Trading Soriano

[pccubfan]

I have to agree with LLF/WSR/SCS on this one. I find it hard to believe that teams aren't looking into Soriano because of some stigma and are unaware of his performance.

 

This is obviously an extreme example, but teams certainly passed on Barry Bonds because of a stigma. He'd have certainly played longer based on performance.

 

We see guys signed on a positive reputation that has no basis in numbers all the time. Neifi Perez had a career based on it. If GM's pay attention to positive reputations like that, I think it's possible that a negative one could influence them as well.

 

But what besides being grossly overpaid was negative about Soriano?

[Banedon]

I have to agree with LLF/WSR/SCS on this one. I find it hard to believe that teams aren't looking into Soriano because of some stigma and are unaware of his performance.

 

This is obviously an extreme example, but teams certainly passed on Barry Bonds because of a stigma. He'd have certainly played longer based on performance.

 

We see guys signed on a positive reputation that has no basis in numbers all the time. Neifi Perez had a career based on it. If GM's pay attention to positive reputations like that, I think it's possible that a negative one could influence them as well.

 

But what besides being grossly overpaid was negative about Soriano?

 

Silly stuff, nothing substantive for sure. Definitely not to Barry Bonds level. But fan reaction has been down (based on the contract and the perception that it's an albatross), he goes through some lengthy slumps (followed by enormous hot streaks) and not being the best defensive player ever to put on a glove.

 

I'm just putting on my wild speculation hat.

[Guest]

I wonder at this point if Soriano just has a stigma attached to him around the league somehow.

 

I think it's entirely feasible that GMs and other "baseball people" are still hung up on Soriano's reputation (albatross contract, old, bad) and simply won't accept that he's apparently a different player now. It's the same idea as people still assuming that Jeter is a great defensive SS now because he was 5 years ago, whether he really is now or not.

 

When you get a reputation, either good or bad, it's really hard to get rid of it and I think you're probably right that that's having a negative impact on getting interest in Soriano.

He's not a different player. He's has no upside. If a team can get him for next to nothing I'm sure they will. However, they won't be giving anything back. At this point he might be more valuable to the Cubs than to anyone else.

 

A guy posting an .830 OPS and being paid as little as would be left after what the Cubs would reportedly be willing to pay definitely has value.

Sure, but value is also assessed by what you are willing to pay to receive some service. If a team isn't willing to pay much in dollars or prospects he has more value to the Cubs.

 

It's not because he has some stigma attached to him. Everyone says he's a good teammate and he's never caused trouble except when he didn't want to move from 2nd base.

[dew1679666265]

He's not a different player. He's has no upside. If a team can get him for next to nothing I'm sure they will. However, they won't be giving anything back. At this point he might be more valuable to the Cubs than to anyone else.

 

2011: .244/.289/.469/.758; 1.3 WAR; very poor defender

2012: .275/.330/.498/.828; 2.5 WAR; considered to be much improved defensively (Len called him the most improved player defensively in the majors over the weekend)

 

He's been better in just about every aspect of the game this season. No, he's probably not going to get better from here, but those are still very solid numbers for a contending team to acquire - especially if they're only paying $2 mil or so per year.

 

And when I said a "different" player, I was referring to this improvement potentially being sustainable. He's dropped to a lighter bat this year and is showing a bit more patience this year than last year. If the heavy bat was what was holding him back last year offensively, then moving to a lighter bat may mean he's an .800+ OPS guy for a while - that's fairly valuable. That's certainly a different player than what his reputation has become.

[TheDude]

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

[Tracer Bullet]

I wonder at this point if Soriano just has a stigma attached to him around the league somehow.

 

I think it's entirely feasible that GMs and other "baseball people" are still hung up on Soriano's reputation (albatross contract, old, bad) and simply won't accept that he's apparently a different player now. It's the same idea as people still assuming that Jeter is a great defensive SS now because he was 5 years ago, whether he really is now or not.

 

When you get a reputation, either good or bad, it's really hard to get rid of it and I think you're probably right that that's having a negative impact on getting interest in Soriano.

Was jeter really ever a great defensive SS?

[SouthSideRyan]

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

 

If most teams would balk at paying Soriano 2Y/800K then most teams are [expletive] stupid.

[dew1679666265]

I have to agree with LLF/WSR/SCS on this one. I find it hard to believe that teams aren't looking into Soriano because of some stigma and are unaware of his performance.

