Yankees manager Joe Girardi has been resistant to use Brett Gardner in the starting lineup because he only has four at-bats in the majors (including one on Saturday) since his elbow injury in mid-April, but the team’s continued struggles on offense have them reconsidering matters.
Yankees general manager Brian Cashman was on the “The Michael Kay Show” today and said that Gardner is “a possibility” to be in the lineup when the ALCS continues in Detroit this week.
“He still might play a role in this thing,” Cashman said on ESPN New York 98.7 FM’s “The Michael Kay Show.” “You could very well see Gardner in this big outfield that Detroit has. The way our offense is, it is a possibility. He deserves consideration considering what is going on right now.”
Nick Swisher is just 4-for-26 (.154) with eight strikeouts during the postseason while Curtis Granderson is 3-for-26 (.115) with 14 strikeouts, so both players are at risk for being benched. If Girardi really wants to shake things up, he could sit them both and go with Gardner, Ichiro Suzuki and Raul Ibanez in the outfield and Eric Chavez out of the DH spot, though the prospect of using the 40-year-old Ibanez in that spacious outfield is a little scary.
Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports that Major League Baseball has rejected the MLBPA’s proposal for a 114-game season and said it would not send a counter offer. The league said it has started talks with owners “about playing a shorter season without fans, and that it is ready to discuss additional ideas with the union.”
This should be understood as a game of chicken.
The background here is that the the owners are pretty much locked into the idea of paying players a prorated share of their regular salaries based on number of games played. The players, meanwhile, are pretty much locked in to the idea that the owners can set the length of the season that is played. Each side is trying to leverage their power in this regard.
The players proposed a probably unworkable number of games — 114 — as a means of setting the bidding high on a schedule that will work out well for them financially. Say, a settled agreement at about 80 games or so. The owners were rumored to be considering a counteroffer of a low number of games — say, 50 — as a means of still getting a significant pay cut from the players even if they’re being paid prorata. What Rosenthal is now reporting is that they won’t even counter with that.
Which is to say that the owners are trying to get the players to come off of their prorated salary rights under the threat of a very short schedule that would end up paying them very little. They won’t formally offer that short schedule, however, likely because (a) they believe that the threat of uncertain action is more formidable; and (b) they don’t want to be in the position of publicly demanding fewer baseball games, which doesn’t look very good to fans. They’d rather be in the position of saying “welp, the players wouldn’t talk to us about money so we have no choice, they forced us into 50 games.”
In other news, the NBA seems very close to getting its season resumed.