Free Agent Quota: 8 Type A/Bs

and next they will have a salary cap to prevent even further injustice lol

So much for Juan Cruz and Manny Ramirez speculation I guess.

I had heard and/or read a previous report that said the number is 3 PLUS the number of type A or B guys you LOSE.

I don't believe (though I'm not sure how) Giambi ranked in either category...

But I know Abreu and Pudge did...

I wonder if one or both of those guys signing (at which point the Yankees would have officially "lost" them) if it would open another spot for the Yankees?

"I had heard and/or read a previous report that said the number is 3 PLUS the number of type A or B guys you LOSE.

But I know Abreu and Pudge did..."

Well that makes sense, but also remember Abreu and Pudge were not offered arbitration.

Ultimately though, this convinces me that the system really makes little sense as is.

This is not true. The comment above that the limit is set by the total number of free agents filing not just the number of type A and type B free agents filing is correct.

Directly from the CBA:

(5) Quota

(a) Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players, as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts. The number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player. If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are more than 62 such players, the Club quotas shall be increased acordingly. There shall be no restrictions on the number of unranked Players that a Club may sign to contracts.

(b) Irrespective of the provisions of subparagraph (a) above, a Club shall be eligible to sign at least as many Type A and B Players as it may have lost through Players having become free agents under this Section at the close of the season just concluded.

The Yankees did not reach their quota for signing a Type-A free agent. From the article:

"According to an unofficial list compiled by the Sports City Sports News Service, this year there were 63 Type A and Type B free agents..."

...

"I think if [the Yankees] were contemplating signing another Type A player, they would've read the agreement and asked us what we wanted to do. They would've said they wanted to sign a fourth player and we would've had to do something with the union."

So, this means that it is still possible for the Yankees to sign more Type-A free agents because 63 players filed, which is one more than the quota placed if 62 free agents filed.

Inaccurate

Regardless of the ruling here, the Yankee's have done very well with acquiring free agents this off season, price not relative. Even if this were true, we're done and I for one am ok with it.

Yankee's have a lot of depth, more than many teams. If they feel they still need someone to fill in a blank, a trade will be executed.

Let's face it. What area are the Yank's short at right now? Maybe a back-up middle infielder? Ransom is not that bad and he is young. Where else. Next year we have lots more money coming off the books. I could see Damon staying on with the Yank's for another 2 with a very cheap contract, the same with Jeter at the end of 2010.

Fault the Yankee's all you want for the handling of contract prices, but Cashman didn't sit around to watch the fireworks, he was the one at the helm lighting them.

"Yankees are a joke.
Overpay for Burnett, when Sheets can now be had for a short term contract, and half the price, lol."

Oh yea, because after years of Carl Pavano we want another NL to AL guy who experiences arm troubles right at the end of last year and had poor medical reports heading into the offseason which is why he hasn't signed. That makes sense. Damn Boston fans always being so smart.

This article is wrong. On this site alone (link at bottom) there were 66 type A/B free agents listed.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/10/type-ab-free-ag.html

Dunkin D you're right understaffed is a more appropriate word.

However, I would not say the entire outfield needs improvement, even by Yankee standards. Swisher and Nady are young and solid. Melky and Gardner are just fine by me to platoon center. Matsui agreed is a question mark, but has a proven history of good production. Would I be glad to see a Matt Holiday type out there, sure, I guess, but that outfield is far from undesirable. I have absolutely no real knowledge of this kid Austin Jackson, but based on the press, sounds good to me.

As I said with the addition of Texeira that was like purchasing a swiss army knife, in my opinion. Multi talented and multiple abilities. I cannot say enough about how pleased I am with the team they will field this year, regardless of the overall outcome in October.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/10/type-ab-free-ag.html

That list was simply one of "possible" free agents. Many on that list either had options exercised or accepted arbitration from teams and so never became free agents (Giles, Weathers).

Blooom checked with a MLB official so I tend to think he was correct. Or perhaps the language in the CBA is sufficiently vague as to make this open to interpretation.

