Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


Bret Sabermetric
Jul 24 2005 07:52 PM

This afternoon, I heard a proposed trade that sounded interesting to me, Zambrano for Soriano (I think this tradetalk was on WFAN, but maybe not.) It had to do with Trachsel coming back soon, and the need to drop someone from the rotation anyway, so why not get a decent 2b man for Zambrano. Texas supposedly would need pitching and are looking to dump Sori, on account of his lazy ass ways twisting Buck's shorts into a knot. But his bat would look awfully sweet in the Mets' lineup, doncha think?

Jul 24 2005 08:43 PM

WFAN talkies and fans have been beaten this Soriano to the Mets to death for the last week, I think as do most people that it would take more than Zambrano to get an ALL-Star player like Soriano, he can hit, has an average glove and a below average hustle attitude, still I'd take him.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 24 2005 08:54 PM

Sorry, Irish, I've taken a break from my usual non-stop monitoring of WFAN (I've been doing hoity-toity cultural stuff--,museums and art galleries and the like all week). The point I heard was that this may be a chance for the Mets to score a coup by getting back more talent than they're giving up because of Buck's animosity toward Sori--the real question (because the trade seems like a no-brainer to me) is what do we make of that very bad attitude? Dealbreaker, or "live with it"?

Jul 24 2005 09:09 PM

]I've taken a break from my usual non-stop monitoring of WFAN (I've been doing hoity-toity cultural stuff--,museums and art galleries and the like all week).

hahaha...good one..

Anyway I say his bad attitude is not a dealbreaker, I mean Soriano has never been a guy to hustle but who knows maybe he can change, how many more guys can Showalter run outta Texas?, and maybe playing on a team like the Mets with it's heavy Latin beat might help.

Rockin' Doc
Jul 24 2005 09:47 PM

Due to their time together in the Bronx, I would expect that Randolph is pretty familiar with Soriano's work ethic and attitude. Unless Randolph had serious concerns that Soriano would be a disruption to the team, then I'd make the deal.

If Soriano was acquired to handle second base, then there would be no place for Kaz Matsui since Cairo, Anderson, and Woodward could back up Soriano. So as soon as Matsui came off the DL, I would try to move him for prospects.

But I'm not the GM. Besides, I agree with metsirish that it would likely take far more than Zambrano to get Soriano out of Texas.

Johnny Dickshot
Jul 24 2005 10:30 PM

I'm skeptical of Soriano. He's like Reyes + a little xtra power, plus he'll cost more, etc etc. He makes an awful lot of outs.

Jul 24 2005 11:08 PM

Any truth to the "Jeff Kent returning to Shea" story I see circulating?

Rockin' Doc
Jul 24 2005 11:09 PM

I agree that Soriano isn't necessarily the best fit for the Mets needs, but if all it took to get him was Zambrano (which I doubt), then I would make the deal if it were up to me.

If Soriano could be had for Ishii (yeah, right), then I would would fly to Texas and carry his luggage for him.

Frayed Knot
Jul 24 2005 11:25 PM

I think Zambrano for Soriano (and I realizing by even repeating those words I'm contributing to the concept that this is an "on the table" offer and not just some made-up by WFAN jock and/or caller speculative hot air) is the type of trade that we will make if one strikes our fancy.

- we don't want to be dealing top prospects a la Kazmir last year.
- and we'll have a lot of difficulty and will get little back for high-priced vet talent. We're better off keeping them and riding out the deals.

- But what we can do is position for position deals where we're trading off of strength for weakness, in this case excess pitching for lack of pop, Or - as mentioned elsewhere - excess CF glove/speed guys for more standard power/corner OF types.

Texas might just be pitching starved enough and Buck w/exhausted patience enough for Soriano that I think they may do it.
I expressed my dislike for Soriano elsewhere but I'd pull the trigger on this one.

Problem is that w/Oakland streaking, Anaheim holding on, and the stRangers sinking, Texas's perceived need to make a desperation pitching deal may be slipping away they might just hold on to Soriano and try to peddle him over the winter.

Bret Sabermetric
Jul 25 2005 06:12 AM

Frayed Knot wrote:
by even repeating those words I'm contributing to the concept that this is an "on the table" offer and not just some made-up by WFAN jock and/or caller speculative hot air

You realize, of course, that many Mets' deals begin as "absurd fan garbage that the Mets deny derisively"? Not to say many WFAN conversations aren't conducted with nutbars on both ends of the wire, but how often (Piazza comes to mind, but then when doesn't he?) have the Mets denied the truth (and questioned the sanity) of some proposed deal or other, only to pull off said deal within hours of said denial, almost precisely as described?

Hmmm, be pretty funny if we managed to put Matsui into this deal, and the same day pulled off Dickshot's Cameron-for-Matsui deal, thus keeping the proportion of Matsuis-to-Mets even.

Jul 25 2005 09:25 AM

I'm going on record as saying I don't want Soriano, period. Don't want him in a trade, don't want him as a FA, don't want him taking tickets, don't want him selling cheap low-quality hats in the parking lot after games.

There are simply too many concerns with this guy to warrant the cost in players and/or money. His home/road splits are atrocious--I'm envisioning his numbers with 81 games at Shea, and it ain't a pretty thought. His defense is average at a generous best. The lackluster attitude.


Johnny Dickshot
Jul 25 2005 09:33 AM

Yah, I kinda think Ray Durham offers more for less.

Same shaky D, fewer homers but good doubles, EXCELLENT OBP, costs less: It's what we need.

Frayed Knot
Jul 25 2005 10:15 AM

]You realize, of course, that many Mets' deals begin as "absurd fan garbage that the Mets deny derisively"?

Except that there's a difference between something being discussed over the airwaves that has been reported as at least a possibility via a legit source and something that some caller somewhere made up or heard as speculation from his uncle's bartender's dog that's now being mulled over as if legit since after a few hours no one can remember where it started in the first place. And you, of all people, know that it's then only a short trip from there to: "Why didn't Omar pull the trigger on the Soriano plus Teixiera for Danny Graves deal when Texas offered it last week?"

As far as I know, Zambrano for Soriano has no basis other than fan speculation/wet dream and I couldn't care less if the Mets deny deals right up until the moment they're faxing in the paperwork to complete it. Virtually every team denies, or at least shades their intent on, potential deals (they practically have to) and fans that feel hurt or lied to when it eventually comes down ("Wahhhh ... Steve Phillips lied to Todd Hundley!!!!") have no one to blame but themselves if they get "deceived".
My point in commenting on it was merely because I think the major league-for-major leaguer swap is the type of deal that we're likely to make this week if/when we make one, rather than the oft-proposed/always popular 'our prospects for your star', or 'our old guy for your youngsters' types.

Jul 25 2005 12:15 PM

I really don't like Soriano, and his H/A splits scare the shit out of me. Plus, he doesn't get on base, doesn't defend well, and is expensive.

At 29, he's not a kid anymore, and if we're going to get an expensive 2B who is a poor defender but has some pop, I think I'd rather have a Durham or a Kent. If we had to give up legit prospects for any of them, I'd pass, though.

My first choice would be a call-up. I think Cairo's a perfectly adequate fill-in at 2B but he has zero upside. Why not call up one of our kids to see how they do, as someone suggested last week? Hernandez has cooled off considerably (down to about .830 OPS in 107 AAA AB now) but Lambin remains on fire (1.053 OPS in 181 AA AB, .959 in 85 AAA AB). First we might have to trade one of our many middle infielders to make some room, but we've got depth there as well.

In terms of utility infielders and #4/#5 starting pitchers, we kind of have the market covered . . .