Infamous ‘Yankees Letter’ finally revealed
Mar 14, 2022; Tampa, FL, USA; New York Yankees general manager Brian Cashman talks with media during spring training workouts at George M. Steinbrenner Field. Mandatory Credit: Kim Klement-USA TODAY Sports
The contents of the infamous “Yankees Letter” were finally made public on Tuesday thanks to some reporting from SNY, though the letter was considered a letdown given some of the hype.
The letter said the New York Yankees used the replay monitor in 2015 and 2016 to help decode the opposing team’s signs. They would then have runners on second base relay stolen signs to their hitters. The Yankees were fined $100,000 by MLB for their actions.
Ultimately, the findings against the Yankees were extremely benign. For decades, teams have worked hard to decode the signs of opponents. Some would use their runners on second base to relay the decoded signs to the batter. The only difference in this situation is the Yankees used the replay monitor to aid their decoding, which was illegal.
Contrarily, the Houston Astros went well above and beyond anything the Yankees came close to doing. The Astros used an elaborate technological system to not just decode the signs from their opponents, but to also relay those signs via trash can banging even when nobody was on base.
Wondering how this letter came to be? Allow us to explain.
In 2017, the Yankees asked MLB to investigate the Boston Red Sox for allegedly using an Apple Watch (or Fitbit) to relay signs. The Red Sox retaliated with sign-stealing allegations against the Yankees and asked MLB to investigate their AL East rivals.
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred writes letters to teams at the conclusion of investigations to present his findings. The “Yankees Letter” is the letter written to the Yankees at the conclusion of the investigation into the allegations the Red Sox made against them.
In 2020, DraftKings contestants filed a lawsuit arguing they were due to damages because of the sign-stealing. The Yankees fought to have their letter sealed. They argued that the letter contained information damaging to their reputation.