The LoHud Yankees Blog

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


Five Yankees to file for salary arbitration

Posted by: Chad Jennings - Posted in Misc on Jan 14, 2014 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Ivan Nova

In most cases, today is a relatively meaningless deadline. It’s the day for players to file for salary arbitration. Figures aren’t exchanged until Friday, and arbitration hearings don’t begin until early February. In most cases, players avoid an arbitration fight sometime before it actually reaches a hearing. These deadlines — filing for arbitration, submitting figures, etc. — are basically understood as part of the deal. It’s a routine process that usually ends with some sort of contract agreement.

For the Yankees, five players will be filing for arbitration today, and all five are pretty interesting players for 2014. MLB Trade Rumors has a pretty reliable formula for predicting salaries for arbitration-eligible players, so we’ll use those figures as an early estimate.

David RobertsonDave Robertson
Third year eligible
Predicted salary: $5.5 million
Predicted role: Closer
In the past three years, Robertson has emerged as one of the best and most reliable setup relievers in baseball. His walk rate has steadily declined, and he’s coming off the lowest WHIP of his career. His salary is not expected to double this year (it was $3.1 million last year), but it might come close. For now, he’s the presumed next-in-line to replace Mariano Rivera as the Yankees closer.

Brett Gardner
Third year eligible
Predicted salary: $4 million
Predicted role: Starting left fielder
There is some sense that the arbitration model might have underestimated Gardner’s earning power this winter. We’ll have to wait and see. Even with a fairly significant raise though, Gardner should remain a remarkably affordable player for one last season before hitting free agency. You could make the case that the Yankees would be better of trading him, or that they’d be better of signing him to a multi-year extension.

Ivan Nova
First-year eligible
Predicted salary: $2.8 million
Predicted role: No. 3 starter
The days of Nova making basically the league minimum are gone, but the Yankees will gladly pay the first-year arbitration cost to to have another year of Nova’s young upside in the rotation. He just turned 27 years old over the weekend, so his arbitration years could take him through his 20s before the Yankees have to decide whether to make a multi-year commitment.

Shawn Kelley
Third year eligible
Predicted salary: $1.5 million
Predicted role: Late-inning reliever
Made a little less than a million last year, but Kelley remains relatively cheap coming off a nice year in the Yankees bullpen. Bringing him back isn’t going to break the bank. Question is whether bringing him back will significantly help the back of the bullpen. Can Kelley repeat last year’s strikeout totals and be a go-to reliever in either the seventh or maybe the eighth?

Francisco Cervelli
First year eligible
Predicted salary: $1 million
Predicted role: Backup catcher
After a year of injuries and a suspension, Cervelli will come to spring training with a slightly larger contract and a need to win his old job back. He’s no longer fighting for a job as the starter, but he’ll have to fend off Austin Romine and maybe J.R. Murphy to remain with the Yankees as a backup. He played well when he was healthy last year. The Yankees chose to keep Cervelli while dumping fellow first-year arbitration case Chris Stewart.

Associated Press photos

Comments

comments

 

Advertisement

116 Responses to “Five Yankees to file for salary arbitration”

  1. Ys Guy January 14th, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    i wonder if the team can bring up questions of how much cervelli is worth off ped’s in the arbitration hearing.

    its the same arbitrator isn’t it?

  2. JimK January 14th, 2014 at 4:33 pm

    Repost from previous thread:

    Wave your Hat, my original prediction was for 150 games, however I added the 50 game suspension to the 100 game facilitation clause to arrive at my number, but you are correct Horowitz was paid for the decision not me.

  3. blake January 14th, 2014 at 4:34 pm

    You are letting the Hal and his bookkeeping affect you. Not spending this year in no way says they will spend next year or have anyone to spend it on. It will make the Yankees less a desirable team to play for and will cause huge income losses.”

    No I just don’t think the budget is going away….look I with they could sign a bunch of guys this year and sign a bunch next year too but I’m not sure that’s realistic…..even if they go over 189 it’s unlikely Hal will allow the payroll to get above that 220-230 range it’s been…..so they can’t just keep spending money…..I want the money they do spend to be good money

    If they miss out on tanaka they could treat it like a 2 year plan rather than just doing it all this season.

    They got Ellsbury, McCann, and Beltran this year….they could stop there, get under 189 and then chase 2 or 3 more guys next year that fit better than what’s left this year.

    I want tanaka….if they can’t get him then I’m not sure they actually should chase anybody else…..if they do fine….but I don’t want to here about 189 or the budget anymore if they go and give Ubaldo 80 million an blow past 189.

    It’s either now for 189 or shut up about it forever Yankees

  4. bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    Re-post:

    Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
    Horowitz was required to reconcile three different sections of the JDA, Secions 7(A), 7(G)(2) and 7(L), which don’t necessarily hang together all that well. Horowitz determined that ARod was properly punished under 7(G)(2), and he appears from my reading to believe that 7(L) properly applies to discipline under 7(A), not 7(G)(2).

    However, Horowitz went on to address Section 7(L) of the JDA, he didn’t ignore it. He stated that the notice provisions for non-analytical positives did not protect a player from being separately disciplined due to the use of different prohibited substances. He supports that with precedent from Panel Decision No. 121 which stated that the language of the JDA reasonably implied that “there is a general understanding that separate uses are subject to separate discipline.” So the clear implication is that even if 7(A) did apply, in Horowitz’ interpretation of the JDA, Section 7(L) would not.

    Now, you or I may disagree with Horowitz interpretation or conclusion, and that’s fine for an academic argument which we can have anytime, but I think it is fair to state that his reading is not beyond the bounds of reason. In fact it is perfectly logical, although I’m sure logic could have just as easily constructed an alternate outcome.

