can someone explain why they traded giles?

[N&B4PSU]

First, i apologize.. i have zero idea how i missed the trade (and the likely talk here that followed)... b ut i did.

i read some of the articles last night attempting to explain it away and i'm curious if anyone knows the real reason they dumped a home grown 25 year old closer with a 103 mph fastball. I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's because they feared how much it would cost to keep him when his contract was due and that trading him then would be harder.

if so, that sucks.

otoh, i'm also presuming someone thought it'd be cool to get a former #1 draft pick ... even if that guy couldn't get anyone out in the minors. or maybe the 4 for 1 thing was enticing. presuming even 2 of them crack the lineup, i guess that's a win.

anyway.. anyone who can fill in the blanks.. i'm appreciative.

in the meantime... this team is missing a closer and i'd wager if giles had been available, we take games 1 and 2 and be 2-2 now.

just an opinion.

 

[harjeff]

Because the Phils are building for the future and know they aren't winning this year, obvious, and a team in that position doesn't need a dominate closer. Furthermore, Giles only did it for 1 year and he wasn't even able to make it as the Astros closer opening day...so maybe something to that as well. The chance to get more real good prospects for 1 guy was a good deal and today's starter was part of that trade as well. I think it was a good move...not for this year but the next 10 when I think some of these trades really start to pay off beginning in the next few years when the lineup will be populated by many of the player received in trades of the last few years and we are back as contenders. Always easier to add a closer than to add several starters and position players which is what the Phils are in dire need of now.

 

[Cletus11]

It was a risk, as stated Giles wasn't a sure thing. So they traded him while his value was pretty high for a bunch of prospects. If Giles becomes a dominant closer, probably a bad move. If some of the prospects they got for him end up being major league players and Giles tops out as more of a set-up guy, then good move by Phils.

 

[Lion84]

First, i apologize.. i have zero idea how i missed the trade (and the likely talk here that followed)... b ut i did.

i read some of the articles last night attempting to explain it away and i'm curious if anyone knows the real reason they dumped a home grown 25 year old closer with a 103 mph fastball. I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's because they feared how much it would cost to keep him when his contract was due and that trading him then would be harder.

if so, that sucks.

otoh, i'm also presuming someone thought it'd be cool to get a former #1 draft pick ... even if that guy couldn't get anyone out in the minors. or maybe the 4 for 1 thing was enticing. presuming even 2 of them crack the lineup, i guess that's a win.

anyway.. anyone who can fill in the blanks.. i'm appreciative.

in the meantime... this team is missing a closer and i'd wager if giles had been available, we take games 1 and 2 and be 2-2 now.

just an opinion.

This team doesn't need a closer - with this middle relief group and starting lineup I doubt they have many leads to save in the late innings - now if they could just get rid of Howard but they will have to eat almost all that contract.

 

[zwick99]

First, i apologize.. i have zero idea how i missed the trade (and the likely talk here that followed)... b ut i did.

i read some of the articles last night attempting to explain it away and i'm curious if anyone knows the real reason they dumped a home grown 25 year old closer with a 103 mph fastball. I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's because they feared how much it would cost to keep him when his contract was due and that trading him then would be harder.

if so, that sucks.

otoh, i'm also presuming someone thought it'd be cool to get a former #1 draft pick ... even if that guy couldn't get anyone out in the minors. or maybe the 4 for 1 thing was enticing. presuming even 2 of them crack the lineup, i guess that's a win.

anyway.. anyone who can fill in the blanks.. i'm appreciative.

in the meantime... this team is missing a closer and i'd wager if giles had been available, we take games 1 and 2 and be 2-2 now.

just an opinion.

Do you follow baseball? Can you explain why a team needs a closer when they never have the lead in the ninth?

 

[sluggo72]

Do you follow baseball? Can you explain why a team needs a closer when they never have the lead in the ninth?

Help me out here. I think the Phillies have had a late lead in 3-4 games. So if you had a closer couldn't you take your current closer and bump him up to the 8th and take your current 8th inning guy up to the 7th?? Etc. you'd have one less rag arm out there and maybe keep your lead?

