Bailey not a FA?

[arch stanton]

As long as Bedrosian is healthy he'll get first crack at Street's job but Bailey would still be a useful arm if he's not too pricy.

[oater]

On 10/10/2016 at 5:50 PM, Jeff Fletcher said:

I asked Eppler a month ago and he said Bailey was going to make 6 years to be a FA, just barely apparently. 

Since he was up all of September, I assume that didn't change. 

I stand corrected.  I failed to include the time Bailey accrued after he was designated for assignment.  This would add another 10 days of service time, which would be enough to qualify for free agency.

Anyway, I agree that with his injury history, the Angels would not risk having to pay arbitration award even if they had that option.  

[Second Base]

I'll be curious to see what Bailey's market will look like. I mean clearly, Eppler is interested in Andrew Bailey, otherwise he wouldn't have picked him up after he was DFA'd, and Scioscia wouldn't have installed him as closer, and Bailey did extremely well. His fastball was coming in at 94.

I'm wondering if his time with us upped his value to enough to price him out of Anaheim. Or perhaps he just doesn't want to play ball here. Or maybe he does.

Regardless, I think we have the inside track at signing him. We gave him a shot, he knows he can pitch here, we have a need and we have money. I'm guessing he comes back on a one year deal worth 1 million.

[Tank]

13 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

At this point the answer is always "Yeah, we liked what he did. We will certainly keep in touch with him, as we would with all our players."

Whether they want to keep Bailey depends on what Bailey wants. If he'll take $1M plus incentives and no expectation to close, they'll take that. If he wants $5M and a closer job, they won't.

thanks, jeff. appreciate the info.