Burnett? Why? More of this "if he kills the Yankees he must be good mindset"?

BTW, is this tampering?

Leave Burnett alone, let him sign with the Royals or something.

It's pretty clearly tampering, no? Where's Keith?

Burnett seems like a pretty good candidate to take Pavano's spot on the roster.

It's pretty clearly tampering, no?

I don't know about the letter of the law, but certainly the spirit of the rule is violated here. Teams have an exclusive negotiating window with their potential free agents for a reason. The idea is that the team should have the opportunity to come to terms with the player with neither side knowing the potential market. In this case, sucks for the Brewers to know that they'll have to one-up the Yankees. But it could work both ways, too - imagine if several big market teams said they weren't interested in Sabathia. That would suck for CC.

The idea is that the team should have the opportunity to come to terms with the player with neither side knowing the potential market. In this case, sucks for the Brewers to know that they'll have to one-up the Yankees. But it could work both ways, too - imagine if several big market teams said they weren't interested in Sabathia. That would suck for CC.

Yep. Which is why Hank should STFU.

Yeah, sign Burnett! Give him 5 years! Do it, Hank! Make a splash!

Burnett would be a bad signing for anyone, but especially an AL East team and especially the Yankees, who never seem to even have a pitching coach.

did he also just indirectly hint to cc to perhaps scale back his workload if he wants to really cash in this offseason?

I'm torn on this one - I'd like the Jays to keep Burnett for the last couple of years on his deal, as he's been a pretty respectable pitcher for the Jays when he's healthy. On the other hand, this would guarantee the Jays get back picks when they offer him arbitration after he opts out.

Also, if I were JP, I'd be on the phone to the Commissioner's office, demanding compensation for tampering, especially since Burnett is technically under contract for another two seasons, unlike Sabathia, who has no contractual options after the end of this season.

Burnett would be a bad signing for anyone, but especially an AL East team and especially the Yankees, who never seem to even have a pitching coach.

After three years, the Jays will have received about 500IP, with a cumulative ERA+ between 105-110, from Burnett. Why would that be a bad signing for anyone?

Is this Tampering? Is this Tampering? Gee... hmm...... I wonder...

But it could work both ways, too - imagine if several big market teams said they weren't interested in Sabathia. That would suck for CC.

I assume in that case the players association could file a charge on CC's behalf...

I think the tampering rule as it stands right now is fairly poorly constructed. It puts the team that hasn't done anything wrong in a tough spot. If they don't file a complaint, they don't just have a problem with potentially resigning that particular player. It opens the door for other teams to court players they still have under contract in the future.
If they do file a complaint, it affecte the business relations between them and the offending team. And it can potentially affect future deals between the two teams. Plus, there's likely only going to be a slap-on-the-wrist penaty anyway...

So, I think it would be better for the innocent team, if the MLB just unilaterally decided when tampering has or hasn't taken place, and remove the inevitable negative fallout from their decision.

did he also just indirectly hint to cc to perhaps scale back his workload if he wants to really cash in this offseason?

That's how I read it. Of course, Ned Yost is never going to let that happen.

Burnett would be a bad signing for anyone, but especially an AL East team and especially the Yankees, who never seem to even have a pitching coach.

Dave Eiland has been pretty good this year. Moose credits him with his turnaround and he's done a lot of good work with a young, inexperienced bullpen.

I missed the news that Dave Eiland was the new Yankees pitching coach. For so long it was the grizzled Mel Stottlemyre, so it seems strange for the job to be held by Eiland who is only 2 years older than Mussina.

I missed the news that Dave Eiland was the new Yankees pitching coach. For so long it was the grizzled Mel Stottlemyre, so it seems strange for the job to be held by Eiland who is only 2 years older than Mussina.

They had Guidry for 2 years also, after they finally got rid of Mel. By all appearances he was also useless as a pitching coach. Thankfully Eiland seems to have gotten the job by, you know, being qualified for it.

In Feinstein's book, Moose said that Guidry wouldn't even talk to him after he was yanked from the rotation, and Moose worked with the bullpen coach and Mo to get his #### together.

I didn't know about Eiland. I thought the pitching coach was still Guidry, who was indeed useless as far as I could tell.

