Decisions, Decisions
Baseball's free agency has in past years been a hierarchical process, with money frozen up until the premium players sign. Thus we wait for CC Sabathia to choose the Yankees or a West Coast team; that decision will trigger concrete offers for the next tier of top free agents, as the principals in the Sabathia sweepstakes obviously can't spend on Mark Teixeira or Francisco Rodriguez and hope to sign Sabathia at the same time. Well, except for the Yankees.
As far as the Indians are concerned, their first major action is probably in the closer market, which in a welcome change from offseasons' past seems to have more closers than serious suitors. That's a good thing, for the Indians need to improve several other areas on their club, particularly the infield. The Indians should get a pretty good closer, and they should be able to get one through free agency, not normally an avenue the Indians have used to get their major contributors.
So who's available? There are four free-agent closers that I consider good bets to be effective next season (in no particular order):
| Player | Team | WRXL | PRC |
| Brian Fuentes | COL | 3.619 | 39 |
| Francisco Rodriguez | LAA | 5.635 | 46 |
| Trevor Hoffman | SD | 1.843 | 20 |
| Kerry Wood | CHC | 2.182 | 39 |
Rodriguez and Fuentes are probably the best long-term bets, but the Indians have no chance at Rodriguez (asking for a 5/$75M contract), and signing Fuentes at his asking price of 3/$30M would fill a large portion of their offseason budget. That leaves Wood and Hoffman as the two options left that would allow the Indians to also make major improvements elsewhere on their roster. Signing Hoffman to a one-year contract, for instance, wouldn't affect their ability to sign Orlando Hudson.
The trade market is also out there (Street, Valverde, Putz, etc), but again, if you can sign Wood or Hoffman to a decent short-term deal, why bother trading your prospects for at best marginal improvement? In this instance, the trade route should only be a backup plan.
0 recs |
70 comments
Comments
I can’t find a link, but while watching football on Saturday ESPN’s ticker showed Peter Gammons reporting the Mets will offer K-Rod only a 3-year deal because he wasn’t drawing interest from any other team. There was no mention of money in the deal, but I found that interesting since he’s asking for 5 years. Maybe other teams see something in his numbers (which I’ve heard other people mention also) that implies he won’t be as effective as he has been the past 5 years.
If that is true, and he takes less money and/or years than what was being reported, I would assume that will drive down the price of other free agent closers. Maybe the Indians could get Wood for 3 years at a reasonable price.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Nov 29, 2008 11:25 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Only real concern I have is that Hoffman and Wood may end up resisting the transition to the big boy league. Pretty sure Wood is on record as preferring the National League (and if he were to change his mind, Texas would seem to be the favorite), not sure about Hoffman.
Money seems to trump all with free agencies, but I honestly think if we don’t find a fit with Hoffman, we may be left holding the bag again.
by cheech99 on
Nov 29, 2008 11:25 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m not an expert on Fuentes, but I tend to think if he could really be had for 3/30, I’d like to take that deal. I don’t think we’ll find better value than that except by freak accident.
by Jay on
Nov 30, 2008 2:16 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Here’s my problem with Fuentes:
http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_6270778
And really, I don’t know much about him either… being that he’s in the NL and out west.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Nov 30, 2008 2:26 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So your problem with Fuentes is that he was yanked from the closer role because of four bad games and he took it like a champ, eventually working his way back to the position?
by ClarkM on
Nov 30, 2008 10:40 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe it’s a personal bias against closers, but I’d rather skimp on a closer and spend whatever cash you have elsewhere. If the Indians, let’s say, can trade for Brian Roberts, then I could live with Fuentes at 3/30. I just see getting a second baseman as the priority, even if it looks like the closer signing will come first.
by Ryan on
Nov 30, 2008 9:54 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Does anybody honestly think the Orioles will trade us Roberts for anything remotely reasonable?
by fleerdon on
Nov 30, 2008 12:23 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Another rhetorical question: Would Asdrubal and Fausto be reasonable?
Extremely unlikely the Indians trade for Roberts.
by odradek on
Nov 30, 2008 9:13 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Orioles need someone at 1B and SS, and they would like prospects for rebuilding. They have some interest in giving up Roberts and Mora, since both are FAs at the end of 2009.
The Tribe needs someone at 3B and is relatively strong at 1B as APV points out.
Both teams could benefit if Roberts/Mora were traded for Peralta/Garko. Perhaps we throw in Barfield (or Marte), who might do better in a new setting. Victor would play 1B (and extend his hitting career) and back up Shoppach.
by kov on
Dec 1, 2008 9:29 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Considering the Orioles asked for Fausto/Asdrubal I seriously doubt they not only accept Peralta/Garko but throw in another player.
