Top 111 Free Agents: Nos. 50-36

Leave a comment

This is part four in a series of columns looking at this winter’s free agent class. I’m listing each player along with his age, as of next April 1, and his place in the previous edition of these rankings from May.
Nos. 111-91
Nos. 90-71
Nos. 70-51
50. Noel Arguelles (20) – Prev. NR – With fellow Cuban defector Aroldis Chapman getting all of the attention, Arguelles could fly under the radar and prove to be a bargain. The southpaw reportedly throws in the low-90s consistently, and while he’s going to need at least one year and probably two in the minors, he’s probably more polished than Chapman.
49. Brandon Lyon (30) – Prev. #89 – Signed with the idea that he’d close over Fernando Rodney, Lyon was a big disappointment this spring and for the first two months of the season. Fortunately, he’s bounced back to post a 1.48 ERA and a 43/12 K/BB ratio in 48 2/3 innings since the beginning of June. While he’s far from an ideal option as a closer, his durability and his ability to go multiple innings make him particularly valuable. He should command at least a two-year deal and a three-year, $15 million pact isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.
48. Brad Penny (32) – Prev. #54 – The results haven’t been there, but Penny has demonstrated that he’s healthy by staying off the disabled list and averaging 94 mph with his fastball. If he rediscovers his curve, he’s still capable of being one of the league’s best starters, for three months at a time anyway. While it’s obvious now that he needs to stay in the NL, he’ll be a fine investment on another one-year contract.
47. Jack Wilson* (32) – Prev. #47 – Speculation at the time of the deal was that the Mariners insisted on getting some cash back from the Pirates in the Wilson deal so that they’d be able to pick up the shortstop’s $8.4 million option for 2010. It seemed like an unnecessary step, though, particularly since there’s just a $600,000 buyout attached to the option. A two-year deal worth around $10 million would work for the Mariners and should be pretty appealing to Wilson after season in which he’s battled injuries and hasn’t hit. He’s currently batting .255/.292/.362, giving him an OPS in the 650s for the second straight year.
46. Marlon Byrd (32) – Prev. #70 – The numbers from his three-year Texas tenure make Byrd look like a consistent and competent starting outfielder, even if this is the first year he’s truly played regularly. He was, however, essentially worthless in his age 26-28 season before joining the Rangers, and it needs to be noted that he hasn’t been much more than a 760-OPS guy away from Arlington. Also, while his OPS has stayed relatively steady, his OBP has been bouncing all over the place, from .355 in 2006 to an exceptional .380 in 2008 to a subpar .325 this year. It’s very possible that Byrd will get a multiyear deal to start for some team, but he’ll probably disappoint.
45. Troy Glaus (33) – Prev. #43 – Glaus managed to play in 151 games and hit .270/.372/.483 in 2008, but his 2009 has been a complete loss following shoulder surgery and the steroid reports that arose in April certainly won’t help his hunt for work this winter. If Glaus can still play third base adequately, then he’s a $10 million player. As a first baseman or DH, he wouldn’t necessarily be much better of a bet than Russell Branyan or Hank Blalock. The one advantage he would have there is that he’s right-handed, setting him apart from almost all of the rest of the first base/DH options.
44. Rick Ankiel (30) – Prev. #9 – Ankiel finished with an 863 OPS in 172 at-bats in 2007 and an 843 mark in 413 at-bats last year, but he got off to a slow start this season and not long after it appeared that he had turned it around, he injured his shoulder in a collision with the wall. He returned after just three weeks, but it doesn’t seem like he’s been 100 percent at any time since and he’s currently sitting at .234/.286/.390 in 351 at-bats. The perception is that Ankiel should still have some upside left after so recently making the full-time switch to the outfield, but he does have holes in his swing and durability is an obvious issue. He’ll probably need to take a one-year deal in order to rebuild his value.
