Red Sox Claim Brian Giles Off Waivers

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 2:21 PM EDT

If Fanshots weren't so damn confusing, this would be posted there.

Here is the link. I assume part of their reason for the claim was to block him from going to Tampa Bay. Either that or Ortiz is more hurt than they let on. In any event they don't really have a place to play him that doesn't make their defense a joke.

The Good(ish) news:

Giles has a limited no-trade clause, and Boston is among the teams to which he cannot be traded without his permission.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is a disadvantage of being ahead of them.

by R.J. Anderson on Aug 7, 2008 2:24 PM EDT 0 recs

I guess they could move Drew to play centerfield

But it would definitely come at a defensive cost.

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 2:26 PM EDT 0 recs

This seems like a move designed purely to block him going to the Rays.

by Peter Bendix on Aug 7, 2008 2:27 PM EDT 0 recs

If so

Do the Rays really want him? If so I think it is fair to fault the RFO for focusing on the big fish, rather than getting some ancillary deals done. If they are willing to let him go free, then I’m sure he wouldn’t have cost much more a week ago.

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 2:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

That's not how waivers work.

The Padres wouldn’t let him go for free. Claiming a guy means the claiming team can try to work out a trade, or else the player is likely going to be revoked from waivers.

by Peter Bendix on Aug 7, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah, it is

putting him on waivers at least opens the possibility that the team is willing to let them go for free. And even if they do demand a trade, the fact they’d waive him means they are willing to take less for him than they likely would have gotten in a competitive bidding environment.

If they are willing to only deal with one team for him, then chances are they are more interested in losing his salary than any other factor.

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not exactly.

Teams place basically every single player on waivers during this time. 99% of them are pulled back as soon as they are claimed. The host team can choose to simply let the player go to the claiming team – if this is the case, the claiming team picks up the player’s entire contract.

But just because a guy was put on waivers doesn’t mean his team doesn’t want him. Nearly everyone is put on waivers, just to see what happens.

by Peter Bendix on Aug 7, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

But still

The claiming team has a lot more leverage, in that no other team is allowed to get in on the process. I guarantee if Boston trades for him they will give up less than what the Rays would have been able to offer (without sacrificing the future)

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 3:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

Which is why Boston claimed him:

To prevent the Rays from having the opportunity to make a deal for him.

But the Padres aren’t going to get less in return simply because he was claimed on waivers. They’d pull him back first.

by Peter Bendix on Aug 7, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up 0 recs

And they could always put Giles back on waivers after pulling him back

But then the waivers become irrevocable.

by R.J. Anderson on Aug 7, 2008 3:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'm guessing they get it done

And that they get it done on the cheap, given Giles age. We shall see

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 3:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

I'd be shocked.

It’s not news that Giles was claimed. Lots and lots and lots of guys get claimed, and then pulled back.

by Peter Bendix on Aug 7, 2008 3:33 PM EDT up 0 recs

true

he made my All-Star team in July. the dude has a great OBP and underrated power (PETCO). he’s also a fantastic fielder, better than Crawford. his $11MM contract for next season is well worth it. i’m surprised San Diego’s looking to trade him, to be honest. not sure where the Sox would play him, but I’d put him in center ahead of Drew.

my blog // calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy // past results do not guarantee future performance

by Sky Kalkman on Aug 7, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Brian Giles can suck it if we got Chad Bradford

by Top Gun Numba 1 on Aug 7, 2008 2:46 PM EDT 0 recs

giles would help the Rays MUCH more than Bradford will

my blog // calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy // past results do not guarantee future performance

by Sky Kalkman on Aug 7, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

Screw that....while Bradford is not a household name, I am estatic that we got a chance to land some proven bullpen help.

While Giles is a bigger name, his stats tell me that won’t do much more than the platoon we currently have (though his .390 obp and .803 obs is better than either gross or hinske). He also is due to make 11 million dollars if he is traded while Bradford makes only 3.6 million. Bradfors also have playoff experience that will be invaluable down the stretch. Sorry, but it’s a no brainer for me. I am curious who we will be releasing (Reyes, Hammel please?) to open a roster spot and this has nothing to do with anything, but what about Rocco? Who goes when he is activated (I’m guessing Zobrist)?

by Rays Rule on Aug 7, 2008 7:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Giles has 77 playoff at-bats

by R.J. Anderson on Aug 7, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

He's also almost 38

by Rays Rule on Aug 7, 2008 9:42 PM EDT up 0 recs

Okay.

by R.J. Anderson on Aug 7, 2008 10:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

if the Rays acquired Giles

would you say “that’s cool, but I wish we’d traded for Chad Bradford instead”? um, no.

my blog // calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy // past results do not guarantee future performance

by Sky Kalkman on Aug 8, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Question

Can he be pulled off of Waivers if he refuses the trade to BOS, and then be put back on waivers? In this scenario, we have fallen behind BOS in the standings, and we then put a claim on him.

by rglass44 on Aug 7, 2008 4:58 PM EDT 0 recs

I don't like your scenario

by GomesSweetGomes on Aug 7, 2008 5:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

I think...

That once a player is pulled back from revocable waivers he cannot placed on them again.

by Peter Bendix on Aug 7, 2008 5:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not really

He’d have to go on irrevocable waivers the second time, in which case what’s more likely is that nobody would claim him, he’d become a free agent, the Padres would still need to pay his full salary, and any team could sign him who is the high bidder. If that sounds unlikely, that’s because it is.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Aug 7, 2008 5:54 PM EDT up 0 recs