Also! Garko sucks.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 1, 2008 9:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s not realistic. Roberts/Cabrera isn’t better than Peralta/Cabrera. And most of all, Peralta is signed through 2010 with a club option for 2011. So you’d trade three years of one of the top shortstops in the league (yes, he is) as he enters his prime for two impending free agents?
The only Baltimore Oriole who’d entice the Indians to move Jhonny Peralta is Nick Markakis, and that’s not happening.
by xrickx on
Dec 1, 2008 11:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it’s foolish to commit 15% of our payroll to one glorified relief pitcher. I’d just as soon take our chances with Lewis or some other emerging pitcher from the minors. The money saved could be better used to lock up our own emerging talent to multiyear deals. And I would use this same reasoning to exclude buying any of the other overpriced (to us) free agents on the market. We have historically found far more value locking up our own guys and avoiding early free agency, than buying talent at market rates.
by elsandito on
Nov 30, 2008 11:10 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I’ll agree with you up to a point, but two things to say in dissent: a. the Indians haven’t won anything at all without signing high priced free agents (which is not to say we should reverse course, but let’s not idealize the situation we’re in); b. the Indians have had important contributions from free agent starting pitchers over the past few years: Millwood, then Byrd. I don’t think they should break the bank and spend enormous sums on a guy like Rodriguez, but I do think they need to upgrade, particularly on the pitching side. I will not be upset at all if they don’t do anything big in the infield — it needs work, obviously, but I think, if we’re going to spend big money, it should be on pitching — and I’ll accept the view that we should be flexible and go for either a closer or starter, depending on which is the better value, although I’d try to find a starter if all things were equal.
by peter m on
Nov 30, 2008 12:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Sort of agree. The infielders … either we can afford them, or we can’t. It’s gradually dawning on me that nobody but nobody’s got middle infielders right now. (How prescient does the Asdrubal get look these days?)
I actually wouldn’t mind springing for the right reliever, though. I’m pulling for Kerry Wood. He still throws hard, right? Can we get a &$%!ing fastball in here?
by fleerdon on
Nov 30, 2008 12:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
with you on KWood
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on
Nov 30, 2008 1:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Me too…
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.
by mjmarble on
Dec 1, 2008 12:23 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t think it has to be an either/or situation at this point. Most of our current core is locked up already.
by hans on
Nov 30, 2008 3:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t view Jensen Lewis as a compelling reason not to sign a back end reliever. 6.9 K/G, 3.6 BB/G, and 35.3 GB% looks a lot more like a middle reliever than it does back end guy. His strikeout rate was better in ‘07 but that was an even smaller sample size and this year’s numbers seem to more closely match his scouting reports.
by ClarkM on
Nov 30, 2008 7:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t view Lewis as a compelling reason to avoid signing other pitching either. My reason to avoid it is that committing $30M to one relief pitcher, or 15% of payroll, seems excessive. We will need that cash in the future to lock up players who prove themselves in the future. I would dearly love to sign a closer with a proven record. I would not want to sign a free agent at the expense of losing some of our own talent to free agency.
by elsandito on
Nov 30, 2008 8:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it ultimately isn’t that helpful to look at free agent salaries in the context of the overall budget.
As a big-picture strategy, yes, obviously — this is what drives the Indians to be focused squarely on internal development.
Ultimately, though, you put together as much of your team as possible with cheap young guys, and then lock up the arbitration years, and then get some hometown discount extensions if you can. After having done all that, however, you only have as much team as you have, and if it’s 85% of a contender, then you need to go out and buy that extra 15%.
Where do you buy it? Well, if you can pry loose a Triple-A prospect about to explode — Hafner, Asdrubal — then good for you, but the market seems to have gotten too smart for that. Ultimately, you’re going to have to sign free agents. Once you’re at that point, there is no sense in holding them to the same dollars-per-win standard as the rest of the roster — it’s not even possible, and it leads only to the conclusion that you should never sign any free agents — ever.
So we’ve got a whole bunch of super-cheap talent … Reyes, Laffey, Sowers, Huff, Jackson, Perez, Meloan, Garko, Asdrubal, Barfield, Marte, Francisco, Gutierrez, Shoppach. Then you’ve got some great values on lockup deals … Lee, Carmona, Betancourt, Peralta, Sizemore. What are we paying those guys, maybe $30 million?
Then, some hometown extensions … Westbrook and Hafner. Not getting a lot of value there, and that’s another $25 million. Finally, the free agents … Dellucci, Carroll, Kobayashi … another $10 million. (I’m not looking any of this up, so it may be significantly off.)
My point being, you can’t look at a $10 million free agent salary in the context of the whole budget — at the very least, you have to exclude the super-cheap and value-lockup guys, who make up 80 percent of the club. We have perhaps $50 million to spend on the other 20% of the club, so the real question here is: Should a closer with a very strong track record get 20% of that?
by Jay on
Dec 2, 2008 2:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Let’s assume we have $30M involved in lockup deals at the moment. The $10M X 3 we are talking about for one relief pitcher could be better allocated to devoting an additional $10M X 3 to other lockup deals. Maybe we don’t need that first 10 this year, but we may need the last 2 for guys like LaPorta or Shoppach or Meloan or someone else that emerges out of the blue. Once the money is committed to a free agent, it’s allocated, there’s no do over. Maybe the first 10 goes unused in 2009, is this the worst thing that could happen to us?
by elsandito on
Dec 3, 2008 8:16 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the “lockup deals” part of the budget will be pretty stable, because each player only spends 3-4 years in that phase. I would not spend any time worrying about that part of the budget, it will take care of itself.
LaPorta won’t even reach arbitration until 2013, and as for Meloan, well, arbitration is just not something you worry about for a reliever.
by Jay on
Dec 3, 2008 1:32 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m really dreading this offseason. The Indians don’t have a third baseman, don’t have a first baseman, don’t have a left fielder, don’t have a right fielder*, have massive question marks in the back end of the rotation, and yet they’re apparently concentrating their efforts right now on someone to pitch 60 (admittedly high-leverage) relief innings.
With CC gone, the old Pronk missing and presumed gone, and Victor gone in two years, the window is beginning to close. If they start the season with the same cast of characters at 1B/3B/LF/RF, that IMO says a lot about whether this incarnation of the Indians will be in a position to win a championship before Grady leaves.
I’m worried. Standing pat because it’s better than making the wrong move is understandable, but how many years in a row can they go into the season with the same glaring issues?
(* – Yes, I know Choo was sensational for a few months last year. There’s also no real reason to think that’s his actual level of ability.)
by thejamootz on
Nov 30, 2008 2:51 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you’re being overly pessimistic. The Indians don’t have a 3B…that I agree with. Granted, they could decide to give Marte another chance and at the very least get decent defense at the position, but they seem to have some mental block about that prospect.
We have several first basemen. None of them may fit the classic mold, but we’ve got Garko and Victor with Laporta potentially on the cusp. I’m not as much a fan as Chuck, but I do think there is good reason to think Garko will have a solid comeback season. And barring a creative trade, i don’t see a better external 1B option.
As for the outfielders….it’s true Choo probably isn’t one of the top 5 outfielders in the game as he was last season. But there are good reasons to think he can be an above average guy. Gutz, at a minimum, is probably a league average guy with his stellar defense compensating for his potentially below average bat. Francisco and Crowe I think are adequate 4th outfielders. I don’t count Dellucci because I want him gone. Outfield is not where I would want us to commit a lot of resources this offseason.
A solid rotation guy would be nice, although I think the only “upgrade” to our starting staff would come from adding a guy who can clearly be counted upon to be an above average pitcher (i.e. not a back of the rotation guy – we have plenty of those).
While relief pitching would probably be 3rd on my wish-list (behind a solid defensive infielder at 2B/SS/3B and a good starting pitcher), I don’t think it’d be a bad place to commit some cash. Especially if the market is flush.
by APV on
Nov 30, 2008 3:16 PM EST
up
reply
actions
3 recs
Remarkably, I agree with everything in this long post. Wow, nice job.
by oxforddave on
Dec 1, 2008 11:31 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i recced it too… last night.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Dec 1, 2008 3:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For some reason I find this an odd post to have been recced
by APV on
Dec 2, 2008 10:38 AM EST
up
reply
actions
2 recs
Yeah it’s not even funny. It’s just insightful and crap.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 2, 2008 11:06 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I took the post as an offseason manifesto. Really that was all that has needed to be written about this offseason. To sum it up in one post is pretty incredible.
by oxforddave on
Dec 2, 2008 11:34 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
for the record this isn’t the only non-humorous post I recced in this thread. Unusual, definitely.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on
Dec 2, 2008 9:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There’s a fair amount of unwarranted (or hopeful) optimism here: Garko bounces back, Choo remains above average, Gutierrez becomes league average (!). That’s keeping your fingers crossed and hoping three 8-1 horses come in. Check your wallet after the ninth race.
