Cubs sign Soriano

[Mephistopheles]

I wouldn't have minded signing Lugo, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of Lugo at short is about 13M. 8+ for Lugo and 4+ for Izturis. not sure if you've noticed or not, but it doesn't seem like anyone is banging down the doors to take Izturis off the Cubs hands.

 

That's a sunk cost and has no reason to be mentioned here. It is simply irrelevant.

 

I was/am all for Lugo. However, you keep mentioning that Lugo will make half as much as Soriano/DeRosa. He also only takes care of one position? Did you want to re-sign Pierre, if that's the case then you can add another $10 mil there (I doubt that you wanted to sign Pierre, but you must take into consideration that you have to add another player otherwise there's no point in saying he'll make half as much as them)

 

Obviously saving a crapload of money not signing soriano and signing lugo will allow us to sign stop gaps for the time being and we'd be better off.

[Jon]

If Hendry is so willing to ridiculously overspend for a player worse than Ramirez, why did he take a huge gamble in risking losing Aramis and not offer him more money?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?

About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him.

[jmajew]

If it is the 6 year deal with two option years it really isn't that bad. People fail to realize that we may only have him for 6 years. I agree, a gauranteed 8 year deal is bad, but if what the SCORE reported is true I can definitely accept this contract. No matter what you cannot say Soriano is not an upgrade, he does significantly improve this ballclub.

 

I will not lie I would rather have spent the money on JD Drew and Lugo but oh well this is what the Cubs did. Why not be happy that the Cubs for once were willing to outspend to sign someone, and not complain that they paid too much.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Drew = injury prone

Manny = head case who can only play LF, which is Murton's spot

Matsuzaka = do you wanna pay 51 million dollars just to negotiate with him.....someone who hasn't pitched an inning of MLB?

Arod, Cabrera = we have nothing to make that trade unless you're willing to give up Zambrano. Please don't think any of our prospects are going to fetch anyone of that caliber.

 

Drew has not been injured in the last three years other than breaking a bone by getting hit by a pitch

Manny played RF when he was in Cleveland. His arm is better than Murtons, there no reason to think he can only play LF and not RF. I don't care how big of a headcase the guy is if he would be the best or second best hitter in the NL.

Matsuzaka, the list had nothing to do with how much the team has to pay for the player, just if they were a top FA or not. The bids to negotiate with him are evidence that he is.

ARod may be availabe for a package including Barrett and Pie

Cabrera IMO is not available, and if he were we could not get him, but again his list was about players that could be available to counter the claim that Soriano was the top player available.

 

I agree with you about Manny, but NY will want SP for Arod. I love Drew, but there is a reason he will be on his 4th team in 5 years. And no matter what anyone here says, I believe he is just as likely to play 50 as 150 game in any given year.

[questionmarkgrace]

I didn't see anyone comment on it and maybe it isn't valid because I have no idea what EqA is but Soriano has almost twice as many total bases as lugo on average. Since soriano gets on base less that means when he does get on base is he in scoring position a hell of a lot more. Look what ryan zimmerman did batting third all year. Everyone thought that he would be good but 110 rbi's as a rookie thats 30-40 more rbis than expected. But that is what soriano can do to a line up. His presence puts pressure on the pitcher and the defense. If Zimmerman can do that imagine what Lee and Aram could do with him at the top of the order.

[Rob]

That's why selective analysis of numbers fails. Tadd Walker is a bench player and the percentage's fail to show runs created. Soriano is not the best player in baseball, but he is the best free agent available this year.

 

The only way to prove that is to show that Walker's playing time is differently distributed(i.e. to favor his platoon splits) than a "starter" like Soriano. And even if he did get put in more favorable matchups, it speaks that 1-2 marginal to decent players in the right situation can nearly replicate Soriano's production.

 

That truly is funny. Todd Walker can't hit 40 HR's, 40 doubles, and steal any bases. You may not value those numbers, but realty baseball does. Not just selective percentages. last year, someone tried to claim Todd was better offensively than Tejada. What a joke. Realty is greater than fantasy baseball.

 

Walker might do better than Soriano on the basepaths if he doesn't attempt to steal any at all. I haven't crunched Soriano's SB numbers yet, but something tells me he fell just below the breakeven point... costing the team runs because of all the time he got caught stealing.