    Given that, and given the fact that Horowitz is the ultimate interpreter of the JDA and the CBA in the case before him, an attack on the arbitration decision based on 7(A)/7(G)(2)/7(L) reasoning is highly unlikely to go anywhere.

    ________

    Good analysis, now we’re getting somewhere. (except your part about Horowitz being the “ultimate interpreter of the JDA in this matter.” As with any matter, the ultimate interpreter is the highest court that has jurisdiction and agrees to hear the case. It could even be the Supreme Court in this instance)

    I sort of wonder why Horowitz needed to go to the progressive penalty formula (7.A) for a
    non-analytical positive when the standard under 7.G.2 is simply “just cause.” I suggested in my original post last night (you should read that) that he probably didn’t want that the standard to appear totally arbitrary. Re-thinking this now, maybe he needed some way to get to 150 and the 50 of the 50/100/life gets you there if you multiply 50 by three. I think that sounds better than saying Selig had just cause to give Arod 150 games. That’s why last night I called this some “very tricky lawyering.”

    Looking forward at the decision, with the protection of 7.L specifically covering non-analytical positives, Horowitz got a little worried about his rationale so he came up with his one single cite, Panel Decision No 121 (Nefi Perez), “there is a general understanding that separate uses are subject to separate discipline.” First of all, is this decision available for review? Did the Nefi case even deal with the interpretation of these provisions? It looks to me that the principle he references is extremely general and may not apply to any facts of the facts of this case (you see, tricky, because we don’t have that case do we?). But here’s the rub, where’s the authority for holding that 7.L. protection (you can’t be punished for acts occurring before your first 50 game suspension) doesn’t apply to the use of multiple drugs? That you can multiply each banned drug by 50 games to triple the penalty for a first time offender. He gives absolutely no authority for this. Or is that what Nefi says? I bet not. Very tricky! (See p. 29 of the decision)

    The crux of this matter, as I pointed out before, is that Horowitz circumvents an important policy of the JDA: punishment should be gradual so players have an opportunity to reform and rehabilitate. This is what JimK was alluding to when he referenced the importance of determining what the parties bargained for. Horowitz, in this decision, has unilaterally removed a key benefit of that bargain.

    But as I pointed out several times, this is all on the judge now. He has a clear way legally to vacate the decision if he wants to. MLB would be smart to stay off TV and not give him more of a reason.

  5. pat January 14th, 2014 at 4:52 pm

    ChrisCotillo
    Rod Barajas has retired and will now manage the #Padres AZL affiliate.

  6. Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    Shame, I just got home, and had to jump ahead 2 (or is it 3????) threads to tell you I thought your Tina Fey/Amy Pohler/Taylor Swift story was awesome!!!!!

    LOL

  7. Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    “He has a clear way legally to vacate the decision if he wants to.”

    No, with all respect I don’t believe he does based on anything you or I have said. The U.S. Supreme Court in Garvey v. MLBPA, which case you clearly want to run away from and I want to emphasize, stated “Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement.”

    In the absence of “serious error”, “irrational or inexplicable error” or dishonesty, none of which are apparent here, the federal court simply having what it believes to be a better interpretation of the JDA is not going to cut any ice.

  8. Ted Nelson January 14th, 2014 at 5:01 pm

    “so they can’t just keep spending money…..I want the money they do spend to be good money”

    Agree.

    Another major consideration for me is that resetting the luxury tax allows more of a fixed budget to be spent on players. Say the Yankees are paying, I don’t know, $250-70 million for players right now when you include luxury tax. Something like $220 million of that is actually player salaries, then there are benefits, then there are luxury taxes. If they keep the same budget but reduce the tax, they can spend more on players.
    Fans tend to think of player salaries as the budget, but from the team’s perspective the budget is actually substantially higher.

  9. wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    I’ll likely repost this later on, so that MTU has some more ammo…..lol…..

    The issue with “189″ is extremely overblown, and is really one of principle with the FO. The fact that they are underwriting their competitors grates on them, as it should.

    Practically speaking, though, the LT is minor in the grand scheme.

    Let’s just say that 230M is the spending level.

    With the 50% tax, the total payroll cost is 250M.

    If the tax were at 17.5%, the total payroll cost would be 237M, a 13M savings.

    More importantly, to get back to 17.5%, the payroll for 2014 would have to be reduced by 3-4M with no additions. That roster would cost the NYY conservatively 50-75M in lost revenue (as was the case in 2013).

    So, save 40M (230 – 189) in 2014, plus save another 13M in future tax savings = 53M total

    Let’s carry that thinking out another couple of years until the max tax is met again (year four):

    Base year – zero tax
    Year one – LT 17.5% – save 13M
    Year two – LT 30.0% – save 8M
    Year three – LT 40% – save 4M

    Total savings, assuming a targeted payroll of 230M in 2015 – 2017:

    2014 – 40M in payroll, 20M in tax
    2015 – 13M in tax
    2016 – 8M in tax
    2017 – 4M in tax

    Total = 85M in savings.

    Doesn’t sound like a reasonable plan to me, given the cost of losing.

  10. bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    “He has a clear way legally to vacate the decision if he wants to.”

    No, with all respect I don’t believe he does based on anything you or I have said. The U.S. Supreme Court in Garvey v. MLBPA, which case you clearly want to run away from and I want to emphasize, stated “Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement.”

    In the absence of “serious error”, “irrational or inexplicable error” or dishonesty, none of which are apparent here, the federal court simply having what it believes to be a better interpretation of the JDA is not going to cut any ice.

    ——-

    You don’t understand my analysis or my conclusion. The way this argument goes is, Horowitz, by exhibiting a manifest disregard of the law, provides a court with an adequate basis for vacating his arbitration decision under established federal law. Horowitz disregarded Section 7.L of the JDA and circumvented a significant tenet of the overall drug policy–that penalties are to be progressive and punishment should be gradual. A court can make that holding without reaching the merits of the arbitration. Consequently, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Garvey is not on point.

  11. blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:09 pm

    Wanzies,
    Yea I get that relative to their revenues that the luxury tax shouldn’t be a big deal…..but they seem to act like they care about it so I think we have to consider it.

    Either way though Hal hasn’t really shown that he will take the payroll beyond 220-230 million…..and Arods money will be back next year so I’m not sure it’s wise to lock up a bunch more money just to marginally upgrade the 2013 team……

    I think they either need to be all in and film all the holes or kinda hold and start the season as is and see where they are in July…..maybe the situation on Kershaw and others will be more clear by then

  12. Jerkface January 14th, 2014 at 5:10 pm

    Hal figured out the secret to reduce the Yankees revenue sharing burden: Reduce the team’s revenue.

  13. blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:11 pm

    “Another major consideration for me is that resetting the luxury tax allows more of a fixed budget to be spent on players. Say the Yankees are paying, I don’t know, $250-70 million for players right now when you include luxury tax. Something like $220 million of that is actually player salaries, then there are benefits, then there are luxury taxes. If they keep the same budget but reduce the tax, they can spend more on players.”

    Yes….and clearly Hal cares about that extra money wasted. If the Yankees have a finite payroll limit of X….they can have a better team if all that money is going to their players and not partly to other clubs

  14. blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Jerkface says:
    January 14, 2014 at 5:10 pm
    Hal figured out the secret to reduce the Yankees revenue sharing burden: Reduce the team’s revenue.

    Hehe yea….but I’m sure he wants his cake and eat it too…he wants to lower the payroll and win .

    I by no means care about Hals bank account…..I just try to think within the realistic limits of what they will spend.

  15. Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    bigdan22-

    I think I do understand your analysis and conclusion. But you don’t support your argument with further detail, you just keep repeating the same conclusory statement that Horowitz exhibited a manifest disregard of the law by not interpreting Section 7(L) the way you do. That is not serious error, or irrational or inexplicable error. It is merely a difference of interpretation, and the arbitrator will be deferred to on that.

    Anyway, arguing with you is beginning to remind me of Adam Sandler dating Drew Barrymore in Fifty First Dates, except that I highly doubt you are as cute as Drew Barrymore. So I am going to pack it in before date fifty.

  16. Chip January 14th, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    “He has a clear way legally to vacate the decision if he wants to.”

    No, with all respect I don’t believe he does based on anything you or I have said. The U.S. Supreme Court in Garvey v. MLBPA, which case you clearly want to run away from and I want to emphasize, stated “Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement.”

    In the absence of “serious error”, “irrational or inexplicable error” or dishonesty, none of which are apparent here, the federal court simply having what it believes to be a better interpretation of the JDA is not going to cut any ice.

    ——-

    You don’t understand my analysis or my conclusion. The way this argument goes is, Horowitz, by exhibiting a manifest disregard of the law, provides a court with an adequate basis for vacating his arbitration decision under established federal law. Horowitz disregarded Section 7.L of the JDA and circumvented a significant tenet of the overall drug policy–that penalties are to be progressive and punishment should be gradual. A court can make that holding without reaching the merits of the arbitration. Consequently, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Garvey is not on point.
    ——————–

    Except that the JDA’s language leaves latitude for interpretation and the fact that Horowitz interpreted it the way he did is and of itself not a basis for overturning the decision.

    Beyond that, you have to factor in the fact that the union had previously stipulated that suspensions for non-analytical positives are at the discretion of the office of the Commissioner so the fact that the suspension was reduced from its original number does make it harder for Team Alex to interpret that the process was stacked against him.

  17. BoJo January 14th, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    Now that ARod is probably gone for 2014, I would love to see the team give JR Murphy a chance at third if he shows a good bat in ST. I was hesitant about this before since he can have trade value as a catcher, but i now believe his value would be higher if he can take over third base and deliver a positive WAR value.

  18. Giuseppe Franco January 14th, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    I’m not sure that I agree $189M is overblown.

    Hal’s actions the last couple of years demonstrate that it is real. Now I’m sure Hal and Co. is tired of being asked about it but this focus on $189M hasn’t come from nowhere.

    Not to mention some reliable insiders still continue to talk about it (Sherman, Curry, etc. etc). I’m not sure they’d still be banging that drum if the perception was way off base.

  19. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 5:17 pm

    I haven’t been able to read all the posts because of my car issues, but in reading the few here, I’d like to know whether Horowitz “exhibiting a manifest disregard of the law” is merely your interpretation of what happened in this case. I ask that because I cannot imagine Horowitz putting forward anything that could not be upheld, especially in a case of this magnitude and one this public.

  20. Chip January 14th, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Jerkface says:
    January 14, 2014 at 5:10 pm
    Hal figured out the secret to reduce the Yankees revenue sharing burden: Reduce the team’s revenue.

    Hehe yea….but I’m sure he wants his cake and eat it too…he wants to lower the payroll and win .

    I by no means care about Hals bank account…..I just try to think within the realistic limits of what they will spend.
    ——————————–

    As I said before Hal’s issue is that he looks at the fact that teams with lower payrolls win and thus concludes that the Yankees can also win with a lower payroll. The problem is he doesn’t look at how that payroll is spent and the fact that if you have 8 players making a combined $160 million (Alex, Tex, CC, Sori, McCann, Ellsbury, Kuroda, Jeter) you can’t expect to fill two-thirds of your roster for $29 million and have a winning team.

  21. Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    trisha-

    What turned out to be the problem with your brakes?

  22. Ted Nelson January 14th, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    It would really be nice if you provided any sort of sources for your calculations.

    “If the tax were at 17.5%, the total payroll cost would be 237M, a 13M savings.”
    “Total = 85M in savings.”