 

[NittPicker]

I personally think the value of a closer is overrated. I hated to see Giles go but hopefully the return on the trade will be a plus over what they gave up. Even if Giles was still on the roster and was the closer, some of the games lost thus far wouldn't have gotten to him since the middle relievers blew the lead. I know the Phils are rebuilding but part of that is developing confidence. That isn't happening with the stiffs they have in the bullpen.

 

[N&B4PSU]

we'd likely be 2-2. just sayin..

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

I was going to answer but it was all said well already.

This team is all about the future. The money to spend will be huge when things are ready. Giles looked like he could be a dominating closer but that does ZERO good on a team that at very best case will win 70 games. So cash in when his value is maxim. They have went from one of the worst farms in baseball and made a few really smart trades that now make this one of the best farms in baseball. And a lot of it is about ready to make the big jump.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice the short term pain for long term gain. Sure the pen would be better with Giles in it but the team will be better for years likely because of a few of the pieces they received for him. Relievers are so hard to trust anyway. He wasn't even awarded the closer role for Houston. They gave it to Gregerson.

 

[artsandletters]

Do you follow baseball? Can you explain why a team needs a closer when they never have the lead in the ninth?

And how come Robin Roberts didn't need a closer, lead or no lead? Games are too long without all the bloody relievers.

 

[N&B4PSU]

Because the Phils are building for the future and know they aren't winning this year, obvious, and a team in that position doesn't need a dominate closer. Furthermore, Giles only did it for 1 year and he wasn't even able to make it as the Astros closer opening day...so maybe something to that as well. The chance to get more real good prospects for 1 guy was a good deal and today's starter was part of that trade as well. I think it was a good move...not for this year but the next 10 when I think some of these trades really start to pay off beginning in the next few years when the lineup will be populated by many of the player received in trades of the last few years and we are back as contenders. Always easier to add a closer than to add several starters and position players which is what the Phils are in dire need of now.

actually, he did it for 2. i count the 44 games he was in during 2014 as a strong proving ground.

as for the trade, if the one guy they seem to be pinning their hopes on was actually getting people out, i'd be encouraged.

he's not. in the minors.

not cool.

hopefully, they get him fixed.

 

[N&B4PSU]

ok, i got it. they traded him because it saves money and they get the best bang for the buck by moving him while his worth is top drawer and they get a bunch of stiffs.. ooops, i mean players, of course, for him.

one camp thinks it's a great move (and i get the logic) and that at least 2 of these guys they picked up are playing and contributing soon.

the other camp thinks they had a star who, with the apparent starting pitching we have, could help us win games now and boost the amperage/wattage/voltage in the stadium and the city.. which right now, is a scaling about 0. [imo. we've already rebuilt our farm system and the additional roster opps isn't necessary.. but i'm not the gm.]

time will tell if the trade was a good or bad move. til then, it's about quantity versus quality (of course, if giles tanks as an astro, it's all good).

 

[lockhavenlion3]

ok, i got it. they traded him because it saves money and they get the best bang for the buck by moving him while his worth is top drawer and they get a bunch of stiffs.. ooops, i mean players, of course, for him.

one camp thinks it's a great move (and i get the logic) and that at least 2 of these guys they picked up are playing and contributing soon.

the other camp thinks they had a star who, with the apparent starting pitching we have, could help us win games now and boost the amperage/wattage/voltage in the stadium and the city.. which right now, is a scaling about 0. [imo. we've already rebuilt our farm system and the additional roster opps isn't necessary.. but i'm not the gm.]

time will tell if the trade was a good or bad move. til then, it's about quantity versus quality (of course, if giles tanks as an astro, it's all good).

you asked a question and got the answer. if you don't like the answer, that's on you. this is a team going nowhere. they don't need a closer. they got a bunch of really good, young prospects for giles. if, in 3/4 years, these young guys are not in philly, then it becomes a bad trade. you don't build without young talent.

