Comments on: Resigning Giles: Good move or bad?

By: Melvin Nieves

Melvin Nieves — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:25:52 +0000

I tend to prefer looking at trades when they happen, including any information that could have been known at the time.

By: Myron

Myron — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:52:45 +0000

Expanded my thoughts a little at Friar Forecast: http://friarforecast.com/?p=1118

By: Myron

Myron — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:56:06 +0000

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.

By: Melvin Nieves

Melvin Nieves — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:08:38 +0000

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.

By: Myron

Myron — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:20:51 +0000

Good point.

And don’t worry, nit-picking (or outright dismissal) of my analysis is always welcomed!

By: Peter Friberg

Peter Friberg — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:05:05 +0000

But ur point is still valid – I’m just picking nits.

By: Peter Friberg

Peter Friberg — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:04:48 +0000

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.

By: Myron

Myron — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:17:26 +0000

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.