    That’s not insignificant.

    “More importantly, to get back to 17.5%, the payroll for 2014 would have to be reduced by 3-4M with no additions.”

    There is no way you can possibly know this. Arb salaries haven’t been set, nor do we know which players will hit bonuses.

    “Doesn’t sound like a reasonable plan to me, given the cost of losing.”

    Huge assumption that the cost is losing. A lot of fans are acting like one player is going to make the difference between a .500 team and a serious contender. Unless Tanaka is the lovechild of Clemens and Pedro, he’s not. Any of the MLB veteran FAs out there are very unlikely to be that difference.

  23. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 5:20 pm

    Okay, Wave answered it for me. It’s bigdan’s interpretation of what happened.

    In that case, I’m stll with the legal gang that considers that a totally done deal. No appeal, no TRO, no nothing but multitudinous lawsuits being field by Team Arod.

  24. tbone1570 January 14th, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    The issue with “189? is extremely overblown, and is really one of principle with the FO. The fact that they are underwriting their competitors grates on them, as it should.

    *********************************
    The proceeds from the competitive balance tax is not distributed to the teams. It is used for, but not limited to covering things like player benefits and the growth of the sport.

  25. Jerkface January 14th, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    That’s not insignificant.

    85 million over 4 years is kind of insignificant. Especially when they lose 50+ million (with YES advertising losses unknown!) from missing the playoffs.

    Forbes has said that total revenues for the Yankees may be like ~800 million or something total when you include NYY,YES, and Legends Hospitality. 85 million is 2% of that over 4 years.

  26. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Wave, they told me that (I think I’m getting this right) that the back brakes or calipers (or something) were totally rusted and frozen so that the front brakes were doing all the work and I ended up needing new front brakes because of it, and calipers or something in the back.

  27. Chip January 14th, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    Best as I can tell from all the legal interpretations, Alex’s only shot is getting a judge who wants the chance to be on tv and meet Alex.

    The fact is that the courts don’t want any part of messing with an arbitration ruling where both the union and management are in agreement that the process was handled in the manner in which it was intended by the CBA (which this was). “It’s not fair” has never been a compelling legal argument.

  28. bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    Chip January 14th, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 5:07 pm

    Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 4:57 pm
    “He has a clear way legally to vacate the decision if he wants to.”

    No, with all respect I don’t believe he does based on anything you or I have said. The U.S. Supreme Court in Garvey v. MLBPA, which case you clearly want to run away from and I want to emphasize, stated “Courts are not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement.”

    In the absence of “serious error”, “irrational or inexplicable error” or dishonesty, none of which are apparent here, the federal court simply having what it believes to be a better interpretation of the JDA is not going to cut any ice.

    ——-

    You don’t understand my analysis or my conclusion. The way this argument goes is, Horowitz, by exhibiting a manifest disregard of the law, provides a court with an adequate basis for vacating his arbitration decision under established federal law. Horowitz disregarded Section 7.L of the JDA and circumvented a significant tenet of the overall drug policy–that penalties are to be progressive and punishment should be gradual. A court can make that holding without reaching the merits of the arbitration. Consequently, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, Garvey is not on point.
    ——————–

    Except that the JDA’s language leaves latitude for interpretation and the fact that Horowitz interpreted it the way he did is and of itself not a basis for overturning the decision.

    Beyond that, you have to factor in the fact that the union had previously stipulated that suspensions for non-analytical positives are at the discretion of the office of the Commissioner so the fact that the suspension was reduced from its original number does make it harder for Team Alex to interpret that the process was stacked against him.

    —-

    Section 7.L specifically applies to non-analytical positives even though non-analyticals come under the “just cause” standard. I don’t know this for certain, but I think the parties to the JDA did not want the first suspension to be 100, or 150 or more games. I think that’s why 7.L is there. It’s totally unclear how Selig got to 211, but it’s clear to me that Horowitz used some very tricky maneuverings to get to 150 and hence 162.

  29. pat January 14th, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    “No appeal, no TRO, no nothing but multitudinous lawsuits being field by Team Arod.”

    As long as we get multitudinous depositions for those lawsuits, I can live with that.

    I want answers from lots of people who have to “raise their right hand” before they talk

  30. Chip January 14th, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Jerkface is correct

    The Yankees saw how much money they lost this year by not making the playoffs and it was far more than they would be obligated to pay in Luxury Tax for having a higher payroll. From a financial standpoint they make more money by spending more money.

  31. blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    Whether it’s significant or not….what matters is what Hal treats as significant

  32. Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    “From a financial standpoint they make more money by spending more money.”

    Have to run, but we don’t really know that. There’s no guarantee of making the playoffs. It’s all a risk-return calculation that could have many different answers.

  33. bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 5:33 pm

    Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    bigdan22-

    I think I do understand your analysis and conclusion. But you don’t support your argument with further detail, you just keep repeating the same conclusory statement that Horowitz exhibited a manifest disregard of the law by not interpreting Section 7(L) the way you do. That is not serious error, or irrational or inexplicable error. It is merely a difference of interpretation, and the arbitrator will be deferred to on that.

    Anyway, arguing with you is beginning to remind me of Adam Sandler dating Drew Barrymore in Fifty First Dates, except that I highly doubt you are as cute as Drew Barrymore. So I am going to pack it in before date fifty.

    —–

    Haha you are accusing me of exactly what you have just done, but I’ll take that as you having nothing more to say. And those are not the standards for the 2nd circuit.

    BTW, I met Drew a few years ago at a restaurant in LA. Didn’t recognize her at first. Her hair was red. Couldn’t mistake her voice though. She was real nice to talk to. She also spent most of her dinner making out with her companion :)

  34. pat January 14th, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    DavidWaldstein
    MLB announced Brewers minor leaguer Will West suspended 100 games for banned substances. No word on when new 60 Minutes segment airs.

