Trading Soriano

[SouthSideRyan]

Are the people who have issues with "overpaying" in free agency ok with eating all of Soriano's contract to get better prospects?

Absolutely. That said, if we get offered a couple of top 20 prospects from an average system for him, I'd just hold onto him. If we get a young major leaguer with upside or a prospect package at least as good as the Dempster deal, trade him. If not, what good does it do to get rid of him?

 

Soriano is a sunk cost.

 

He's not a sunk cost if you can get some salary relief from his contract. Why is covering all of Soriano's contract to get a decent prospect an acceptable usage of money (as opposed to say getting 5M/year in salry relief) whereas "overspending" on a FA by 5M/year is unacceptable?

[Clem Fandango]

Because if you don't overspend on a free agent you don't need to worry about eating 90% or more of their ridiculous salary just to get rid of them when they've run their course?

[XZero771679666304]

Are the people who have issues with "overpaying" in free agency ok with eating all of Soriano's contract to get better prospects?

Absolutely. That said, if we get offered a couple of top 20 prospects from an average system for him, I'd just hold onto him. If we get a young major leaguer with upside or a prospect package at least as good as the Dempster deal, trade him. If not, what good does it do to get rid of him?

 

Soriano is a sunk cost.

 

He's not a sunk cost if you can get some salary relief from his contract. Why is covering all of Soriano's contract to get a decent prospect an acceptable usage of money (as opposed to say getting 5M/year in salry relief) whereas "overspending" on a FA by 5M/year is unacceptable?

 

If the comparison was between picking up Soriano's 2013-14 salary and overpaying for a FA on a two year deal, you'd have a point. But what's scary about giving big money to some of the older FAs isn't the AAV, it's the years.

 

That said, only the years Soriano has been paid for are sunk, so percentage of his remaining salary that would be eaten should depend on the quality of the return. There is absolutely no reason to just give him away and eat the rest of his contract since he's still productive and there's salary relief to be gained.

 

To eat the entire remainder, I would think at least 2-3 top 10 (organizational) prospects would be in order. At least.

[Guest]

SSR's point is that if you're terrified of giving long-term deals to players for fear they'll be albatrosses, but you're more than willing to eat all of the last couple years of an albatross contract to lose them from the roster and add a prospect or two, then there's really nothing to be that concerned about. Of course, that doesn't touch that we're fortunate Soriano is coming off a 4 WAR season to even have the option of offloading him and getting something in return, but the contrast in the abstract is the interesting part.

[davell]

I've got no issue overpaying for FA when its time and its an impact guy. If they do it like the Nats did with Werth, because they were totally sold, its fine with me. But I think signing a 31 year old(example) to a 6-7 year deal is dumb if you figure you're not making the playoffs any of the first 3 years of the deal(again, just an example). Honestly, it seems like they may be moving their strategy to contend, up a swason. Could be off on that, but it feels like 2014, instead of 2015, has taken precedent, even if theres nothing being said about it.

[XZero771679666304]

SSR's point is that if you're terrified of giving long-term deals to players for fear they'll be albatrosses, but you're more than willing to eat all of the last couple years of an albatross contract to lose them from the roster and add a prospect or two, then there's really nothing to be that concerned about. Of course, that doesn't touch that we're fortunate Soriano is coming off a 4 WAR season to even have the option of offloading him and getting something in return, but the contrast in the abstract is the interesting part.

 

That's a huge part of the equation. Soriano's reversal of trend has afforded the luxury of even considering getting something of value in return and/or not having to eat all of his contract to move him. This time a year ago, the team would have had to pay nearly all of his salary just to give him away.

 

Now if we're talking about a guy like Hamilton, for whom being able to play 100 games 2-3 years from now is a huge question but will likely command 20MM+ in AAV, you may just be stuck with him. There's a lot of subjectivity in play with regard to this issue.

[Clem Fandango]

Does anyone feel like this FO is going to be in the business of handing out albatross contracts, though, given their past failures in Boston and what they've said since coming here?

[Little Slide Rooter]

Does anyone feel like this FO is going to be in the business of handing out albatross contracts, though, given their past failures in Boston and what they've said since coming here?

 

If things go well on the farm and trades in the next few years, no. But if 2015 rolls around, things aren't going as planned, and ticket sales are steadily declining, I could see ownership saying [expletive] it, buy a team that if nothing else will bring back the fans.

 

As for "albatross" contracts, it's OK to pay big to land a star player, especially when it fills an existing hole. Our problems came with multiple albatross contracts. When Hendry wasn't busy outbidding himself with lengthy, NTC bearing contracts for his starters, he was nickel and diming us to death with guys like Miles and Grabow that could have just as easily been replaced through the farm system or bargain bin FA's.

 

When you're a big market team, it's Ok, perhaps necessary to spend big here and there, but you need balance. If you look at teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers that spend like drunken sailers, they also have a lot of contributing players that come from within. Thats what we were missing through most of the Hendry era. It's clear to me that when Theo and Co. do start spending, it will be to supplement what they produce from within. That's really how it should be. Yeah, it sucks that we'll have to wait another 2-5 years, but it is what it is.

[nilodnayr]

Are the people who have issues with "overpaying" in free agency ok with eating all of Soriano's contract to get better prospects?

Absolutely. That said, if we get offered a couple of top 20 prospects from an average system for him, I'd just hold onto him. If we get a young major leaguer with upside or a prospect package at least as good as the Dempster deal, trade him. If not, what good does it do to get rid of him?

 

Soriano is a sunk cost.

 

He's not a sunk cost if you can get some salary relief from his contract. Why is covering all of Soriano's contract to get a decent prospect an acceptable usage of money (as opposed to say getting 5M/year in salry relief) whereas "overspending" on a FA by 5M/year is unacceptable?

 

Because the FA will likely not help you contend in 3 or so years when the FO plans on contending, compared to the prospects who will.

[Sammy Sofa]

The average shelf life of valuable play from a FA is only 2-3 years?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So we're now postulating that the front office intends to not compete for their first *four* seasons?

[SouthSideRyan]

The average shelf life of valuable play from a FA is only 2-3 years?

 

And B prospects are more likely to help a team than a guy who is good at the major league level now.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Are the people who have issues with "overpaying" in free agency ok with eating all of Soriano's contract to get better prospects?

Absolutely. That said, if we get offered a couple of top 20 prospects from an average system for him, I'd just hold onto him. If we get a young major leaguer with upside or a prospect package at least as good as the Dempster deal, trade him. If not, what good does it do to get rid of him?

 

Soriano is a sunk cost.

 

He's not a sunk cost if you can get some salary relief from his contract. Why is covering all of Soriano's contract to get a decent prospect an acceptable usage of money (as opposed to say getting 5M/year in salry relief) whereas "overspending" on a FA by 5M/year is unacceptable?

 

Because the FA will likely not help you contend in 3 or so years when the FO plans on contending, compared to the prospects who will.

 

Truth be told, this team isn't as brutal as some people think. Plop Josh Hamilton into the 3 spot, and this could be an entirely different team. Give him 5 years. Hope for 2-3 years similar to those he's already put together, and hope that he doesn't fall to far off a cliff after that. Elite players are becoming less and less abundant on the the free agent market as teams are locking their young stats up early. Again, when you're a big market team, 1 wreckless contract isn't going to hurt.

[neely crenshaw]

one bug bat does change a lineup. it changes everyone's role, allows other players to fit into their normal slot(see: trying to make castro a 3 hitter).

That being said we get no help by saving that 5 mil in salary on soriano that some are talking about because we have no one to play OF. We will have to sign someone else to play there next year or deal with an even worse offense than last year.

So we either pay someone short term to decent money or gamble like we did with DeJesus and Stewart, which obviously could go either way.

If we eat his contract, it should be for a prospect or package that we really want, not just to get someone. However, he is one of our only possible trade pieces so we may have to get worse on the field to get better down the road.

[RynoRules]

I've read several places that the O's are looking for a RH power bat. Wouldn't Soriano make a ton of sense?

[biittner77]

I've read several places that the O's are looking for a RH power bat. Wouldn't Soriano make a ton of sense?

 

Would he accept a trade to the O's? It's really hard to say. He'd be a decent fit there but with Toronto getting better, The Yankees being the Yankees and Boston not getting the memo about having to be bad for multiple years before competing again, it's hard to believe that the O's won't take a step back unless they get someone younger and better than Soriano.

[ctcf]

Boston not getting the memo about having to be bad for multiple years before competing again

 

Ah yes, if only the Cubs had gotten the "let's give out terrible contracts because that will totally help us compete" memo. If you think they're lined up to be a lot better than last year, I've got some news for you.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Boston not getting the memo about having to be bad for multiple years before competing again

 

Ah yes, if only the Cubs had gotten the "let's give out terrible contracts because that will totally help us compete" memo. If you think they're lined up to be a lot better than last year, I've got some news for you.

 

I bet they win more games than the Cubs do next year.

[ctcf]

Boston not getting the memo about having to be bad for multiple years before competing again

 

Ah yes, if only the Cubs had gotten the "let's give out terrible contracts because that will totally help us compete" memo. If you think they're lined up to be a lot better than last year, I've got some news for you.

 

I bet they win more games than the Cubs do next year.

 

I bet they don't finish better than 4th place next year. In fact, there's a solid chance they still finish last, depending on how the O's hold up.

 

But gee, at least they gave out the worst contract of the winter to show they really care.

[pitchcs]

Good for them...82 wins as opposed to 75.

 

Kyle, I really don't understand why you can't grasp the front office's plan. They aren't signing any middle tier FA that are over the hill right now so get over it already.

[ctcf]

Good for them...82 wins as opposed to 75.

 

Kyle, I really don't understand why you can't grasp the front office's plan. They aren't signing any middle tier FA that are over the hill right now so get over it already.

 

This. I'm not sure I'd even bet on the Red Sox making it to 82.

 

Kyle, I get that you feel compelled to beat the "front office isn't doing a good job unless they sign big FA's" drum or whatever the hell it is you ramble on about in like every freaking post, but apparently implying the Red Sox are doing a better job is probably not the best way to go about that.

[davell]

The Red Sox are still very likely to finish last in the East. What they've done thus far is Hendry-esque patchwork [expletive] that never works, is a gigantic waste of money, but maybe gets you from 70 wins to 74. I hope those 4 wins are worth the 77 mill and counting, you've thrown out the window to get them.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Boston not getting the memo about having to be bad for multiple years before competing again

 

Ah yes, if only the Cubs had gotten the "let's give out terrible contracts because that will totally help us compete" memo. If you think they're lined up to be a lot better than last year, I've got some news for you.

 

I bet they win more games than the Cubs do next year.

 

A lot of teams will win more games than the Cubs next year. They seem to have long since accepted that. The hope is that by 2014, there will be less teams that win more games than the Cubs. Even less in 2015.

 

With this in mind, I like my plan of filling any roster spots not occupied by players that factor into 2015 and beyond with low risk/some degree of reward fliers such as Stewart, Sweeney, Jurrjens, Kazmir, etc. Each one that works out is one less spot to fill.As long as they're OK with suckage, may as well hold 6 months worth of auditions.

[Guest]

The Red Sox are still very likely to finish last in the East. What they've done thus far is Hendry-esque patchwork [expletive] that never works, is a gigantic waste of money, but maybe gets you from 70 wins to 74. I hope those 4 wins are worth the 77 mill and counting, you've thrown out the window to get them.

 

I'm pretty sure they've improved more than that.

 

Healthy seasons from Pedroia and Ellsbury (if they keep him) should also help.

 

Still need SP though.

Edited December 5, 2012 by David

[ctcf]

The Red Sox are still very likely to finish last in the East. What they've done thus far is Hendry-esque patchwork [expletive] that never works, is a gigantic waste of money, but maybe gets you from 70 wins to 74. I hope those 4 wins are worth the 77 mill and counting, you've thrown out the window to get them.

 

Again this. I could see them finishing fourth if the O's take a big step back, but they're mostly quite young so they may still have room to even improve. As crazy as it seems, they might even have Bundy starting by the end of next season (good lord). I can't see how signing Mike Napoli and the terrible Victorino contract have done anything to better help them even finish in third.