Soriano again

by user BRG

Looks like Alfonso Soriano is being a selfish fool again. Earlier in the season, he thought he could go on strike against playing the outfield, only to back off because the Nats had the trump card -- his salary, which they didn't have to pay if he didn't play! Now he SAYS he wants to stay in Washington, and the Nats say they want him, and he's been playing well enough that they put him on the All-Star team even in left field, but he insists on something that the Nats won't give him -- a no-trade contract.

The person he has to negotiate with, Stan Kasten, who was put in place by the new owners as the man in charge of all baseball matters, NEVER wrote a no-trade contract, in ALL THREE of the sports where he ran a team in Atlanta. So Soriano wants to be the first? THAT good he isn't. It's against Kasten's philosophy, and the Lerners will back Kasten.

Maybe Soriano fancies himself the new Curt Flood, bucking the establishment to rearrange team/player relationships. I don't think he'll succeed.

Date

Fri 07/28/06, 11:30 am EST

DNLLegend

1222 days ago

Score 5

I totally disagree (but voted for the article). Soriano, once he signs a contract, cedes total control over where he plays unless he insists on a no-trade clause. It's not like there's another MLB league he can play for if he's traded to a team/city he doesn't want to be in. He's a very tradable commodity -- he's been traded twice (once for A-Rod!) in what, six years?, and has been the topic of trade conversation since the day he set foot in Washington. Why should he have to commit to playing in Washington, if they're not going to do the same?

Permalink | Reply

I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer

1222 days ago

Score 3

Totally agree, DNL. I think many, many, many more players should have some form of no trade clause where the player gets a say. It's the team's commitment back to the player.

Permalink

EnyboDiv-I Stud

1222 days ago

Score 2

I wouldn't say he is being selfish, I would want the same thing. But from a business perspective, I wouldn't give it to him either. That's what sports is about, you can be traded to improve the overall make-up of a team (maybe I should tell Milwaukee and Cinnci this). If you want to to play in KC, well, that's what free agency is for.

Permalink | Reply

DNLLegend

1222 days ago

Score 2

From a business perspective, I'd give him one. Why?

1. If we're a bad team, he's going to want out, so the no-trade clause is a minor problem at best.
2. If I don't give it to him, I have to give him something else. I can't just say "no" -- negotiations don't work that way. That means I probably give him money. No trade clauses are free.

Permalink

Iamadonut

1222 days ago

Score 1

could it be that this is part of the negotiating process? sori says he wants to stay. the nats appear to want to keep him. but, both sides have there price. if i were soriano i'd test the market anyway. why sign now? unless, he can persuade the nats to pay over the odds and add in that no-trade clause.

Permalink | Reply

DNLLegend

1222 days ago

Score 0

You sign now so they can't trade you before Monday, I'd suppose.

Permalink

I am a cpcpMajor Leaguer

1221 days ago

Score 0

Maybe they should work out a Kenny Lofton a la 96/97. If Sori really wanted to be a National for longer, allow Washington to rent him out for the rest of the season and then come back and sign when free agency hits. Greatly improve the team and still stay were you want to be.

Permalink | Reply

Jgov05All-American

1221 days ago

Score -1

I'm tired of players moving around from team to team so often. It's hard to remember all of the teams that some of these guys have been on (Reggie Sanders is an example). There should be more no-trade clauses.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

1219 days ago

Score -1

Perhaps the Nats can sweeten the deal in some other ways, through incentive clauses or the like. I would hope that Soriano and his agent aren't being duplicitious here.

Permalink | Reply