BALTIMORE -- A person familiar with the situation says free-agent pitcher Ubaldo Jimenez and the Baltimore Orioles have agreed to a contract, pending a physical. [url=https://www.nhljerseys2020.com/]Buy NHL Jerseys 2020[/url] . The person spoke on condition of anonymity Monday night because the deal h

BALTIMORE -- A person familiar with the situation says free-agent pitcher Ubaldo Jimenez and the Baltimore Orioles have agreed to a contract, pending a physical. Buy NHL Jerseys 2020 . The person spoke on condition of anonymity Monday night because the deal had not been completed and the club had not made an announcement. Several media outlets reported earlier that the sides had reached an agreement, which is reportedly for about $50 million over four years. Jimenez went 13-9 with a 3.30 ERA in 32 starts for Cleveland last season. He turned down a $14.1 million qualifying offer from the Indians, so Baltimore would have to forfeit its first-round draft pick (17th overall) to sign him. Orioles executive vice-president Dan Duquette has been searching for a veteran starter for much of the off-season to help anchor the rotation. Jimenez is 82-75 with a 3.92 ERA over eight major league seasons. The 30-year-old right-hander broke into the majors with Colorado in 2006. His best season was 2010, when he went 19-8 with a 2.88 ERA in 33 starts for the Rockies. Cheap NHL Jerseys Authentic . Among the teams moves was trading one of the teams two third round picks, no. 83 overall, to the Chicago Blackhawks for Brandon Bollig, a six-foot-two, 223-pound left-winger who had seven goals, seven assists, and 92 penalty minutes in 82 games last season. Adidas NHL Jerseys 2020 . -- Jose Bautista never worries about hitting homers during the regular season. https://www.nhljerseys2020.com/ . The Rainbow FlickNext up is the Rainbow Flick, or as you probably know it, the trick that everybody at soccer camp thought they knew how to do.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca. Hey Kerry, Im a huge fan of your responses and perspective in the game. Im also a huge Rangers fan. I was watching the Kings/Rangers game on Thursday. With around eight minutes left in the third period, the Rangers were in the Kings zone attacking. Dan Boyle took a shot from the point and broke his stick. Subsequently, the kings ended up with a break (3-on-2) going the other way. Boyle was looking for help and teammate Dominic Moore lofted his stick in Boyles direction. Boyle initially looked for the stick, but then had second thoughts and batted it away. The thought is that there would have been a penalty if Boyle had received the stick. Is this correct? And if so, should there not have been a penalty on Moore for throwing his stick in the first place? Thanks, Rob Ollerton, Fort McMurray --- Rob: Thank you very much for your loyal following of CMon Ref. I trust all is well in Ft. McMurray and hope that you are staying warm this time of year skating on the outdoor rinks? Dan Boyle could have caught the stick that was thrown to him and participated in the play without personally incurring a minor penalty under the rules even though he technically received the stick illegally. Had Boyle done so however, it would have drawn significantly more attention to teammate T. J. Miller (not Dominic Moore) for the illegal action of throwing a stick to a teammate punishable by a minor penalty. In fairness to the NHL referee community there is some vagueness in the understanding and interpretation of the rules as they affect this specific play? The situation handbook only makes reference to incidents where a player receives the stick illegally and plays with it, which Boyle refused to do. Rule 10.3 tells us that, A player who has lost or broken his stick may only receive a stick at his own players bench or be handed one from a teammate on the ice. A player will be penalized if he throws, tosses, slides or shoots a stick to a teammate on the ice. The same application is enforced when a player throws or slides a replacement stick to a goalkeeper. The goalie does not receive a penalty but the player is assessed a minor penalty for throwing the stick. A consistency is further created within the rule for determining the guilty party should a stick be thrown from off the playing surface by stating, A player tendered a stick thrown on the ice from the players or penalty bench will not receive a penalty. However, the person responsible for throwing the stick will receive a bench minor penalty. While the above references provide the assumption that the player picks up thhe illegally acquired stick, it is important to note that a bench minor penalty would be warranted and should be assessed as per Rule 53. Wholesale NHL Jerseys 2020. .3 (Throwing Equipment) regardless as to whether the stick is picked and played with up or not. On the surface it might appear that the primary intent of rule 10 is so that a player who has broken his stick does not gain an advantage to defend (territorially) when a stick is airmailed to him on the ice by a teammate. While that is in part correct, the larger issue concerns safety of players when sticks are being thrown about, in addition to potential interference violations that can restrict the flow of play. Rule 53 clearly states that a player shall not throw a stick or any other object in any zone and a minor penalty shall be imposed on any player on the ice who throws his stick or any part thereof or any other object in the direction of the puck or an opponent in any zone, except when such act has been penalized by the assessment of a penalty shot or the awarding of a goal. Even though the stick was thrown to a teammate (Boyle) it shortly thereafter interfered to some degree with Marian Gaboriks skates as the Kings player attacked the net in search of a cross-ice pass. An immediate and clear decision has to be made by the Officiating and Hockey Operations Departments as to how they want their referees to interpret the current rules when a player throws, tosses, slides or shoots a stick to a teammate on the ice when the stick is not picked up. The jury is split on this at the present time. Dan Boyle had the option to catch and play with stick which he would have acquired in an illegal manner without ever receiving a penalty under the rules. The onus and penalty is therefore placed upon a teammate that distributes the stick in an illegal fashion. It was a pretty heads up play by Boyle to forgo Millers offering. The decision worked to the NY Rangers advantage this time around. Personally, I can handle a non-call on a player that slides or shoots a stick in the direction of a player who has lost or broken his stick so long as it is not picked up and played with and the resulting action does not interfere with the movements of the puck or attacking players. Broken sticks and loose equipment are discarded and moved out of the way of play without recourse on a consistent basis. However, based on the intent, spirit and language of Rule 53 designed to deter players from throwing sticks and other objects through the air I would suggest that in the future, players should receive a minor penalty for throwing a stick regardless of the intended recipient or whether the stick is caught or played with. Will keep you posted when a final determination has been made. ' ' '