Cafardo On Morales, Yoon, Cruz, Drew

One prominent American League player told Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe that he believes players put quite a bit of pressure on Alex Rodriguez to withdraw his lawsuit against the union.  “It didn’t go over too well and Alex heard about it a lot. Nobody ever understood it. He did the right thing by dropping it,” said the players.  Someone who knows A-Rod well believes that he's planning on resting up his hip for the year and coming back strong.  Cafardo doesn't doubt that the third baseman can make a comeback, but he wonders if the Yankees might just eat the remainder of his contract and cut him loose.  Here's more from today's column..  

  • There is mutual interest between the Pirates and Kendrys Morales, but the Bucs may prefer to find their first baseman via trade.  Cafardo cites the MetsIke Davis, the Blue JaysAdam Lind, and the RangersMitch Moreland among the possibilities.
  • There's lots of competition for Suk-Min Yoon out there and while the Red Sox, OriolesBlue Jays, and Diamondbacks are among the interested clubs, one National League GM says that the pitcher could go to anyone.
  • The Mariners' interest in Nelson Cruz has not waned but the number of years remains the sticking point in talks.
  • The Mets remain the best bet to land Stephen Drew, but he still receives text messages from Red Sox teammates hoping that he'll return.
  • The Dodgers still have an outfield surplus with Andre Ethier, Carl Crawford, Matt Kemp, and Yasiel Puig in tow, but they don't appear to be in any hurry to break it up.


76 Responses to Cafardo On Morales, Yoon, Cruz, Drew Leave a Reply

  1. MadmanTX 1 year ago

    Moreland to the Pirates for all the Iron City we can drink.

    • Daniel Morairity 1 year ago

      i agree with you moreland needs to go to pittsburgh so that the rangers can go after morales

  2. GrilledCheese39 1 year ago

    Morales fits good with the Pirates in my opinion, minus the fact he isn’t a great fielder.. Marte/Walker/McCutchen/Alvarez/Morales/Martin/Mercer/Tabata is solid.. And when Polanco comes up the lineup is: Marte/Polanco/McCutchen/Alvarez/Morales/Walker/Martin/Mercer

  3. MaineSkin 1 year ago

    LAD also have Joc Pederson who really has only Ks to work on in the PCL. He’s an athlete and cheap, but Ethier has the LHB and Craword/Kemp have the massive contracts. My match is SD takes on Kemp and deals Headley while LAD pay half of Kemp’s salary. Both team needs including SD needing that “Kemp” like presence to get Alonso, Everth, Grandel, Ross, Erlin, etc…to really gel.

    • paylly 1 year ago

      Good trade, but Dodgers would never make that move within division.

    • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

      Seriously, if folks on the East Coast want to comment on West Coast teams, some studying up might help. First, Pederson is still in AA. He might make the jump to triple-A this year, or not. Either way, he’s still at least a year away from the majors, unless an emergency forces a tryout. Second, the question of Kemp’s readiness is still very much on the table. He appears unlikely to be ready for opening day, and therefore the Dodgers are not enjoying a surplus of outfielders, and wouldn’t find anyone to take Kemp, even assuming they wanted to deal him — which they don’t. Finally, the Dodgers signed Uribe for two years to play third. Where would they put Headley?

      • meep 1 year ago

        Plus we have seager in the wings who might play 3rd so there really no need for. 3rd baseman right now

      • Joe Valenti 1 year ago

        How about Van Slyke? I think he is similar in value to Ethier

        • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

          Mediocre on his best days.

          • paqza 1 year ago

            Oh, you think so? Van Slyke has pretty much identical numbers and age to Jayson Werth when he broke out. I would bet money on him outproducing Crawford and Ethier if given the same amount of playing time. His 129 wRC+ was better than Ethier’s, Crawford’s, and (an injured) Kemp’s in 2013. Between his high walk rates, capable defense at first and the corner OF spots, his latent power, and solid makeup, he’s definitely a solid starting outfielder for a team with an FO that knows what it’s doing.

        • paqza 1 year ago

          In value, he’s probably a lot higher. He’s a better hitter than Ethier right now and is a heck of a lot cheaper. He’d actually be the perfect RF for the Mets, right now. A Granderson/Young/Van Slyke outfield would be very, very solid. Look at Van Slyke’s numbers – he hit better than Ethier, Crawford, and (a very injured) Matt Kemp in 2013 and got paid a lot less than all of them. His dad was also a good Major Leaguer, which means his makeup is probably quite good.