 

I don't believe I ever made the argument that Todd Walker could hit 40 HRs or 40 doubles (though he has hit in excess of 35 doubles 3 times since 2001... even while getting about 60% of the PT Soriano gets the last few seasons). I made the argument that Todd Walker is close enough in value to Soriano that they can be compared (though he certainly is not better). My point was that Walker will be lucky to get 2/8 this offseason... and Soriano is getting 6 extra years and over 100 million dollars extra.

 

All I was pointing out is the disparity between Soriano's talent level and what he's getting paid. He's getting a contract approximately like Manny's... and he is nowhere near that performance level.

[Danny82]

If Hendry is so willing to ridiculously overspend for a player worse than Ramirez, why did he take a huge gamble in risking losing Aramis and not offer him more money?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?

About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him.

 

Of course, because Lord knows some people around here would rather walk on a bed of hot nails than give Hendry any credit.

[VanceJergins]

Some of you need some serious help. We just signed the top free agent out there and all you can do is complain about how horrible a deal it is. Some of you will never be happy. Even when we win the World Series you'll cry about how we did it or some other bs.

 

We just signed SORIANO!!!!! Enjoy it or go cheer for the Royals!!!!!

 

First off, Soriano clocks in at #4 on the "readily-available" market. Aramis, Matsuzaka, and Drew all have been and will continue to be more productive than Soriano for the immediate future. And there's a huge drop down in production from those top 3 to Soriano.

 

That doesn't even take into account the fact we could easily get a few guys in trades, too. ARod, Manny, and Cabrera are all out there for the taking right now... and they're all exponentially better bets than Soriano.

 

I'll hold off complaining about the contract for the time being, as we have no hard figures... but the fact remains that sinking that kind of money and years into a merely "very good" at best player is fiscally irresponsible. Is that much of an issue of the Cubs continue to bump payroll? Probably not for 3-5 years at least... once he declines, it could be trouble (but there is the chance there's some option years we can get out of).

 

The real issue at hand is what happens if the Cubs are sold soon (as has been rumored). If a new ownership group cuts the payroll to the $100 mil level, this signing would be enough to drag this team down the crapper for half a decade.

 

Let's do an experiment.

 

I'll give you Soriano's numbers and a mystery player. You tell me how much this mystery player is worth to you.

 

2004:

 

Soriano - .280/.324/.484 OPS+ of 98

Player X - .274/.352/.468 OPS+ of 105

 

2005:

 

Soriano - .268/.309/.512 OPS+ of 110

Player X - .305/.355/.474 OPS+ of 115

 

2006:

 

Soriano - .277/.351/.560 OPS+ of 132

Player X - .278/.355/.398 OPS+ of 93

 

 

 

Both players had years in 2006 out of line with their career numbers. While Player X is indeed three years older, he has shown himself to be quite capable of outperforming Soriano by doing so 2 of the last 3 years.

 

Would you even think of giving Todd Walker five million per year for 4 years to patrol right field? How about seventeen million per? I sure as hell wouldn't... But he's not that far from being comprable to Soriano as an offensive threat.

 

Well, we got Aramis. How can you say Matsuzaka has been more productive than Soriano when he's never thrown a pitch in MLB? I would rather have Drew though. I wouldnt consider ARod, Manny, and Cabrera there for the taking. Manny might be a possibility, but I dont think we have what it would take to get ARod or Cabrera without giving up Zambrano. And with your experiment you conveniently started with the Soriano's worst 2 years and didnt include his very productive two years before that. If the original reports of 8/136 are true, then I think we definitely overpaid. But if we can win a world series in the next couple years I would be fine with being stuck with a couple awful contracts for a few years after that.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Are me and Nilo the only people that understand that last year was an anomaly? Quoting nonsense like 40-40-40 and RBI is bad enough, but the entire point is that he had a career year and he's very likely not going to do that again.

 

:(

 

Terribly sorry, I forgot/was too hasty to remember you and CubinNY.

 

I think Jon is pretty much in our camp too...and I haven't really seen anything from Navin either way, but its been tough to keep up.

 

Yeah, Jon and I certainly are in your camp.