43. Trevor Hoffman (42) – Prev. #71 – Even though his WHIP and strikeout rate were strong, Hoffman’s inflated 3.77 ERA in his final year in San Diego made finding work somewhat difficult after last season. He ended up getting $6 million from the Brewers in January, and he’s gone on to pick up 34 saves in 37 chances. He’s currently on track to finish with a sub-2.00 ERA for just the second time in his illustrious career. The Brewers want him back and have no one to replace him, so they’ll probably offer him another one-year deal with a modest raise.
42. Hank Blalock (29) – Prev. #29 – Blalock is such an incredibly frustrating player, but he’s still young and even in such a lousy season, he was on pace for 30 homers before the Rangers finally got fed up with his low OBP and benched him. Part of the reason he’s always been tantalizing as a fantasy property is because he’s excelled at his home park, but this year he’s somehow managed to post a 687 OPS in Arlington and a solid 818 mark elsewhere. Blalock hasn’t been both healthy and productive since his age-23 season in 2004, so the Rangers are almost surely through with him. He’ll probably end up with a one-year contract, but a high roller could offer him three years and hope for the best. How many other free agents here have the potential to be worth $45 million over the life of a $20 million deal?
41. Fernando Rodney (33) – Prev. #79 – With just one blown save in 34 chances, Rodney has done his job about as well as any closer this year. Still, his ERA stands at 3.82, his strikeout rate is down slightly and he’s continued to walk a batter every other inning. It’s going to make him a very interesting case this winter. Rodney isn’t young and he has a career ERA of a 4.16, but he’s always had very good stuff and it’s quite reasonable to believe he’ll be better in his 30s than he was in his 20s. It’ll probably take a three-year deal to sign him, and the Tigers figure to make a strong bid to keep him around.
40. Carlos Delgado (37) – Prev. #21 – Delgado followed up an exceptional second half of 2008 by hitting .298/.393/.521 in 26 games to begin this season, but he was hobbled by a sore hip all along and he opted for surgery in mid-May. He was originally expected to return in July, but the timetable kept getting pushed back and now it appears that his season is over. Because of the injury, he can’t expect more than a one-year contract this winter, which makes him a much better investment than he would have been coming off another 30-HR, 100-RBI season. The Mets figure to look into re-signing him for one year.
39. Felipe Lopez (29) – Prev. #36 – The Giants could have picked up a better performer at a less expensive price had they gone after Lopez instead of holding back and eventually landing Freddy Sanchez. Lopez was hitting a solid .301/.364/.412 before leaving Arizona, and he’s come in at .329/.411/.468 in 216 at-bats as a Brewer. His teams would be better off if he never attempted another steal — he’s 14-for-28 the last three years — but even though he’s lost a step, he remains an above average defender at second base. He’s in line for a multiyear deal, but it won’t come from the Brewers, since they’re expecting Rickie Weeks back next year.
38. Billy Wagner (38) – Prev. #50 – Wagner pulled off a return to the majors just 11 months following Tommy John surgery, and he’s gone on to fan 19 batters in 11 1/3 innings. His status as a Type A free agent could hurt him this winter, since the Red Sox are nearly certain to offer him arbitration, but he may very well be the best one-year closing option on the market.
37. Jon Garland* (30) – Prev. #51 – The Diamondbacks didn’t want to fuss with Garland’s $10 million mutual option, so they passed it on to the Dodgers. L.A. will have the option for buying him out at $2.5 million. If they opt to pick it up, then Garland can void it, collect a $1 million payment and then become a free agent. If he can just continue his current run for two more weeks, then the latter scenario should be fulfilled. Garland is 3-0 with a 2.33 ERA for the Dodgers and 11-11 with a 4.02 ERA for the season. He’s not a top-of-the-rotation starter by any means, but he’s still young and he’s proven exceptionally durable. This will be the eighth straight season in which he’s made 32 starts.
36. Hideki Matsui (35) – Prev. #42 – Speculation has had Matsui returning home to Japan after the season, but his exceptional campaign in the DH role guarantees that he’ll have options. He’s currently hitting .279/.371/.523 with 27 homers in 426 at-bats, and Yankee Stadium has had nothing to do with it, as he’s batted .293/.389/.576 in road games. It’d be for the best if he never sees the outfield again, but he’ll probably be viewed as the best pure DH available this winter.

