Spring Training is here, but with a few high-profile players still available via free agency and rosters far from settled, the stove is still hot here at MLBTR. Here’s today’s mailbag.

Why hasn’t anyone organized a sign and trade for one of the qualifying offer players? The original team could sign them and trade them for a prospect, saving the acquiring team a draft pick and the former team a prospect. I know they can’t be traded without the player’s consent, but the player would obviously have negotiated the contract with the new team. Or even a team like the Braves signing a QO player (forfeiting their second-rounder) and getting a prospect back. — James M.

It’s too blatantly a means of circumventing the qualifying offer process as stipulated within the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I realize that it’s possible that the Mets will end up trading Alejandro De Aza this spring, but it’s pretty clear to see that New York didn’t think it had a real chance of re-signing Cespedes when De Aza was signed. That they were able to land him a month later after Cespedes’ market didn’t develop the way that his camp hoped, De Aza was relegated to a fifth outfielder, more or less. That’s sub-optimal for team and player, and I think the Commissioner’s Office would be able to see that in approving the trade. Something like the Braves signing Ian Desmond and trading him 24 hours later wouldn’t get that benefit of the doubt.

What are the thoughts on the Blake Snell extension rumors? He hasn’t even made an MLB start. — Zachary H.

The Rays have every incentive to lock Snell up as early as possible if they believe that he’s on a path to becoming a mid-rotation starter or better. Snell is one of the game’s 20 or so best prospects, and by going year to year through the arbitration process with the Rays, he could earn something in the vicinity of $20-25MM over the life of the six years (well, seven, realistically, as the Rays will almost assuredly keep him in the minors for three weeks at the beginning of the season to extend control by one year, barring an extension) that he’s guaranteed to be with the team. There’s huge financial incentive to take a slight risk — previous contracts of this ilk have cost $10-15MM total — in order to lock in most or all of a player’s arbitration years well in advance in exchange for discounted club options on his free-agent seasons. Not only does it potentially give them an above-average starter at a fraction of his market cost (assuming the options come with a relatively modest salary), it gives Tampa Bay a huge trade chip down the line if the team sees fit. If the Rays are confident in their projections of Snell, there’s little reason not to try for some kind of long-term deal. Realistically, this probably goes on with top prospects quite a bit more than we hear about.

From Snell’s perspective, it’s a huge risk; if he has any degree of success, that type of contract will be among the most team-friendly in the game. On the other hand, if he has an injury (as lefty Cory Luebke did when he twice had Tommy John surgery after signing a four-year, $12MM deal after one full season in the Majors) or simply struggles in his initial Major League trials (a la Jon Singleton, who also signed long-term prior to his MLB debut), then he comes out quite a bit ahead of where he’d have otherwise been. It’s always a balance of the human factors that drive the player to seek his first fortune and the business reasons for betting on himself.

Now that the A’s have their #4 power hitter in Khris Davis, will they finally be viewed as legit team that can make the playoffs? — Ross K.

With all due respect to Davis and the A’s, adding another 25- to 30-homer bat doesn’t really change a huge amount for me in terms of their projections. I’m still concerned with Oakland’s patchwork options at the infield corners and Billy Butler at DH. And, in the rotation, there’s virtually no certainty beyond Sonny Gray. I’m a fan of Jesse Hahn’s ability, but he’s shown clear durability issues, and beyond him the A’s will rely on Kendall Graveman, Chris Bassitt, Rich Hill, Aaron Brooks and still-injured starters Jarrod Parker and Henderson Alvarez to round out the rotation. Sean Manaea could eventually help in 2016, but they have a lot that needs to go right. I think the AL is deep enough and talented enough (Oakland included) that any of the 15 teams could be a playoff team if you squint, but adding Davis — a left-field only bat with a shaky glove that’s being asked to cover a huge, expansive space — doesn’t put them over the top in any sort of way for me.

Were the Pirates right to keep closer Mark Melancon, or should they have dealt him to save money and to fill a starting pitching need? — Nick C.

If Pittsburgh could’ve flipped Melancon for a starting pitcher as they did with the comparably priced Neil Walker, that would have been my preferred route. That said, there’s no direct evidence such a possibility was available to the Pirates, and it’s hard to know what Melancon’s market might have been. Two other top closers in Craig Kimbrel and Ken Giles returned impressive trade packages this winter, but Melancon’s market might have been complicated somewhat by the presence of Kimbrel, Giles, Aroldis Chapman and others potentially available. And as MLBTR’s Charlie Wilmoth has noted elsewhere, the current mini-trend of building super-bullpens (as Boston has done with Kimbrel, Koji Uehara, Junichi Tazawa and Carson Smith and the the Yankees have done with Chapman, Andrew Miller and Dellin Betances) seems based in large part on acquiring pitchers who rack up strikeouts. That’s not Melancon — as great as he was last season, his strikeout rate fell to 7.3 K/9, and his average fastball velocity dipped as well, although he remained excellent at inducing ground balls and limiting walks. I’m sure there are 29 other teams that would love to have Melancon in their bullpen, but it’s unclear how many might have been willing to pay the kind of price the Pirates would have wanted.

