david robertson yankeesWe may get a break from the high-end relief market rumors for a little while …

Reliever Andrew Miller is said to be looking for a four-year deal (no surprise), but reportedly won’t listen to any offer that doesn’t have an “astounding” annual value. That’s obviously really amorphous, and it comes from an anonymous industry source at MassLive. For now, Miller has no reason not to ask for at least four years and $40+ million. He might not quite get that much, but I bet he gets close. And, as I’ve said, at that price level, I’m not sure he’s the right fit for the Cubs.

Speaking of which, Joel Sherman hears that the Cubs aren’t going to “spend big” on a “closer” this offseason, which he takes to mean they’re out on David Robertson, who also has lofty demands.



Although I’ve never thought Robertson made sense for the Cubs at top-of-the-market prices (“spend big”), I’d be careful not to take too much away from Sherman’s comment. The Cubs aren’t looking for a closer, that’s been known for a while. And the Cubs aren’t going to “spend big” on a reliever this offseason. But I’ll still stick with what I’ve said about Robertson, which could explain the Cubs’ early interest despite not wanting to spend big on a closer: if Robertson finds that his market isn’t there early on, and he’s still looking for a job later in the offseason, maybe he has to settle for a two-year, $20 million type deal. At that price, and if they’ve already signed a qualified free agent or two, Robertson may look like a steal to the Cubs, regardless of his role.

And, back to Miller, Jon Heyman reports that the Cubs likely won’t be landing him, because they are instead trying to “lengthen” the bullpen. I’m not quite sure what he means by that (adding any impact arm would lengthen the bullpen’s ability in a given game), but, regardless, it’s a data point.




Keep Reading BN ...

« | »