Aug 31, 2011, 8:04 PM EST
The Cardinals drew phone calls from at least one contending team earlier this week when right fielder Lance Berkman passed through waivers unclaimed and became eligible to be traded to any major league club. But Berkman hasn’t been dealt, and won’t be dealt, because the Redbirds are hoping to make him part of their plans for 2012 and beyond.
Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle told a St. Louis radio program on Wednesday morning that the Cardinals approached Berkman about a contract extension in July and that the 35-year-old slugger “very much wants to stay” in the Gateway City.
Berkman probably wants to head to free agency this winter to see what kind of money other teams are offering. But he’s found a kind of comfort zone in St. Louis and the Cardinals should have a spot for him next season — either in right field or at first base, depending on the end result of Albert Pujols‘ own free agency.
Berkman, currently playing out a one-year, $8 million deal, has batted .286/.402/.565 with 30 home runs and 81 RBI across 478 plate appearances this season for second-place St. Louis. He hasn’t spent a single day on the disabled list and was named a National League All-Star for the sixth time back in July.
- Merry Christmas from HBT! 72
- THE YEAR IN REVIEW: HBT’s most commented-upon stories of the year 85
- The Yankees are treating Alex Rodriguez differently than they treated Derek Jeter. So what? 37
- Braves sign setup man Jason Grilli to two-year contract 14
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot 120
- Phil Hughes signs a three-year extension with the Twins 27
- The Padres have talked to the Phillies about Cole Hamels 23
- Why is John Smoltz a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame? 63
- Curt Schilling goes after Obama, says Ronald Reagan would watch “The Interview” (151)
- Bud Selig will get a $6 million a year pension. Which is obscene. (145)
- My Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot (120)
- Today’s specious anti-Mike Piazza-for-the-Hall-Fame argument (96)
- Phillies GM told Ryan Howard they’d be better off “not with him but without him” (85)