Author Topic: August 2nd, 22, a date that will live in Infamy: Juan Soto traded to the Padres  (Read 11024 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
FWIW, here's a scouting report on Gore from last March (2021)
There was no way to replace Soto with a guaranteed return that would come close to matching him. But they did well on potential. I am high on Abrams potential. If they think Gore medicals are reasonably safe, he also has tremendous potential. Wood and Susana are good lottery picks.

I'm trying to mentally separate out Bell from the equation here. The market apparently just wasn't there for his half season rental or it would been a better deal.

Offline Vega

  • Posts: 5512
  • Party’s Over
So the deal is the same just minus Hoz?


Offline tomterp

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 33783
  • Hell yes!
Third team may come into play with Hosmer --report on High Heat. Surely we deserve a decent prospect for our "disappointment" in not getting Hosmer at the least.

 :lol:

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39376
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Do you think the Nats even saw Gore's medical evaluation before the deal?  HIPPA and all. No real leaks.  You think Gore said "OK, you can show the Nats my meds"? 

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Do you think the Nats even saw Gore's medical evaluation before the deal?  HIPPA and all. No real leaks.  You think Gore said "OK, you can show the Nats my meds"? 
If they didn't see his medicals, fire everyone

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 2237
I'm in line with that thought. Keep Soto and we're still an awful team until 2025 (assuming the younger guys in rookie and A ball pan out), right when Soto is hitting free agency. Trade Soto now and we've added a lot of depth and potentially 2-3 stars. Of course it's rare that superstar for prospects trade work out for the team losing the superstar, but I think we're in better long-term shape than we were before (assuming the deal eventually goes through).

If this team was developing anything once “prospects“ got here, that might be one thing. And yeah, they could revamp stuff with the “new ownership“ and really go to town on the development side. Or they might not.

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 2237
If they didn't see his medicals, fire everyone

None of this seems to be coming from dealing from a position of restraint. Would not be surprised if the marching orders were out, don’t look at the merchandise too closely, just “make a deal”

Offline stoneghost28

  • Posts: 133
I'm in line with that thought. Keep Soto and we're still an awful team until 2025 (assuming the younger guys in rookie and A ball pan out), right when Soto is hitting free agency. Trade Soto now and we've added a lot of depth and potentially 2-3 stars. Of course it's rare that superstar for prospects trade work out for the team losing the superstar, but I think we're in better long-term shape than we were before (assuming the deal eventually goes through).

The trades of Scheerzer, Soto, Bell etc gave us a chance to be competitive if we can fix the farm, and the front office w/new ownership hiring the right people.

W/o this trade, I simply could not see that, period. This team simply doesnt and didnt have the MLB or Minor League Talent in house to matter, period between now and the second half of this decade, period.

Now, if we can have House pay off, Green pay off, maybe some of the '22 pay off, and get good hauls in '23-'25, that changes, maybe a lot.

We went from no chance, period, but with Soto for a while, to some chance a few years from now, w/o Soto.

It's basically franchise 101, if you don't have a Big League Club or Farm worth a damn, you've got nothing. That's where we've been at the past 18 months, and w/the implosion of Stras and Corbin as options, and the developmental crash and burn of guys like Kieboom, Robles in tandem flushed any chance to build on '19 out the door. So this was the only option.

The only question is if we took the right prospect haul. It's hard to say we didn't w/o knowing what the Dodgers were willing to offer. The Cardinals offer clearly wasn't good enough, so it was either this or the Dodgers, I kinda respect how the Dodgers played it. Feels like they're brass was: nah, we'll sign him if we need him in '25, we're trying to build through '40, and we're not gutting the farm to make it a touch more likely to win in '22 or '23 or '24. Gotta respect that. The Padres, man, this is a big swing. And I still don't think theyre gonna get it done.


Offline bluestreak

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 11259
This sorta feels like had the Bulls decided to trade Michael Jordan in his prime or something. I can’t even think of something really comparable that has happened in sports. A 23-year old, elite superstar who’s already won numerous awards and a world championship traded because the owners won’t pay. The fact owners can do this and still have fans stick around is unbelievable to me. Not only stick around but pay exorbitant concession prices and actually pay for tickets and parking. We’re the real dummies in all of us. Cheering this kind of stuff on is insanity.

