What happens if Alfonso Soriano is back in pinstripes?

[ISiddiqui]

Now we all know that Robinson Cano has had a great season as the Yankees' 2B, but knowing George Steinbrenner and his love of big name players (*cough* A-Rod), I don't think there is any doubt that he'll try to get Alfonso Soriano back with the Yankees. Hell, they almost had him at the trade deadline, but Washington said we want Philip Hughes and the Yankees said, we'll try again in Free Agency.

The question is how are they going to sell this to Soriano and how can they fit him in? The OF will be Abreau, Matsui, and Damon (with Sheffield most likely gone). Cano is at 2B. Does Cano get bumped to 1B, moving Giambi full time to DH, even though Cano is the better defense 2B (though, as we know the Yanks don't exactly care about that, see A-Rod and Jeter)? Or do they try to stick him in the OF and have Matsui as DH? Or have Soriano at DH? And will Soriano want to continue as an OF or play DH? I was under the impression that he wants to be a 2B. Has this year in Washington changed his mind any?

[Jas_lov]

I don't think the Yankees will go after Soriano if they do well in the playoffs this year. Their lineup is already stacked and just imagine what they can do next season with Matsui, Sheff, and Abreu for a whole season. Sheff has been playing 1st base so to me the odd man out would be Giambi if someone was to be out. Not sure if that's feasible contract wise getting rid of Giambi though. Why would you trade Soriano away and then 2 years later bring him back when you already have more outfielders than you need?

Another thing to add, Joe Torre really likes Melky Cabrrera. That's 5 outfielders for 3 spots.

[JS19]

The Yanks are very high on Cano, I doubt he will be moved via trade. I wouldn't doubt them going after Soriano and moving Cano to 1B and Soriano at 2B like you mentioned. They could just as easily keep Cano at 2B and throw Sheff at 1B for next yr and keep Matsui, Damon and Abreu in the OF.

[wade moore]

I've gotta say, discussing the ins and outs of what happens if the yankees buy yet another all-star has zero interest to me.

[Toddzilla]

I can tell you that Jim Bowden will have to be hung from the rafters of RFK if Soriano ends up leaving the team with absolutely no return. The Nats could have received 2 or 3 very good prospects for Soriano before the trade deadline, but now he'll walk and DC gets nothing. Thats an immediate firing in my book.

[stevew]

I know I would much rather talk about how the small market Red Sox are going to regroup in Free Agency this offseason.

[wade moore]

I know I would much rather talk about how the small market Red Sox are going to regroup in Free Agency this offseason.

fwiw, I am a Red Sox fan.

But at the same time, I wouldn't be interested in talk about them buying Soriano right now either - particularly if they were perched to dominate the playoffs with their absurd payroll/talent.

I don't pretend that the Red Sox dont' do this also... but I'm also a big supporter of putting a salary cap in MLB.

[lordscarlet]

I can tell you that Jim Bowden will have to be hung from the rafters of RFK if Soriano ends up leaving the team with absolutely no return. The Nats could have received 2 or 3 very good prospects for Soriano before the trade deadline, but now he'll walk and DC gets nothing. Thats an immediate firing in my book.

I think what he could have gotten for Soriano is overplayed. If he could have gotten 2 or 3 top prospects, he would have done it. Likely it was 1 good to top prospect and 2 mediocre prospects that were offered.

Having said that... Soriano back in DC!! I'd love to see it, with the caveat that it should not effect spending on the rest of the team. Pitching is an absolute must.

[ISiddiqui]

I just thought it was interesting after the season ended with Soriano packing his bags. I know the Yanks are high on Cano, but that doesn't mean he has to stay at 2B full time, of course. And I do believe Sheff is gone this offseason. Still pretty stacked up there in the OF with Matsui, Damon, Abreu, and Cabrera. I just think that Steinbrenner will be interested in getting the biggest FA out there, and bonus, he's a former Yankee. Especially if they don't win it all.

[lordscarlet]

I think what he could have gotten for Soriano is overplayed. If he could have gotten 2 or 3 top prospects, he would have done it. Likely it was 1 good to top prospect and 2 mediocre prospects that were offered.

Having said that... Soriano back in DC!! I'd love to see it, with the caveat that it should not effect spending on the rest of the team. Pitching is an absolute must.

