BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Baltimore Sun: Orioles, Bedard stall on contract

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, November 30, 2007

Baltimore Sun: Orioles, Bedard stall on contract

Contract extension talks between the Orioles and Erik Bedard stalled yesterday, increasing the likelihood that team officials will spend part of next week’s winter meetings contemplating trade offers for the ace left-hander.

“We’ve had some conversations. We spoke again today, but I’d say that we’ve cooled in that area,” Orioles president of baseball operations Andy MacPhail said of the negotiations with Bedard’s agent, Mark Pieper… “I’m not concerned,” MacPhail said. “My experience tells me that this isn’t unusual. I’d be hesitant to read too much into it.”

MacPhail said earlier this week that he and Pieper had been having “periodic” and “conceptual” conversations about an extension for Bedard, 28. MacPhail said that no contract figures were ever exchanged.
...
The New York Yankees, New York Mets, Seattle Mariners, Los Angeles Angels and Los Angeles Dodgers all have inquired about Bedard, who would be one of the most coveted pitchers available in a market that also includes two-time American League Cy Young Award winner Johan Santana.

According to several industry sources, the Mets’ offer for Bedard, which was rejected, included 21-year-old outfield prospect Carlos Gomez, reliever Aaron Heilman, 29, and a third player, believed to be right-handed starter Philip Humber, 24.

NTNgod Posted: November 30, 2007 at 04:46 AM | 54 comment(s)
Related News: General, Baltimore

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. DKDC Posted: November 30, 2007 at 09:35 AM (#2628979)

According to several industry sources, the Mets’ offer for Bedard, which was rejected, included 21-year-old outfield prospect Carlos Gomez, reliever Aaron Heilman, 29, and a third player, believed to be right-handed starter Philip Humber, 24.

Wow, that's a terrible offer.

2. Russlan roots for the the mediocre Mets Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:09 AM (#2628996)

You can't blame Omar for trying or the Orioles for saying no. I'd like to see the Mets expand a trade with the Orioles to somehow include Ramon Hernandez.

3. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:12 AM (#2628998)

I've been saying for a while now that the Orioles and Mets are good trade partners -- just not for Bedard. The Mets could certainly use Roberts, Hernandez and J. Guthrie, and they have the prospects to make a deal for some combo of those guys work. But I don't think they have enough for Bedard unless they're willing to clean out the system.

4. Cris E Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:18 AM (#2629007)

The Mets could grab Tejada too, then they'd be ready to fill holes once they trade Reyes or Wright. (I kid, I kid.)

5. J. Cross Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:21 AM (#2629009)

6. Roiding Team (Oriole Tragic) Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:23 AM (#2629011)

I've read much positive commentary about Gomez on this site. What's wrong with the Mets' offer, as outlined above? Humber isn't that good?

7. DKDC Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:37 AM (#2629022)

Gomez is tough to evaluate because he was so aggressively promoted (aka rushed), but there's nothing in his numbers that indicate he'll be an impact hitter.

He does have very good defense and speed, and he's easy to make excuses for because he's been young for the levels he's played at.

But until he shows something with his bat, he's not an elite prospect, and therefore not a centerpiece for a Bedard deal.

I like Heilman, but he's a poor fit for the Orioles because he has almost 4 years of MLB service time.

Humber is a decent complementary piece, but that's it.

8. JPWF13 Posted: November 30, 2007 at 10:59 AM (#2629033)

Wow, that's a terrible offer.

Don't let the Carlos Gomez fanboys hear you say that.

IMHO it's not that bad an offer. I wouldn't make it if I were the Orioles
because:
1: Bedard really is a stud, he's progressed virtually every year and his peripherals fully support his 121 and 146 ERA+s the last 2 years.
2: There's 2 years to go before he can be a FA.
3: I'm not a Carlos Gomez fanboy.

Personally considering Gomez's athleticism I'm sure out of 30 teams there are at least a handful that view Gomez the way the fanboys do- Omar should be sounding out teams- I suspect a couple are willing to overpay (what I think would be an overpayment) for him.