BTW, is this tampering?

I'm pretty sure that it is if the rules haven't changed in 30 years. Bowie Kuhn used to fine Ted Turner for stuff like this.

Burnett would be a bad signing for anyone,

This is nearly nonsensical. Burnett is a good pitcher and the Jays (or anyone) would be very fortunate to have him at his current contract.


Now I say nearly because if you had said 'Burnett WILL be a bad isgning for anyone', you very well may be right because he is going to command a much larger salary that his projections can justify.

and Moose worked with the bullpen coach and Mo to get his #### together.

The instant Mo retires, the Yankees should offer him the job as pitching coach.

For seasons where he has over 100 IP this is AJ's worse ERA/ERA+ season. It is always funny hearing on the radio up here in Toronto how AJ is having a career year and how stupid the Jays would be to let him leave. AJ will be 32 next year, his WHIP is the highest for a 100+IP season. Now, if you dig deeper he looks very much like the guy he has always been but with a poor BABIP situation which is odd given the Jays high end defense. I'd rather not see him with the Yankees unless they really blow their wad on him (say, $120 million over 8 years or something dumb like that) and he gets hurt quickly.

Funny thought - when signed everyone talked about how he was a sub-500 pitcher who never won more than 12 games. At the moment for the Jays he is 36-25 or a 590 winning percentage while averaging 12 wins a season. Guess he 'learned to win' eh?

The idea is that the team should have the opportunity to come to terms with the player with neither side knowing the potential market.

1) Both sides know the potential market long before the exclusive window begins. The parameters for Sabathia were set when Santana signed his extension.

2) That's not the idea of having that window, anyway.

3) It's a dumb rule in any case. A first right of refusal would make a helluva lot more sense.

All this tampering talk is quite entertaining. Nobody bats an eye when it's Arte Moreno talking about how any team would love to have Alex Rodriguez, but when Hank says that "everybody's looking" at CC and AJ, something must be done.

Burnett has a 4.58 ERA and some injury concerns. He'll get more than 12 million per year, but can anyone really see him exceed 3/45? Maybe 4/60.

After three years, the Jays will have received about 500IP, with a cumulative ERA+ between 105-110, from Burnett. Why would that be a bad signing for anyone?

Seriously. The Burnett hate confuses me... he's not a great pitcher, but he's an asset as long as you're not paying him like an ace. Is it because his results never seem to match up to his stuff?

I don't understand the issue here. I think it's expected that every team will be "looking" at every free agent and assessing their value with the club's needs. And, of course, the value that a team holds on a given player will include his physical condition as a factor. It seems like Hank was stating the blatantly obvious. Is that tampering?

Funny thought - when signed everyone talked about how he was a sub-500 pitcher who never won more than 12 games. At the moment for the Jays he is 36-25 or a 590 winning percentage while averaging 12 wins a season. Guess he 'learned to win' eh?

It took until the third year of the contract for him to win more than 10 games. Is that braggable?

I think it's expected that every team will be "looking" at every free agent and assessing their value with the club's needs. And, of course, the value that a team holds on a given player will include his physical condition as a factor. It seems like Hank was stating the blatantly obvious. Is that tampering?

You cross the line when you name specific names of players who are currently under contract to other teams. If he'd kept it generic, even if he'd talked about being interested in "pitchers who can be relied on, guys who consistently take the ball and give you 200 and more innings year in and year out," so you KNEW it was Sabathia he meant . . . no problem. There's only one team that has the right to talk to C.C., and that's the Brewers. Hank isn't allowed to do so, and he can't do it by sending sweet talk through the media. Now, you and I know that doesn't tell Sabathia anything he doesn't already know. And it doesn't really interfere with any right to negotiate an extension that the Brewers are exercising with Sabathia right now. But the rule isn't there for this specific relationship; it's there to protect a team that might in fact be discussing an extension with a FA-to-be, and doesn't need some GM or owner from another team sending direct messages to the player to hold out.

You cross the line when you name specific names of players who are currently under contract to other teams.

Apparently not in practice. This $h!t happens all the time. Nobody notices except when it's Hank.

