Jan 11, 2011, 9:34 AM EST
Dick Kaegel of MLB.com reports that the Royals haven’t ruled out re-signing Bruce Chen:
With Carl Pavano apparently heading back to the Twins, the thin free-agent market still includes Kevin Millwood, linked earlier with the Royals, and their top winner from last year, lefty Bruce Chen. Millwood’s name doesn’t stir much response from Moore.
What about Chen?
“We’re still open-minded with that. He performed very well with us last year and he showed us what he had, and we’ve got a comfort level there,” Moore said.
Chen’s walk rate and strikeout rates were basically the same in 2010 as they were during his truly awful previous few seasons. He allowed a couple fewer hits a game, which could be a function of random chance. Still, for the Royals he’s the devil they know versus a lot of devils they don’t know, and given how bad their pitching looks to be at the moment, you figure it can’t hurt to bring him back.
I am rather surprised at Moore’s apparent lack of interest in Kevin Millwood. Hello! Former Brave! I thought that was the sort of thing he got off on.
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 21
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 20
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 145
- 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” 373
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (374)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (145)
- 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)