The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Quick notes: Ibanez, McGehee, Ransom

Posted by: Chad Jennings - Posted in Misc on Dec 21, 2012 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Just a few quick notes this early afternoon.

• The Yankees have talked to Raul Ibanez about returning as a platoon DH, but according to the New York Post, those conversations have not included any sort of negotiation, and Ibanez would like to sign somewhere within “the next seven to 10 days.”

• Short-term Yankees third baseman Casey McGehee has signed in Japan, where he’ll once again be a teammate of Andruw Jones. McGehee is going to make $1.5 million, and could add more with incentives.

• Speaking of short-term Yankees third basemen: Cody Ransom has signed a minor league deal with Padres.

• Rich Harden might have made sense on a low-risk contract to compete for a spot this spring, but he’s signed a minor league deal with the Twins.

• Another second-tier pitcher is off the market. Francisco Liriano has agreed to a two-year deal with the Pirates.

 
 

Advertisement

66 Responses to “Quick notes: Ibanez, McGehee, Ransom”

  1. The Return of Stoneburner December 21st, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    The Braves are among the teams interested in free agent outfielder Scott Hairston, David O’Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (on Twitter). Hairston could address the Braves’ need for a left fielder, but he might be too expensive for Atlanta.

    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#R2KpRro04QrMQW4A.99

  2. jacksquat December 21st, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    If Hairston is too expensive for Atlanta, he’s definitely too expensive for the Yankees. I think there is no chance for Hairston or Ross, they both want 2+ year deals for significant money, and they will probably get that. I checked righthanded free agent outfielders and after those two it’s a pretty mediocre lot. May as well go with Mustelier (who I think is better right now than Mesa).

  3. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    You’re trying to rationalize levels of cheating (ie: a corked bat is less cheat-y than using steroids). It’s the same thing.

    ==========================

    I’m not doing any such thing. Read better. I saide that both are bad, but one is worse than the other

    ———————-

    “Hey babe, we just kissed, that doesn’t count as cheating!! It’s not like she gave me head like last time!”

    We need more female HOF voters…

  4. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    I don’t even thing GW understands the concept of ‘rationalizing cheating’ based on his response.

  5. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Hariston has too many teams in on him right now.. doesn’t bode well for us.

  6. jacksquat December 21st, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    For 2012 Mustelier hit .353 .412 .598 in 114 pa at AA, then .303 .359 .455 at AAA, and the IL is not a hitter’s league. Give the Cuban a shot.

  7. Jerkface December 21st, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Nor is the EL.

  8. Mike_Boston December 21st, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Blake,
    The Babe/sheep testosterone thing sounds like a crock. Bob Creamer, who’s word I would take over any others concerning MLB, doesn’t buy it: http://www.gelfmagazine.com/ar.....legend.php

  9. Jerkface December 21st, 2012 at 1:05 pm

    I like this guy:

    What nonsense. Baseball records and election to the Hall always have been skewed by forces that affect stats—dead balls, lively balls, prevailing winds, the designated hitter, smaller ballparks, bigger ballparks, raised pitching mounds, lowered pitching mounds, modern surgical miracles. But as far as hurting the so-called competitive integrity of baseball, steroid users aren’t in a class with the Joe Jacksons and the Pete Roses who brought big-time gambling and its obvious dangers into the clubhouse. Or for that matter, steroids aren’t on par with the designated hitter, either—a cataclysmic rule change that was adopted almost as an after-thought but which has skewed baseball profoundly, notably in World Series and interleague play, as well as home-run records.

  10. blake December 21st, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Mike_Boston says:
    December 21, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    Blake,
    The Babe/sheep testosterone thing sounds like a crock. Bob Creamer, who’s word I would take over any others concerning MLB, doesn’t buy it: http://www.gelfmagazine.com/ar…..legend.php

    How can anybody know what he did? The guy used a telephone pole for a bat and hit more homers than whole teams?

  11. tucker December 21st, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    I’ve been clamoring for Mustelier on the big club ever since I saw him in AZ Fall League in 2011. The guy will hit at the MLB level, though his defense may be suspect.

  12. Jerkface December 21st, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Also funny that Ruth drank a ton during prohibition. Oh no a federally illegal act while being a member of baseball, out of the HoF with him!

  13. Mike_Boston December 21st, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Nobody knows Blake but speculation without proof shouldn’t be given much merit. He was also one of the best lefty pitchers in the game before he started with the bat. He transcended the game, I think we can all agree on that. Thinking it was based off any kind of cheating doesn’t really fly in this case IMO.

