In Friday’s Roundup, regular rumor rounder-upper Daniel Rathman noted the Mariners’ recent Felix Hernandez extension might impact negotiations for Clayton Kershaw, with a trickle-down effect on other starting pitchers looking for a new contract. Well, Kershaw may want to slowly back his way out of the war room, because it appears that Hernandez’s megadeal—which would have made him the richest pitcher ever and set a high bar for Kershaw’s inevitable extension—appears to be as tenuous as the right elbow that’s currently holding it up.
Hernandez deal in jeopardy? Buster Olney had the story Sunday evening, with one source saying a possible elbow problem is “an issue” that might prevent the deal from being signed. No matter where you look on this story, the language is vague, and it almost sounds like there isn’t a medical condition at all but rather the promise that fatigue may cause one down the line. Hernandez apparently took a physical with the Mariners on Thursday (per Jon Morosi), and if it had revealed an immediate medical concern, you’d think we’d have heard about it and the deal would be either all the way on or all the way off. Instead we’ve got a lot of hemming and hawing as the media try to figure out just what’s going on, and both Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik and Hernandez’s camp have been tight-lipped about the proceedings.
Here’s what we know: 1) as Olney notes in his story, only three pitchers—Bert Blyleven, Fernando Valenzuela, and Dwight Gooden—have thrown more innings before turning 27 than King Felix; 2) Hernandez rather conspicuously pulled out of the World Baseball Classic on Friday; and 3) per Ken Rosenthal, Zduriencik says Hernandez will “take part Tuesday with the entire squad as normal.” The Mariners’ pitchers and catchers are officially due to report Wednesday.
Basically, we know nothing. So let’s dig a little deeper: Here, according to PITCHf/x, are the average velocities of Hernandez’s four-seam fastballs since 2007, sorted by year:
Year
Avg. Velo
2007
98.63
2008
96.41
The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.
Not a subscriber?
Click here for more information
on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.
Would the Mets interest in signing Bourn tie into a desire to trade him later this season? Seeing as how his contract will probably be more reasonable now, than was previously anticipated, could the Mets deal Bourn for a more developed prospect(s) that might project better than what they'd get with the 10th overall pick? And, if you can backload the contract a bit, the salary paid from opening day until the trade takes place would not be that big a deal from a cash flow perspective, especially considering the Mets reductions in salary during these past two seasons.
I believe that any player signed as a free agent can not be traded in the first year without the right to void the deal and become a free agent again. I may be wrong about that.
Also, Bourn would likely want some kind of limited no-trade clause.
No, the CBA specifically does NOT say that the ten worst teams' draft picks are protected. It says the first ten picks are protected. There is a very distinct difference, and the wording is very different from the last CBA, where it WAS the 15 worst records from the previous season.
To be precise - and it matters - the "wording isn't very different". They've just removed the reference altogether, and you're inferring that they did that because they wanted the ambiguous situation to be interpreted in the manner opposite the way it would be interpreted with the old, unambiguous language in place. There's no evidence at all that the removal was for the purpose of changing course on how to resolve that situation, no more so than that it was simply an error by the lawyers involved (for example).
Any signing of Bourn with an eye toward trading him looks so challenged that it'd be difficult to imagine an intelligent person such as Alderson even considering it.
Rumor Roundup: Friday,... (02/08)
8 comments have been left for this article. 
The Keeper Reaper: Catcher, Second Base, and...
Surprise Me!
Would the Mets interest in signing Bourn tie into a desire to trade him later this season? Seeing as how his contract will probably be more reasonable now, than was previously anticipated, could the Mets deal Bourn for a more developed prospect(s) that might project better than what they'd get with the 10th overall pick? And, if you can backload the contract a bit, the salary paid from opening day until the trade takes place would not be that big a deal from a cash flow perspective, especially considering the Mets reductions in salary during these past two seasons.
Seems logical, but you wouldn't want to back load so much as to scare off potential suitors down the road.
I believe that any player signed as a free agent can not be traded in the first year without the right to void the deal and become a free agent again. I may be wrong about that.
Also, Bourn would likely want some kind of limited no-trade clause.