Discuss as:

Why don't the Angels sign Paul Byrd?

The Los Angeles Times' Steve Bisheff asks a pretty good question about the Angels:

Mike Scioscia and management keep saying their pitching solutions are "in house." But maybe they have to say that, because [Arte] Moreno has closed his wallet and stuck it somewhere in a vault in that mansion of his in Arizona.

It is beginning to look that way. Why else wouldn't they sign Pedro Martinez or Paul Byrd? At $4 million plus incentives, the price that could probably lure Pedro to Anaheim, the future Hall of Famer would be a bargain. Byrd, who would also be a huge upgrade from the current minor leaguers, apparently would be willing to sign for even less.

So why have the Angels been so tentative?

As Bisheff notes, Lackey and Santana aren't expected back any earlier than June 1st. While no team in the West looks particularly poised to run away with the division between now and then, why chance it? Tragedy and injury have left the Angels with 2/5 of their projected rotation this year, and guys like Shane Loux, Matt Palmer and Anthony Ortega aren't exactly the kind of guys a team with a Win Now posture should be sending out to the hill on a regular basis.

I don't know that Pedro Martinez is the answer -- I fear he may very well be done -- but Paul Byrd would be a nice addition, wouldn't he?

So what gives, Arte?