Brian Giles is an Idiot

Brian Giles has now countersued his former girlfriend — the one who claims he battered her — alleging that she abused him.

Look, there is absolutely nothing funny about domestic violence, so I’m going to break form here and eschew my usual snark. Thank God, then, that there is something else of note in the story besides the ugly abuse allegations:

He also seeks the return of a diamond engagement ring he said he gave to her on Christmas Eve 2005 that is valued at $107,952.

Brian, according to the clearly unbiased people at DeBeers, the guidelines for an engagement ring is two months salary. You made $8.33 million in 2005, which means that you should have laid out something on the order of $694,000 for that ring, you miserable cheapskate.

Am I right ladies?

Print Friendly
 Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone
« Previous: Abreu to the Angels
Next: Vote No, Miami-Dade »


  1. Ron said...

    I’m not in domestic abuse either, but how easy is it for these women to do this? Especially after the fact, when there is no physical evidence.

    Just like in the Alomar case, I’m sure some kind of ‘settlement’ was discussed, then rejected because it was baseless.

    So, in order not to look like a money-grubbing golddigger, the girl goes ahead and sues in order to justify her original actions.

    If Giles is guilty, he deserves to be punished. Severely. But if the case is found to have no merit (which happens more often than not), when are the women doing this going to be publicy condemned and prosecuted.

    It’s easy to say it happened. Especially when the guy’s got a big bank account.

  2. Rob said...

    Craig, I’m no math major… but I think 2 months salary (assuming he is paid year round, which baseball players aren’t since they are seasonal employees, but we’ll make that assumption for simplicity’s sake) for someone making $8.33 million is more on the order of $1.39 million.

    That’s about halfway to the ridiculous rock Kobe bought his wife after the “incident” in Colorado…

  3. Craig Calcaterra said...

    Rob—8.33M divided by 12 is 694K.  At least that’s what my calculator says.  But you are right, if you go by when they’re actually paid—during the season—it would be more.

  4. Matt S said...

    Guys, I am thinking it should be what you net in two months not what you gross. You should not, in effect, have to pay taxes on the engagement ring, no?

  5. Name withheld to protect the guilty said...

    I suspect an engagement ring may be the most heavily taxed purchase many men will ever make.

  6. Beanster said...

    Still waiting for all of the Shyster “ladies” to comment.  Not to assume anything but all the posts so far seem rather masculine…

  7. MooseinOhio said...

    Lawyers may not be great with math but I suspect most are smart enough to reserve the necessary brain cells to calculate their billable hours.  Of course, they could hire folks to do the calculations for them but then most are smart enough to charge a higher hourly fee to pay for the bean counters.  Either way – not a lot of sympathy here unless you’re a public defender or a crusader that fights the good, but not always prosperous, fight.

  8. Craig Calcaterra said...

    Moose: this is why I flamed out of private practice. My calculation had Giles paying only half of what he should have for the ring. In law fims, you’re supposed to *double* bill.

    I just never fit in there, ya know?

  9. MooseinOhio said...

    Craig: If Orza or Fehr step down, as one definately should given our previous blogs, there may a position opening for a lawyer who love baseball.  Of course loving baseball may not be a good thing for the position as trying to crush MLB’s balls all the time may require one to loathe the sport.

  10. Sara K said...

    Part of the mentality that leads me to be enough of a baseball fan that I hang out on geeky blogs such as this also makes me the type to not wear jewelry, not know the answer to this question, and have to squelch the urge to cybernoogie Craig for assuming that I should know this because I happen to have a uterus. 

    But yeah, Giles is being an asshat.

  11. Matt in Toledo said...

    Am I the only whose future wife would have been furious had I dropped two months’ salary (pre- or post-tax) on a ring? Well, maybe not furious but probably not happy once she was with me on the hook for the credit card bill.

  12. Craig Calcaterra said...

    Sara—it was totally an ironic “am I right, ladies.” But if you feel the need to cybernoogie, cybernoogie away.

    And for the record, I didn’t spend that much on my wife’s engagement ring.  In fact, she doesn’t have one because we got married when we were 20 and 21, had no money, and thought that furniture and food was a better use of resources. 

    I did get her a ten-year anniversary ring, but it wasn’t two months salary either.

  13. Sara K said...

    I can definitely see the irony in a baseball blogger asking for “the ladies’” opinion. (crickets chirping…)

    When my husband and I were engaged, we didn’t bother with a ring. We figured that the money we’d spent on Crown Royal during the courtship was investment enough.  ; – )

  14. RoyceTheBaseballHack said...

    Re: Sara K’s “Investment”….

      See – now that’s what I call, ‘Trickle down Economics’, that will work for everyone.

  15. Jason @ IIATMS said...

    from Ron White:

    You know those DeBeers commercials? They’re starting to say more what they actually mean. First it was, “A diamond is forever.” Then it turned into, “Diamonds… Take her breath away.” Then they changed it to, “Diamonds… Render her speechless.” Next it’ll be, “Diamonds… That’ll shut her up…”

  16. TC said...

    My fiance’s ring was bought at a cool little knickknack shop outside of Philadelphia for a 2 digit price tag.  She paid for it.  I was there, but it was her cash.  Two months salary?  No thanks.

  17. Melody said...

    My engagement ring was given to my husband by his grandmother, a very sweet woman who’d been married to her late husband for almost 50 years before he died of cancer.  It actually did cost about 2 months salary, since both of us were taking turns on unemployment at the time… damn economy!  That’s what I get for working in social services.

    Re the early comments (Ron, etc) regarding domestic violence, it makes me angry to see those assumptions about “most cases” being found to be baseless, or how “easy” it is for a woman to simply claim that she’s been assaulted.  Having worked as a domestic violence counselor for two years in NYC, I can vouch for the fact that there are FAR FAR more legitimate cases that go unreported and/or unprosecuted.  It’s a difficult crime to prove, and a complex and wide-reaching problem.  I wish it were better understood, and I wish the automatic assumption weren’t that a woman is making up a story when she reports that she’s been assaulted.

  18. Tony said...

    Brian broke the rule.  You NEVER propose during a gift giving period like a birthday, Valentine’s Day, or Christmas.  The reason being is that there is case precident that during those periods an engagement ring is considered a gift.  During all other days, the ring is part of a contract.  No marriage, contract is broken and the ring must be returned.

  19. Ethan Stock said...

    I have known Craig for nearly 20 years and I find that math discussion sequence ending with “Um, sorry.  I’m a moron”  so perfect that I’m almost tempted to let it stand.  But latter Craig’s self-admitted moronicity aside, I must defend the correctness of former Craig’s first statement against attacks of math-nerdism.  Craig wrote,

    “on the order of $694,000”

    which as we all (cough) know, technically means within one order of magnitude, or between $69.4K and $6.94M. 

    So Craig, in a moronic kind of way, was correct.


    Note: I am using K here in the metric ‘kilo’ sense and not in the base-2 2^8 sense.

  20. Ron said...

    I actually bought an engagement ring from DeBeers, in South Africa of all places.

    I spent slighty less than a month’s salary.

    A lobotomy would have been cheaper and lasted longer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>