Dec 6, 2011, 11:31 AM EST
All along the thinking has been that Michael Cuddyer wants to a) stay with the Twins and b) land a three-year deal. According to Jon Heyman, the Twins have done their part, offering the right-handed-hitting outfielder a cool $25 million through 2014. Cuddyer, though, has yet to accept.
With Cuddyer’s return in limbo, the Twins are talking to their backup option, Josh Willingham. Willingham offers a better bet, but he’s not so versatile and he comes with durability concerns. Willingham, likewise, wants a three-year deal, and while he’s a better bet than Cuddyer to be productive in 2014, his history of back problems would make him a risky signing for three years.
One would think Cuddyer will end up accepting the Twins’ offer if $25 million is really where there at. His preference for Minnesota has never seemed like an act, and it’s not as though his market is all that strong. The Phillies pursued him at first, but they’ve backed off, and while a lot of people have tried to propose the Red Sox as a match, it’s doubtful Boston would give him that kind of contract.
- 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” 19
- 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” (373)
- 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 (91)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)