Master Index of Archived Threads


Soriano refuses to play outfield for Nationals

Zvon Mar 21 2006 04:46 PM

Soriano refuses to play outfield for Nationals VIERA, Fla. -- Alfonso Soriano refused to play the outfield for the Washington Nationals in what was supposed to be his spring training debut Monday night, and general manager Jim Bowden said his biggest offseason acquisition will go on the disqualified list if he doesn't agree to switch positions this week. "The player refused to take the field, which we believe is a violation of his contract," Bowden said. Soriano, a four-time All-Star second baseman, was listed as batting leadoff and playing left field on a lineup sheet posted in the Nationals' clubhouse before Monday night's 11-5 loss to the Los Angeles Dodgers. But when the Nationals took the field in the top of the first, Soriano wasn't out there. With play just about ready to start, left field was empty. Confused players and fans looked toward Washington's dugout. The only person to emerge, however, was Nationals manager Frank Robinson. He approached plate umpire Mike Estabrook and made a defensive switch, moving Ryan Church from center field to left and putting Brandon Watson in center to replace Soriano at the top of the lineup. The Nationals already have an All-Star second baseman in Jose Vidro, so they told Soriano they want him to move to the outfield, and he indicated he doesn't want to do that. But Monday provided his most concrete -- and visible -- objection. "I just hope they can fix the situation," Washington outfielder Jose Guillen said. "That's up to the people upstairs and Soriano. I think everybody's a grown-up man here. I just hope for the best for the team and those guys, and that they can fix the situation. But that's pretty much not my business." When Soriano first reported to camp last month, the question of whether he would accept the switch was left open until his return from the World Baseball Classic. Soriano played for the Dominican Republic, which was eliminated in the tournament semifinals Saturday. He joined the Nationals on Monday and worked out with teammates in the afternoon, but he wouldn't speak to reporters. The Nationals acquired Soriano from Texas in a December trade that sent outfielders Brad Wilkerson and Terrmel Sledge and pitcher Armando Galarraga to the Rangers. After the deal, Washington made it clear that Vidro would keep his spot at second; Soriano made it clear that he wasn't happy. Soriano lost his arbitration case this winter and is due to be paid $10 million this season, still a record for the highest salary awarded in arbitration. The Nationals are off Tuesday, then travel to play the St. Louis Cardinals in Jupiter on Wednesday. If Soriano refuses to play in that game and again at home against the Baltimore Orioles on Thursday, the Nationals will take action. "We told him if we get to Thursday, and he refuses to play left field, we told him at that point we will request that the commissioner's office place him on the disqualified list, at that time -- no pay, no service time," Bowden said. "If he refuses to play and goes home, and the commissioner's office accepts our request to place him on the disqualified list, then at that point, if he were to sit out this year, he would not be a free agent, he would stay our property because his service time would stay the same." Robinson sat down privately with Soriano for 20 minutes before the game Monday to explain the team's position. "If he's going to play here, he's going to have to be out in left field," Robinson said. "He said he's ready to play, he needs to play, he's ready for the season, and I penciled him in the lineup in left field." Robinson said the meeting with Soriano was civil, but the player's position was clear. "He's very sensitive, and he has a mind-set," Robinson said. "He lets you know how he feels." Trading Soriano, already a possibility, becomes more likely now -- with less than two weeks remaining before opening day. "He's going to play left field. He needs to be out there now the next couple of weeks to play, and if he's not going to play for us, we need to know so we can go forward," Bowden said. "We obviously will field offers, but we're not going to give the player away. If we can make a deal that makes sense, we will."

Bret Sabermetric Mar 21 2006 04:53 PM

[url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=1610&start=320]read more, post less[/url]

Zvon Mar 21 2006 05:03 PM

thank u-srry. feel free to delete this edge

ABG Mar 21 2006 05:03 PM

Maybe worth discussion on its own merits, regardless of the effect on the Mets.

Zvon Mar 21 2006 05:12 PM

ABG wrote: Maybe worth discussion on its own merits, regardless of the effect on the Mets. Maybe.... cause the guys acting like a selfish dork, and it looks like the worst thing that will happen to him is he'll get traded. I mean, the days of players being just thought of as mere property arent really over. Its just that now owners have to pay millions for that property. And if they pay you should play-wherever they put you.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 21 2006 07:44 PM

Zvon wrote: And if they pay you should play-wherever they put you. Well, maybe, after a couple of embossed invitations, a few Spring Trainings to learn the new position, and when you're done pursuing whatever career numbers you want at your old position. If they ask you nicely enough, of course. Then maybe.

metirish Mar 21 2006 10:25 PM

Lets say the Nationals get really desperate, I'd take Soriano if the price was right, he'd look good hitting 5 or 6 in the order....the way things look the Nationals may have a hard time trading him, very few teams could take on the money.....the next week or two should be interesting.

Nymr83 Mar 22 2006 12:05 AM

Clemens is a great player, do we want him too? I don't want a guy doing what Soriano is doing just on principle. Besides, his defense sucks and if Beltran "must hit 3rd" we need a 2-hitter not a guy who would bat 7th for us (and anyone who wants him ahead of Wright or Delgado is going to get hurt...)

