Skip to content

The Yankees are on Joakim Soria's no-trade list

Jul 27, 2010, 2:58 PM EDT

We’ve heard this and that about the Yankees wanting to trade for Royals’ closer Joakim Soria. That seemed like a tall order anyway given how much he’d cost the Yankees, but here’s an even better reason why it isn’t going to happen: the Yankees are one of the six teams on Soria’s no-trade list.

That report comes courtesy of Andrew Marchand of ESPN New York. Marchand says that doesn’t mean a trade couldn’t happen — the Yankees would just have to find some way to persuade Soria to drop his objection to coming to New York.  This seems silly to me, however.

Why do you think Soria has a no-trade clause that includes the Yankees? My guess: because the Yankees have the best closer in baseball history playing for them and he’s showing no signs of slowing down.  A ticket to New York for Soria or any other closer means a ticket to middle relief — the term “setup man” is nice, but it’s still middle relief — and if you’re a reliever who isn’t getting saves, you’re a reliever who isn’t going to get the money and the glory and the chicks and all that stuff.

If I were a closer the last place I’d want to go is New York. It’s the one place where you got no chance whatsoever.

  1. Jonny5 - Jul 27, 2010 at 3:12 PM

    Hmm, I see. This is why The Phills were in KC scouting monday….

  2. geoknows - Jul 27, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    Soria’s wife wouldn’t appreciate him getting chicks.

  3. SouthofHeaven - Jul 27, 2010 at 4:11 PM

    Babe Ruth’s whores wouldn’t appreciate you telling a ballplayer how to live his life, buddy!

  4. Josh Fisher - Jul 27, 2010 at 4:37 PM

    It’s not like Soria can be that worried about money…he’s signed through 2024*, so what does it matter from a dollars perspective whether he’s getting saves or holds?
    *Estimate. May not be accurate.

  5. Bradwins - Jul 27, 2010 at 4:49 PM

    Wow. You guys don’t follow baseball much, huh? When players sign contracts they often include teams that are likely to be buyers at the trade deadline as part of their limited no-trade clause.
    This gives them veto power over deals, or in some cases allows them to negotiate a contract extension or some other gesture (like a promise to pick up or turn down an option, for example) as a condition of getting the trade approved.
    Think about it: why would a player include the Pirates as part of their limited no-trade clause? What are the chances they’d ever get traded to the Pirates? It would be a waste of the clause.

  6. geoknows - Jul 27, 2010 at 4:57 PM

    2024? Wow. Not even A-Rod got a 14 year contract.

  7. bigtrav425 - Jul 27, 2010 at 6:59 PM

    Smart guy!

  8. Anon - Jul 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM

    Why would a player have the Pirates on his no-trade clause? Maybe because no one in their right mind wants to get stuck playing for the Pirates/

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

This was 'the perfect baseball game'
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. S. Kazmir (5049)
  2. K. Uehara (4403)
  3. T. Wood (3723)
  4. G. Springer (3603)
  5. M. Machado (3429)
  1. J. Kubel (3370)
  2. H. Rondon (3098)
  3. T. Walker (3098)
  4. D. Pedroia (3011)
  5. J. Reyes (3002)