Feb 16, 2012, 10:15 AM EST
While the A.J. Burnett trade talks between the Yankees and Pirates keep chugging along Anthony McCarron of the New York Daily News reports that the Yankees had a deal in place to send him to the Angels for Bobby Abreu … but Burnett used his no-trade clause to block the move.
Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reported earlier this week that the Yankees and Indians talked about a Burnett-for-Travis Hafner swap at some point, so New York being interested in Abreu as a different veteran designated hitter option makes some sense.
Abreu is part of the Angels’ logjam of bats and is due $9 million this season (compared to $16.5 million over the next two seasons for Burnett). His production has declined significantly in his late-30s, but he still drew plenty of walks, got on base at a .353 clip, and stole 21 bases last year. It’s a moot point, however, as the Angels are one of 10 teams to which Burnett can veto a trade and various reports suggest he’ll wind up on the Pirates.
As for why a player would block a deal to the Angels but not the Pirates, Burnett’s wife is from Maryland and has a fear of flying.
- Video: Watch Matt Harvey’s return to action against the Tigers 1
- Matt Harvey makes his return. And he was really impressive. 21
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 36
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 147
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Joc Pederson goes 2-for-2 in Cactus League debut 6
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (380)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (147)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)