  14. blake December 21st, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    “Nobody knows Blake but speculation without proof shouldn’t be given much merit”

    I agree….but there are real stories about it….point is that nobody knows and will ever know because nobody cared in the 20s and there was no Internet

  15. blake December 21st, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Guys like Aaron and mAys have admitted to taking substances that are banned today…..should they be out of the HOF?

  16. UnKnown December 21st, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Well over the next couple of weeks the Yankees will finally have a good excuse why they are not making moves to make this team better.

    Enjoy the break all.

  17. Ghostwriter December 21st, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    You’re trying to rationalize levels of cheating (ie: a corked bat is less cheat-y than using steroids). It’s the same thing.

    ==========================

    I’m not doing any such thing. Read better. I saide that both are bad, but one is worse than the other

    ———————-

    “Hey babe, we just kissed, that doesn’t count as cheating!! It’s not like she gave me head like last time!”

    We need more female HOF voters…
    Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    I don’t even thing GW understands the concept of ‘rationalizing cheating’ based on his response.
    ===============================

    Oy. Every time I think I’m out I get dragged back in. When did I ever say corking or scuffing didn’t count as cheating? Did I ever to justify it, or explain it away? No. Corking is cheating. PED use is cheating. PED use is worse than corking, because it induces others to ingest dangerous drugs to keep up. Corking deserves sanction. PED use deserves a stronger sanction. (From this conversation, I suspect that you must find football, with its differing penalties for different infractions entirely confounding.)

    Similarly, kissing is cheating. Screwing is cheating. Screwing is arguably worse than cheating. Do they deserve the same response? Probably, but the response is entirely subjective and at the discretion of the aggrieved party. But anybody that tries to suggest that kissing isn’t cheating is a creep. (This is a terrible analogy, in my view.)

  18. champ809 December 21st, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    One thing about AJP ( who I’m glad the Yanks just said no to although I do see how as a 1yr deal he’s a fit ) the 27 HRS were most likely an anomaly as he’s averaged about 14 per year over his career with 18 being he previous career high 5 yrs ago.

    It’s not like he’s been a 25 HR guy consistently for the last few years.

    Plus he’s a complete a$$hole who grates on everyone around him very quickly and from that standpoint a very bad fit for this clubhouse.

    Let Romine play.

  19. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    @JonHeymanCBS

    #rangers had a nice meeting with cody ross & are checking about michael bourn. http://cbsprt.co/UNIJFE

  20. NYYanksFan December 21st, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Bob Klapisch voted Yes to Bonds and Clemens but would vote no to McGwire, A-Rod and Manny. Extra credit for lying about cheating or unintentional use?

    http://www.northjersey.com/col.....judge.html

  21. jacksquat December 21st, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I don’t agree with the justification that because some players already in the HOF may have cheated, we should just continue letting them in forever.

  22. Mike_Boston December 21st, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    blake December 21st, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Guys like Aaron and mAys have admitted to taking substances that are banned today…..should they be out of the HOF?
    ————————————————-
    No, they should not be out of the HOF. The era is what it is, let the guys in that had HOF numbers and move on already.

  23. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    When did I ever say corking or scuffing didn’t count as cheating?

    —————

    When did I ever say you said that?

    All I’m saying is you’re rationalizing different levels of cheating…which is exactly what you’re doing, but you won’t just embrace your own position.

    Also: “PED use is worse than corking, because it induces others to ingest dangerous drugs to keep up. Corking deserves sanction. PED use deserves a stronger sanction.”

    What if Player X is found to have used a corked bat for 162 games of a season but Player Y is found to have tested positive for amphetamines once in Spring Training. What punishment is best suited for these cases? Does Player Y automatically get suspended while Player X gets a slap on the wrist?

    The more you try to rationalize it, the more sticky it gets is my point. It’s not that I can’t wrap my small little mind around the concept, it’s just that the concept itself is flawed because it’s a slippery slope.

  24. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    jacksquat December 21st, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    I don’t agree with the justification that because some players already in the HOF may have cheated, we should just continue letting them in forever.

    ————–

    I agree.. but the current drug testing policy has so many gaping holes in it, it’s barely relevant.

  25. DONNYBROOK December 21st, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    I agree with the thinking that there is Nothing you can do about those Already in the HOF that cheated. You need to draw a line in the sand NOW. That, or look for a Back Bone.

  26. Jerkface December 21st, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    One day, when parents are buying their unborn children the Ichiro & Jeter gene packages, we’ll look back on ‘the steroid era’ and laugh & laugh.

  27. blake December 21st, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    “No, they should not be out of the HOF. The era is what it is, let the guys in that had HOF numbers and move on already.”