Miguel Cabrera

Offline DPMOmaha

  • Posts: 22875
.
Hopefully we can address that in the offseason after firing everyone (please) and hiring some real talent to start offseason #2 of the rebuild.
probably not this off-season. Next offseason, however, I think we could see a lot of changes.

Offline HondoKillebrew

  • Posts: 828
The trades of Scheerzer, Soto, Bell etc gave us a chance to be competitive if we can fix the farm, and the front office w/new ownership hiring the right people.

Shouldn't have to consistently resort to trading stars to replenish crappy farm system.  The Scherzer/Turner and Soto/Bell trades inject talent into the system, but the broader problem must be fixed by the new owner. 

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42504
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
Shouldn't have to consistently resort to trading stars to replenish crappy farm system.  The Scherzer/Turner and Soto/Bell trades inject talent into the system, but the broader problem must be fixed by the new owner. 

well, to be fair we gutted the farm system to boost our chances in the 2012-2019 run.

Offline SkinsNatFan21RIP

  • Posts: 976
The trades of Scheerzer, Soto, Bell etc gave us a chance to be competitive if we can fix the farm, and the front office w/new ownership hiring the right people.

W/o this trade, I simply could not see that, period. This team simply doesnt and didnt have the MLB or Minor League Talent in house to matter, period between now and the second half of this decade, period.

Now, if we can have House pay off, Green pay off, maybe some of the '22 pay off, and get good hauls in '23-'25, that changes, maybe a lot.

We went from no chance, period, but with Soto for a while, to some chance a few years from now, w/o Soto.

It's basically franchise 101, if you don't have a Big League Club or Farm worth a damn, you've got nothing. That's where we've been at the past 18 months, and w/the implosion of Stras and Corbin as options, and the developmental crash and burn of guys like Kieboom, Robles in tandem flushed any chance to build on '19 out the door. So this was the only option.

The only question is if we took the right prospect haul. It's hard to say we didn't w/o knowing what the Dodgers were willing to offer. The Cardinals offer clearly wasn't good enough, so it was either this or the Dodgers, I kinda respect how the Dodgers played it. Feels like they're brass was: nah, we'll sign him if we need him in '25, we're trying to build through '40, and we're not gutting the farm to make it a touch more likely to win in '22 or '23 or '24. Gotta respect that. The Padres, man, this is a big swing. And I still don't think theyre gonna get it done.



Yes but they were only in this position because they’ve been letting talent walk. Also, the ridiculous overpays we usually make in trades. The Adam Eaton trade started all of this mess. Yes he helped when a title but his production was basically what MAT would’ve given you. I’m a Rizzo fan but his decisions and the Lerners being cheap sent us down this path. This was all completely avoidable. I won’t applaud them for trying to clean up a mess they created.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Miguel Cabrera
Not every big trade is destined to be Cabrera.

Scherzer/Turner was a smaller package than Soto/Bell. Much smaller. But I am pretty confident when the book is closed on Gray and Ruiz they'll have better careers than the Marlins return package did combined.

Offline HondoKillebrew

  • Posts: 828
well, to be fair we gutted the farm system to boost our chances in the 2012-2019 run.

Teams with heathy farms can do both -- they are able to trade some pieces while continuing to draft/develop well to acquire more prospects.  Nats haven't been able to do that. 

Offline imref

  • Posts: 42504
  • Re-contending in 202...5?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/08/02/juan-soto-nationals-future/

2025 could look something like this:

Rotation: Gore, Gray, Cavalli, Henry, Rutledge

OF: Woods, De La Rosa, Hassell
IF: Garcia, Abrams, House
C: Ruiz

Still need a 1B and a DH, and ironically, Juan Soto would be a perfect fit if the team wanted to make a big FA splash.

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
Hey guys. Missed you guys and figured I'd see what everyone was saying with all this news. I see the complainers are still out in force, so I'm going to attempt to calm everyone down and then probably disappear for another three years.

Here's the thing. We weren't re-signing Juan Soto. Period. Juan Soto was a better player through his age 22 season than Mike Trout was through his own age 22 season. The two are almost identical in most statistical categories - only Soto destroyed Trout in OBP by about 30ish points. Why is that significant? Mike Trout is making an AAV of about $35.5M. BUT it gets even worse. He signed that deal in 2019. So Juan Soto is probably worth roughly $40 million per year right now. To pay him that over 15 years would cost $600 million over the course of the deal. The Nats were able to offer $440 million. So this was never going to happen. With ownership in flux, we did what we could to keep him and failed.