I can't see that Humber has much trade value right now, he could be a decent starter, he could be crap- considering what he's likely to bring in trade I think the Mets should keep him and give him at east 10 starts or so (I also think Pelfrey should go the pen and be groomed as Wagner's heir, but tehn I'm not running a team...)

9. Bicycle RepairMan Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:22 AM (#2629059)

How much of this is the New York media blowing smoke up everybody's ass, and how much based in fact?
It seems like everytime someone mentions that a player is on the market, an article about the Mets offering Gomez and assorted trash for said player immediately follows.

10. seeking a clever screen name since 1999 Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:25 AM (#2629066)

How much of this is the New York media blowing smoke up everybody's ass...

The article is from the Baltimore Sun. Just sayin' is all. Is it your contention that Zrebiec's "industry sources" are actually NY beat writers?

11. AJM Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM (#2629068)

Mets offering Gomez and assorted trash for said player immediately follows

When did Heilman and Humber become assorted trash?

12. Jeff K. Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM (#2629077)

When did Heilman and Humber become assorted trash?

Good point. Heilman still has value, and still may turn out to be a solid #4/#5 starter. The only things I've read about Humber come from Mets fans here, but I was of the perception that he's projected pretty much the same way. So depending on what you think about Gomez, you're getting two solid rotation guys and a top outfield prospect for a guy who's well on his way to putting it all together. It's certainly not a great deal and it probably takes a high opinion of Gomez to make it a good deal, but it's not lousy.

13. Conor Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:39 AM (#2629091)

Good point. Heilman still has value, and still may turn out to be a solid #4/#5 starter.

If nothing else, he's a pretty good reliever too.

14. AJM Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:40 AM (#2629093)

Heilman still has value, and still may turn out to be a solid #4/#5 starter.

I don't know if he could start, but hell, he'd probably get $7-8 million as a FA reliever.

I don't think people realize how good he's been as a reliever:

240 IP, 2.99 ERA, 194 H, 14 HRA, 209/73 K/BB

15. jmurph Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:46 AM (#2629102)

When did Heilman and Humber become assorted trash?

Today. And every other day that Heilman wakes up and is older than Erik Bedard. So no, not "trash" in that he is useless, but "trash" in the sense that no competent team would take him in a package for a younger (even if only by a year) stud pitcher two years away from free agency.

EDIT: Dammit! I meant to make a joke about the Orioles not being a competent team. Just pretend I did and it was funny.

16. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:49 AM (#2629108)

Good point. Heilman still has value, and still may turn out to be a solid #4/#5 starter. The only things I've read about Humber come from Mets fans here, but I was of the perception that he's projected pretty much the same way. So depending on what you think about Gomez, you're getting two solid rotation guys and a top outfield prospect for a guy who's well on his way to putting it all together. It's certainly not a great deal and it probably takes a high opinion of Gomez to make it a good deal, but it's not lousy.

Bedard was arguably the best pitcher in the AL last year, is in his prime, and is two years from FA. Any offer that doesn't include at least one excellent, major league ready prospect is a non-starter IMO. I don't see a player like that here.

17. AJM Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:51 AM (#2629113)

I'd like to point out that I wasn't trying to imply that it was a fair deal, it's not.

18. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:53 AM (#2629116)

19. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:58 AM (#2629124)

I think the Reds match up well because they have several elite prospects. Bailey and Votto and a couple of lesser prospects might make sense. Bruce would be ideal, but I assume he's untouchable.

20. Bicycle RepairMan Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:06 PM (#2629135)

I'd like to point out that I wasn't trying to imply that it was a fair deal, it's not.

Then what are you arguing? Teams dealing elite players are not looking for complimentary pieces to make a playoff run. They are looking for centerpieces to form the basis of their next competitive team. Heilman/Humber whatever have value, but not to the Orioles. Most teams have enough live arms who might make it or not as #4/#5 starters. Why should they take that chance on other team's garbage by dealing their best player?