Hank isn't allowed to do so, and he can't do it by sending sweet talk through the media.

I hear what you're saying, but does "we'll see, it depends" constitute sweet talk? Or, really, anything at all?

I meant that his next contract will be bad, because he'll get a lot of years and money, and hasn't shown himself able to (a) stay on the field or (b) harness his ability and translate it into performance worthy of those years and that money. He's an injury-prone (albeit not that injury-pronse, really) version of Javier Vazquez.

if Burnett signed with the Yanks his ERA+ would go up ten points just cause he wouldn't get to face them anymore...

The fact that no one has even asked suggests that the answer to "Is that even legal?" is fairly widely accepted to be an unsarcastic "No."

if Burnett signed with the Yanks his ERA+ would go up ten points just cause he wouldn't get to face them anymore...

I think you mean his ERA+ would go down 10 points.

You cross the line when you name specific names of players who are currently under contract to other teams.

I don't think the line is that clear. If Hank (or anyone else) is asked: "Would you be interested in Sabathia and Burnett for next year?" and responds that a lot of teams might be interested and he'd have to see, I think he's on the safe side of the line.

Apparently not in practice. This $h!t happens all the time. Nobody notices except when it's Hank.

Except, no -- it really doesn't. It is extremely rare that a team official discusses another team's players in the context of discussing who they are interested in pursuing the next year. What you do sometimes see is an off-the-record quote attributed to an unnamed official, which is really the same thing but a much more circumspect way to do it. After all, how can Seligula discipline the team over a quote that is unattributed, when the writer (of course) won't name the source?

Savvy teams do it more quietly. Hank likes to see his name and face in lights, in headlines, and on ESPN.

I think you mean his ERA+ would go down 10 points.

The Yankees haven't scored many runs this year. I think he meant up.

It truly should be tampering when it comes to Burnett, considering he only has the option to go FA. Now that he knows good ole idiot Hank is interested, his decision may be a bit easier.

The Yankees haven't scored many runs this year. I think he meant up.

Burnett OWNS the Yankees, it's kind of frustrating. Burnett's ERA and ERA+ will suffer if he doesn't get to pitch against the Yankees, which ever direction that may be.

I have to agree with Sam, this isn't noticed because it's Hank, it's noticed because it is a rare occurance and crosses the line. Buerhle got into a little trouble for talking with TLR in the past and it made the news, and TLR never said anything as direct as what Hank did.

That team has so many holes they don't have much choice but to spend early and often this winter. I almost feel sorry for Yankee fans

Burnett has a player option to void the remaining 2 years of his contract this off-season. Clearly this appears to be an inducement by the Yankees for him to exercise his player option. Send over Joba and $ 25 million and all is well.

Seriously, if the Jays choose to pursue this I think little Stein may face some sort of small fine.

Burnett has a player option to void the remaining 2 years of his contract this off-season. Clearly this appears to be an inducement by the Yankees for him to exercise his player option. Send over Joba and $ 25 million and all is well.

if that is the case then the Jays would be idiots not to take a stab at Stein. It's not like they are going to be making many trades between the two teams (so post 13 issues don't really apply here) and of course any way to hurt another team in your division in any way is always a point you have to consider.

On the other hand, this would guarantee the Jays get back picks when they offer him arbitration after he opts out.

This is a point I've found myself sticking on frequently lately (also came up with Manny). If he exercises his opt-out clause, could Toronto really offer arbitration? Wouldn't he just automatically skip that phase and go straight to free agency?

This is a point I've found myself sticking on frequently lately (also came up with Manny). If he exercises his opt-out clause, could Toronto really offer arbitration? Wouldn't he just automatically skip that phase and go straight to free agency?

Free agents can still be offered arbitration by their team, up to a certain date. The question for Burnett is whether or not he has a "No arbitration" clause in his contract, which is something I should have checked earlier.

This is a point I've found myself sticking on frequently lately (also came up with Manny). If he exercises his opt-out clause, could Toronto really offer arbitration? Wouldn't he just automatically skip that phase and go straight to free agency?

Nope. A team can decline a team option and still offer arbitration. Same thing if the player opts out...

Hm. Thanks.