BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Soriano, Nats Appear Headed for Second Go-Round

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, March 20, 2006

Soriano, Nats Appear Headed for Second Go-Round

At this point, I don’t see any upside for Soriano refusing the move to left.

Traded to a new league, Soriano goes from an extreme hitter’s park (Ameriquest Field) to an extreme pitcher’s park (RFK Stadium) and is being asked to change positions in his final year before reaching free agency. The benching during the WBC was only the latest indignity.

Jim Furtado Posted: March 20, 2006 at 11:41 AM | 36 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: nationals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Craig in MN Posted: March 20, 2006 at 02:00 PM (#1908236)

Most notable passage from the article:

The Nationals have mapped out their options in the event he refuses to play, including possibly placing him on the little-used "disqualified" list, which would allow the team to suspend him without pay and not lose a spot on their 25-man roster.

This is going to get really interesting.

2. Tim Stauffer, Trot Nixon's Coming (Dan Lee) Posted: March 20, 2006 at 02:14 PM (#1908245)

So they may end up getting absolutely nothing for Wilkerson and Sledge.

Bowden is a genius.

3. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: March 20, 2006 at 02:23 PM (#1908254)

Isn't it incredible? I couldn't believe the trade in the first place, but trading Wilkerson for the disqualified list would be remarkable; just like the NBA. In the NBA, though, they'd be able to trade him to the Knicks for Jamal Crawford, who would probably play 2b better than Soriano anyway. Maybe they can do the MLB equivilant and trade him to the Mets for Keppinger and Nady.

4. Dan Szymborski

Posted: March 20, 2006 at 02:46 PM (#1908268)

I hope Bowden stands up to Soriano and makes good on the threat - Soriano doesn't have any right to demand to play a position and while Bowden is an ego-inflated empty suit, he's probably the type of GM that wouldn't cut his losses at this point.

It'd be highly entertaining for Soriano to be on the disqualified list for the first 6 weeks, apologize, mvoe to left, and then be informed by the Senators that he's no longer going to have 6 years of service at the end of the season.

5. Craig in MN Posted: March 20, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#1908287)

he's no longer going to have 6 years of service at the end of the season.

Does time on the disqualified list not count as service time? I guess that makes sense, but I really don't know. That would be rich. It is amazing that teams would have that much leniency. I kind of have a feeling that these secondary isues will be big factors in the next union negotiations...it might not be smart for MLB to try to flex it's muscle right now and alert the union to a potential rallying point.

Could they still option Soriano to the minors if the disqualified list doesn't work out? They'd still have to pay him, but at least he wouldn't be earning service time.

6. Russlan will never be fond of Jason Bay Posted: March 20, 2006 at 03:39 PM (#1908296)

Could they still option Soriano to the minors if the disqualified list doesn't work out? They'd still have to pay him, but at least he wouldn't be earning service time.

I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think after a player acquires a certain amount of playing time in the majors he can't be sent down to the minors even if he has options remaining. It makes senses to me because if teams could do that, they would be able to prevent players from becoming free agents. For example, the Marlins could have sent Burnett to the minors last September and kept him for the 2006 season.

7. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 20, 2006 at 03:57 PM (#1908307)

This is classy I think.....

On Feb. 23, the day Soriano reported to camp, team officials held a two-hour meeting with him and his agent at a Perkins restaurant in Viera

If I were Soriano, I would've preferred IHOP

8. Chris Needham Posted: March 20, 2006 at 04:02 PM (#1908312)

7: By all accounts of Viera, it was either the Perkins or a Panera. At least they sprung for the table service. ;)

As far as whether the DQ list counts for service time, I suppose it wouldn't much matter. Wouldn't Soriano stand more to make via arbitration (Say....$12-13?) than he would on the open market, especially given the 'problems' this spring?

9. bunyon Posted: March 20, 2006 at 04:06 PM (#1908314)

CBW, I think there is a rest stop off of 95 that was free that day.

10. ChadBradfordWannabe Posted: March 20, 2006 at 04:13 PM (#1908324)

CBW, I think there is a rest stop off of 95 that was free that day.

You're probably right. So I wonder why the didn't just do the McD's dollar menu instead. I have Soriano down for 3 sausage biscuits (no egg) and a coffee. That and/or a schmoke and a pancake.