Are we undervaluing the addition of Andrelton Simmons for the Angels? It’s a major acquisition that seemingly flew under the radar because the majority of the value is tied to defense. He’s likely a three- to four-win improvement at shortstop with the glove alone. Isn’t it difficult to quantify how much his defense really helps the team? — Jacob S.

I don’t think anyone undervalued the improvement that came with adding Simmons at the time of the deal. The buzz surrounding him has somewhat cooled now, though, due to the Angels’ still-glaring question marks at second base and in left field. Had the Halos added another legitimate infielder or added a left field bat following the acquisition of Simmons, there’d probably be quite a bit more hype surrounding the additions made by Billy Eppler and his staff this offseason. I don’t know that I agree with Simmons being a four-win improvement over Erick Aybar, but I do feel that he’s a notable upgrade, and even though they parted with Sean Newcomb to get him, the trade has significant long-term value for the Angels. All that said, the reason it’s drawing less attention now is that the Angels kicked their winter off with a bang but followed with virtually no moves of consequence. Right or wrong, that’s going to cause the move to be overshadowed.

To me the Reds make a good fit for Austin Jackson.  Would a one-year deal in the range of $5MM plus an option do it?  Jackson would give the Reds depth, flexibility, decent leadoff insurance, and with a good season, a trade target for a prospect.  Your thoughts? — Brian F.

I don’t know that Jackson is signing for as little as $5MM — Juan Uribe just got about that much despite being eight years older — and adding the option wouldn’t be something that Jackson or agent Scott Boras would want if they do settle on a one-year deal. If it’s a one-year deal, it’ll be one signed with an eye toward retrying on next year’s weak market.

As for the Reds’ end of the equation, while there’s sense to it, they haven’t really shown the desire to add veterans on big league deals, especially not ones that will potentially take time away from younger players. The Reds still need to get Billy Hamilton regular playing time with the hope that he can develop some semblance of OBP skills, and they want to get long looks at players like Adam Duvall, Scott Schebler and, eventually, Jesse Winker. The presence of Jay Bruce will stand in the way of those players getting at-bats somewhat as it is, and adding Jackson to the mix will only add another roadblock. On paper, I agree that there’s some sense to your scenario for the Reds, but it doesn’t seem realistic in the end.

It’s been a quiet day on the rumor mill, but thankfully we’ve got some interesting questions to get to in today’s MLBTR Mailbag!

After the loss of John Lackey and Jason Heyward, the Cardinals’ 2 best players in 2015, adding Mike Leake was our only upgrade. We have very little power or speed. With the improvements of the other teams in the NL do you think the Cardinals will make the playoffs?

I’d have liked to see the Cardinals do more with their rotation, as losing Lance Lynn for the season was a significant blow, and Jaime Garcia’s arm is a perennial question mark. Carlos Martinez and Michael Wacha have both had injury issues in the past as well. All that said, though, to call Leake the team’s only upgrade feels incorrect. The Cardinals added an intriguing bullpen arm in Seung-hwan Oh and improved their catching depth with Brayan Pena as well. Beyond that, there’s enormous room for internal growth; the Cardinals will have full seasons of Stephen Piscotty and Randal Grichuk in 2016, and they’ll also see the return of Adam Wainwright (who scarcely pitched in 2015 due to an Achilles injury) and Jordan Walden to fortify the pitching staff. There’s also a chance that Brandon Moss, now further removed from the microfracture hip surgery he had following the 2014 season, will return to his more productive ways from 2012-14.

The Cardinals had baseball’s second-best run differential in a season without Wainwright last year, and while it’s fair to expect some regression in Grichuk and Piscotty, it’s a huge overreaction to imply that they’re any sort of long shot to make the playoffs. If anything, losses in the Pittsburgh rotation and the continued tear-down of the Brewers and Reds have softened the division. It’s a difficult division with two very good teams joining them at the top (Pittsburgh and Chicago), but the Cardinals should be in the mix for a postseason spot.

The Braves are rumored to have an agreement in place with Kevin Maitan. Do tampering rules count towards international signings? — Mike B.

The concept of tampering generally is invoked with regard to players that are currently under contract with another organization. Maitan isn’t even yet eligible to sign. Generally, though, this sort of thing happens every season with every team. A huge number of the July 2 signings you’ll see have been in place for months, which is why there’s such a landslide of reports on international prospect signings on the day the signing period opens. You can argue that the system needs fixing, and you won’t get a disagreement here, but that situation is no way unique to the Braves.

