Washburn might be a tad pricey in 2009, but then he goes away. Weigh that against giving similar or more money to a guy like Lohse or even Looper over 3 or 4 years…which is more attractive?

so why not give this a guy a shot? Lets take a look see at 2009 rotation: Carp, Wainer, and Joel P are signed nexted year. Chances are that they’ll give macClelland a shot at a spot and even with that it leaves a hole at 5. So get duncan’s “project” for next year now? This is 1.375 more than what joel will make next year, i think the guy is worth a shot.

That being said i think they should still take a run at lohse despite his return to his career norms. He has look awful good in the birds on the bat.

of our 30 to spend next year?

This makes zero sense to me

here and made a pretty convincing argument in favor of Washburn, as opposed to re-signing Lohse. I’m still not crazy about it but it does buy us some insurance against a serious injury to Carp or Wellemyer, or flameout by Wellemeyer or Pineiro and avoids a long-term contract to a mediocre pitcher like Lohse. Plus, it helps, if even a little, this year.

He is owed $10.35 M next year and isn’t great but he’s about as good as Lohse. It makes sense that we would be the ones who claimed him. When it came up in a thread a couple of days ago, I was surprised that no one explored the possibility that we might have been the team that claimed him, particularly in light of Carp’s recent injury. We can agree to a trade if it involves no above-average prospect or put the M’s into the situation of deciding whether to leave him out there, and let him become ours for nothing, or take him back — which they’d rather not do. Not a bad idea at all.

My preference would be to go w/ younger guys and save the $10 M to use somewhere else but I can see the justification for this. As I said, I think LB’s post last month can make a better defense of this move than anything else I can say.