[nilodnayr]

you completely make my point. it shouldn't be about having nice sabr stats compared over the course of two season, viewed in isolation because it is aesthetically pleasing. it should be about making the team better as a whole.

 

I wouldn't have minded signing Lugo, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of Lugo at short is about 13M. 8+ for Lugo and 4+ for Izturis. not sure if you've noticed or not, but it doesn't seem like anyone is banging down the doors to take Izturis off the Cubs hands.

 

fine way to build a ballclub there. that's what I am saying about viewing things in a vacuum. "should have signed Lugo" without any consideration that would mean a 4 million dollar shortstop riding the pines or being released. the complaint her is money for production, and you guys aren't taking all the money into account. you just assume it will disappear in the wind somewhere.

 

A) please fix the quotes because you accidentally deleted one of the end quotes to make it look like I said something you said.

 

B)Obviously if you sign lugo for short you will trade izturis. And supposedly there is a market for izturis (Boston, Cleveland) or to at least get rid of him for nothing (see AGonz signing with the reds).

 

C) KC has made the lugo example, but I think it is more to illustrate the fact that the money was spent completely inappropriately, not that hes specifically advocating signing lugo. I think he used lugo to prove that a cheaper addition at a position that was worse for the cubs in 2006 could improve the team just as much as signing Soriano. But you would have to ask him that.

Edited November 20, 2006 by nilodnayr

[Mephistopheles]

I didn't see anyone comment on it and maybe it isn't valid because I have no idea what EqA is but Soriano has almost twice as many total bases as lugo on average. Since soriano gets on base less that means when he does get on base is he in scoring position a hell of a lot more. Look what ryan zimmerman did batting third all year. Everyone thought that he would be good but 110 rbi's as a rookie thats 30-40 more rbis than expected. But that is what soriano can do to a line up. His presence puts pressure on the pitcher and the defense. If Zimmerman can do that imagine what Lee and Aram could do with him at the top of the order.

 

how long will it take people to realize this isn't an argument saying that lugo is a better offensive player than soriano?

 

i think ive addressed that 10 times in the past hour.

 

I wouldn't have minded signing Lugo, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of Lugo at short is about 13M. 8+ for Lugo and 4+ for Izturis. not sure if you've noticed or not, but it doesn't seem like anyone is banging down the doors to take Izturis off the Cubs hands.

 

once again, that's irrelavent.

 

edit: NVM, i didnt realize that was a quote

[Transmogrified Tiger]

That's why selective analysis of numbers fails. Tadd Walker is a bench player and the percentage's fail to show runs created. Soriano is not the best player in baseball, but he is the best free agent available this year.

 

The only way to prove that is to show that Walker's playing time is differently distributed(i.e. to favor his platoon splits) than a "starter" like Soriano. And even if he did get put in more favorable matchups, it speaks that 1-2 marginal to decent players in the right situation can nearly replicate Soriano's production.

 

That truly is funny. Todd Walker can't hit 40 HR's, 40 doubles, and steal any bases. You may not value those numbers, but realty baseball does. Not just selective percentages. last year, someone tried to claim Todd was better offensively than Tejada. What a joke. Realty is greater than fantasy baseball.

 

It's really unfortunate that you have no desire to even attempt to understand what people who argue opposite you are saying. I mean, the Tejada thing has been explained to you in crystal clear terms at least a half dozen times(no exaggeration) and you still keep spouting off that mischaracterized point over and over again. I guess it's easier to just call it "fantasy baseball" instead of realty (sic).

[Danny82]

I didn't see anyone comment on it and maybe it isn't valid because I have no idea what EqA is but Soriano has almost twice as many total bases as lugo on average. Since soriano gets on base less that means when he does get on base is he in scoring position a hell of a lot more. Look what ryan zimmerman did batting third all year. Everyone thought that he would be good but 110 rbi's as a rookie thats 30-40 more rbis than expected. But that is what soriano can do to a line up. His presence puts pressure on the pitcher and the defense. If Zimmerman can do that imagine what Lee and Aram could do with him at the top of the order.

 

how long will it take people to realize this isn't an argument saying that lugo is a better offensive player than soriano?

 

i think ive addressed that 10 times in the past hour.

