The situation with Matt Moore's UCL injury is still up in the air, as the southpaw is waiting to have his MRIs examined by the Rays' team orthopedic physician, Moore told reporters (including MLB.com's Bill Chastain). Moore may test his elbow by playing catch in a few days, though isn't going to push it. "If there's any pain, it's not going to be something I'm going to try and work through," Moore said. "I think the goal is to get to a place where I don't feel pain. And if I can get to that in the next few days just playing catch, then it's a good sign to keep going. If not, then it's a sign in the [other direction]. I'm optimistic about playing catch."
Here's some more from around the AL East…
- The Yankees have been fined by Major League Baseball for tampering due to comments made by team president Randy Levine in regards to Mike Trout, The Los Angeles Times' Bill Shaikin reports. The amount of the fine isn't known. Levine cited Trout last December when discussing why the Yankees didn't match the Mariners' 10-year contract offer for Robinson Cano, saying "If it was Mike Trout, I’d offer him a 10-year contract, but for people over 30, I don’t believe it makes sense.” The Angels took exception to Levine's comments and asked the Commissioner's office to investigate the matter.
- Injuries to Mark Teixeira and David Robertson have left the Yankees thin at first base and in the bullpen, two positions that were thought to be lacking in depth going into the season. GM Brian Cashman reiterated to reporters (including MLB.com's Bryan Hoch) that the two positions would be "a developing story" through the season as the team didn't have enough budget space to acquire additional depth in the offseason. "We wanted to fix as much as we could, but acknowledged that we couldn't fix everything that needed to be addressed," Cashman said. "That's with the money we were in position to spend as well as the available talent. The better talent was really heavily in favor of the outfield rather than the infield."
- The Blue Jays' seeming halt on payroll looks to be an ownership response to how none of GM Alex Anthopoulos' big additions from the 2012-13 offseason have yet panned out, Richard Griffin of the Toronto Star writes. Rogers Communications, the Jays' parent company, is essentially saying to Anthopoulos, in Griffin's words, "Show us that the group you brought in last year is as good as you said it was and maybe then we can talk about additions." Griffin also doesn't think the Jays will undergo an Astros-esque total rebuild since Rogers wants to keep the team competitive in order to maintain the Jays' strong viewership numbers on Rogers-owned media outlets.
- In AL East news from earlier today on MLBTR, we collected some Red Sox Notes, and also learned that the Red Sox, Rays and Yankees are three of the teams who are believed to be interested in Joel Hanrahan.
Could be why Mujica was in the game in the 9th also, along with the light shoulder stiffness reportedly felt by Uehara. Get a better idea on Mujica in a closing situation and let Koji have 2 days off in a row.
Earlier in the off season it made some sense to bring back Hanrahan, but unless they get either badenhop, or Capuano out of the pen, we won’t see it happen and who sees either of those being moved?
Looks like AA is on the hot seat…
Not a Yankee fan, but Levine was stating a point about contracts that should be obvious (but isn’t to some teams), not tampering with Trout.
Yes but it can be interpreted as the yankees informally announcing they plan on attempting to sign Trout to a massive contract as soon as he’s a free agent. Someone in a team’s front office can say they’d only pay a long contract for a young player but once they use another player’s name the team is essentially changing the negotiating dynamics for another team that has a player under it’s control. It’s a rigid rule for a reason.
Levine did not mention a dollar number, only how many years and that changes the context entirely. Angels were just mad that they were essentially forced to offer Trout a huge contract while they still had 3-4 years of control over him. Can’t take it out on the fan so why not on another team?
What huge contract? They negotiated and met in the middle. Some players are complaining that he should have gotten more. Halos wanted to lock him up for much longer so they were willing to give him a “huge contract”. You can make the argument that Levine’s comment prevented the Halos from locking up Trout for much longer because Trout now knows that NYY is willing to give him a 10 year deal.
Any team would give Trout a 10 year contract when he is 22 years old. No team in their right mind would give a 10 year contract to a player when he is approaching 30, has reached its peak and starts to decline. Levine comment was made to compare Cano’s situation. Angels were mad they had to pony up big dollars for Trout.
Is a $144mil contract not huge for a guy in prearb/1st arb?
The fan has no power, we’re all armchair GMs. A team’s front office does have power.
But furthermore you’ve pretty much explained my point. You’re saying the Angels were forced to extend Trout. Levine suggesting they’d be willing to make a 10 year commitment is a huge thing since there’s only been a couple.
It’s totally tampering. He mentioned a name and what kind of contract they would give. Trout could have easily not accepted the Angels extension knowing what the Yankees said and waited till Free Agency. There is no other was to look at it but tampering.
It wouldn’t have been tampering if the Marlins or Astros made that comment, since it was the Yankees you’re going to have people up in arms about it, makes sense since they can basically hand him a blank check if he hit the market.
His comment makes sense but as people said he specifically mentioned Trout.
i never thought i’d here budget space and yankees in the same story