Saved By the Blog - Est. 2004

Because I was busy prepping for our little podcast yesterday, I was unable to touch on just how stupid it was that Jim Bowden didn't trade Soriano.  Between Angelos and Bowden, I might have to just move to a new area so I can root for different teams... I hear Whale's Vagina is nice this time of year.

But back to the lecture at hand. The Nats had absolutely nothing to lose by trading Soriano, even if it wasn't for a team's entire farm system, like Bowden must've been demanding. Just one decent pitching prospect would've made the deal worth it. Why? Because Soriano is not going to sign a long-term deal with the Nats... at least I hope he isn't going to.

Don't get a blogger wrong here, I love the Fonz, but wrapping up $70+ million in one player over the next four or five seasons would be the franchise's worst decision since they made this fat ball of feathers its mascot.  It would make more sense times infinity to take the $15 million a year (or there abouts) that it would cost to keep Soriano, and spend about 1/3 of that on a decent offensive left-field replacement with a solid glove, and the rest of it on a starting pitcher.  Just look at that rotation, it's probably the worst in all of baseball... at least the Royals have that all-star Mark Redman.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

• #2 Comment from sportzassassin 
  8/1/06 11:17 AM | Permalink

  If not for the deal that brought Griffey to Cincy, Bowden's time here would have been disasterous.  His big problem is he over-values his players [hence the reason he wanted Felipe Lopez and Austin Kearns so badly, since he brought them to Cincy while here].  
  
  -Sportz
  SportzAssassin.com
• #1 Comment from mffl02 
  8/1/06 11:08 AM | Permalink

  I haven't found anyone that has actually supported Bowden not trading Soriano.  Is there a person on earth that advocated not trading him?