The Giles Decision

by gondeee on Oct 9, 2006 12:46 PM EDT in News Comment 9 comments

To trade him or not to trade him - that is the question that faces us regarding Marcus Giles (and the Atlanta General Manager). He made just under $4 million this year, and will probably make somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 million next year. Is he worth that kind of money? Should the Braves reverse course and sign him to a long-term contract? Would he accept a long-term contract knowing he might have to bat lead-off?

When making the case to either keep or trade Marcus Giles, we need to be aware that he may have already peaked. At the very least, his stats say he is not getting any better; in fact he is getting worse. His numbers the last four years have been going in the wrong direction:

Year - AVG/OBP/SLG
2003 - .316/.390/.526
2004 - .311/.378/.443
2005 - .291/.365/.461
2006 - .262/.341/.387

Combine the decline in his numbers with his attitude about batting leadoff and his value is lower than at any point in the last four years - his value, at least to the Braves organization. But I submit that he may still have substantial value to another organization. He is best suited to be a number two hitter, and since we already have a number two hitter in Renteria, Giles becomes expendable from a lineup standpoint.

So where could he be traded? I don't think he's going to end up in San Diego like many people keep saying. They have a better player in Josh Barfield who's younger and less expensive. One of the real problems in looking at trading Giles is that there probably are not too many teams that need a second baseman. It was a position of great depth in the Majors this year.

I've liked Giles as a player for a long time, but I actually lost a little respect for him when I began hanging around the Braves clubhouse (probably the only player I lost any respect for). It was the answers he gave to the questions he got asked about leading off. He just plain doesn't want to do it, and he doesn't hide that fact when asked. You will see in my interview with him that my insinuation about his reluctance to leadoff made him a bit upset.

My vote for "do we trade him or not" falls on the side of trade him. We didn't make the Betemit-Aybar-Baez trade this year for Danys Baez as much as we made it for Willy Aybar. He's a much less expensive option with more room to grow as a player. I would rather take the four or five million we would spend on Giles and apply that to a contract for Andruw or some pitching. In any possible trade for Giles we may only be able to scavenge away a middle reliever or two - similar to the Estrada trade last year - but I think it's worth letting him go and letting the younger kids like Aybar or Martin Prado take his place.

After saying all that I really do think the Braves will try to trade him this off-season, but they know they don't have to trade him. If there's not an offer they like then they likely won't pull the trigger.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I

agree...

...Miranda

by SJsftb27 on Oct 9, 2006 3:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to trade...

I have to fall on the side of keeping Giles. My argument is this: if the Braves are really trying to build a championship team, one to win the World Series in 2007, then I think Marcus Giles has to be the 2nd baseman. Just the thought of Aybar, Prado, or Orr at 2nd seems ridiculous, again from a championship standpoint. Giles can hit, he's excellent defensively, and he's a proven winner. The other guys are backup players at best, and darn good ones at that. I say keep Marcus until someone from within (JC Holt, Eric Campbell, Yunell Escobar) is ready. It will, at this point, most likely be Campbell, and he only might be ready for 2008, and that's really pushing it.

The lineup question does pose some problems, and I absolutely don't think Marcus should lead off. (As an aside, I have a sneaking suspicion that if you told Ryan Langerhans he was going to play left field every day, but he has to bat leadoff, he'd be right there saying 'okay'!). Anyway, maybe drop Giles in the order, or even Renteria. Roughly:
Langerhans
Giles
C. Jones
A. Jones
Laroche
Francoeur
Renteria
McCann
Pitcher
Not too shabby, I'd say. I know some would want to flip Francoeur lower in the order, but I say no way. Also, Giles earns the two spot on seniority with the team over Renteria. A nice balanced attack from top to bottom. If I'm the GM, that's what I'd do, and focus on starting and releif pitching this offseason. That's it.
Again, just my 2 cents!

by secondbass on Oct 9, 2006 7:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What do you guys think?

I'm still a fan of testing Kelly Johnson at the leadoff and 2nd. I doubt the braves will try him as such a question mark at the top spot. I'm sure they will try to go with someone a little more experienced. nevertheless he was a good defensive 3b and not bad at SS from what i understood and I think if he gets some time his bat is going to come and he will be very valuable. Could just be me, i've always liked the kid.

by yondaime4 on Oct 9, 2006 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not a bad idea....

but I'd be more in favor of giving Johnson a shot at left field/leadoff on a full time basis rather than second base. One thing I get tired of with Bobby Cox is his relentless use of the platoon, whether at first base or left field. I think the Braves should always go after a proven player who can handle a position full time. Laroche sure proved himself this year, and now I think we need a full time left fielder. Johnson would be okay, assuming he has a good spring and proves he's ready.

I still say keep Giles!

by secondbass on Oct 10, 2006 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree

Yeah the platoon thing gets old fast i believe. It would be nice to have Johnson in Left too. I like Giles a lot personally and i think he is still going to bounce back and that his downfall the past couple of seasons can be attributed to random injury nagginess, but in the end i think our need for a true leadoff hitter outweighs the production we get from giles. Funny we NEED a true leadoff hitter when we scored 4th most runs in the league last year.

by yondaime4 on Oct 10, 2006 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Giles

I come down on the side of trading Giles--in fact, I wish that Braves had done this in 2006.

I think that Aybar or Prado or even Kelly Johnson deserve a chance.

Some will regard this as heresy, but I think that the Braves should aim to win the Division in 2007 and the World Series in 2008. In practical terms that means giving young players the chance to play and develop.

In addition, I think that Giles as an attitude and he will leave when he gets the chance. Therefore, he should be traded while we can get something (either as part of deal for starting pitching or more help in the bullpen) for him.

by Stephen on Oct 10, 2006 12:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well.....

"....that means giving young players the chance to play and develop."

That's why I would vote to keep Giles. My opinion is that Aybar, Prado, even Johnson aren't the answer, and that Eric Campbell probably is. He needs time to develop, and keeping Giles at second buys the Braves some time to see that that happens, while still giving them a solid bat and golve to play the position.

I just think Campbell (if he's even the long term answer) shows much more promise as a hitter than the weak hitting Prado, Aybar, or Johnson. Johnson's bat has shown some potential, but it's just too much of a chance to trust him with the responsibility. I'm thinking World Series in 2007, and if it was my team, I wouldn't want a filler guy at any postition, especially middle infield. Here's hoping Bobby doesn't use a platoon at 2nd!

by secondbass on Oct 10, 2006 6:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Giles

Second Bass--I understand where you are coming from. I would love to see Johnson play 2b, but I doubt that it will happen. I did not like the Betemit trade and I hope that Aybar will be better than I expect. Prado might just be adequate--I see him as a Manny Trillo type--which is hardly exciting, but it is not a bad thing to be. Campbell might yet play 2b, but that has yet to happen (though if I remember correctly the he was projected as a second baseman in the Jeff Kent model) and it would be great if he pans out there.

My thinking is that Giles will probably leave anyway and therefore the Braves should trade him while they can. He does not appear to be part of long term solution.

by Stephen on Oct 10, 2006 8:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My solution and theory.

I am personally a hue fan of Campbell but alas he is a couple years away. And he is being converted to 2nd as we speak. He is in the Hawaian winter league right now with other prospects van pope and kala kaaihue. with pope playing most of the time at third there campbell has been moved to 2nd, probably permanently since i think pope proved he can play 3rd long term this year.

But hey there might be an answer out there right now. With all the prospects coming up in the angels organization supposedly chone figgins is available from them. he produces good speed and contact ability and on base ability, is still cheap and can play several positions (including lf, 2nd, and 3b in case chipper gets hurt next year). I think he would be a good pick up, now we just have to decide what the angels want. The only question is can he play every day since he has been utility like derosa was in ATL.

by yondaime4 on Oct 10, 2006 4:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs