It's a nice thought and all, but once again the Dodgers front office proves to be extremely shortsighted. Rather than fill the gaping hole in first base or re-sign Jeff Weaver (I wonder if anyone remembers he's a free agent?), the Dodgers sign a 2B/SS...which they already have! And who's brilliant idea is it to move JEFF KENT to first base?
Following last year's blockbuster signing of the ever-brittle J.D. Drew, the Dodgers once again show everyone how savvy their front office truly is.
Signing Furcal isn't a bad move. He's a nice player and all, and I think most teams would be happy to have him.
What is a bad move is signing Furcal to a 3 year, 40 million dollar deal. I've said it or thought it after every free agent signing this offseason, and I'll say it one more time: these owners are insane. Can anyone justify how anyone who isn't under the influence of copious amounts of hard drugs could think that this is a good deal? Furcal has a career high of 15 homeruns, he has never hit .300, and despite being a leadoff hitter has a career OBP under .350. What are the Dodgers thinking. The Orioles signed Tejada to a deal worth 6/72 before the 2004 season. Does anyone think that Furcal is worth even half of that?
I'm convinced AJ Burnett is going to sign a deal worth a billion dollars or something. People were saying during the season that maybe 4/48 would get Burnett. I have to think that nothing under 5/60 even gets looked at by Burnett and his agent. Hell, Loaiza got 3/21 and apparently Byrd was offered 3/22 by the Royals, and they aren't even among the top three or four free agent pitchers. At least it will be funny when the CBA expires again and the owners cry about needing a salary cap.
I can't believe the price they got him at and only a one year deal to boot. How could you not sign him? He's a great fit for that stadium in Texas as well. As for the Angels ... it's odd to see a team that wants to be big market act so small market.