The Yankees won't make a serious play for Mauer even if he's available

Leave a comment

I had some fun tweaking fans of small market teams with that scout’s quote about the Yankees and Joe Mauer yesterday, but RAB’s Joe Pawlikowski is having none of that:

As it stands, the Yankees have $144 million locked into the 2011 payroll before they work out contracts for Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. They’ll also have arbitration cases for Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes. In other words, they could be near $185 million for just 13 players — and that doesn’t include Javy Vazquez or Andy Pettitte. At that point they’d probably need at least one starting pitcher. Other needs could crop up during the season, including left field.

In light of that, Joe says, and in light of the fact that they’ll still have Jorge Posada under contract and have no fewer than four catchers in their system who could succeed him, why on earth would the Yankees commit $200 million or whatever it is to Mauer?

And I think he’s right. I know many of you will scoff at the notion of the Yankees having a budget, but they do apparently have one now. And even if it’s a budget so large as to make the term close to meaningless, the Yankees have shown these past few years that they’re not going to sign a guy just to sign a guy. They’ll sign for need — look for Carl Crawford in the Bronx next year, and there’s always room for another pitcher — but they won’t triple or quadruple up on something they already have.

Most likely scenario: Mauer stays in Minnesota. If not: the Yankees feign interest in order to annoy the Red Sox or Mets or whoever, but ultimately don’t bite on Joe Mauer.

Zack Cozart thinks the way the Rays have been using Sergio Romo is bad for baseball

Matthew Stockman/Getty Images
11 Comments

The Rays started Sergio Romo on back-to-back days and if that sounds weird to you, you’re not alone. Romo, of course, was the star closer for the Giants for a while, helping them win the World Series in 2012 and ’14. He’s been a full-time reliever dating back to 2006, when he was at Single-A.

In an effort to prevent lefty Ryan Yarbrough from facing the righty-heavy top of the Angels’ lineup (Zack Cozart, Mike Trout, Justin Upton), Romo started Saturday’s game, pitching the first inning before giving way to Yarbrough in the second. Romo struck out the side, in fact. The Rays went on to win 5-3.

The Rays did it again on Sunday afternoon, starting Romo. This time, he got four outs before giving way to Matt Andriese. Romo walked two without giving up a hit while striking out three. The Angels managed to win 5-2 however.

Despite Sunday’s win, Cozart wasn’t a happy camper with the way the Rays used Romo. Via Fabian Ardaya of The Athletic, Cozart said, “It was weird … It’s bad for baseball, in my opinion … It’s spring training. That’s the best way to explain it.”

It’s difficult to see merit in Cozart’s argument. It’s not like the Rays were making excessive amounts of pitching changes; they used five on Saturday and four on Sunday. The games lasted three hours and three hours, 15 minutes, respectively. The average game time is exactly three hours so far this season. I’m having trouble wondering how else Cozart might mean the strategy is bad for baseball.

It seems like the real issue is that Cozart is afraid of the sport changing around him. The Rays, like most small market teams, have to find their edges in slight ways. The Rays aren’t doing this blindly; the strategy makes sense based on their opponents’ starting lineup. The idea of valuing on-base percentage was scoffed at. Shifting was scoffed at and now every team employs them to some degree. Who knows if starting a reliever for the first three or four outs will become a trend, but it’s shortsighted to write it off at first glance.