Nov 9, 2009, 9:57 AM EST
There’s no CC Sabathia available this offseason, but between John Lackey, Roy Halladay and Javier Vazquez, there are at least three options available for a team looking to upgrade the rotation. ESPN’s Buster Olney looks at possible landing pads for each of them.
There are no perfect fits, but Olney likes Lackey in Milwaukee of all places. It actually makes sense though given their needs and the fact that they did offer CC Sabathia a lot of money last year. I suppose there’s a chance that that was a phony offer and that they’d never be willing to pay $100 million for a pitcher, but at the very least it shows some guts on Doug Melvin’s part, and guts come right after money when it comes to the things a team needs to land a big fish like Lackey.
Olney goes to to discuss the possibilities of Roy Halladay being traded to either the Rangers or the Angels. Those scenarios seem less plausible, mostly because it strikes me as more likely that the Jays would hold on to Doc until next year, hoping to leverage more out of him at the deadline than they could expect right now.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 32
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 146
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 376
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (376)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (146)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)