Reds hire Lou Pinella as a senior advisor to baseball operations

pinella
1 Comment

The Reds announced on Twitter that the club has hired former manager Lou Pinella in a consultant capacity as a senior advisor to baseball operations. John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer adds that Pinella will also spend time with the team at spring training.

Pinella, 72, was last seen with the Giants in 2011, also in a consultant capacity, but he spent only the one season there. He has 23 seasons of experience as a manager, with his most recent four coming with the Cubs between 2007-10.

Stick to Sports? NEVER! The Intersectionalist Manifesto

Fans wait for autographs from Atlanta Braves players during a spring training baseball workout Friday, Feb. 15, 2013, in Kissimmee, Fla. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
20 Comments

At Baseball Prospectus on Friday, Rian Watt wrote something which opened my eyes. The article was entitled “What Comes After Sabermetrics.” It was not really about sabermetrics as such. It was about what we do here at HardballTalk and have done for a few years now. And what some others writers I admire have been doing as well. I had no idea until reading Watt’s article, however, that that’s what we were all doing, but we are and I think it’s worth talking explicitly about what that is and why it’s important.

But let me start at the beginning.

Watt starts off talking about what a lot of people have said in the past few years: sabermetrics has gotten stale. Or, since so many great analysts have been hired by teams and since most of the bleeding-edge stuff has moved in-house with clubs, maybe it’s just that sabermetric writing has gotten stale. There’s a sense that all of the big discoveries and insights have been made and that most of what happens in that realm now is niggling around the edges in ways that don’t lend themselves to big, broad engaging writing like Bill James used to do. Or, maybe, to written eviscerations of non-believers like Fire Joe Morgan or Joe Sheehan specialized in back in the day. Which, no matter what you thought of them on the substance, were entertaining reads.

I can’t really opine on the “all the big insights have been made” part. I’m no stathead. I also know well enough about how science and analysis works that to say that there won’t be something groundbreaking tomorrow or next year with any sort of certainty is a fool’s game. Someone with a database may very well revolutionize statistical analysis of baseball tomorrow. No one saw DIPS coming, for example. Voros McCracken is sneaky like that. There might be a major breakthrough on defensive metrics. There probably will be. But it is safe to say, I think, that sabermetrics is now a mature area of study and mature areas of study are in a lot of ways less exciting to lay people. When that big breakthrough on defense happens it will be great, but when people are merely refining established areas of any science, it’s mostly of interest only to the scientists.

So Watt asks: what’s next? What’s the next area of baseball writing that might be vital and might give us new insights or different things to talk about that haven’t been talked about at length — or with serious depth — before? The answer:

I think that a second major paradigm shift is already well underway. It’s being missed, however, and taken for something other than it is, because it’s not about sabermetrics, and it’s not about statistics at all. (How could it be, if those things form the bedrock of the existing paradigm?) It is, instead, about sports within the context of the broader society, and about the renewed humanity of the game.

The best baseball writing I’ve read this year has been about more than baseball. It’s been about politics, and race, and gender, and sexuality, and money, and power, and how they all come together in this game we love. It’s placed the game in its social context, and used it as a lens to talk about ideas that are bigger than the nuts and bolts of a box score or a daily recap. It’s engaged with difficult questions about how to be a fan when players you love are disappointingly flawed and human, and how to be a human being living in an often unjust world.

Watt calls those who do this sort of writing “Intersectionalists.” People who write and talk about the places where the sport and the lives of its participants, its fans and society at large intersect. About the business of baseball, labor relations, the culture of fandom and allegiance, the enjoyment of sports as entertainment and the prioritization of sports in people’s lives. Off-the-field things too.

This is exactly the sort of thing I have found the most interesting and about which I have written most passionately in the past several years. I had no inkling that it was part of any kind of paradigm shift — I have always simply written about what interests me — but having thought about it for the past 24 hours or so, and having thought about all of the baseball writing that I read and the writers I most admire, I think it’s safe to say that it is.

Since Friday, there has been a lot of discussion, some of it angry discussion, about Watt’s article. He has taken to social media to try to clarify what he meant and make clear what he was not saying. I and others have likewise had conversations about it and, not surprisingly, some of them have turned into arguments. That’s sort of inevitable with Big Insights like Watt’s, I suppose.

It’s the sort of thing that calls for some sort of declaration of principles. A manifesto or three. Some carrying on of the conversation beyond its introduction. So let’s do that, shall we? I think Q&A format is the best way to handle it.

Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations Joe Torre, center, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2014, before the Senate Commerce Committee hearing on domestic violence in professional sports. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who chairs the panel, says he called for Tuesday's hearing because "until very recently, the leagues' records have not been very good" on the issue. Torre is flanked by Deputy Managing Director for the?National Football League Players' Association Teri Patterson, left, and Counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association Virginia Seitz. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

Q: So, is this some sort of repudiation of sabermetrics? Do the statheads and the intersectionalists have to fight now?