Zvon Mar 22 2006 12:26 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: ="Zvon"]And if they pay you should play-wherever they put you. Well, maybe, after a couple of embossed invitations, a few Spring Trainings to learn the new position, and when you're done pursuing whatever career numbers you want at your old position. If they ask you nicely enough, of course. Then maybe. I guess Im conflicted about this, cuz i hear what your saying. A players career is his career, and the road to the hall could very well depend on how you stack up aganst other players who played the same position. You invest time in that. It does matter. Im not saying Soriano is headed to the hall or anything. But it must be every players dream when they start to aspire to that, even if only as a footnote or a stat. And Ive been against this kind of manuever when applied to other players in the past. Maybe I just dont like Soriano. Maybe its the $$$, cuz I dont know of any player of that value who was forced to play out of position. More so I think its that he refused to play at all. He makes 10 mill to play a kids game.

Elster88 Mar 22 2006 12:46 AM

Edgy DC Mar 22 2006 07:50 AM

I don't know about "forced," (or even about "out of position" when in many cases, it's unclear which positions suits a guy best, even when it's clear what suits a team best) but when I think of All-Stars who were asked to move and did because their manager explained that the team needed them to, I can think of a dozen without thinking hard.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 22 2006 07:58 AM

Zvon wrote: i hear what your saying. Well, thank you for responding to what I was saying, Zvon. I think the Mets should go after Soriano hard. Getting him w/o giving Milledge should become Omar's all-consuming goal. Washington got themselves into a mess, and we can help them out it. Remember, acquiring 10+ mil players like Soriano for younger, cheaper players can be good or it can be bad --else, why didn't some club take Manny when Boston was offering him gratis? Answer: his salary seemed out of whack with his outsized talents. If the Nationals are stuck with a Soriano problem, they might be willing to let him go for a package that doesn't include Milledge. (Prolly not, but you can try.) Offer them Nady. Offer them Diaz. Offer them Nady AND Diaz. Offer them Floyd. Offer them Floyd and Zambrano. Offer them Floyd and Glavine. Offer them Floyd and Glavine and Matsui and throw a few million into the deal. Reason with them. None of this is very likely to work but is Omar doing anything more valuable with his time in the next few weeks than getting a productive 2b-man would be? I could certainly live with Soriano for Floyd, Glavine, Matsui and cash (and maybe some cash to buy out Matsui's NT clause.) Maybe Washington would prefer that to dealing with this ongoing mess. I know I would. LoDuca C Delgado 1B Soriano 2B Reyes SS Wright 3B Milledge RF Beltran CF Diaz/Nady LF Pedro Trax Zambrano Heilman Bannister I could live with that.

Rotblatt Mar 22 2006 08:05 AM

[url=http://www.nj.com/mets/ledger/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/114300765312980.xml&coll=1]Mets related[/url] quotes on Soriano: ]Manager Willie Randolph, who was with Soriano in the Bronx and helped him make the transition from left field to second base, also had little to say when the subject was raised. "That's not my business," he said. "That's the Nationals problem." Asked what he thought of Sori ano's decision not to enter Monday night's game, Randolph said, "He never did that when I was (with the Yankees)." One Met said Soriano told him over the winter that he hadn't asked to be traded from Texas, where he was the second baseman, and that he wouldn't play left field for the Nationals. Jose Reyes, who was Soriano's teammate at the WBC, said he wasn't surprised by what Soriano did. "He said he wouldn't play (left field)," the Mets shortstop said. Cliff Floyd said he thought Sori ano just "lost his head." "When you move to a new situation, a new team, sometimes you lose your cool," Floyd said. "He probably just lost it for a minute. Hopefully, with the talent he has, he doesn't do anything crazy to hurt himself." Floyd was asked how the Mets players would handle it if one of their teammates declined to enter a game. "You would hope he'd take care of it," Floyd said. "That he would speak to us. If he doesn't speak to us, that would be his prerogative. But then you know what you're dealing with."

Edgy DC Mar 22 2006 09:01 AM

Klapisch: Being a Yankee Just Makes Folks Better People. The funny thing is the headline reflects almost nothing in the article. My mock headline is actually more accurate.

Frayed Knot Mar 22 2006 09:22 AM

From the Klapisch article: One Yankee insider seemed to speak for the entire organization when he said, "That's definitely not the Sori that we knew. If he'd ever run into a problem like that with us, you know Joe [Torre] would've handled it. And Sori would've listened." Except that the Yanx DID want to move him to the OF - CF in particular - and he balked then too. Granted it's a bit different in that he didn't refuse a direct assignment seeing as how the Yanx were considering moving him there as a future move to eventually replace Bernie, not an immediate one. But let's not pretend that it's a stone cold fact that 'it would have been handled' without a hitch. Buck and the Rangers discussed displacing him also and that raised a fuss. Geez, it sounds like this is exactly 'the Sori' that more than a few somebodies know!

ABG Mar 22 2006 09:37 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Klapisch: Being a Yankee Just Makes Folks Better People. The funny thing is the headline reflects almost nothing in the article. My mock headline is actually more accurate. I couldn't disagree more with that interpretation of the article. The premise I take is "Soriano has changed," --with at least one alternate hypothesis for why he's changed (see below)--which is distinctly different than "The Yankees are 900 times more classy than anyone else in baseball and that's why Soriano would never try this crap there." FK's quoted paragraph was really the only part--after the lede, which was really only juxtaposition, not a comment on the class of the MFYs--that even references the Yankees. I took it as almost a throwaway line. ]He'd just returned from 10 days at the World Baseball Classic, where his Dominican countrymen might've convinced Soriano the Nationals were publicly humiliating him. Maybe Soriano told Robinson and Bowden just that.

