Here’s what you need to know about 'The Yankee Letter'

On Friday, the Yankees again moved to block the release of the so-called “Yankee Letter,” which details a 2017 MLB investigation into the team after the Boston Red Sox accused them of sign stealing.

After reporting on this situation for several years, I am confident that I know what this letter says.

I am also of the opinion that the Yankees would benefit from releasing it immediately and explaining what they did and didn’t do, and when. The full context is highly favorable to them, especially compared to the Houston Astros.

The team is choosing to appeal the letter’s release, however, for reasons that have nothing to do with public relations.

Here is an attempt to detail everything you need to know about what the letter contains, why the Yankees want it sealed, and what will eventually happen.

What is the Yankee Letter?

On August 18, 2017, Yankees replay coordinator Brett Weber and manager Joe Girardi caught the Red Sox using Apple Watches at Fenway Park to relay stolen signs to runners on second base, who would then relay the signs to the batter.

Weber and Girardi took a video of this, then Girardi sent it to Brian Cashman.

“I want to show you the things that stood out to us,” Girardi told his boss in a subsequent phone call.

(I’m trying to avoid a cheesy book plug here, but I’m also obligated to say that this is all presented in even more detail in my…book. It’s called Cheated. Anyway…)

Cashman relayed the video to MLB, which began an investigation into the Red Sox.

As MLB was about to conclude this investigation, the New York Times reported on it.

Believing that the Yankees were responsible for the media leak, an angry Boston organization asked MLB to investigate the Yanks for sign stealing.

MLB complied.

The league later presented its findings to the clubs in writing, as it always does. That was the “Yankee Letter.”

Naturally, there is also a “Red Sox Letter.” And an “Astros letter.” And so on and so on. The years between 2017 and 2019 brought many club-on-club complaints about sign stealing, and the commissioner’s office always communicates about them in writing.

Does the letter clear the Yankees of sign stealing?

This is where nuance and context are crucial.

According to three people with direct knowledge, the letter says that Yankees players used the replay room to decode pitch sequences during the 2015 and 2016 seasons.

Players would then relay these signs to the dugout, where others would try to get the information to a runner on second base.

MLB never fielded a complaint that the Yankees were stealing signs in 2017, 2018, or beyond.

The letter also says that then-pitching coach Larry Rothschild improperly used the dugout phone to call the replay room -- not to steal a sign, but to identify a particular pitch.

The letter was not MLB’s final word on the Yankees during this investigation. In subsequent discussions, the team pushed back on some of the verbiage and tone. The “Yankee Letter” represents MLB’s initial findings rather than its final conclusions.

Does the latter mean that the Yankees were as bad as the Astros?

No.

The electronic sign stealing era can be divided into segments: before and after September 15, 2017.

During the years between 2014 and 2017, the replay room was a new innovation in baseball. Teams, including the Yankees, saw it as a tool to do what smart players had always done with their eyes: Decode pitch sequences and find out how to steal signs.

This is not outlawed by MLB. Sign stealing from second base had always been considered gamesmanship, and the replay room was new and untested. MLB did not make clear during those years that using the replay room was a serious offense.

September 15, 2017 is the most important date in the sign stealing era. This cannot possibly be overstated.

On that day, commissioner Rob Manfred announced that he was fining the Red Sox for their Apple Watch violation, and fining the Yankees “a lesser amount” for their violations.

He also said: “All 30 Clubs have been notified that future violations of this type will be subject to more serious sanctions, including the possible loss of draft picks.”

I’m going to put the next sentence in italics. That’s how important this is. The Yankee letter cannot possibly detail violations after this line-in-the-sand statement from Manfred, because it was written beforehand.

No team that participated in electronic sign stealing before 9/15/17 was in violation of the commissioner’s newly-stated emphasis on the issue. The Yankees are not accused of stealing signs after that date.

Also, neither the Yankees nor the Red Sox were ever accused of stealing signs with no runners on base, a crucial difference. That’s what the Astros did.

If the Yankees have nothing to hide, why not just release the letter?

If I were in charge of the Yankees (which, thank goodness for the Yankees’ sake, will never happen) I would schedule a news conference for tomorrow with a big blown up version of the letter, and ask Cashman or assistant GM Jean Afterman to explain it to the public.

But that’s a PR-centered thought.

In writing an appeal last week of the 2020 ruling that that the letter be unsealed, team president Randy Levine was focused on another aspect: legal precedent.

In the appeal, Levine noted that the letter’s disclosure was in “meritless” -- and ultimately dismissed -- lawsuit by daily fantasy players alleging that sign stealing in MLB had defrauded them. The Yankees were not a party to that suit.

Furthermore, the team said that the letter was submitted to the court in error.

“The Yankees believe that MLB mistakenly produced the Yankees Letter,” Levine wrote in the appeal.

There is a Red Sox letter. There is an Astros letter. Why, the Yankees ask, should only the Yankee letter be unsealed in this process?

The appeal also said that releasing the letter would set a dangerous precedent, and would open “a floodgate for future litigants to cause more abuse in ways never intended.”

As Levine wrote, “The Opinion removes the authority from the Commissioner to determine what to make public from his internal investigations, and puts that power in the hands of opportunistic plaintiffs with no connection to MLB, even where, as here, those plaintiffs never stated a viable cause of action … The Opinion will thereby discourage parties from cooperating with confidential internal investigations, as now the investigator will no longer control what is made public; an opportunistic plaintiff.”

In other words, the Yankees are asking why anyone would cooperate with a future MLB investigation if confidentiality is promised but not guaranteed.

Have you actually seen this letter, Martino?

No, but I have had it summarized to me by non-Yankee sources who are intimately familiar with it.

Will you see it?

Almost certainly. Legal experts do not expect the Yankees to win this appeal. We’ll all probably see it before long.

Will that be embarrassing to the Yankees?

Yes. The wording and tone of the letter will provide fodder for anyone looking to opine that the Yankees cheated. But the facts will show that their use of the replay room to decode signs occurred before 2017, when it wasn’t as clear that MLB regarded that as a violation.

The Astros and Red Sox committed violations after that date. The Astros participated in electronic sign stealing in the 2017 World Series, and at least into the 2018 season. They violated other rules in 2019. The Red Sox were punished for 2018 violations.

For the sake of their own reputation and fair coverage, the Yankees should be explicit about the difference between their deeds and the Astros’. The sooner they do it, the better off they will be.