With that said, I'm not too excited about the prospect of getting Giles. He's an old player with old player skills, who is certain to decline under his next contract. This isn't a team about to win it all anytime soon, so why invest in a player whose best year is almost certainly going to be at the beginning of his contract?  

It's all but impossible for a park to take more than 100-200 OPS points away from anybody, in the long run, and that's stretching it.

Here Giles is in a short sample, minus 500+ points.  :-)  

It's kind of like saying Felix Hernandez had a 17.25 ERA in his first twelve innings in Texas.  I wouldn't shy away from the lad, if I were Texas and Seattle offered him in trade.  ::shrug:: it might indicate he doesn't care for the park, but it's not like he's going to run a 17 ERA there.  And it's also not like he's going to be anything other than great there.

Interesting to look at, though.

There is no way to dissect that small a number of appearances and find anything meaningful there.  When a 3-for-4 game with a double or two will raise your OPS over 100 points you can be pretty sure the stats don't mean anything.

Yes, the ability to draw a walk most certainly does decline; one need only look at the innumerable minor league stathead sensations who fizzled once pitchers stopped pitching around them and simply began pounding the strike-zone. Having a good eye is only part of the equation for a walk; the other is an intimidating bat. Barry Bonds didn't suddenly get superhuman eyes when he started looking like Bane. He just started scaring the bejesus out of opposing pitchers. They walked him so he wouldn't blast another HR off them.

Giles power is diminishing and his eyes are getting old. Is it certain that he will fall off a cliff next year, or even in the next three? No, but last year was his lowest HR total since he was 25, a total that has been declining precipitously the past two years. In Petco last year, in a meaningful sample size of 266 at-bats, he posted a .417 SLG. If that doesn't alarm anyone who wants to bring him to another pitcher's park, than maybe this will: in Dodger Stadium, Shea, Safeco, SBC and Petco--the parks that most resemble Safeco's pitcher friendly confines--Giles posted a paltry .148 isolated SLG in 347 ABs. .045 points less than Randy Winn last year.  

Oh, and that .433/.571/.867 line in Colorado didn't hurt his overall numbers, either.

Simply put, Giles is a player with almost no upside, who will be paid for a career of excellence that he has almost no chance of maintaining. Especially not in Seattle.    

1.  At BP (and in our POTD), you can review PECOTA's estimation of Giles' chances of maintaining.  I don't believe I have ever seen a stronger projection for a late-30's player; PECOTA sees him as the Kelly Blue Book equivalent of an Acura.  :-)

PECOTA emphasizes ISO and BB and K; Giles' best comps are guys who had fab K/BB ratios and gap power.  Like, um, Edgar, for example.

========

2.  Almost no upside?  :-)

Upside is what you ask for when a guy is NOT yet winning you 8 games a year single-handedly.

With Reed, Lopez, and Betancourt, you need upside.  With ARod, you don't need upside; he IS upside.

As for Edgar when his ISO slipped below .200 in 2003, as Giles' ISO has done for the past two years, it was a signal that his career was ending and he was essentially washed up. When the power dipped the OBP followed the next year.

I would like to see how Giles season last year changes that PECOTA projection going into next year. In my opinion, it is clear that he is a player with rapidly declining power and is a high risk for a rebuilding team that afford any more FA blunders.

Ever played roto, amigo?  :-)

You try for cost savings at the lower end SO THAT you can afford an extra high-end player -- who gives you production about equal to his salary.

=========

Let's say in a $260 roto league you need $325 of production in order to win?

You try for several players like George Sherrill, cost $3 return $11 ... and you build up that $65 profit in the bottom half of the roster.  But then the top half of your roster, you SPEND that money to bank superstar production.

There is a certain type of owner who, with $45 left and two roster slots, takes Sherrill for $3 and Lopez for $6 so that he can show another "smart" forecast.  We've got a name for 'im:  5th-placer.  ;-)

===========

It's not about ROI at every roster slot individually.  The 25-slot roster has to be managed to secure max ROI in the aggregate, and that just can't be done without bankable, "break-even" star players.

Score as many cheap Felixes (Felices?), JLo's and Fopperts as you can SO THAT you can buy an extra Burnett or two.