Two of the best veterans, Juan Uribe and Justin Morneau, are still on the market. These are guys who can either start or provide a productive bat and clubhouse presence off the bench. Why has there been so little news about them and where do you see them landing? — Will M.

There’s been a bit of talk about Uribe recently, as he’s been connected most heavily to the Indians (as a starter at third) but also as a versatile reserve for the Giants and Yankees. Cleveland is the best fit for him, from my vantage point, although there’s a reasonable case to be made that the Astros and Padres could use him just as much as any of those clubs. The Indians seem like the most plausible landing spot for him at this point, just based on the combination of interest and need.

Morneau’s market has been decidedly more quiet, but he still seems like a candidate to land a one-year deal somewhere in Spring Training. It’s possible that at this point, his reps at Relativity are waiting to see if any team incurs a first base/DH injury in Spring Training, as that could open a spot for him. If not, the Astros have the most glaring need at first base of any contending club from where I sit. It’s true that there are some young names on the horizon like A.J. Reed and Tyler White, but Morneau would be a reasonable stopgap to start the season at first base and eventually slide into more of a part-time role. That Evan Gattis recently had core muscle surgery only makes the fit more logical, as any lingering issues from that would prove problematic for Houston.

The Orioles farm system is probably second worst in baseball behind the Angels.  In 2014 they forfeited or traded their top 3 picks.  How much are they forsaking their long term success if they forfeit 2 top 30 picks for Yovani Gallardo and Dexter Fowler? — Derek R.

Jeff Todd and I actually covered this on the MLBTR Podcast last week. It’s true that the Orioles would be compounding the problem of a largely barren farm system by forfeiting their top two picks in this year’s draft. However, Baltimore’s offseason maneuvering — beginning with Matt Wieters’ acceptance of the qualifying offer and continuing through re-signing Darren O’Day and Chris Davis, plus adding Hyeon-soo Kim on a fairly high-upside deal — gives a sense that they’re still firmly in “go for it” mode. If the thought is to add Gallardo on a three-year deal and possibly Fowler on a two-year deal (or acquire two years of control over Jay Bruce from Cincinnati), it seems fair to say that they could consider 2016 and 2017 both seasons in that “go for it” window. I think it’s interesting to note that if the Orioles don’t contend in 2016 and struggle again in 2017, their list of trade chips for an accelerated rebuild would be impressive (whether that comes in mid-2017 or following the 2017 season). Manny Machado, Adam Jones and Zach Britton are all controlled through 2018, and any of that trio would, at least at present, seem to represent a player that could fetch a haul were the final year or year-and-a-half of his services placed on the trade market. Baltimore would also be able to potentially listen on the final year of a theoretical Gallardo contract, two years of Jonathan Schoop and as many as three years of Kevin Gausman in that scenario.

All of that, of course, is highly hypothetical, but the point is that the O’s presently have enough high-value, controllable assets that it’s easy to see them successfully pulling off a Braves-esque rebuild in the 2017-18 offseason if things don’t go their way over the next two seasons.

Is the MASN deal ever going to be settled? — Marla A.

This falls within Jeff’s wheelhouse, so I asked him to take a crack at answering your question … and you can blame him for any errors or omissions!

To begin with, those who aren’t familiar with this matter should read about the key decision (to date) right here. As I explained there, the court didn’t actually decide how much the Nats will get from the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network and when they’ll get it; rather, it said that the prior arbitration decision had to be set aside because of a conflict of interest in the Nationals’ choice of representation.

In addition to throwing the matter back open to dispute, that decision also allowed the Orioles (who control MASN) to fight over the forum for a re-hearing and to continue to run the clock on the Nats. That gives Baltimore leverage, as D.C. struggles with stalled and uncertain cash flow.

Now, the ultimate rights fee issue will certainly be settled in some manner, and there’s some hope that will occur sooner rather than later. Commissioner Rob Manfred recently expressed some confidence that there’s an end in sight, saying:“I think in reasonably short order, there will be a resolution of MASN, either by the litigation being done or some other mechanism.”

Of course, let’s remember that we’re talking legal timelines here, and they can be lengthy. It appears that the case is currently sitting in an appellate court, as MASN has appealed the trial court’s decision not to order arbitration before a neutral arbitral forum. If a settlement can’t be worked out at some point, then the case will continue to work its way through the system.

Ultimately, some new arbitration will be initiated, and at that point it should proceed fairly swiftly, with the Nats’ money spigot being turned back on without much delay after a decision is reached. Notice, though, that I say “should”; there’s always the possibility of yet more legal wrangling thereafter, though this particular case is rather unusual in that the underlying arbitration decision was actually thrown out (a relative rarity).

On a relevant — and somewhat ridiculous — note, it’s important to bear in mind that the next rights fee period in the deal (2017-2021) is already fast approaching. Clearly, that needs to be dealt with as well, perhaps with some new initiative to look for a more permanent solution.