Regardless, I don't think the Yankees have any intention of going after Manny or Sheets at this point.

Exactly Russell. Melky and Gardner are just that. Defensively strong, relative to the rest of the league and all things considered they are practically free.

I'd say we're looking at something along the lines of Damon starting in LF, Gardner/Melky center and Nady in RF. Swisher rides the bench at the start with Matsui almost certainly being the DH.

However, and with no real knowledge of this, my feeling is Nady is dealt and as many before have said, he'll be very attractive in June for a lot of teams, just like he was to the Yank's last year.

I like the comments made by Swisher himself, saying he wants to play and his excitement to be on the Yankee's. How can you give that up. Passion and fire are underrated.

So it appears that 9 is the correct number as has been reported all winter until now by an inaccurate report by mlb.com

So let's see the Yankees have signed 3 Type A Free Agents so far in Teixeira, Sabathia and Burnett.

So that's 6 to go to reach their limit.

Ok so first they sign Manny to DH, then they sign Adam Dunn to play Rightfield. While trading away Swisher, Nady and Matsui.

So there is 4 left to their limit. Then they sign Ben Sheets for the rotation pushing Joba to the bullpen. If Sheets gets hurt move Joba back to the rotation or have Phil Hughes.

In case of that possibility sign Juan Cruz to setup.

Ok so 2 left, hmm who should they get.

Orlando Hudson to play Centerfield.

Still 1 to go, damn I was hoping to reach their limit, wait I got it sign Jason Veritek to backup Posada..

I've done it!!

So a lineup of:
LF Damon
SS Jeter
1B Teixeira
3B Arod
DH Manny
RF Dunn
C Posada
2B Cano
CF Hudson

A Bench of:
C Veritek
OF Melky
OF Gardiner
IF Ransom

A rotation of:
Sabathia
Burnett
Wang
Sheets
Pettite

and a bullpen of:
CL Rivera
SU Joba
SU Cruz
MR Marte
MR Bruney
MR Ramirez
LR Aceves

There's your 25 man roster for 2009, haha obviously a joke..

Russell I am a fan of Swisher over Nady too, and not entire based on the production of the two, and you're right about your view of the economics of this and having someone making $10mm on the bench, but we need to play Nady first, in the short term, to justify his value and make him, if anything, more desirable to potential suitors mid season should it not happen now. It is a bit convoluted i'll admit. Rare problem for us to have with this type of depth.

I'm telling you a Nady + Kennedy offering for trade is mighty good to someone and no we (the fans) do not expect a Hanley Ramirez type in return. Yankee's apparently are playing it well again. It sounds as if majority of the calls are with interest in Swisher and if we retain Nady we net the prospects in 2010. So Nady and Kennedy for 1 player ready or for 3 future prospects in return does not seem prohibitive to me.

Why was Giambi not an A or even a B, was it becuse they declined an option? Also Pudge was a B.

For the record, I think Sheets is a better pitcher than Burnett if both are healthy. It is just unfortunate that Sheets can't ever pitch a full season.

As for who is pushing for the Yankees to sign another free agent pitcher, I think you are fine with Phil Hughes filling in if there is an injury. Hughes is still young with a ton of potential, and he has shown signs of being an extremely effective major league pitcher. The Yankees kept him in all of those big deals for a reason, not to block him by making unnecessary signings.

There's also Aceves and Kennedy in case the Yankees lose multiple pitchers. The Yankees brass wanted to keep these guys - it only makes sense that they will play them if they have to do it.

Giants have already signed 4 type a/B FA's Affedlt, howry, R johnson, E renteria

"Let's face it. What area are the Yank's short at right now?"

Starting defense and overall pitching depth. Teixeira, at first, is a vast improvement, but the team's infield defense is still one of the overall worst from the middle straight through the left side, and their outfield defense is extremely questionable.