    :wink:

  35. blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:38 pm

    @EyeOnBaseball: Bud Selig hoping for farewell tour of all 30 MLB cities in 2014 http://t.co/WZSv0xryR9 via @cbssports

    Uhm I don’t think he will be as well received as Mo

  36. austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Wanzies,

    I have been on the lost income bandwagon a long time. However, I’m yet to be convinced Hal is on it. Too much reporter talk of the cap and of going economical on positions. It must be the company line they are pushing. Maybe they are doing so for strategic reasons, but I would feel better if they spent on the weak links.

  37. austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 5:41 pm

    Just think of all the sell outs when Bud visits. No wonder he is paid what he is.

  38. blake January 14th, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Ideally Id like them to sign everybody this year and everybody next year too but that’s not realistic

  39. austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    Trisha,

    Despite my obvious masculinity, when I take my car to the shop, they tell me this or that is wrong, I act like it meant something and give them my credit card. I always feel I am not supposed to be so embarrassingly ignorant about such matters.

  40. austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 5:44 pm

    Dan,

    Blake got excited because he thought you met Stephen Drew.

  41. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    “Honda Accord Sport best car for your buck. Short warranty but one of my Honda’s ive had for 11 years with zero problems.”

    mottsx, mine is an Acura Integra. I believe that is also a Honda product. Mine has lasted me 16 years!!! That’s amazing, no? It’s only in the last year or so that things have been kind of giving up the ghost. But when I told my mechanic today that I was pretty much sold on getting a new car, he told me that what we just did was maintenance work. He thinks the car is a gem. (And I know he’s being sincere because he is a really good friend.)

    Oh I don’t know. But I’m at least 90% toward the new car.

    today anyway…

  42. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 5:49 pm

    austin – :lol:

    I don’t even try anymore.

    All I do is try to imitate the sound the car is making or describe what the car is doing (or isn’t doing) and they take it from there!

  43. Howler January 14th, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    trisha-

    What turned out to be the problem with your brakes?

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

    Everything…problem started with using Arod’s mechanic.

  44. tbone1570 January 14th, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    Howler January 14th, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    trisha-

    What turned out to be the problem with your brakes?

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

    Everything…problem started with using Arod’s mechanic.

    *********************
    Does that means trisha’s on PED’s (Performance Enhanced Disc brakes)? :)

  45. wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 6:05 pm

    blake -

    Whether it’s significant or not….what matters is what Hal treats as significant.

    ———————-

    What he does treat as significant is the bottom line. A bad product (read: not winning) leads to lost revenue. Lost revenue is lost.

  46. Howler January 14th, 2014 at 6:06 pm

    Nope…just that Alex was trying to rub her out…

  47. Howler January 14th, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Of course it does lead me to ask…if you could take enhanced gummies for your back…

  48. Shame Spencer January 14th, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 4:55 pm

    Shame, I just got home, and had to jump ahead 2 (or is it 3????) threads to tell you I thought your Tina Fey/Amy Pohler/Taylor Swift story was awesome!!!!!

    LOL

    ———————

    THANK YOU.

  49. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    austinmac says:
    January 14, 2014 at 5:44 pm
    Dan,

    Blake got excited because he thought you met Stephen Drew.

    Haha….good one!

  50. Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    Shame -

    You are welcome!!! ;)

  51. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 6:19 pm

    YOU GUYS ARE SOOOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My favorite moments here are when people go into silly mode.

    :D

    (like when they said Arod shouldn’t be penalized, ha ha!)

    j/k, j/k!

  52. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    “What he does treat as significant is the bottom line. A bad product (read: not winning) leads to lost revenue. Lost revenue is lost”

    Lets say they lose on tanaka but sign Ubaldo, Balfour, and Baker. Where would that put them payroll wise next year when Arods money comes back? Would they still be able to play in the free agent market? Or would Hal do like he did in 2009 and shut down the spending because they spent so much the year before?

  53. UpState January 14th, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    The Mariners have reached agreement on a one-year, $1MM deal with…..

    …catcher John Buck….

    reports Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com on Twitter

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

    ANOTHER catcher – must be a back-up for Montero, no ?

  54. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 6:21 pm

    “Of course it does lead me to ask…if you could take enhanced gummies for your back…”

    If they aren’t illegal in the rulebook governing my life, I will take them in an NYC heartbeat!

    :) :) :)

  55. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    @BillShaikin: Kershaw could file for $20 million when arbitration figures exchanged Fri. MLBTR projects $18.25m. Long-term deal remains possible. #Dodgers

    Whatever happens this year…..Hal has to have a blank check with Kershaws name on it should he reach free agency

  56. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    I’m so glad that when pitchers and catchers report in a few weeks that we will actually have a real catcher to report

  57. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    @keithlaw: An MLB.tv account where every game is blacked out #SeligFarewellTourGifts

  58. Howler January 14th, 2014 at 6:24 pm

    Sorry Trish…the idea of you on steroids scares the crap out of me :)

  59. wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    blake -

    Assume they are at 192 now (which they are), as assume Jimenez, Balfour and Baker at 14/8/3 just for s&g, that totals 25, which brings the new total to 227.

    Next year, starting at the same 227, the following come off:

    Gardner – 4
    Soriano – 4
    Ichiro – 6.5
    Kuroda – 16
    Jeter – 12

    That reduces the 227 to roughly 186.

    Add Arod’s 24 and arb increases of roughly 10 and you’re at 220.

    With some holes.

  60. Bret The Hitman January 14th, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    BoJo December 27th, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I don’t understand the speculation about 65 games.

    Even if the arb states 50 games, i think ARod may be able to get this overturned in courts. He certainly has the legal muscle to challenge the ruling….and make it painful enough for MLB to drop the case.

