- The Washington Times - Monday, July 18, 2022

If the Washington Nationals do end up trading Juan Soto, they likely don’t want to be the Florida Marlins.

Back in 2007, the Marlins — before they rebranded to the Miami Marlins — faced a similar crossroads with a young talent. Unable to finalize a long-term extension with blossoming star Miguel Cabrera, the Marlins traded the then 24-year-old to Detroit Tigers for six prospects — two of whom were then seen as the sport’s top prospects in pitcher Andrew Miller and outfielder Cameron Maybin. 

The deal, in retrospect, was a complete steal. For the Tigers

Cabrera’s trade serves as perhaps the best parallel — and a cautionary tale — for the Nationals as they now make Soto available in trades after the 23-year-old turned down a 15-year, $440 million contract offer. 

But as the Nationals survey the landscape for trade partners, there’s an expectation that Washington should be able to fetch more for Soto than the Marlins did for Cabrera — and not just because the Florida club made a mistake. 

After news broke over the weekend that Soto could be pried from Washington, ESPN’s Jeff Passan reported that rival executives believe the Nationals would require the “biggest trade package ever” to actually part ways with the Dominican outfielder. 

“A Herschel Walker deal,” one MLB general manager told ESPN.

That, of course, is a reference to the largest trade in NFL history that involved a total of 18 players and draft picks when the Vikings acquired the star running back from the Dallas Cowboys in 1989.

Major League Baseball, however, does not permit teams to trade most kinds of future draft picks for players — potentially making it more difficult for Washington to find the right suitor.  

The reality, in these situations, is that parting ways with generational talents often doesn’t pay off for the teams that trade them. 

Baseball history is littered with the kinds of one-sided deals that saw, for example, the Oakland A’s gifting slugger Mark McGwire in 1997 to the St. Louis Cardinals.

Finding the right partner for Soto could be complicated, as well. Not only would the team acquiring Soto logically have to have an attractive farm system for the Nationals to be enticed, but the club would need to have an ownership group willing to pay Soto when the time comes. 

The New York Post reported Sunday that Soto’s agent, Scott Boras, is seeking a long-term deal for his client similar to Max Scherzer’s league-high $43 million annual salary or Alex Rodriguez’s record-setting deal from 2000 in which the slugger was paid 40% more than the next-highest-paid player in the league. The price tag will likely prevent many teams from getting involved.

There will be those, though, who won’t shy away. After all, players like Soto are rarely made available. The New York Post also reported the San Diego Padres are already among those expressing interest — with San Diego wanting to pair Soto with superstar Fernando Tatis Jr. 

The Padres have shown a willingness to spend — Tatis and Manny Machado each have $300 million contracts — and their farm system is still healthy despite a series of big-swing trades over the past few years. They hold MLB Pipeline’s ninth overall prospect in shortstop C.J. Abrams and have four total in the top 100. 

Then there’s the Los Angeles Dodgers, with a history of franchise-changing deals with the Nationals — see last year’s deal with Trea Turner and Scherzer. They, too, still have a well-stocked talent pool despite being an annual contender. The Boston Red Sox, the New York Mets and Yankees have also been floated in recent days.

Ironically, it may be the Tigers who could make the most enticing offer. They have two top-five prospects in outfielder Riley Greene and first baseman Spencer Torkelson, though it should be noted that the latter was recently sent back to the minors after hitting .197 this season. 

Still, the Tigers have been in this position before. It worked out quite well for them last time.

• Matthew Paras can be reached at mparas@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide