Espn has an insider article on this i cant read it but if someone posted it that would be appreciated

side reason for posting this what are you thoughts on trading him or what do you think we could get for him. My hope would be a middle infielder but no names that could possibly fit are coming to mind

This discussion has already taken place a few times recently on the board. You'd have to find a contending team that needs a closer and has a great, young middle infielder that is redundant to another great, young middle infielder on their roster for this trade to make sense. I can't think of any team or player that fits this unlikely scenario. It would almost take a pre-trade deadline injury to a closer on a contending team for the Royals to get a net sum gain by moving Soria. Some have stated that the team is too far away from contending for a closer to be important, so trade him. I disagree. If your starting pitchers have doodoo to close out games, they will burn out and leave and/or get injured pitching too many innings. We don't want Zach going nine because Farnesworth is the closer.

I agree with ya tex...IMO, even on a non-contending team having a decent closer is very important to the whole staffs developement....Kinda like a good catcher....At least we have a very good closer.

Yeah, but on the other hand, Soria isn't the kind of workhorse you can send out there 75 times without consequences to his arm. He needs to be handled very carefully.

Then again, do I trust the ability of this front office to deal him for anything more than a couple of players the other front office doesn't mind giving up at all? Not in the least.

Based on the Royals track record of developing closers you don't trade him.

Mellinger's article in the Star was just more regurgitated and short sided analysis he got off a message board. The guy hasn't had an original idea in his life

Soria has been a savior for the Royals the past 2 years and its shocking the guy is only 25 and cheap for the next couple of years and m*rons are pushing for him to leave.

The Royals need to build on solid contributers like Soria not hopes and dreams and bad baseball theory like people like Mellinger, Pocrapksi, Rany and all the other lame cast of charactor media people try to feed you.

The media needs to shut their mouths about what the Royals and Chiefs need to do.

Yeah, I agree with both of those sentences cowhide....The fact that, IMO, he isn't really an"old school" multi-inning kind of guy, I think in hindsight the biggest debacle DM pulled last offseason was the Ramon to the bozos for coco....Getting rid of Leo for Jacobs has to be close 2nd....Having a middle relief "stopper" is more important than run producng "potential" to me....But then again, I'm a solid pitching and defense kinda guy....I also understand hindsight is easy when potential doesnt live up to expectations, but come on DM....Just my opinion.

Something else we can talk about is the putting him in the rotation idea thats been kicked around....IMO, they can't do that with current bullpen situation, or lack of....And I don't think his arm and/or stuff would hold up...Kinda like Joba.....I think he'd definately lose something.

How about this, White Sox send either or combination of Ramirez/Lillibridge/Nix to the Royals for Soria and we move Jenks to the eigth inning role while Soria becomes the closer? Depending on usage, Jenks can close occasionaly resting Soria and the Sox improve on a spotty bullpen and you guy's get a middle infielder(s)?

"You'd have to find a contending team that needs a closer and has a great, young middle infielder that is redundant to another great, young middle infielder on their roster for this trade to make sense."

They have Jason Bartlett(29), Reid Brignac(23), Sean Rodriquez(24) and recently drafted 1st overall Tim Beckham(19). They were unable to find a true closer and had 22 blown saves in 2009…

They are currently down on Dioner Navarro. I would suggest that we trade Soria for Brignac and Navarro, solving our shortstop and catcher situations.

I'd do that deal in a heartbeat.

>> Then again, do I trust the ability of this front office to deal him for anything more than a couple of players the other front office doesn't mind giving up at all? Not in the least. <<

Moore's track record on trades is spotty for sure. His best move in this situation might be to stand pat and wait.

KC has so many holes that trading Soria straight up for just a middle infielder, imo, is average at best. A worthwhile trade should land KC two puzzle pieces. Can that happen? Who knows. Soria's durability is questionable and I don't think his stock is as valuable now as it would be at next years trade deadline.

Something to think about. KC's payroll looks better in 2011 and the market currently has a handfull of decent closers available this winter. Ride the storm, keep Soria, and try to spend wisely next offseason.

