Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004 |
More Pitcher Signings
- Those disturbed by the morning's news that Jose Lima won't return as a Dodger can get increasingly nervous hearing that the Cardinals have re-signed Matt Morris, to a one-year contract.
- Ditto for the Twins coming to terms with Brad Radke ($18M/2 years). Radke had been previously mentioned as a Dodger offseason target.
- The Marlins have signed former Met Al Leiter to a one-year deal (no dollars yet).
- The Phillies signed Yankee target Jon Lieber to a three-year, $21M deal. Is this failure to re-sign Lieber this year's version of the Pettitte fiasco? Or do the Yankees know something the rest of us don't?
- And, as Sean noted earlier in the week, the Blue Jays acquired Angel minor leaguer Steve Andrade off waivers. Chronicles already covered this, and I may go a bit more into this one for the simple reason that letting Andrade go is very anti-Stoneman. He doesn't generally drop the ball on these matters, so it warrants closer inspection.
Comments:
Per the most recent article on the Angels' MLB site entitled "Angels Organizational Recap," the team tried to sneak Andrade "through waivers and off their 40-man roster, but the Blue Jays claimed him and added him to their 40-man roster instead."
# posted by 
: 12/08/2004 03:37:00 PM
: 12/08/2004 03:37:00 PM
I saw that, but -- the problem I have with it is it's not explanatory, really. The question before the house is why would Stoneman even try to sneak Andrade past waivers? IMO, it comes down to a couple issues:
1) Andrade had no future in the Angels organization, despite the subsequent press release.
2) Stoneman had somebody else he liked more on the 40-man.
3) Stoneman thinks he can get a replacement with as good/better numbers easily.
If (2) or (3), who?
1) Andrade had no future in the Angels organization, despite the subsequent press release.
2) Stoneman had somebody else he liked more on the 40-man.
3) Stoneman thinks he can get a replacement with as good/better numbers easily.
If (2) or (3), who?
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.