Good work KT. You can't trade any players of value before the
deadline. So you expose Giles on the waiver wire and he's claimed by
the Red Sox. OK, the Red Sox are not on Giles list of teams he can be
traded to, so that gives the Padres some leverage. But KT, why didnt
you try something *BEFORE* the trade deadline? The Red Sox claimed
Giles only to block Tampa Bay from getting him. The Sox don't really
need him, but that's still a smart move on Boston's part. I don't get
our braintrust at all.

"Padredog" <padredog69@gmail.com> wrote:

> Good work KT. You can't trade any players of value before the
> deadline. So you expose Giles on the waiver wire and he's claimed by
> the Red Sox. OK, the Red Sox are not on Giles list of teams he can be
> traded to, so that gives the Padres some leverage. But KT, why didnt
> you try something *BEFORE* the trade deadline? The Red Sox claimed
> Giles only to block Tampa Bay from getting him. The Sox don't really
> need him, but that's still a smart move on Boston's part. I don't get
> our braintrust at all.

Towers is an a poor GM for many reasons. The team's offense should be
constucted with speedy players and good pinch-hitters to manfacture runs in
Petco.

--
Jolly Rogers

Have you read the news today?
http://www.amren.com/




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Aug 7, 10:47 am, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Padredog" <padredo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Good work KT. You can't trade any players of value before the
> > deadline. So you expose Giles on the waiver wire and he's claimed by
> > the Red Sox. OK, the Red Sox are not on Giles list of teams he can be
> > traded to, so that gives the Padres some leverage. But KT, why didnt
> > you try something *BEFORE* the trade deadline? The Red Sox claimed
> > Giles only to block Tampa Bay from getting him. The Sox don't really
> > need him, but that's still a smart move on Boston's part. I don't get
> > our braintrust at all.
>
> Towers is an a poor GM for many reasons. The team's offense should be
> constucted with speedy players and good pinch-hitters to manfacture runs in
> Petco.
>
> --
> Jolly Rogers
>
> Have you read the news today?http://www.amren.com/
>
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

You can not put the finger solely on Towers. Anywhere else Towers
would be respected for working miracles while his hands were tied.
There is only so much he can do..

On Aug 7, 10:45 am, Padredog <padredo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good work KT. You can't trade any players of value before the
> deadline. So you expose Giles on the waiver wire and he's claimed by
> the Red Sox. OK, the Red Sox are not on Giles list of teams he can be
> traded to, so that gives the Padres some leverage. But KT, why didnt
> you try something *BEFORE* the trade deadline? The Red Sox claimed
> Giles only to block Tampa Bay from getting him. The Sox don't really
> need him, but that's still a smart move on Boston's part. I don't get
> our braintrust at all.

Gotta wait and see. Krasovic seems to think the Pads
might get a prospect, some salary relief, and get Giles
back next year. If that pans out, what's the big deal?
This year was over a long time ago.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/news/2008/aug/07/red-sox-put-claim-giles-clock-ticking-stike-deal/?padres

ScottW

On Aug 7, 10:45 am, Padredog <padredo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good work KT. You can't trade any players of value before the
> deadline. So you expose Giles on the waiver wire and he's claimed by
> the Red Sox. OK, the Red Sox are not on Giles list of teams he can be
> traded to, so that gives the Padres some leverage. But KT, why didnt
> you try something *BEFORE* the trade deadline? The Red Sox claimed
> Giles only to block Tampa Bay from getting him. The Sox don't really
> need him, but that's still a smart move on Boston's part. I don't get
> our braintrust at all.

How do you know he didn't try to do something before the deadline?
All this tells me is that he's trying to do something now.

"Seapig" <seapig@altavista.com> wrote:

>> How do you know he didn't try to do something before the deadline?
All this tells me is that he's trying to do something now.<<

Not to be a wise guy, but it think it's called "dumping salary", seapig.

--
Jolly Rogers

Have you read the news today?
http://www.amren.com/




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Aug 8, 6:03 am, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> How do you know he didn't try to do something before the deadline?
>
> All this tells me is that he's trying to do something now.<<
>
> Not to be a wise guy, but it think it's called "dumping salary", seapig.
>
It looks like a salary dump to me. It's a moot point now, the deal is
off. Sounds like Giles vetoed the deal.

On Aug 8, 6:03 am, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> How do you know he didn't try to do something before the deadline?
>
> All this tells me is that he's trying to do something now.<<
>
> Not to be a wise guy, but it think it's called "dumping salary", seapig.

That's obviously a big part of it, but if they were just looking to
dump salary, they would have moved him before the deadline. He's
still here because they want to get something in return for him.

I have a question: does his no-trade clause also equal a "no-waive"
clause? That is, would it have prevented the Padres from just letting
Boston take him? If not, it seems to me that that's the way they
would have gone, if it was just about dumping salary.

"Seapig" <seapig@altavista.com> wrote in message
news:bcb191c5-d645-412d-97fd-7d535766165b@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 8, 6:03 am, "Jolly Rogers" <jollyrog...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Seapig" <sea...@altavista.com> wrote:
> >> How do you know he didn't try to do something before the deadline?
>
> All this tells me is that he's trying to do something now.<<
>
> Not to be a wise guy, but it think it's called "dumping salary", seapig.

That's obviously a big part of it, but if they were just looking to
dump salary, they would have moved him before the deadline. He's
still here because they want to get something in return for him.

I have a question: does his no-trade clause also equal a "no-waive"
clause? That is, would it have prevented the Padres from just letting
Boston take him? If not, it seems to me that that's the way they
would have gone, if it was just about dumping salary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think it will cost the Pads 3M to waive Giles per his contract.

ScottW