Edgy DC Mar 22 2006 10:06 AM

That was a pretty damn speculative, though, and not a little race-baiting. Klap should do better There seemed to be three or four comments (which I can't specify because the article isn't loading now) suggesting that this wasn't the Soriano that was on the Yankees, and that was, to one degreee or another, because the Yankees and Torre can deal better with unhappy players. I don't really belive my joke is a worthwhile headline, but there's not one quote representing "DC" --- the organization, the coaching staff, the season ticket holders, the people on the street, the city government, or the Feds --- much less a united DC. At least I don't think there's one quote. Again, the article won't load.

ABG Mar 22 2006 10:11 AM

Here ya go: ]It wasn't so long ago that Alfonso Soriano was one of the more popular figures in the Yankee clubhouse, trusting and eager to please, a Dominican prospect who played in Japan in 1997 and actually learned the language. Nice guy, teammates decided. Big swing but manageable ego. So how did Soriano become selfish enough to go on strike when the Nationals took the field on Monday, refusing to play left field? That's the question that's clogged up the industry's gossip machine, everyone wondering who'll prevail in this bizarre standoff. It comes to a head this afternoon, when the Nats face the Cardinals: Either Soriano gives up his demand to play second base or the club takes the extraordinary step of placing the slugger on the disqualified list. Everyone believes Soriano will cave -- "He has no choice," said one National League general manager -- but the Nationals will have to eventually trade him. The Mets would love to have Soriano, as stubborn and misguided as he appears to be, but can't absorb his $10 million salary. Not unless the Nats are willing to take Kaz Matsui and his $8 million annual salary in return, which they won't. Even if there was some other fit with the Nationals, the Mets would inherit the very problem that's sabotaging Frank Robinson's dugout: two expensive, front-line second basemen. "We can't pay [$18 million] for one position," is how one Mets senior official put it. In other words, forget about Soriano at Shea this year. And that's probably true for the other 28 teams, too. No one will give the Nats equal value for Soriano now, not since Monday's indefensible boycott. Shame on Soriano for not realizing how wrong he was, embarrassing his old-school manager. Robinson was made to look like some JV high school coach, scrambling to put a ninth player on the field while Soriano stared into space. No one's sure whether this work stoppage was a spontaneous act or if Soriano had plotted it during a morning meeting with Robinson and general manager Jim Bowden. Perhaps Soriano alerted his bosses that Monday would be his declaration of independence. He'd just returned from 10 days at the World Baseball Classic, where his Dominican countrymen might've convinced Soriano the Nationals were publicly humiliating him. Maybe Soriano told Robinson and Bowden just that. Who knows, maybe they got tough with him in return, pushing everyone to the brink. Obviously, Soriano didn't seek legal advice or union representation in this matter, or else he would've realized he has no say in where he plays, just as he can't tell the Nats where he'll hit in the batting order. According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Soriano is at the whim of the Nationals. He may not like left field -- he may actually be terrible out there -- but refusing to play stripped him of any moral or legal defense. So for the last 24 hours, Soriano has accomplished what should've been impossible: He replaced Barry Bonds as the industry's monster. One Yankee insider seemed to speak for the entire organization when he said, "That's definitely not the Sori that we knew. If he'd ever run into a problem like that with us, you know Joe [Torre] would've handled it. And Sori would've listened." But Soriano has no such rudder with the Nationals, on or off the field. He's been looking for the door ever since he was acquired in December. The Nats say he's barely spoken to his teammates in camp. What did they expect? What was Bowden thinking, trading for a player who had no desire to move to the outfield? As likeable as Soriano is -- or was -- it's obvious he's stubborn. That much can be discerned in the way he hits. Despite his coaches' best efforts, no one has been able to convince Soriano to cut down on his swing with two strikes, or to stop him from chasing down-and-away sliders, even though everyone in the ballpark knows that's what's coming after an up-and-in fastball. While it's true Soriano has been blessed with an awesome blend of power and bat speed -- he's averaged more than 35 homers and 97 RBI over the past four seasons -- he keeps swinging and missing, too. Soriano set a record by fanning 26 times in the 2003 postseason and eventually was benched by Torre in Game 5 of the World Series. On Saturday in the WBC semifinal, Soriano made the final out against Cuba by, you guessed it, fanning on a down-and-away slider. In his defense, these are all predictable surcharges for that unfiltered power. You want 30 homers a year? Then you have to accept the swing-for-the-planets mentality. But Soriano is no kid anymore. He's 30. He should have acquired a greater intelligence about his skills, just as he should understand the consequences of his actions on Monday. If he dares to sit out another game, the Nats are going to disqualify him, which is a more serious punishment than simply fining and suspending him. Being disqualified means no accrual of service time, which would deny Soriano his eligibility for 2007 free agency. Of course, the union will rush to Soriano's side. But there's not much room for interpretation on this issue. Unless Soriano can find a league where players make out their own lineups, he's stuck as a National without a friend (or a rationalization) in sight. Adios, Alfonso? Alfonso Soriano seemingly has burned his bridges in Washington. The Mets might not be the best suitors if the Nationals have to trade him: Mets: They have an opening at second base (unless you think Kaz Matsui is going to turn into Ryne Sandberg). The Mets would have to shed Matsui's salary in the deal, but that's a problem because the Nats don't need Matsui -- they already have Jose Vidro. Red Sox: Boston can afford him, but has Mark Loretta at second. Dodgers: Same as Boston, but they have Jeff Kent there. Angels: Same as L.A. and Boston, but they have Adam Kennedy there. Cubs: Soriano would be a big upgrade from the Todd Walker/Jerry Hairston platoon, but it's unlikely Chicago would cough up the money. Cardinals: Again, Soriano is better than the incumbent Junior Spivey. Again, it would come down to money.