Sure I will deal you a Stradivari for your Amati. And you know what, I will throw couple of good 50 yr old violins in the bargain. BFD.

21. Bicycle RepairMan Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM (#2629139)

What might it take for the Reds to get Bedard? He appears to be a better fit for them than Santana, as much more of a groundball pitcher and with the extra year before free agency. Would Bailey and Votto be a reasonable return for the Orioles? It seems to me like a better offer than Gomez/Pelfrey/Humber, but I can't really get a gauge on how much Bailey's stock may have fallen this year

Why would the Reds do that? They are never going to be a big spending team, and its not like they have some tiny window for winning. And Bailey will be fine. Not the first hyped up prospect to hit the big leagues and struggle with control.

22. HowardMegdal Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:36 PM (#2629186)

Bedard is a better pick up than Santana since he has 2 years left and more incentive to sign a long-term deal now for a bit of a discount. So, I think the deal above is a little weak. For Bedard, unlike Santana, I think you can give up Milledge but I still wouldn't deal Milledge + Gomez or Milledge + F-Mart.

I sure can't buy this argument. The Mets can afford either- Santana's low in IP over the last four years is 20+ innings higher than Bedard's career high, and his ERA+ has been higher than Bedard's career-high every season but 2007.

I like Bedard. He's not a better pickup than Santana. The contracts do not even this one out.

Then what are you arguing? Teams dealing elite players are not looking for complimentary pieces to make a playoff run. They are looking for centerpieces to form the basis of their next competitive team. Heilman/Humber whatever have value, but not to the Orioles. Most teams have enough live arms who might make it or not as #4/#5 starters. Why should they take that chance on other team's garbage by dealing their best player?

When a team is many players away from contending, a high-upside OF like Carlos Gomez, along with two pitchers who could make up 40% of the starting rotation all have value. If you don't believe me, watch and see the package Baltimore ends up getting for Bedard. It won't be for one guy.

23. Conor Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:38 PM (#2629188)

I'd like to point out that I wasn't trying to imply that it was a fair deal, it's not.

Then what are you arguing?

That Heilman isn't "assorted trash"

24. jmurph Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:46 PM (#2629199)

When a team is many players away from contending, a high-upside OF like Carlos Gomez, along with two pitchers who could make up 40% of the starting rotation all have value. If you don't believe me, watch and see the package Baltimore ends up getting for Bedard. It won't be for one guy.

25. HowardMegdal Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:52 PM (#2629212)

Sure, Gomez is the type of player they should be after, but Humber probably is not, and Heilman absolutely is not. They're at least 3 years away from making a run at the wild card (pretty optimistic case). He's the guy you pick up the winter before you're hoping to compete, not 3 years out. That's why that package is garbage.

This is silly. Gomez is a player they'd want, and has a good bit of value around the league. Humber is a buy low candidate who held his own in AAA last year (numbers in the PCL were very good), and for all that anyone wants to say he was two years removed from TJ surgery, he wasn't. He was two years removed in July. And from July on, he was dominant. Not saying he's a Joba-level prospect, but the idea that he wouldn't be useful to the O's... seems silly to me.

And if you've decided you can't/won't compete until what, 2011? Then Heilman's not the guy. You go Mulvey instead. Or you spin Heilman off to a team that can use a reliever who has been as good as Heilman. Think that will be hard to find?

26. NJ in DC Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM (#2629223)

27. HowardMegdal Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:00 PM (#2629229)

Howard, isn't the concern about Humber a scouting one at this point rather than a statistical one?

I think it's pretty mixed. His numbers were good, not dominant. At MLB, his fastball was not what it had been at AAA (due to, I'm guessing, the long layoff, but who can be sure?).

The frustrating part with Humber is I feel like they'd be dealing him at the exact time in his career that the Mets traded Isringhausen- just as he was getting healthy enough to realize his potential. A smart team would deal for him right now, and get a pitching prospect on the other side of TJ surgery (and the rehab) for far less than a typical pitching prospect with his resume and pedigree would cost.

28. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:03 PM (#2629234)

This is silly. Gomez is a player they'd want, and has a good bit of value around the league. Humber is a buy low candidate who held his own in AAA last year (numbers in the PCL were very good), and for all that anyone wants to say he was two years removed from TJ surgery, he wasn't. He was two years removed in July. And from July on, he was dominant. Not saying he's a Joba-level prospect, but the idea that he wouldn't be useful to the O's... seems silly to me.

And if you've decided you can't/won't compete until what, 2011? Then Heilman's not the guy. You go Mulvey instead. Or you spin Heilman off to a team that can use a reliever who has been as good as Heilman. Think that will be hard to find?

The point isn't that the Orioles wouldn't be interested in Gomez and Humber, it's that the two of them and a 29 year old reliever are nearly enough for Bedard because that package doesn't include a single top tier, major league ready young player. Milledge, Gomez, and Humber, maybe.

29. jmurph Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:07 PM (#2629243)

This is silly.

So which part is silly, then? I agreed with you on Gomez, you cede that Heilman is "not the guy," and you suggest Humber probably is valuable to the O's, while I suggest he is probably not. I don't think we're exactly worlds apart in our comments.

That being said, to your earlier suggestion to "watch and see the package" the O's get for Bedard, do you honestly think it won't be better than Gomez/Heilman/Humber? The Mets themselves would likely do better than that.

30. NJ in DC Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:09 PM (#2629245)

I think it's pretty mixed. His numbers were good, not dominant. At MLB, his fastball was not what it had been at AAA (due to, I'm guessing, the long layoff, but who can be sure?).

BA seemed pretty definitive about it in their writeup:

At times Humber still tries to pitch up in the strike zone, and he doesn't have that kind of velocity anymore. His fastball ranges from 87-91 mph after he used to touch 94-95 at Rice.

31. Bicycle RepairMan Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:16 PM (#2629259)

This is silly

Oh ofcourse! The O's should be gaga over an overworked college pitcher, a RH who throwing in the high 80s after his surgery. And a reliever who is getting expensive, and hasn't shown a third pitch yet. A reliever whose own team preferred pitching Lima/Dave Williams/Brian Lawrence in the rotation rather than stretch him out in the middle of a pennant race. Why, the Orioles should be grateful for such a gracious offer and just throw in Guthrie and Roberts too.

If you are so sure they are serviceable rotation parts, why are they not being plugged into the Mets rotation? Last I heard, the Mets exactly didn't have an excess of pitching arms. Snark aside, if you are going to get a top 10-15 player, the package centers around 2 stud prospects. Humber/Heilman can work as throw-ins, but they are not adding significant value to a rebuilding team.
If I was the GM, I rather take Bailey than some combination of iffy #4/#5 pitchers. He might turn out to be a bust, but atleast I know that if he hits his ceiling, I have something to build around. If Humber hits his ceiling, big deal. I am still left in the middle of suckitude.

32. DFA Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2629296)

Bedard would just love the NY media because the Baltimore media is so tough! I'm hoping Erik reupps with the Orioles, but I understand that likely won't happen, not that anyone can really blame him. It really won't matter where he goes, he'll end up in Toronto in 2010.

MacPhail should trade him to the Dodgers for Kemp and Kershaw and another prospect.

33. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:36 PM (#2629300)

Why would the Reds do that? They are never going to be a big spending team, and its not like they have some tiny window for winning.

My impression is that a team that brings in Dusty Baker and signs the top closer on the market is looking to win immediately. Adding Bedard to Harang, Arroyo, and Belisle would give the Reds a strong rotation to contend, and the losses of Bailey and Votto likely would not have much impact on the team this year. Griffey should be off the books after this season, and Bruce, Hamilton, Phillips, and Encarnacion would be cheap enough as central figures in the lineup that the team won't need to enter the upper tier in payroll to stay competitive. I think the front office is afraid of losing fan support if the team can't contend in a weak division this year, and thus they may be interested in trading even top prospects (with the exception of Bruce) for a player to get them into the playoffs now.

