Author Topic: Soriano non trade (Read 2408 times)

wpa2629 · « **Topic Start:** January 22, 2009, 02:22:13 AM »

There are some people saying on the Terp board that the Twins offered a package for Soriano including baker and the Nats turned it down ... it's the first I've heard of that -- is that true?

R-Zim#11 · « **Reply #1:** January 22, 2009, 08:15:25 AM »

Quote from: wpa2629 on January 22, 2009, 02:22:13 AM

There are some people saying on the Terp board that the Twins offered a package for Soriano including baker and the Nats turned it down ... it's the first I've heard of that -- is that true?

There is are always rumors and speculation surrounding trades, or non-trades like these. I had heard Baker was included -- however -- I believe the Nats wanted to hold out for Matt Garza.

Anyway -- the non-trade and subsequent signing netted the Nats their top prospect, Jordan Zimmermann and either Burgess or Smoker. I can't remember...

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #2:** January 22, 2009, 09:12:53 AM »

Lord knows at this point.

tomterp · « **Reply #3:** January 22, 2009, 09:16:04 AM »

Quote from: R-Zim#11 on January 22, 2009, 08:15:25 AM

Anyway -- the non-trade and subsequent signing netted the Nats their top prospect, Jordan Zimmermann and either Burgess or Smoker. I can't remember...

Definitely not Smoker, it was Zimmermann and a position player, probaby Burgess.

blue911 · « **Reply #4:** January 22, 2009, 09:19:32 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 09:16:04 AM

Definitely not Smoker, it was Zimmermann and a position player, probaby Burgess.

err... Smoker & Two-ens as per bb-r.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?franch_ID=WSN&year_ID=2007&draft_type=junreg

tomterp · « **Reply #5:** January 22, 2009, 09:21:53 AM »

Quote from: blue911 on January 22, 2009, 09:19:32 AM

err... Smoker & Two-ens as per bb-r.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?franch_ID=WSN&year_ID=2007&draft_type=junreg

Sheesh, I guess I'm misremembering it now.

blue911 · « **Reply #6:** January 22, 2009, 09:24:34 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 09:21:53 AM

Sheesh, I guess I'm misremembering it now.

Until either of them produces or retires, it really doesn't matter.

natsfan4evr · « **Reply #7:** January 22, 2009, 09:27:16 AM »

Quote from: blue911 on January 22, 2009, 09:24:34 AM

Until either of them produces or retires, it really doesn't matter.

We got Smoker and Zimmermann for Soriano. How can anyone be unhappy with that?

tomterp · « **Reply #8:** January 22, 2009, 09:35:17 AM »

Quote from: natsfan4evr on January 22, 2009, 09:27:16 AM

We got Smoker and Zimmermann for Soriano. How can anyone be unhappy with that?

At this point in time, the deal looks good for us. Zimmerman's on the fast track, and the Cubs are a little bit dissapointed in Soriano and would deal him if not for the huge contract they are stuck with.

R-Zim#11 · « **Reply #9:** January 22, 2009, 09:42:04 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 09:35:17 AM

At this point in time, the deal looks good for us. Zimmerman's on the fast track, and the Cubs are a little bit dissapointed in Soriano and would deal him if not for the huge contract they are stuck with.

Wait you mean to tell me that shelling out a long-term, high-dollar contract was a BAD idea?! You don't say!

tomterp · « **Reply #10:** January 22, 2009, 09:45:19 AM »

Quote from: R-Zim#11 on January 22, 2009, 09:42:04 AM

Wait you mean to tell me that shelling out a long-term, high-dollar contract was a BAD idea?! You don't say!

Yes, plus the fact that while Soriano's accumulated stats look impressive, he refuses to allow teams to leverage his abilities by batting him in the middle of the order. He pulls a Manny if you bat him anywhere but leadoff, but notice his steals are down from 41 to 19, 19 since being dealt to the Cubs.

He's still productive, but missed nearly a third of the season and costs too much, and isn't fully leveraged.

R-Zim#11 · « **Reply #11:** January 22, 2009, 09:52:55 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 09:45:19 AM

Yes, plus the fact that while Soriano's accumulated stats look impressive, he refuses to allow teams to leverage his abilities by batting him in the middle of the order. He pulls a Manny if you bat him anywhere but leadoff, but notice his steals are down from 41 to 19, 19 since being dealt to the Cubs.

