 |
|
|
| |
« Red Sox Rumors: Payton, Taguchi, Bard, Paulino | Main | Twins Rumors: Kouzmanoff, Wigginton, Cantu »
Rafael Furcal Rumors: Tuesday
5:59pm: Kinzer told Rosenthal the Dodgers, Blue Jays, Royals, and A's are in the running for Furcal, who still wants a four-year deal.
5:34pm: The Red Sox have not contacted Paul Kinzer about Furcal, says WEEI's Alex Speier.
3:28pm: J.P. Ricciardi confirmed his informational meeting with Furcal's agent. The Jays would have to move some things around to fit in any significant acquisition.
12:12pm: The Dodgers have made re-signing Furcal their top priority, says Tom Verducci.
12:32am: Though Furcal reportedly rejected an Oakland offer of four years for $35-40MM, GM Billy Beane would not say his pursuit is over.
12:11am: According to Dylan Hernandez of the L.A. Times, the Dodgers re-opened talks with Rafael Furcal Monday night. They are unwilling to give him a four-year deal.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e201053649de8d970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rafael Furcal Rumors: Tuesday:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
i dont blame them, i mean are teams really this hard up for a shortstop?
Posted by: 04Forever | December 09, 2008 at 12:21 AM
He's older now than he was when he signed his last contract. He only got 3 years then. What makes him think anyone will give him any more now?
Posted by: Michael | December 09, 2008 at 12:27 AM
But don't get me wrong, if the Royals were able to sign him and it took a 4 year deal to get it done, I wouldn't complain too much!
But I would think a 3 year, 30 mill should get the deal done.
Posted by: Michael | December 09, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Bring him to the Royals!! Trade Guillen, free up the cash, and then sign Furcal and Juan Riviera.
Posted by: Royal Jayhawk | December 09, 2008 at 12:35 AM
"But I would think a 3 year, 30 mill should get the deal done."
You're joking if you think he would accept that after rejecting 4 years for between $35-40MM.
Posted by: oaklandathleticsince88 | December 09, 2008 at 12:36 AM
He turned down four years at $9MM per... why would he take a shorter length for an extra $1MM per year to play in Kansas City?
No offense to the Royals, but...
Posted by: MorneauVP | December 09, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Michael, if a 4 year, 40 million deal wouldn't get it done, and he's looking for 4 years, why would a 3 year deal for the same per year get it done?
Posted by: Zonis | December 09, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Quick question: Who is the A's SS in 2010?
If they dont make a move within the next 6 months they are going to be stuck with internal options, and the well is pretty dry there....
Posted by: Athletic Domination | December 09, 2008 at 12:57 AM
How would trading Jose Guillen free up much cash? No team is going to take on much of his $12 million salary.
Posted by: vtadave | December 09, 2008 at 01:04 AM
What do you think: My guess is Furcal will end up setting Orland Cabrera's salary for the season. I can see OCab ending up with a deal that is about 75% - 80% of what Furcal gets.
Posted by: ChiSoxSLIM | December 09, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Top priority? How about pitching, we only have 3 guys in the rotation right now and one of those has a broken leg!
Posted by: richie | December 09, 2008 at 12:23 PM
How about the Dodgers try to inquire on JJ Hardy??? Wouldn't that make sense surely they could move three pretty good prospects for a younger, guy that will be better in the long run...just an idea....
Posted by: bartendermlb | December 09, 2008 at 12:25 PM
this could be good news, meaning no trade for Jack Wilson.
Go 3 years 35 mill to start, and eventually give him 3 years 42, so he gets more than his older deal (by a mill per year, but in this market he should consider himself lucky).
If its true we are resigning Blake, and if we did resign Furcal, I wonder how that would affect us with Sabathia if Mccourt would finally let us become players.
Then again, maybe sitting back and playing coy is the plan and then we swoop in some time this week.
I really hope we dont resign Manny, its just not worth it anymore.
Posted by: Ivdown | December 09, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Sad to see the Twins name missing from this list.
Sad but expected, I should say. They are clueless when it comes to free agents.
Posted by: BadEnoughDude | December 09, 2008 at 12:26 PM
How about the Dodgers try to inquire on JJ Hardy??? Wouldn't that make sense surely they could move three pretty good prospects for a younger, guy that will be better in the long run...just an idea....
Posted by: bartendermlb | December 09, 2008 at 12:25 PM
That would be a nice move, and it would give us some good power, but it would cost us far more than what we would be giving up for Jack Wilson, which they wanted Hu, Young, and another prospect, pitching I think.
I would be willing to go young/Hu, Elbert, and a low level prospect, but I just don't know if that would get a deal done.
Posted by: Ivdown | December 09, 2008 at 12:28 PM
if he's offered the same contract as the one he just completed, i'm guessing he'll take it... no one else is gonna give him a 4 yr offer...
Posted by: dodgrdog88 | December 09, 2008 at 12:28 PM
"How about the Dodgers try to inquire on JJ Hardy???"
