Buster Olney: Giles AND Hoffman may be available.

by floridaroar on Nov 10, 2008 12:07 PM EST

The Padres exercised the $9 million option of right fielder Brian Giles for 2009 on Friday, but doing so is like spending a few extra bucks on a polish job on the fenders and hub caps before selling a used car. San Diego nearly dealt 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.)

It's very possible that in the days ahead, the face of the franchise, Trevor Hoffman -- who arrived in San Diego 185 months ago, in the midst of the Fire Sale -- will cut ties with the team. The Padres offered Hoffman a $4 million deal last month, which would be a $3 million reduction in salary from what he made in 2008, and friends of the pitcher wonder if San Diego is merely looking to politely nudge him out the door. Hoffman has responded by asking for a meeting with club ownership to discuss the future of the franchise.

According to MLBTraderumors.com Brian Giles has said "If it would help our organization get better, I'm not saying I would veto a trade."

Giles and Hoffman both fill positions of need for the Rays, and the Rays seem to have the prospects it would take to pull off a deal with the Padres. Both are expensive players and obviously short term solutions at their respective positions, but they undoubtedly bolster two glaring weaknesses from last year's Rays AL Championship roster.

Is it out of the question to deal for Giles and/or Hoffman? What would it take to pull off such a deal? Would their addition be enough to push the Rays over the top next season?

This post was written by a member of the DRaysBay community and does not necessarily express the views or opinions of DRaysBay staff.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hoffman would be a free agent.

If he signs with another team, I’m betting that it’s for AT LEAST 7MM (his 2008 salary). And, I’m pretty sure that was a hometown discount. He won’t take a discount if he’s signing elsewhere. I think he’s a great pitcher, but I see zero fit on the Rays, no offense.

And, he throws righty. The Rays need a lefty.

Giles would be interesting.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 10, 2008 12:16 PM EST reply actions

If the Rays could acquire Giles I would die a happy man.

I wanted him so bad last season, and Sky has only made that lust grow with his post on how he’s the best RFer in the game.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 10, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Giles is awesome. But, quick question.

How much do the Rays have to spend this offseason approx? I know this has probably been done to death, but what would be a fair estimate?

Would you say 20MM approx? 10MM?

This.

by Blicks on Nov 10, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

Reference this:

http://www.draysbay.com/2008/10/30/650090/preliminary-2009-rays-payr

If Percival/Gomes also leave (with Miller/Floyd) and 55 mil is probably the max, then around 15 million. If Percival/Gomes stay and 55 mil is probably the max, then around 10 million. But that’s without accounting for arb increases (Balfour, Navarro, Jackson) so who knows for sure.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 10, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions

Thanks. Hoffman seems unlikely.

Assuming EJax is traded (yes, I’m making the assumption) and Gomes is non-tendered (I see minimal reason to keep him around for what he’ll get in arbi).

Assuming that 6MM (modest estimate) pays for the arbitration of Bartlett, Navarro, Balfour, and Gross (I don’t think there will be any Ryan Howard-esque cases) and Percival stays (although I hope he’s gone), I get 47.45 MM, not including buyouts for Miller/Floyd.

41.45 MM guaranteed(including Percy) + 6 MM raises.

I don’t see the Rays spending most of their available funds on a closer/reliever.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 10, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions

Considering how close we got last season...

Wouldn’t you think it’s possible that the Rays deviate slightly from the plan and spend a little more this offseason to try and get back to the World Series?

by floridaroar on Nov 10, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

Depends on ticket sales.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 10, 2008 1:17 PM EST up reply actions

sproing!

by PlayOnWords on Nov 10, 2008 1:23 PM EST reply actions

Why is Giles interested in helping the Padres improve if he's the one being traded?

It seems like Peavy had the better point of view, insisting his new team not trade significant MLB-ready talent in exchange for himself.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 10, 2008 5:38 PM EST reply actions

The Hoff

per Buster Olney

“Trevor Hoffman, the all-time leaders in saves and the face of the San Diego franchise, will not return to the Padres for 2009. The team has withdrawn its contract offer for 2009 to Hoffman, who is eligible for free agency this fall.”