      • arbfuldodger 1 year ago

        Headley would start over Uribe in a heartbeat…Papi would then become back-up to both 3B & 1B giving Gonzo a rest against tough LHP’s like MadBum. But no need in worrying about it, no way in hell do the Dodgers deal Kemp within the division or deal him period if he’s healthy.

        • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

          Well, right. If Kemp’s health is a question mark, he’s untradable. If he can make a comeback, he’s untradable.

  4. charles 1 year ago

    its only a matter before cruz comes to seattle. they might as well agree now and get it over with. so we can put a package together to accquire homer bailey and extend him

  5. Eric 1 year ago

    Jays need to move Lind and get a starter ASAP !

    • dwarfstar 1 year ago

      Why would jays need to move Lind to get a starter. Jays have 2 protected first round picks just need to sign free agent pitcher.

      • Lucas Kschischang 1 year ago

        Because trading Lind would allow them to go after Morales, who would be a better fit as a true DH who can actually hit lefties.

  6. Morales will never be a pirate

    • AlphaICaesar 1 year ago

      He has the one leg, all he needs is a beard and an eye patch.

      • lol yeah, but for real its just a matter they are interested in him doesnt mean they will sign him. I mean im sure they were interested in Tanaka too but the fact is they will be smart and wont give up the pick for him.

        • Metsfan93 1 year ago

          I could see Morales waiting until after the draft then signing with Pittsburgh, but only if the Pirates truly think he can hold up at first, and if it’s short-term, because he definitely won’t be able to hold up in the future at first.

          • The other thing I just thought about is that fact that why make a trade for someone when realistically it be the same value as that draft pick

  7. brian310 1 year ago

    Would it be in Cruz’s best interest to take a pay cut on a one year deal with the Rangers and have a “hand-shaken” agreement not to give him a qualifying offer after the season?

    • godzillacub 1 year ago

      Those type of deals are illegal. His best bet would be to talk a bad team with a protected pick (like my Cubs, or the Astros) to sign him to a one year deal knowing their going to trade him at the deadline.

      The team gets more value for him than a #2 pick in the trade and Cruz gets a guarantee that he won’t get a QO due to being traded mid-season.

      • liberalconservative 1 year ago

        You can sign a contract with a agreement that the player will not receive a qualifying offer next year. It has happened many times.

        • harmony55 1 year ago

          That is specifically prohibited under the current MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement:

          “(c) A Club and Player (or their designated representatives) shall not enter into any agreement, understanding or contract, or make any representation, promise or commitment, whether implied or explicit, either orally or in writing, that the Club will not make a Qualifying Offer to a Player, or that a Player will not accept a Qualifying Offer if one is tendered to him. Any Club or Club employee that violates this provision will be subject to discipline by the Commissioner, including the potential forfeiture of draft selections.”

          See Article XX, Section B(5)(c) on Page 90 of the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement.

          • Seamaholic 1 year ago

            You can’t prohibit handshake agreements. That provision is absolutely unenforceable and meaningless. And they’re common if the stories are to be believed.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            Its only been in place for one year. So not sure how you figure
            they are common. The agreements your thinking of were back when getting a Type B offer didn’t hurt the player’s value. Player doesn’t care if compensation is attached. He could still get the exact same deal as if it wasn’t offered.

            Now compensation is a direct detriment to a players FA income. No way teams and players will make those agreements, especially since its illegal.

          • Jeffy25 1 year ago

            If you want to get around this, be a bad team with your first rounder protected, and just agree to trade the player before the deadline.

            That way he can’t receive comp the following year.

            Win-win.

            The team that signed him basically gets that second pick (in value) back at the deadline, and whoever traded for him knew they needed him for the second half and playoffs.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            Huh?

          • Wek 1 year ago

            Very difficult, if not impossible, to prove there was an agreement to not offer the QO to players like Morales and Cruz (players who don’t deserve above market value for limited, deteriorating skill sets).

        • BENT_WOOKIE 1 year ago

          I believe carlos beltran’s mets contract had that language in it.