 

I wouldn't have minded signing Lugo, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of Lugo at short is about 13M. 8+ for Lugo and 4+ for Izturis. not sure if you've noticed or not, but it doesn't seem like anyone is banging down the doors to take Izturis off the Cubs hands.

 

once again, that's irrelavent.

I think you have to acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that the Cubs have that low of production again out of the SS position--just with Izturis' career averages (I know, I know, they aren't that good) bringing up Cedeno's awful numbers. Plus, we don't know if they plan on playing Theriot at short some either. Edited November 20, 2006 by Danny82

[Jon]

If Hendry is so willing to ridiculously overspend for a player worse than Ramirez, why did he take a huge gamble in risking losing Aramis and not offer him more money?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?

About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him.

 

Of course, because Lord knows some people around here would rather walk on a bed of hot nails than give Hendry any credit.

Hendry got lucky. Big time. All he had to do was throw in some more cash, probably as little as $1 million a year, and Ramirez doesn't wait until Sunday to sign. Yet he decided to take a huge gamble. It was not a good strategy.

[jjgman21]

Drew = injury prone

Manny = head case who can only play LF, which is Murton's spot

Matsuzaka = do you wanna pay 51 million dollars just to negotiate with him.....someone who hasn't pitched an inning of MLB?

Arod, Cabrera = we have nothing to make that trade unless you're willing to give up Zambrano. Please don't think any of our prospects are going to fetch anyone of that caliber.

 

Unfortunately, Drew would have a plus glove in CF, whereas we feel we have to play Soriano in RF, which makes his production worth less relative to the rest of the league.

 

 

as I stated earlier in the thread, that is a fallacy. it's not 1982 with slap hitting centerfielders anymore guys.

[Jon]

That's why selective analysis of numbers fails. Tadd Walker is a bench player and the percentage's fail to show runs created. Soriano is not the best player in baseball, but he is the best free agent available this year.

 

The only way to prove that is to show that Walker's playing time is differently distributed(i.e. to favor his platoon splits) than a "starter" like Soriano. And even if he did get put in more favorable matchups, it speaks that 1-2 marginal to decent players in the right situation can nearly replicate Soriano's production.

 

That truly is funny. Todd Walker can't hit 40 HR's, 40 doubles, and steal any bases. You may not value those numbers, but realty baseball does. Not just selective percentages. last year, someone tried to claim Todd was better offensively than Tejada. What a joke. Realty is greater than fantasy baseball.

 

It's really unfortunate that you have no desire to even attempt to understand what people who argue opposite you are saying. I mean, the Tejada thing has been explained to you in crystal clear terms at least a half dozen times(no exaggeration) and you still keep spouting off that mischaracterized point over and over again. I guess it's easier to just call it "fantasy baseball" instead of realty (sic).

I always thought HRs, doubles, and stolen bases were three of the big fantasy baseball stats.

 

Live and learn.

[Rob]

Well, we got Aramis. How can you say Matsuzaka has been more productive than Soriano when he's never thrown a pitch in MLB? I would rather have Drew though. I wouldnt consider ARod, Manny, and Cabrera there for the taking. Manny might be a possibility, but I dont think we have what it would take to get ARod or Cabrera without giving up Zambrano. And with your experiment you conveniently started with the Soriano's worst 2 years and didnt include his very productive two years before that. If the original reports of 8/136 are true, then I think we definitely overpaid. But if we can win a world series in the next couple years I would be fine with being stuck with a couple awful contracts for a few years after that.

 

I gave Hendry a lot of credit for getting Aramis signed.

 

Matsuzaka looks like a real ace while watching him pitch, and when you translate the numbers to MLB level. While perhaps I erred to say he's been more productive, I sincerely do believe he will be more productive by plenty than Soriano will.

 

Once again, three year splits are more indicitive of future performance than five year splits, but I will grant there was probably a bit of selection bias in the years I chose. Then again, you'd think putting him in Texas should have helped your case, not hurt it... which is a scary thought.

 

And I do agree with you... so long as we win a World Series, it's fine by me to have to deal with this contract. But I am concerned we're going to have a hard time winning a world series while holding this contract on our hands.