Strickly looking at a baseball move and not trying to figure out if DM will botch the move or not I think anytime you have a closer at his peak...you trade him if you have glaring holes elsewhere. Relief pitchers are the easiest positions to fill, regardless of what most Royals fans here think....they are available every year.

IF you can fill a hole offensively/defensively/rotation by moving Soria, you do it and you do it without blinking an eye. I'm not saying get rid of Soria the first time you get an offer but if you do get an offer that looks good then you do it. Closers/Relievers aren't the players you keep around and try to build around....just about every spot on the diamond is more important to get built before you worry about relievers. Of course we can't have the trash we threw out there this year in the pen, BUT, we should be able to upgrade that without much trouble...."SHOULD". Everyone's poster boys last year...Leo and Ramon...were grabbed off the trash heap when we got them...it can be done again. It's done all the time by many teams every year.

If we didn't have the holes we do offensively, defensivly and in our rotation then sure, keep Soria, he's a great piece to have when you have everything else figured out, but we don't, and we need those other pieces much more than we need a closer.

>> Closers/Relievers aren't the players you keep around and try to build around.... <<

Not to nit pick, but why would another team be willing to part with worthwhile prospects if relievers aren't core pieces and "are the easiest positions to fill" via the scrap heap?

Because they would be a team a closer away from being a serious contender. Not a team in complete disarray/rebuild mode like we are.

You don't build around a closer, but you certainly add a big time closer as a final piece of a puzzle.

"You don't build around a closer,"

I'm not sure I like this as a generic rule. If I had to choose one single position to build around - no, closer wouldn't be it. Doesn't necessarily mean I look to trade my outstanding closer just because the rest of my team stinks? There isn't really much worse, in my opinion, than getting to the end of a game with the lead - even if you aren't a good team - and only having a 75% chance of winning it.

Now - having said all of that - my answer to "do you trade Soria" is exactly the same for any player, on any team. Yes, you trade them for the right price if it helps your team win.

>> Because they would be a team a closer away from being a serious contender. Not a team in complete disarray/rebuild mode like we are. <<

I understand the logic, MoNoyz, I'm trying to present the question to Jason who thinks relievers are easily replaced. My point is that trading Soria alone doesn't fix the club. And at the end of the day Moore might need to keep Soria.

MoNoyz answered your question just right....when your team has holes all over the diamond and you might be able to upgrade those hole(s) by trading a good closer you do it.

And no, pinetar, nothing is easy but relievers are the "easiest" position to fill, IMHO.

And, no one said trading Soria alone fixes the problem....trading Soria "IF" you can get something in return that fills a hole that is needed at a more important position is a step in the right direction in my eyes.

And if Moore, at the end of the day, has to keep Soria....great, keep him. I'm not saying trade him at all costs but if you can upgrade a more important position by trading him, you do it.

kubb and pinetar,

I agree with both of you. It's a complex situation to look at for sure.

Trading Soria may not completely fix this team, but were the trade astonishing enough I'd say pull the trigger.

The biggest problem is, once again, I simply have no faith in Moore to properly deal with such a delicate trade.

[["And, no one said trading Soria alone fixes the problem....trading Soria "IF" you can get something in return that fills a hole that is needed at a more important position is a step in the right direction in my eyes."]]

Agreed.

I had submitted my previous post before I saw this one.

Looks to me as though we're all on the same page concerning this. We're just explaining it in slightly different ways.

With the track record this team has for trading away good players and getting disappointing players in return, we'd be out of our minds to trade Soria!

I think the real question is where does Dayton Moore think the team needs improvements?

If I am trading Soria the trade would start out with a young shortstop, but that may be a position Moore feels he has fixed… my priority list would be SS, C, CF, RF, 2B rotation and then 3rd. If a team offered a 1st basemen and a LF, then there is no real benefit. If you get a CF and a young starter you would be upgrading two positions. Now that is not to say that you don’t make the trade because you are not getting help in 2010. Trading any player has to meet short and long term goals of the organization.