 

I doubt it's being unaware of his performance, I think it's not buying it. Everything we've heard about Soriano the past 2-3 years has been that his contract is one of the worst in baseball (maybe the worst), he's old, he doesn't hustle defensively, and he's awful offensively. Not all of that was untrue (the hustling part wasn't, but the rest probably was), but he's shown considerable improvements in his game this year.

 

However, we've seen time and again that many GMs rely more on reputation than on actual production to determine their moves. If they didn't, then Neifi Perez and Ryan Theriot would barely have ever hit at the top of the order and guys like Jose Macias, Koyie Hill, and others would not have had major league jobs for long. Reputations mean a ton in baseball and Soriano's rep isn't good for various reasons. I think that may be playing a big part in us not getting much interest in him.

[dew1679666265]

Was jeter really ever a great defensive SS?

 

That's a good question. I mainly just plugged a number in there that got us into the range of when he was actually a plus UZR/150 guy. I probably wouldn't argue with you if you said he never was great defensively.

[dew1679666265]

If most teams would balk at paying Soriano 2Y/800K then most teams are [expletive] stupid.

 

Yeah, I have to believe the holdup is that teams don't want to give prospects of any significance for him even if we pay most of the contract. If they're balking at taking on a contract that they could cut without a second thought and without any sort of hindrance to their overall payroll, that's just dumb.

[Guest]

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

 

You realize that this makes literally NO sense, right?

[Clem Fandango]

Brett does a write up on wondering why no one apparently wants Soriano (and other things)...

 

http://www.bleachernation.com/2012/07/16/lukewarm-stove-seriously-why-doesnt-anyone-want-alfonso-soriano-also-garza-dempster-barney-greinke-more/

[TheDude]

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

 

You realize that this makes literally NO sense, right?

Is this missing a smiley for sarcasm or something?

 

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

[Guest]

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

 

You realize that this makes literally NO sense, right?

Is this missing a smiley for sarcasm or something?

 

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

 

What on earth do the 2 years have to do with anything?

 

How are they, at league minimum, a detriment? WTF are you talking about?

 

I can't even begin to make sense of it. There is no sarcasm smiley missing.

[Theo]

calm down...geeez.

[Backtobanks]

If nobody wants him, let's hope that his improved play lasts the rest of this year and through 2013. If it does, it could end up being a great non-deal.

[Magnetic Curses]

I personally don't think it's anymore complicated than no team wants to commit 2 more years to Soriano at this point, even if the Cubs eat most of the contract. Even at the league minimum, you would have to think most teams balk at committing 2 years of age 37 and 38 seasons to an OF with a history of leg injuries.

 

You realize that this makes literally NO sense, right?

Is this missing a smiley for sarcasm or something?

 

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

 

soriano is on his way to being worth his contract this year and with the lighter bat issue affecting things going forward, he may very well be worth his contract in 2013, too. again, he's going to be a +4 war player this year. teams are stupid if they're going to let the stigma of him being soriano cloud their judgment.

[dew1679666265]

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

 

I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion. I agree with your reasoning that teams are probably balking at giving up prospects of any value for Soriano. But I don't see how that has anything to do with 2 years being left on his deal. He has $46 million left on his deal, so let's say the Cubs pay $44 million of that. That leaves the acquiring team on the hook for $1 million each year over those two years. I don't care which team ends up getting him, $1 million per year is a minimal commitment and no team would hesitate to cut him if he doesn't perform.

 

Do you think a team would feel forced to keep him instead of cutting him because they're paying him $1 million a year?

[Guest]

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

 

I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion. I agree with your reasoning that teams are probably balking at giving up prospects of any value for Soriano. But I don't see how that has anything to do with 2 years being left on his deal. He has $46 million left on his deal, so let's say the Cubs pay $44 million of that. That leaves the acquiring team on the hook for $1 million each year over those two years. I don't care which team ends up getting him, $1 million per year is a minimal commitment and no team would hesitate to cut him if he doesn't perform.

 

Do you think a team would feel forced to keep him instead of cutting him because they're paying him $1 million a year?

 

He said that, even if we were paying him down to league minimum, they'd shy away from him because of the years.

[dew1679666265]

He said that, even if we were paying him down to league minimum, they'd shy away from him because of the years.

 

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out why he feels the years left are a negative. If we pay 95+% of his contract, the years might actually be a bonus for the acquiring team since they'd have a super cheap bat for 2 years instead of 1. I can't imagine how prospect-cost isn't the factor holding up a Soriano trade.

[XZero771679666304]

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

 

I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion. I agree with your reasoning that teams are probably balking at giving up prospects of any value for Soriano. But I don't see how that has anything to do with 2 years being left on his deal. He has $46 million left on his deal, so let's say the Cubs pay $44 million of that. That leaves the acquiring team on the hook for $1 million each year over those two years. I don't care which team ends up getting him, $1 million per year is a minimal commitment and no team would hesitate to cut him if he doesn't perform.

 

Do you think a team would feel forced to keep him instead of cutting him because they're paying him $1 million a year?

 

He said that, even if we were paying him down to league minimum, they'd shy away from him because of the years.

 

Which makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

[TheDude]

It's pretty obvious. Why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a prospect instead of money? Or, why would any team want 2 more years of Soriano at the cost of a lesser prospect but more money when any number of cheaper free agents without the cost of any prospect will be available in the offseason. Regardless of how much money the Cubs eat, the 2 more years is the problem moving this contract.

 

I'm not sure how you're coming to your conclusion. I agree with your reasoning that teams are probably balking at giving up prospects of any value for Soriano. But I don't see how that has anything to do with 2 years being left on his deal. He has $46 million left on his deal, so let's say the Cubs pay $44 million of that. That leaves the acquiring team on the hook for $1 million each year over those two years. I don't care which team ends up getting him, $1 million per year is a minimal commitment and no team would hesitate to cut him if he doesn't perform.

 

Do you think a team would feel forced to keep him instead of cutting him because they're paying him $1 million a year?

 

He said that, even if we were paying him down to league minimum, they'd shy away from him because of the years.

 

Which makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

 

The more money the Cubs eat, the better the prospect. An organization can instead keep the prospect and find comparable FA in the offseason if you believe Soriano's '12 is the anomaly, not '11 (which I think many people do). If I'm trading for Soriano and I use the view of 'I can always cut him since the Cubs are paying for him', then I'm not willing to give a prospect of value because I view the trade as a 2-month rental rather than long-term 2.5 year value trade. So I'm only offering prospect value of a rental, which doesn't make sense for the Cubs.

[USSoccer]

And-assuming his production will stay like this over the next two seasons-where are teams going to get that production for $1m per year?

[TheDude]

And-assuming his production will stay like this over the next two seasons-where are teams going to get that production for $1m per year?

They're not going to find that value on the market, but that's not the assumption most organizations are going to make. There's probably a 4 WAR gap between what the Cubs want to sell and what a prospective buyer wants to project in their buy. If you take the half-full approach and assume Soriano is going to be more like '12 in his '13 and '14 seasons, then you're looking at around 8-9 WAR for remainder of the contract from today. If you take the half-empty approach and look at '11 as the more projectable numbers, then you're looking at more like a 4-5 WAR remainder of the contract.

 

GMs can find a FA for 2 years at 4 WAR total value by spending modestly and keeping your prospects. All they need is the half-year rental for minor league filler.

 

This would be easy if Soriano didn't have the 2 extra years. The market is known for expiring veteran contracts (minus Sabean...Wheeler!?!) and we have already seen 3 deals this year with Youk, Lee, Thome. Soriano probably would have been traded already by now without the 2 years.

 

Any organization that isn't bullish on his 'return to form' for age 37 and 38 seasons risks giving up a prospect of value when they don't have to. They could spend just cash on mid-level veteran in the offseason without losing prospects or draft picks thanks to the new CBA and roughly get 1.5 - 2 WAR anyway. The Cubs aren't going to deal Soriano and pay the contract for organizational filler. The point I have been making is the additional 2 years is the primary complication in trading Soriano.

[Guest]

If the Cubs are paying 90+% of the contract, then the length of the contract is of absolutely zero consequence. None at all. If Soriano is essentially being traded to a team for 2.5 years at 4 million dollars total, then they can release him after that first half season and have virtually no impact on payroll. it'd be no different than declining a team option that had a buyout.

 

As for the performance argument, taking the middle of the road assumption that Soriano is a 2-3 win player going forward, then having him for 2.5 years is 7+ WAR of value, or 35+ million. And they're paying 4 million for it. Now it's true that the closer you get to replacement level, the easier it is to add that value without paying the FA premium. But to get someone with Soriano's raw ability, that clearly still has the potential for a 4-5 win season, is a more certain asset than diving through the waiver wire. So while teams could probably approximate Soriano's value by making the right acquisition elsewhere, that doesn't invalidate the value he would require in trade if his contract is being paid almost in full. You wouldn't say "why would you pay a free agent pitcher any money, the Rangers got Colby Lewis for nothing! The Giants and Ryan Vogelsong too!" The same principle applies to Soriano, if he's being traded with essentially no contract.