Their rotation depth is extremely questionable as well. While they've got a potentially enviable #1 (I still think the Sabathia deal was a terrible one in its length, he'll give the Yanks at least three or four good seasons, almost no question), the rest is a question mark. Burnett's a reputable injury risk and, while he's had two really good seasons, Wang's dealt with injury troubles two seasons in a row and he's a groundball pitcher who's going to be dealing with an infield defense that's questionable outside of first base. Andy Pettitte makes a pretty adequate fourth starter, but his reliability has gone down a lot the last few years. He'll eat innings, but he won't do it with much skill.

Then they don't even have a clear fifth starter going into the season. A lot of speculation pegs Joba, but if you put him in there, the bullpen is the big question mark since you both lose his presence there and give the bullpen more innings due to his innings cap.

They've also got a pretty subpar bench. What is it right now? Molina, Gardner, Ransom and Cabrera? Thanks, but no thanks. Molina's a slick defender, but none of them is a clear offensive OR defensive replacement for anyone they're starting.

A lot of people cite huge improvement over last year, and parts did: Teixeira's a good move at first and they finally have a legitimate staff ace, but they still have absolutely no depth, which is what killed them last year. If Shields or Lester go down, the Rays and Red Sox both have someone adequate to step up, the Yanks don't have that security if Sabathia goes down. If any position players go down, things get very dicey with their bench.

The Yankees' most obvious glaring hole: depth. Didn't have it last year, don't have it this year. Unless they go the entire season without a significant injury (I'm talking a key starter going down for a month or so), the division will go to either the Rays or the Sox by my guess, that is unless the latter two suffer more injury trouble than last year.

"A literal reading of this clause would make the mlb statement accurate assuming there are between 39-62 Type A and B free agents and assuming the Yankees have lost 3 or fewer of such free agents this offseason."

Well, now that I read the clause, a literal reading indicates that:

--The number of players filing for free agency, NOT the number of Type A and B free agents, is what determines *how many* Type A and B free agents can be signed by each team(each offseason).

--As this thread indicates, there are conflicting reports of the number of free agents who filed. But, after doing a count based on the following links:

1. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents?type=ranked&season=2008

I can safely say that there are at least 100 free agents!

2. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/10/31/elias.rankings/

I can safely say that there are over 62 Type A and B free agents(I count 67, discounting the second mention of Casey Blake!)

Now, as far as I can tell, Damaso Marte, whose option was declined, still counts as a free agent. He did file for free agency(which players must do within 16 days after the WS ends), but he still signed a new contract within the "exclusivity period". So, he was technically still a free agent. Any other player in a similar situation would count(including David Weathers, who filed for free agency, then accepted arbitration).

Retiring players such as Mike Mussina still count, as far as I can tell, toward free agent losses. Instead of losing them to another team, the previous team loses them to retirement. ;)

there probably just tried of hearing that, they just want a break from that question i think :P

If there is no compensation to be had it does not matter who signs them.

I wonder if it is you can sign x type A's and x type B's? Yankees already signed three type A's maybe that limits them. Like I said above I seriously woner if we will ever know a concrete answer to this question. It would be good pulicity for Tim if he could figure it out though.

Just got email from Barry Bloom confirming Manfred gave him some bad info

“I’m not sure of the exact number, but it’s one we won’t worry about either way,” -Cashman

So weird. The mystery of suspiciously vague cover up or just plain irrelevant lives on. Sidenote if everyone bashed McNabb for not knowing about overtime should Cashman not get grief for not knowing how many free agents he could sign? More importantly how did he give a number and claim he did not know within the same one paragraph article?

It is interesting that the CBA says that the quota SHALL be increased according when there are more than 62 FAs. It does not say it MAY be increased. Shall = will be done.

RE: Giants. Renteria, Johnson and Uribe were not offered arbitration, so they do not count. Also, Uribe signed a minor league deal. Affeldt is the only true compensation player that the Giants signed.

Whatever the situation may be, it's clear the CBA was written poorly and that's the source for all the confusion.

3 is the limit - then the Yanks had 4 type A's and 1 type B. That's 8. That is prob whats going on. Did the Giants release any type A or B's this winter?

