Aug
07

Update: Aardsma “fully expecting” to return this season

By

August 7th: For what it’s worth, Aardsma says he is “fully expecting” to return this season. He made 50 throws from 60-feet on flat ground yesterday as part of his rehab. As with most injuries of this nature, I’m in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” camp.

August 6th: Via Andrew Marchand, right-hander David Aardsma is not expected to return this season. The 30-year-old suffered a setback in his rehab from Tommy John surgery back in June. VP of Baseball Ops Mark Newman confirmed that the plan is to get him healthy for next season.

The Yankees signed Aardsma to a one-year deal worth $500k last offseason, and the contract includes a club option worth another $500k for next season. That’s essentially the league minimum and there’s no reason for them not to pick it up. Aardsma’s a hard-throwing, high-strikeout guy when healthy, and there’s no such thing as having too many of those guys in the bullpen. Even if he flops, it’s a no-risk move at that price.

Categories : Asides, Injuries

51 Comments»

  1. Robinson Tilapia says:

    More proof that the Yankees can’t develop pitching.

    • Todd says:

      Do you have your own opinions? Or is this Mike Axisa under a different moniker?

      • jsbrendog says:

        this comment made me laugh

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        Everyone except you is Mike Axisa under a different moniker.

        Nice job on the “stuart” and “Ted Nelson” personas, Mike.

        • jjyank says:

          Can you imagine if that was true? Mike just uses the tactic to spice up an otherwise boring thread? Genius.

          • Paul VuvuZuvella says:

            Probably illegal, or at the least very immoral. Ad fees for websites are based on traffic so artificially increasing your own traffic through deceptive measures would be bad. There are ways around it of course like sites that let you read a little and then click on a link (over the bump) to read more. That gets a site 2 clicks per article.

  2. jjyank says:

    I figured this would be the case once he had his set back. Hopefully he’s ready to roll next year.

  3. DM says:

    It’s funny how giving Chavez 900k was considered a waste due to his injury history; but paying 500k to an already injured Aardsma — to rehab in 2012 — was considered a good move.

    • Straw Man says:

      It’s a tough economy out there. Thanks for putting me back to work!

      • DM says:

        You’re still unemployed. Sorry.

      • Steve says:

        Do you know what a straw man is? He isn’t refuting anybody’s argument here. He’s pointing out irony. I can’t speak to the Chavez part but the Aardsma signing was universally celebrated here. Either way, the term straw man gets thrown around way too liberally around here, and in most cases it’s grossly misused.

        • Steve (different one) says:

          The argument was based on the premise that $900K on Chavez was considered a waste. Was this a universally held opinion around here? I don’t remember that being the case.

          If it wasn’t, then calling it a straw man was appropriate.

          • Steve (different one) says:

            Should have kept reading. I didn’t have a problem with the Chavez signing. If most people here did, then yeah, it’s not a “straw man”. I don’t remember it that way, but I can barely remember last week at this point.

            I do remember Chavez being called a “square peg” on the roster. That part I disagreed with. There was going to be plenty of AB’s at 3B.

    • vin says:

      The same strategy worked out pretty well with Jon Lieber back in the day.

      • Darren says:

        Mark Bellhorn says thanks!

      • DM says:

        I had no problem with the Aardsma signing — but I thought signing Chavez was a good move as well. I said the same for both at the time they were each signed. My point is that the Chavez signing was almost universally despised while the Aardsma signing was almost univerally praised. Chavez would be worth 900k if he had played half as well or half as much. The threat of injury to Chavez seemed to be more of a drawback than Aardsma already being injured with no guarantee of return to health or effectiveness. 1mil over 2 years or 900k for one is low enough price to take a chance on either contributing.

        • jjyank says:

          I guess the difference is the role. The Yankees signed Chavez and would depend on him in some capacity. The Yankees signed Aardsma without a clear need for him, to make a strength (the bullpen) stronger. So I guess the risk is lesser with the Aardsma contract.