Cheers,
Dr D

Giles in 2005 had 8.2 WARP, and 65 VORP -- and his apparent salary demand is $8-10mm per season.

Compare that to, say, Gary Sheffield (56 VORP, $13mm)... Richie Sexson who was a very solid value at 56 VORP, $12mm ... Johnny Damon at 49 VORP who will want more than Giles who is a good 20% more productive...

If Giles stays around a normalized .300/.420/.500 as PECOTA estimates he will, his proportionate salary would probably be more like $12-14mm than $8-10mm.

So Giles is already delivering tremendous value, because BB's are still underestimated relative to HR's.  Even we saberdweebs are complaining about Giles' "falloff in power."

How ironic,
Dr D

-Giles is going to command a contract in the 3 year, 30+ million range.  At his age, the last year of that contract is likely to be a waste.  Look at his power numbers.  They are plummeting.  For that amount of cash, he is a big risk.  There is no upside and big downside.  Signing him for 3 years, all you can hope is that he doesn't decline rapidly.  He already is in decline, so hoping for the status quo is unrealistic.  At this point, he is a complementary player.  The M's would be paying him star money and getting a nice piece.  

-Morgan is totally correct when he says that the ability to get on base is a skill that erodes.  OBP is not just walks.  Over two thirds of the times a good hitter gets on base are from hits.  If you can't hit that ball anymore, you OBP goes down.  If you can't hit the ball hard anymore, pitchers will stop pitching around you.  Edgar Marinez is not a good comp because he maintained his power late into his career.  His numbers didn't fall apart until the very end.  With Giles, you can already see this decline.  It is not a possibility, it is happening right now.  

-Giles is a good pickup for a team needing that one last bat.  This is not where the M's are at.  They should be looking at players who are either cheap short-term stop-gaps or players who can help in 2007 and 2008.  Giles doesn't fall into either category.  He makes a lot of sense for a team like the Cardinals.  The M's are not where the Cardinals are now.  

I am sorry if this is repetative, but there is another player available who brings similar things to the table, is younger, and would cost the M's much much less over a shorter-term contract: Erubiel Durazo.  Compare the three year averages for these guys:

Giles:  .294/.408/.490 with 18 HRs
Durazo: .280/.388/.501 with 20 HRs

Note: with Durazo, I used the 2002-2004 because he basically didn't play last year.  

From those stats, you have two very similar players.  Durazo isn't quite the walk machine that Giles is, but he still has excellent plate discipline and draws a load of walks.  He also has a little better power at this point in their careers.  

However, there are two HUGE reasons why I like Durazo better.  

First, his numbers are getting better.  In 2004, he hit .321/.396/.523 with 22 Hrs.  He will be 31 next year, and the trend in his production was upward before he got injured last season.  As a DH and being 5 years younger than Giles, he is a safer bet to maintain his level of play or improve.  

Second, he should be signable for around 3 million next year.  If he is healthy, he might get a bit more.  He is coming back from TJ surgery, which is not that much of a question mark for a DH.  He is looking like he will be ready for spring training.  This guy could be a steal.  Plus, given his injury, the M's could make the contract very team-friendly, perhaps one year plus a team option, or one year with a vesting option based on playing time.  

Defensively, this is about a push.  Ibanez moves to LF, and is about as good defensively as Giles.  

Alternatively, I like to think of it as a larger off-season decision.  Which is better:

Option A:
Brian Giles    3 years/33 mil
Matt Morris    3 years/27 mil
Total cost:   20 million in 2006

Option B:
Erubiel Durazo  1 year/3 mil
Kenji Johjima   2 years/8 mil
AJ Burnett      5 years/65 mil
Total cost:    20 million

(I am using liberal, high-end guesses here)

I like Option B MUCH better.  If you are not a Burnett fan, insert Millwood and take off 1-2 milllion dollars.  The point is, Option B allows the M's to upgrade THREE positions, with a better pitcher included in the deal, within what I see as a pretty realistic budget.  

I like the idea of adding Durazo, but, personally, think in Safeco, with our pitching, we need a stronger defender in LF than Ibanez. Maybe we sign Durazo, trade Ibanez and sign Jacque Jones. All of that wouldn't cost us too much (even if we have to eat some of Ibanez's contract) and would allow us to put together the kind of "blow him away" deal I think we'll need to sign Burnett.

