Cubs sign Soriano

[soapy]

I missed the last 60 pages. Do we know if there are option years? Do we know for sure where Soriano will play? Is it official yet?

As far as I can tell, no (to all your questions).

[goonys evil twin]

I see a lot of people writing off the size of the contract by saying that they don't care about the long term effects of paying Soriano $17 million at age 38 (if that turns out to be true) because they'll be happy with the WS title before that. I wouldn't be handing out any WS trophies no matter what the Cubs do. Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

I have to believe it's structured so that the last couple years will be much higher than $17 million.

[Soriano12]

Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004.

The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that.

[UMFan83]

I missed the last 60 pages. Do we know if there are option years? Do we know for sure where Soriano will play? Is it official yet?

 

1) It's rumored that there are 2-3 option years in there. Not yet confirmed, nor known if they are player, team or mutual options or how much potential buyouts are. There is a NTC for the first 5 years though I believe

 

2) Most news reports are saying CF, but Bruce Miles has stated that he will be playing RF and he said he was very certain that this is the case from what he's heard.

 

3) Not yet, pending a physical today. Expect acknowledgment from the Cubs today.

[Chocolate Milk]

So are the last 2 years option years as was originally speculated?

[FergieJ31]

Instead of reading about 70 pages I'm going to step out on a limb and say the reaction was negative.

Largely, but there are a few holding out positivity. A few of us (me, jjgman, XZero, ConstableRabbit and a few others) are holding to the "hate the money, love the move anyway" opinion.

 

co-sign

 

First time since Hawk in 87' that we have signed one of the three or four best available FAs. I just hope Jim saves some cash for midseason deals - we are going to need pitching, IMO.

 

I just don't see why people can't see that the numbers say this is a bad signing. Saying we signed one of the best FAs out there is like saying that the Bulls got one of the best 3-4 players in the 2000 draft when they got Marcus Fizer, meaning, its true but its a weak crop of players. The fact that we gave him one of the top 6-7 highest paid contracts in history makes me worry.

 

That said, I am happy that they did something. Certainly this is better then nothing..but personally there were about 2-3 other FAs I would have spent my money on first.

 

Completely agree. As I said about .. er, 50 pages ago, Soriano is so overrated it's not funny. He's basically a slightly faster version Jock with a little more pop - a measly 0.049 SLG and 14 OPS+ points. The JJ 3/16 deal looks like a bargain right now by comparison.

[soapy]

I see a lot of people writing off the size of the contract by saying that they don't care about the long term effects of paying Soriano $17 million at age 38 (if that turns out to be true) because they'll be happy with the WS title before that. I wouldn't be handing out any WS trophies no matter what the Cubs do. Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

Why would I ask the Mets? Omar Minia is a spend-whore if ever there was one. That team was dead as recently as two seasons ago, and just got off the mat by outspending the entire league. They aren't winning based solely on Wright and Reyes.

That's what I'm saying. All those teams have thrown around obscene amounts of money, but aren't exactly racking up the championships (one title between them in the last six years).

 

I'm not going to say "who cares" to the Soriano contract and assume I won't care by the time he's 38/39 because I'll be so happy about the championships he's delivered to Chicago. This team is not drastically better then last year's team (yet). There is still a high probability that the Cubs will not win a WS in the next five years and the they will be weighted down by Soriano's massive contract long after his productivity has declined.

[soapy]

Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004.

The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that.

Why is it a terrible arguement? those three team have one championship between them in the last six years. the yankees went on their championship run before they started the massive spending the have today. the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship. how many championships did baltimore win in the 90's when they were grossly out-spending everyone? it's relevant.

[goonys evil twin]

Completely agree. As I said about .. er, 50 pages ago, Soriano is so overrated it's not funny. He's basically a slightly faster version Jock with a little more pop - a measly 0.049 SLG and 14 OPS+ points. The JJ 3/16 deal looks like a bargain right now by comparison.

 

Soriano and Jacque Jones are not similar players. Soriano is more similar to Aramis Ramirez than Jones. Soriano is not ideal. And he's a risky signing. But he's not just a faster Jones with a little more pop.

[UMFan83]

For those who didn't see this the other 11 times I posted it in this thread:

 

Soriano OPS+

2004: 98

2005: 110

 

That means our great $17 million man had a league average OPS for those years (with Park and League factors included).

 

However, he should continue to put up better numbers because he's in the NL , but nothing that would deserve $17 million, unless you are enamored with made up stats like 40-40-40.

 

The other $17 Million man, Beltran, put up OPS+ of 108, 126, 136 the three years before his contract.