I think regardless if they were offer or not, Renteria is still a Type A or B anyways, is juts that the team losing the player doesn't compensated. I'm just saying, I'm not sure about this.

"RE: Giants. Renteria, Johnson and Uribe were not offered arbitration, so they do not count."

How do you know this? They're still ranked players/free agents.

Although...

"Also, Uribe signed a minor league deal."

I would think this would be what makes it OK that Johnson, Renteria, and Affeldt were all signed--that's the 3 Type A/B free agents right there, and Uribe's is a minor league deal, so he doesn't count.

Walkoffblast.

How are the Mcnabb and Cashman comments the same thing? The overtime rule in the NFL is a constant that never changes while the amount of allowed ranked free agent acquisitions can change year by year depending on the amount of ranked players that file for free agency? Sidenote way too much was made of the Mcnabb thing anyway

Macphisto - you're fighting a losing battle...

We could sign Manny and Dunn and have a middle-of-the order of Tex-ARod-Manny-Dunn-Posada and Boston fans would still be saying they have a more dangerous lineup lol.

I'm sure you already know by now, take what they say lightly. I usually throw in my 2 cents then stop reading the posts after because you get a bunch of 12 year olds all worked up and saying things that make no sense.

(Interrupted while posting, sorry if this was covered in any recent posts)

"Giants have already signed 4 type a/B FA's Affedlt, howry, R johnson, E renteria"

Only Affedlt was offered arbitration though. Well, from what I remember at least. That might be the distinction here. Each of the Yankees signings was offered arbitration, and they are said to have reached their Quota. The Yankees also did not offer arbitration to any of the players they will lose from here on, so their number would not increase.

And if that is the case, then it seems as if maybe the Yankees might only restricted from signing the likes of Varitek, Grudzielanek, Hudson, Cabrera, Ramirez, Byrd, Sheets, Perez, Cruz, Reyes and Shouse (players offered arbitration) – but not players such as Alou, Anderson, Dunn, Griffey, Thomas, Looper, Wolf, Ayala, etcetera (players who were not)

"Only Affedlt was offered arbitration though. Well, from what I remember at least. That might be the distinction here. "

The CBA does not _appear_ to make this distinction.

I have a printed copy in a binder at my desk - makes it very easy to flip through and look for stuff :)

"Section B outlines free agency in general. Not specfic to A/B."

kosmo ... so then it's just a poorly written legal document. However, I think it's important to note that MLB interprets it as type A/B. That's clear from Manfred's response in Bloom's article. And their intent does appear to be A/B as "14 or less" makes no sense if they were referring to all free agents. What chance would there ever be of having only 14 or less free agents available in any one year?

Cosa, I agree could not care less about the mcnabb thing however I think the argument you made for cashman actually hurts him. If it changes every year then they should have to calculate it every year. It seems like a number he should be aware of and it would have only happened a little more than a month ago.

Now that I am re-reading his quote the "either way" part at the end is a curious choice of words. Does that mean even if he was to go over the quota he would not have to worry about it? Or is the context just obscure and it has a different meaning?

It was Bloom who interviewed Manfred a few hours ago (1:28AM report)who said the limit is three and no exception was requested.

Last update is Bloom interviewiong Manfred who said a Blanket exeception was issued previous? Huh?

"It was Bloom who interviewed Manfred a few hours ago (1:28AM report)who said the limit is three and no exception was requested.

Last update is Bloom interviewiong Manfred who said a Blanket exeception was issued previous? Huh?"

yeah, it almost sounds like someone was wrong the first time :)

"The number of signings permitted shall be related to the number of Players
electing free agency under this Section B. If there are 14 or less
such Players, no Club may sign more than one Type A or B Player.
If there are from 15 to 38 such Players, no Club may sign more than
two Type A or B Players. If there are from 39 to 62 such Players, no
Club may sign more than three Type A or B Players. If there are more than 62 such Players, the Club quotas shall be increased
accordingly."