[questionmarkgrace]

Obviously saving a crapload of money not signing soriano and signing lugo will allow us to sign stop gaps for the time being and we'd be better off.

 

signing stop gaps is how we got into this mess in the first place. We should have gone hard after beltran, instead we got burnitz. Furcal, we got pierre. And now we have to over pay to get better. its what bad teams do.

[jjgman21]

If Hendry is so willing to ridiculously overspend for a player worse than Ramirez, why did he take a huge gamble in risking losing Aramis and not offer him more money?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?

About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him.

 

Of course, because Lord knows some people around here would rather walk on a bed of hot nails than give Hendry any credit.

Hendry got lucky. Big time. All he had to do was throw in some more cash, probably as little as $1 million a year, and Ramirez doesn't wait until Sunday to sign. Yet he decided to take a huge gamble. It was not a good strategy.

 

again, the armchair GM'ing. we have no idea what happened during the course of those negotiations. for all we know, the deal was in place for days and only took until Sunday due to logistical reasons.

[A New Era]

Soriano is bad, we shouldn't have signed him. I won't be saying this if Soriano repeats his #'s next year. Oh wait, that's right. He won't. Because I am psychic.

 

And you are? What if he repeats his 2005 and 2004 numbers? Wouldnt it be better to sign a guy who has great numbers in 2006, 2005, and 2004, like Drew? Especially since he will be cheaper and sign to a shorter contract?

 

That paragraph right there sums up our point (as well as KC's marginal EqA analysis).

 

Or his 2001, 2002, 2003, or 2006 #'s?

 

I LIKE drew. However, I LIKE Soriano. I LIKE that the promise that John Mcdunnough made is coming true. It's TIME to win for the Fans, that was John's MO.

 

On drew, you have to take into account he will miss atleast 40 games. So then you have to average his #'s out with whoever is replacing him for those 40 games. I really just don't see the point some of you are arguing. Ok I do see the point. I just don't know why such a big deal is being made about picking apart #'s and being so negative about Soriano. I see Soriano as a sign for CHANGE in the Cubs orginazation.

 

Why not stop picking apart soriano's #'s and instead talk about what this means for the Cubs?

 

Just this summer. . . Our manager was terrible, our coaching staff couldn't teach a stick to hit, our owners would never pay for a winner, and they would never sell the Cubs to someone who WOULD.

 

Now we are at. . . Our manager is great, our coaching staff is great, our owner wants to give us a winner, and the Cubs might even be sold.

 

There's no reason for negativity now, Cubs fans. This is a happy time to be a Cubs fan. .

Edited November 20, 2006 by A New Era

[jjgman21]

I didn't see anyone comment on it and maybe it isn't valid because I have no idea what EqA is but Soriano has almost twice as many total bases as lugo on average. Since soriano gets on base less that means when he does get on base is he in scoring position a hell of a lot more. Look what ryan zimmerman did batting third all year. Everyone thought that he would be good but 110 rbi's as a rookie thats 30-40 more rbis than expected. But that is what soriano can do to a line up. His presence puts pressure on the pitcher and the defense. If Zimmerman can do that imagine what Lee and Aram could do with him at the top of the order.

 

how long will it take people to realize this isn't an argument saying that lugo is a better offensive player than soriano?

 

i think ive addressed that 10 times in the past hour.

 

I wouldn't have minded signing Lugo, but you have to keep in mind that the cost of Lugo at short is about 13M. 8+ for Lugo and 4+ for Izturis. not sure if you've noticed or not, but it doesn't seem like anyone is banging down the doors to take Izturis off the Cubs hands.

 

once again, that's irrelavent.

I think you have to acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that the Cubs have that low of production again out of the SS position--just with Izturis' career averages (I know, I know, they aren't that good) bringing up Cedeno's awful numbers. Plus, we don't know if they plan on playing Theriot at short some either.

 

agreed. that's just more viewing things in a vacuum to make a point.

Edited November 20, 2006 by jjgman21

[Danny82]

If Hendry is so willing to ridiculously overspend for a player worse than Ramirez, why did he take a huge gamble in risking losing Aramis and not offer him more money?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?

About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him.

 

Of course, because Lord knows some people around here would rather walk on a bed of hot nails than give Hendry any credit.

