So Buster Olney says the Orioles are looking to re-sign Saunders

[CA-ORIOLE]

This is not what I am referring to. There are quite a few posters who seem to think that Saunders can't do in the AL East what he did in the AL West and NL West, and that he'll get clobbered in our division. And I just don't think that's the case. The guy is what he is, wherever he pitches - a decent mid- to back-end starter.

Then you probably should be more specific. As far as the "he wouldn't pitch well in the AL East argument", I'm not sure that I'd completely discount it. Still, I think the central point of those against locking up Saunders on a multi-year deal (2/16 or 3/25 or whatever) is that it isn't such a great move and locking up players with limited upside when you have limited resources isn't a great overall strategy.

[El Gordo]

Ideally a 1 year deal for Suanders is what we want. He'd be a solid #5, giving us 6-7 IP with 3-4 ER. With Bundy and Gausman on the way, and all our surplus SP: Wada, Britton, Matusz, Johnson, and Arrieta, we don't want to block any of these guys if they step up, but I would give him 2 years if that's what it takes.

[Barnaby Graves]

Saunders did some of the best pitching of his career during that short stint for us. I think he's a great dragonslayer but he doesn't have a great SO/BB and allows plenty of home runs so we're unlikely see him pitch as well as he did down the stretch. Could he be a decent member of the rotation? Absolutely.

[clarence]

I don't think they give him a two-year deal unless a decent trade happens where we thin out the pitching. I think there are too many candidates to fill the 4-5 starter spot and they aren't going to cost 6-8M per year.

[jabba72]

I think Saunders could easily give the O's 200 innings at a low to mid 4.00 ERA. So, yes the Orioles should sign him to a two year deal. If not, another AL East team might want to sign Saunders, which would probably help them.

[mdbdotcom]

If they trade Chen and Arrieta to KC for Butler, then they should sign Saunders for 2 years plus an option.

[LookitsPuck]

I don't mind a 2 year deal.

[TradeAngelos]

Then you probably should be more specific. As far as the "he wouldn't pitch well in the AL East argument", I'm not sure that I'd completely discount it. Still, I think the central point of those against locking up Saunders on a multi-year deal (2/16 or 3/25 or whatever) is that it isn't such a great move and locking up players with limited upside when you have limited resources isn't a great overall strategy.

Since when do we have "limited resources"??

Did I miss something?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Since when do we have "limited resources"??

Did I miss something?

So we have unlimited resources then?

[Can_of_corn]

Since when do we have "limited resources"??

Did I miss something?

When the ownership is only willing to spend a limited amount then you have limited resources. How much PA could spend isn't the issue, it is how much he is willing to spend.

[Spy Fox]

Good. Obviously we want a reasonable and short deal, but I'll feel a good deal more relaxed about our rotation stability if we have him back.

[wildcard]

Saunders, McLouth, Hammel and Reynolds are all guys I would like to see sign a one year contract with a club option. I don't think any of them have the track record for a two year contract. That to me is the challenge for the off season for DD. If they do well next year they may be in line for a longer contract.

[tennOsfan]

No matter how many young arms we have, I think there'll always be a place for a Joe Saunders. At least we know he's one free agent pitcher who will give us everything he's got.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Saunders, McLouth, Hammel and Reynolds are all guys I would like to see sign a one year contract with a club option. I don't think any of them have the track record for a two year contract. That to me is the challenge for the off season for DD. If they do well next year they may be in line for a longer contract.

If Hammel (already under contract for next year) has a good season next year, it's too late to extend him to anything reasonable after the fact. that's part of the risk vs reward balance.

[TradeAngelos]

When the ownership is only willing to spend a limited amount then you have limited resources. How much PA could spend isn't the issue, it is how much he is willing to spend.

Fair enough.