          • harmony55 1 year ago

            That was before the ratification of the current MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement.

          • liberalconservative 1 year ago

            It had to been added in the last year because Boras used to do it for his clients all the time.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            That wasn’t a one-year deal, and I’m not 100% sure, but might’ve been triggered by the trade, which is meaningless under the new CBA anyway since players traded are ineligible for QOs.

          • Joe Valenti 1 year ago

            I think it was triggered by the trade

          • paqza 1 year ago

            That was before the current rules went into place. They closed that loophole.

      • brian310 1 year ago

        Thinking about it, he would kind of makes sense on a one year deal for the cubs. Assuming Lake is the starter in center or starts in the minors (also assuming Ruggiano is platooning with Schierholtz in right)

  8. godzillacub 1 year ago

    Morales and Cruz only really make sense for teams who have: 1) Already given up their first round pick or, 2) Teams with a protected first round pick.

    The Pirates are neither.

  9. Mike1L 1 year ago

    Suing the union (and Michael Weiner) was foolish. As long as Rodriguez focused his legal energy at MLB and Bud Selig, I doubt too many of the players were going to be paying much attention. But the only reason why players make even a fraction of the money they make right now is because of MLBPA, Marvin Miller, and his successors, and a lot of them know it. The Union must have had an opportunity to see the evidence, and whether they liked Bud or not, it must have been very compelling to them just like it was to Horowitz. That placed them in an impossible position–Rodriguez was, in effect demanding that the Union adopt his scorched Earth policy which attacked the league and the process (but didn’t really dispute the validity of the evidence, just the way it was gathered.) How does the MLBPA negotiate the next CBA? There has to be a testing and punishment process everyone can live with.

  10. harmony55 1 year ago

    If Pittsburgh re-signs A.J. Burnett, could the Pirates trade the one year of 35-year-old lefthander Wandy Rodriguez and a reliever to Seattle for three years of 27-year-old firstbaseman Justin Smoak? Rodriguez is owed a net $7.5 million this season and that money could be better spent toward Burnett. Seattle needs another lefthander in the starting rotation, but Rodriguez carries some injury risk.

    • GrilledCheese39 1 year ago

      Personally, I think a Wandy for Lind swap is more likely for the Pirates..

      • publius varrus 1 year ago

        I’m not sure that the Jays need another bottom-of-the-rotation guy as much as PIT needs a passable 1B.

    • Nathan Walter 1 year ago

      I imagine Pittsburgh would have to eat a chunk of that $7.5 mil to make a move.

      • harmony55 1 year ago

        The cost of Wandy Rodriguez would be partially offset by the projected arbitration salary of $2.8 million for Justin Smoak.

        • Nathan Walter 1 year ago

          I still don’t foresee the Mariners having any desire to pay $5 mil (after taking out Smoak) for Wandy. I also don’t think they’d give up Smoak… Hart didn’t play in 2013, and Morrison wasn’t very good in 2013… Smoak might be their answer at 1B this year.

    • Jared Keeney 1 year ago

      As a mariners fan I would take this deal. But yes we would need some help on the 7.5M. However, I was hoping for maybe a trade involving Smoak and someone else for Tabata.

      Maybe even Nick Franklin and Smoak for Rodriguez and Tabata?

  11. Ron Loreski 1 year ago

    The Pirates need AJ Burnett more than Morales.

  12. Nathan Walter 1 year ago

    I can’t imagine a situation in which the Dodgers would move their OF. Kemp’s health has serious questions, I can’t imagine any teams jump on Crawford’s remaining $80 million, or his 2.3 WAR over the last 3 years… Puig isn’t going to get moved for anything, and Ethier is needed in the circumstance that Kemp isn’t healthy.

    • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

      No DH, and not a softball team. They have to do something, unless we assume Crawford gets injured again. (I think I just answered my own question)

      • Nathan Walter 1 year ago

        I get that, but you can’t move an OF… no value in moving Kemp, yet… no value in moving Crawford and his egregious contract… you need Ethier… you need Puig… there is no outfielder to be moved. The Dodgers would have to move a different position, but I also question who.

        • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

          Lots of value in Kemp, especially if he proves healthy in Spring Training. They don’t have to do anything now, anymore than they had to do something by the end of say Dec or Jan. But, before the season starts and those enormous contracts kick in, they’ll have to do something.