Hendry got lucky. Big time. All he had to do was throw in some more cash, probably as little as $1 million a year, and Ramirez doesn't wait until Sunday to sign. Yet he decided to take a huge gamble. It was not a good strategy.

 

again, the armchair GM'ing. we have no idea what happened during the course of those negotiations. for all we know, the deal was in place for days and only took until Sunday due to logistical reasons.

No, Jon knows. It was not good strategy, he said so.

[oldcubsfan]

That's why selective analysis of numbers fails. Tadd Walker is a bench player and the percentage's fail to show runs created. Soriano is not the best player in baseball, but he is the best free agent available this year.

 

The only way to prove that is to show that Walker's playing time is differently distributed(i.e. to favor his platoon splits) than a "starter" like Soriano. And even if he did get put in more favorable matchups, it speaks that 1-2 marginal to decent players in the right situation can nearly replicate Soriano's production.

 

That truly is funny. Todd Walker can't hit 40 HR's, 40 doubles, and steal any bases. You may not value those numbers, but realty baseball does. Not just selective percentages. last year, someone tried to claim Todd was better offensively than Tejada. What a joke. Realty is greater than fantasy baseball.

 

Walker might do better than Soriano on the basepaths if he doesn't attempt to steal any at all. I haven't crunched Soriano's SB numbers yet, but something tells me he fell just below the breakeven point... costing the team runs because of all the time he got caught stealing.

 

I don't believe I ever made the argument that Todd Walker could hit 40 HRs or 40 doubles (though he has hit in excess of 35 doubles 3 times since 2001... even while getting about 60% of the PT Soriano gets the last few seasons). I made the argument that Todd Walker is close enough in value to Soriano that they can be compared (though he certainly is not better). My point was that Walker will be lucky to get 2/8 this offseason... and Soriano is getting 6 extra years and over 100 million dollars extra.

 

All I was pointing out is the disparity between Soriano's talent level and what he's getting paid. He's getting a contract approximately like Manny's... and he is nowhere near that performance level.

Todd will be lucky to get more than a one year deal, with no position to play.

[Mephistopheles]

I think you have to acknowledge that it is highly unlikely that the Cubs have that low of production again out of the SS position--just with Izturis' career averages (I know, I know, they aren't that good) bringing up Cedeno's awful numbers.

 

Okay, going from our 06 prodcution to Izturis' career line is an improvement of 9 runs which fails to put the signing Soriano course of action ahead of the Lugo option.

 

KC has made the lugo example, but I think it is more to illustrate the fact that the money was spent completely inappropriately, not that hes specifically advocating signing lugo. I think he used lugo to prove that a cheaper addition at a position that was worse for the cubs in 2006 could improve the team just as much as signing Soriano. But you would have to ask him that.

 

We have a winner. You can do the exact same thing from our 2B last season to Ray Durham and get a little more production than Soriano.

 

I think we could sign Durham and Lugo for the price of Soriano and DeRosa. We'd be 30 runs or so better off and we would have the long-term commitment to an aging Soriano.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Mephistopheles

[Jon]

If Hendry is so willing to ridiculously overspend for a player worse than Ramirez, why did he take a huge gamble in risking losing Aramis and not offer him more money?

And we know that Hendry was close to losing Aramis how?

About three or four more hours and Ramirez would have either signed for at least $20 million more than what Hendry offered or would be considering multiple offers for even more money. Ramirez and his agent knew that Hendry was significantly low-balling Aramis in terms of market value. Even at the very end Jim didn't bump up his price that much. I'd give more credit to Ramirez for staying than for Hendry keeping him.

 

Of course, because Lord knows some people around here would rather walk on a bed of hot nails than give Hendry any credit.

Hendry got lucky. Big time. All he had to do was throw in some more cash, probably as little as $1 million a year, and Ramirez doesn't wait until Sunday to sign. Yet he decided to take a huge gamble. It was not a good strategy.

 

again, the armchair GM'ing. we have no idea what happened during the course of those negotiations. for all we know, the deal was in place for days and only took until Sunday due to logistical reasons.

Even the post-deal quotes point to the exact opposite. And Jim bumped up his offer a few million dollars in the final 24 hours of negotiation, so there was no deal in place.