 

[BUCKSCOUNTYLION]

First, i apologize.. i have zero idea how i missed the trade (and the likely talk here that followed)... b ut i did.

i read some of the articles last night attempting to explain it away and i'm curious if anyone knows the real reason they dumped a home grown 25 year old closer with a 103 mph fastball. I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's because they feared how much it would cost to keep him when his contract was due and that trading him then would be harder.

if so, that sucks.

otoh, i'm also presuming someone thought it'd be cool to get a former #1 draft pick ... even if that guy couldn't get anyone out in the minors. or maybe the 4 for 1 thing was enticing. presuming even 2 of them crack the lineup, i guess that's a win.

anyway.. anyone who can fill in the blanks.. i'm appreciative.

in the meantime... this team is missing a closer and i'd wager if giles had been available, we take games 1 and 2 and be 2-2 now.

just an opinion.

One guy they got for Giles....just shutout the Mets last night at Citi Field!

 

[N&B4PSU]

you asked a question and got the answer. if you don't like the answer, that's on you. this is a team going nowhere. they don't need a closer. they got a bunch of really good, young prospects for giles. if, in 3/4 years, these young guys are not in philly, then it becomes a bad trade. you don't build without young talent.

i think i made that same point in my last post. if the players pan out, it's a very good to great trade. if they don't, it's not. i was more interested from the start in WHY the trade was made. if it was made because they felt they needed more bodies and that was THE reason, then that's cool. I still get the feeling that $$ played into this.. imo, not a good reason. imo.

time will tell how this works out.

 

[N&B4PSU]

One guy they got for Giles....just shutout the Mets last night at Citi Field!

damned impressive. hope it continues and the others are equally strong. in the end, winning is what matters.

 

[Chris92]

[QUOTE="N&B4PSU, post: 1669392, member: 7894"I still get the feeling that $$ played into this.. imo, not a good reason. imo..[/QUOTE]

Giles is only making $528k this season and isn't even eligible for arbitration until the 2018 season. He's a steal for his production. There's no way the trade was about money. The Phils are in great shape financially, they're opening day payroll is $58 million lower than last season.

 

[ga.lion]

First, i apologize.. i have zero idea how i missed the trade (and the likely talk here that followed)... b ut i did.

i read some of the articles last night attempting to explain it away and i'm curious if anyone knows the real reason they dumped a home grown 25 year old closer with a 103 mph fastball. I'm gonna go out on a limb and presume it's because they feared how much it would cost to keep him when his contract was due and that trading him then would be harder.

if so, that sucks.

otoh, i'm also presuming someone thought it'd be cool to get a former #1 draft pick ... even if that guy couldn't get anyone out in the minors. or maybe the 4 for 1 thing was enticing. presuming even 2 of them crack the lineup, i guess that's a win.

anyway.. anyone who can fill in the blanks.. i'm appreciative.

in the meantime... this team is missing a closer and i'd wager if giles had been available, we take games 1 and 2 and be 2-2 now.

just an opinion.

Simply said the Future. Bud did you notice the guy who got us win 1 in the Met series was in the trade.
Phillies minor league went from one of the worst five in MLB talent to almost a top 5 with the talent acquired for Hammels and Giles. And actually the Dodgers chipped in a couple solid prospects for Chase,

 

[N&B4PSU]

Simply said the Future. Bud did you notice the guy who got us win 1 in the Met series was in the trade.
Phillies minor league went from one of the worst five in MLB talent to almost a top 5 with the talent acquired for Hammels and Giles. And actually the Dodgers chipped in a couple solid prospects for Chase,

presuming appel turns into something resembling his press clippings, this trade should be a winner. so far, he's shown nothing but promise, so i'll take a wait and see. and of course i saw who got our first win in the gloom and cold... did you see who wasn't here to get us wins 1 and 2 in games 1 and 2 (i'm going out on a limb and saying giles holds the reds off and we start 2-0)?

yeah, that's ticky tack, but you don't get to play both sides of the fence.

i am hopeful this is a great trade. time will tell.

 

[N&B4PSU]

[QUOTE="N&B4PSU, post: 1669392, member: 7894"I still get the feeling that $$ played into this.. imo, not a good reason. imo..

Giles is only making $528k this season and isn't even eligible for arbitration until the 2018 season. He's a steal for his production. There's no way the trade was about money. The Phils are in great shape financially, they're opening day payroll is $58 million lower than last season.[/QUOTE]

so they had to move him by 2017 and they chose to move him now when it was an easier sell. that's cool.

 

[lockhavenlion3]

i think i made that same point in my last post. if the players pan out, it's a very good to great trade. if they don't, it's not. i was more interested from the start in WHY the trade was made. if it was made because they felt they needed more bodies and that was THE reason, then that's cool. I still get the feeling that $$ played into this.. imo, not a good reason. imo.

time will tell how this works out.

giles wasn't making that much, so $$$'s not an issue. they saw a chance to get alot of young talent for a pitcher that wouldn't make that much of a difference, and took it. as you say, time will tell.

 

[jdog1124]

Because Velazquez is arguably as good as Giles in terms of stuff. Right now, he is a starter and the reality is a #2 or even a #3 starter is worth more than a closer. Velazquez has the potential to be a #1.Starters who have more strikeouts than innings are special. Velazquez has small sample size but he's there so far. At worst, he is Giles 2.0 and can be their closer if he lacks the ability to dominate beyond 2 turns through the batting order. Appel was a #1 pick. He hasn't pitched like one yet but perhaps a change of scenery and some new pitching coaches figure out how to help him achieve his potential.

 

[wbcincy]

Giles is only making $528k this season and isn't even eligible for arbitration until the 2018 season. He's a steal for his production. There's no way the trade was about money. The Phils are in great shape financially, they're opening day payroll is $58 million lower than last season.

so they had to move him by 2017 and they chose to move him now when it was an easier sell. that's cool.[/QUOTE]

I don't think money was a factor at all. Not even slightly. This was about being realistic about when the Phils will be in a position to contend again. Anyone who is unlikely to be a key part of the team by the time they're ready to compete for the division is expendable. So you trade any of those guys who will either be too old or too unlikely to maintain their production by the time you're ready to compete, and you get players in return who WILL be entering their primes and key parts for the team when they're ready to compete again.

It was the right trade for the Phillies even if the players they got in return don't pan out. Giles will almost be 30 by the time the Phillies are a contender again, and relievers are traditionally the least trustworthy players in the game when it comes to expecting consistent year-to-year results. So now instead they have some legit prospects to show for it instead, and they're at the age where they'll be entering their primes during the Phils next window.

It was a very smart move by the Phils management IMO. You build to compete for titles, not to win 70 games instead of 65 so a few fans feel better. Those fans will much prefer the title contending years this type of decision-making leads to.

 

[N&B4PSU]

so they had to move him by 2017 and they chose to move him now when it was an easier sell. that's cool.

I don't think money was a factor at all. Not even slightly. This was about being realistic about when the Phils will be in a position to contend again. Anyone who is unlikely to be a key part of the team by the time they're ready to compete for the division is expendable. So you trade any of those guys who will either be too old or too unlikely to maintain their production by the time you're ready to compete, and you get players in return who WILL be entering their primes and key parts for the team when they're ready to compete again.

It was the right trade for the Phillies even if the players they got in return don't pan out. Giles will almost be 30 by the time the Phillies are a contender again, and relievers are traditionally the least trustworthy players in the game when it comes to expecting consistent year-to-year results. So now instead they have some legit prospects to show for it instead, and they're at the age where they'll be entering their primes during the Phils next window.

It was a very smart move by the Phils management IMO. You build to compete for titles, not to win 70 games instead of 65 so a few fans feel better. Those fans will much prefer the title contending years this type of decision-making leads to.[/QUOTE]

ahhh... thank you. that was precisely the kind of answer i was looking for in the first place. i was looking to figure out why they'd make the move and this answer fits best because you don't go down the path of (btw, as i have done) "well, let's see if they made the right move." you're saying it was the right move regardless and the logic is sound.

that being said, as the season begins, i see a team that really can't hit but seems to have a pretty strong bunch of arms. IF they can keep pitching as they have and maintain that level into june and july, is there a re-think on the closer aspect? [and again, btw, their guy might turn out to be just fine... another wait and see for me]. what if it turns out their pitching makes up for their hitting and they actually wind up in the thick of it? yes, a pipe dream, but based on what i've seen so far, the relief end and the bats are all that are preventing these phillies from competing.

yeah, too early to tell.

anyway, thank you.