          For the record, I was also in favor of both deals.

          • jsbrendog says:

            eric chavez was one of the worst baseball players last year if he even made it onto the field. to guarantee someone that much who proved he could only play 52 games was not the best signing. did it turn out well? yes, but i stand by my rational anti-chavez opinion because it was based on fact. obvs im glad the way it turned out.

            aardsma was an above average to flashing elite closer before injury.

            to compare the two could be to compare apples to oranges and man, that just ain’t right.

            • jjyank says:

              I didn’t bring up the comparison.

            • DM says:

              I think the comparison is apt from the context of taking cheap flyers on players that might help. And “before injury” no longer applies to Aardsma — and it didn’t at the time he was signed. Chavez used to be an All-star “before injury”. He was a gold glove 3rd baseman with power “before injury”. Taking a chance on either at those prices, in reduced roles, is worth it imo.

    • Domenic says:

      There’s a difference between signing Chavez to be the back-up for an aging and somewhat injury prone Alex Rodriguez, and signing Aardsma to potentially be the fifth or sixth man out of the bullpen. It’s all about expectations.

      • DM says:

        I’m talking about the price tag. Signing Chavez at 900k wouldn’t stop the Yankees from making another move if he didn’t work out. And “potentially” is a key part of the Aardsma equation. Chavez might get injured while Aardsma already was on the shelf. Aardsma might help or he might never be effective or healthy for the Yankees. For the record, I supported both signings, and said so at the time. My point is that the sentiment was as if Chavez would most likely fail while Aardsma wouldn’t most likely help. That’s strange when you consider the latter was already injured at the time he was signed.

    • jjyank says:

      It’s a good move because Aardsma would never come that cheap otherwise. If he returns to form, he’d be a steal for what would essentially be a 1 year, $1 mil deal.

      • Robinson Tilapia says:

        This. #ineverhavemyownopinions

      • DM says:

        It’s a good move “if” he returns to form. Just like it’s a good move to sign Chavez “if” he stays healthy enough to effectively back up A-Rod and hit against some RH pitching. I supported both signings b/c neither cost that much. I was putting down the Aardsma move as much as questioning the anti-Chavez sentiment at 900k. Most here had written off Chavez as broken and ineffective while writing on Aardsma as soon-to-be effective even though the latter was already injured. I think taking a chance on Chavez staying healthy is as good a bet as taking a chance on a pitcher recovering from serious elbow surgery.

    • AC says:

      The plan when they signed Aardsma was for 2013. Just like when the signed Jon Leiber. If he came back this year would have been a surprised so it’s not really a setback.

    • Lee Lovelace says:

      Chavez may wind up with the same offensive numbers as ARod for about 4% of what ARod will cost. I think that is the biggest waste. Aardsma is also worth a risk because a strikeout guy in the bullpen is valuable. Joba should be that guy, but he has had more downtime than a matress tester.

  4. tut says:

    and in other news, Banuelos is shut down for the season.

  5. Kevin G. says:

    Next years bullpen is going to be stacked

    Mo, Soriano (please opt out), Robertson, Joba, Aaardsma, Logan.

    Also, will the Yankees still have Cabral next year? He’ll only be 24 and could be a nice 2nd LOOGY.

  6. Harry C says:

    I tweetet Aardsma. He says he three 50 times form 60 feet today and fully expects to be back this season.

  7. RetroRob says:

    Can a player actually return “this season” if the GM of the organization has decided that he won’t return this season? : -)

    One thing we know about Cashman is that he is purposely very conservative when giving estimates on players returning. Better to feign surprise when Joba is throwing 97 in a MLB game in August than to tell the media that Joba will be back pitching this year only to then have to go back to the media and tell them why he’s not.

    • Deep Thoughts says:

      Cashman said, and I–I mean Mike–clearly reported, that he “didn’t expect him back” this year. He never decided that he will or won’t.

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.