Skip to content

Yankees place Burnett, Soriano and Posada on waivers

Aug 2, 2011, 6:12 PM EDT

A.J. Burnett Reuters

It’s supposed to be hush-hush when veterans get placed on revocable waivers in August, but names always tend to leak, and the New York Post is reporting that the Yankees have placed A.J. Burnett, Rafael Soriano and Jorge Posada all on trade waivers.

It’s doubtful any member of the trio will be claimed.  Burnett is owed about $55 million through the end of 2014, and Soriano is guaranteed another $28 million through 2013.  Posada is a free agent after this season, but he’s due to make a bit more than $4 million over the rest of the season and no one is going to want him at that price.

Once the players clear waivers, they’ll be eligible to be dealt this month.  Still, it’s highly unlikely any will be traded.  This is all just part of the routine.

  1. pisano - Aug 2, 2011 at 6:55 PM

    It doesn’t mean much, but it’s a shame that all three will be staying.

    • uyf1950 - Aug 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM

      My friend I still think Soriano has a lot of future value for the Yankees. Unfortunately his salary is disproportionately high. But nevertheless he can and will be in my opinion an asset to the Yankees. As for the other 2 in the piece. One can only hope that there is some deaf, dumb and blind GM out there willing to take them off the Yankees hands. I mean a really deaf, dumb and blind GM.

      • kappy32 - Aug 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM

        Please don’t use “but nevertheless” together. It’s the same as using a double-negative. It’s either: But; Nevertheless; However; On the other hand; etc. Sorry, it’s a big pet peev of mine, it’s the lawyer in me.

      • deathmonkey41 - Aug 3, 2011 at 8:12 AM

        Nevertheless Kappy, uyf has a point!

      • atworkident - Aug 3, 2011 at 8:15 AM

        Nevertheless, when has money been an issue for the Empire?

      • hystoracle - Aug 3, 2011 at 10:54 AM

        However but nevertheless, if I use three of them in one sentence then that would be a triple negative and thus still result in a negative outcome. On the other hand, I could use just one and that would, nevertheless, be considered better grammar.

        Now, I see why the NFL was more successful with their CBA when the lawyers left the room.

  2. jayxz102 - Aug 2, 2011 at 6:55 PM

    so what do they do on the off chance that AJ and/or Soriano actually get claimed? Has to be appealing to shed the salary and more importantly the headaches. However, not sure what the play is with AJ since there’s no elite starting pitcher available in the off-season (other than CC to my knowledge). Do they just get rid of him and hope they young guys are ready by next year? Any thoughts?

    • drmonkeyarmy - Aug 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM

      If one of them would actually get claimed, the Yankees would just pull them off waivers. If them put the same player on waivers again they could not pull that player off.

      • Kevin S. - Aug 2, 2011 at 7:08 PM

        I think his point is the Yanks might just let the other team have the guy.

      • phukyouk - Aug 2, 2011 at 7:13 PM

        they would not pull them back.. they would GLADLY be rid of soriano and AJ.. jorge doesnt matter cause hes only got 2 months left anyway

      • drmonkeyarmy - Aug 2, 2011 at 7:19 PM

        Yeah, ok I see his point now. I completely missed it the first time around. I thought he was concerned that those players, other than Posada, might be claimed. Poor reading comprehension on my part. Carry on.

  3. sdelmonte - Aug 2, 2011 at 8:13 PM

    The list of players NOT put on waivers at some point in the next month is probably more interesting.

  4. aschwartz2011 - Aug 2, 2011 at 9:33 PM

    Doesn’t Soriano’s contract have an out after the first year? If I remember correctly it could become a 1 year contract or something. If that were the case I think a lot more teams would have interest in him.

    • aschwartz2011 - Aug 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM

      Nevermind, just looked into it and its a player opt-out. So won’t be happening.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 2, 2011 at 10:34 PM

        It might be interesting to see what happens if Soriano is the 7th inning guy behind Mo and Robertson (which he should be), and if Hughes is moved to the bullpen Soriano might be the 6th inning guy (which I would endorse as well since Hughes is the long term asset). I have to think some team would pay him closer money next off-season for 3 or 4 years, even if is it less per year than he would get under his current contract. You have to figure that his current contract would be his last big contract if he remains a middle reliever for 2 more years. The memory of the average GM is short, and if he has no saves they might forget he once carried the Proven Closer seal of approval.

        By all accounts he is a competitive guy, and if he really wants to close, I could imagine him walking.

      • Ari Collins - Aug 2, 2011 at 10:53 PM

        No way is someone paying him closer money coming off this year.

      • Ari Collins - Aug 2, 2011 at 10:55 PM

        Also, he’s already paid closer money: $25M over the next two seasons. No way someone beats that.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Aug 2, 2011 at 11:25 PM

        The three most important months lie ahead. If Soriano is awesome going forward, and with Boras as his agent, I could see someone offering him 3 yrs/$30MM or 4 yrs/$32MM-35MM and him saying OK. even a lesser contract for the next 2 year (2yrs/$20MM) with the closer job securely his, will leave him making more money thereafter, because he’ll still be a closer. If he is a $25MM middle reliever for the next 2 years, the contract after that is bupkis.

        For a Boras client, too much is ever enough…

  5. tashkalucy - Aug 2, 2011 at 10:29 PM

    The Bankees had to be out of their minds and desperate to a fault to lay out that kind of money for Burnett and Soriano.

    If the the Red $ox and Bankees had to compete like other teams do with a reasonable payroll, Epstein and Cashman would be see for the run-of-the-mill GM’s they are,

    • Ari Collins - Aug 2, 2011 at 10:54 PM

      Epstein drafts and develops and locks up young players just like a small-market GM. Then he’s like, “Shit, I’ve got $100M left to spend. Oh well, might as well overpay in the free agent market.”

      • pisano - Aug 3, 2011 at 12:20 AM

        Ari… Your right and Lackey is proof of that, but AJ is almost as bad as Lackey.

  6. tashkalucy - Aug 2, 2011 at 11:28 PM

    Dice-K and Lackey. Are you kidding me? You get 5 starters for less money.

    John Farrell made Epstein and Francona look good. Neither of them know much about pitchers. Red Sox are going to fizzle out this year and continue down. You can’t get your pitching going, you aren’t going to win much of anything.

  7. nomoreseasontix - Aug 3, 2011 at 12:18 AM

    Maybe the Bengals’ Mike Brown will grab one. He’s pretty dumb…

  8. MTArider - Aug 3, 2011 at 3:42 AM

    I dont care if its the Red Sox who claim Burnett if someone does the Yanks should just dump him.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. J. Soler (3853)
  2. Y. Molina (2849)
  3. R. Castillo (2790)
  4. B. Posey (2213)
  5. A. Rizzo (2098)
  1. J. Ellsbury (2039)
  2. D. Murphy (1891)
  3. D. Wright (1890)
  4. M. Cabrera (1854)
  5. D. Pedroia (1835)