OK, Girardi is gone. I want him. You can't have him.

[sterlingice]

I've gotta say, discussing the ins and outs of what happens if the yankees buy yet another all-star has zero interest to me.

amen.

SI

[Bad-example]

I can tell you that Jim Bowden will have to be hung from the rafters of RFK if Soriano ends up leaving the team with absolutely no return. The Nats could have received 2 or 3 very good prospects for Soriano before the trade deadline, but now he'll walk and DC gets nothing. Thats an immediate firing in my book.

If they offer him arbitration, they will get compensatory picks.

[stevew]

If they offer him arbitration, they will get compensatory picks.

I believe that has been shitcanned, effective this offseason. Not 100% certain, though.

[k0ruptr]

I'm glad the white sox didnt pull the string on that trade for him midseason, wouldnt made any difference, the Pitching was the problem

[jbmagic]

I see the Angels trying to sign him this offseason.

[k0ruptr]

I see the Angels trying to sign him this offseason.

maybe the raiders could sign him to play QB...

[ISiddiqui]

As the Mets... I'm not sure the Yanks will get him, but I think its interesting to wonder what exactly they would do if Steinbrenner totally goes off his rocker and signs him to a huge money deal.

[jbmagic]

maybe the raiders could sign him to play QB...


Not funny.:rolleyes:

[ISiddiqui]

No, it actually was! :D

[daedalus]

I'm second the funny part. :D

[henry296]

I believe that has been shitcanned, effective this offseason. Not 100% certain, though.

I heard it's been discussed but not likely this offseason, since the GMs made decisions based on the compensation system. That is what I read on ESPN last week.

[saldana]

the yankees approched sheffield while he was rehabbing his wrist about playing 1st base for the rest of the year, and then next as well, before they traded for abreau...he originally resisted rather strongly, saying he wanted to continue being an outfielder....as soon as abreau came to town, he changed his tune and was telling anyone who would listen how he never had a problem with it and was more than happy to make the move....

i would expect to abreau, damon and matusi from right to left, and first to thrid being sheffield, cano, jeter, arod, with giambi as a full time DH...expect to see bernie williams out of a job.

the only way i see soriano in NY next year is if they package cabrera and cano off somewhere for some starting pitching and then sign cano to play second, but i dont think torre will like that at all, as he likes both those young players. i also dont see anything happening if they win it all this year...if they lose again (god i hope), nothing is likely to happen.

[DanGarion]

Dude.

FUCK THE TANKEES!

[Subby]

without a salary cap, how will the oaklands and minnesotas of the world ever compete?

[oykib]

saldana, the Yanks will not be picking up Sheff's option (it's a club option for '07).

[wade moore]

without a salary cap, how will the oaklands and minnesotas of the world ever compete?

I don't claim to be super-versed in the subject and don't have a big dissertation as to why there should be a salary cap..

but as a fan, I don't see how you can ignore the fac tthat there are certain teams that you know will be competitive, some who have flashes here and there, and some that have no chance of competing. Is salary the ONLY reason? No.. but it's a big one..

Football has the most parity of any of the leagues, and I like that... I just think that despite the fact that now and then some small-market teams are able to be competitive (although little luck in winning championships), that is not proof that salary doesn't matter.

[Subby]

I am not that well-versed either, but recent history simply does not support your argument.

[wade moore]

I am not that well-versed either, but recent history simply does not support your argument.

When was the last time the Yankees missed the playoffs? When is the last time the Orioles were in the playoffs? Royals? How often have the Red Sox missed the playoffs? etc, etc..

Are there a few teams that seem to be able to catch lightning in a bottle now and then, yes... but I'm pretty confidant that if you take the last 10 years and see what % of the playoff teams are in the top 1/2 payrolls and the ones in the last 1/2 the % of teams in the top 1/2 is much higher...

If I knew how to get this info, I would try to prove it...

[oykib]

When was the last time the Yankees missed the playoffs? When is the last time the Orioles were in the playoffs? Royals? How often have the Red Sox missed the playoffs? etc, etc..

Are there a few teams that seem to be able to catch lightning in a bottle now and then, yes... but I'm pretty confidant that if you take the last 10 years and see what % of the playoff teams are in the top 1/2 payrolls and the ones in the last 1/2 the % of teams in the top 1/2 is much higher...