Edgy DC Mar 22 2006 10:24 AM

Well, two times he distinguishes the behavior from that the Yankees got out of him, including in the lead.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 22 2006 10:43 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Well, two times he distinguishes the behavior from that the Yankees got out of him, including in the lead. Yet this simplistic, reductive logic is okay when applied to the Mets. If Thing A happens in the past (Soriano played Yankees w/o massive egopostional problems) then all you can say, over and over, is that Thing A happened and no one can prove that anything has changed since Thing A happened, so it's Thing A all the way. Things B, C, and M are irrelevant because they happened since Thing A happened but there's no causal relationship that's proven. Therefore Thing A could well happen again tomorrow under the right circumstances. If Sori somehow got back on Torre's team, all problems will magically disappear.

silverdsl Mar 22 2006 10:51 AM

I've always thought that Soriano was somewhat self-involved even when he was a Yankee. He tended to showboat on homeruns or almost homeruns even though that behavior was frowned upon and was resistant to being open to advice and help with his hitting and defense. I have no doubt he was popular in the clubhouse when he was in pinstripes but I think there were some hints all along that he was headstrong. As for his current situation with the Nationals, word is that Soriano would agree to play the OF if the Yankees re-aquired him. If that is true then I don't think he has a leg to stand on here because then it comes down to "I don't want to!" rather than having a legit reason such as he feels it would be bad for his career or that he will make a lousy OF'er. The reality is that Soriano is a poor second baseman and IMO, he would be doing himself a big favor by at least trying the OF on a limited basis. During spring training is the time to try it when the games don't matter. Maybe he'll be horrible and the Nationals won't be able to use him out there or maybe he'll be good and find that it's not as bad as he might think it will be. But no one really knows how he will do until he gives it a shot.

Elster88 Mar 22 2006 10:51 AM

Vic Sage Mar 22 2006 10:55 AM

No way Wilpon allows Omar to even THINK about Soriano unless he offsets alot of that $10m salary. I'd take Soriano for 50 cents on the dollar, and the Mets would surive his defense if he goes 30/30. It's not like there's another guy in the pipeline projected to even approach Soriano's production (as flawed a player as he is). Nady (or Diaz) + Zambrano (or J.Julio) + prospect (not top 5) + they either take Matsui or pay us $5m Reyes (s) Beltran (s) Wright (r) Delgado (l) Soriano (r) Floyd (l) Diaz (r) LoDuca (r) Pedro Glavine Heilman Trax Bannister

Vic Sage Mar 22 2006 11:08 AM

] If that is true then I don't think he has a leg to stand on here because then it comes down to "I don't want to!" rather than having a legit reason such as he feels it would be bad for his career or that he will make a lousy OF'er. he doesn't have a leg to stand on in either case. He has a contract to play baseball, not to play second base. It is up to the manager to decide when and where he plays. If a player is physically able to perform and refuses to, its the height of insubordination and a violation of the basic agreement. What generally prevents managers from playing guys "out of position" is that its generally detrimental to the team. In this case, it would be, in the judgment of the management, helpful to the team. All-stars have switched positions since the beginning of the game. It didn't keep guys of the HOF, like Yount or Molitor or Pete Rose ... um... well, Yount and Molitor, anyway.

Vic Sage Mar 22 2006 11:08 AM

*avi*

Willets Point Mar 22 2006 11:35 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: I could live with that. Well since you're a Red Sox fan, of course you can live with that. The only things the Mets do that would affect you would be: 1) Get the better of the Red Sox in a transaction (not likely since Boston is run by super geniuses and the Mets by lying idiots). 2) Beat the Red Sox on the field of play (minimal affect since the teams meet so rarely) 3) Use eminent domain to demolish your house for a new ballpark (I think you're safe there) Other than that the proposal sounds pretty good for beefing up the Mets lineup.

Vic Sage Mar 22 2006 11:52 AM

As Soriano is a FA after this season, acquiring him is a "win now" move. But if you're giving up Floyd and Glavine to get him, you haven't really strengthened the team overall. Offensively, floyd is actually BETTER than Soriano, plus we're giving up our #2 SPer. I'd rather have Floyd and Glavine and a warm body at 2b, than get Soriano, but with V.Diaz and Nady each becoming full-time OFers, and trax and Zambrano filling out the top of the rotation, with Bannister expected to give us 30 starts and 150-175 innings. I'm not suggesting the Nats would likely pull the trigger on my proposal, but that kind of steep discount is the only kind that (in my mind) would justify taking on Soriano.

ABG Mar 22 2006 12:37 PM

Back to Defcon 4, national sports media. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2379788

Johnny Dickshot Mar 22 2006 12:48 PM

Good.

Frayed Knot Mar 22 2006 01:11 PM

The last paragraph in the espn piece was the key: General manager Jim Bowden had threatened to put Soriano on the disqualified list, which would prevent him from playing, accruing service time and receiving his $10 million salary. So not only would he not have been getting this year's money as long as he refused, but no service time accrual means he would have pushed his FA-gency back one season and therefore missed out on the big money next year. Principle only goes so far when there's millions of buckos on the line.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 22 2006 01:17 PM

You would think so, wouldn't you?

seawolf17 Mar 22 2006 02:14 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: Good. Yeah. No way would I have wanted a bat like that in our lineup.

Elster88 Mar 22 2006 03:00 PM

Yeah me too. I'm much more comfortable with Anderson Hernandez as our starting second baseman. Who wants a guy who's hit over 30 (was it 40?) home runs in a season when you can have a guy who's hit over .300 in AAA? What the hell is wrong with you people?!?!?