So, in my opinion, the number of type A and B depends on the total number of free agent.
0-14: 1 type A or B
15-38: 2 type A or B
39-62: 3 type A or B
63-86: 4 type A or B
87-110: 5 type A or B
111-134: 6 type A or B
135-158: 7 type A or B
159-182: 8 type A or B
182-206: 9 type A or B
...

"I think it's just a poorly interpreted document :) If you read what is written, without any preconceived notions, it's pretty clear."

kosmo, how well written can it be if MLB itself (via Manfred) is interpreting it to be A/B? Or is Manfred just woefully mistaken himself and winging it with Bloom? That would be sad if that were the case, lol.

"As for the "14 or less" - they may have just wanted to cover all the bases - or this clause might date back to the 70s, the advent of free agency."

The latest CBA was signed in 2007, but sure, perhaps they never revised the language from the original CBA.

"but a fool would take AJ for 5 years over Sheets for 2 years. "

Juiced - I think you're discounting too much how many times the Yanks have been burned by mid-old aged pitchers going from the NL to AL. Brown, Johnson, Pavano... I don't want Sheets (especially hearing about people not being happy with his medical reports). He needs to stay in the NL. Smoltz and Penny are soon to be the next examples (though in Boston it is different because they play on a softball field).

"Sabathia
Teixeira
Burnett
Nady
Wang
Pettitte
Marte
Chamberlain
Bruney"

Suzy - Bruney, Chamberlain and Wang were never free agents.

(though in Boston it is different because they play on a softball field).

Posted by: Russell | January 30, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Jajaja. Actually they have surpass Colorado's ball park

“Suzy - Bruney, Chamberlain and Wang were never free agents.”

Yet they had to be resigned just the same, so technically they were Type A/B players to sign contracts with the Yankees.

Kosmo99,

Paragraph A clearly states that you will be eligible to sign at least 3. Paragraph B seems to indicate that you will see that number increase if you have a higher number of such players you are in jeopardy of losing; that you will be allowed to sign at least as many as you have.

The Yankees had 9 Type A/B players they needed to resign to new contracts – Abreu, Musina, Ivan Rodriguez, Nady, Wang, Pettitte, Marte, Chamberlain and Bruney. 6 of those players resigned, 3 were allowed to leave, bringing them down to a 3 A/B player limit to sign off the free agent market. That makes sense under the rules as stated, and would fit with the original statements of Bloom, Cafardo and even Cashman if you think about it. He was allowed to sign those he wanted, and otherwise is not in need of more so he doesn’t have to worry about it further.

Blooms latest statement makes little sense (the blanket ok), and if true makes everything moot. But it does look as though it is possible he was correct the first time if the above is true.

"Oh, duh…

Sabathia
Teixeira
Burnett
Nady
Wang
Pettitte
Marte
Chamberlain
Bruney.

Suzy - Bruney, Chamberlain and Wang were never free agents."

For that matter, neither was Xavier Nady(he was arbitration-elgible like Wang). ;)

StarryEyed,

“For that matter, neither was Xavier Nady(he was arbitration-elgible like Wang). ;)”

Please explain to me where it says “free agent” here:

“Clubs shall be limited in the number of Type A and B Players, as defined below, they may subsequently sign to contracts.”

Nady, Wang, Chamberlin and Bruney were “signed to contracts” the same way Sabathia, Teiceira, Burnett, Marte and Pettitte were. Had they not been signed, the team would have had to release them; thereby granting them that free agent status.

^ exactly strikethree. I just ignore the Boston fans comments now. They have lost all credibility this off season and I think they are still trying to digest that they may very well be the third place team this year. I'll admit they sure can dish it, but have a hard time taking it. Watch out for the Orioles and Blue Jays too. The AL East will be very interesting this year. And as a Yank's fans I am not saying we are even guaranteed 1st. Let's see how it plays out, but Boston really should (they need to) consider that a few more bad moves and they maybe clawing out of the cellar.