          • Nathan Walter 1 year ago

            There’s value “if” generally = there’s no value yet. That being said, I don’t see any team jumping at Kemp between his massive contract and his health… I don’t think you’ll see much interest until after 2014.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            My original post (4 hrs ago) was talking about “if” they are healthy. The reply to it even talked of a “rotation” in the OF. My next post even said “what do you do when all four are healthy?”. Somewhere in there, you replied, sorry you didn’t pick up on that, but that was the premise from the start. Never said they could trade a 100mil player that heading for the DL to start the season.

      • They don’t have to do anything. They can keep all four if they want to.

        • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

          They don’t have to do anything as long as the season has started, but before it starts they have to (barring injury or complete insanity). They have 299.75 million tied up in 3 outfield positions (With the best of the 4, being the lowest paid). There is no precedent for paying that much money and expecting an 15 to 21 million dollar player to sit on the bench each night.

          And yes, they do have a budget in LA, or else Tanaka would be a Dodger.

          • There doesn’t need to be a precedent. They can’t move Ethier, Crawford, or Kemp without eating a large amount of money. Unless they’re strapped for cash now, which we can gather is not the case, there’s no reason to sell lower than they’d have to later for Ethier of Kemp (I don’t think anyone thinks Crawford is going anywhere).

            Right now, the best course of action is to head to Spring Training with all four. That’s not ideal but neither is selling low.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            I agree with entering Spring Training with all four, but not starting season. Even if they have to eat some money, moving one of them before season start will be a priority (Again, unless injury). If Ethier and Kemp show healthy in ST, Dodgers won’t have to eat much, and will move one. I guarantee it.

          • They’d have to eat at least 20 million for either one and that’s a low figure. Ethier’s splits and Kemp’s overall health are concerning and a healthy ST won’t convince a team to take a risk like that.

            The best case scenario would be to have them both return to form and for another contending team to see an injury to an outfielder. That’s a tall order, but if not they can keep them. The Dodgers do have the money. The fact that there would be an unhappy outfielder is not that important when you think about how injury prone 3 of those 4 outfielders are.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            Good point. Still if Kemp or Ethier show healthy in ST, I think one will be moved. Still if they have to eat 20mil of the 110 owed Kemp, they’ll do it. We’ll see.

          • BlueSkyLA 1 year ago

            Not a chance.

      • Metsfan93 1 year ago

        There’s also this thing called rotating four outfielders with the assumption someone gets injured at some point. If it makes more sense to do this than to trade one of them, then they’ll do it. They have a virtually unlimited money source, so paying their outfield 63 MM and have Puig + 2 of the other three is a feasible outcome.

        • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

          If only the injury gods were so kind. Sometimes you have multiple injuries. Sometimes none at all. Remember Yankees last year, Youk was suppose to play 3rd base then get injured when ARod came back last year. Didn’t work out that way, rarely does.

          I’m just wondering what you do when all 4 are healthy. What then? You bench one, and you a malcontent, rotate and you have 4 malcontents.

          • Metsfan93 1 year ago

            You tell them to stop being babies and deal with it. They’re professional ballplayers making millions and for the good of the team they might need to endure some playing time issues. Puig is going to play. Crawford, Kemp, and Ethier have done nothing recently to justify being put off by a great team wanting to have all of its options open. Just look at last year with the eight starting pitchers in spring training for a perfect example. The Dodgers work with surpluses – Beckett, Ryu, Greinke, Haren, Maholm, Billingsley, Kershaw with pitchers this very year being another- and will probably continue to do so unless they’re absolutely blown away with a trade. When you’re dealing with a reckless low-20s kid, an injury-prone franchise face, an injury prone former speed demon, and a less-effective version of Andre Ethier, being able to mix and match and have flexibility should an injury happen, is a great situation to have.
            That’s not even touching on the other major issue. Nobody is going to want Crawford and his 80 MM remaining through 2017. Kemp? Isn’t his deal 128 MM through 2019? Six years at over 21 MM per? Ethier is owed a lot of money too. What can you expect from them when healthy? Ethier’s power is gone, Kemp is a shell of his MVP-2011 form, and Crawford is virtually worthless when his salary is taken into account. Crawford has no value in a trade whatsoever so they should just hang onto him and hope he’s healthy and abnormally (for the current version, at least) speedy this year. Kemp is an unknown, and the worst thing for LA would be to sell low on Kemp and have 2011 Kemp return. The only way you pull the trigger on a Kemp deal is if you get a super-star-like return, which nobody will give. And Ethier? Nobody will even want Ethier considering he’s basically a worse Curtis Granderson owed similar money with worse defense, a declining power stroke, etc. The Dodgers basically have to sell low on Kemp or stick with what they have, and considering Kemp’s potential for a superstar rebound, they are best off sticking with Kemp, which is what it seems they’re going to do.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            Love the rant. But, disagree on whether to move Kemp though. If he’s healthy, he gets moved.