A: NO! As Watt notes, intersectionalist writing is not a rejection of sabermetrics, it’s an evolution that builds on what came before. Sabermetrics was a total game-changer that made people fundamentally reevaluate how we look at baseball. To reject old orthodoxy and take a fresh look at what was really going on in the game. Without that splash of cold water snapping us out of a century of baseball cliche and often-faulty conventional wisdom, intersectionalists would never even be able to ask the questions or to discuss the topics we discuss. Instead of taking a fresh look at, say, hitting, intersectionalism takes a fresh look at the athlete as role model. Or the allegedly hard and fast pillars of the culture of the game. Bill James asked “why are RBI so important?” An intersectionalist might ask “why should I care if the batter flipped his bat?” or “why should fans root for a guy just because he plays for their favorite team?” or “should the fact that a player committed a crime change the way we or his team look at him?”

Maybe the best way to think about it is through a somewhat old term: “The Liberal Arts Wing” of sabermetrics.” Former Baseball Prospectus editors Steve Goldman and Christina Kahrl coined that term to talk about the writers at BP as opposed to the number crunchers. I think it has wider applicability to describe people, like me, whose baseball fandom was energized or reenergized by sabermetrics and whose brains are wired that way but who aim our brains at other questions instead of analytics. I’ve often used the phrase “fellow traveller” of sabermetrics. Liberal arts works too.

 

Q: STICK TO SPORTS!

A: NO! That’s exactly what we will not do. And what we have never done here at HBT. The entire point of it is to understand and appreciate that sports are part of the real world, impact the real world and that the real world impacts sports as well. Why not talk about how they do so and what it means, both for sports and the real world? If you really want to be that dude who keeps their sports fandom hermetically sealed and, within their world of sports fandom, sports are everything, go ahead and be that dude. Just know that you’re boring. You’re David Puddy from “Seinfeld,” unironically painting your face at the game and making your friends uncomfortable. You’re the guy who calls in to talk radio and angrily rants about how some player is “stealing money” because he didn’t hit as well as you had hoped. You’re that guy Fox catches on the camera crying at the ballpark when your boys lose. Don’t be that guy. Even if you follow sports for escapism, understand that sports don’t take place in a vacuum. Understand that it is just a ballgame, that you can LOVE the ballgame with every ounce of your being and that we do too, but that the ballgame is not your entire life nor should it really be and that the players are themselves human beings with human failings. Understand that, once you make that realization, it’s interesting to talk about what sports means for life and what life means for sports.

 

Q: But I don’t want politics in my sports writing!

A: First of all, it’s not just politics. It’s sports culture.  It’s players’ lives off the field. It’s uniform upgrades and new ballparks. It’s TV deals and the business of the game. It’s drugs and addiction and punishment. It’s a team’s role in the community and a player’s status as a role model. It’s Billy Bean’s outreach for diversity in the game, Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption, Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities initiatives and the treatment of women as fans by teams in promotions and marketing. Politics comes up sometimes too, but intersectionalism relates to any conceivable aspect of the game, as it in turn relates to the real world in which its participants and its fans actually live.

But you also have to face facts: politics impact sports and sports impact politics. I write about that stuff sometimes. But with all of these issues, it’s still baseball that is the starting point. Baseball and what’s going on with the game that may invoke some political or cultural discussion is the driver, not the shoehorning of politics and culture into a baseball context or using baseball as a pretext for our political hobby horses. But the fact remains: baseball has a labor union and labor politics are relevant. Major League Baseball has a lobbying apparatus with direct contact with Capitol Hill. Major League Baseball is, by its own admission, concerned and interested with expanding outreach to minorities and women. Sometimes, quite often actually, legal and political stuff touches on the game too. The people who run the game contend with that on a daily basis and it directly impacts the product with which you the fan are presented. It’d be foolish for us not to talk about that.

 

Q: Great. So the future of sports writing is political rants, political correctness and Social Justice Warriors telling me that I can’t enjoy anything?