by odradek on
Dec 2, 2008 10:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Racing Form:
Garko bounces back: 15-1
Choo remains above average: 4-1
Gutierrez becomes league average: 8-1
by odradek on
Dec 3, 2008 1:05 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Are we factoring Gutierrez’s defense here?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 3, 2008 2:02 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think so. That’s a big part of his value, but he’s still a -3.2 VORP player.
by odradek on
Dec 3, 2008 7:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I know, but that’s a lot of ground to make up with glove alone.
by odradek on
Dec 3, 2008 8:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, but Gutz does that. According to Chris Dial — in his annual Offense + Defense numbers — Gutz in 2008 was worth -15.6 runs offensively but 21.7 runs defensively, so overall he was worth 6.1 runs (he rates runs above/below average at position). Thus, his great defense more than made up for his lack of offense.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Dec 3, 2008 10:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So all things considered we should take that 8-1 bet.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 3, 2008 10:31 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Remember: league average is better than replacement player. We all saw Gutierrez play a lot this past year, but I’m not sure his defense was enough to compensate for his offense. He was worthless at the plate for long stretches.
by odradek on
Dec 3, 2008 10:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, but those long stretches do not by themselves define his season or his value.
by Jay on
Dec 4, 2008 1:11 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree, but he finished strong, which colors our assessments. He sucked at the plate for most of the season. Much like Garko.
by odradek on
Dec 4, 2008 1:28 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It’s not coloring my assessment.
I actually think he hit a lot like Blake — suffering for long stretches, then suddenly looking like a really good hitter for short stretches. Which makes sense for a guy who has lots of latent power but struggles to make contact. And they both play a mean right field, too.
by Jay on
Dec 4, 2008 1:54 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Okay. I like to think that when Gutierrez is going good he looks better than Blake, but that’s probably an emotional reaction.
So the 8-1 horse wins the third race. You still need Choo to remain above average, and—here’s where we’re plunging—hoping for Ryan Garko to be semi-good again.
All three happening next year? One, sure. Two, maybe.
by odradek on
Dec 4, 2008 12:22 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He was maybe a bit more extreme in his production, he was OPS ing in the .400s for the two months prior to OPS ing in the .800s in the final two months. Where’s the real Franky?
by hans on
Dec 4, 2008 12:24 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
On that list, there were 10 AL right fielders better than Gutz (including Choo, who was second — yes, second) and 20 below him. I would call that above league average.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on
Dec 4, 2008 4:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s one way to look at it.
Another way is, in 2008 we had:
• 3 months without Sabathia
• 4 months without Westbrook
• 3 months without Carmona
• no contribution from Hafner
• almost nothing from Garko
• 4 months without Victor
• no effective bullpen at all
… and still went 81-81.
by Jay on
Dec 2, 2008 2:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
2 recs
with our current starting staff we are going to need a good bullpen, Lee and Carmona are the only ones on our staff that have more than 150 IP in a season Not counting Westbrook. I would hope we can pickup a Hoffman or Fuentes and add a starter that can give us 200+ ip. Picking up couple of hitter may make it fun to watch, but do we want to see a bunch or 8 to 9 losses?
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on
Nov 30, 2008 5:21 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
This a good point, as it stands now I am much more sceptical of us running starters who can go deep into games on a regular basis besides Lee and Carmona (and even he isn’t a certainty). Adding bullpen arms or simply just strengthening the depth in the pen is a good idea to brace for the worst case scenarios for the starting rotation (injury, ineffectiveness, etc.)
by hans on
Nov 30, 2008 8:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I couldn’t agree more – I’ve largely been skeptical in the past of signing a veteran journeyman to eat up innings because I felt it just blocked young talent and didn’t always work out, but I’m concerned with our rotation. Fausto is coming off being hurt this year and only has one amazing year under his belt and Sleepy Kitty is a mere 7 months away from loud calls (some very reasoned) on this board for cutting him. He’s obviously a good pitcher, but how good really? And do we really want to pitch our hopes on Westbrook coming back by midseason from his injury? It’s all very worrysome.
Bad news is that Shapiro isn’t always the best on building a non-historically bad bullpen. Good news is that this should be his “on” year. Anyone else want to head with me to Vegas to play some roulette or craps? 50/50 right?
