November 20, 2006
Sayonara, Soriano
We were glad to see him signed, and we hate to see him go, despite the fact that his memorable, 40-40 year didn't translate into a winning season for the Nats. While the home club was nominally trying to retain their star left fielder, Washington's offers ultimately came nowhere near the money Soriano will receive from his new team, the Chicago Cubs. His announced deal, $136 million over 8 years for an average of about $17 million per year, could fairly be called epic. While not the longest or most expensive in baseball history, it will keep Soriano under contract until he's 39 and grant him a no-trade clause. Eyebrow raising stuff.
Given the value that the league, and especially the Cubbies, saw in Soriano, it's a shame that the Nats weren't able to turn their rights to him into any meaningful gain for the club. The Nats will receive two draft picks from the Cubs--and probably not great ones, given the Cubs' relatively poor performance last year (their first round pick is protected). The Nats might end up drafting superstars, but it's hard to believe that the front office couldn't have squeezed more out of a contender via a trade during the past season--at least, perhaps, players who had proved themselves in the farm system of another team.
But that will have to remain the stuff of idle speculation. Kasten and the Nats made their call, and the next time Soriano sets foot in RFK, it will be as a Cub. Let us know what you think of the deal in the comments.
AP Photo taken by Haraz N. Ghanbari.
|
At this point this is not surprising, but count me as one of those that wanted to see Soriano stay this summer (not thrown away for possible prospects) and was very surprised at the way this went down through the fall. I sincerely thought the Nats were keeping him and going to pay him a ton as a bone for us fans until the rest of the team is competitive. While, I would not argue that he was worth 8 years $136 million (about $17 million a year), clearly the team should have known that this summer - or been able to guess that it was going to be a very slim free agent market to fight over between the big spenders.
That said, I don't see the logic. Any two prospects that have a chance at the big leagues (even non-pitchers) had to be a better deal then two picks below the first round for the Nats. They will have to spend time developing them and this from people that are not first round picks. Surely someone in the minors for a year or two would have been a better bet. Why didn't they make the trade this summer? Was it just as a PR stunt as the new owners? Come on guys.
This seems like a bad move all around. Keeping him this summer should have meant that they were willing to pay him Cubs money. If not, then they should have dumped him for any spare parts they could have acquired.
Wow. Just when you think that no one could look worse than Bowden, Here Come the Cubbies. Okay, he's a great pickup for the team, and fills in an important role. But ages 30 to 39 for $136 million with a no-trade clause? No matter how back-ended the contract may be, that's still WAY too much large, especially with a team that barely has two decent starting pitchers. Some teams are cursed, some are just dumb.
As for the Nats, the fact that they made no more than a joke of an offer demonstrates that they never intended to keep Soriano on--they most likely thought the fan interest in Soriano late last season was worth a lot, and thus asked for a lot in a trade--more than other teams were willing to pay. A reasonable decision, upon further consideration.
This contract will be an absolute disaster for the Cubs. Soriano was great last year, but teams should always be wary of a player overperforming in their contract year.
Other than last year, Soriano was merely an above average player. He had power and speed, but he possesses no plate discipline and he can't field a lick. He has been perpetually overrated since he had the fortune of being a New York Yankee. I really can't believe the Cubs did this.
The Cubs overpaid by a ton. He'll never be able to live up to the burden of a contract this large. Some may point to A-Rod as someone who has been able to shoulder that burden (until recently), but A-Rod seems to have a thicker skin than Soriano. I predict a brief honeymoon followed by a meltdown by Soriano when the fans turn on him for having an above average but not a great season. Clearly for that money, anything less than great will be viewed as a dissapointment. Oh and sure the Nats could have gotten slightly better prospects if they dealt Soriano during the past season, but I think they made a calcualting and wise decision, realizing that the dwindling fan base may have completely abandoned them if they dealt away a player having a forty-forty season for prosepects. This way at least the fans were able to have some excitement (watching Soriano reach the 40/40 club)in the midst of a losing season which would have been a losing season, trade or no trade.
I don't know, everyone seems to want to put down soriano for various reasons. This year he was supposed to start a decline...which he clearly didn't. Did the Cubs pay too much...Yes, will Soriano deliver....YES. If you want to talk about stupid lets talk about the red sux wasting 51 million just to talk to one player.
OK, I get the excitement for Soriano for the rest of last season. I really do. I was happy they kept him. But what are the Nats gonna offer this season to keep us happy? What is the draw and the PR this year? I'll go to plenty of games to watch baseball but as great as Zimmerman could be and as much as I like Nick Johnson, they aren't big draws. So what was the reason to keep him for the rest of the year?
To follow your logic fan excitement is going to drop off if there is no one to watch and the team sucks. Well they delayed that by two months. Great move, what did they get for it?
All I am saying is that if they had no intention of signing him, which they clearly did not, they should have jettisoned him like so many on here said (and I did not) at the trade deadline. At least they would be building towards something.
My guess is that the Nats treat this coming season as the start of an extended "grow with us" campaign. No superstars, just down home baseball. They weren't ready to take that step last season. It may work here--this really is a good town for baseball, and enough people will pay to see a bad team, if they market it right. Not forever, but for a few years.
Well, I can't wait for opening day no matter who is in LF, and if Fonzie's absence means the beer lines at RFK are that much shorter, then I reckon I can make the best of it.
6:35 start times and 7 dollar walk up tickets, and I'll be there 10-15 times a year. It's actually not all that hard to make a baseball team profitable and to increase a fan base, but owners are convinced that the only way to do it is by cramming in more luxury boxes. Make the stadium fan friendly, take away a little bit of the beaurocratic mess, and field a team that can win at least 60 games. If you do that, they will come.
we don't know what other teams were willing to give up for soriano. if the rumors that the angels were offering ervin santana, and that the twins were offering scott baker and prospects, then it might have been a bad move to hold on to him. but, i have a feeling that there wasn't as much interest as we think there was in soriano. the a's have done well in stockpiling sandwich picks, and no pitching prospect is a guarantee (see, francisco liriano). but, from a pr/management standpoint, if i were the kasten, i would have made a more public attempt to sign soriano - make it looks like they were trying to keep a superstar in town, make soriano look like the greedy bad guy for taking a huge offer - knowing that there was no way i would offer anything near what the cubs (over)payed for him.