    We agree then….let bonds and Clemens in and move on

  28. Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 1:42 pm

    I want A-rod gene package mixed with Secretariat then we can have a real A-rod Centaur

  29. DONNYBROOK December 21st, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    You read the fine print on the A-Rod Gene Package and it says, “Not responsible for Integrity, Credibility, or other Character Flaw side effects”.

  30. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    I wonder if the Yankees will be able to afford gene packets once they become available…

  31. Ghostwriter December 21st, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    When did I ever say corking or scuffing didn’t count as cheating?

    —————

    When did I ever say you said that?

    All I’m saying is you’re rationalizing different levels of cheating…which is exactly what you’re doing, but you won’t just embrace your own position.

    Also: “PED use is worse than corking, because it induces others to ingest dangerous drugs to keep up. Corking deserves sanction. PED use deserves a stronger sanction.”

    What if Player X is found to have used a corked bat for 162 games of a season but Player Y is found to have tested positive for amphetamines once in Spring Training. What punishment is best suited for these cases? Does Player Y automatically get suspended while Player X gets a slap on the wrist?

    The more you try to rationalize it, the more sticky it gets is my point. It’s not that I can’t wrap my small little mind around the concept, it’s just that the concept itself is flawed because it’s a slippery slope.
    =================

    I guess the problem is your usage of the word rationalize, which suggests an effort to make something seem reasonable, but do not reflect the less creditable causes. In your kissing example, the person making a case that kissing isn’t cheating is rationalizing away his guilt.

    As to your point that it gets sticky. I disagree that it’s a slippery slope. The complexity of associated with adjudicating differing cases isn’t a very compelling argument for not making these kinds of distinctions, or underscore some fundamental flaw in the concept. If something is thought to be fundamentally more harmful than the other, then it stands to reason that the penalty for the infraction should be more severe, especially if the likelihood of detection is relatively small.

    Now, I really must go. Have a nice day.

  32. comet December 21st, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Yanks without Cano:

    http://www.pinstripepundits.co.....-goes.html

  33. Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    When did I ever say you said that?

    When did I ever say you said that I said that?

  34. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    As to your point that it gets sticky. I disagree that it’s a slippery slope. The complexity of associated with adjudicating differing cases isn’t a very compelling argument for not making these kinds of distinctions, or underscore some fundamental flaw in the concept.

    —————-

    Then answer my question: What if Player X is found to have used a corked bat for 162 games of a season but Player Y is found to have tested positive for amphetamines once in Spring Training. What punishment is best suited for these cases based on your non-rationalization of what constitutes cheating?

    I’m all for distinctions, I’m just not sure how you create benchmarks with limited information.

  35. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    When did I ever say you said that?

    When did I ever say you said that I said that?

    ———-

    He said that I said he said that!

    :lol:

    Seriously though guys.. let’s go back to worrying about how there is no plane..

  36. blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    “Then answer my question: What if Player X is found to have used a corked bat for 162 games of a season but Player Y is found to have tested positive for amphetamines once in Spring Training. What punishment is best suited for these cases based on your non-rationalization of what constitutes cheating?”

    I would rule less punishment for Player X because they tried to get an advantage in games that counted.

  37. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    BTW, do they test for corked bats often? Or do guys only get caught when they have the misfortune of them breaking during a game?

  38. tomingeorgia December 21st, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Luv me some theological, Solomonic debates. Beats trying to figure out why we didn’t get a serviceable catch, when we could have.

  39. tomingeorgia December 21st, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    “catcher”

  40. blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    “BTW, do they test for corked bats often? Or do guys only get caught when they have the misfortune of them breaking during a game?”

    I don’t think they test for them….I think they do randomly test bats for weight etc though….not 100% sure on that.

  41. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:30 pm

    “BTW, do they test for corked bats often? Or do guys only get caught when they have the misfortune of them breaking during a game?”

    I don’t think they test for them….I think they do randomly test bats for weight etc though….not 100% sure on that.

    ——————

    Gotcha.. so again, you don’t really know how often a player might be using a less cheat-y tactic. It’s really hard to create a streamlined punishment system based on how they test this stuff.

  42. Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    The funny thing about corked bats, they don’t actually help hit for power. It might help make contact more often, but it does not make the ball go further.

  43. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    The funny thing about corked bats, they don’t actually help hit for power. It might help make contact more often, but it does not make the ball go further.

    ——————-

    No, you’re right – it’s a bat speed thing.

  44. blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    corking the bat makes it lighter….but less dense so even though you can swing it faster the ball may no go as far….of course players might be able to better make solid contact though because the bat is lighter

  45. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    If I was a big and strong dude I’d use a heavy bat while I was young and shave off ounces as I got older and lost bat speed lol.. heavier bats make the balls go further (right? that’s science-y, isn’t it?) but you’d have a hell of a time swinging one past your prime.

    Sort of incredible how the old timers did it.

  46. Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    Here is a cool article about corking a bat and other stuff: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.....038;page=1

  47. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    @LoHudYankees

    RHP Jim Miller has cleared waivers and been outrighted to @swbrailriders #yankees

    ————–

    …this day could not go any slower.

  48. blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    “Sort of incredible how the old timers did it.”

    they probably took the first steroids

  49. Nick in SF December 21st, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Corking bats and doctoring balls is different because of old-timey baseball lore. That kind of cheating was done by players with colorful nicknames like Pesky and Doc and Troublesome Tom. Heh, he had an industrial sander hidden in his glove!

  50. Patrick December 21st, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    If I was a big and strong dude I’d use a heavy bat while I was young and shave off ounces as I got older and lost bat speed lol.. heavier bats make the balls go further (right? that’s science-y, isn’t it?) but you’d have a hell of a time swinging one past your prime.

    Sort of incredible how the old timers did it.

    Read this for more info: http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/bats/batw8.html

  51. blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    actually it was probably a combination of them taking the first steroids and the pitchers not throwing as hard as they do now.

  52. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    actually it was probably a combination of them taking the first steroids and the pitchers not throwing as hard as they do now.

    ——————–

    I always figured if a guy throws 99 mph, and the hitter has an oak tree branch for a bat the ball would go real far lol.. now I gotta read the article Patrick posted on my way home to teach my science-y things about baseball.

    Also, old timey nick names were much better than the current crop: Arod??

    So little creativity nowadays.

  53. blake December 21st, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    “I always figured if a guy throws 99 mph, and the hitter has an oak tree branch for a bat the ball would go real far lol..”

    if you can get the barrel of the oak tree branch to the ball it will :)

  54. Nick in SF December 21st, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    That’s cute, Leaky Puss Paul sharpened his spikes.

  55. Jerkface December 21st, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Also, old timey nick names were much better than the current crop: Arod??

    One player was nicknamed ‘The Freshest Man on Earth’ for his practical joking nature.

    There was also King Kelly, who used to cut across the diamond from 1st to third when the umpire wasn’t looking. But of course that is ignored and he is in the hall of fame.

  56. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    blake December 21st, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    actually it was probably a combination of them taking the first steroids and the pitchers not throwing as hard as they do now.

    ————–

    I knew a kid who took horse steroids.. he didn’t like, play sports or anything – he just liked being gigantic.

    I wonder if those were the same type Arod used….

  57. Jerkface December 21st, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    And of course Silky Slim once took the gun from the gun circle which is expressly forbidden.

  58. blake December 21st, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    “I wonder if those were the same type Arod used…”

    Nah….Arod took these watered down new steroids…..not the original full power ones that Babe Ruth took.

  59. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    My favorite modern nick name is Pudge.

    I always picture him doing the Truffle Shuffle.

  60. Mike_Boston December 21st, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    You want to talk nicknames, check out the third one they called Gehrig: “The Iron Horse or “Buster” or “Biscuit Pants”

    Biscuit Pants!

  61. 86w183 December 21st, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Always like John “Blue Moon” Odom

    Figured he must have dropped his drawers in the dead of winter

  62. Ys Guy December 21st, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    There are basically no rules for how to vote for the HOF. So each voter can vote however he/she wants. There are no standards.

    bill mazeroski is in so the bar to entry is so low that you can legitimize voting for willie randolph for the HOF.

    given this, i really don’t care who gets in and who doesnt.

  63. Shame Spencer December 21st, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    :arrow:

  64. austinmac December 21st, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    Patrick, good article to the extent I understood it. If I have future baseball career, 32″ bat for me. I do remember as a kid being proud to move to the heavier and longer bats.

    Mike, yelling Biscuit Pants at a player would probably draw a surprised look today.

  65. Duh Innings II December 21st, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Why didn’t the Yanks sign Cody Ransom?

    He hit 11 HR and drove in 42 runs with only 54 hits in ony 282 plate appearances last season. Youkilis posted only 19 HR and 60 RBI in 227 more PA so the Yanks paid $12M for a guy who posted only 8 HR and 18 RBI more than Ransom who will make less than a mil with San Diego if he makes the team. I know Ransom also struck out a whopping 109 times but I wouldn’t expect him to collect more than 100 PA as the backup 2B/3B/SS. I’d rather have Ransom than Nix who has no bat whatsoever.

  66. comnsnse December 22nd, 2012 at 9:30 am

    More desperation………………….for the writer too and from the looks of it,the posters as well!

    I mean,is anyone really getting that enthusiastic feeling?


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581