34. HowardMegdal Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:43 PM (#2629308)

So which part is silly, then? I agreed with you on Gomez, you cede that Heilman is "not the guy," and you suggest Humber probably is valuable to the O's, while I suggest he is probably not. I don't think we're exactly worlds apart in our comments.

The "the package is garbage" part of the comments. That's the silly part.

At times Humber still tries to pitch up in the strike zone, and he doesn't have that kind of velocity anymore. His fastball ranges from 87-91 mph after he used to touch 94-95 at Rice.

Curious when this is from- both games I attended this season and scouts I spoke to had Humber at around 91-94 late in the season. I'll certainly be eyeing the gun for his appearances in the spring, that's for sure.

Bedard would just love the NY media because the Baltimore media is so tough!

This is the biggest reason the Mets would need to trade for Bedard- to convince him about New York. You'd have to hope he changes his mind. Doesn't seem like the type of guy who would choose to come to NY on his own.

That being said, to your earlier suggestion to "watch and see the package" the O's get for Bedard, do you honestly think it won't be better than Gomez/Heilman/Humber? The Mets themselves would likely do better than that.

No, I think it will be a bit better than that. I don't think it will be for 1-2 guys, but for 3-4 guys who are prospects.

35. Jeff K. Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:52 PM (#2629321)

if you are going to get a top 10-15 player, the package centers around 2 stud prospects.

Bedard is not a top 10-15 player. You may well believe he projects as one (and I probably wouldn't disagree), but you cannot call him one at age 28, after a season of 121 and a season of 146.

36. JPWF13 Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:52 PM (#2629323)

My impression is that a team that brings in Dusty Baker and signs the top closer on the market is looking to win immediately.

My impression is that a team that does that, and has also traded two starting position players for middle relief "help"*, is a team that simply doesn't know what the hell it is doing.

*So the trade hasn't been a disaster because Lopez regressed and Kearns had a bad year- so what, Krivsky could have gotten A LOT more than what he did in packaging those two.

37. npurcell Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:57 PM (#2629331)

If the Orioles can get Kemp/Kershaw, they need to say yes right away.

But I have my doubts the Dodgers are even entertaining offers with Kershaw in it.

This kid is getting mad hype right now from every fricken corner of the prospecting community. The Dodgers, a team that traditionally love their prototypical power pitchers, most likely put an insane value on Kershaw.

I just can't see him being dealt.

38. Bicycle RepairMan Posted: November 30, 2007 at 01:58 PM (#2629333)

You may well believe he projects as one (and I probably wouldn't disagree), but you cannot call him one at age 28,

Err, isn't that point of this exercise? To get an absolute stud player who is under control for the NEXT 2 years?

39. Jeff K. Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:02 PM (#2629339)

Err, isn't that point of this exercise? To get an absolute stud player who is under control for the NEXT 2 years?

Sure it is, I'm just quibbling with the nomenclature.

40. DKDC Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:04 PM (#2629343)

Bedard is not a top 10-15 player. You may well believe he projects as one (and I probably wouldn't disagree), but you cannot call him one at age 28, after a season of 121 and a season of 146.

Lowest OPS+ allowed over the last 3 years (min 450 IP)
64 Johan Santana
68 Chris Carpenter
69 Roy Halladay
72 Brandon Webb
74 Carlos Zambrano
75 Erik Bedard

Lowest OPS+ allowed over the last 2 years (min 300 IP)
65 Brandon Webb
69 Johan Santana
71 Erik Bedard

Lowest OPS+ allowed over the last 1 year (min 150 IP)
60 Chris Young
61 Erik Bedard

Am I missing something here?

41. jmurph Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:11 PM (#2629356)

No, I think it will be a bit better than that. I don't think it will be for 1-2 guys, but for 3-4 guys who are prospects.