Well he is officially on the market. There are only a few teams who need a closer (Mets, Cardinals, Tigers, Brewers, Indians) and a couple of those teams will end up signing Fuentes and K-Rod, with Hoff being the next best FA option.

by BossmanJunior333 on Nov 11, 2008 12:02 AM EST reply actions

So... we don't need a closer?

Did we sign someone? What did I miss? How long was I sleeping?

by floridaroar on Nov 11, 2008 9:19 AM EST up reply actions

No, we don't need a closer.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 11, 2008 9:23 AM EST up reply actions

Not trying to be a pain but why not?

I understand we don’t need a closer as we can always go closer by committee. If Olney says the Mets, Cardinals, Tigers, Brewers and Indians needs closers, what makes our situation different?We don’t have a legitimate closer to fill that role any more than they do.

by floridaroar on Nov 11, 2008 9:32 AM EST up reply actions

Relief aces are cheaper and more strategically advantageous.

Hoffman wouldn’t be an awful buy low, and a much better investment of 4 mil than Percival, but we really don’t need a prototypical closer to be successful.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 11, 2008 9:38 AM EST up reply actions

If Hoffman comes at 4MM, I'll be shocked.

He wouldn’t take 4MM from the Padres(which caused them to retract the offer, the 4MM was big time lowballing), and they’re the team he pitched on for years. No way in hell he takes 4MM from another team. It’s going to be at least what he made in 2008, which was about 7MM.

This.

by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 9:52 AM EST up reply actions

You're most likely right.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 11, 2008 9:58 AM EST up reply actions

I think the phrase "closer by committee"

is misleading. It is a leftover from the ill-fated Boston attempt to build a bullpen without a designated closer. It turned into a failure which left the concept itself in disrepute. Of course, traditionalists would not deign to analyze why it failed; they simply assumed it was because nobody was officially the closer. They could not accept the alternative view that the problem was that the Boston relievers that year were simply not very good pitchers. Nor did it occur to them that for most of baseball history-at least 140 of the approximately 160 years-there was no such role. Naturally, it is possible that other changes have made the role more necessary today than in the past, but it still relies on the never-demonstrated notion that there is something truly special about the last 3 outs.

In fact, it is always amusing to hear commentators mention that some team has only lost one game it led after 8 innings twice out of 80 times as if there is something really exceptional about such a stat. Actually, the difference between the worst and best performances in such cases is often about 3 or 4 games, regardless of how wonderful or ordinary the respective closers are.

The real issue is not closer by committee but use of the bullpen according to the situation rather than stereotyping roles in advance. I see no reason, assuming they remain effective pitchers next year, that Balfour, Howell, Bradford or whoever else is in the bullpen cannot pitch the last 3 outs depending on the situation. The more important outs often come earlier anyway. What the Rays need to acquire are good relievers who can be depended upon to get outs, regardless of when they needed. Sure I would love to have a Brad Lidge, but not because he is a closer. Rather it is because he is a good pitcher and might be very useful with a 1 run lead and the other team threatening in the 7th.

by bobr on Nov 11, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

Time for another "closer by committee" post.

The whole problem with the phrase “closer by committee” is that the focus is on who closes out ballgames. But the whole concept behind a properly run bullpen is that closing out games isn’t the focus. The focus is on WINNING games. The focus is on shutting down the opposition when they need to be shut down. The focus is on getting your best relievers into the situations when they can have the biggest effect.

The Rays have a stud reliever in Grant Balfour. They have a very good reliever in JP Howell. And they have a bunch of other decent bullpen options. Other teams would kill for the Rays bullpen. Sure, another stud reliever would always help. But stop worrying about who will close out games and start drooling about how many option we have to shut down opposing teams when the game is on the line, no matter what inning it is.

Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

by Sky Kalkman on Nov 11, 2008 8:35 PM EST up reply actions