YankeesRedSox.com

Hank making a stand. Says he wont be played by the Twins.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/wires/12/02/2010.ap.bbo.winter.meetings.0849/

Peter and JT, how can you take Hank seriously? The Yankees said that if ARod opted out of his contract, they absolutely would not negotiate with him and we all know how that turned out.

Hank's comments represent posturing and cannot be taken seriously.

Yankee fans, do you disagree with me on this?

Peter, I am surprised you say "so I would guess he isn't coming to New York." Do you really believe that? Anything we read and hear has to be taken with a grain of salt. We don't know just how reliable any of these "sources" are and we certainly have to expect the Yankees, Red Sox and Twins management try and gain an upper hand in any way possible.

On a side note, do you think the following from Hank represents tampering in any way? I ask b/c I thought, and probably am wrong, that any comments by a team official about another player (comments as in wanting that player on his team) under contract with another team represent tampering. Here is the quote in question:

"We'll see how it goes, but this is not an act. It's not a bluff. It's just reality,'' he said. "Because as much as I want Santana, and you can make that clear - for his sake, to know that I do want him - but the fact is that I'm not going to play the game. We've made them the best offer. And at this point, it's not going to get any better. So they can decide. At this point, it's up to them. I don't think they want to lose us in this thing, obviously. Nobody wants to lose the Yankees in a negotiation.''

Yanks could turn around and trade for Bedard with maybe an Ian Kennedy and Tabata deal.

We need something though to secure the staff...preferably a lefty.

Sincerely hope that we don't do this trade for Johan and lose Hughes and Melky.

Were I Cash and Hankenstein, I'd like my chances.

The bullpen is where I'd lock my focus right now - plus I would work Pettitte hard to see of we can get another year out of him.

Andy

I am warming to Hank, I thought Bill Madden's piece in the Daily News today was very interesting. If he spends money like his father and subtracts the personal abuse, he would be one of the best owners in sports in my mind.

As for my statement, I will flip it around to you. If you are the Twins and you have the best pitcher in baseball, do you trade him for either of the packages the Yankees and Red Sox have supposedly offered? Remember, you have Liriano coming back and the potential for a great 1-2 punch in the playoffs.

I say no way, you take your chances in 2008, use the $12 million you have from Hunter leaving and see what happens. As a fan of the Twins, I would be furious if they traded Santana and didn't get back the best two prospects from whatever organization they sent him to.

Mitchell-

The bullpen needs help, a lot of help. I imagine that will be addressed soon.

Peter, you are warming to Hank? He does have a GM, right? What does Brian Cashman think of Hank? I have to think that Hank's comments are not helping Cashman's cause. Or, perhaps Cashman is just a puppet. I doubt that, but maybe so.

Wouldn't negotiations be better off if the Yankees representatives kept things as quiet as possible? Perhaps I am underestimating Hank and he really is savvy and knows exactly what he is doing, but I am not going to buy stock in that notion. Hank needs to let his GM, you know, the guy who has spent his life studying baseball players, the game of baseball and baseball negotiations, run this process. If I were Cashman, I would be pissed.

That's just me and I understand I might be missing something about Hank.

When the day comes that John Henry talks to the media about a deal that Theo Epstein is working on, I will be very surprised (watch Henry release a PR tomorrow!). As far as sports owners go, the idea is to support the experts that they have hired to run the operations. Any unnecessary static just hurts things.

Andy, I'm with you on this. Hank is a hinderance not a help. "This is our best offer" tells Theo Epstein exactly what he needs to beat. Why give that info out? He should just shut it.

That said, Hughes, Joba, Cano are untouchable in my opinion and I'd rather not do the deal if Hughes is involved. I'd much prefer making a run at CC next year.

Last thought on a snowy Sunday evening: Johan is saying trade me now or I wait to become a FA. As a FA it's just a matter of the checkbook and Johan's agent. That battle we can (and would) win.

Johan takes the risk that his numbers diminish in 08 or his arm falls off - in return for a (possibly) bigger payday.

Should be some interesting news by this time tomorrow night.

Peter,

I personally am prepared to risk missing the playoffs in 2008 due to having 3/5 of the rotation be unseasoned youngsters. After all, they've got to get their seasoning sometime. It might as well be 2008. It will have been worth it if they learn and grow from the experience. I think this approach helps the Yankees in the long term. Even if he goes to the Red Sox, I'm not willing to concede that the Red Sox have "won". It'll cost them a lot of prospects and a lot of money. I'm not persuaded that this would be in their best long-term interests. They could live to regret parting with too much young talent and constraining their future financial maneuverability in signing him to too many years and too many $$$/year. After all, the same risks apply to them as apply to the Yankees.

My bigger point is this: For the Yankees, this shouldn't be about "My God, what if the Red Sox get him?!?" just as for the Red Sox, this shouldn't be about "My God, what if the Yankees get him?!?". Each team should focus on what their strengths and weaknesses are, and where they should take prudent risks to increase the probability of achieving long-term sustainable success. To obsess on the other team is frankly a kind of cowardice, and foolishness to boot. The Red Sox (and their fans) survived 1949-1954, 1977-1978, 1996-2003. The Yankees and their fans survived 2004 and 2007. "Losing" Santana to the other guys will not be the end of the world. Are we really to believe that if the Yankees sign Santana, they'd be guaranteeing themselves 6 pennants in the next 6 years? I certainly don't. There are still other major issues to address (e.g., bullpen, aging position players). Similarly, am I supposed to be terrified that Santana going to the Red Sox guarantees them 6 pennants (or even 6 division championships) in the next 6 years? Again, I don't think so. They're not exactly spring chickens themselves; they're going to have to figure out what to about Manny and Varitek; Ortiz is getting neither healthier nor younger; it remains to be seen if Dice-K shows the same kind if improvement in his second season in the AL that Beckett showed in his own second season (I personally doubt that he will); Schilling is clearly not what he was, Wakefield frankly doesn't scare me. These guys are not invincible, and adding Santana isn't going to change that fact.

Andy,

Sure, Hank is posturing. As for tampering, as I understand it, you may technically have a point, but:

1. I'm not very familiar with the rules.

2. Given the extensive coverage of all the trade talk in all the media, does it really matter at this point? I'm not using this an an excuse to break the rules, just wondering if MLB necessarily would feel compelled to strictly enforce the letter of the law, given the circumstances. I very much doubt that the Twins are going to levy tampering charges against the Yankees here.

Lastly, I am frankly mystified that so many "experts" in the media think that even if the Twins keep Santana, they couldn't possibly be competitive. Why? If Santana and a healthy Liriano head the rotation, and Mauer and Morneau have seasons like they had in 2006, and Nathan continues to be Nathan, why couldn't they compete? Obviously, Liriano is the biggest question mark here, but it is not at all hard to imagine all the other criteria being met. I think they certainly have the potential to be a very dangerous team.

Greg, I did a little digging on the tampering and apparently George Steinbrenner said something about Randy Johnson: "God, who wouldn't love to have Randy Johnson?" Steinbrenner told the station. "He's a dominator and we'd love to have him. Anybody would love to have him, but I also know that [Diamondbacks owner]Jerry Colangelo is not going to give him away. We'll have to see what happens as the [July 31 trade) deadline gets closer. We'll see. You can never have enough pitching."

Selig declined to fine him but I couldn't find out why. He did say he didn't want teams talking about other team's players:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1838447

I also agree that the Twins can be competative. The risk for them is what if they get out of the gate slowly and the Red Sox/Yankees have moved on and have made other plans for their rotations. The Twins might not have the same audience or better said, the same chance to land such talent.