Howard, I gotta say I'm finding your train of thought to be just strange. No one is advocating for 1-2 guys. What I'm saying (and what others are saying) is that this package (which you've defended while also suggesting it's not good enough and then criticized others for saying the same thing) isn't good enough to get Bedard. Why are you wasting your time defending a package of Heilman/Gomez/Humber while also advocating for 3-4 prospects changing hands? Heilman is not a prospect. You've lost me.

42. JPWF13 Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:13 PM (#2629363)

Am I missing something here?

Yes Bedard only pitches 180 ip or so a year...

Seriously I have to think he's in the running for one of the 5 most valuable pitchers going forward right now

What pitchers would you most want over the next 5 years?

43. HowardMegdal Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:14 PM (#2629365)

44. Russlan roots for the the mediocre Mets Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:19 PM (#2629383)

Minaya just made a mistake. Milledge for Church, Schneider according to Rotoworld. Horrible.

45. Jeff K. Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2629386)

Really? Someone put up a thread on that, because I want to see the fun.

46. npurcell Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:23 PM (#2629397)

did you guys just hear that?

its the sound of sharpen knives headed to the Minaya residence.

47. Rickroll the Mets (OFF) Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:25 PM (#2629402)

If Humber hits his ceiling, big deal. I am still left in the middle of suckitude.

Humber might have been slowed by the TJ surgery, but come on. He was picked number three overall in the draft. If he hits his ceiling, he's definitely someone who you can build around. And even if he doesn't, he could easily be a good number #3 starter. Last year, he led the PCL in WHIP, he was top 10 in strikeouts, and ERA. His K/9 and K/BB could were pretty ok too.

48. Rickroll the Mets (OFF) Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:26 PM (#2629405)

OMFG... ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

49. Kyle S Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:27 PM (#2629408)

I submitted a news item - am hoping to set an all-time record for responses to a thread posted by me.

50. Bicycle RepairMan Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:27 PM (#2629409)

Humber might have been slowed by the TJ surgery, but come on. He was picked number three overall in the draft.

Thats the thing. Coming out of the draft, he was a power pitcher. Now he is RH finesse artist unless he gets velocity back. He would have to be Greg Maddux to be better than an average starter at best.

51. npurcell Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:28 PM (#2629412)

47

His stuff when he was drafted is not the same stuff he possesses currently.

52. DFA Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:29 PM (#2629414)

34:Bedard would just love the NY media because the Baltimore media is so tough!

This is the biggest reason the Mets would need to trade for Bedard- to convince him about New York. You'd have to hope he changes his mind. Doesn't seem like the type of guy who would choose to come to NY on his own.

Bedard was viewed as surly by the Baltimore media types, primarily because (imho) he doesn't suffer fools gladly. I don't follow the Metropolitans, but if the AROD bs is any indication, Bedard would grow to loathe the NY media in about fifteen minutes. Of course, former Oriole Mussina (who was similarly viewed as media averse) did OK in NYC and I'm sure there are some players who can do well without dealing media. But Bedard is regarded as something as ornery by the Baltimore media, which is a lightweight compared to NYC or even Philly.

I see what you are saying by having to trade him to ever get him to extend, but if I'm Minaya I have to assume there will only be 2 years of Bedard and a couple draft picks.

53. Russlan roots for the the mediocre Mets Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:33 PM (#2629425)

This is really the first move that Omar made that I can't find any justification for. Flores I could understand a little as he gambled a team wouldn't want to keep an A-ball catcher on their roster for an extended time period. This one I don't get at all. Church is a decent left-handed bat that is 4 years away from free agency but he's never going to make an all-star game. Schneider used to be able to hit but hasn't in the last few years.

Bowden robbed Omar.

54. rfloh Posted: November 30, 2007 at 02:39 PM (#2629432)

Omar is Bowden's ##### if this is true.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, November 30, 2007

Baltimore Sun: Orioles, Bedard stall on contract

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics