Ken Rosenthal's take on where Soriono will go?!?!

[KstateBird]

JMHO, but you're overvaluing your prospects again.

Neither one of those guys would net you a quality young ML-ready player.

Dave, you're unfamiliar with the Royals system. They have really soured on Huber for some reason. They played Buddy Bell's kid (Ricky Bell, who put up a 550 OPS @ AAA!) over him the second half of the season. Teahen, Butler, and Gordon seem to be their future plans at the infield corners/DH spot. I have almost zero doubt that they would trade Huber for a top 100 pitching prospect.

[Lucky Jim]

No, he's not Beltre - but he's an example of the danger inherent in players who post anomalous contract years.

Not so much a comparison to Beltre as an analogy to highlight the inherent risk.

[KstateBird]

Apparently a bunch of us had the same question at the same time.

KState - I've got to respectively disagree that, based on one year's shift in OBP - we're seeing a substantive shift in his approach and not just a statistical anomaly. There's little that suggests that players at 30 who've NEVER shown plate discipline will suddenly gain it.

If it were a different statistic like HRs or AVG, I would agree 100%. But it's almost impossible for a free swinger to double their average walk total in a single season without changing their approach.

[Mackus]

I don't think he's Adrian Beltre, but basically I agree.

He is like Adrian Beltre though.

I don't think he's going to be a worthless player like Beltre is now, but I do think he will be right around his career averages, which is about what Beltre reverted to.

Signing Soriano will net you a guy with a terrible OBP, low .800s OPS, and about 30 HR and 30 SB with a marginal to bad success rate. Theres a lot of value to a player like that, a whole lot. But not a 6/$96M contract type of value. 4/$48M would be appropriate, but twice that is crazy for us.

He makes more sense for Philadelphia, becuase he could be the one piece that puts them over the top. He is not in our case. We need at least two players of his calibre to have a chance at the playoffs. You make your huge FA splash when you can deal with the almost assured possibility of him not being nearly worth the contract in the last year or two because he will get you to the playoffs in the first couple.

Unless Angelos is willing to go to $110-120M payroll, signing Soriano now will likely prevent us from being serious contenders over the course of his contract, because we won't have the money to bring in the piece that puts us over the top, or to retain our commodoties which will be growing in cost very shortly, like Bedard, Cabrera, and Roberts.

If we sign him and he is the superstar that we're paying for, you have a chance to compete, but if he's what he actually is, which is a very good, borderline AS player, he won't make us a winner and will likely handicap the organization.

[Boca Bird]

He is like Adrian Beltre though.

I don't think he's going to be a worthless player like Beltre is now, but I do think he will be right around his career averages, which is about what Beltre reverted to.

Signing Soriano will net you a guy with a terrible OBP, low .800s OPS, and about 30 HR and 30 SB with a marginal to bad success rate. Theres a lot of value to a player like that, a whole lot. But not a 6/$96M contract type of value. 4/$48M would be appropriate, but twice that is crazy for us.

He makes more sense for Philadelphia, becuase he could be the one piece that puts them over the top. He is not in our case. We need at least two players of his calibre to have a chance at the playoffs. You make your huge FA splash when you can deal with the almost assured possibility of him not being nearly worth the contract in the last year or two because he will get you to the playoffs in the first couple.

Unless Angelos is willing to go to $110-120M payroll, signing Soriano now will likely prevent us from being serious contenders over the course of his contract, because we won't have the money to bring in the piece that puts us over the top, or to retain our commodoties which will be growing in cost very shortly, like Bedard, Cabrera, and Roberts.

If we sign him and he is the superstar that we're paying for, you have a chance to compete, but if he's what he actually is, which is a very good, borderline AS player, he won't make us a winner and will likely handicap the organization.

That is the essence of where I disagree. The Orioles already conduct business as though they are already a handicapped franchise. Moreover, Soriano will get more than he deserves, but guess what, that's going to happen every year. Things go up, (well everything except our payroll).

This team can afford to take some risks on good players. They can't afford to sit around and hope for another buyer's market comes along in some future year or hope all of our prospects develop(they won't).

The last time there was a buyers market, they blew it by not getting VLad and DLee when they had the chance. The funny thing is I distinctly remember people calling Vlad a "bad risk" for 6 years because of the effects of his "violent swing" on his back. Instead we signed Raffy,but hey, he was cheaper and only required a one year commitment, an all too familar refrain

I'm in agreement with SG on this one, ***** or get off the pot.

[Mark Carver]

His slugging percentage has always been high, in the past 5 years, he has slugged over .500 four times. His OPS has always been hindered by a low OBP. But last year he walked almost twice his yearly average up until that point.

That was driven by that he was intentionally walked 16 times last year. The year before in 2005, he had 3 IBB. Remove those 13+ IBB and a big if, those IBB were outs, than his OBP would be .338.

I don't believe that he just got lucky and pitchers threw him more balls than in previous seasons. I think it more likely indicates a shift in his approach to the plate to take more pitches.

Well teams sure did walk him intentionally moreso last year.

I still don't think he's worth the price or that he will post a 900 OPS consistently, but I think you could expect and OBP in the .340-.350 range and an OPS of .850+ for at least the first 3 years of whatever deal he gets.

[osfan83]

Apparently a bunch of us had the same question at the same time.

KState - I've got to respectively disagree that, based on one year's shift in OBP - we're seeing a substantive shift in his approach and not just a statistical anomaly. There's little that suggests that players at 30 who've NEVER shown plate discipline will suddenly gain it.

