Dec 29, 2010, 10:15 AM EST
It won’t be official until he takes a physical exam next week, but yesterday the Blue Jays signed Octavio Dotel to a one-year, $3.5 million contract with a $3.5 million option or $750,000 buyout for 2012.
Dotel could have signed with any number of teams as a setup man, but according to his agent in addition to matching Dotel’s salary from 2010 the Blue Jays also promised him a chance to be their closer.
“Octavio is excited about playing for a team that will give you the opportunity to close games in the strongest division in baseball,” Dominic Torres told Enrique Rojas of ESPNDeportes.com.
Kevin Gregg served as the Blue Jays’ closer last season, saving 37 games with a 3.51 ERA, but he’s expected to sign a multi-year deal with the Orioles. Dotel certainly picked the right spot if he wants to close again and he still has dominant raw stuff at age 37, averaging double-digit strikeouts per nine innings for the fourth straight season, but he’s also served up 32 homers in 224 innings during that time and his struggles to keep the ball in the ballpark could make for some messy ninth innings against the powerful AL East lineups.
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 56
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 23
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 4
- Braves scratch Mike Minor from start with more shoulder problems 3
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” 360
- Blue Jays sign Dayan Viciedo to a minor league deal 8
- Chris Sale will be sidelined for three weeks with foot fracture 11
- Aramis Ramirez says 2015 will be his last year 33
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (361)
- If addiction is an illness — and it is — Josh Hamilton shouldn’t be suspended (307)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- John Baker, Jeremy Brown, coal mines and class (80)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (76)