          • arbfuldodger 1 year ago

            Why on God’s green earth would they trade Kemp if he’s healthy??? Even at 80-85%, Kemp is better than every one in the Dodgers line-up except for a healthy Hanley & Puig.

          • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

            Because they have 4 OFers. Puig is better and cheaper. Crawfords not going anywhere. And I don’t believe for a second they will start the season with $299.75mil invested in three OF position. Its either Kemp or Ethier, and Kemp will be easier to move.
            My two assumptions for this point is:
            1) The move has to be made sometime before season starts, not right now (Posts keep making the assumption I’m speaking of immediately, of course events in ST could change things)
            2) All four stay somewhat healthy thru ST, if one of the OFers needs a few months or longer on IR to start the season, they don’t need to do anything.

            Money doesnt grow on a Guggenheim trees. LA does have a budget, or else Tanaka would be a Dodger. And, sitting a 15-20mil star OFer on the bench each day is laughable. Something has to be done – Kemp or Ethier.

  13. Kevin Michael Farrell 1 year ago

    What is the big deal about Stephen Drew? He is mediocre at best! The Mets have plenty of Mediocre at best players whom they are barely paying at this point. Why not just go with what they have, and save the $$ for next year?

    • Denny Doyle 1 year ago

      According to Fangraph WAR among SSs, (min 450 PA):
      Offensive – 3.8, 5th best
      Defensive – 10.9, 9th best
      Total – 3.4, 6th best

      Not mediocre, but not 14.1mil good either. His agent should be shot for not taking QO.

      • harmony55 1 year ago

        Stephen Drew, not Scott Boras, declined the qualifying offer.

        • Spit Ball 1 year ago

          Totally agree although I’m sure Scott Boras was whispering best case scenarios in his ear. If Peralta is not a free agent without a draft pick attached perhaps Drew is a Cardinal right now at 3/36. Back to your point; Boras will always want his players to decline player options at the qualifying offer because his own personal gain is so much. I’m guessing the Red Sox would still give him ten to 12 million for a year right now. Boras barely loses any couch change in that scenario. If you look at Drew Cruz and Morales, their agent had a lot more to gain than lose. Boras is getting unfair criticism because people don’t like him. He loses some but he has won some HUGE gambles. That’s why he is who he is amongst baseball agents.

      • Metsfan93 1 year ago

        I don’t think not taking the QO is a fireable offense in an environment where Jhonny Peralta nearly matched the QO AAV on a four year deal while missing a third of the most recent season due to a steroid suspension. Boras just underestimated the impact Peralta would have on Drew’s market, and also the amount of suitors around for his services. The Mets also pounced on Granderson instead of Drew for what probably amounted to Drew’s demands.

  14. Lefebvre Believer 1 year ago

    Thinking out loud here… I wonder what it would take to get Puig in a deal. I know Kemp has been mentioned as a possible trade candidate for the Mariners, but what about Puig? Taijuan Walker, Nick Franklin, and what else? Okay not so much thinking out loud as dreaming out loud, but still the Montero/Pineda deal with the Yanks wasn’t that long ago, so these kind of deals happen. Thing is there doesn’t appear to be a match with LA like that deal, as the Dodgers are trying to win now. But I wonder, Walker, Franklin, Zunino? Would they bite? Would it even be worth it??? I don’t know, Puig just sounds so much better than Cruz. Don’t wake me from my dream.

  15. hurley55 1 year ago

    That would be the dumbest thing ever if true

  16. Mike McLellan 1 year ago

    Brian Burke, is that you?

Leave a Reply