Still the local "Barfield Bounces Back Believer" and also has hopes for Gutz. Free Marte.
by mjmarble on
Dec 1, 2008 12:31 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Just think last year CC, Carmona, Westbrook, Byrd and Laffey with Lee on the outside looking in, what difference a year makes.
Fan in Texas
by fanintexas on
Dec 1, 2008 8:37 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the consensus thought on a “verteran” pitcher was not a journeyman, but rather a #3 type pitcher. Signing a #3 wouldn’t block anyone.
by KevinV on
Dec 1, 2008 9:29 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, by definition it would block a rotation spot that could only go to a “young” guy or a trade fill-in. That’s most probably not a bad thing, but I just thought I’d be a pain in the arse here.
by danvail on
Dec 1, 2008 2:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
By “block” i was referring to the fact that a roster & rotation spot would be dedicated to any FA we sign. I would also contend that you would have to expect comparable or better performance to say a minor leaguer is blocked. I would say that Dellucci is blocking now because we could expect as good or better performance from just about anyone, and we have to keep him anyway.
Signing a #5 veteran starter would be blocking because we could expect that level of performance from Laffey/Sowers/Huff and we would have to keep dedicating a spot to the FA anyway.
If we signed a #3, it wouldn’t be blocking because you can’t expect that level of performance out of a Laffey/Sowers/Huff.
by KevinV on
Dec 1, 2008 6:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Kerry Wood wasn’t offered arbitration. The Indians already had a protected pick (correct?) but I thought it was interesting enough to mention. I don’t know if the Mets care about draft picks but if they do they just might want Wood even more now.
Yeah, I said it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 1, 2008 10:01 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Cubs must have been worried Wood and Howry would accept arbitration. I’d be wary of Kerry. The Cubs seem to be trying to whistle nonchalantly as they hurry him out the door. Well, there’s always Daryle Ward.
by odradek on
Dec 1, 2008 10:54 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Cubs seem to be trying to whistle nonchalantly as they hurry him out the door.
Nah.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 1, 2008 11:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Being exposed to New York sports talk way too much, it definitely seems like the Mets are using Fuentes to drive down the K-Rod asking price. They appear to be set on whichever of those two they can get.
by Roger Dorn on
Dec 2, 2008 7:46 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s not what I was going for but it fits perfectly.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on
Dec 2, 2008 11:09 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Can’t get the video to embed, so I’ll just post this.
by Luis (Tribe Fan in London) on
Dec 4, 2008 5:39 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, that’s funny, because Hendry made those comments about how Wood (and his family) were deserving of a multi-year deal. But he wasn’t going to offer it, and isn’t even banking on another team offering it.
I say get him.
by dgcambridge on
Dec 2, 2008 6:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
K-Rod’s delivery looks like a ticking time bomb to me. No thanks.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on
Dec 3, 2008 10:48 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I think he’s already starting to experience some issues, actually (this is also in response to Buckeye Brad’s comment about GM’s hesitating with K-Rod so far). If you look at his average velocity, Rodriguez has lost at least a MPH off his fastball every year since 2006. The same trend can be seen in his slider as well. As a result, Rodriguez has started using his fastball and slider less each year (biggest drop off between 2006-2007) and started using his changeup almost twice as much in 2008.
One might argue that Rodriguez is sacrificing velocity for better control, but I don’t think that’s the case. At the same time his velocity was sinking, his K/BB ratio was also dropping. K/BB was 3.50 in 2006, 2.65 in 2007, and 2.26 this year. His WHIP did the same thing starting at 1.10, then 1.25, and 1.28 in 2008. His peripherals have gotten worse three years in a row (I have a theory his ERA was kept low this year by a good defense and a bit of luck).
If K-Rod was making any intentional adjustments to his delivery during this stretch, it doesn’t look like it really did him any favors. I think a lot of teams have caught on to these trends and are being extra-careful with him.
Right now, I agree with the ticking time bomb analogy.
by Pronk33 on
Dec 5, 2008 9:22 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Seems to me a lot of signings come down to a team either looking for a reason to sign a guy, or looking for a reason not to. K-Rod may have slipped below the threshold in between those scenarios, in part because of the economy.
I am still pretty firmly in the Kerry Wood camp.
by Jay on
Dec 6, 2008 12:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, Kerry Wood is looking like a really good choice right now. I think you could probably argue that a lot of the FA closers (except maybe Fuentes) this year have at least some significant injury risk (be it age, past history, etc.), so if you take that out of the equation I agree that Wood would be the best option to pursue.
by Pronk33 on
Dec 6, 2008 1:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs

