Comparing him to Tony Batista is hyperbolic, sure. But I just don't see consistent .550+ slugging and/or .350 OBP coming from him. And I'm certainly not going to - if I were a GM - ratify near-nine figure deals for someone who's as likely to decline from mid .800s OPS to high-to-mid .700s over the course of a contract as he is to put up another, single, year as good as his contract year.

Adrian Beltre, anyone?

If we think we can win a WS within the next two years, while Miggy is at his prime, then I think you sign a player like Soriano and not worry about his production drop off in the final years of his contract. I would sacrifice 2010 for a ring in 2007 or 2008.

This is the question we must ask ourselves. If you REALLY think we can win with Miggy, Spend the money, knowing there will be a drop off in whomever we sign to a long term deal.

If we don't think we can win in the next two years with Miggy, then why the hell hang on to him. Move him while he still has great value.

[rolliefingers]

He is like Adrian Beltre though.

I don't think he's going to be a worthless player like Beltre is now, but I do think he will be right around his career averages, which is about what Beltre reverted to.

Signing Soriano will net you a guy with a terrible OBP, low .800s OPS, and about 30 HR and 30 SB with a marginal to bad success rate. Theres a lot of value to a player like that, a whole lot. But not a 6/$96M contract type of value. 4/$48M would be appropriate, but twice that is crazy for us.

He makes more sense for Philadelphia, becuase he could be the one piece that puts them over the top. He is not in our case. We need at least two players of his calibre to have a chance at the playoffs. You make your huge FA splash when you can deal with the almost assured possibility of him not being nearly worth the contract in the last year or two because he will get you to the playoffs in the first couple.

Unless Angelos is willing to go to $110-120M payroll, signing Soriano now will likely prevent us from being serious contenders over the course of his contract, because we won't have the money to bring in the piece that puts us over the top, or to retain our commodoties which will be growing in cost very shortly, like Bedard, Cabrera, and Roberts.

If we sign him and he is the superstar that we're paying for, you have a chance to compete, but if he's what he actually is, which is a very good, borderline AS player, he won't make us a winner and will likely handicap the organization.

All I was saying about Beltre is that Soriano's career averages are better than Beltre's. They are similar in that they'll get paid a lot of money on the basis of anomalous years.

[davearm]

Dave, you're unfamiliar with the Royals system. They have really soured on Huber for some reason. They played Buddy Bell's kid (Ricky Bell, who put up a 550 OPS @ AAA!) over him the second half of the season. Teahen, Butler, and Gordon seem to be their future plans at the infield corners/DH spot. I have almost zero doubt that they would trade Huber for a top 100 pitching prospect.

Don't forget Shealy (says the guy unfamiliar with the Royals system ).

I would certainly agree that the Royals' approach with Huber has been nothing short of mystifying. The guy's been totally mishandled despite showing a lot of promise.

That said, I'm not ready to assume that they're giving him away for less than market value.

[KstateBird]

Sorry, didn't mean unfamiliar so much as just not quite fully informed (which is an unfair critique from me, because I'm smack dab in the middle of royals territory).

Shealy is viewed as more of a stopgap for them (who has the upside to become more) while they are waiting for Butler (who at this point, will only be able to DH) and Gordon (who they seem split 50/50 on whether he will end up at 3rd or 1st) to be ready.

This time last year, Teahen was on his way out and could have been had for a song, now he is viewed as one of cornerstones for the franchise to build around along with DeJesus.

If the Royals weren't so thin on pitching, there'd be a lot to like about their potential ballclub in the not too distant future. I'd definitely trade Flanagan and even Duquette for Drayton Moore. But he'd never work for PA.

But Huber is more than just blocked or the odd man out. Not to knock Shealy, but if Huber were really a guy that the Royals were high on, would a guy who hit 7 HRs in 200 ABs and posted a .780 OPS really be "blocking" him?

[KstateBird]

That said, I'm not ready to assume that they're giving him away for less than market value.

I don't see how a top 100 pitching prospect to a team desperate for pitching is not at or maybe even well above market for a 24 year old 1b who posted an .800 OPS at AAA last year and is widely regarded as well below average defensively. The Royals certainly aren't going to get Billingsly or Cain for him.

[RZNJ]

I don't see how a top 100 pitching prospect to a team desperate for pitching is not at or above market for a 24 year old 1b who posted an .800 OPS at AAA last year and is widely regarded as well below average defensively. The Royals certainly aren't going to get Billingsly or Cain for him.

Exactly. Dave is overvalueing Huber.

[Sports Guy]

Exactly. Dave is overvalueing Huber.

He is also overvaluing the trade value of Carter and Kotchman as well.

Are Liz or Olson getting Loney? No, of course not. Votto? Probably not.

But they can get those guys, the ones who need pitching and who have other guys blocking them.

[davearm]

Exactly. Dave is overvalueing Huber.

Would it not be accurate to say that the various prospect gurus like Huber more than Shealy?

The two sites I just checked had Huber either right in front of, or right behind Hayden Penn in their rankings. :shrug:

[rolliefingers]

Would it not be accurate to say that the various prospect gurus like Huber more than Shealy?

The two sites I just checked had Huber either right in front of, or right behind Hayden Penn in their rankings. :shrug:

Why did they trade for Shealy in the first place? I'd say that was a pretty dumb move on the Royals' part. If they thought highly of Huber, he'd be in KC by now. Now, he's blocked by a worse player. Apparently KC doesn't know this?

Anyway, I think Liz or Olson gets him.