Now, when you can't keep a transcendent talent like Soto and you don't have a window to win with him while he's still here, you should get as much for him as you can and that means trading him ASAP. That's what we did. Did we get what he was worth? Hell no. But that was never on the table. As far as what we could realistically expect one team to be able to offer for a player like Soto, we did as well as we possibly could. That's the bottom line.

TL;DR - Soto was too expensive for the Nats to keep with their ownership in flux. They weren't winning a chip while they had him. This was the best they could make of a bad situation.

Offline captkirk42

  • Posts: 1626
    • Curly W Cards
DOUBLE CRAP! BOTH SOTO AND BELL.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/08/02/juan-soto-nationals-future/

2025 could look something like this:

Rotation: Gore, Gray, Cavalli, Henry, Rutledge

OF: Woods, De La Rosa, Hassell
IF: Garcia, Abrams, House
C: Ruiz

Still need a 1B and a DH, and ironically, Juan Soto would be a perfect fit if the team wanted to make a big FA splash.
Some of these prospects will flame out. Just cross your fingers a couple pop.

I don't argue we have a bunch of exciting pieces in the farm and in rookie contract years. Only question is if it was enough.

Offline Elvir Ovcina

  • Posts: 5542
Hey guys. Missed you guys and figured I'd see what everyone was saying with all this news. I see the complainers are still out and force, so I'm going to attempt to calm everyone down and then probably disappear for another three years.

Here's the thing. We weren't re-signing Juan Soto. Period. Juan Soto was a better player through his age 22 season than Mike Trout was through his own age 22 season. The two are almost identical in most statistical categories - only Soto destroyed Trout in OBP by about 30ish points. Why is that significant? Mike Trout is making an AAV of about $35.5M. BUT it gets even worse. He signed that deal in 2019. So Juan Soto is probably worth roughly $40 million per year right now. To pay him that over 15 years would cost $600 million over the course of the deal. The Nats were able to offer $440 million. So this was never going to happen. With ownership in flux, we did what we could to keep him and failed.

Now, when you can't keep a transcendent talent like Soto and you don't have a window to win with him while he's still here, you should get as much for him as you can and that means trading him ASAP. That's what we did. Did we get what he was worth? Hell no. But that was never on the table. As far as what we could realistically expect one team to be able to offer for a player like Soto, we did as well as we possibly could. That's the bottom line.

TL;DR - Soto was too expensive for the Nats to keep with their ownership in flux. They weren't winning a chip while they had him. This was the best they could make of a bad situation.

I'm with you on most of that, but where I stumble is the timing.  There's quite possibly a better deal on the table in the winter given how many more teams would potentially be involved (and the ability to trade their most recent draft picks).

Offline mimontero88

  • Posts: 6240
  • The GOAT
I'm with you on most of that, but where I stumble is the timing.  There's quite possibly a better deal on the table in the winter given how many more teams would potentially be involved (and the ability to trade their most recent draft picks).
Yes and no. Is two postseasons worth of Soto with any semblance of cost control worth the same as three postseasons of Soto?

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Hosmer is a Red Sox, according to official MLB Twitter.

If Rizzo holds onto the Padres package as it stands minus Hosmer, the disaster level on this remains high but still lower than it could have been.

Offline nfotiu

  • Posts: 5041
I'm with you on most of that, but where I stumble is the timing.  There's quite possibly a better deal on the table in the winter given how many more teams would potentially be involved (and the ability to trade their most recent draft picks).
Some of that becomes a pretty big bet on Soto's second half.   If he was having an mvp type season, the offers would have been better.    If he finishes the season at current pace, or gets worse playing out an awkward season on a terrible team, then market could really crater for him.  And it's trading 2 years instead of 3.   

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 2237
I'm with you on most of that, but where I stumble is the timing.  There's quite possibly a better deal on the table in the winter given how many more teams would potentially be involved (and the ability to trade their most recent draft picks).

That would’ve involved prioritizing the onfield product versus clear-cutting immediately. That Hosmer was reportedly in on the initial deal seems to show issues with how this was thought out other than the priority to get something done now