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

A Pirates fan came through in the clutch haha.

Good answer though. Pretty much spot on. I don't necessarily agree that the timeline is that far away as far as competing again but the message was on target. Things can turn around quick if these pieces start coming together. Especially when you have a fortune of money ready to spend to fill in the rest of the holes internationally and through free agency.

 

[royboy]

A Pirates fan came through in the clutch haha.

Good answer though. Pretty much spot on. I don't necessarily agree that the timeline is that far away as far as competing again but the message was on target. Things can turn around quick if these pieces start coming together. Especially when you have a fortune of money ready to spend to fill in the rest of the holes internationally and through free agency.

Let's hope the rebuild goes a little better and faster than that of the Sixers.

 

[Grant Green]

I don't think money was a factor at all. Not even slightly. This was about being realistic about when the Phils will be in a position to contend again. Anyone who is unlikely to be a key part of the team by the time they're ready to compete for the division is expendable. So you trade any of those guys who will either be too old or too unlikely to maintain their production by the time you're ready to compete, and you get players in return who WILL be entering their primes and key parts for the team when they're ready to compete again.

It was the right trade for the Phillies even if the players they got in return don't pan out. Giles will almost be 30 by the time the Phillies are a contender again, and relievers are traditionally the least trustworthy players in the game when it comes to expecting consistent year-to-year results. So now instead they have some legit prospects to show for it instead, and they're at the age where they'll be entering their primes during the Phils next window.

It was a very smart move by the Phils management IMO. You build to compete for titles, not to win 70 games instead of 65 so a few fans feel better. Those fans will much prefer the title contending years this type of decision-making leads to.

ahhh... thank you. that was precisely the kind of answer i was looking for in the first place. i was looking to figure out why they'd make the move and this answer fits best because you don't go down the path of (btw, as i have done) "well, let's see if they made the right move." you're saying it was the right move regardless and the logic is sound.

that being said, as the season begins, i see a team that really can't hit but seems to have a pretty strong bunch of arms. IF they can keep pitching as they have and maintain that level into june and july, is there a re-think on the closer aspect? [and again, btw, their guy might turn out to be just fine... another wait and see for me]. what if it turns out their pitching makes up for their hitting and they actually wind up in the thick of it? yes, a pipe dream, but based on what i've seen so far, the relief end and the bats are all that are preventing these phillies from competing.

yeah, too early to tell.

anyway, thank you.

Yeah, what Cincy said. There is not much point having a great closer if your team is not going to win that many games. If by miracle they do win a lot, then maybe it was a bad decision, but you have to make decisions based on probability. The probability of a winning season is low.

I believe the big piece of this trade was Velasquez, not Appel.

Also, you can't look at this trade being a failure if the players they got don't pan out. The Phils made a number of trades last year with the idea of stockpiling as much talent as possible. The bigger the talent pool, the more players that will pan out. The better approach is to look at all the players they got for all the trades and see how successful they are in a few years.

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

I believe the big piece of this trade was Velasquez, not Appel.

Yeah me too. All the guys will be contributors but he is a potential ace.

I was watching some of the Mets broadcast. Keith Hernandez thinks he is the second coming. Appel is really talented though and if he can ever get his shit in order that trade is going to be a massive steal.

 

[zwick99]

Let's hope the rebuild goes a little better and faster than that of the Sixers.

This is year 5 of the Phillies rebuild.

 

[PSUriseANDfire]

This is year 5 of the Phillies rebuild.

Not really. Amaro spent the past few years trying to glue things back together that were not fixable. MacPhail came in and made it stop.