Jan 24, 2013, 11:00 PM EST
CBS Sports’ Jon Heyman reports that right-hander Jair Jurrjens has agreed to a one-year major league deal with the Orioles. He’ll receive a $1.5 million base salary and could max out at $4 million with incentives.
Jurrjens was connected to the Orioles last offseason in rumors involving a potential trade for center fielder Adam Jones, but his stock has cratered over the past year. The 26-year-old right-hander posted an ugly 6.89 ERA and 19/18 K/BB ratio over 48 1/3 innings with the Braves last season and spent a good chunk of the year in the minors. He became a free agent after he was non-tendered in late October.
Jurrjens showed some promise over his first two seasons in Atlanta, but knee problems and diminished velocity have contributed to his decline. He averaged just 88.6 mph on his fastball in 2012, down from 91.9 back in 2008. Still, at just 26 years old, the Orioles are hopeful he can turn things around.
The Orioles previously expressed interest in bringing back left-hander Joe Saunders, but the addition of Jurrjens likely signals that they have moved 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 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)