If I knew how to get this info, I would try to prove it...

A few issues here:

The Orioles have a great market. In '96 (the start of the current Yankees run) The Orioles had the top payroll.

Oakland has the second best record over the last ten years.

Good teams always see their payroll increase. You cannot sustain success by buying players. You can only add to the nucleus by doing it. But you have to play to keep that nucleus together. That's what's happened with Oakland for example. They still have a fairly low payroll. But their payroll keeps climbing.

[wade moore]

A few issues here:

The Orioles have a great market. In '96 (the start of the current Yankees run) The Orioles had the top payroll.

Oakland has the second best record over the last ten years.

Good teams always see their payroll increase. You cannot sustain success by buying players. You can only add to the nucleus by doing it. But you have to play to keep that nucleus together. That's what's happened with Oakland for example. They still have a fairly low payroll. But their payroll keeps climbing.

Oakland had a very high payroll for a year or two, not for a sustained period of time.

You're trying to tell me that the Yankees are growing their talent from their farm system?

[lordscarlet]

When was the last time the Yankees missed the playoffs? When is the last time the Orioles were in the playoffs? Royals? How often have the Red Sox missed the playoffs? etc, etc..

Are there a few teams that seem to be able to catch lightning in a bottle now and then, yes... but I'm pretty confidant that if you take the last 10 years and see what % of the playoff teams are in the top 1/2 payrolls and the ones in the last 1/2 the % of teams in the top 1/2 is much higher...

If I knew how to get this info, I would try to prove it...

2005 Chicago White Sox Houston Astros 4-0
2004 Boston Red Sox St. Louis Cardinals 4-0
2003 Florida Marlins New York Yankees 4-2
2002 Anaheim Angels San Francisco Giants 4-3
2001 Arizona Diamondbacks New York Yankees 4-3
2000 New York Yankees New York Mets 4-1
1999 New York Yankees Atlanta Braves 4-0
1998 New York Yankees San Diego Padres 4-0
1997 Florida Marlins Cleveland Indians 4-3
1996 New York Yankees Atlanta Braves 4-2
1995 Atlanta Braves Cleveland Indians 4-2
1993 Toronto Blue Jays Philadelphia Phillies 4-2
1992 Toronto Blue Jays Atlanta Braves 4-2
1991 Minnesota Twins Atlanta Braves 4-3

The past 15 years. I'd say the smaller teams here are the Diamondbacks, Twins and the Marlins. I found this list so I could dispute you, and look what happened.

Having said that, some owners choose to not be competitive. For instance the Royals and Pirates. An owner can make just as much money with a small market team by just letting it roll in mediocrity.

[ISiddiqui]

Salaries aren't the be all and end all, but they really, really help. If you look at, say, the last 10 years, I'd imagine out of every team that has made the playoffs only a small percentage of those teams would be in the bottom half of the league in payroll. Sure you need smart front office people, but money makes it easier, as you can make a mistake, but easily be able to rectify it whereas a small market team can't.

It is always easy to say you got to spend money to make money, but it doesn't always work that way. IIRC, the Royals tried that last year (or was it two years ago), but it failed when they the pieces didn't gel and they didn't gain any new fans.

[Terps]

When was the last time the Yankees missed the playoffs? When is the last time the Orioles were in the playoffs? Royals? How often have the Red Sox missed the playoffs? etc, etc..


1997. :mad:

They went wire to wire in the AL East that year, and lost in the ALCS to Cleveland. Now have 9 straight losing seasons since. They do have a good market, and Angelos has the money to spend, he just doesn't. He claims that they'll be spenders since he now has the MASN situation settled, but he also said the same thing last offseason.

[lordscarlet]

Salaries aren't the be all and end all, but they really, really help. If you look at, say, the last 10 years, I'd imagine out of every team that has made the playoffs only a small percentage of those teams would be in the bottom half of the league in payroll. Sure you need smart front office people, but money makes it easier, as you can make a mistake, but easily be able to rectify it whereas a small market team can't.

It is always easy to say you got to spend money to make money, but it doesn't always work that way. IIRC, the Royals tried that last year (or was it two years ago), but it failed when they the pieces didn't gel and they didn't gain any new fans.