  61. Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 6:27 pm

    Is Selig really getting a farewell tour?

    Sheesh.

  62. wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    FWIW, 2016 would be about the same. After 2016, Beltran, Teixeira and Sabathia come off the books at 15, 22.5 and 24.4, respectively.

  63. bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 5:44 pm
    Dan,

    Blake got excited because he thought you met Stephen Drew.

    ________

    Haha. I haven’t met many ballplayers. But I’ve met lots of women who hang out with ballplayers. Back in the day, the Bamtino was very popular in Southern Cali :)

    I once dated this girl who cheered for the Eagles. She had dated a few guys on the old Blue Jays. She said there was a pecking order in the locker room. Alomar got first dibs, because he was Alomar. Molitor was second. She told me stories about Alomar. Apparently he was a real pig. At least to her.

  64. Howler January 14th, 2014 at 6:30 pm

    Hope he likes the party where no one shows up.

  65. Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Wanzies-

    I thought they were at 186 now.

  66. bigdan22 January 14th, 2014 at 6:31 pm

    Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    Is Selig really getting a farewell tour?

    Sheesh.

    _____

    He should gummies as a gift when he visits NY. I like gummies. The red ones.

  67. tbone1570 January 14th, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    Wanzies

    Does your $192 include any bonus money?

  68. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:34 pm

    wanzies222 says:
    January 14, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    blake -

    Assume they are at 192 now (which they are), as assume Jimenez, Balfour and Baker at 14/8/3 just for s&g, that totals 25, which brings the new total to 227.

    Next year, starting at the same 227, the following come off:

    Gardner – 4
    Soriano – 4
    Ichiro – 6.5
    Kuroda – 16
    Jeter – 12

    That reduces the 227 to roughly 186.

    Add Arod’s 24 and arb increases of roughly 10 and you’re at 220.

    With some holes.”

    Yes and this is my point….they’d be at 220 with holes and likely unable to play for the free agents next year

  69. blake January 14th, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    They shouldn’t give money to ubaldo that woukd prevent them from pursing somebody better next year

  70. pkyankfan69 January 14th, 2014 at 6:39 pm

    Pablo Sandoval told Rafael Rojas of LasMayores.com Tuesday that he’s lost 42 pounds this offseason.
    -
    Sandoval is evidently plenty motivated as he enters his walk year. The third baseman also famously lost about 40 pounds in the winter prior to the 2011 season before going on to bat .315/.357/.552 with 23 home runs. Giants general manager Brian Sabean indicated earlier this offseason that the club would consider approaching Sandoval about an extension provided that he shows up to spring training in shape. It appears we’ll find out how serious the GM is about that.

  71. bbb51 January 14th, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    Is Selig really getting a farewell tour?

    Sheesh.

    He should get a rocking chair made of steroid needles.

  72. Wave Your Hat January 14th, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    Trisha,

    I had an Acura Integra once. It got stolen, completely stripped and the carcass dumped in the middle of an intersection in Newark on the middle of the night, whereupon it got a ticket from the cops for illegal parking.

  73. Shame Spencer January 14th, 2014 at 6:42 pm

    Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    Is Selig really getting a farewell tour?

    Sheesh.

    ————–

    He knows a lot of people can’t wait to say goodbye to him!!

    It’s gonna be pretty embarrassing when he gets booed in every stadium.

  74. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 6:45 pm

    Trisha-

    It sounds like time.

    Since you had so much good fortune w your Acura why not get another ?

    ;)

  75. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    “Sorry Trish…the idea of you on steroids scares the crap out of me :)

    Howler – that is a scary thought, no question!

    :D

  76. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 6:47 pm

    Steve-

    It sounds like the majority opinion is that if we miss on Tanaka we should go with what we’ve got.

    Guess I’m in the minority on that one.

  77. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Wave, that story is hysterical! Did you have to pay the ticket?????

  78. BoJo January 14th, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    Bret The Hitman January 14th, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    BoJo December 27th, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    I don’t understand the speculation about 65 games.

    Even if the arb states 50 games, i think ARod may be able to get this overturned in courts. He certainly has the legal muscle to challenge the ruling….and make it painful enough for MLB to drop the case.
    ========
    Your point? That you are so sensitive to the slightest criticism that you spend your time looking over past posts in an attempt to make a point no one but you cares about?

    Ok, I get that.

  79. Ted Nelson January 14th, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    “Forbes has said that total revenues for the Yankees may be like ~800 million or something total when you include NYY,YES, and Legends Hospitality. 85 million is 2% of that over 4 years.”

    2.6% is not insignificant. Setting revenues as the measuring stick is misleading. There’s a cost structure attached to those revenues. Capturing 2% of revenue is probably going to have a large impact on your margins.

    I don’t really care much about the Yankees financials, though. That’s not what we were talking about. As a fan, I care how much they spend on players and how wisely they spend it. If they can spend the same amount but spend more of it on players, that’s a good thing for me.

    “Especially when they lose 50+ million (with YES advertising losses unknown!) from missing the playoffs.”

    As I’ve said already, one player is only so likely to be the difference between missing and making the playoffs. Especially if that player is someone less than Tanaka. Signing Matt Garza and Balfour, for example, doesn’t mean the Yankees make the playoffs.

  80. austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 6:54 pm

    MTU,

    If we get Tanaka, I think we then add elsewhere. If we don’t get Tanaka, I don’t want to enter the season with the current rotation. Get the best choice of the top three and move forward.

  81. Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 6:56 pm

    I loved my Acura when I had it. I had an MDX, though and it was time to downsize. Acura didn’t have the size vehicle I needed and that’s the only reason I looked elsewhere.

  82. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 6:57 pm

    Mac-

    You and I appear to be in the minority.

  83. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Doreen-

    There is no way to go wrong with an Acura or Lexus product.

