Soria is among the Royals' very best trading chips, and they should look long and hard about using it.
I know Sam Mellinger wasn't suggesting that KC trade Soria but was merely saying they should at least consider it. There is a difference, a subtle one sure but a difference nonetheless. But as the White House might say that is wrong thinking. I hate the argument that a losing team doesn't need a good closer because I got news for you, a losing team needs good players period - closers, starters, outfielders, infielders, etc. I mean you could also make the argument that they don't need Greinke because he only pitches every fifth day. (Prediction, the bogus Greinke rumors will continue until he is actually traded.)
It drives me crazy because I've watched KC for years trade off their best players for prospects. When has it ever turned out? What's the sum total KC has received for Appier, Damon, Beltran, and Dye? Yeah I know those trades happened years ago and we have a different GM (more on him later today) but his record isn't so hot either. I mean we already know what Moore likes in a player (low OBP, terrible defense) so trading Soria cripples an already suspect bullpen and probably weakens the offense and defense.
Now should they listen to offers? Well yeah, they have to but they shouldn't consider any offer unless it offers multiple ML ready players with tremendous upside. And not Yuniesky Betancourt upside, which is what scares me about Moore making the trade and is the main reason why I think trading Soria would be a mistake (that and you know because he is so freaking dominant).
His definition of upside differs with reality.