I'm not saying you're completely wrong in saying you have to wait to see if those prospects pan out, but at the same time those prospects do have value right now, and that's really what it's about. Sure all of them could bust and then the Astros would win that trade by default. For value purposes, the Phillies got a pretty good haul. It's the same as someone valuing Bregman even though he hasn't hit the majors yet. The potential is there which is which is a big factor in what drives the value.
the way hinch spoke in a recent interview..he doesn't focus on the word closer just the ability to get those 3 outs. I think he'll switch it up according to gut feeling. hinch has one of the best guts.
I do agree with you here. Other than VV, I guess I just wasn't that high on the other prospects that we gave up, that's why I initially questioned the notion that we gave up so much for Giles. Valuing prospects are ultimately personal opinions and best guesses. I am by no means an expert, so every single player traded to the Phillies can end up having long, successful MLB careers, which would prove me completely wrong. But "value" is such a subjective term, we are all bound to have different opinions.
No doubt they both understandably wanted the job. Baseball somehow allowed themselves to be duped into creating an artificially important, and high paying position. Closers get all the recognition, and the most money despite the fact that the actual impact on game outcomes is virtually identical between 8th and 9th inning pitchers. We had a good closer last year, the 9th inning was fine. All along the most important aspect of this trade was locking down the 8th inning. Granted I expected Gregorsen would be doing it, but my actual view of the bullpens effectiveness hasn't changed one bit with this news. Who pitches the 9th matters a ton to the individual players, means very little to me.
I heard he takes a lot of probiotics and lays off the dairy. Makes sense. As to closer: Giles will prove he belongs in the 9th and I'm betting by mid-season he'll be the regular closer. As previous posters have stated, having a shutdown 7-8-9 is the most important aspect; who actually is doing the shutting down each inning is largely irrelevant. This should also spur a healthy competition between Giles & Gregerson as the latter must know if he screws up possibly even once, he may cede the role to Giles. There is a lot of pressure on Gregerson now to perform. Giles, being as young as he is and new to the club house, can take some time to grow into the role--I think Hinch is actually pretty freaking smart how he is managing this. in terms of clubhouse angst, Giles is the new guy, much younger, and has less service time than Gregerson and wouldn't take being the 8th inning guy has harshly as Gregerson might--and keeping clubhouse harmony in check is the most important thing so early in the season.
While this is surprising, the reason Giles's price tag was so high is that he is under control for 5 seasons. While it would have been nice to have Giles come in right away, and there's no way the front office anticipated giving up that much for someone who will be the set-up guy this year, Gregerson closing this season and Giles being our closer of the future are not mutually exclusive.
I am probably closer to this position than most people. I wouldn't say baseball allowed them to be duped into creating an artificially important position. Baseball knew closer was important, but measuring it by saves is the wrong way to go. It caused some guys to get over paid; However, it also lead to widespread underpaid high quality relievers that weren't closers.
Gregerson hadn't been a full time closer that much longer than Giles. Agreed he didn't do anything to lose the job...but it was clearly an area that Luhnow had been trying to upgrade since the trade deadline last year. At the same time, Giles proved he could close last year. Hence the price tag paid for him. Not sure if he would have ever "earned it" by your criteria as he was always going to be young and Gregerson was always going to be a veteran. Anyways, as I said in the ST thread, props to Hey Now who called this early in the process. Sucks that there will need to be an injury or some failing for there to be a change... Or maybe it just works itself out like Rivera-Wettland did in 1996 (as opposed to Lidge-Dotel in 2004).
This is a pristine example of why Hinch has thus far proven to be a terrific manager (and why so many fans would make terrible ones): he managed his clubhouse as much as he did performance. Gregerson was fine in this role last year - certainly good enough to not arbitrarily lose the job - and rather than upset that dynamic based on potential and not performance is an easy way to lose your players. I suspected as much, given how Hinch managed the clubhouse last year.
I also wouldn't say it's artificial. There's data that shows hitters approaches changes between the 9th and all other innings, which leads to teams valuing the guy who can rack up the K's as the closer. It's what I figured would propel Giles in this case. That and Gregerson having better 8th inning numbers vs closer numbers. At least Giles has shown the ability to handle both innings as well, so hopefully no mental blocks or confidence issues come into play here.
I've not seen anything that strongly shows guys who can pitch elite in the 8th inning well can't pitch elite in the 9th inning.
The good news is that Giles did terrible in spring training last year with the Phillies before turning it on in the regular season.
Never said that. I said you value the strikeout pitcher more in the 9th due to how hitters approaches change in that inning (more so than other innings... Data proven). There have also been guys who were above average bullpen arms, but below average closers throughout baseball history (for similar reasons).
To add to this, it has been a while, but I have seen stuff that shows losing a lead in the 8th changes a team's win probability almost as much as the 9th. My memory wants to say it was like 85 or 90%, but probably off. I'd rather have Giles than Oxford. I'd take Betances over most guys that closed last year. Assuming all else is the same, I'd take the 9th inning guy over the 8th inning guy.
It was one of the bigger question marks going into the season... Thus the discussion. Not seeing anybody go apoplectic yet. Those questioning the prospects/costs to acquire Giles are valid... Because the cost was what it was due to him being a club controlled closer.
Agreed. I'm not freaking out about it. I am surprised, though, given the cost. I don't think this was the intention when they pulled this trade off.
They have him for 5 years. Giles not being the opening day closer does not negate his value nor does it magnify the value we gave up for him. This will all even out eventually; I think Hinch is actually playing it smart. He is basically daring Gregerson to keep up with Giles and hold down the spot. The Astros are a WS contender and nothing will be a given. Everyone has to perform or the next talented player will be ready to step up and take you job.
Do you think his value was more in 2014 or 2015? I don't underestimate his half season of being an elite closer. To me, that raised his value...even if he has one less year of pre-arb eligibility.