    They are bulletproof.

    Extremely well crafted.

  84. austinmac January 14th, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    MTU,

    We will fight to the end. You can be Custer though.

  85. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 7:01 pm

    MTU, I’d have to take a look to see what the current models look like! I was wondering about getting a very small SUV so that I wouldn’t have trouble driving in the snow (that’s called front-wheel drive, or is it 4-wheel?)

    Some day I’ll take pictures of my car and post them. It really is such a nice little car. It has a moon roof and it’s a really pretty color. With the paint job it really looks brand new. And I don’t know whether I’ve mentioned this here before or not, but this is God’s honest truth. I’ve had at least 5 random guys ask me if I wanted to sell the car. One day at Town Faire Tire a worker there asked me out of the clear blue if I was interested in selling it. At that point it was a 15-year-old car, and it didn’t even have the new fresh coat of paint yet. A guy asked me about it at the car wash one day. Someone asked me about it when I took it in to have it painted. And another time when I was pulling out of a drive-thru, two kids came up to the car and one asked if I didn’t mind if he took a picture of his friend near my car. I swear to you I am not making any of this up. I love my car because after all this time, I’m bonded with it, but I certainly don’t see the hoopla surrounding a car that is 16 years old! But anyway, when those guys asked me about it, I had no intention of selling it.

    Out to do a few errands. It will be interesting to see if the Ortiz outing has them going crazy on EEI!

    Later y’all.

    :)

  86. Doreen January 14th, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    MTU

    I agree. My husband has a ore-owned Lexus. It drives lime a dream. Lexus also, alas, did not have the particular size vehicle I was looking for.

    I like my Tiguan very much, though!

  87. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Mac-

    People are sick of me speaking about it.

    You carry the torch for a while amigo.

    Know I am w you though.

    ;)

  88. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:03 pm

    Trisha-

    Honda CRV.

    All wheel drive.

    ;)

  89. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    “I loved my Acura when I had it. I had an MDX, though and it was time to downsize. Acura didn’t have the size vehicle I needed and that’s the only reason I looked elsewhere.”

    Wow, MDX is a very nice car. My Integra, I believe, was on the bottom of the Acura food chain. That said, it cost me 19,000 in 1997! That’s about what I’m hoping to spend on a car now!

    :)

  90. blake January 14th, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    MTU,
    If there were no budget Id be with you….if they get tanaka I think they should I ahead and spend now and try to win in 2014…..if not them I kinda think they should just hold and reevaluate at the deadline and save some bullets for next winter

  91. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Doreen-

    I am now the proud owner of a Toyota 4-runner.

    It has been my dream car for years.

    Finally got one a few years ago.

    It’s perfect for what I do.

    ;)

  92. Captain Clutch January 14th, 2014 at 7:06 pm

    My friend just brought up a good point. Obviously no one knows the answer to this but when Tanaka was in the US did he visit the yanks in NY? If not and he just stayed in LA then that might not be good news for them. If someone is going to live somewhere for 5 – 7 years you would think that they would first visit where they are going to be. Maybe he plans to come back next week before he agrees to a deal but I doubt.

  93. comet January 14th, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    Why Arod is suing the MLBPA:

    http://hardballtalk.nbcsports......er=ya5nbcs

  94. blake January 14th, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    I don’t know but I’m sure tanaka has been to NY before….that said it was a bit strange that he didn’t visit there. I still think it’ll come down to the money bir nobody seems to know which way he’s leaning

  95. trisha - true pinstriped blue January 14th, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    Okay, one more. Every once-in-a-while I would notice cars on the road and something would catch my eye. Well there is an audi convertible that is absolutely beautiful. But I can’t afford that anyway.

    I think the lexus is one of the classiest looking cars on the road. I dreamed about owning one of them too. Ain’t going to happen.

    I am transfixed with their logo.

    Later.

    :)

  96. Ted Nelson January 14th, 2014 at 7:09 pm

    “Assume they are at 192 now (which they are)”

    They aren’t. There are a bunch of assumptions you are making to get to that number. Brian Roberts could count anywhere from $2 million to $4.6 million (Jeter and I think Kuroda also have incentives… some MiLB deal guys like Sizemore may have deals that pay them over the minimum if they make the team). Some people feel Gardner will significantly exceed projections if he goes to arbitration, and the arb numbers for everyone are estimates. If they actually go to arb they are likely to be lower or higher since only one side can win.

    “That reduces the 227 to roughly 186. Add Arod’s 24 and arb increases of roughly 10 and you’re at 220.”

    Robertson is a FA. A-Rod is likely to get at least one HR bonus if he plays in 2014 as well.

  97. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    Blake-

    I see where you are coming from but they have done so much this OS why stop short.

    Who knows what next year will bring.

    The Earth might be hit by a Meteor.

    I’d rather finish the job now. Win now. And deal w next year’s problems next year.

    I don’t think the budget has to be so tight.

    When Hal spends and wins it will just bring him money back in spades.

  98. pete2 January 14th, 2014 at 7:10 pm

    “However, Horowitz went on to address Section 7(L) of the JDA, he didn’t ignore it. He stated that the notice provisions for non-analytical positives did not protect a player from being separately disciplined due to the use of different prohibited substances. He supports that with precedent from Panel Decision No. 121 which stated that the language of the JDA reasonably implied that “there is a general understanding that separate uses are subject to separate discipline.””

    First off, Perez tested positive 3 times. It was in a 20 day period of course but the JDA makes no exception there. Unlike in Arods case where the evidence is simply Bosch word, a positive test is irrefutable under the JDA (although procedural errors can get them overturned as we saw in Brauns case)

    In the JDA, multiple substances are tested at the same time. There is nothing in the agreement that says anything about a separate penalty of each substance found in 1 test, as such the JDA calls for 1 penalty for each positive test (regardless of the number of substances). I believe Manny Ramirez tested positive for HCG and Testosterone and he got 50 games.

    For all of Horowitz exercises in calculating how he could arrive at 162, a number that coincidentally was MLB’s last offer to Arod, why did we not hear directly from the horses mouth? Because Horowitz did not compel the guy who arrived at lifetime ban then 211 and then 162 to testify, a serious error in my mind showing bias.

    And the other party to the JDA, MLBPA, disagrees with the length. Horowitz chose sides and took MLB’s position and then rationalized his decision to arrive at MLB’s final number . MLBPA does not have a history of firing arbitrators so he still has a job, unlike the last arbitrator who went up against MLB. Now there is a serious question of if his decision was biased.

    I think Arod gets a preliminary injunction because Horowitz not allowing Selig to testify screams bias. In the end, the arbitrators ruling probably gets upheld, or at most gets sent back for another arbitration hearing. If this happens, Arod may serve his suspension in 2015, saving at least 11 million since he probably hits 1 HR milestone in 2014 and his salary is reduced to 21 million in 2015.

    However, Arods not out of the woods., MLB is on record as saying they are pursuing other investigations that could lead to additional suspensions, which is why the Yankees probably won’t release him.

  99. comet January 14th, 2014 at 7:11 pm

    Hey MTU how are things?

  100. blake January 14th, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    They are at like 186 now if you don’t count potential bonuses

  101. pkyankfan69 January 14th, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    “If someone is going to live somewhere for 5 – 7 years you would think that they would first visit where they are going to be. ”

    Or maybe he figured that the Dodgers were the biggest rival to the Yankees who have all along seemed to be the most interested. Visit the biggest competitions city to make the Yanks sweat and try to drive up the price.

    Or maybe LA was just the most convenient.

    You can draw tons of different conclusions from that that are pretty logical.

  102. comet January 14th, 2014 at 7:13 pm

    Trisha buy North American!! Be a Patriot. Jeep has some very nice models.

  103. blake January 14th, 2014 at 7:14 pm

    “I see where you are coming from but they have done so much this OS why stop short.”

    Well hopefully they won’t but to me tanaka is kinda the lynch pin on how they should proceed…..as I said before of they don’t get him they could treat this as a 2 year retooling instead of trying to do it all this year.

    They got 3 good players this winter….they could dip under 189 and then get 2 or 3 more next winter and suddenly a new window could be opened with a new core bought in free agency.

  104. wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 7:14 pm

    Sorry, kiddos to tend to….

    The 192 includes no bonus money, but does include the current 40 man roster plus Arod’s 3.2M tax hit for 2014. It does include the projected arb #’s per MLBTR. The non-arb guys are included at, generally, 550m or 600m, depending on YOS.

  105. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:15 pm

    Comet-

    Hanging in there. Hoping 2014 is a little kinder.

    How are things w you in the frozen North ?

    Or did you make it back to Palm Springs ?

  106. wanzies222 January 14th, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    MTU -

    Losing loses money. Hopefully the FO remembers that.

  107. Captain Clutch January 14th, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    ————>

  108. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Blake-

    I understand. I don’t think the Pitching is good enough as it stands.

    If you don’t add to it you are not likely to get to where you’d like to be IMO.

    You accept that ? Or do you disagree ?

    I don’t. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  109. comet January 14th, 2014 at 7:18 pm

    No still in the unfrozen North. We were cold a couple of weeks ago but now experiencing a January thaw. Long may it continue. Trying to make enough money in the Market to buy a place in Phoenix.

    Hope 2014 is very kind to you and mops and Mrs. MTU!

  110. blake January 14th, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    189 is probbaly still possible if they don’t sign anybody else but it sounds like they may have to still move Ichiro to get under …..

    They are kinda doing what they said they’d do all along…..spend right up to the limit and then decided whether it makes sense to go over or not…..seems like they are basing that on Tanaka

  111. pete2 January 14th, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    “I don’t know but I’m sure tanaka has been to NY before….that said it was a bit strange that he didn’t visit there.”

    Yeah he did when Matsui was with the team. Part of a group, they got the grand tour of YS2. Not sure about his wife but I would be surprised if they had not. These are rich people with plenty of time for visiting other places in the offseason.

    The biggest concern Tanaka would have baseball wise is the park and Jeter at SS since he is a GB pitcher. His endorsements in Japan could be huge if he does well in MLB and pitching in the AL East makes that hard, as Daisuke can attest.

    Obviously of the Yankees blow him away with money he will come. But they would have to be well over what the Dodgers/Angels would offer and with Arods AAV back on the books next year (27.5+ 6 million bonus), would they really want to commit to a 240 million payroll in 2015-2017? Not if the 189′ers and the financial geeks have their way.

  112. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    Steve-

    Check your mail please.

  113. blake January 14th, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    “MTU says:
    January 14, 2014 at 7:18 pm
    Blake-

    I understand. I don’t think the Pitching is good enough as it stands.

    If you don’t add to it you are not likely to get to where you’d like to be IMO.

    You accept that ? Or do you disagree ?

    I don’t. It doesn’t make sense to me.”

    Yes I agree….but they could add to it in July perhaps if they don’t know. Your boy Bailey could be cheaper in July

  114. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Thanks Comet.

    Much appreciated.

    Hope you get that chance to escape the cold Winters.

    :)

  115. MTU January 14th, 2014 at 7:22 pm

    Blake-

    I think it only gets harder to add on Pitching later.

    Especially quality pitching like what is available now.

    ;)

  116. macintosh January 14th, 2014 at 7:38 pm

    alex gets suspended for a year

    yankees fail to make playoffs

    red sox win another world championship

    any yankee fan who is happy about the above really needs to rethink their priorities.

Leave a comment below


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