The Padres resigned Brian Giles in November of 2005, after trading for him in 2003. Since then – and in many ways, since the trade back in ‘03 – some Padres fans have heavily criticized the Pads for Giles’ contract. The deal was for $9 million a year for three years, with a $9 million option in 2009.
Fangraphs gives a nice glimpse at Giles overall performance and his fair market value. From 2006 through 2008, Giles was worth 9.1 wins above replacement. That’s well above average performance. On the free agent market, that that kind of performance is worth $38 million. Giles was paid only $27 million. So far, great deal.
This year Giles has been terrible. He’s been ‘worth’ negative 7.3 million, because he’s somehow still at –1.6 WAR this season. Let’s say Giles ends up at 0 WAR – replacement level. He’s being paid $9 million for performance worth essentially nothing. Add that to the ‘06-‘08 analysis, and this deal is pretty fair overall. Certainly not a franchise crippling contract, as some want us to believe.
Going back further and the Giles era looks even better. After the trade in 2003, he hit .298/.414/.490 (1.3 WAR, 128 PA). In ‘04 and ‘05 he was worth about 11 WAR, totaling $35 million on the free market (or ~$18 million in surplus value).
Giles should probably be remembered as a borderline-elite player, who was slightly underpaid, in his time in San Diego. Due to multiple factors*, it won’t go down like that. Giles will be remembered for his albatross contract and his disappointing play – both of which did not really exist.
*such as: the perceived superiority of Jason Bay (who was traded for Giles), Giles’ underrated offensive game (high obp, Petco Park), and Giles’ final season in San Diego.
Posted by Myron on July 1, 2009 at 12:17 pm
btw, Bay has been better, value-wise (he’s been paid less). But overall, the performance of Bay and Giles on the field (since the trade) has been pretty similar.
Posted by Peter Friberg on July 1, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I’m not sure you should look at it as $27m but instead as $30 b/c he was getting $3m this year whether we re-signed him or not… This year’s deal is really a $6m deal b/c the $3m is a sunk cost.
Posted by Peter Friberg on July 1, 2009 at 1:05 pm
But ur point is still valid – I’m just picking nits.
Posted by Myron on July 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Good point.
And don’t worry, nit-picking (or outright dismissal) of my analysis is always welcomed!
Posted by Melvin Nieves on July 1, 2009 at 5:08 pm
It’s easiy overlooked, Ray had to remind me about it at one point, but the risk factor in Bay should be considered when comparing the two as well. Nobody knew the kind of player he would turn into when the choice had to be made. Giles was much more of a sure thing, PETCO park notwithstanding.
Posted by Myron on July 1, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Another good point …
I think there are two clear ways to evaluate trades. One way, what you’re describing, looks at trades when they happened.
The other looks at them after the fact, and assumes the teams involved knew what was going to happen (or should have).
I’m not sure which one is right, though I’d probably lean toward the first.
Posted by Myron on July 1, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Expanded my thoughts a little at Friar Forecast: http://friarforecast.com/?p=1118
Posted by Melvin Nieves on July 1, 2009 at 11:25 pm
I tend to prefer looking at trades when they happen, including any information that could have been known at the time.