Two words: Texas. Rangers.

[wade moore]

Having said that, some owners choose to not be competitive. For instance the Royals and Pirates. An owner can make just as much money with a small market team by just letting it roll in mediocrity.

That's why you have revenue sharing..

And a minimum salary...

[ISiddiqui]

Two words: Texas. Rangers.

What about them?

[lordscarlet]

That's why you have revenue sharing..

And a minimum salary...

Baseball does not have revenue sharing. (I hope I'm correct and not making an ass of myself)

[ISiddiqui]

Luxury tax is technically 'revenue sharing', but not what he was getting at... he was just saying that situation is why there is the concept of NFL like revenue sharing.

[wade moore]

Baseball does not have revenue sharing. (I hope I'm correct and not making an ass of myself)

I know, we're talking about what I want..

Essentially I want every major sport to mirror the NFL, that's basically what I'm saying.

But, asl long as baseball is as free-wheeling as it is I think we'll almost always be seeing of the 8 teams in the playoffs, only 2 or 3 being small market teams, and of the 2 world series teams, rarely is one of them a small-market team.

[stevew]

Football's salary cap still is somewhat structured so the richer franchises can work some cap magic. Take the Skins for instance, they prove this every offseason.

[lordscarlet]

Luxury tax is technically 'revenue sharing', but not what he was getting at... he was just saying that situation is why there is the concept of NFL like revenue sharing.

My understanding is that the Luxury tax is based on spending. Revenue sharing (as the name implies) is based on revenue. Those are entirely different beasts.

[lordscarlet]

I know, we're talking about what I want..

Essentially I want every major sport to mirror the NFL, that's basically what I'm saying.

But, asl long as baseball is as free-wheeling as it is I think we'll almost always be seeing of the 8 teams in the playoffs, only 2 or 3 being small market teams, and of the 2 world series teams, rarely is one of them a small-market team.

So you don't want anyone to have guranteed contracts?

[wade moore]

So you don't want anyone to have guranteed contracts?

Nope.

This battle has been had on this board many times, I have absolutely no problem with the way the NFL contract system works and feel that non-guaranteed contracts are far superior to guaranteed contracts - Shawn Kemp proved that to us among others.

[lordscarlet]

Nope.

This battle has been had on this board many times, I have absolutely no problem with the way the NFL contract system works and feel that non-guaranteed contracts are far superior to guaranteed contracts - Shawn Kemp proved that to us among others.

As did Joe Theisman...

[wade moore]

As did Joe Theisman...

Sometimes that's how the cookie crumbles...

Or you know, bone pops out of the skin, whatever cliche you prefer...

[oykib]

The past 15 years. I'd say the smaller teams here are the Diamondbacks, Twins and the Marlins. I found this list so I could dispute you, and look what happened.

Having said that, some owners choose to not be competitive. For instance the Royals and Pirates. An owner can make just as much money with a small market team by just letting it roll in mediocrity.

Actually, the D-backs had a giant payroll. They bought that championship. But you saw how long they lasted. You can have a few good years by buying players. But you can't sustain it.

But you small market guys always miss the point. You are never going to get a low payroll team winning consistently. But you never have. Winning leads to higher payrolls. Guys go to arbitration. Your team builds for a couple of years. Then, you add a few veterans to fill in holes or get an expiring contract at the deadline.


And the beginning of the Yankees run started with the farm system. Bernie, Jeter, Posada, Andy P. They picked up a bunch of guys in trades using prospects and guys they developed: O'Neill<->Kelly, Tino<->Hitchcock and Davis, Knoblauch<->Milton, Guzman, et al.

[saldana]

My understanding is that the Luxury tax is based on spending. Revenue sharing (as the name implies) is based on revenue. Those are entirely different beasts.

the biggest problem with the luxury tax system as it is used right now is that there is no control over how teams that receive money through the tax use that money....for instance, if the yankees are required to pay 52 million in luxury tax money (i think thats what they payed last season), that money comes out of their team bank account....if 40 million of that gets given to kansas city, it doesnt go into the team bank account...it goes into the owner's bank account....if they were required to spend that money on payroll for the next season, it would be much better, IMO...instead, the owner can do what ever he wants with it, including just keep it for himself.