If I was to deal with the Brewers, spice it up more.....
Loney (under a few years of team control) for Prince (consumate a non-arbitration deal at a decent salary) could loosen up Brewers' demands on a Hardy trade....And Prince can also be the BIG BAT, with or without Manny.
Posted by: abcrazy4dodgers | December 09, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Furcal is the Dodger's top priority, yet will not go beyond three years.
Furcal wants a 4 year deal.
Obviously, someone has to give. Me thinks it's Colletti even though Furcal's market is thin.
Posted by: studio179 | December 09, 2008 at 12:56 PM
"He's older now than he was when he signed his last contract. He only got 3 years then. What makes him think anyone will give him any more now?"
He only got 3 years last time because he took a bigger annual salary. In retrospect, the move was probably bad for both Furcal and the Dodgers. People seem to forget that Furcal is only 31 years old.
"Furcal is the Dodger's top priority, yet will not go beyond three years.
Furcal wants a 4 year deal.
Obviously, someone has to give. Me thinks it's Colletti even though Furcal's market is thin."
Actually, I think the Dodgers may have had a good strategy for once. They allowed the market for Furcal to develop without heavy interest from them. That depressed his price and is allowing them to sign him at a lower rate.
Posted by: AA | December 09, 2008 at 01:11 PM
What are the opinions on Furcal signing with the Cubs pending the Peavy trade and assuming Marquis and DeRosa are gone?
Posted by: Gbizle7 | December 09, 2008 at 03:32 PM
I thought JP said he would not sign any FA (other than trying to resign Burnett) this offseason.
Make up your mind.
Posted by: studio179 | December 09, 2008 at 03:39 PM
"What are the opinions on Furcal signing with the Cubs pending the Peavy trade and assuming Marquis and DeRosa are gone?"
I'd imagine trading Marquis and DeRosa would be to free up some $$ for Peavy and a RF. Can't see them spending it on Furcal.
Posted by: CubbyFan23 | December 09, 2008 at 03:46 PM
"5:34pm: The Red Sox have not contacted Paul Kinzer about Furcal, says WEEI's Alex Speier."
DUDES! I heard the A's have not contacted CC to sign him! Huge news!!
Posted by: kevin | December 09, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Pony up and give the 4 year deal to Furcal JP
Posted by: Larsen101 | December 09, 2008 at 06:06 PM
4 years for 44 mill should get him.GO DAYTON
Posted by: agordon04 | December 09, 2008 at 06:48 PM
I'd take Furcal over every other FA the Royals have been rumored to be in on.
But the Royals are not going to get rid of Guillen's contract. Unless he's bunched with like a Dejesus or, god forbid, Grienke. And even then I don't think it is worth it.
I'd go:
Dodgers 4:1
A's: 7:2
BJays: 10:1
Royals: 12:1
and I'm a professional...
Posted by: basicslop | December 09, 2008 at 07:16 PM
I think the Dodgers get him in the end....guessing 3 yrs with a vesting option (based on the 3 guaranteed seasons of games played).
Posted by: abcrazy4dodgers | December 09, 2008 at 07:43 PM
"If I was to deal with the Brewers, spice it up more.....
Loney (under a few years of team control) for Prince (consumate a non-arbitration deal at a decent salary) could loosen up Brewers' demands on a Hardy trade....And Prince can also be the BIG BAT, with or without Manny"
it would take another really good piece for fielder.. and i wouldnt do.. if there was one player i would keep out of the kemp/loney/ethier group it would be loney.. i think he has batting title written all over him.
Posted by: 661dodgerblue | December 09, 2008 at 07:52 PM
ab,
yeah i think furcal is coming back.. which is awesome because having him puts kemp in the 5 hole
Posted by: 661dodgerblue | December 09, 2008 at 08:13 PM
It's a long stretch, but I'm just not buying that DM is really telling us how much he can spend. In other words, I think if Dayton Moore can sell Furcal to ownership, there is no need to eat a bunch of Guillen's contract. I personally look for Guillen to have a better season. The better salesman Dayton Moore is, the better chance the Royals have of landing him. It sure would give the Royals some breathing room over the next few years to draft and develop a top of the order SS. Anyway, I've been saying since the middle of last season Furcal should be the top priority for the Royals. I think DM is capable of getting it done, and I think Glass is finally taking a real interest in making this team a winner.
Posted by: Grover'sRoyals | December 09, 2008 at 08:29 PM
Grover - Glass better be taking an interest after the fans voted to pay for those stadium improvements...plus if he takes no interest - then what kind of guy is he really? Does he have no fire or desire to win??
I agree with you about Moore not disclosing his spending limits...he never lets much info out, likes to play it quiet. I think he's going to make a very strong play at Furcal.
If we land Furcal, where does he hit, leadoff or second?
Posted by: KC Hot Corner | December 10, 2008 at 07:24 PM