Edited November 20, 2006 by UMFan83

[Chocolate Milk]

Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004.

The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that.

Why is it a terrible arguement. those three team have one championship between them in the last six years. the yankees went on their championship run before they started the massive spending the have today. the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship. how many championships did baltimore win in the 90's when they were grossly out-spending everyone? it's relevant.

 

Spending money doesn't keep you from winning. That's completely absurd. It will increase your chances of going to the playoffs and get you better players in the long run. Just because other teams who spend money haven't won the World Series in the last few years doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.

[soapy]

Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004.

The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that.

Why is it a terrible arguement. those three team have one championship between them in the last six years. the yankees went on their championship run before they started the massive spending the have today. the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship. how many championships did baltimore win in the 90's when they were grossly out-spending everyone? it's relevant.

 

Spending money doesn't keep you from winning. That's completely absurd. It will increase your chances of going to the playoffs and get you better players in the long run. Just because other teams who spend money haven't won the World Series in the last few years doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.

 

I didn't say that. Of course spending money WISELY increases your chances to win. Also, it can allow you to cover up your mistakes by spending more money. What I'm saying is, I'm not going to write off the massive amount of money going toward Soriano at ages 38 and 39.

 

I'm glad they made the move to get him, but I'm very worried about the long terms effect of the contract. Others aren't becuase they claim they say, "If it brings the Cubs a World Series, who cares?" If it does, yeah I agree. But I don't think they are even close at this point and I'm not going to just say "who cares" about 17 million dollars.

[goonys evil twin]

I never would have thought that I'd be the guy defending a signing of Soriano.

 

Hey, the guy is flawed. There is no question. He will probably have a few disappointing seasons in his 8 year stay in Chicago.

 

But if you're going from a $95m payroll to a $115m payroll, then it's not that hard to fit in an inflated contract for Soriano and still be good.

 

There's still plenty of room to improve the pitching staff, and get another bat.

[Cubfanintheknow]

When you're as broken as the Cubs, you have to spend money to fix things. Waiting for the farm system to pan out hasn't proved a good strategy. Nor has signing second-tier free agents. And they're certainly not going to be able to trade their way to the top.

 

Right now (again... RIGHT NOW), spending money is their only avenue to improvement.

[Soriano12]

the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship.

 

Massive spending took them from a doormat in the NL, to a contender for the WS. That and David Wright, last I checked we don't have any David Wrights in Iowa or West Tenn

Edited November 20, 2006 by Soriano12

[Wheelimus]

Worst case scenario, if we went into the season today, our lineup might be

 

Soriano

DeRosa

Lee

Ramirez

Jones

Barrett

Murton

Izturis

Pitcher

 

and our rotation might be

 

Zambrano

Hill

Miller

Marshall/Mateo/Marmol/etc.

Prior

 

So, already, I feel we're competitive. Obviously that pitching rotation is getting an overhaul in the next weeks so it's a moot point.

 

While I may loathe the contract by the end of it, it isn't going to hurt us at all. By the time we get into the real gut renching portion of the deal, the contract will be own by Mark Cuban or some other rich dude, and they're not going to think about it twice.

[CubinNY]

Big spending does not equal championships. Ask the Mets, Yankees, Red Sox. They still have to be smart.

 

What a terrible argument. Last I checked the BoSox won a WS in 2004.

The Yankees have won a few in the past 10 years as well. The Mets could easily win it next season. No Big Spending does not equal championships, but it usually keeps you in contention year in and year out. Right now, as a Cubs fan, I'll certainlty take that.

Why is it a terrible arguement. those three team have one championship between them in the last six years. the yankees went on their championship run before they started the massive spending the have today. the mets have been spending big for years and haven't come close to a championship. how many championships did baltimore win in the 90's when they were grossly out-spending everyone? it's relevant.

 

Spending money doesn't keep you from winning. That's completely absurd. It will increase your chances of going to the playoffs and get you better players in the long run. Just because other teams who spend money haven't won the World Series in the last few years doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.

 

But the key is spending wisely. The Mets of the Mo Vaughn era where terrible and spent and spent. Baltimore has spent big time too.

 

I think that is what gets lost sometimes when looking at Minnesota and Oakland. They spend money. They're not the Tampa Bay's and Pittsburghs of the world. What they do differently is that they spend money wisely and use the assets they have to make themselves better.

 

On the face of it, I would say getting Soriano for the price and years was not wise but it beats not getting him, I guess.

 

The Cubs will still have a hard time scoring runs this year unless Soriano has left his free swinging days behind him.

[soapy]

I never would have thought that I'd be the guy defending a signing of Soriano.

 

Hey, the guy is flawed. There is no question. He will probably have a few disappointing seasons in his 8 year stay in Chicago.

 

But if you're going from a $95m payroll to a $115m payroll, then it's not that hard to fit in an inflated contract for Soriano and still be good.

 

There's still plenty of room to improve the pitching staff, and get another bat.

 

I sure hope so. If the $115 figure is correct, there's about $10-$15 million left. I hope there is a trade in the works (I'm guessing there is).

 

I know I'm repeating myself, but I am glad they signed him. I'm just worried because a) I'm afraid he's far from a lock to repeat his 2006 numbers and; b) I'm worried about the last few years of the contract.

[goonys evil twin]

Right now (again... RIGHT NOW), spending money is their only avenue to improvement.

 

Yep.

 

Well, they can get a little better via trade, but even there, the best bet is to take bigger money players off other team's payrolls.

 

But by and large, the best way for this team to get significantly better (and they have to get significantly better), is to spend. And that's going to include overspending.

[UMFan83]

I never would have thought that I'd be the guy defending a signing of Soriano.

 

Hey, the guy is flawed. There is no question. He will probably have a few disappointing seasons in his 8 year stay in Chicago.

 

But if you're going from a $95m payroll to a $115m payroll, then it's not that hard to fit in an inflated contract for Soriano and still be good.

 

There's still plenty of room to improve the pitching staff, and get another bat.

 

There are a couple of advantages to this signing beyond batting. His defense was actually better then league average (I can't remember what factors were considered in this), his speed of course can replace the speed of Pierre mostly (but the importance of speed is of course a huge huge debatable discussion), and the thing I'm most impressed about is his 22 OF assists last year. A strong arm is a BIG help. How many times did we give up the extra base because of our crappy OF arms?

[RynoRules]

I never would have thought that I'd be the guy defending a signing of Soriano.

 

Hey, the guy is flawed. There is no question. He will probably have a few disappointing seasons in his 8 year stay in Chicago.

 

But if you're going from a $95m payroll to a $115m payroll, then it's not that hard to fit in an inflated contract for Soriano and still be good.

 

There's still plenty of room to improve the pitching staff, and get another bat.

 

There are a couple of advantages to this signing beyond batting. His defense was actually better then league average (I can't remember what factors were considered in this), his speed of course can replace the speed of Pierre mostly (but the importance of speed is of course a huge huge debatable discussion), and the thing I'm most impressed about is his 22 OF assists last year. A strong arm is a BIG help. How many times did we give up the extra base because of our crappy OF arms?

 

Not just last year either.

[USSoccer]

I never would have thought that I'd be the guy defending a signing of Soriano.

 

Hey, the guy is flawed. There is no question. He will probably have a few disappointing seasons in his 8 year stay in Chicago.

 

But if you're going from a $95m payroll to a $115m payroll, then it's not that hard to fit in an inflated contract for Soriano and still be good.

 

There's still plenty of room to improve the pitching staff, and get another bat.

 

It was around page 40 (premium), but I said it back there and I'll say it again: There are positives and negatives to Soriano, but we are a better offensive team right now than at any point in the last 2 seasons. If the payroll stays near the luxury tax threshold, his contract won't be as onerous as it would be with a $100m payroll. He's not going to be an on-base guy, but SLG% was a need and he will provide slugging.

 

Good sign at an inflated price is how I'm looking at it. There's still money and, more importantly, tradable assets with which to further improve the team.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Good sign at an inflated price is how I'm looking at it.

 

My beef is the years. I don't have much of a problem with the price.

[wastra]

I don't think the Soriano signing should eb greeted by as much pessimism as it has.

 

If we get the 2006 version, we get a pretty studly hitter. Those guys cost a lot.

 

If we get soething a little less, we still get a good player, albeit one who is overpaid. Any real "problems" resulting form his contract won't really be felt until 2012 or so. While I think it's certainly legit to look that far out and be a tad disappointed, it's honestly too far out for us as fans to get worked up about.

 

The only way this should be greeted so negatively is if hendry DOESN'T add some qulaity starters to the mix now because of it.

[Derwood]

I haven't read all 98 pages of this so pardon me if this has been brought up before:

 

For those complaining about still paying him $17 million when he's 38 years old, how do we know that in the 2014 market that won't be a bargain? At the rate salaries are increasing, backup catchers may be making $8 or $9 million a year by then (and superstars making $25million+).