Erik BedardThe Rays have re-signed starting pitcher Erik Bedard to a minor league deal according to several members of the media.

Bedard had hoped to find a Major League job with another club. Instead, he will report to the triple-A Durham Bulls where he will be part of their rotation.

The Rays also brought back infielder Mike Fontenot who was released by the Nationals earlier in the day.

Fontenot last appeared in the majors with the Phillies in 2012, playing 47 games and spent the 2013 season with the Durham Bulls.



  1. Rob says:

    Feels better to have a little insurance in Durham.

  2. Dave L says:

    After all the goings on this winter, isn't it ironic we are all - well almost all - happy to welcome back Bedard as insurance for our fearsome rotation

    and at best if called upon we will be content to see him perform at replacement level. Replacement level isn't so bad for real temporary replcement players as long as the rest of the team performs to their abilities.

    Below replacement level tastes real bad as Fausto and Helli did last year (-0.6 and -0.8 WAR or 78 and 74 ERA+ , respectively)

    Give us a 0.0 and a 100 and we'll take it.

    • ken says:

      Dave, I'm not that sabermetrically sharp but do feel that a minor league Bedard is better insurance on paper now that Colome is unavailable. I did voice my opinion that he didn't deserve the 5 spot and still feel that way. Hopefully we won't need him but we both know that pitchers are fragile. If 0.0 and 100 means that in the 5+ potential starts he might have he doesn't blow up I'll be happy. Always enjoy reading your posts, whether I agree or not. What's your read on the permanence of SRod and Joyce?

  3. Dave L says:

    Ken I was on record favoring Bedard but had I known we could start Jake O and keep Bedard in reserve, well I just didnt know that was possible but the wise AF did so i did not complain here.

    usually when they make a move i disagree with my first response is less 'they are wrong' and more 'what am I missing here?' And now I know.

    I'm no saber expert. But my read is a zero WAR is like a typical guy who isn't winning games alone but isn't killing his team either. A 100 ERA+ is an improvement over that with a league average park adjusted ERA. That would be too much to expect from a Bedard at this stage. A '90' would be fabulous to borrow a phrase.

    The two you mentioned are very good role players but never everyday guys but thats fine. A team needs those. I wish the Rays and Joyce would forget about him striving to hit lefties and go back to him focusing on raking righties (2/3 ofall ABs) at a career .835 OPS after a down year.

    He needs to accept this and also embrace the DH role which not many can and just hit.

    SRod is a perfect bench guy for this team rarely a drop off defensively at any position for a couple of innings. just try to hide him from RHP with good off-speed stuff which he has never been able to hit. He can inspire the team with his grit and determination IMO. if Maddon asked him to run through a brick wall he would give it shot and flash a grin just before losing consciousness from the head trauma

    • Mr. Smith 1980 says:

      As I see it, a replacement player's WAR would be compared to someone in a similar role or to the person who would be next in line to replace them, not the person they replaced.

      For example, let's say Price goes down; his replacement's WAR shouldn't be compared to where it lands as opposed to Price, it should be compared against other replacement level players. I can tell I'm not explaining that very well, hmmm.... let's say DP's WAR is +5.0, his Durham level replacement shouldn't be compared to that 5.0, but to other replacements playing at the same level or maybe guys in the #5 slot of a normal rotation.

      Maybe I'm stating the obvious or maybe I just wrote a whole paragraph of gibberish, but either way I've offered my unsolicited 2 cents.

      • OriginalTom says:

        As I understand it WAR is calculated exactly the way you described in your paragraph. A players WAR is the value he adds ABOVE what a theoretical replacement palyer would be.

      • Dave L says:

        I concur 100% with your description

        My usual over worded scribblings just meant to say that we should be content with replacement level production out of our replacements.

        That's all

        • Mr. Smith 1980 says:

          Thanks for confirming that we are all on the same page.

          I assumed we were all stating the same basic logic I was trying to also convey that some people seem to inadvertently, and unfairly, compare a replacement player to the player being replaced.


Leave a Comment