Edgy DC Mar 22 2006 03:02 PM

You're making a lot of one word ("Good") here, aren't youse?

Elster88 Mar 22 2006 03:03 PM

Maybe.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 22 2006 03:53 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Mar 22 2006 04:09 PM

Vic Sage wrote: As Soriano is a FA after this season, acquiring him is a "win now" move. But if you're giving up Floyd and Glavine to get him, you haven't really strengthened the team overall. Offensively, floyd is actually BETTER than Soriano, plus we're giving up our #2 SPer. Our #2 pitcher may turn out to be a very expensive pile of #2. There's a chance that Bannister may turn out to have a better year than Glavine, and more sizable chance that the edge Glavine will have is fairly small--a chance worth taking. Floyd may be better than Soriano (and both of them are FA after this year, the difference being that maybe I'd want to re-sign Soriano, but I defintely don't want to re-sign Floyd*), BUT the combo of Floyd and Matsui vs. the combo of increased ABs for Milledge, Diaz and Nady and Soriano is far worse. There's an offensive edge there, plus the Mets have dealt with a small bottleneck at corner outfield and a talent vacuum at 2B and, IMO, improved the team. *(OE) and so is Glavine, so I don't get the win-now comment. Matsui, Glavine, Floyd and Soriano are all FA after this year. Your point being...? I also would gladly give Washington their choice of Glavine, Zambrano, or a plate of soup.

seawolf17 Mar 22 2006 03:57 PM

Floyd is not better than Soriano; not offensively. I agree with Bret (!!!).

Johnny Dickshot Mar 22 2006 04:21 PM

seawolf17 wrote: Floyd is not better than Soriano; not offensively. I agree with Bret (!!!). You're high. Career OPS+ Floyd 122; Soriano 111 Best year: Soriano 131; Floyd 152 Last year: Floyd 125; Soriano 111 VORP is a slight edge for Soriano due to the scarcity of offense at 2B 47.8-46.3, but as three teams have already acknowledged, Soriano is better suited to be an OF than a 2B, so placing him in LF would reduce his value to below that of Floyd, apples to apples.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 22 2006 04:29 PM

Just for the record, even I don't agree with Bret. The combination of Floyd in LF and Matsui at 2B (with Diaz/Nady in RF) is weaker as I said above than the combo of Milledge, Diaz and Nady in LF and RF and Soriano at 2B.

silverdsl Mar 22 2006 04:44 PM

="Frayed Knot"]The last paragraph in the espn piece was the key: General manager Jim Bowden had threatened to put Soriano on the disqualified list, which would prevent him from playing, accruing service time and receiving his $10 million salary. So not only would he not have been getting this year's money as long as he refused, but no service time accrual means he would have pushed his FA-gency back one season and therefore missed out on the big money next year. Principle only goes so far when there's millions of buckos on the line. Wow! I completely missed that Soriano would not have accrued service time if he was on the DQ list. That is huge and I would guess once he was informed of that his mind was changed very quickly about playing the OF.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 22 2006 04:44 PM

That's a pretty complicated way of saying Soriano is better than Matsui. You can always add Millege to the mix, particularly if you can, for example, trade one of Nady or Diaz for that starting pitcher you might need.

OlerudOwned Mar 22 2006 04:44 PM

On the road last season, Soriano hit .224 (.639 OPS) with 11 HRs and 31 RBI. He's no improvement (maybe worse!) than Matsui on defense. I think JDs "Good." fits perfectly.

Vic Sage Mar 22 2006 04:45 PM

]*(OE) and so is Glavine, so I don't get the win-now comment. Matsui, Glavine, Floyd and Soriano are all FA after this year. Your point being...? I also would gladly give Washington their choice of Glavine, Zambrano, or a plate of soup. the "win now" comment is about creating two holes in this year's team, by giving up our #2 starter and middle-of-the-order LFer, to fill one hole. I don't think that really helps us overall. I understand that YOU do because you totally dismiss Glavine's performance last year and project him as being exchangable for a bowl of soup, and therefore Bannister, a guy who has not been a dominant minor-league pitcher (never mind never having gotten out a major-league hitter in a game that counts) is so CLEARLY poised to be a suitable replacement, if not an actual UPGRADE, for Glavine in the rotation, based on 14 pre-season innings. And because you think the similarly untested Milledge, and the mediocre Diaz and Nady, will be upgrades over Floyd (whose been the Mets best overall player for a few years, until Wright passed him last season) and whoever will be replacing Matsui at 2b. Clearly i don't agree with your assumptions, and clearly you think i'm shooting smack into my eyeballs. Does that clarify it for you?

seawolf17 Mar 22 2006 05:01 PM

I'll say the same thing I said this time last year -- and admittedly, I was wrong last year -- I'm not 100% sold on relying on Floyd to play 150 games and hit 30 home runs this year. Maybe his health woes are behind him; but I'd much rather have a 30-year-old who's going 30-100 in 150 games every year for the last four years than a 34-year-old who's going 24-75 in 120 games over the past four years and has an ugly injury history.

Elster88 Mar 22 2006 05:26 PM

]shooting smack into my eyeballs. Ouch.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 22 2006 05:32 PM

seawolf17 wrote: I'll say the same thing I said this time last year -- and admittedly, I was wrong last year -- I'm not 100% sold on relying on Floyd to play 150 games and hit 30 home runs this year. Maybe his health woes are behind him; but I'd much rather have a 30-year-old who's going 30-100 in 150 games every year for the last four years than a 34-year-old who's going 24-75 in 120 games over the past four years and has an ugly injury history. Still, I don't swap out the better hitter for the worse one on the chance that the former may get hurt -- especially when the latter is unhappy, worse because he makes more outs than almost anyone in the league, makes $3 million more, and is committed only thru the same time frame. If Floyd were already hurt that'd be one thing... but till then, I play it safe and hope instead that if something like that does happen, that Millege or Diaz has enough upside to approach Soriano levels. Only when that fails do I go pursue a jagoff like Soriano.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 22 2006 05:34 PM

seawolf17 wrote: I'd much rather have a 30-year-old who's going 30-100 in 150 games every year for the last four years than a 34-year-old who's going 24-75 in 120 games over the past four years and has an ugly injury history. That's part of my qualm about keeping Floyd--I have no faith in his ability to stay healthy. Yes, Vic, I do think that Milledge is MLB-ready. I'd like to see him in RF asap. And Nady/Diaz's numbers last year (606 ABs, 25 HRs 81 RBI)that are comparable to Floyd's typical season. They're only getting better, and Floyd's likely to decline from his 34 HR, 98 RBI year. This is a team that needs to get seriously better than they are right now to win their division, about 5 games better. You don't get five games better with outfielders in their mid-30s and pitchers in their early 40s. You hope you can get another decent season out of such guys, but they ain't making the great leap forward for you--guys like Diaz and Bannister do that. If you're reluctant to try unproven commodities, you get what your timidity deserves.

Elster88 Mar 22 2006 05:39 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: And Nady/Diaz's numbers last year (606 ABs, 25 HRs 81 RBI)that are comparable to Floyd's typical season. I may be way off on this, but doesn't Cornelius usually get to those numbers in a lot fewer at-bats?

Rotblatt Mar 22 2006 05:43 PM

OlerudOwned wrote: On the road last season, Soriano hit .224 (.639 OPS) with 11 HRs and 31 RBI. He's no improvement (maybe worse!) than Matsui on defense. I think JDs "Good." fits perfectly. Just to expand on Olerud's point: Soriano's OBP away from Arlington the last two years is .273. Batting at Shea, he'd likely make Jose look like Rickey, and Matsui look average.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 22 2006 06:07 PM

Elster88 wrote: ="Bret Sabermetric"]And Nady/Diaz's numbers last year (606 ABs, 25 HRs 81 RBI)that are comparable to Floyd's typical season. I may be way off on this, but doesn't Cornelius usually get to those numbers in a lot fewer at-bats? I wouldn't say a lot fewer. Cliffs only gotten over 500 ABs four times in his career, in those years he's averaged 553 ABs, 29 HRs and 95 RBIs. But an average Floyd season to date is 102 games, 340 ABs, 15 HRs and 65 RBIs, roughly, or about what Nady did last year in ABs and HRs (Nady only drove in 43.)

Nymr83 Mar 22 2006 07:42 PM

But those number are (obviously) more valuable coming over 100 games than over 150. unless you think the 50-game replacement will hit .000. I think Floyd is CLEARLY a better hitter than Soriano, as shown by any park-adjusted stats you look at. Soriano is gonna stink in RFK this year and he'd stink at Shea too. Would i take him in exchange for someone i didnt see as a meaningful part of this team's present or future? (say from the group of Nady, Zambrano, and prospects not named Milledge/Pelfrey.) Sure i would. But i'm not paying even .50 on the dollar for a guy with his horrible defense, questionable hitting (he cant get on base and his power is going to evaporate outside of Texas) and horendous attitude towards the concept of "team." ]Batting at Shea, he'd likely make Jose look like Rickey, and Matsui look average. Fortunately (for those of us who like pitchers' duals and/or dislike Soriano) RFK Stadium is a huge pitcher park as well, possibly more so than Shea, so we'll get to see Soriano stink firsthand at a safe distance and within our division :)

Rockin' Doc Mar 22 2006 10:51 PM

If Soriano continues to refuse to play the outfield, then Selig should allow the Nationals to place him on the disqualified list. If he won't honor his contract by playing where and when the manager tells him to, then the team should not have to pay his selfish ass. A little time cooling his heels and forfeiting his $10 Mil. salary should help to motivate Soriano to honor his contract.

Frayed Knot Mar 22 2006 11:02 PM

It already has ... Soriano took his place in LF during today's ST game. As mentioned before, continuing to refuse the assignment would have resulted in the suspension of his salary plus a forfeiting of his FA rights for at least a year. I'm sure his agent and/or the Player's Assoc took a page out of the 'Cool Hand Luke' playbook and told him; 'we've got to get your mind right'

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 05:44 AM

You know that I've been reading this thread and mentally substituting "Piazza" for "Soriano" and laughing myself sick at all the hypocrisy, don't you?

Rotblatt Mar 23 2006 07:40 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: You know that I've been reading this thread and mentally substituting "Piazza" for "Soriano" and laughing myself sick at all the hypocrisy, don't you? Oh, yeah, it's exactly the same situation. Especially since Piazza couldn't hit out of Queens and because his crappy all-round defense TOTALLY cost us around 20 runs a year. And remember that time the Mets issued a statement that if Piazza refused to play 1B, they would put him on the disqualified list? And Piazza told them to fuck off? Good times.

KC Mar 23 2006 07:40 AM

BS: >>>reading this thread and mentally substituting "Piazza" for "Soriano" and laughing myself sick at all the hypocrisy<<< Picturing this is amusing.

KC Mar 23 2006 07:45 AM

Rot, you forgot the times he was penciled in the lineup to play first and he insubordinately didn't take the field leaving his eight teamates stadning out there with their fingers up their asses and making the manager look like a dufus head. Ah, sweet memories - just like yesterday.

Rotblatt Mar 23 2006 08:00 AM

Speaking of Piazza, he's apparently less done than he appeared during the WBC: .360 AVG/.407 OBP/.720 SLG, 3 HR in 25 Spring Training AB.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 08:14 AM

The Mets, unlike the Nationals, clearly lacked the judgment or the testicles to tell their unsubordinate prima donna to play a different position or else-- that's not the part that's hypocritical. Stupid, yes. Pandering, yes. Hypocritical, no. It's not necessary for every single part of an analogy to bear equal weight for the analogy to bring up laughter. Not if you have a good sense of humor, that is.

Rotblatt Mar 23 2006 09:33 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: The Mets, unlike the Nationals, clearly lacked the judgment or the testicles to tell their unsubordinate prima donna to play a different position or else-- that's not the part that's hypocritical. Stupid, yes. Pandering, yes. Hypocritical, no. It's not necessary for every single part of an analogy to bear equal weight for the analogy to bring up laughter. Not if you have a good sense of humor, that is. Oh, I thought your post was funny, Bret. You do raise a good point about management. On the one hand, the Nationals made the decision to trade a young, good, cheap 1B/OF for a young, overrated (but talented) and highly paid 2B in order to fill a spot in their outfield, knowing full well that said 2B had resisted being moved to the OF in the past. On the other hand, through their aggressive managerial style, they did manage to force Soriano into LF. Clearly, I'd rather have our GM and (in this situation at least) their manager, but if we're picking and chosing the whole package, I'm sticking with what we've got.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 11:53 AM

Well, the Mets did acquire a catcher in a deal whom they then signed to a longterm contract, knowing full well he would be in his mid-thirties before the contract was up. When he lost the skills needed to play catcher, the view around here was that they would be wise to wait until he felt like moving off catcher. I suggested that Howe simply write "PIAZZA 1B" in the lineup, tell him to try the position for a while, and see what he does. The response I got was less than fully supportive. Outcries of "Suspend the selfish prick" "Show him who calls the shots," "How dare he dictate where he'll play, for the salary he's getting?" etc. were far less common than Soriano seems to be getting. Wonder why? I don't, not really.

Elster88 Mar 23 2006 11:59 AM

Tell it again, Grandpa!

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 12:01 PM

Yeah, I do repeat myself a lot. Why, I've been going on about the analogy of Piazza to Soriano for--I dunno, must be years by now.

Elster88 Mar 23 2006 12:05 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 23 2006 12:37 PM

Yes, you have been going on about Piazza and his resistance to moving to first everytime the topic of greed or legacies or any other (sometimes seemingly unrelated) topic comes up. But from your last post I guess you think you are breaking new ground because this time you are making the analogy to Soriano's recent ordeal?

Elster88 Mar 23 2006 12:36 PM

OTOH, I intend to blast the Mets for the non-signing of Guerrero for the next five years. Especially because I was assured that was the only after five years could the non-move be evaluated, due to his "bad back".

Rotblatt Mar 23 2006 12:41 PM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: Well, the Mets did acquire a catcher in a deal whom they then signed to a longterm contract, knowing full well he would be in his mid-thirties before the contract was up. When he lost the skills needed to play catcher, the view around here was that they would be wise to wait until he felt like moving off catcher. I suggested that Howe simply write "PIAZZA 1B" in the lineup, tell him to try the position for a while, and see what he does. Our front office STILL looks better than Washington's. Unless I've been reading you wrong all these years, you don't necessarily think the SIGNING of Piazza was a bad move, but that our subsequent handling of him during his decline years was poor. In Soriano's case, trading for him was, frankly, retarded. And I agree with you that Robinson/management looks better here in dealing with Soriano than Howe/management did during the "Piazza to 1B" debacle. Of course, Washington also has a lot more at stake, since they've gotten zero value from Soriano and traded a good player for him. Him not playing at all would have been a disaster for them.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 23 2006 01:23 PM

Another distinction is that the Mets didn't have a great (or even very good) alternative catcher that Piazza was getting in the way of. So I don't know that his selfishness was as harmful as Soriano's would have been had he stuck to it. But yes, Piazza was selfish. The thing to do would have been to embrace (or at least accept) the move to first base. It could have prolonged his career, or made him more productive over the course of his contract. Even without a hot-shot young catcher, the Mets had reason to want Piazza to be in the best possible shape for the full seven years.

Nymr83 Mar 23 2006 01:56 PM

The difference between Piazza and Soriano is that Piazza never refused to honor his contract, he might have said no behind closed doors or suggested he didn't like the idea to the media but that is his right. He never refused to take the field when the Mets wrote "Piazza 1B" on the lineup card. Would he have refused if the Mets had called him on it the way the Nationals did to Soriano? We can't say for certain, but I'd likely to believe he'd have taken the field and saved his complaining for after the game.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 23 2006 02:14 PM

Yeah, but saying he doesn't want them to write PIAZZA 1B is a good way to ensure that it doesn't happen. And it didn't, until he finally and reluctantly agreed to it. In other words, Piazza had a chance to nip it in the bud, and Soriano didn't. (The Nationals weren't allowed to talk to Soriano until after they had completed the trade.)

Nymr83 Mar 23 2006 04:17 PM

But there was nothing stopping the Mets from writing it in there if they wanted to, they just decided to let the player dictate to them rather than telling the player what to do

Yancy Street Gang Mar 23 2006 04:35 PM

True. Push never came to shove.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 05:49 PM

Nymr83 wrote: they just decided to let the player dictate to them Which is exactly why I'm much more fed up with the team than with the player. Piazza was just looking out for #1. Selfish, not team-oriented, egotistical, sure, but there's nothing in his contract that says he must be an admirable human being. But the team--they're supposed to be all about winning, and they turned out to be much more about CYA, pleasing their schmuckiest fans, avoiding risks, putting fannies in the seats this week, than they were in winning baseball games. To me, it's unforgivable to have caved like that. I understand that's compeltely unproven that the Mets so much as asked him to switch positions. But I think it's so much worse if they HADN'T even asked that I have to believe they did ask, and were turned down. It's more than probable that they then reminded him, as the nats did Soriano, that technically they didn't need to ask, they could just write his name in at 1B and he'd have to play !B. I think he told them, "Try it." And they just backed off. If you think Robby and the Nats did well in showing Soriano the limit of his rights, then you have to think the Mets and Howe were complete wussies, which I do.

Vic Sage Mar 23 2006 06:01 PM

what about the bizarre notion that the Mets were actually better off with Piazza behind the plate? Even in decline, even LAST YEAR, he was a better offensive catcher than most others. The Mets problem was that they couldn't find a solid offensive 1Bman, which is really shocking considering that its the easiest position to fill. If there was a good hitting catcher pushing Piazza, and he refused to make room, that would be another matter but there wasn't and he didn't. In fact, his insistance in remaining a catcher was more to HIS detriment than to the team. If he had started splitting time at 1b much earlier in his career (before 30), he'd likely have extended his productive years, putting himself in line for one more big contract. But then you'd have to replace his bat as a catcher (a huge dropoff) when he replaces the regular 1bman (likely to be less of an upgrade than the downgrade you get at catcher). Moving him after he started to decline was too late, since all you get then is an average hitting 1bman and a below average catcher, rather than an above avg catcher and a below average 1bman. Under those circumstances, why would they put a gun to his head to move? They asked, just to salvage some remaining value from his contract and because they didn't want to spend the big bux for another 1bman. He probably hemmed and hawwed enough for them to back off. When they demanded it, he did it. And what do you know, he was right... he sucked!

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 06:21 PM

Because, as we're learning, there was no gun to his head needed. All they had to do was say "You're playing 1B tomorrow" and that ends the discussion. Like I said, wussies.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 23 2006 07:39 PM

I agreePiazza kinda took his move without the right enthusiasm, and they were prolly overly careful about it. What I don;t necessarily buy is whether the move was ever in the best interest of the team and prolly came as the result of caving -- to the media.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 08:57 PM

I never got the impression that the media thought this up and guaranteed success. It was a somewhat radical move--uprooting your superstar always is--but the Mets had hit hard times and were basically compiling a ton of excuses. "We're having a bad week/month/season/decade but if we stay the same, we'll start playing better soon.." Eventually they needed to accept, "No, we need to make some big changes." But that admission would have cost them face, and $$$$, and they'd rather stick with what they have and keep making excuses. "We battled." Well, maybe a little bit you battled, but mainly you bit donkey dong. I want my star player to be right out front, leading by example, embracing any changes that management wants to improve a bad situation. Even ideas that maybe were risky. Maybe Soriano will suck in LF. Maybe he won't hit 25 HRs in DC. Maybe the best career move for him is to play a mediocre 2B in a hitter's park again. But DC and Robby are trying to improve their team, and I don't think many of us here are applauding Soriano's stance.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 23 2006 09:21 PM

As I recall it, Howe one afternoon got asked when Piazza would play 1B (a huge theme on 660 that summer since they were busy looking for a reason to be indignant about something) and probably sick of all the questions, he replied, instead of the company-line "We'll assess our options down the road yyybbb" said something offhanded like, "Maybe I will soon." At that point they said, "When?" and practically checkmated the poor guy. He said, "Uh, I have plans to do it today," after which the reporters ambushed Piazza upon his arrival at the park and set off the whole stupid "why dincha ask me first?" thing. At least, that's how I remember it. I recall it being a bigger issue than it ever needed to be: There was no compelling reason to do it at the time other than the shut up, and ultimately amuse, the guys covering the team, who btw, were all pretty quick to declare it a disaster.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 23 2006 11:28 PM

That's pretty much how I remember it, too. In a larger context, the media guys weren't jerking the Mets around as much as the Mets had been jerking them around for months, maybe years. Q:Why isn't Piazza taking groundballs at firstbase now that it's September and the Mets are out of the race? A: [meaningless doubletalk] Q: Okay, Art, it's Spring Training. How come Piazza isn't working at first base a little bit? A: [more deflective b.s.] and so on. After a while, they start scheming up ways to trap Art in a contradiction or something. The Mets had years to think of an exit strategy to this Piazza/PR/media problem and they just let it stand for a long time. All they had to do, again, was tell Mike "Listen we want to give you time and all, but we have the right to put you in the lineup whenever we want to at !B, so you need to get your shit together, take some infield practice, work with Keith Hernandez, and be ready because you could read in the papers any day now that you're playing 1B tonight." They wussed out of that, and paid a high price. When Piazza started bellyaching about he wasnt properly consulted, they should have distributed to the press photocopies of the registered letter they'd sent Piazza six months ago telling him to get ready to start some games at first. Instead, he played them perfectly, and made Howe sound like a moron. Which is not difficult.