Dodgers Sign Brian Giles 4 Years Too Late

February 7, 2010 at 8:42 am | Posted in Brian Giles | 11 Comments

Is it just me, or have the Dodgers signed about three times as many veterans to minor-league deals as usual? I half expect to see Lenny Harris, Tim Teufel, and Paul O’Neill coming in next. The trend continues with today’s entry in “Who Can Be the Most Old and Busted?”, Brian Giles, reports Ken Gurnick at Dodgers.com.

As you’d probably expect, I don’t have particularly high hopes for Giles to stick. He’s 39, hit just .191 last season – when he wasn’t missing half the year with an arthritic right knee, because “arthritic” is always a word you want to hear when it comes to elderly outfielders – and is a lousy defender, ranking below-average in UZR at all three outfield spots over his career.

That said, 2009 was the first year of Giles’ career in which he had a below-average OPS, and his 2008 was actually pretty good – .306/.398/.456 in 653 plate appearances, so what the hell – toss him a few spring training at-bats and see if he can be the 5th outfielder/main lefty power bat. Since there’s no guarantee here, it’s probably worth the time to see. Not that I really think he has anything left.

What really interests me, though, is Gurnick’s mention of Ned Colletti’s previous interest in Giles:

Giles nearly was general manager Ned Colletti’s first acquisition after he took over the Dodgers in the winter of 2005, but the San Diego native re-signed with the Padres and Colletti turned to shortstop Rafael Furcal.

Oh, what could have been! Between 2006-08, Giles hit .280/.378/.423 in the batting graveyard of PetCo Park, but more importantly, if Colletti had spent big money on a free agent outfielder for 2006, it might have saved us all the pain of the Juan Pierre era.

11 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Why? This move makes no sense. Why are they wasting money?

  2. Wow. Just wow.

    And a team with money issues throwing all of this “spare change” at crappy veterans is comical, it will undoubtedly affect the team later on.

  3. As I remember, the story was that Brian Giles had agreed to terms and was actually driving to his physical and had second thoughts.

    Yes, “what could have been”……

    As to wasting money, if he doesn’t stick by the end of spring training he will be released, so no downside there.

  4. But if we signed Giles we would probably would’ve never have gotten Ethier, meaning we wouldn’t have had much depth when Drew left. Plus, Cesar Izturis would still be our starting shortstop backed up by the one-and-only Joel Guzman.

    • Obviously SS would have been an issue, but I don’t think having Giles would have impacted getting Ethier. It’s not as though Ned said “I need an OF, let’s go get that guy” – Ethier was just the best prospect we could get when the Dodgers were forced to dump Bradley, and no one predicted what he’d become.

  5. i just threw up in my mouth a little…

  6. [...] of Mike Scioscia’s Tragic Illness has an interesting take, noting the Dodgers may have been four years too late in signing Giles.  [...]

  7. Dude, I blaim everything on JD Drew. If he had not opted out, the Dodgers are looking at no Pierre, Gonzo, Nomar, or Jones. Could have just resigned Lofton and waited for Kemp to takeover. Werth could have been kept as a 4th outfielder as well.

    Furcal
    Lofton
    Drew
    Kent
    Ethier
    Martin
    Loney
    Larouche ( would have traded for Beltre though)

    Of course if Drew stayed that wouldn’t influence the Schmidt signing too much.

    This may seem like looking at things after the fact, but we all knew these were horrible decisions at the time as well.

    Dam you JD!!!!!!


Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.