A: Of course not. I’m a liberal dude so you usually know what to expect from me, but there is nothing stopping someone from writing about, say, the value of conservatism in baseball. Indeed, baseball is one of the most conservative institutions there is in many ways and, to the extent it has changed or evolved over the years culturally, that change has been led by commissioners, owners and players, the VAST majority of whom are conservative people. Oh, and they’ve made these changes,  in almost all cases, without intervention of the government. For example, there’s a great case to be made that, for all of Bud Selig’s detractors, he perfectly balanced tradition with “progress” however one wishes to define it and presided over the game as it slowly and deliberately evolved pursuant to a consensus which was built up in the community. That’s kind of the textbook definition of small-c conservatism. There’s also a good argument that, if he had done what more progressive types had demanded of him and made changes just to make changes, it would’ve been a bad thing. Anyone writing about that? Oh wait, this pinko liberal did, but others can too.

Yes, I will grant that many of the most prominent voices in intersectionalist baseball writing are liberal. But they don’t have to be. Social and political issues within the sport, as long as they present themselves organically and aren’t shoehorned in, are open for discussion by everyone. At the moment, yes, there is a good bit of writing out there which comes off as “Freshman social science student has SOMETHING TO SAY!” That discourse is improved and liberal doofuses like me will become less complacent if met with reasoned and respectful pushback from people who don’t share our assumptions. That’s how ALL good discourse works. Indeed, it seems to me that there is a great need for dissenting voices to weigh in NOW lest a certain sort of homogeneousness of opinion sets in and calcifies as the only acceptable form of discourse. In short: if I’m wrong, tell me why! Or, better yet, write a response of your own to it and explain why I’m full of crap. I really am full of crap sometimes.

 

Q: So it’s just now gonna be hot takes and opinion writing? Is actual baseball reporting going to continue to be denigrated the way it has been by some sabermetric types?

A: Not at all. Indeed, there is probably a greater need for good reporting than ever before. Reporting, like opinion, is undergoing its own evolution, after all. Off-the-field stories about players used to be used to explain baseball stuff (i.e. he’s a good guy, so he’s a good player). Such reporting was marginalized or denigrated by some after the rise of sabermetrics, thought of as irrelevant or as mere source-greasing (“The analytics can explain baseball. Why are we talking to Shlabotnik? He doesn’t know what makes him good!”). And to some extent there is some legitimate criticism to be made along those lines. There has also been a well-deserved backlash to it.

If anything, intersectionalism needs more reporting. Maybe fewer game stories and scoops — we’ve gone on at length about the diminished value of such things — but more off-the-field stuff about the athletes as people as opposed to gladiators. Maybe more about the business of the game and things like that. There’s a lot of that in existence already, of course. For starters, good traditional baseball reporters — and off the top of my head I’ll cite Tyler Kepner, Derrick Goold, Andy McCullough, Nick Piecoro, Bill Shaikin, Geoff Baker and many, many others — have always made a point to write stories that go beyond just the Xs and Os. They’re not just checking in with baseball bits, dashed off. Good baseball writing like theirs places baseball in context, describes players as human beings and makes the readers care about the game as it fits in their lives. It’s probably also worth noting that The Players Tribune is doing a lot of this too, delivering to us fresh looks at athletes as human beings. It’s probably the case — and you’ll be shocked to hear me say it — that Murray Chass was doing exactly the sort of reporting I’m talking about here with respect to the business of baseball before most of you were born. Yes, dammit, Murray Chass was an intersectionalist. A lot of old school baseball writers were, even if they were often considered oddballs for being so.

So yes, there have always been people doing this work and doing it well. But we could certainly do with more of it. And, perhaps, from some different sorts of reporters and commentators than those who have done it in the past. More reporters and commentators who question the assumptions of fans, owners, players and league officials rather than defer to them as much as they tend to. More reporters and commentators whose background isn’t necessarily just sports, whose work doesn’t just appear on the sports page and who aren’t necessarily beholden, implicitly or otherwise, to Major League Baseball and the clubs via their access or merely their familiarity and subconscious biases.

Also — and perhaps most importantly — reporters who aren’t so heavily members of the same demographic. There’s no escaping it: there are a lot of white men between the ages of 40 and 60 covering baseball. People with different backgrounds have different perspectives and the entire purpose of intersectionalism in baseball writing is to give us new perspectives. A lot of the sabermetric people were from business and math backgrounds, after all. It took that new look to bring us fresh content. We should strive for greater diversity in baseball writing, not for its own sake, but for the sake of new, interesting work that asks questions which haven’t been asked before and which challenge the assumptions people who look like me or people who see the game only from a press box don’t even realize that they harbor. And, of course, us old white guys can stick around too as long as we appreciate that we do not have anything close to a monopoly on the cultural experience and realize that there is a lot which we try to talk about that, really, we know jack crap about and probably should leave to others who know better.

Children reach to high-five Seattle Mariners' Felix Hernandez after the pitcher participated an instructional clinic that included a game of wiffle ball at the Rainier Vista Boys & Girls Club, Monday, Nov. 16, 2015, in Seattle. Earlier at the club, Hernandez presented $100,000 in total grants to five Seattle area nonprofits as part of the Major League Baseball Players Association/Major League Baseball Joint Youth Initiative Players Going Home program. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

While I didn’t know it had a name before the other day, baseball intersectionalism is very much the sort of thing which has interested me and animated my writing for many years now. Indeed, I find that the topics which truly inspire me are exactly the things Rian Watt spoke about on Friday and constitute the subject matter of the baseball writing I most admire. Likewise, the negative reaction Watt refers too — the “stick to sports” refrains — are exactly the sort of response I have received from detractors when I write about these topics, a response I’ve never truly understood and which constitutes a request I will not honor. Ever.

We need more of this sort of writing. We need more people asking the questions about sports that only a few of us have been asking and we need different sorts of people from different backgrounds and with different worldviews asking them.

More baseball fans and readers of baseball writing should ask why things are the way they are and whether or not the way things are are the way they should be.

We should be asking what we expect from baseball players and why we expect it in the first place.

We should be asking what role sports should play in our lives and in society as a whole.

We should look at sports through the lens of our real world experiences and real world realities and see if, through the lens of sports, we can’t make some insights about the real world in return.

I love baseball. My life always has been and always will be better for its presence. We must realize, however, that it’s a strong, strong institution that isn’t going anywhere. Our questioning it and its foundations and assumptions will not damage it too greatly. We should not be afraid to challenge it and its leaders and its participants and its fans to examine what, exactly, we talk about when we talk about baseball and what it is we enjoy about it and why. And perhaps, if enough people ask enough questions about the world baseball inhabits, it can even be improved a bit. Even if it’s just around the edges.

Fernando Rodney left a Caribbean Series game with leg tightness

Seattle Mariners closer Fernando Rodney celebrates after defeating the Toronto Blue Jays in AL baseball action in Toronto on Saturday May 23, 2015.  (Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press via AP) MANDATORY CREDIT
Frank Gunn/The Canadian Press via AP
6 Comments

Per MLB.com’s Jesse Sanchez, new Padres reliever Fernando Rodney was taken out of a Caribbean Series game on Thursday due to tightness in his leg. It’s unfortunate timing, as the club’s one-year, $1.6 million contract with the right-hander was also finalized on Thursday.

According to MLB.com, Rodney has logged 2 2/3 innings for the Dominican Republic, allowing three runs (one earned) on three hits and a walk with five strikeouts.

Rodney, who turns 39 in March, posted a combined 4.74 ERA with 58 strikeouts and 29 walks across 62 2/3 innings with the Mariners and Cubs this past season. Most of his struggles came with the Mariners, as he compiled a minuscule 0.75 ERA in 12 innings with the Cubs, but pitched in mostly lower-leverage situations.

Diamondbacks have been in touch with Tyler Clippard

New York Mets pitcher Tyler Clippard throws during the eighth inning of Game 2 of the National League baseball championship series against the Chicago Cubs Sunday, Oct. 18, 2015, in New York. (AP Photo/Julie Jacobson)
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson
1 Comment

Diamondbacks general manager Dave Stewart said on Thursday that while he hadn’t spoken with the representatives for free agent reliever Tyler Clippard, he would likely check in. It didn’t take long for him to act, as Jack Magruder of Fanragsports.com reports that the two sides have been in touch.

Despite his long track record of success as a late-inning reliever, Clippard’s market has been rather quiet this offseason. The soon-to-be 31-year-old posted a 2.92 ERA over 69 appearances last season between the Athletics and Mets, but he was shaky as the year moved along and saw his strikeout percentage fall by over eight percent from 2014. His velocity also continues to decline. Considering those warning signs and the late stage of the offseason, a multi-year deal is likely a stretch.

It was reported on Friday that the Rays are considering Clippard among other free agent relievers.