11. The Artist Posted: March 20, 2006 at 04:19 PM (#1908331)

I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think after a player acquires a certain amount of playing time in the majors he can't be sent down to the minors even if he has options remaining. It makes senses to me because if teams could do that, they would be able to prevent players from becoming free agents. For example, the Marlins could have sent Burnett to the minors last September and kept him for the 2006 season.

I don't think Soriano has any minor league options left, so its not viable. At what point do the Nationals pay him 1/6th of his salary and just cut bait ? Paying $8.2 million (5/6th of his salary) to a guy who hit at a replacement level for a 2b away from AmeriQuest is just... surreal. Perhaps moving away from 2b will allow him to improve his hitting, but still.

12. fra paolo Posted: March 20, 2006 at 04:44 PM (#1908379)

13. Craig in MN Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#1908437)

I don't think Soriano has any minor league options left, so its not viable.

It looks to me like he only spent time in the minors in 1999 & 2000, so I don't know why he wouldn't have an option left. I don't know if he's got too much service time for that to be an possibility though.

14. Chris Needham Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:15 PM (#1908464)

You can only use options in the first three years after you're placed on the 40-man. Now, if you spend an entire season in the minors, you're given a fourth year of eligibility. Even though he spent time in the minors in just two seasons, he doesn't have any eligibility left.

15. Craig in MN Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:32 PM (#1908502)

That can't be right. The Twins sent Luis Rivas down to AAA for a while last year, during what was his 5th consecutive season in MLB. I can understand that there might be a different distinction between Rivas and Soriano (other than being able to hit a baseball), but I don't think that options are just limited to the first 4 years.

16. Chris Needham Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:43 PM (#1908522)

Good point. I guess I misread it. Why can't MLB actually post these rules?

17. Chris Needham Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:45 PM (#1908524)

Ah... If you have five years of service, and you still have an option year, you have to give permission to be optioned.

Plus, after three years of service time, they have to clear waivers.

So they'd need Soriano's permission, AND he'd have to clear waivers.

18. TVerik Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:48 PM (#1908528)

Other than a serious roster crunch (the likes of which I don't see the Nats having), why would the Nats send Soriano to the minors even if they could? They can't be concerned with his service time.

Just park him on the end of the Nats bench if he isn't working for your team.

Or, for even less use, find a way to get him on the less effective end of a Joe Torre bullpen.

19. TVerik Posted: March 20, 2006 at 05:55 PM (#1908549)

Why are you returning this item?

For spite.

20. North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan Posted: March 20, 2006 at 11:20 PM (#1908979)

I didn't RTFA, but if I were Soriano's agent, I sure would want him to stay at 2B. There are plenty of teams that will accept his offensive production at 2B and ignore defense, but how many teams are going to accept his production at a corner outfield spot, especially when there is no guarantee that his defense will be a whole lot better there?

21. Tonight's special is maggot-infested carcass Posted: March 20, 2006 at 11:33 PM (#1908996)

What were the circumstances under which Giambi would have gone to the minors last year? He had to give permission, which he didn't. But I don't remember any talk about how he would have to go on waivers. Maybe it was a foregone conclusion that he would clear, but it seems like that little obstacle would have been mentioned.

22. Dan Szymborski

Posted: March 20, 2006 at 11:40 PM (#1909004)

I had a quick look at the CBA, and a cursory reading leads me to think time on the Disqualified List does count toward service time. But also that you have to be removed from the Disqualified List before you can play for another team.

Article 21a doesn't cover this. Players are on a club's active list and get service time if they're on a disciplinary suspension, which is different than a contract violation, which is essentially what this is. A.J. Burnett still got service time after the team sent him home - Juan Rincon still got service time while he was suspended for PED use.

Attachment 10 keeps players that would be otherwise eligible for free agency from being prevented from seeking free agency. Soriano's not otherwise eligible to be a free agent - he has 5 years of service time. As long as he's stuck there, his only right on the disqualified list is for the Nationals to offer him arbitration and a new contract every year as they would have to do with any player with five years' service.

23. BeQC Posted: March 21, 2006 at 01:12 AM (#1909087)

Well, this story next the next step as Soriano refused to go out on the field versus LAD today, prompting Frank Robinson to have to go out and make a lineup change before the game started, since only 8 guys took the field. Then, the Nats, seem to have thrown the ball back into Sori's court by flat-out telling him he is going on the disqualified list if he doesn't move.
Man, the longer this goes on, the more both Sori and Bowden look like the idiot/a-holes that they are. Good show.

24. Rich Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:02 AM (#1909184)

The Nats have no choice but to play hardball with Sori.

He has not been the same guy since Raul Mondesi was traded to the Yankees.

25. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:12 AM (#1909201)

it might not be smart for MLB to try to flex it's muscle right now and alert the union to a potential rallying point

On the other hand, an arbitration victory in this case would convince the MLBPA that this provision is worth a concession or two.

The Nats have no choice but to play hardball with Sori.

And he has no choice but to accede to their demands. If he's worried about position because of his FA contract, he won't be doing himself any favors by forcing a team to put him on the disqualified list.

Has that thing ever been used before?

26. Rob Base Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:16 AM (#1909211)

Did the Yankees put Bubba Trammell on the DQ list?

27. Danny Posted: March 21, 2006 at 02:18 AM (#1909215)

Has that thing ever been used before?

Operation Shutdown?

28. I Love LA (OFF) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:17 AM (#1909333)

This is stupid. Why should Soriano have to endure Bowden's stupidity? How could the Nats suspend him for refusing to play a position he has never played in his major league career? If this is legal, what's stopping the Astros putting Bagwell behind the plate or make him Lidge's setupman so that they can put him on the disqualified list when he refuses to do it?

29. BeQC Posted: March 21, 2006 at 03:38 AM (#1909409)

There is nothing legal stopping the Astros from doing that, although they never would because they have a vested interest in their own success. If someone can refuse to play a certain position, they could refuse to only bat in a certain part of the lineup as well. Is that fair? If a player doesn't stipulate in a contract that they can play a certain position, why shouldn't it be up the club? They pay his salary, and they should feel free to use anyone however they feel best suits the team.

30. Rob Base Posted: March 21, 2006 at 04:08 AM (#1909500)

If this is legal, what's stopping the Astros putting Bagwell behind the plate or make him Lidge's setupman so that they can put him on the disqualified list when he refuses to do it?

If I were Bagwell, I'd demand a spot in the rotation.

31. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: March 21, 2006 at 04:42 AM (#1909625)

what's stopping the Astros putting Bagwell behind the plate or make him Lidge's setupman so that they can put him on the disqualified list when he refuses to do it?

Because he wouldn't refuse to do it. If things got to the point where the club was asking absurd things of a player just to save some money, the player would simply grab a catcher's mitt or head out to the mound.

Left field is not absurd, and the Soriano situation isn't about money.

32. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: March 21, 2006 at 05:27 AM (#1909754)

Positions on the field aren't the same as positions in the batting order. Hitting the ball is hitting the ball, whenever you come up. You don't have to learn to hit 5th. Plus, a player's salary is based on a comparison with others at the same defensive position, not others in the same batting order position. I think Soriano should have accepted left field, but I can see his argument. Now that they've written his name in the lineup and he's refused to take the field, I think the gauntlet has been thrown. I don't see this ending well.

The law student in me would love to see what would happen if the Nats made him sit out the year and Soriano sued to become a free agent. I can't believe a court would let the Nats force the choice on Soriano of left field for them or no baseball forever. He's not an indentured servant; the 13th Amendment hasn't been repealed.

33. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: March 21, 2006 at 05:39 AM (#1909792)

They can't release him either, can they? They'd have to eat his salary to do that.

34. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 06:41 AM (#1909999)

The law student in me would love to see what would happen if the Nats made him sit out the year and Soriano sued to become a free agent. I can't believe a court would let the Nats force the choice on Soriano of left field for them or no baseball forever. He's not an indentured servant; the 13th Amendment hasn't been repealed.

Which is why they can't compel specific performance. It doesn't really have much to do with whether he can work in MLB.

35. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: March 21, 2006 at 07:54 AM (#1910102)

They can't force him to play LF. Similarly, they can't force him to choose: play LF (for us) or don't play MLB.

36. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: March 21, 2006 at 07:39 PM (#1910846)

They can't force him to play LF. Similarly, they can't force him to choose: play LF (for us) or don't play MLB.

The contract that he signed says that they can.

If he just decided not to show up at all because he didn't feel like it, do you think that this would entitle him to free agency? So why do you think it's different if his motive for showing up is egotism rather than laziness?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, March 20, 2006

Soriano, Nats Appear Headed for Second Go-Round

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics