
|
| |
« Jake Peavy Rumors: Monday | Main | D'Backs Interested In Loretta »
Olney: A's Nearly Acquired Giles
Interesting note from Buster Olney's Sunday blog post:
San Diego nearly dealt Brian Giles to Boston and later to Oakland during the season, and it stands to reason that this winter the Padres will approach Giles about waiving his no-trade rights to facilitate a trade out of San Diego. (As of Saturday evening, they had not done this.)
We knew that Giles vetoed a trade to Boston and would've probably done the same if the Rays won the claim. Olney indicates that Giles was nearly dealt to the A's later during August, which is confusing given that Boston won the claim and failed to make a trade.
Giles now has full no-trade powers as a 10-and-5 player, and apparently receives a $2MM raise if dealt. He revealed new information regarding his Boston veto on Friday. He would've spent significant time on the bench for the Red Sox, and the Sox would've turned around and traded him this winter. Furthermore, staying with San Diego allowed Giles to secure the 10-and-5 rights. He seems more open to a deal now: "If it would help our organization get better, I'm not saying I would veto a trade."
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010535e236f7970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Olney: A's Nearly Acquired Giles:
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
"Obviously Giles wants to remain in San Diego, and it is inappropriate to question his motives for using the no-trade rights he earned."
It is...?
Anyways, he is basically hell-bent on staying in S.D., but it'll only be for this last remaining year. Doesn't make much sense unless he plans on retiring after this season.
Posted by: Teetz | November 10, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Unless the A's are planning on extending him, they shouldn't trade for him.
Giles would be nice though, just not as a 1 year rental.
Posted by: melonis rex | November 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
If there is even a remote chance of him being traded, Hendry needs to jump at this.
a left handed right fielder with plus defense and a .400 OBP is a major major plus.. even as a 1 year rental.
Posted by: Bdlugz | November 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Giles has commented on why he vetoed the trade to the Red Sox in this article from the SD Union Trubine.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/nov/07/padres-pick-9-million-option-giles-2009/?padres
I recall him getting a lot of hate from Boston media and fans for not wanting to go to a winner and get out of SD, but wanting to get 10 and 5 rights makes it a pretty darn good reason, besides the other things mentioned in the article.
Posted by: VAFriar | November 10, 2008 at 10:28 AM
"If there is even a remote chance of him being traded, Hendry needs to jump at this."
FWIW, I read recently at NSBB that Giles also vetoed a trade to the Cubs at the deadline last year.
I think we can put that idea to bed.
Posted by: davearm | November 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
I think it's perfectly appropriate to ask what Giles' motives for invoking no-trade rights against those specifics teams, if only out of sheer curiosity...
In 2005, four of the teams were .500 or above (though the Nationals were in last place in the division), and the Red Sox tied for the best record in the AL East. The Orioles, Tigers, Pirates and Rays were bad, but so was Kansas City, which isn't on the list.
I'd be very interested to know what it is specifically about those cities that made Giles negotiate for veto power, since he clearly didn't just choose teams in a position to pay a large sum to get him to waive those rights, and he didn't include every team on the East Coast.
Why all the hate, Brian?
Posted by: DunkinDonuts | November 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Interesting info regarding his Boston veto, which I added to the post.
But yes, I do feel that the comments criticizing Giles' decision at the time were unwarranted. Any person may have personal reasons for not wanting to move across the country, and I respect that.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | November 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM
davearm,
That report came from Bruce Levine and Giles had a NTC to 8 teams, none of which were the Cubs...so there's no truth to that rumor.
Posted by: Teetz | November 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM
As a Padres fan if I had to guess Giles would only waive his NTC to go to the Dodgers, Angles or possibly Cubs (I never heard about Giles rejecting a trade to the Cubs, but that would only be if he was guaranteed an every day spot in the OF for any club he was traded too.
Posted by: Steve | November 10, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Criticizing a player's decision to exercise his veto power and asking why that player specifically chose eight particular cities to veto are two different things... Does anyone have any insight into why Giles chose those specific teams?
Posted by: DunkinDonuts | November 10, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I did not hear about a refusal to the Cubs by them being on his no trade teams, either. I posted on other threads that Hendry needed to keep the line to Towers open for a possible trade for Giles. There is a possibility that Towers does trade Giles, we don't know. Hendry should see if that idea is open.
Posted by: studio179 | November 10, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Picking up the option does not necessarily mean Giles is off limits. The team is dumping money. However, the they might want to keep him to resemble something of a MLB team, who knows.
Posted by: studio179 | November 10, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This guy is a perfect fit for the Cubs, but obviously it's not going to happen. Maybe they can branch off of the Peavy talks if he ends up getting dealt to the Braves though.
In that case the Padres would probably still be looking for pitching, and I could see something like Sean Marshall or Jose Ceda and a low level prospect for Giles, if he was willing to go to Chicago.
But considering that Giles now has 10-5 rights, it becomes less likely that he'll want to leave anyways.
Posted by: scribbletone | November 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM
who cares? i could understand this post coming out when Giles vetoed his trade to boston. but why now? doesn't make any sense and i really doubt anyone cares, its over and done with
Posted by: allstarlineup | November 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Is the article saying that they nearly traded him to Boston, but that failed, then they tried to trade him to Oakland? Or is it saying they almost traded him to Boston who later traded him on to Oakland?
I wonder who from Oakland was on the table? I assume Huston Street was 1st on deck...
Posted by: Athletic Domination | November 10, 2008 at 01:19 PM
But passing up a chance at a ring in order to get 10-5 rights for one season? Is it really that valuable? All he's doing is ensuring that he's with the Padres through '09. Maybe that's exactly what he wanted, but still seems a little odd to me.
I can respect him for not wanting to transplant his family for the rest of the season, but unless he plans on retiring after this season or playing for peanuts on his next contract, he only has 1 yr left with the Pads.
Posted by: Papelboner | November 10, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Papelboner: I think you need to reread the part that he wouldnt have gotten to play everyday, something he got in SD. In addition he was worried about a trade this offseason, meaning that the Red Sox would have picked up his option and traded him to another team, and he could only veto the teams on his no trade list, not everyone. He didnt want that. Plain and simple, and I can fully understand it.
Posted by: AirmanSD | November 10, 2008 at 01:53 PM
People always think winning a ring is foremost in every player's mind, but frankly I can see how winning a ring as a rented spare part doesn't resonate for a guy like Giles.
Why would a guy like Giles want to move across the country just to sit on the bench (mostly) and watch while a group of guys he's been teammates with for a month or two try and win a championship for a city and fanbase that he has no connection to?
In that scenario he's an outsider in every sense. Is that an experience that one would cherish forever? Doubtful.
Posted by: davearm | November 10, 2008 at 02:20 PM