I am a huge M's fan, been one even when I was a child growing up in New England, and I can't help but see these next two off-seasons as being crucial for the team. I don't think we are very close to a championship, but fear we are a few wrong moves from the kind of consistent mediocrity that almost got this team moved.

I like the Giles idea if we can get him for under 8.5mil/yr on a 3yr contract.  I don't think he will decline too much.  I also doubt that he would come here because he can probably find a better offer.

I think that Morse could improve his power numbers and do .270/.370/.425 for the mariners next year and he would cost a fifth of Durazo.  

If your feeling spendy, I suggest we go after Nomar.  I know alot of people won't like this but he would give us a little experience for the middle of the infield and would definitely be a DH most of the time.  This would be really nice if Lopez doesn't progress as quickly as hoped and we would gain some depth.  He would probably cost somewhere between Giles and Durazo but I think he will definitely rebound from last year and have some good value if he can stay healthy.  If you don't look at last year becuase he struggled with injuries, I think he is definitely able to be a .300/.375/.500 hitter.  We could probably sign him for a team-friendly 1-2yr deal for around 6-8mil/yr.  Plus, he just saved not just one, but two drowning women!  How much more family-friendly can you get?

++At his age, the last year of that contract is likely to be a waste.  Look at his power numbers.  They are plummeting.  For that amount of cash, he is a big risk.++

You amigos is taking your favorite factor, like HR or ISO or whatever, and asserting "since HR's are down, Giles is a worse-than-average risk for a sharp dropoff."

That's just not true.  There isn't any research that shows "when a hitter goes from 35 HR to 20 HR, he hits the wall at 37."  We are pulling this "HR's drive career arc" idea out of our ears.

========

Same with "OBP being a skill that erodes."  Of course it does not.  Not relative to other skills.  Walks INCREASE with age and experience.  OBP erodes LESS quickly than other isolated offensive skills.

========

It happens that there IS a body of research on Giles' comps -- what hitters just like him have done at 35, 36, and 37.  It's called PECOTA. It takes 20-to-100 similar players and calculates probable careers arcs.

It is not perfect but it is much better than what is being done in this thread ("Look at his HR's"), you can take that to the bank.

Go to the POTD and look at the PECOTA projection.  http://drdetecto.blogspot.com/2005/11/potd-brian-giles.html   It is unbelievably favorable -- and it considers everything being said here plus a lot more.

===========

Giles is 35, no doubts there.

The (only) argument against him is based on his age, and it's legit.

But the argument made in this thread isn't.

Cheers,
Dr D

Nowhere on this list is Edgar Martinez, the player you insist Giles is so similar to.

If we sign Giles who do you expect to pitch for us next year? Or, to put it another way: is there more of a drop-off between Giles and Durazo or Burnett and Morris.

At best you seem to have proven that Giles is a quality player, however what you have failed to do is prove that Giles is the player that the Mariners need.

As you know, the PECOTA comps are optimistic, and are more thorough.

=========

Edgar does not show up on a comp on either list, which reflects their AI limitations.

For further reading on the nature of these AI comps, check this:  http://drdetecto.blogspot.com/2005/10/potd-intuition-vs-artificial.html  It's been a popular article around the blog-o-sphere.

The bottom line is, the computer comps are interesting though spotty in their accuracy.  Edgar Martinez is absolutely an excellent comp for Giles, regardless of whether the computers catch it.

========

This is a situation that requires a human expert's judgment.  My own judgment, though not necessarily expert, is that Giles is fine for the ages of 35-37 -- and even if he does drop off, is likely to give a .400 OBP.

Somebody else's judgment is different?  Kewl.  We will see.

Cheers,
Dr D

Top 10 Comps:

1. Bill Mazeroski
   
2. Derrell Griffith
   
3. Buddy Bell
   
4. Robin Yount
   
5. Hank Aaron
   
6. Gary Sheffield
   
7. Adrian Beltre
   
8. Roberto Clemente
   
9. Brooks Robinson
   
10. Aurelio Rodriguez

For sure when the NEXT Mariner farmhand slugs .500 in Cheney, at 20 years of age, he'll get his due respect :-)