Truth & Rumors > MLB

Frustrated Adam LaRoche talking to other teams

Views
14810
Comments
36

09:17 AM ET 12.30 | As his negotiations with the Nationals remain stagnant, free agent first baseman Adam LaRoche said Friday evening that he is in talks with multiple opposing clubs, as well. LaRoche maintained his preference to return to the Nationals next season, but he hinted at frustration the sides have yet to reach a deal. "We're talking to a few other teams," LaRoche said Friday evening in a voicemail. "Got to keep things open in case Washington doesn't work out. I'm still hopeful that it will, but as you know it takes two sides cooperating to make that happen. I'm doing everything I can." The Nationals have had a two-year offer to LaRoche all winter, but LaRoche has been seeking a three-year deal after he hit 33 homers with 100 RBI and won both the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger awards in the National League.

Washington Post

Adam LaRoche, Greg Fiume/Getty Images Adam LaRoche, Greg Fiume/Getty Images
December 30, 2012  10:21 AM ET

What are the Nats waiting for? Pay the man.

December 30, 2012  10:35 AM ET
QUOTE(#1):

What are the Nats waiting for? Pay the man.

Yeah, I don't understand why 3 years would be a major hold up for the Nats.

December 30, 2012  10:52 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

Yeah, I don't understand why 3 years would be a major hold up for the Nats.

Maybe he has a bad hip like Napoli. The Nats know something.

December 30, 2012  11:03 AM ET

I think the Nats are seeing these other teams getting bit on long term contracts they are wanted to protect themselves. LaRoche is now 33 and probably on the downside of his major league career.

December 30, 2012  11:07 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

I think the Nats are seeing these other teams getting bit on long term contracts they are wanted to protect themselves. LaRoche is now 33 and probably on the downside of his major league career.

That would make sense if he was looking for a five year deal, but he's not.

Comment #6 has been removed
December 30, 2012  11:33 AM ET
QUOTE(#6):

Exactly. Can't figure this one out.

They have others who can play 1st base at a much cheaper price.

December 30, 2012  11:40 AM ET

How about they agree on the numbers for a two year contract (say, two yrs for $24m) and then have a third optional year in which the team can exercise at full ($12m) or the player can exercise at half ($6m). Deal?

December 30, 2012  12:07 PM ET

2 years and a 1 year option

December 30, 2012  12:17 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

How about they agree on the numbers for a two year contract (say, two yrs for $24m) and then have a third optional year in which the team can exercise at full ($12m) or the player can exercise at half ($6m). Deal?

Sounds reasonable. Shoot this idea over to Rizzo, stat!

December 30, 2012  12:29 PM ET
QUOTE(#3):

Maybe he has a bad hip like Napoli. The Nats know something.

Maybe Bostons' talking to him because they don't like Napoli's bad hip. And if that's the case, LaRoche would be stupid not to listen.

I say there's a 50/50 probability he ends up in Beantown.

Comment #12 has been removed
December 30, 2012  12:33 PM ET

Take the 2 yr deal with the Nats! If you are as good as you think you are, the money will still be there for a new contract after that.

December 30, 2012  01:14 PM ET
QUOTE(#13):

Take the 2 yr deal with the Nats! If you are as good as you think you are, the money will still be there for a new contract after that.

Why should he do that when another team offers him a 3-year deal? He'd be crazy not to take it. Injuries happen, and longer-term contracts are insurance against that.

Whoever has the better bargaining position here wins the battle of the contract lengths. If you're good enough and young enough, *someone* will pay.

December 30, 2012  01:30 PM ET
QUOTE(#11):

Maybe Bostons' talking to him because they don't like Napoli's bad hip. And if that's the case, LaRoche would be stupid not to listen.I say there's a 50/50 probability he ends up in Beantown.

Maybe. Joking aside, Washington should sign LaRoche. After his year last year and the way the Nationals played as a team, not signing him would be odd.

December 30, 2012  01:55 PM ET
QUOTE(#15):

Maybe. Joking aside, Washington should sign LaRoche. After his year last year and the way the Nationals played as a team, not signing him would be odd.

Washington *will* sign him if they believe they can run the table in 2013. It would be worth the extra spending.

Comment #17 has been removed
December 30, 2012  03:01 PM ET

Texas?

December 30, 2012  03:15 PM ET

Pay that man his money.

<flips oreo to KGB>

 
December 30, 2012  03:59 PM ET

I didn't realize that LaRoche played half a dozen games for Boston in 2009. So having him as an alternate to the hobbled Napoli isn't entirely unthinkable. He knows them, and vice versa. The only downside I see with him is his 172 Ks last season. That's not the Boston way. Management and ownership prefers patient bats which wear down opposing pitchers.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1827
    Comments
    1433
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
    Views
    1057
    Comments
    218
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    4113
    Comments
    168
  4. 4
    Niners table talks with Kaepernick
    Views
    1239
    Comments
    64
  5. 5
    ... So, L.A. will line up for Love and Durant
    Views
    6779
    Comments
    48

SI.com

SI Photos