He's still productive, but missed nearly a third of the season and costs too much, and isn't fully leveraged.

Not to mention he is on the downside of his career now at 33. I remember the holy hell that was raised when the Nats failed to sign him. Kasten said that making that kind of financial commitment to one player at that time was not smart. Looks like he was right.

Actually with Bowden, I am very leery of any contract he doles out over $5 mil per...

tomterp · « **Reply #12:** January 22, 2009, 09:54:57 AM »

Quote from: R-Zim#11 on January 22, 2009, 09:52:55 AM

I remember the holy hell that was raised when the Nats failed to sign him. Kasten said that making that kind of financial commitment to one player at that time was not smart. Looks like he was right.

I think some people want the Nats to spend big money just to prove they will do it, not because it makes any sense in a certain instance.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #13:** January 22, 2009, 09:55:16 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 09:45:19 AM

Yes, plus the fact that while Soriano's accumulated stats look impressive, he refuses to allow teams to leverage his abilities by batting him in the middle of the order. He pulls a Manny if you bat him anywhere but leadoff, but notice his steals are down from 41 to 19, 19 since being dealt to the Cubs.

He's still productive, but missed nearly a third of the season and costs too much, and isn't fully leveraged.

Is this really the team player and leader some were begging to get signed to the Nationals again?

tomterp · « **Reply #14:** January 22, 2009, 10:01:20 AM »

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on January 22, 2009, 09:55:16 AM

Is this really the team player and leader some were begging to get signed to the Nationals again?

He's a good player, but not a great one, and much more an individual island of skills than one to do what the team needs, obviously.

Nat of the Living Dead · « **Reply #15:** January 22, 2009, 10:06:42 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 10:01:20 AM

He's a good player, but not a great one, and much more an individual island of skills than one to do what the team needs, obviously.

You don't have to be telling me that. I've been saying it for years.

HalfSmokes · « **Reply #16:** January 22, 2009, 10:08:54 AM »

Quote from: tomterp on January 22, 2009, 10:01:20 AM

He's a good player, but not a great one, and much more an individual island of skills than one to do what the team needs, obviously.

He should be on a large market team in the AL where he might actually bat with guys on base

tomterp · « **Reply #17:** January 22, 2009, 10:27:29 AM »

Quote from: Nat of the LivingDead on January 22, 2009, 10:06:42 AM

You don't have to be telling me that. I've been saying it for years.

I wasn't telling you, I was agreeing with you but in my own words.

wpa2629 · « **Reply #18:** January 22, 2009, 10:28:00 AM »

I found the article -- it was actually slowey, not baker -- who was not at top 10 prospect at the time -- needless to say you don't trade a 40/40 guy for someone who is not a top 10 prospect -- that's not comparable value ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...032602311.html

I'm happy with Zimmerman/Smoker too - but of course the pundits on the other board consider it bowden's worse failure of all time -- whatever

MrMadison · « **Reply #19:** January 22, 2009, 12:35:53 PM »

soriano was TWO YEARS AGO! why are people still obsessing about that nontrade? ask those morons over there how they like the deal after spring training when we see zimmermann

KnorrForYourMoney · « **Reply #20:** January 22, 2009, 02:45:38 PM »

I've read that Michael Bowden was a possibility. That would've been a really good deal for us, but I'm more than happy with Zimmermann.

Teddy-Roosevelt · « **Reply #21:** April 21, 2009, 01:05:36 AM »

Quote from: MrMadison on January 22, 2009, 12:35:53 PM

soriano was TWO YEARS AGO! why are people still obsessing about that nontrade? ask those morons over there how they like the deal after spring training when we see zimmermann

I like. I like!

Obed_Marsh · « **Reply #22:** April 21, 2009, 02:14:16 AM »

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.

CoachKlein · « **Reply #23:** April 21, 2009, 10:23:44 AM »

can I get a link to the Terp board?

asindc · « **Reply #24:** April 21, 2009, 10:39:42 AM »

Soriano is not a leadoff hitter, he is a #5 or 6 hitter. He strikes out too much for leadoff and can't steal bases like he used to. The Cubs overspent because their 100-year anniversary was approaching and both the White Sox and Boston had just ended their long WS droughts, leaving them "on the clock" by themselves.

I can't believe any self-proclaimed expert thinks the Nats made a bad move by not signing Soriano. I wonder if the team had made the playoffs at least once since then if anyone would still be saying this. I doubt it.